Talk:Cuba/Archive 11

message: There's a line that some editors seem to be pushing and approach that completely misunderstands the concept of "opposing views".  Yes, differing views should be presented.  But not every fact has an opposing view, except in the most contorted and ideological sophistry.  If we say rhumba came from Cuba, we really don't need to present the "opposing view".  And likewise for the fact it's south of Florida.  Many facts that are social or political also have no sensible "opposing view"... and just presenting some fact that someone might take as a good thing about Cuba doesn't mean that we need some digression into a tirade as an "opposing view".
So Cuba has a 96% literacy nowadays (or whatever the referencable number is).  There's no "opposing view" to that (unless some serious non-fringe position existed that it had a 50% literacy or a 150% literacy like the SD seems to expect).  Sure, if estimates actually vary, we can say "95-98%" and footnote the various sources, or whatever.  It's not an "opposing view" to argue tediously about what might have happened in regard to literacy under some other regime, or whatever counterfactual.  It's not an "opposing view" to argue that the literacy rate "doesn't count" for whatever reason, it's just an editorial that doesn't belong here.  Symmetrically, it would be POV nonsense to write that "The 96% literacy rate proves the revolution is really great".  Our job is just to state the facts, readers can decide for themselves what "might have been" or "what it proves".  Similarly for health indices, or abortion rates, or whatever.
Even most of the stuff around form-of-government has no sensible "opposing view".  We don't follow the fact that Castro has been president, or that X% of legislators were PCC members, or whatever with some rant about how bad those facts are under the misleading guise that it's an "opposing view".  It's fine to say that such-and-such are the constitutional procedures.  And it's even mostly fine, if properly cited, to write that the de jure procedures are not fully followed de facto.  But adding at the end "and that's bad" isn't an "opposing view", it's just an editorial (and it's just as much an editorial even if it's a direct quotation). LotLE×talk 19:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just taken a look at the United States article, which itself contains a number of  POV edits seemingly designed to paint the US in an unneccesarily bad light. Unless editors get serious on encylopedic content then Wikipedia will fail. There's not a chance that a mainstream encylopedia would carry some of the sentences on the US page or others that are being trialled on this page. It makes you wonder what motivations people have for contributing at all. I just read "The United States is poorly educated in comparison to most developed countries"?!?--Zleitzen 02:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desperately misreading "opposing views" 

message: I think that's about the 3rd time I've restored the link to "socialist republic" (which redirects to our Socialist state article). So I must now retire from the field. If other contributors insist on reverting that link  I won't undo the revert any more for a couple of days. 
But I wish you all would discuss changes here on the talk page, where they are easy to follow. I don't think the Edit Summary field is a place for a discussion. It's just to provide a quick note of what you were trying to do. Anything complicated, or non-obvious, or that needs further discussion really should go on the "discussion page". --Uncle Ed 19:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you prefer for the phrase "socialist republic" to link to socialist state rather than socialism? I don't really care about that either way; but I glanced at both articles, and felt the latter was more descriptive of what we wanted.  Ideally, someone will decide to write an article that is directly about socialist republic (not just a redirect), but it's not on WP right now.  Feel free to change the link if you wish. LotLE×talk 19:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: OK... Drogo Underburrow took the phrase out of the lead paragraph most recently.  And given the apparently correct admonishments that some other editors gave me about the "slippery slope" of putting something in the lead, I'm not going to worry about that.  The link is still in the infobox though, so if you'd like to change what "socialist republic" links to there, I wholly endorse that. LotLE×talk 20:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit wars and the 3RR rule

message: I have uploaded four images which could be used in this article.  I don't have a scanner to upload my own, but these have all been released for use.  Please give your opinion on these, or perhaps add one of your own!  For reference, please see the finely tuned United States article. Myciconia 20:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor spreading them into the article. BruceHallman 21:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto, a nice sprinkling of "scenes from the country" is friendly for readers, and no atypical of other nation articles. LotLE×talk 22:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have taken Che down again, Myciconia. It doesn't bother me but then I'm not Cuban. It does seem a bit like putting a depiction of Margaret Thatcher (another very divisive figure from the past) in the UK page. I guarantee that wouldn't last more than a minute!--Zleitzen 08:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the responsibe action, Zleitzen. --Mcmachete 08:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I don't understand your logic.  Lulu added a new caption that goes to great lengths to avoid any politics.  But if we were to do comparisons, I'd have to go with .  Che has grown to represent more than a political actor (like Ghandi, or better example, Sandino or Bolivar).  But again, politics aside, just look at how prevelent Che references and images are in post-revolutionary Cuba.  If all the images of Che in Cuba were discovered to be ads for laundry detergent, it would still merit an image on Cuba's article. Myciconia 08:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't really get this either.  The iconization of Ghandi or Sandino or Bolivar seem like the analogies of interest here.  It's not endorsing any particular opinion to observe that Che is frequently subject to muralization in Cuba (far, far more than Castro is); even Cuban's who dislike or disagree with Che see his image daily.  It's sort of like in the US context, where someone noted Lincoln as a "controversial" figure... would we refuse to discuss his image on US money to avoid being "partisan"?  Or in the British context, the analogy isn't Thatcher but the Queen—lots of Brits are anti-monarchy politically, but it's daft to deny that images of QE2 are prevalent. LotLE×talk 14:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: All good points Myciconia, but I sympathise with Mcmachete's position. We should be sensitive to the fact that iconic images mean very different things to different people. But I won't contest this any further either way.--Zleitzen 09:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly - less have some carnaval dancers, where's the salsa and the rum ? -- Beardo 23:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Images 

message: Will there be any complaints if I add a sentance or two on the Godfrey-Milliken Bill Helms-Burton Act?  Does anyone know of any neutral sources outlining the effects of the embargo on the people?  Myciconia 01:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The embargo is a tactical mistake from US perspective. It gives Fidel Castro a justification for the Cuban economical disaster (GPD $3,200)--Anticom 20:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: A very brief mention seems fine, but the Helms-Burton is more about US/Cuba relations than about Cuba per se.  I'm sure a lot of editors of this article (as on WP as a whole) are from the USA (I am myself, for better or worse).  I'd recommend a little mental exercise when thinking of other types of material to add: If a curious Bangladeshi student who simply does not know much about Cuba reads this article, is Fact X something they will care about? (just as an example, but I think it illustrates the point). LotLE×talk 02:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree that the world view is very important.  (I'm Canadian by the way).  Helms-Burton has international repercussions outside the US and Cuba as it makes foreign companies choose between doing business in the US or doing business in Cuba.  Canada and Mexico have been defying US over Cuba for ages and responded to Helms-Burtan with the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act and the Law of Protection of Commerce and Investments from Foreign Policies that Contravene International Law. Myciconia 03:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You're on the same wavelength as me Lulu. As a European, I'm struggling to accommodate not only the regular POV issues depicting Cuba, but the cultural mores, terminology and POV issues of an unrelated country (U.S). My mind is as much on the rapidly increasing computer literate, English speaking population of India as anywhere else. Sometime ago a user explained confidently that "the one notable thing about Cuba: it's a Communist dictatorship on the US's doorstep". I disagreed for obvious reasons. Helms-Burton is very important, butit may only need a well crafted line, more detail can be linked in other pages. --Zleitzen 03:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: There is clearly such a pro-castro, pro-cuban-government agenda being pushed here that it is sickening. From the Che mural and the "Cuba following Communism" section that was renamed solely for keeping THE UNNECESSARY AND CONTROVERSIAL OBSCURE GRAFITTI OF CHE, to the tone and overt phrasing of several sections including:
:"While the Eisenhower administration had initially welcomed Batista’s fall, the nationalization of U.S. owned companies (to an estimated value of US$1 billion) and the expulsion of many political conservatives with influential friends in the U.S., aroused immediate hostility and the Cuban exiles soon became the powerful lobby group in the U.S. that they have been ever since."
::What? An encyclopedic article is basically saying that money was the driving, primary force behind the hostility toward fidel and his government. 
and:
:"Thus the U.S. became increasingly hostile to Castro during 1959. This in turn served to drive Castro away from the liberal elements of his revolutionary movement and into the arms of the Communists."
So the United States caused castro to turn to communism... WHAT!?
IS THE POV POLICE TAKING A NAP?!? --Mcmachete 08:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...into the arms of the Communists" --I agree that that is a pov style of writing (Adams), but everything is textbook history. Myciconia 08:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding the second comment.  No I think there was a general agreement that the Che image was of encyclopedic value to the section, regardless of the section title.  I changed the title to be more accurate to the material under it.  Myciconia 08:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What in the world is happening here? 

message: The photograph of the van is from the attack on the presidencial palace by non-Castro (mostly Autentico and Directorio: forces see a similar photo apparently of the same van at ). Look at the side of the van it says Havana not Santiago..... The Moncada attack was done in cars, and Castro's car got stuck at the entrance guard post and he never really entered. However, that little matter never enters into official histories. El Jigue 5-10-06
Z: The attack was by two non-Castro group's the Accion Autentica and the Directorio Estudiantil. One should never presume malice if there is another explantation, however, the corrections you are making always seem to favor Castro, it is not NPOV to let an innocent reader assume that the Palace was attacked by Castro forces.  More than that some of the escaped attackers were betrayed to the Batista Secret police by a communist party member and killed soon afterwards.  It does get worse, some of the attackers who were unable to reach the scene, tried to land in Cuba later, but again they were betrayed and all killed except one or two who ran off before hand and joined the Che Guevara's forces.  Oh BTW I think you have a devious contributor (s) who is (are) inserting these erroneous little bits of information to make the whole article absurd. In case this is really so I will refrain from further comment for a  while.  EL Jigue 5-10-06
Thanks for your comments EJ.  Please point out all errors that you see.  -- Beardo 01:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Figure mislabeled

message: It might be wise to direct attention to the increasing number errors of fact in the article (e.g. date of declaration belligerency in WW II) than to adorn it with hagiography of the Che. El Jigüe 5-10-06
:El Jique does appear to be correct about this date issue.  From what I can find, it looks like Cuba declared war on Japan on Dec 9, 1941, then on Germany/Italy on Dec 11, 1941.  The 1944 date in the article does not seem to correspond to anything.  As it reads, it might insinuate that there was a more active Cuban military involvement at that 1944 date; but a web search suggests that Cuba, in fact, never actually had military forces participating in WWII (merely a pro forma declaration on the side of the USA).  Is there some fact about 1944 that the article is trying to get at, that is perhaps expressed unclearly? LotLE×talk 17:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've change the dates accordingly, Adam may have been mistaken here. --Zleitzen 17:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII entry 

message: The article reads "In the five years after 1959, around one million (about 10% of the population) Cubans immmigrated to the U.S. and there was a further surge of emigration in 1980 when Castro temporarily lifted restrictions on emigration (see Mariel Boatlift). Altogether about 2 million Cubans have emigrated since 1959."
I think immmigrated (sic) should be emigrated here.  But the numbers look too high to me.  Does anyone have sources ?
In the demographics section it says "over a million" - we should be consistent - one million, two million ?
This site -  http://www.sela.org/public_html/AA2K2/eng/docs/coop/migra/spsmirdi12-02/spsmirdi12-2.htm - says "According to some sources between 1959 and 1999, 1,079,000 Cubans migrated to different countries. Today, the total Cuban population residing abroad is estimated to be above 1,400,000 people. The U.S. 1990 census registered 1,043,932 people of Cuban origin, while in the 2000 census that number totalled 1,241,685" - though that may not be definitive.  
And this - http://www.genealogy.com/00000365.html - "During the 1950s, however, growing political unrest and economic uncertainty caused thousands of Cubans to flee the island for Miami and other Northern points. This exodus grew even larger after Fidel Castro seized control of the island on January 1, 1959, and began nationalizing large companies and confiscating the property of the upper middle class and wealthy. Between this date and the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962, more than 150,000 Cubans came to the United States." 150,000 up to October 1962 - did another 850,000 emigrate to the US in the following 15 months ?    --Beardo 00:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also Operation Peter Pan to consider, I don't think that is mentioned in the article. --Zleitzen 00:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emigration numbers 

message: The War crimes of US are the first to come to my mind, but it truly doesn't matter one way or another whether I list 10 or 100 examples, does it?
:Having learned from his wartime propaganda how the facts could be distorted and suppressed, he realized that distortion was also embedded in the very workings of the human mind. The image most people have of the world is reflected through the prism of their emotions, habits and prejudices. One man can look in a Venetian canal and see rainbows, another only garbage. People see what they are looking for and what their education and experience have trained them to see. "We do not first see, and then define, we define first and then see," Lippmann wrote. 
Signed:Travb 11:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 10 or 100 examples: it doesn't matter

message: For those who respond, please don't waste my time and fall into this common top 10 dodge list:
:"Play the definition game. This one is also very popular... "death" doesn't really mean death, it really means "separation from God's grace", didn't you know that? "Kill" doesn't mean kill, it really means "murder", as any fool knows." (From Top Ten Dodge List Tactics to employ if you're in a logical debate and logic has not sided with you (for any number of reasons), and you are nevertheless unwilling to change your argument or opinion.)
Let me repeat myself, because inevitably, as the Cuban wikipedian aboved showed, despite pointing out a falacy of logic above, people will continue to argue the same fallacy of logic right below the falacy of logic. And I repeat:
Please don't waste my time and fall into this common top 10 dodge list:
:"Play the definition game. This one is also very popular... "death" doesn't really mean death, it really means "separation from God's grace", didn't you know that? "Kill" doesn't mean kill, it really means "murder", as any fool knows." 
How long before some patriotic American states that this discussion has become off topic and suggests that the topic cease here?
Signed:Travb 11:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a patriotic American (though I am not a great fan of socialism either) But I would like to point out that this as diddly-squat to do with Cuba, there are plenty of other articles where these discussions might be appropriate - please take them there. Becuase here it is waaaaayyyy off topic.Bridesmill 17:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I feel like a (partial) prophet today, like usual: How long before some patriotic American states that this discussion has become off topic and suggests that the topic cease here? Bridesmill this conversation is obviously quickly winding down, so it will be dead soon. Travb 05:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Top Ten Dodge List

message: I hear so many of you chatter away at the various biases present in the article which are pro-communist and pro-castro. Well personally I think the article reeks and smacks of anti-communist mcarthyism advocating many moderate left wing governments while convieniently failing to mention the sucess and popularity of Bolivia and Venezuela's governmental leaders (enemies of America can't be possibly included). On top of that the article is becoming increasively difficult to change. It seems that cuba is "an axis of evil" in the article's eyes and there's little we can do to change that. I ask all of you can we not even maintain a remotely neutral stance on this nation's political history?  09:45, 11 May 2006 82.198.250.69
:I have a problem with a description of a pro-Castro versus anti-Castro dichotomy.   Certainly it is possible to favor Cuba and be agnostic about Castro. Hopefully, we can write the article from simply a real-Cuba perspective without the political baggage? BruceHallman 15:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: I have relocated this sentence here for verification: In the five years after 1959, around one million (about 10% of the population) Cubans immmigrated to the U.S. and there was a further surge of emigration in 1980 when Castro temporarily lifted restrictions on emigration (see Mariel Boatlift). Altogether about 2 million Cubans have emigrated since 1959.
These seem unverified and incorrect, consider that in 1959 the population of Cuba was about 6 million so a 1 million exodus is not "10% of the population".  Also, the emigration issue has POV political undertones.
For neutrality, emigration data in the article should be factual and WP:V'ed, and perhaps should be cited in context of emigration statistics in Latin America.  For instance, according to data from the UN, net emigration from 1995-2000 was -1.7/1000 per year for Latin America, and was -1.8/1000 for Cuba. BruceHallman 16:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: During the early years of the Castro regime, I am sure emigration was higher - partly because the US welcomed fleeing Cubans.  Later, Castro has used emigration as an "escape valve" for tension and a means of letting go many of those who could cause problems internally. -- Beardo 05:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You’re main concern, Bruce, is not the truth but the image of Fidel Castro that should remain beautiful at all costs. You’re statistic may be real, but again you miss a very important point. That 1.7/1000 from Latin America is real, the 1.8/1000 emigration from Cuba does not reflect the number of Cubans disappointed with Castro/communism simply because Cubans do not have the right to leave the country. 1.8/1000 reflect the number or those who escape the “workers paradise” risking their own lives. I can guarantee you if Castro would say today “everybody is free to leave” by tomorrow the only person left in Cuba would be Fidel. --Anticom 18:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts, probably Fidel Castro will emigrate too. --Anticom 18:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ease or difficulty of leaving the country is only one factor.  Possibly more important is the ease or difficulty of entering the destination country.  Most Western Europe and North America restrict immigration from "poorer" countries - which would include most of the countries in the Caribbean basin, including Cuba. Whilst Cuba does restrict departures, my impression is that most Cubans who get a visa to go to another country are permitted to leave Cuba.  However, I don't have a verifiable source.  Anyone have a reliable verifiable source that gives more information ?  -- Beardo 05:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "1) Possibly more important is the ease or difficulty of entering the destination country". Not necessarily true. You are talking here only about legal emigration. 2) "most Cubans who get a visa to go to another country are permitted to leave Cuba."Possible true, the catch is who is allowed to get a visa? --Anticom 14:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's anecdotal, but I have a good American friend, Mike, who lives in Cuba with his Cuban wife, Adriana, and their son (and emails me ocassionally from the privately owned computer that they own, using a regular ISP...albeit dialup, not broadband... the horrors :-)).  When they come to visit the States, it's a bit of a paperwork hassle: but it's the US entry visa for Adriana that gets regularly held up, not the exit visa that is pretty straightforward to get.  Adriana's had to skip visits several times because of the US bureaucracy, but Cuba doesn't care much.  Needless to say, if they had wanted to, Mike and Adriana (and son) could easily have remained during one of their USA visits, but they prefer living in Havana.  I know none of that is citable for the article, but it gives the lie to the false universalization of many of the anti-Cuba comments. LotLE×talk 06:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends what you friend is doing in Cuba! Life for certain people is indeed very good in Cuba but not for ordinary citizens.  I talked to many Cubans and they told me a completely different story. Their life is a hell under Castro. So who should I believe you or them? I can't accuse you of ignorance since you said you a PhD in social politics so must be something else. But let’s have a look at your own (btw, shameless pro-Castro propaganda most of it) Cuba page. The last paragraph from “Communist Cuba” say: “On Sunday, April 6, 1980, 7,000 Cubans stormed the Peruvian embassy in Havana seeking political asylum. On Monday, April 7, Fidel Castro granted permission for the emigration of Cubans seeking refuge in the Peruvian embassy.[6] On April 16 10,000 Cuban citizens left the Peruvian Embassy for Costa Rica. On April 21 many of those Cubans started arriving in Miami via private boats and were halted by the State Department on April 23 The boat lift continued, however, since Castro allowed anyone who desired to leave the country to do so through the port of Mariel and this emigration became known as the Mariel boatlift. In all, over 125,000 Cubans immigrated to the United States before the flow of vessels ended on June 15 (who ended the flow?).” So in two months 125,000 Cubans immigrated. Does this tell you anything? Who is so crazy to storm an embassy knowing that you can get killed by guards or imprisoned? Who is so crazy to leave a country like Cuba for Costa Rica? Who is so crazy today to risk their life trying to escape to Miami? Can’t you sense the desperation of these people? Come on guys, use your brains?--Anticom 14:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  emigration 

message: It seems so useless to add factual corrections.  Let me give an example : That truck illustrated is from the March 13, 1957 attack on the Presidencial Palace in Havana by Directorio Estudiantil and Organizacion Autentica.  Castro had no known part in it, matter of fact he condemned it.  However, the communists did they betrayed the attack to Batista, and then they betrayed the few escapees. As it is presented now it seems, by default, to credit Castro Forces. El Jigue 5-11-06.
Z thank you even if you forgot to remember, Accion Autentica your additon gave me a little hope  E; Jigue 5-11-06
:Yes, but is that picture actually relevant ?  -- Beardo 05:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: useless to add corrections

message: "The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 dealt Cuba a giant economic blow. It led to another unregulated exodus of asylum seekers to the United States in 1994, but was eventually slowed to a trickle of a few thousand a year by the U.S.-Cuban accords. It has again increased in 2004-06 although at a far slower rate than before. [8] Castro’s popularity was severely tested by the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, which led to a cutoff in aid, the loss of a guaranteed export market for Cuban sugar and the loss of a source of cheap imported oil. It also caused, as in all Communist countries, a crisis in confidence for those who believed that the Soviet Union was successfully “building socialism” and providing a model that other countries should follow. In Cuba, however, these events were not sufficient to persuade Cuban Communists that they should voluntarily give up power, nor was the economic crisis grave enough to bring about the fall of the government." 
'''
:The pro-Castro group on this Forum is absolutely ridiculous. Don’t you see you contradict yourself in the same paragraph? --Anticom 20:04, 11 May
:The fact that Castro resisted after 1989 it not an indication that Cubans love him. People can't bring down Castro, the're powerless. The only one that can take him down are the army or his own secret police. Are you that naive to believe the fall of communism in Eastern Europe was done without the complicity of the army and the Secret Police? --Anticom 20:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "that commie protester chant about 'the people - united - etc." is very true". Are you telling me this nonsense (remember, I lived in a communist country for 22 years)?-- Anticom 14:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When logic fails, argue experience, the argument goes something like this: "I was there", so therefore you are wrong. Although I do mention living in Ukraine above, I do not hinge my entire logical debate on my living in former Communist USSR. Anticom, please refrain from arguing illogical "I was there" arguments. What country? Travb 12:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: plus you didn't answer my question. How are you going to solve the contradiction between the first sentence with the last one? This is a question for everybody since this is in the main page, not gossip on forum.--Anticom 14:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-war Cuba 

message: The current article claims that Cuba has the 3rd highest abortion rate "according to the UN" (a rather underspecified citation).  I can't find a UN comparison just yet, but I came across this: http://www.euro.who.int/document/ENS/en59.pdf.  Looking at the rate-by-country map of Europe, there seem to be about a half-dozen European nations with a higher rate than Cuba has (generally in Eastern Europe).  That's just Europe too; I've heard anecdotally, for example, that Brazil has a particularly high rate (plus some more continents have countries in them)  I flagged the "3rd highest" as needing a citation; but given this prima facie evidence that it's untrue, I'll take out the claim pretty soon if there is no citation. LotLE×talk 20:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the UN: Cuban abortion rate is 77.7% . Also, some corresponding data: "Romania, Cuba and Vietnam have the highest reported abortion rates in the world (78-83 abortions per 1,000 women)."   --Mcmachete 00:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first link Macmachete lists has 35 countries in the Americas, and a few types of data.  Of the 35 countries, Cuba is the only one reporting an abortion rate (at least on that chart).  This gives us no basis to judge whether "unreported" means a higher or lower rate.  The second link contains no data on abortion rates, only some discussion of legal frameworks.  Unless/until we can find some actual source for comparative data, I will remove the claim to national comparisons (the specific Cuban rate is cited fine, so we can keep that). LotLE×talk 02:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Same UN report lists Uzbekistan, Romania, and Vietnam as higher than Cuba,  but of note is the very low number of countries reporting, and some of those likely have high numbers (e.g. North Korea), and some the under-reporting is due to legality of the practice. So all that could be said is 'Of reporting nations, Cuba has the 4th highest rate in the world' But even that would be spurious. My suggestion would be Cuba has a significantly above average abortion rate. (Certainly in Russia it was considered more of a method of birth control than an after the fact poor alternative, with little thought for side-effects - I would suppose the same philosophy was taught/encouraged in Cuba - but that would be POV - will look to see if anything academic was dome in this area (by neutral agency). Bridesmill 00:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But see the WHO report on Europe I found above.  On that, about a half-dozen European countries have higher rates.  That certainly suggests the particular UN report has rather inadequate data coverage. LotLE×talk 02:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion rate 

message: it looks like a lot of people writing this article are either members of the cuban communist government, or members of the former USSR trying to slander america, please check for any users who may be editing from any former soviet satalites, or from cuban government offices, thank you--Burg Hambler 22:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot emphasize strongly enough how inappropriate the above comment is.  Neither members of the Cuban CP nor members of the former USSR are barred from editing WP.  As a question of fact, it does not appear any such editors exist on this article; but even if they did, it's none of our business to demand verification of the credentials (or "non-credentials", I guess).  For that matter, member of the US Republican Party are also not barred from editing, nor members of the Heritage Foundation, or John Birch Society, or Brothers to the Rescue. LotLE×talk 22:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I am in fact editing from inside the Soviet INTERSPUTNIK satellite. Does that count me out?--Zleitzen 22:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: El Jique is trying to allude to an isolated incident in which a couple staffers for US congress made destructive/POV changes to a couple WP articles, a few months back.  WP very briefly blocked an IP address range that belonged to the US Congress.  As a general principle, employees of Congress are perfectly welcome to edit Wikpedia; there's nothing in either WP policy or US law that prohibits that as any general principle. LotLE×talk 02:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any event, the claim that "almost all people with computers in Cuba work  for the Cuban government" is misleading anyway.  Since all Cuban companies are owned by the Cuban government, it can justifiably be said that most Cubans work for the Cuban government, but that does not make them active propagandists for the government.  Further there are many owners of casas particulares with internet connections, plus those working for foreign businesses (like me).  -- Beardo 05:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would wager that several editors who police this page are just Cuban government employees doing their jobs. It would make no sense for the Cuban government not to do this, Wikipedia has a high enough profile on the web now. Frankly, I think it would be silly of them not to take advantage of the situation. You don't need to check IP addresses. Just take a look at edits, if they all conform to what is favorable to Cuba, and never say anything bad about Castro, its a cinch who they are. We should be extra nice to these people. Drogo Underburrow 06:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has deleted the message they originally placed here. See talk history. - Drogo Underburrow 07:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: please check their IP names?

message: Reference 17 is in Spanish, is very short and very old (1967). I think you should include an updated version in English. Here is the 2006 version in English.
:I've grabbed that site already which is good. But I'm looking for a complete, up to date Cuban Penal Code to check edits against. I can't find it anywhere, although I have been able to grab certain key articles (article 72, article 91 etc) from reliable sources. I'd prefer to have the whole lot, and it may well be neccessary.--Zleitzen 17:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human rights chapter 

message: That Castro and/or his image plays a huge role is not doubted. But being an old man, it is getting to the stage where it is difficult to tell exactly how much & how he runs things. Technically, it is the PCC. de facto, Castro is a huge figure in that. But it remains to be seen if he is the only or dominant figure.  To assume that this is all Castro (nowadays) is just that - an assumption, and from the perspective of how to handle & understand the place once Castro goes, dangerous hubris to assume we know exactly what is going on in the halls of power. Therefore, recommend the de jure wording that PCC runs the place, with associated de facto that Castro is a helmsman there. In other words, the wording that's there now. Just because we think it is so, does not mean it is - let's stick with what we know for sure. Bridesmill 02:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough Bridesmille, we cannot know for sure how much he’s in charge (and not because he’s old). I pretend I don’t understand your motives (the subtle message being “he’s not guilty for the whole mess Cuba is facing right now”). But again there is a major catch. If he’s not fully in charge he also cannot claim every good thing ever happened under his rule (infant mortality, education etc).--Anticom 04:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Lets see....you won't accept a statement followed by a footnote giving a source. Ok lets see if you accept attribution to the source. Drogo Underburrow 02:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My apologies - didn't note the ref. If that's what US State dept is saying, that explains plenty; not exactly a wise thing to say unless they are convinced by their own propaganda, but we can't really argue that, can we. Go ahead & put it back if you want, but did you follow my logic?  Re 'self-proclaimed', that may be true, but vast majority of the world agrees with it, & technically it's quite correct (although why anyone would want to brag about being a socialist republic is also beyond me...).Bridesmill 03:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I avoid reverting whenever possible. How about you doing a self-revert, they don't count towards the limit. Drogo Underburrow 03:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There appears to me to have been several schisms within Cuban leadership over the years, and we'd struggle to get to the bottom of it due to typical suppression. A lot of outside theorising is fumbling in the dark. Castro is to me in many ways a traditional nationalist, with the Communist Party "in his pocket" rather than a socialist ideologue. There is also the long period of the swing towards Asian policies, which put Cuba in confrontation with the Soviets, and possibly Castro with his own Communist Party. Eventually this will all come out in the wash, no doubt. But it'll be very interesting to see what happens when both Castro's "pop their clogs". I imagine a grim struggle as the Communist party attempt to keep control.--Zleitzen 02:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who's in charge

message: This was recently mostly removed.  I'm just stashing it here to try to rewrite a more NPOV version:
:Cuba has entered into agreements with United Nations agencies specializing in health: PAHO/WHO, UNICEF, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nation’s Population Fund (UNFPA), and the United Nations Development Fund (UNDP). Since 1989, this collaboration has played a very important role in that Cuba, in addition to obtaining the benefits of being a member country, has strengthened its relations with institutions of excellence and has been able to disseminate some of its own advances and technologies. Cuban doctors have played a vital role in many regions of the world, it is estimated that they offer medical services to 85 million people; 35 million in Latin America and the Caribbean and 50 million in Africa and Asia. Cuban doctors have contributed to the health-care systems of war torn Sri Lanka in the 1980s, and currently export considerable health services and personnel to Venezuela. Since the Chernobyl nuclear plant exploded in 1986, more than 20,000 children from Ukraine, Belarus and Russia have traveled to Cuba for treatment of radiation sickness and psychologically based problems associated with the radiation disaster.
::Your link is dead and there are no source at all for some the claimed help. More evidence of bias, including this and excluding the sourced opposing views above, for example the declining nutrition. The article in other place compares pre- and post-revolution cuba. Biased to only do so when the comparison is favorable.Ultramarine 18:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you mean above. What dead link? What bias? Feel free to check any detail in that paragraph. Hang on, the above is not the paragraph on the page. --Zleitzen 18:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cuban doctors have played a role in many regions of the world. Cuban doctors have contributed to the health-care systems of war torn Sri Lanka in the 1980s, and currently export considerable health services and personnel to Venezuela." No source. Your reference works in IE, but not Opera which I tried first, so the prior part is referenced. Ultramarine 18:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I have no idea what Ultramarine is talking about either.  I've never touched the paragraph myself, so it's not really "mine".  I do think there's an interesting point to cover about Cuba's wide export of medical aid and technologies, but the tone needs to be right, and it needs citations.  The Chernobyl stuff that was left in there actually seems like the least interesting part, if only because it's now a couple decades old (though continuing radiation effects linger, of course). LotLE×talk 18:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Extremely biased to include these unsourced claims and remove information on nutritional status.Ultramarine 18:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand where your edits and points are heading, Ultramarine. "Cuban doctors have played a role in many regions of the world" can be easily sourced if necessary, that they are not at present is merely because the statement is incontestable. As for "US government say...." well we could be adding clauses from many governments, for a start the UK - where Cuban Health officials act in an advisory role to the National Health system.--Zleitzen 19:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then add the sources.Ultramarine 19:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It would be easier for all if editors did research before contesting / removing content. If editors are unaware that "Cuban doctors have played a role in many regions of the world", then there should be serious concerns. ,,,,, , --Zleitzen 20:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Numerous Google search pages? Not acceptable. Proved specifc sources. As the one making the claim, it is your responsibility to provide a reliable source, otherwise it can be deleted. Ultramarine 20:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think not, Ultramarine. Feel free to pursue dispute process if you wish to contest or delete the statement "Cuban doctors have played a role in many regions of the world". --Zleitzen 21:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From Wikipedia:Cite sources: "This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." I am challenging it. You, as the person claiming this, must provide a specific source. Otherwise I will remove it according to Wikipedia policy. Ultramarine 21:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You are welcome to challenge the statement "Cuban doctors have played a role in many regions of the world". ,,,,, ,  As such a challenge would only raise examination of the challenger, rather than the statement itself.. --Zleitzen 01:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical aid paragraph 

message: I see this paragraph as having numerous problems, but let me copy it here to work on a usable version:
:Pre-Castro Cuba ranked third in Latin America in per capita food consumption but ranked last out of the 11 countries analyzed in terms of percent of increase since 1957. Overall, Cuban per capita food consumption from 1954-1997 has decreased by 11.47 percent. Per capita consumption of cereals, tubers, and meat are today all below 1950's levels.
Specifically, if Cuba had high indices and adequate nutrution in 1957 while other Latin American countries had inadequate nutrition, I would certainly hope for a caloric increase elsewhere, but would presumably not expect one where it was already adequate.  Also, the decrease in a particular food stuff doesn't necessarily say anything about overall nutrition if diets shift.  Let me start digging around for citable data. If there's been a real change in nutritional adequacy that's worth mentioning; or also if there was a shortfall already in 1954). LotLE×talk 19:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The study finds U.S. women increased their daily calorie consumption 22 percent between 1971 and 2000, from 1542 calories per day to 1877 calories. During the same period the calorie intake for men increased 7 percent from 2450 calories per day to 2618 calories.
Hmmm... this actually puts the Cuban caloric intake in either 1948 or 1997 than US in either 1971 or 2000.  That strikes me as a bit anomalous; let me look further. A 1500 calorie diet is a long-term survival level (for an average sized person), but is likely to lead to overall malnutrition. LotLE×talk 19:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding the time of the comparison "This was in spite of the fact that the latest available food consumption data for Cuba at the time was from 1948-49, almost a decade before the other Latin American countries' data being used in the comparison." Regarding the nutrition value: "A closer look at the latest available data on some basic food groups reveals that Cubans now have less access to cereals, tubers, and meats than they had in the late 1940's.  According to 1995 UN FAO data, Cuba's per capita supply of cereals has fallen from 106 kg per year in the late 1940's to 100 kg half a century later.  Per capita supply of tubers and roots shows an even steeper decline, from 91 kg per year to 56 kg.  Meat supplies have fallen from 33 kg per year to 23 kg per year, measured on a per capita basis." This may not be enough for malnutrition, but it certainly indicates a declining standard of living. Maybe a better place would be under economy? Ultramarine 19:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrition paragraph 

message: This sentence had been in the article, and has gone back-and-forth a bit in the last day.  I think that with a good citation it's nicely informative, but not essential certainly.  What do folks think?
:The continuation of the existing regime was a disappointment to the anti-Castro exiles, who in the early 1990s believed that their return to their homeland, and to power, was imminent.
LotLE×talk 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinions and the effect of the Cuban exiles is the Elephant in the room around here. And, this issue deserves at least a sentence and really more.  BruceHallman 21:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence on exile reaction 

message: The article states, [Cuba's] culture and customs draw from several sources including ... the island’s close proximity to the United States.
Just what Cuban customs have the United States as its source? What aspect of Cuban culture "draws" from the United States? Drogo Underburrow 02:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Protestantism for starters (see religion section).--Zleitzen 02:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Baseball Myciconia 02:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Automobiles.--Zleitzen 02:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Certain architectural styles--Zleitzen 02:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Cigars Myciconia 02:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Cuban literature and painting seem to have some notable influence from US movements. LotLE×talk 02:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of these seem central to the culture, on the same level as the Spanish or African influence. Drogo Underburrow 03:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree that the Spanish and African cultural influences are greater, but it's hard to really quantify "amount of influence".  The USA seems at least notable as an influence, even if not primary. LotLE×talk 03:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article puts the Spanish, African, and U.S. influences on the same level. So, its misleading. Drogo Underburrow 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Effect of US on Cuban culture and customs

message: It looks like Drogo Underburrow is intent on repeating KDRGibby's 3RR violation.  Not there quite yet, but I'll be sure to report it if or when he violates.  KDRGibby, appropriately, was blocked for a month—but that's mostly because of prior probation.  I assume Drogo's block would be for less time. LotLE×talk 04:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another case? 

message: The refs in this article is a complete mess, fix them to footnotes. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Jaranda overstates the issue, mixed citation style is not per se wrong.  But I agree it's a good idea to move to m:Cite.php for the simple inline URLs.  However, as we do so, let's provide complete citation details and verify links.  Please use the  for the expanded details. LotLE×talk 04:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: 1) Somebody please make a new archive. 2) start a new page 3)  write down the title of each chapter as they appear on the article. Comment only those sentences found in a particular chapter chapter. 4) don’t assume readers are stupid. Every single fact presented in the main text is followed by “explanations” meant to influence the readers. Since we have different POVs let’s present the facts as they are, and let the readers to make their own conclusions (e.g. suicide rates, life expectancy etc). Keep comparisons with other countries at minimum. It’s better to put things into context but this could be extremely misleading, keeping in mind you can chose your examples as you wish. If not possible at least keep comparing the same countries.--Anticom 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions