Talk:Cuba/Archive 13

message: Senator Lugar refers to pseudo democracies , which now, given recent past history of turning into real democracies, are under far tighter control. However, in this article Cuba is specifically excluded from this category. El Jigue 6-9-06
If politicians were the ones writing these articles, we would be reading codes, instead of deciphering them...what is real democracy? an 'narchy' country with a government made up of five individuals?
Gueyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy! Oh come on try and be more specific that is a standard line from text of Apologia Catechism 101.  El Jigue 6-9-06
Hold up just a minute...who gave the lecture on what constitute a democracy versus what is supposed to do and what really it is...a philosopher? a political science major in the US?...or marginal writer and thinker?...and when did this happen???
The only real democracies were the Greek city-states - and they disenfranchised the majority of the population.  Anything that is called a democracy fails to live up to the ideal in one way or another.  There is a whole range, the question is where does one draw the line.  -- Beardo 14:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudo democracies under tighter control

message: The following attempts to make an impression based on flaws or misunderstood premises..."Children are required to take part in social activities outside of the home, such as working in the fields during holidays to prevent them from becoming blind intellectuals."
Children are encouraged to take part in social activities outside of the home (and according to their ages), as expected from a Socialist society, even if it means working in State crop fields.  'Blind intellectuals' is a perceived characterization, which speculates on what happens to people when they grow older.  It seems, the social responsibilities placed on the Youth, expects a 'help' now mentality and does not bear fear as to what they'll later do in life.
That 'children' work the fields is based on Camp Schools(Escuela del Campo) and it involves attending classes and helping in crop fields for 45 days out of the year.  This begins in the 7th grade and could last till college graduation...
::btw campo means country or field, not camp. Escuela de Campo = country school. -- Beardo 17:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Family

message: ===Making a comprehensive discussion tree===
I think that rather than burying old discussions into an inaccessible archive, the list should be organized. This way the discussion could expand without the need of archives. Make a categorial order which deepens in an orderly fashion. I've thought of a basic root of all the present headings in the article and a two permanent "control" categories: 1. Off-topic and 2. Additions and general quality. Depending on the article, the discussion categories should include all the present titles in the article and if necessairy, categories for "photos" and "sources", which are not displayed in the article's tree of contents .  
Decided things
This is a new feature to my discussion tree structure, which makes conclusions valid and repetition unnecessairy. It improves my design, whose purpose is to eliminate the need for discussion archives. This will be added, I hope, at the end of every paragraph, where there will be a copy of the present section of the article. Decided things will be highlighted and the others are not. New articles will always be highlighted (decided) at first. If a user wishes to re-open discussion, the part will be unbolded, and futher arguments ensue at the end of the old discussion. 
The discussion tree should be maintained simultaneously with editions of the discussion as well as the article. When editing the article, the "decided things" should be edited to correspond with the article. When editing the discussion, the "decided things" should be edited (highlight - unbold ) to show what is under dispute and what has been concluded. The editors may do this themselves, or then observers can do it, voluntarely. 
The Wikipedia structure should be modified to include the present discussion headings in the discussion page, so that when a user starts a new discussion, he could choose a present heading, which together form a universal category. Also the "decided things" at the end of every main discussion heading, should be programmed to appear automatically every time someone adds a new heading to the article, along with the new heading, of course.
My idea of a discussion tree is new to Wikipedia, and I'm considering beginning it as an experiment first on small article with a few headings. However I have also begun doing it at Talk:Fidel_Castro and some other pages.
Teemu Ruskeepää 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have made a couple of changes immediately as per talk page consensus, (see above). There are also a number of factual errors on the page that need to be resolved - I have a list somewhere but it'll have to wait.--Zleitzen 03:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Have altered the tag on the truck as for accuracy. Moved a few sections around, removed a bit of clutter. The content changes I have made are to reduce the health and education sections to the agreed passages after endless reworking for consensus. Users should be extremely careful if they wish to edit those sections - should examine the corresponding pages, and do their research beforehand. Have re-added the military section. Also, there is still a lot of roving junk on the page which needs to be trimmed. --Zleitzen 04:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions and general quality

message: I think that rather than burying old discussions into an inaccessible archive, the list should be organized. This way the discussion could expand without the need of archives. Make a categorial order which deepens in an orderly fashion. I've thought of a basic root of all the present headings in the article and a two permanent "control" categories: 1. Off-topic and 2. Additions and general quality. Depending on the article, the discussion categories should include all the present titles in the article and if necessairy, categories for "photos" and "sources", which are not displayed in the article's tree of contents .  
Decided things
This is a new feature to my discussion tree structure, which makes conclusions valid and repetition unnecessairy. It improves my design, whose purpose is to eliminate the need for discussion archives. This will be added, I hope, at the end of every paragraph, where there will be a copy of the present section of the article. Decided things will be highlighted and the others are not. New articles will always be highlighted (decided) at first. If a user wishes to re-open discussion, the part will be unbolded, and futher arguments ensue at the end of the old discussion. 
The discussion tree should be maintained simultaneously with editions of the discussion as well as the article. When editing the article, the "decided things" should be edited to correspond with the article. When editing the discussion, the "decided things" should be edited (highlight - unbold ) to show what is under dispute and what has been concluded. The editors may do this themselves, or then observers can do it, voluntarely. 
The Wikipedia structure should be modified to include the present discussion headings in the discussion page, so that when a user starts a new discussion, he could choose a present heading, which together form a universal category. Also the "decided things" at the end of every main discussion heading, should be programmed to appear automatically every time someone adds a new heading to the article, along with the new heading, of course.
My idea of a discussion tree is new to Wikipedia, and I'm considering beginning it as an experiment first on small article with a few headings. However I have also begun doing it at Talk:Fidel_Castro and some other pages.
Teemu Ruskeepää 16:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Making a comprehensive discussion tree

message: I'm unprotecting this now ... wow, I didn't realize it had been a full month.  Guess we tend to lose track of things sometimes.  Anyway, please keep all of Wikipedia's policies in mind as you continue to edit this article.  I hate to admit it, but the only reason I even remembered the protection on this article was because it was mentioned in an article today in the New York Times.  D'ohh!!  --Cyde↔Weys 03:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have made a couple of changes immediately as per talk page consensus, (see above). There are also a number of factual errors on the page that need to be resolved - I have a list somewhere but it'll have to wait.--Zleitzen 03:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Have altered the tag on the truck as for accuracy. Moved a few sections around, removed a bit of clutter. The content changes I have made are to reduce the health and education sections to the agreed passages after endless reworking for consensus. Users should be extremely careful if they wish to edit those sections - should examine the corresponding pages, and do their research beforehand. Have re-added the military section. Also, there is still a lot of roving junk on the page which needs to be trimmed. --Zleitzen 04:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotecting 

message: Now they are separate, which suggests something bad. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorize "human rights" under "government and politics".

message: ===Hispaniola contains two countries===
As a critic clearly noted the island of Hispaniola has a greater population than Cuba; however, Hispaniola contains two countries Haiti and Dominican Republic. Just change island to country. El Jigue 5-30-06
Agree EJ.  This shows the problem of letting administrators edit protected articles like that.  -- Beardo 02:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point is that Cuba is the most populous country in the Caribbean - this is the point of note which should be mentioned in the introduction.  The fact that it is the second most populous island is of (dare I say) secondary importance.  -- Beardo 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably my fault - I originally and mistakenly wrote that it was the most populated island in the Caribbean. Forgot about Hispaniola - being two entities. tut tut.--Zleitzen 23:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: As a critic clearly noted the island of Hispaniola has a greater population than Cuba; however, Hispaniola contains two countries Haiti and Dominican Republic. Just change island to country. El Jigue 5-30-06
Agree EJ.  This shows the problem of letting administrators edit protected articles like that.  -- Beardo 02:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point is that Cuba is the most populous country in the Caribbean - this is the point of note which should be mentioned in the introduction.  The fact that it is the second most populous island is of (dare I say) secondary importance.  -- Beardo 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably my fault - I originally and mistakenly wrote that it was the most populated island in the Caribbean. Forgot about Hispaniola - being two entities. tut tut.--Zleitzen 23:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hispaniola contains two countries

message: ====Wars of independence====
It would seem that the role of Estrada Palma working in the US to support the fighting in Cuba is over emphasized. In the 1895-1898 the roles of Maximo Gomez, the Maceo brother Jose and Antonio, and that of Calixto Garcia are neglected.  By the Summer of 95, the Spanish held only the coastal cities, including the Havana.  El Jigue 6-18-06
====Rename subtitle====
Isn't Cuba independent now? The historical nature of the gaining of the independence should be emphasized and make the title void of present day implications. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Independent Cuba

message: Isn't Cuba independent now? The historical nature of the gaining of the independence should be emphasized and make the title void of present day implications. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename subtitle

message: ====Education====
:Historically, Cuba has had some of the highest rates of education and literacy in Latin America, both before and after the revolution. All education is free to Cuban citizens including university education. Private educational institutions are not permitted.  School attendance is compulsory from ages 6 to 16 and all students, regardless of age or gender, wear school uniforms with the color denoting grade level. Primary education lasts for six years, secondary education is divided into basic and pre-university education. Higher education is provided by universities, higher institutes, higher pedagogical institutes, and higher polytechnic institutes. The Cuban Ministry of Higher Education also operate a scheme of Distance Education which provides regular afternoon and evening courses in rural areas for agricultural workers.
::See main article Education in Cuba
These two paragraphs can replace the present sections meaning that the page can be unlocked to registered users. --Zleitzen 13:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree. Teemu Ruskeepää 16:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Education

message: :Historically, Cuba has had some of the highest rates of education and literacy in Latin America, both before and after the revolution. All education is free to Cuban citizens including university education. Private educational institutions are not permitted.  School attendance is compulsory from ages 6 to 16 and all students, regardless of age or gender, wear school uniforms with the color denoting grade level. Primary education lasts for six years, secondary education is divided into basic and pre-university education. Higher education is provided by universities, higher institutes, higher pedagogical institutes, and higher polytechnic institutes. The Cuban Ministry of Higher Education also operate a scheme of Distance Education which provides regular afternoon and evening courses in rural areas for agricultural workers.
::See main article Education in Cuba
These two paragraphs can replace the present sections meaning that the page can be unlocked to registered users. --Zleitzen 13:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree. Teemu Ruskeepää 16:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Education

message: I'd like to remove the sentence at the end about what the revolution caused for the private media. It isn't about how the economy is at present. Teemu Ruskeepää 14:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Teemu Ruskeepää 16:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jigue, I've left a fairly important message for you but it's now further up the page - about your corrections and suggestions. If you can find it take a look.--Zleitzen 16:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zleitzen, why don't you say it here, if it's relevant about the heading. Also, why don't you say what part of the article your comment was about? The comment can be found directly where the heading exists. I just moved the headings in the same order as in the article. Why is it so hard to consider this? Teemu Ruskeepää 07:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I'm not wasting my time repeating myself - I wrote a message clearly to El Jigue and it was relocated by you. --Zleitzen 08:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that I'm wasting your time by proposing to organize the discussion? That's an insult towards other people's will. You wrote to El Jigue without considering the existing tree, and I relocated the entire conversation to off-topic, additions and general quality or to one of the headings of the article. There your answer to El Jigue will still be right after El Jigue's comment. You seem to be a neurotic, passive-aggressive resistant of other people opinions, by giving deliberately the impression to others, that I'm changing the places of answers in relation to questions, and that my organizing of the discussion isn't about what I have said it is. Well, are you suggesting that, Zleitzen? Teemu Ruskeepää 15:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm suggesting that you refrain from moving other users comments Teemu, as it is making it more difficult to communicate and will be impossible to use in time without archiving. This appears to be the consensus on the other page you are attempting this experiment. Please don't refer to other users as neurotic or passive aggressive.--Zleitzen 16:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to the 50'ties' private media

message: Due to the problematic referencing issue, I have removed references that were no longer in the article - moved referencing from the hybrid style in the top of the editing page to within the appropriate body of the main article - with the exeption of the "socialist republic" citation which I couldn't move for some reason because it messed up the text of the template. In future, I recommend that users reference in the traditional footnote style.--Zleitzen 11:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes and referencing

message: There is a real lack of information on earlier Cuban parties in wikipedia - and no page at all for the Partido Auténtico. Would you care to make an opening on the red link provided - just add anything you know at this stage. I would ask on your own page but you seem to have a roving IP address at the moment.--Zleitzen 11:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always felt that he should get an account and become a regular contributor.  He certainly knows a lot on the subject.  --TJive 11:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have made an introductory paragraph.--Zleitzen 17:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calling El Jigue

message: Hey - Co-ordinate is co-ordinate. Unless I've missed something all these years. Is this a regional difference? If it is, I pull The Face of Fu Manchu - (old Jamaican term for a face of disapproval). I think it's probably correct to detail the CDRs though "ensure" would be more accurate than "enforce", I'm not sure how they enforce the status quo other than being general nosy bastards and social irritants. 
The edit "which are often statistically implausible" about the elections I'm not sure about. Given that the figures for the many candidates have approximately an 15% range, and the unwieldy process effectively means a voter (who is compelled to vote by law in the Australian manner) can opt to just approve all candidates in a swift tick of one box, I don't believe these are so implausible. General studies put the figures down to apathy on the part of the voter - ie. tick the box, get out quick, get back to working on the car and leave me alone. This sense of apathy and fear of change amongst Cubans, most of whom have only know one system of government cannot be underestimated. It's comparable to the links between certain societies and monarchies. Anyway, this is all speculation - including the comment about the election results being implausible. Responses please.--Zleitzen 12:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The candidates - who aren't really relevant in the end - aren't the only concern.  Every (ostensibly) important government referendum gets absurdly high approval tallies reported.  It is foolish to believe this is instead all due to apathy, itself brought on by lack of faith in the process.  Noting this is rather relevant so as not to mislead readers.  --TJive 12:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the citation "The government claims that the elections represent a show of popular support, but its critics have attributed the result instead to fear or apathy on the part of those who do not support the government. They suspect that the result may reflect electoral engineering (in constituencies known to have a high proportion of voters who are more inclined to express dissatisfaction by registering blank or spoiled votes, the candidates offered tend to be highly respected local figures not associated closely with the government.. You're referring to the 2002 referendum on the constitution which had absurdly high figures, but you're still in the realm of original research.--Zleitzen 12:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, just noting what has already been observed.  If you have a better alternative wording that illustrates the same points, I'm all for seeing it.  --TJive 13:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Spelling should be US on this page so you're right to pick me up on anything I get wrong such as the coordinated etc. What I've done is changed it to "invariably high". The reasons for this need to be elaborated on the politics of Cuba and elections in Cuba page. Because I don't believe it's an open and shut case - there are too many variables. As usual in life, and certainly with Cuba - there is more to it than meets the eye. --Zleitzen 13:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with the wording.  --TJive 15:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is the clause "...are not verified by non-partisan, independent, or non-state organs and observers." relevant and neutral? For comparison, prior to 2004, USA elections were also not verified by non-partisan, independent, or non-state organs and observers. And, the 2004 OSCE observation identified a failure to credential the non-partisan status of domestic observers. In Cuba, the secret ballots are opened and counted in public view. In light of this, the 'verified by...observers' clause appears to be POV pushing.BruceHallman 15:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise it is not the practice of the UK Government to invite international observers at UK elections, and voter fraud is common . However, the full statement about Cuba is factual and not neccessarily POV pushing. Both "Non-partisan" and "independent" is essentially negated by the political climate of Cuba, the count is supervised by state officials to my knowledge. Comparing the Cuban and US political cultures is a bit like comparing a dog with one leg to a dog with two, it makes little difference because the dog still can't walk in a straight line. We could really do with a Swiss editor to come along and denounce the lot of us. The passage may read more accurately if it stated "are invariably high, though international observers are not invited to verify the process" which is unquestionably true and notable.  --Zleitzen 16:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zleitzen wrote: "...not neccessarily POV pushing...".  The key word, neccessarily. Of course, not neccessarily. Yet, in context of the history of POV fighting about elections in Cuba, the clause has the real and clear appearance of POV pushing.  The POV could be balanced by omitting the clause, or by adding a "...the secret ballots are opened and counted in public view" balance clause for NPOV.  BruceHallman 17:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest edits

message: "... [The fall of the USSR provided] 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." -- taken from main article
Seems like a ridiculous statement; how can a dictator be expected to give up power?
:Re-read that statement: events were not sufficient to persuade Cuban Communists that they should voluntarily give up power. See the resignation of János Kádár in Hungary and the subsequent breakdown of power of the Hungarian Communist Party as a starting point. Then take a look at what happened on November 28 1989, "the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia announces they will give up their monopoly on political power". And continue your studies of the era. You may find that the above statement is not so ridiculous.--Zleitzen 14:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already read it El Jigue. For my Hilda Molina research! You've got to get up early to catch me out.--Zleitzen 16:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't think he was very popular in the Argentine to begin with, El Jigue. Mind you, I don't know of any foreigner that is popular down there. Though Castro was a big hit with Argentinian footballing supernova Diego Maradona . In England, a choice between the two is a grim one and the bitterness still rankles! I'm sure you'll attest that Fidel is in good company.--Zleitzen 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased statement

message: On July 31, Raul Castro assumed the position of President of Cuba and of the Communist Party of Cuba due to Fidel Castro's failing health after his trip from Argentina. I think proper note of this should be taken as events occur, as is being done on the Lebanon page.
I think it would be appropriate to change Fidel's status as head of state with a mention to it being temporary and the situation surrounding the event. Some may say its too early to change it, or that the temporary nature should make it unneccesary, I argue that the temporary nature of this situation does not change the fact that it is happening, just as the temporary nature of king Gyanendra as an absolute monarch or the mention of the various military juntas and transitional governments around the world.
:Well, I think that the temporary assumption of presidential powers is not the same than assuming the position of president itself. It is misleading to state that Raul Castro is the current head of state of Cuba. Gugganij 13:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raul Assumes Presidency - Changes need? 

message: Just to reiterate something. Raul is not yet President of Cuba anymore than George H. Bush was president of the US after Reagan was shot, and John Prescott was British Prime Minister after Tony Blair underwent heart treatment. Raul has assumed the duties of President of the council of State during Fidel's incapacitation. --Zleitzen 13:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that's a standard procedure in many political systems. Temporarily assuming the powers of the president doesn't equal assuming the office of the president. Gugganij 15:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar problems are occurring on the Raul Castro and Fidel Castro pages. These also need to be watched.--Zleitzen 16:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, check the page again.--Zleitzen 06:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: CNN can call him what they like, the Cuban constitution is clear enough!:)--Zleitzen 23:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: These are Cuban legal matters. We don't call the shots.--Zleitzen 01:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. There needs to be a note in the infobox saying that although Fidel Castro is still the President of Cuba, he is currently incapacitated and Raul Castro is interim president for the time being.--Folksong 10:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Raul is not President of Cuba

message: Perhaps an Asterisk or something next to the president portion in the infobox would be an acceptible middle ground, what do you think? Attic Owl 02:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There needs to be a note in the infobox saying that although Fidel Castro is still the President of Cuba, he is currently incapacitated and Raul Castro is interim president for the time being.--Folksong 10:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asterisk

message: Is there any reason why the article was protected. There was not any edit war going on. 85.124.177.162 15:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a vast, lengthy, well publicised edit war due to the controversial nature of the subject matter (see top of page for one of many articles written about this page). The upshot of the poor publicity is that this page is semi- protected to new users.--Zleitzen 15:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Site protected

message: I'm by far no expert on Cuba or US policies towards Cuban emigrees, but the statement that "U.S. law[20] grants U.S. residency to any Cuban who arrives on U.S. soil without a visa" is not even supported by the linked document describing the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1996 (CAA) -- which rather states that "CAA gives the Attorney General the discretion to grant permanent residence to Cuban natives or citizens seeking adjustment of status if they have been present in the United States for at least 1 year after admission or parole and are admissible as immigrants."
I'm always hesitant to try to restructure something like this without discussion -- am I misunderstanding something here? cmac 01:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to go ahead and make the changes, Mcgrawcm.--Zleitzen 02:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements about US immigration policy inconsistent with referenced sources 

message: The recent release of a recording of Raul Castro ordering the shoot down of the Brother's to the Rescue planes suggests that internal opposition to Raul is building up.  One reason for this is that improved relations with the US would strongly enhance the living conditions of the Cuban nomenclatura (Mayimbe), and that according to US law this cannot happen until Raul as well as Fidel is removed from power in Cuba. In reaction one would expect, considering past behaviours, that Raul will suppress these putative rivals with at least some executions.  
El Jigue 8-21-06
Or maybe it's just someone in Miami trying to stir up trouble.  Does Raul even want to cling on to power ?  -- Beardo 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Executions of rivals may follow

message: By asking for prayers that the Catholic Church might be trying to molify Castro and persuade him not to go on a mad
rampage of killing.  After all his doctors had promised him 140 years of life and he must be very angry at the
probable cancer eating at his guts.  El Jigue 8-26-06
Rumors are just rumors, still further  rumors suggest that Fidel is trying to kill Raul to preserve his "Legacy." El Jigue 8-27-06
Even pro-castro types are thinking spreading cancer: so now we get the official denials which do little more than confirm it. El Jigüe 8-28-06
:Mad rampage? Rumors? Killing his brother? These 3 sections above are pure vandalism. If someone else thinks that it is justified, I think that it should be removed. Wikipedia is not place for such kind of language.--RockyMM 11:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I generally enjoy reading El Jigüe's bulletins, it is true that they don't really fit into the remit of wikipedia talk page policy. Perhaps if users could subscribe to future El Jigüe pronouncements on individual talk pages rather than article talk pages then it would satisfy. I for one would sign up!--Zleitzen 14:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The danger of an angry dying Castro

message: Much feared Ramirito Valdez is in Raul Castro's new cabinet . I view this circumstance not only as prelude to increased repression but as an indication of a potentially explosive and  meta-stable power structure in Cuba. Complicating the matter is a putative contact between Raul Castro and members of the US government. El Jigue 9-11-06
:Strange - only a few weeks ago Valdes was being described as a potential challenger to Raul,  and so by EJ's earlier comment should have been executed not promoted ! -- Beardo 15:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Valdes is described by the Miami Herald as hard-line, but has been out of power for 20 years.  Does anyone know what his current views are ? -- Beardo 20:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dread Ramirito Valdez in Raul's cabinet

message: Castro seems better but unable to walk .   However, his relationship with Chavez (from above source) can be taken to suggest anything from consolation of a dying Castro to internal conflict in Cuba:
"You should know that the dawn of a new era continues to shine, Chávez said, reading from his own letter to Castro. ``You are part of this dawn. All of us need you, so we can continue to push the sun. I bring you the embrace of a million human beings who, like me, admire you, and sing with you: On to victory, forever! We shall win!''
On to victory, forever! Castro responded, repeating a Cuban revolutionary slogan. ``We shall win."
The question arises who is in charge of Cuba, Raul Castro, Ramiro Valdez or Chavez? El Jigüe 9-2-06
:Chavez may be the paymaster, but I don't see that he directs anything. Valdes has just got given a fairly minor ministry.  If he gets his old job back at MININT - then he really is on the rise again ! -- Beardo 15:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any connection between Ferrer and Valdes ?  Why do you think there is a link ?  -- Beardo 21:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I am sure Valdes is not the only hard-liner (if he is still hard-line).  It's not as if action against dissident stopped for 20 years whilst Valdes was out of power and have suddenly restarted.  -- Beardo 05:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Castro seems better but unable to walk

message: This page seems desperately in need of some archiving of old discussions. -- Beardo 15:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving