Talk:Cuba/Archive 4

Restored

Just restored page. However, it might be wise to keep in mind that while residual nonsense still remaining (such as the belief that urban gardens can replace all prior rural food production or that it is important to describe the school uniforms) this will cause some to lose patience and delete the whole thing. After all there are over a million Cuban exiles in the US most of us have lost all in Cuba, and many have seen relatives and friends shot. Most of these Cubans unlike those left in Cuba, seem to have computers. El Jigüe 1/30/06

never lose your sense of humor, no?

but why not describe school uniforms? --Ila Plafo 14:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View: Demographics

Capacitor 03:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with the following paragraph:

"Cuba has a low birth rate. The fertility rate of 1.66 children per woman[76] is the lowest of any country in the western hemisphere (tied with Canada and Barbados). A contributing cause is Cuba's policy of abortion on demand. Cuba has a high abortion rate of 77.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 1996, 3rd highest in the world among 55 countries whose abortion rate was available to be compiled in a 1999 UN study. [77] Selective termination of high-risk pregnancies is one factor contributing to the low official infant mortality rate in Cuba of 5.8 per thousand births. (State of the World's Children 2005) However, this high abortion rate and very low birth rate, reminiscent of former Communist Eastern Europe and Russia, threatens to cause the population to shrink significantly in the coming decades, although this has not happened yet due to relatively small numbers of elderly."

The statement that "a contributing cause [of the declining population] is Cuba's policy of abortion on demand" is unfounded and pure speculation. Sure, it may seem like common sense that a high abortion rate lowerspopulation growth, but common sense also tells us the world is flat so you cannot trust it to tell the truth. Rather, this section needs to either be supported by PROPER evidence (not from some anti-choice group) that high abortion rates "threaten to cause the population to shrink significantly" or it needs to be removed.

Do not claim falsely that abortion is the cause of a declining population. Population growth (or lack of it) is quite a complex issue that cannot be simply pinpointed to an abortion rate. This political bias has no place in the article, and unless someone backs it up with PROPER evidence, it will be removed.

Going bonkers again

One can clearly see that the politics section, as it stands is so inane, accepting and non- critical that it leaves people very irritated. "For crying out loud" Cuba is a communist dictatorship, or in more polite terms a rigid one party state, can somebody point this out. If not, I will correct eventually it, but for now it will be for others to fix this very inarticulate protest. El Jigüe 1/30/06

Of course, only a Miami capitalist gangster would think such a thing. 24.154.226.13 13:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

One should also mention in the US article that the US is a capitalist dictatorship then. 219.95.237.83 13:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried pointing out that no candidate for the national assembly has ever been rejected by the voters, and despite that this being not a point of controversy(Dan christensens pro-castro website acknowledges this) and no proof of any contradictory information I still cant get it into the article. 165.161.3.2 15:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody to better than this

"The latest Castro government constitution states that, "the Communist Party of Cuba...is the superior guiding force of society and the state." Technicalities and comments on the present legalities follow. However, Cuba is ruled by a one party authoritarian system, which will ignore these rules if they believe the survival of Communist state is threatened. The most famous recent instance is the Vladimiro Roca et al. petition [1], where even Vladimiro's status as son of a founder of the Cuban Communist, was not enough to fully protect him." El Jigüe 1/30/06

Present State of Cuban Literature

Despite continual state repression, literature is very much alive in Cuba [2] Cuban authors continue to produce prolific printed and electronic work inside and especially outside of the island. The Castro government lavishly funds its Cuban booths at bookfairs in Latin America. In Miami Cuban-American publishing houses are full of independent uncensored literature. A good number of U.S university presses continually present scholarly volumes on various Cuban topics. Authors both pro- and against the present Cuban government present their views in the US. Amazon.com (directed by Jeff Bezos who was raised by a Cuban family) currently lists 6,026 titles dealing with Cuba; Barnesandnoble.com lists 3,126. Borders books stores carry 1,991 titles on Cuba in stock. El Jigüe 1/30/06

Cuba and the SU

"Critcs of the Cuban government will compare the human rights record to the Soviet one (under Leonid Brezhnev)." Why you removed that? Xx236 14:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Who removed it? El Jigüe 2/1/06 205.240.227.15 Xx236 14:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Simons, Moisés

He was a musician, not a writer. Xx236 13:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, was thinking in Spanish where author (autor) can also mean composer. My goof has been correct, it would have been done it before, but "they" just let me out of Wikipedia jail El Jigüe 2-8-06

Present State of Cuban Literature

What about anti-Communist writers in Cuba? Why don't they have the right to print their works there? I believe that some kind of illegal printing and distribution exists, like in it existed in Nazi Germany or Soviet Union. It's very sad, that the censors cancel any information in this text. Xx236 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That is because toadies for tyranny keep messing it up.

Sorry I tried to add these details but they were almost immediately erase. El Jigüe 2-8-06

Unconditional supporters of Castro government proceed to censor Wikipedia

If one follows the edits of Comandante in a number of places, one can readily perceive that these entries follow the Castro government "line." That, although misguided, is a matter of opinion. The use of the label comandante, which is to those who have escaped Cuba, almost the same as Genghis Khan is offensive, but apparently allowed by Wikipedia rules.

However, Comandante and others including Colle have gone much further, and work to deliberately expell from Wikipedia those with whom they disagree. Their technique seems to be to declare the targeted person as one who inserts "Vandalism;" find a ally who echoes the same accusation, and then demand immediate suspension of editing access of the their target,

Here is an example of this technique

from [3] :

" Colle That is a complement. You are getting your information second or third hand. On the other hand I once fought in Castro's July 26 movements in the Sierra Maestra. There I saw action but also too many bad things, and refused to execute anybody. Later at the time of the Bay of Pigs I was jailed by Castro.....If that does not allow me to say what I believe is factually true, and what I remember ... then nothing does El Jigüe 1/29/06

"[edit]

" El Jigüe (this was a heading)

What to do . . . Well, first of all, if any of his contributions are vandalism and violate NPOV, he will be blocked. We can even block him per 3RR rule. The continuation of his contributions is damaging to the Cuban related articles, and we must put a stop to it. --Jay(Reply) 18:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC) [edit]"

...

Thank You! Thanks for the commendation. It is greatly appreciated. User:Comandante

" end citations

As a result of this collusion between Colle, Jay and Comandante and without any real vandalism on my part (please check my record) I was sanctioned by not allowing me to edit for seven days. Jigüe 1/8/06

Toadies for tyranny

As Xx236 so frankly points out, one wonders how long it will be before the "toadies for tyranny" erase for the nth time all mention of "Seguridad del Estado" the collective of repressive agencies of Cuba Jigüe 1/9/06

In Wikipedia data that contradicts the Cuban governments position appears to be Vandalism

Goodbye censors strike again Lbmixpro (talk • contribs) has once more without reason (even though I have spent most of my access time today inserting data on Cuban music and literature) accused me of vandalism and will cut me off without warning [4]

Why don't you look at that last diff? I retracted the vandal warning. (Thank you I was busy working on my theories of CAM evolution.) Latter addition

Here they go again, citing rules and regulations that seem only to apply to one side. In Cuba this attitude was know as "la ley del embudo" One side large entry, the other small (excuses to Swift). The particular technique of inserting extraneous material into the text of others (see immediately below) was know as coletilla, or the use of the little tail (no obscene connotation intended).

One should also notice that this "editor" allows extensive quotes of Cuban statistics taken directly from Castro speaches to stay in place...

As you can see, I've retracted the repeat vandalism warning to further investigate the edits. As I'm looking through your edit history, I find that you've been blanking the "Present State of Cuban Literature" section. You realize that is considered vandalism if it isn't done by consensus? That's why everybody's reverting it, and that's why you've been blocked. If you really need to delete that section, why don't you explain why, so people could possibly agree with you. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 20:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You are merely splitting hairs all I did was re organize the sub section and add a citation. Besides I started that sub-section not you, and the only essential difference from what I wrote was were additions from another source, which was a modern compilation of mostly 19th century literature, not original classic Cuban literature, so I opened a new section for "compedia" in order to accomodate it. If you look carefully that compedia plus another I added is still there. As to claim is consensus, it seems I am the only one us required to have that lately, for there is no concensus reaching process here. So there is one rule for the people you agree with and another for those you disagree with, the old "Ley del Embudo again."

If that is vandalism those sure were weird vandals. Perhaps these vandals such as Arnulf who lowering his broad axe to the ground and pondering the matter remarks "Ogbert do you thing that is compendia or original material?" Ogbert tugs on his dirty beard and resting one hand on the hilt of his "mandoble" responds: "Well now we have finished killing all those local romanized Iberians and looting their villas, we can make a decision as to your point, but make it fast for there are some Alans who are trying to get in on the looting action and need to be cut up." El Jigüe 2-9-06

it appears that some have defeated the wikipedia

They seem able to enter material or erase stuff, and exit without trace. Interesting do we have professionals entering into the game? Stirring up trouble with the old Cuban game of "dandole cranque" El Jigüe 2-9-06

Apparently providing material that contradicts the Cuban government position with out delitions of opposing view points equates to Wikipedia Vandalism El Jigüe 2-9-06

I have been further warned tha documenting such such apparent censorship is also against Wikipedia policy Talk about the Star Chamber Oh I forgot the Tudors were Welsh xe xe El Jigüe 2-9-06

BTW that Star Chamber section looks as if it were written by some less than enlightened English High Church follower...worried about sullying the name of Henry VIII. El Jigüe 2-9-06

Accusations of Vandalism need substantiation

Accusations of Vandalism need substantiation, not mere accusations. This is not Cuba this is not "La Ley del la Sierra' where the prosecutors' statements are accepted as fact, El Jigûe 2-9-06

it appears that some have defeated the wikipedia safeguards

They seem able to enter material or erase stuff, and exit without trace. Interesting do we have professionals entering into the game? Stirring up trouble with the old Cuban game of "dandole cranque" El Jigüe 2-9-06

Human Rights NPOV?

My understanding is that the NPOV policy requires that “the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each.” My reading of this section raises questions as to the article’s compliance with this requirement. The section seems to over emphasize human rights issues for which there is favorable evidence of the current government’s compliance (without giving any counter views) and de-emphasize human rights issues where the regime’s record is less favorable. In those incidences the section strains to give a favorable view of Castro’s government. For evidence, I point to the following – The section contains a total of 428 words. 156 words relate to the rights of Cuban’s to join trade unions (36% of the section); 71 words relate to an argument that Castro is better than Batista was (16 % of the section); 162 words relate to collectively to torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extra-judicial executions, the death penalty, and prisoners of conscious (37 % of the section). I do not deny that trade unionism is an important human right. I do question as to whether considering the extreme criticism of Castro by governments, NGOs, Human Rights Organizers as well as ordinary citizens this section represents “all significant viewpoints, in the proportion to the prominence of each.”

Furthermore, in the sections relating to trade unions and Castro’s superiority to Batista there is not a single word indicating a counter view, while the portion relating to other issues presents counter views, most notably the following, “many argue that only a few thousands of unjustified deaths have occurred under Castro's leadership.” I point this example out, because of my amazement that the word “only” is used to describe a “few thousand deaths” as evidencing bias. This would indicate that the “best case” is that Castro has, on average, been responsible for 63 “unjustified” executions per year in a country with roughly the same population as the New York metro area (under the “worst case scenario presented by the article, he is responsible for more than 3000 per year on average). Under either scenario, I would think that a balanced view would focus more on this. Franklin Moore 08:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that ratio, the trade unions are very important and influential in Cuba, it is the main way, other than voting, that people can effect change. I see our point with "only" a few thousand deaths: I changed that in my recent edit.--Colle||Talk-- 09:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Colle Perhaps you did not know in Batista's time the principal Cuban union the CTC was run by the Partido Socialista Popular that is the overt Cuban Communist Party. In 1959 the Communists were removed from the Union, to soon be reinstalled. As to the art comment the citation leads to a legitimate art site [5]. Surely you knew all this? El Jigüe 2-12-06

Cheese Paring tactics

The death toll from Castro has been reported 1959-1987 there have been from 35,000 to 141,000 [6] (table is in thousands) executions. Dividing these figures gives several thousand a year. Were this to occur in the US one could calculate, a non-judicial execution rate of the order of 30,000 to 100,000 killings a year. El Jigüe 2-12-06

I think it would be interesting to compair the execution rate to a percentage of population and then contrast it against other revolutions (Soviet, Chinese, etc.) This information may help put this into perspective and promote a NPOV Rklawton 01:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That source is not credible.--Colle||Talk-- 02:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Rklawton it is difficult to compare Castro to big league Democides, still one will have to wait until he is gone to dig up the graves/ El Jigüe 2-13-06

Montreal lawyer Arnold August, is a Canadian Communist Party Member (Marxist Leninist)

Wow! am I learning a lot Montreal lawyer Arnold August, Canadian Communist Party Member ((Marxist Leninist) is ideally suited to do studies on elections in Cuba. I really must stop using general citations that oppose his views. xe xe El Jigüe 2-13-06

The only reason I used August as a source is because it was the only way I could stop the editors from claiming the national assembly had more than 1 candidate per seat68.212.182.237 05:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Does a lack of patience with the views of others indicate a lack of NPOV

One could interpret a lack of patience with views of others to indicate a certain lack of NPOV. After all if one rejects all sources one disagrees with perhaps one's mind may have closed. El Jigüe 2-12-06

By my count Colle has made at least five reverts today

Could it be that Colle has made at least five complete sections and occasionally whole article reverts today. El Jigüe 2-13-06

Conspiracy

El Jigüe What to do . . . Well, first of all, if any of his contributions are vandalism and violate NPOV, he will be blocked. We can even block him per 3RR rule. The continuation of his contributions is damaging to the Cuban related articles, and we must put a stop to it. --Jay(Reply) 18:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Xx236 10:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

Kids, I'm not going to play in your games. I don't know why are you spreading Communist propaganda. Sooner or later the Cuban system will collapse, all your lies will be recorded here, like those of Sartre, Shaw and other useful idiots. Xx236 14:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible prisoners of conscience

Let's put "possible" before any statement of the government, to make symmetry. Xx236 15:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Agriculture

From January to April 2005, Cubans purchased 42.6 percent less food than in the same period in 2004. Did the agriculture did well in 2005? I doubt it.

2001 profile http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/agriculture-food/country-profile-46.html Percent change since 1979-81 -2 World +32 Cuba believes to be wiser than the World. Xx236 12:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

there is censorship in every country

My statement about the censorship in Cuba has been removed with the comment "there is censorship in every country". In some countries 99% of the population has access only to censored books and tv, and I believe Cuba belongs to such countries. In other countries people can have any book or tv channel if they want enough, and they don't belong to 20% of the lower class, like in many countries including my own and the one of my opponent. The statement " there is censorship in every country" is close to statements "any country commits crimes" (but I believe that certain crimes like the Holocaust are bigger than crimes committed by the government of Switzerland. The Cuba article is biased, it presents mainly the point of view of the Cuban government. Noone is able to study the problem of censorship in Cuba, because he/she will be arrested there, but anyone can copy propaganda texts from propaganda pages living in a nasty capitalist system, using nasty freedom and suffering under allegen Swedish or Belgian censorship.

It seems that some of the Wikipedia activists are biased. If the Wikipedia is a leftist project, I will not contribute. Please - tell me where is it written that Wikipedia is pro-revolutionary and pro-Soviet and that the point of view of the victims of the Communism is worse than yours?

I admit, I make many errors. When I see errors of other people, I correct or leave a message to the author asking for correction. I used to live in a system, when activists removed any critics and it's exactly what is going here in many texts - some errors and lies are defended and my contribusions are being removed. Xx236 15:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Cuba article - war

Pro-Castro and anti-Castro militants fight editing the text. No discussion in the Discussion area. I believe that the article should be frozen. Xx236 09:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a specific issue you would like to bring up?--Colle||Talk-- 10:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Economics in Cuba

Is there any proof that communist rule and Castro mismanagement (as it says in the test of this article) is responsible for Cuba's poverty? Rather than US trade embargos?

Cuba can trade with whole world including with some restrictions (such as paying cash with the US). Thus it would seem logical that 47 years of Castro's control over Cuba has some effect. The watcher

That's a little bit of an understatement. Cuba's trade with the US is a recent initiative and is limited to cash only purchases of certain commodities - food and medicines. The US has scuppered Cuban deals with other countries by threatening those countries with negative economic consequences if they go ahead. The embargo/blockade, or whatever you want to call it, has always been an economic aggression. The Cold War continues between Cuba and the US and the only terms the US is offering for its ending is that Cuba organise its affairs in ways the US finds satisfactory. The Platt Amendment Redux? MichaelW 21:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who has lived in Cuba can cite examples of bad administration and corruption that leads to the wastefulness of the available resources. The excessive controls imposed by the government to avoid free trade between its citizens also block the ability to generate riches. It’s also a fact that the government through the planned economy is unable to provide the Cuban citizens with products to satisfy their basic needs. Many of these examples are well known and documented (The “zafra de los 10 millones” is an example) and I think that any person intelligent enough will have no choice but to conclude that mostly this kind of actions, and not necessarily the lack of foreign trade (although off course this has an influence too) directly results in the deterioration of the quality of life of the Cuban people.

if you look closly you can find corruption and mismanagement everywhere. a planned ecconemy tends to reduce waste, all though the human factor can never be planned out. an exaple of waste in a capitalist econnemy can for instence be a tendency of overconsumtion, like everyone owning a motorcar in stead of taking the bus. the stronger effect of (a few)individuals in the economic manegment of a society thends to generate "waste" (and wast profits, growth in the econnemy and work, but thats beyond my point).

Only a few nations (the US is one of them) refuse to trade with Cuba. The rest of the world can do so with little restriction except those from within the country itself. Considering Cuba's pre-Castro history, location and resources, it should be far better off. (RookZERO)

NJ 08.03.06

Except the US seeks to penalise businesses that do trade with Cuba. (Sherritt, Superclubs) The US prohibits ships from calling in its ports if they have been to Cuba in the last six months - which increases all shipping costs to Cuba. The US prohibits Cubans businesses from making transfers in US dollars, one of the main trading currencies in the world.

-- Beardo 00:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The classified Castro

There is Raúl Castro, the second personality in the state, not mentioned in the article. One of many mysteries of the Cuba article. Xx236 15:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2886.htm

Is this text really worse than yours? Xx236 15:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

=What do some have against Graham Greene

Today Discospinster removed Revision as of 18:49, 2 March 2006 Discospinster (Talk | contribs) rv Removed “Graham Greene, George Pimpleton and many others

I can see George Pimpleton, some may not be aware of his 1959 descriptions of discussions among prominent authors in Havana as to executions in the Caba~na fortress. However, Graham Greene for crying out loud, Green's description of "Capitan Segura" (In reality Captain Esteban Ventura Nova) in "Our Man in Havana" is a classic example of satire, besides Greene has his own Wikipedia site.

Please replace....deleted material El Jigue 3-2-06

All References to Formal studies deleted

It has not escaped my notice that presumably pro-Castro contributors (That C may well stand for Comandante, which in turn refers to Castro) have eliminated (by moving to an ad hoc attached site) all reference to formal studies in print. And in turn have inserted propaganda from such as that from an obscure pro-Castro solidarity group in Trinidad... I could easily revert all this nonsense. However, it makes a far better point to leave this nonsense in and thus support the simple assertion that the Wikipedia page on Cuba and those on some other related subjects have given up all pretense to formal scholarship and now are merely pro-Castro sites. El Jigue 3/7/06

I agree, there are several pro castro, communists who edit this page and delete anything and everything critical of the country while putting up nothing but praise. Honestly, I wouldnt be surprised if Castro has hired people to put up information for him...excellent free propoganda... This is the problem with user edited free encyclopedia's...they are easy targets for free propoganda. I heavily dispute the page myself. (Gibby 21:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

KDR the problem is if you change it they then claim vandalism, their friends lie to the same effect, and then find somebody to block your access. El Jigue 3/7/06

The thing about Cuban government health or education statistics is that first the Cuban government generates the statistics, and then international organizations like WHO accept these statistics without verifying them in anyway. Thus one sees absurdities like 100% literacy, or zero percent infant mortality in remote areas. Apparently the Cuban government has not only solved the problem of mental retardation, but now is defeating death itself. El Jigue 3/7/2006

Well to be honest, this page does still have quite a strong "americanish" veiwpoint. like the section on human "rights situation", compared to the page on the US page is quite tedensius. there is little or no proof of major human rights voilations exept "freedom of speach" and "fredom to capitalize(trade etc.)". if the US page was viwed with the same scruteny as pages like the cuban or other "official enemies of the west", there would be a lot more to write about the human rights violations of the US. -wastly documented by British channalfour (the us prison system)and others. or for infamous "every poor child left in the gutter to rot" policy of the current us.regime, clarely in violation with the guidelines of the UN. So how but comparing cuba to the US in stead of the soviet U.? many of us only heard the propaganda bout the SU anyway, and have no relation to what it really was like in the 70s anyway.

sure cuba isnt paradise on earth but what place is? they have the higest standard of living of every country they can be compared to and the majorety of the population fares quite decently. there are no slums like in the philipines, and their prostitutes can be counted as the best educated of the world.

and on the subject of government statistics. Always remember, governments always lie. like when the newly elected government of norway last year changed the number of destitute people by the stroke of a pen, by changing the definitions of the word from 20% to 12%. or like the us government unwilling to make any proper stat on the number of analfabetics in the us.-the UN still doesnt have one. statistics are wery handy in distorting reallity.

this is not to be seen as an attack on you in specific, but on the whole notion on just pointing out bad stuff about things that you do not like and and good stuff bout things you like. always be critical but distribute it evenly on the things that suround you.

Nils Johann, Batcelor in socialstudies. Kristiansand, Norway. 08.03.06

Dear Nils Johann, "Batcelor in socialstudies." thank you for giving your opinion. There are no slums in Cuba, because if anybody photographs them they are deported [7]. The prisons in Cuba are excellent because no foreign visitors, not even pro-Castro journalists [8] are allowed to see them. Cuba's jail's are so excellent that there is constant need for them and Castro has order more of them built. The Cuban people eat well and have a high standard of living because to that is what the Castro government says [9], unfortunately official rations listed in ration book do not make such foods appear in the government stores [10]... El Jigue 3-8-06

I removed that section because it was one giant mess, no other country article (thankfuly) has anything closely resembling it. That this move resulted in the red-baiting polemics above is not surprising, however. That is, narrowly focused depth and breadth of contributions. El_C 13:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I like when a citizen of one of the most democratic and rich countries of the world says, that every government tell lies and no place on earth is a paradise. Sure, but certain places are hells and some governments lie much more than e.g. the one of the Switzerland. I have several such stories:

• Eating of meat is harmful, says a 100kg German to a child of Darfour.
• We all are victims of censorship, says an American afetr watching "Syriana".

Any more? Xx236 14:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC) "many of us only heard the propaganda bout the SU anyway, and have no relation to what it really was like in the 70s anyway"

Do they teach propaganda in Kristiansand, Norway? Wow! Xx236 14:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear C: While I applaud your laudable interest in the cosmetics of web esthetics, may I ask: "Did you read any of the references before you deleted them?" I have read almost all of them, and find many most interesting. Do you realize that books with authors such as the Che, Raul Castro and many others are cited here, along with many other Cubans and scholars of matters Cuban. El Jigue 3-9-06

Who is from Norway? Why can't participants in this talk page stay on topic? Anyway, the sources were not deleted they were moved. Your implication that there was an ideological basis behind this, only serves to confirm what I said above. See also: United States/References. El_C 00:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

By viewing your own site El_C one could readily, but surely incorrectly, mistake your point of view for that of a left wing ideologue and thus by essence POV. El Jigue 3-8-06

I don't have a site. You must adhere to the tag's instructions and facilitate a discussion, or your changes will be viewed as vandalism. El_C 02:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

From N Johann to El Jigue(and that other guy not signing his insults)10.03.06 You seem to be a bit out of your terf on your reply mr.El Jigue. Cuba is not an hell on earth, as you emply. to that it is a fairly open country. even you may freely visit it and travel around. you will find povrety of som forms, but when i compare it to places like Tanzania and Peru(where we currently have projects going) cuba is doing ok. practicly no "hunger" to speek of, and a migty high level of both healthcare and education unrivald by practicly any in the hemisphere. all thoug i liked the part about the chech super model hiding negatives in her bra. as the article says relations betveen tsjekkia and Cuba are cold, and anything that aids the program of the governement is published. if i dont remember wrong, communism was forbidden by law some years ago, partly by the "green party" (borderline facists in my opinion).BTW an elderly friend of mine went to tsjekkia for a labour union meting 2 yrs. ago. the hotell got stormd by riot police and he got beaten and tourtured, then expelled. his whole upper body was black, blue and bloody. Free unions are defacto forbiden. mind you he was not breaking any written laws, the man is over 70! - And you dare patrenise me for propaganda?- my advise dont trust tsjekk sources bout cuba. and now we again come to the selective critizism, i dont know anything about you so i shall thread lightly, but you seem to have some kind of hatered towards the cuban republic? -are you a miami relative :) I dont really know if I would rely on miami sources ither. lot of bad blood there. the prison situation i know nothing about, but its no four star hotel. the whole story all though is not told. the us has supportet terrorism against cuba over the years, amongst others plots to blow up hotells and cruseliners, som ther might be "a war on terror" making it harder for the opposition, last month there also wer major demonstrations(ca.100.000) by the us mission in havana, as the us had mounted a gigant screen showing fox(or somthing) to the supressed masses. but i ask you this: how many red-cuban tv channels are on the air in the us? -i am sorry for so thuroughly breaching the theme of this section-

The tag

The NPOV tag is not meant to be used to either avoiding a "relevant discussion" nor (when pressed by me to adhere to its instructions), as a pretext to engage in off-topic polemics. Note that I may ban the editor who introduced it from the article indefinitely, as per the ruling of the Arbitration Committee ([11] , [12] , [13]) at my discretion (s/he is currently blocked for other infractions), though I am not going to do so, yet. El_C 00:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

El C: do you really believe you have the authority to remove material people see as pertinent and then attempt to ban them by misapplying some rule. El Jigue 3-08-06

That rhetorical question is a straw man. El_C 01:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

and no its not a straw man, i seriously doubt you even know what that means now! (Gibby 14:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

You cannot block me for disputing the page. That is a gross totalitarian violation of the rule!

I dispute this page as a propoganda piece that just keeps on praising Cuba and castro and when criticism is applied it is deleted, if it stays some bogus pov original research counter point is made that hardly addresses the point but praises cuba anyway. See healthcare for an example. I dispute. THis Cuba article needs more work and we need to find out how many IPs are coming from Cuba...i seriously suspect pure propoganda work by the communists that are working this page. (Gibby 14:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

I can and will, as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KDRGibby#Remedies, unless you conduct yourself in accordance with that RfAr's guidelines. If you dispute something, best to bring references (for ex., sources comparing Haiti's public healthcare vs. Cuba's, etc.). El_C 14:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have already brought it up in discusion, such tags are allowed to go, especially given the leftist disputes of pages I have edited in, I am in no violation of rules given a hoard of precident. You however would be in violation 1. to violate the rule to achieve an end and 2. block a user you are in dispute with.

And I'm not the only one who has disputed the page. (Gibby 14:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

You have brought it and in a highly inappropriate way. Feel free to request another admin to look into this, but until you explain specifically what you object to, the tag cannot remain, indefinitely. Please do not place it again without bothering to methodically outline these objections. You have failed to do so, thus far. You are failing to do so now. As far as I see, you are disrupting this article. El_C 14:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am disputing the way the article is being presented, edited, and some of the content (or lack there of) My treatment on the heathcare section is evidence enough of a political bias that seeks to eliminate criticism. The page is also a big old mess but I dont know a tag that reads (TOTAL JUNK). El J guy also has complaints that you seem to ignore... (Gibby 14:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

None of these are specific complaints. The chronically blocked El J has not offered any, either. El_C 15:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Details and such have been presented ad nauseum yet, one sees little chance of anything happening in this regard since El_C proudly displays a massive portrait of Guevara (click on it to see). As to chronically blocked one wonders who did the blocking (:>) Creo que ni el Medico Chino va a salvar esta seccion. El Jigue 3-10-06 Una fecha maldita

They have not; not in any coherent fashion. If you vandalize the article again, the block duration will be considreably more lengthy. El_C 04:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

El_C it would seem you define "vandalism" and "coherence" in your own su generis fashion, could you be more specific El Jigue 3-13-06

Candidates for the National Assembly are nominated by municipal assemblies with one candidate for each seat

Has ever any candidate been rejected? Xx236 15:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby: Soft ban on editing Cuba

Because KDRGibby has been removing well sourced statements from Cuba on the stated grounds that they are "original research" [14] [15], I'm banning him from editing that article under Remedy 2 (probation) of his arbitration case.

This is a soft ban, I add the proviso that it can be overturned by any administrator at any time. I'm adding it to the list of bans at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, and I'm submitting it for review on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Administrators, please comment, modify or rescind. --Tony Sidaway 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This ban does not apply to comments on Talk:Cuba. --Tony Sidaway 23:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Tony that material was clearly original research the way it was used in the [[Cuba[[ page. IT was implying something that was NOT cited. It was claiming that the statement above was wrong based on cited information. The statement above these sources claimed that Cuba runs a two tiered segregated healthcare system. The statement that was deleted was als pov and said something to the effect "Clearly this ignores data which suggests the Cuban healthcare system is one of the best in the world" and cites ciafactbook as source. CIA factbook sources rank life expectancy and child mortality rates, 1. niether of which tell us that the healthcare system is great, 2. neither of which tell us that the segregated healthcare system doesnt exist.

The way the citations are used is Original Research!

This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH, i therefore have a right to do delete it, especially since I had explained it in the page. And while you are at it, especially if you don't unblock me there, please block Slizor from Classical Liberalism you can CLEARLY see he has done that dozens of times. Thanks (Gibby 23:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

"Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"."

Perhaps Gibby would care to expalin how quoting the CIA fact book adds up to a novel narrative or historical interpretation. Or is it that the CIA is not a reputable source. MichaelW 01:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that the CIA is not a reputable source, please pay attention. I said drawing two conclusions that the source is not stating is Original research. The CIA factbook gives data on life expectancy and child mortality rate. 1. From this the editor drew the conclusion that Cuba has an excellent healthcare system...that is pov and original research as cia factbook does not make this claim. 2. From this conclusion the editor draws another conclusion that the citation claiming that cuba runs a two tiered segregated medical system MUST be wrong...this is also a pov and original research.

I hope this re explination of the re explination of the explination helps this time around. (Gibby 04:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

If it was accurate it might. You are the one who needs pay attention. El C's edit read

"...none of this information provides a negation of the claim that Cuba runs a segregated two tiered healthcare system." To sort out the double negatives for you, that means the info doesn't refute the claim of a two tiered system. It does however have at least as much validity as your presentation of speculation on the part of extremely anti-communist organisations that the Cuban system is a big lie.

Having had a Cuban friend (not a CP member) go down with Guillame-Barre syndrome and having watched him be nursed from paralysis back to full health with the use of very expensive drugs and having visited him in the aftercare clinic I know the speculation to be false in the way it is made. But that is original research and therefore not for use in the article. There is now a two tier system in Cuba and just like the rest of the world it is about how much money you have, it is part of Cuba's reluctant engagement with capitalism. Health tourism it's called.MichaelW 10:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Health tourism is a way the Cuban government can make money...thats it. And your friend is irrelevant to the conversation. As is the cia fact book information in attempting to prove the statement wrong.,,,and you need to pay attention, that counter statement you quoted was my addition before I decided to get deletionist on this crappy article. (Gibby 11:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

My apologies, you are right. That doesn't make the bit you left behind any more worthwhile. What is the encyclopedic relevance of a claim by an anticommunist organisation of perfidy on the part of a bunch of communists? That's like John Wayne saying "The only good injun is a dead one" being considered an asset in assessing Apache culture.MichaelW 14:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I could simply add Cato Institute and the National Review but you would probably make the same assesment of them. (Gibby 18:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC))

Michael and Tony what you may not know is that the CIA data is merely taken directly or indirectly from each country's own statistics. Why the CIA does this is not known, but I feel sure there is some devious reason. It could be to cover up any reliable agents they have in Cuba, it could be not to ruffle diplomatic feathers. If you want to check that look at the Cuban governments own data and the CIA stuff will see they are about the same. The strange thing somebody funds studies to determine or guess at what the real numbers are. Once I mentioned this to a presumed spook (he did have a name tag saying CIA) at a meeting, and he merely smiled a smile as wide as that of a cheshire cat. It was weird. Some theorize that the company and Castro have some kind of modus vivendi, he may "shop" information on other left of center groups in Latin America who knows. There are so many things one does not know nor perhaps ever will know. Keep a sense of humor somehow that helps El Jigue 3-10-06

Arnold August

If August's political alignment is relevant, then so must be the political alignment of all authors of the references in these pages. Many of the supposedly unbiased scholarly citations added by El J are by US residents and hostile to government supported developments on the island. Perhaps he'd like to draw our attention to this as well. MichaelW 01:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Arnold August is at times a tourist guide in Havana, I thought people should know that. It seems that on the Cuban circumstance there is little or no unbiased data. Matter of fact those who give extremely negative data are as likely as those who give extremely positive data to be working or allied with Castro. Castro himself may not know what is really going on in Cuba, since unfavorable reports are frowned on. For instance if a hurricane passes over Cuba the casualties are set by what Castro says they are. If the numbers do not fit they will be made to fit. One can probably rely to some extent on satellite imagery, and basic physical measurements for instance people are puzzling right now why Havana Harbour has so little shipping. But then I am also viewed as an unreliable source. Xe xe El Jigue 3-10-06

Unreliable?? That's a humble understatement. You talk bollocks sometimes. In this case first of all you wanted people to know that AA was a commie, presumably with the implication that his report was not to be believed. If you want people to know something which is very much background to the article - here's tha place to post it, not in the article.

Negative reports are frowned on. Is this so distinctly Cuban? Supporters of the US establishment call this Anti-Americanism when the criticism is levelled at their favoured system and often attempt to hound the critics into silence. Meanwhile the same people will talk up every negative insinuation they can about Cuba and claim it as near as dammit fact. I do so love the stink of hypocrisy in the morning. Time for breakfast. MichaelW 10:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Michael El Jigue 3-11-06

Anytime El J MichaelW 16:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations again!!! Now essentially only August's citation, a Canadian marxist leninist author, and Havana tour guide, is on the first page, all the rest of the contemporary hard copy references are now moved to a secondary place. Does that seem NPOV correct to you? El Jigue 3-12-06

What am I to be congratulated for? I removed irrelevant links to background information on the author of the citation. Were we to require the same information for each of our citations the page would be top heavy with links, and how many of your 'formal' citations would originate from the heart of anti Castro territory. There _is_ another link in the end list, to an article on Cuban elections. But that one is uncritical as well. If you want to 'balance' them why not find an article which is critical of Cuban electoral processes, and which hopefully amounts to something more than a crass 'it's all a sham' attack. Have you read the Discourse page on the Bye Bye Havana website? The response to Jimmy Carter at the centre of that needs answering if you are to criticise the Cuban system with any vigour. MichaelW 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course I understand it is so cold in Canada in the Winter. However, the use of a single marxist source, that heavy handed edit of yours and removal of pertinent references to a subterranean limbo, has reduced this section to an absurdity. Now with these mal adroit edits my point that these elections are a mere sham has been made with a reductum al absurdum proof. As to Jimmy I had better not talk he has really been acting odd lately El Jigue 3-12-06

Wow. I've been using Wikipedia for over a year now, I guess you can call me a newbie, start hurling your insults now. But to those of you that choose to read on, I'm just a person that looks up all matter of things here, and I've made a handful of edits only in cases of egregious mistakes. I was skeptical of the editing policy at first, but eventually came to trust wikipedia as a reliable source. Today I stumbled on the page for Cuba, and my whole opinion of this site has changed completely. It is clear that this page has been hijacked by leftists and has become, with the exception of a few points that contradict, pro-communist propaganda. This is a country where a mother will put her baby on wooden raft through 90 miles of sea to give him a chance at a better life(or will you tell me that is a lie, better yet ask for a citation). Yet by reading this article you would think Cuba is the greatest place on Earth except for a few crazy people that disagree. It's unfortunate that certain users have colluded to block/silence the truth. And one of the so-called moderators who talks about reverting and blocking people has a big picture of Che Guevarra on the top of his page. Where are the real moderators? Someone who is truly NPOV? Can someone please step up? El Jigue, keep fighting the fight, man. ~~Kane 13-3-06~~

Well Kane, there are plenty who come along and go Oh wow this page has been taken over by anti-communists, with those sympathetic to the Cuban Revolution fighting a rearguard action. What that suggests is that there is a continuing debate and tussle over the editing of these pages which mirror the ideological antagonisms actually at play.

Your poignant example of the mother and child will be matched a thousand times over by other tales of poor people struggling to reach lands promising a better life, from other countries in Latin America trying to reach the USA. I doubt you are applying the same standard to those countries that you apply to Cuba. This would suggest that your humanitarian impulse is a sham, hiding your real reason for dismay.

There is no possibility of an NPOV with regard to Cuba. The best we can do is to provide a general description of the system and its history and also describe the different existing viewpoints which Cuba engenders in the world.

There may be some here who do think Fidel is the bees knees and Cuba is the most advanced society yet in human history. There are rather more of us who just don't see the 'truth' the way you (Kane/El J/A.N.Otheranticommie) do. Who are looking to describe Cuba, warts and all, but who see warts and illnesses, not cancers and other terminal conditions. Cuba is, like any live system, a mixture of growth and decay, and the most common tactic of Cuba's enemies is to ignore the growth, latch on to a sign of decay and declare the system dying on its feet. MichaelW 10:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Warts and all? Michael, surely a tyrannical dictator who has had a stanglehold on power for over 45 years is more than a wart. How can people sit there with a straight face and actually argue this? You've labeled me as both anti-communist and a humanitarian, 2 things I never claimed to be, yet I will not label you or question your good faith, sir. Sure, there are folks from all over the world who struggle everyday to make a better life for their families, even facing danger, but stop trying to equate that to people risking life and limb on homemade rafts practically every day to escape that place. There is simply no other sitauation on Earth that compares over the past 40 years(now you will go looking for comparable examples, please don't bother). It doesn't matter because clearly no one is going to change anyone's mind here. Besides, if I am not mistaken you are the guy who says Castro is not a dictator and Cuba is not a communist state. That pretty much ends any chance of us having a rational discussion.

It's just amazing to me that despite so much empirical and anecdotal evidence, this regime has so much support, I suspect from people who are sitting at their nice computers in their democratic capitalist countries that have access to the entire internet. What I would like to know is why these supporters of the so-called "revolution" don't simply move to Cuba and advance the cause. It seems to me that would be ideal for them and they would never have to worry about their health. Fidel would welcome them with open arms. And for the record, those of us that would prefer to see a free Cuba(let them stay communist if they CHOOSE to do so) are NOT enemies of Cuba. ~~Kane 14-3-06~~

Kane Not to worry there is no convincing such "true believers" because their beliefs are part of their identity and assuage their mental discomfort by helping explain their lack of fit to free society. El Jigue 3-14-06

There's plenty of empirical and anecdotal evidence that Cuba isn't a hellhole ruled over by a tyrannical dictator, but you two aren't going to give that evidence any credence. You two are true believers in the evils of Castroism. I believe that the Cuban system is for the most part benign. I consider it important, as did the government of Nelson Mandela, that Cuba was instrumental in the defeat of apartheid, while the US companies were busy profiting from investment in that system. Like I said there is no NPOV with Cuba. You two believe one thing I believe another. The most we can do here, remembering this is about putting together an encyclopedia entry, is to describe those different perspectives. MichaelW 22:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

MichaelW: Castro has been in power for more than 40 years, ruling with an iron fist, silencing those who dare criticize his leadership. Please amuse me by disputing this. Or if that statement is true, what will it take for you to call someone a dictator, much less a tyrannical one? I hate to burst your bubble but there is such word as dictator and in the english language it is defined as: "1 a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force. • a person who tells people what to do in an autocratic way or who determines behavior in a particular sphere" who is that if not Castro? Don't you understand that by not acknowledging the simplest of truths, your credibility on anything else is called into question?And I assure you, I am just a casual user whose feelings are not particularly strong on this matter, I stumbled on this page while looking for the history of Cuban baseball. But the truth is the truth, and you can't change it even if you have succeeded here. This shouldn't be a war between ideoulogues, I thought this was an encyclopedia. Other people smarter than myself have already tried to bring some more balance to this article but the Castro apologists seem to have a lot of power here. Please, step away from your world of theory and recognize the real suffering of the poor people of Cuba at the hands of this maniac. You are right about one thing though: Castro executes and persecutes blacks and white alike, he is no racist. ~~Kane 14-3-06~~

Theory? I've lived and worked in Cuba, I lived with ordinary Cubans, not in some tourist enclave. I find it very difficult to match the society I experienced with the obscene caricature that you say is the truth. One of the key things said about Cuba is that if you go there for a short holiday you can have all your assumptions about the place confirmed, but the longer you stay the more you find your assumptions are simplistic prejudice and that the truth is far more multilayered and provisional. MichaelW 06:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael after your brain was washed, was it dried electrically or was the power off again. El Jigue 3-15-05

Nah, power was fine. I was hanging out at Cubasolar[16] at the time. They styled my hair and tightened my vocal chords while they were at it. MichaelW 20:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Gibby blocked yet again

It seems that poor Gibby is being blocked again

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KDRGibby

"You have been temporarily blocked from editing for "vandalism" (my quotes El Jigue) of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. - FrancisTyers 03:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)"

Please note that I was not the one who blocked Gibby. I received an email from Gibby asking me to unprotect their page, which I did, I then added a block notice as one had not been added by the previously blocking administrator. Just to set the record straight. - FrancisTyers 18:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"It is my belief I did not violate 3RR because you were not supposed to be making any changes to the article in the first place. Therefore, my reversions of your edits counted as reversions of a policy violation. Your changes were not exactly vandalism, but they were in violation of your page ban, which was in turn caused because if your parole, which was in turn because of the arbitration case which was in turned cause by your frequent recurring disruptive behaviour. The rules are not being misapplied as you are the aggressor. The principles of Wikipedia is not a law system. We are here to write an encyclopedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation's ultimate goal is to give the total sum of human knowledge freely to everyone in the world. It is not a law system. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)"

It could seem to some as if half of the extreme left in Quebec and Ontario Canada is trying to enforce spurious interpretation of the rules on Gibby. What I want to know is why no Welsh socialist has done the same.....

Thus one to make a logical interpretation all this seems to suggest that there are some editing at this site have very little love of freedom of speech. All this makes support for Castro from this quarter almost comprehensible.

So much for freedom and liberty on Wikipedia. El Jigue 3/14-06

Good Lord! Get a grip. Oh, we're being censored! Oh, this article is communist propaganda! Oh, Havana tour guides are evil incarnate! That's why this Talk page exists - to protect freedom of speech while preventing the main article descending into complete partisan chaos. Your comments and criticisms of the Cuban government are here for all and sundry to read. Where's the censorship in that? Famousdog 14:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree more Famous Dog. Cuba is a paradise where even the jails are perfect, health and education reign supreme. Havana tour guides are bearers of the truth and write treatises on the electoral system. Labor is free and the workers rule under the guidance of the supreme leader and the communist party. It is only evil persons such as me and those horrendous anti-Castroites in Miami, who sully the reputation of this paradise on earth. People such as I must be banned, their writings on Cuba corrected or erased, their sources hidden in the darkest crannies of Wikipedia. Such is the great happiness of that tropical land that, for their own good, it is necessary to stop people from leaving. Oops I must not say that or I will be blocked “once more again.” El Jigue 3-15-06

The next piece did it, it was erased from the discussion section and I was blocked yet again by some Wiki-persona whose page suggests he hails from "Mother Russia" xe xe El Jigue 3-20-06

It's not America's opposition to Castro or Saddam any other dictators that annoys me. It's their hypocrisy - when Saddam was doing what they wanted they helped his government. It's the same with Batista. Any of you heard of him? He was the dictator in Cuba before Castro and because he pandered to business, the US liked him. Castro may be a bastard but the average Cuban is doing alot better under him than Batista. 144.132.246.108 11:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for those who believe in progress through time, Castro's rule has been far longer and far more vicious and bloody than Batista's ever was. For instance while per capita income per year in Cuba is perhaps $3,000 the general Cuban population gets less than $120. Housing seems to consist of subdivisions of old buildings from the pre-Castro era. Food is rationed, and prisons are far larger than in previous times. Education and medical statistics are merely those presented by the Castro government, which international bodies accept uncritically. El Jigue 2-24-06

Clean Up?

I hate to complain and interupt the current discussion about Wikipedian censorship, but as someone who uses Wikipedia quite a bit, I really think this article is a little below the site's standards. Here's a couple problems I spotted and as a complete Wikinewbie, am not sure how to fix:

In the History section "According to Antonio Núñez Jiménez Cuba/Printed sources. a now deceased high Cuban official, at the time when Batista was deposed, 75% of Cuba's prime farm land was owned by foreign individuals or foreign (mostly U.S.) companies." The two links followed by a period are really confusing, in my opinion.

Then later on: "Cuba [17] and the US have also engaged in continuing acts of espionage against one another..." As you can see, this external link (http://.org/espionage) is dead.

Also, perhaps it's simply a lack of understanding on my part, but there also seems to be inconsistent period and comma usage, especially whenever an external link is provided. When multiple links are listed, sometimes they are seperated by commas (i.e. [14],[15]), sometimes simply sit next to each other (i.e. [16][17]), and at other times are seperated by periods (i.e. [19],[20].[21]).

Thanks for your time, attention, and good work.

Thank you. That was useful. Perhaps commas are best, although my syntax can usually do some work for I usually spell "separated" with an a in the second syllable. Do you want to Google for Cuban spies in the US. I get 1,210,000 hits. Dunno which to pick, should I pick the latest academics at FIU, the expelled Cuban diplomats, the "Red Avispa net work" or Ana Belen Montes. Perhaps we should agree that by now this matter is "common knowledge" and thus does not require citations. Some time ago I did have a piece on the "History of Cuban Espionage" which dealt known history of Cuba spies from Taino time, through the US Civil War, to the present but that made some people very angry, dunno why, and thus was repeatedly deleted by others. If you want let us see if somebody with pull can put it back. El Jigue 3-20-06

p.s. Antonio Núñez Jiménez was made a Commandante in the Sierra but as far as I know the only bullets that went over his head were when he was hiding with Castro and his headquarters staff in "Las Cuevas de Santa Barbara" (which was really miles away) from action during the November 20-30 1958 prolonged ambush on the road between El Horno and Guisa. However, then there was at least 100 feet of rock between him and the bullets. El Jigue 3-20-06

Education and Research

Do we have any pages on Education in Cuba or Research in Cuba that I am missing? - FrancisTyers 18:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Guess so :) - FrancisTyers 19:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Francis Go to main page of Cuba section El Jigue 3-21-06

El Jigue to be banned again

I just inserted ""After the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the PCF (French Communist Party) was declared a proscribed organisation. The PCF pursued an anti-war course during the early part of the Second World War." Maurice Thorez head of PCF "deserted from the French Army and fled to the Soviet Union. " [18] " into Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and I expect to be banned again soon. Will be back after ban ends. El Jigue 3-24-06

El Jigue is still unbanned

To resolve a question brought up by critic "Sanmartin" the item History will Absolve Me has been edited and a link has been forged Cuba. As of right now (it is sure to be changed) this edit now reads:

History Will Absolve Me is the title of a speech made by Fidel Castro in 1953. It has been later published as a book. Castro made the speech in his own defense against the charges brought on him after the attack on the Moncada Barracks by the 26th of July Movement, which he led. The speech received its title from its last sentence: "History will absolve me".

However, the last three sentences of this speech read Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me. [19] Thus many critics of Castro have pointed out that this speech given contains s loose translation of the words found in Hitler's Mein Kampf "The judges of this state may go right ahead and convict us for our actions at that time, but History, acting as the goddess of a higher truth and a higher justice, will one day smilingly tear up this verdict, acquitting us of all guilt and blame.'" [20]

NW0G

Ahah here comes the charge of the Castro apologists with NWOG leading the van. El Jigue 3-24.06

Current revision NWOG (Talk | contribs) (→Economy) Just erased “Over 7,300 homes have been completed in 2005; ‘’thus it is expected (estimating five people per residence) that in about three hundred years all housing will be replaced.’’”

NWOG apparently believes that erasing the matter from Wikipedia will automatically solve the disastrous housing situation in Cuba. However, not to worry Fidel Castro just bought himself a wonderful armored plane [21] [22]. El Jigue 3-26-06

El Comandante's erasures

While one might understand El Comandante's extreme leftist bent, still it is not clear why El Comandante constantly erases references to leftist Graham Greene and his famous novel "Our Man in Havana," the slave vessel "La Amistad" and the unfortunate Jews aboard the SS St. Louis. Weird!! El Jigue 3-31-06

And note that this diehard commie is systematically deleting sourced material on Fidel Castro page, which I as a liberal and critical wikipedian following NPOV of course can not tolerate. Beware of User:Comandante's actions!--Constanz - Talk 16:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuba is the Mother, not the Fatherland

As indicated by its gender, the use of a in the last syllable and the use of the article (la), La Patria, the motherland, is female [23]. The symbol of the republic, La República, is also clearly female [24]. El Jigue 3-31-06

In Spanish certainly. Not in English, however. (Mátria, or Motherland, doesn't exists also) José San Martin 14:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

However, the term motherland does exist in Cuba (see cite), that Fatherland stuff has Germanic roots, which are completely alien (forget the Visigoths) and abhorent to Cuban culture. When Gerardo Machado when said he wanted to make Cuba the Switzerland of the Americas, there was a joke that his flunkies were whispering words to the effect '?Pero de donde vamos a encontrar tantos suizos en Cuba?' El Jigue 3-31-06

When a Cuban dies in battle it is not for a "Fatherland" but for his homeland. See: pa·tria f. homeland, native land [25].

Patria (v. Patriarchal) is from the latin Pater (which became Padre in castillian)... you have Father (masc.) -Patr- as a modifier of the noun Land (FEM.) -ia-... that is why Patria (My Father's Land) takes LA... Patria is feminine, but it means Fatherland (from the cojonudos romans, not teutons... you've fallen for the "little dictator" making-fun antics of yankis)... the cuban's "Madre Patria" is spain, not cuba... he dies for his father's LAND, LA PATRIA... o carioca --200.142.180.66 21:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I'll post the info here

Since persons researching Cuba might find this info useful. Esp. those research Int'l politics. I'm not dealing with this anti-Cuba cartel on the Cuba article any longer.

Government and politics + In terms of relations with neighboring states, Cuba is a member of the Association of Caribbean States (ACS) of which in 2006 it was re-appointed as the chair- of the special committee on transportation issues in the Caribbean region[26], Cuba is a founding member of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, a member of the Latin American Integration Association and the United Nations. Since November, 2004 attempts have also been made several leaders of South America to make Cuba either a full or associate member of the South American trade-bloc known as Mercosur. [27], [28]. CaribDigita 15:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Denial of exit from Cuba once again inforced fire arms

A recent incident [29] might be taken to suggest that the present government of Cuba enforces its denial of exit by force.

Carlos Manuel de Cespedes declares Independence October 10, 1868

and his follows declared independence on October 10, 1868 at Yara in the Muncipality of Bayamo [30], where once Hatuey was burned for fighting for freedom. That is why the Cuban National anthem is called "La Bayamesa." Yara (a synonym for Maria Leonza) is the goddess of freedom in Arawak languages, such spoken in Cuba and Venezuela (María Lionza, María de Onza o María Leonza, es el nuevo nombre de Yara [31]). During the Cuban Wars of Independence the light of Yara "La luz de Yara" was supposed to give far greater strength in battle [32] []. Conspiracies against Spain took place in Key West at a club of the same name [33]. El Jigue 4-3-06

free business or personal property illegal

Recently added to the politics section: "...makes free business or personal property illegal". Is this true or verifible? There is plenty of free business, in the street markets, and in paladeres, and casa particulars. Also, personal property is legal, perhaps you meant to write 'real property'? BruceHallman 19:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that paragraph as it is unsubstantiated and plain wrong. The majority of Cubans own their homes, and private business has been legal since the early to mid nineties. Perhaps whoever added the para would like to reword it to say what they mean more accurately. MichaelW 21:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with you, but: Is it true that the Majority of Cubans own their own homes? As I understand it, Cubans own most of the rights to their homes, but not necessarily the right to sell their home. BruceHallman 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the limitation has more to do with valuation - points/banding rather than monetary - so exchange is the method of moving home rather than selling and buying. I'm sure someone else knows more than me. MichaelW 19:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Cuban government picks favorates. There's *some* Caribbean companies who operate as what appears to be 'free' in Cuba. So long as they pay *dues* directly to the Cuban government for what the government claims is "for the workers' healthcare, and worker's insurance" etc. Some Canadian and Spanish companies also----- operate in Cuba in what seems to be 'free', I assume the trade off is they have to agree to similar conditions with the Cuban government. CaribDigita 20:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the mid nineties joint ventures have been sorted out with many foreign firms buying up to 49% in the previously fully state owned enterprise. Meanwhile many state farms have been turned into workers co-operatives - the Cuban equivalent of privatisation. MichaelW 20:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Title to property in Cuba is held by the state. What residents of houses have is 'usofructo. That is use of the property as long as their political attitudes meet state requirements. The quality of assignments of "property" are dependent on political status, and are not always inheritable (e.g. the descendents of "Korda" were evicted). Other property e.g. old US refrigerators can be removed by the state. As to commerce there has been a recent crack down on even the smallest private enterprise. El Jigue 4-7-06

Communist State vs Republic

Would anybody like to talk this over?

My question centers around: What would be a neutral point of view? According to Wikipedia Communist State is a term coined by Western society, and while I am sure it has 'neutral' connotations to some people, to me at least, it seems perjorative. The long form name of Cuba is "Republic of Cuba", though describing the government as simply a "republic" seems imprecise. The form of government of Cuba appears, to me at least, to be patterned after the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics . So, I argue, a neutral POV description of the type of government would be: "Socialist Republic". Also, according to Wikipedia, the term "Communist State" was never used by Socialist Republics to describe themselves. BruceHallman 14:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a differance between socialism and communism. The Cubans have explicitly stated that they are communists, not merely socialists. The term "Democratic People's Republic" is ussually the one used by communist states; if we recorded the government type as "Democracy" it would simply be inaccurate however. Likewise, the name "republic" is in the name of probably the majority of nations of Earth - to simply call them all republics would be simply vague and in many cases inaccurate. The name "socialist republic" has been used by non-communists (I believe Salvador Allende wanted to use it for Chile and some French have argued for that in the name of France for years) as well as non-communist nations. It is important that the readers realize that Cuba is a communist nation, not a member of the "third way." ()

I am not arguing with your point of view. Indeed, neither am I arguing with the opposite point of view. Instead, I am trying to suggest a neutral position that falls in between these opposing points of views. Re-reading your post I see your valid arguments of your point of view. I don't see any suggestion of potential compromises that might reflect a neutral 'balance point' between the two points of view. So, I repeat: What would be a neutral point of view? BruceHallman 15:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

IMHO. Cuba is a Republic, they have no monarch or head of state which outside of their country. Their economy -- is communist. CaribDigita 16:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You make a good and valid argument of your point of view, CaribDigita. I am still looking for a compromise between the opposing points of view. Or better said, we are looking for a compromise, I hope. And, my suggestion of "socialist republic" still stands. BruceHallman 16:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This has actually been discussed at length before [34]. Cuba, or any other state where there is only a single legal political entity cannot be accurately described as a republic. Granted, the name of the USSR made reference to "republics", but then again the DPRK refers to itself as "democratic" as well. If "Communist state" is viewed as pejorative, I'd be in favor of "Single party state". --Bletch 22:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I just read the Talk thread mentioned by Bletch, and see that 'Socialist State/Republic' is mentioned more often than any other choice, which is evidence that this might be a good concensus and NPOV choice. To me the fact that 'Republic of Cuba' includes the word 'Republic' carrys weight. Although there is plenty of POV opinion! 'Single Party State' appears accurate and neutral, but I don't see others sharing that choice, and I imagine it would seem odd or strained to a casual reader. BruceHallman 00:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No offense but there are lots of single party states that do not operate as communist states. Socialism is also different than communism. I think calling Cuba simply "a republic" or simply a "socialist" state is inaccurate - the government is the archtypical communist system. The system in communist states by which the party nominates one or a few candidates for each position, and/or approves various candidates not affiliated with parties to run with their tacit approval is essentially unique to communism. While I don't expect normal people will get that much out of just the name communist state, it should be enough to get people to realize that the government is of that type should they wish to do additional looking around. It would be incorrect to simply call it "democracy" or "republic." ()

The point isn't technically the accuracy of the label, but the neutrality, concensus and verifibility. The government was clearly based upon the USSR model, and that has the universally recognized label of 'Socialist Republic'. Arguments about semantics of accuracy (or trueness) of the word 'socialist' in that expression are not really relevant to that univerally accepted label, USSR. I just edited in both of the POV's, which hopefully can be accepted as a compromise to achieve NPOV. BruceHallman 17:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Communist state" I predict was something imported with much of the other information from the U.S. CIA world factbook. That goes without saying ofcourse. The more I look at this "Socialist Republic" the more it makes sense. The United States is a "Federal *Republic*" because it has no Monarchy and a native American is the Head of State, not a foreign leader. Iran is an Islamic *Republic* again because they have no foreign leaders as their Head of State. Venezuela is a Republic, again because Hugo Chavez is their head of state, whether he turns the country Communist or not doesn't mean the country would stop being a republic. The fact that they are soverign dictates they are a Republic. Hence why Australia or Canada which are democratic yet, aren't republics because Queen Elizabeth through their Governor General is their head of state. CaribDigita 17:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "Communist State" is an external label applied by Western interests. If the origin comes from the CIA Factbook, there are probably valid questions about the neutrality of their point of view. I cannot immediately provide a citation, but, I get the distinct impression that "Communist State" is purjorative, and undesirable because of POV. I would edit it out, except, due to the heat and polarity of the argument, my edit is unlikely to prevail until (unless) a concensus can be reached. BruceHallman 19:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Most communists not in western nations tend to regard the term "socialist" as a more "umbrella" or "envelope" term that would include governments that are not communist either in administration or fully communal in economic policy. Technically, too, India called itself, I believe informally, a "socialist republic" and a "socialist democracy" all the way into the 90s and opposition parties still use it today. Likewise with several Arab states, like Saddam Hussein's "Arab Socialist Democracy" and even as one the alternative terms for the gulf war in Iraq "the war for Arab Socialist Democracy" - Cuba's government is distictly different from some of the other states that called themselves "social republics" or "social democracies" - including both third world views (like India and Iraq) and Eastern communists states (USSR most prominently, but also China, NK, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos etc etc). There needs to be an explicit distinction I feel. I guess it is sufficiently neutral to allow the term "socialist state" to stand as an alternative point of view, even though Castro calls himself "communist in full" (as opposed to the more limited "socialism" advocated by some early allies). Might as well leave both there for now. ()

The discussion is not about the adjective 'socialist' in an expression '...socialist republic...', but rather about a compound worded noun 'Socialist Republic', which has its own distinct and separate meaning. Historically governments patterned on the USSR model have been known by the noun 'Socialist Republics' whether or not they were 'socialist republics'. It is a well recognized historical title, not an expression. BruceHallman 21:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the country in question is that despite all pretentions, the country in question is not a republic; to be a republic you have to have a head of state that is put into power by an electorate. Yes, the government of Cuba claims that it is a republic, but my above comment about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea still applies. I'm still willing to settle for "Single party state", which yes is a mouthful. At the same time, the entry on Vietnam refers to the country as a "Communist Single party state", and the article on Single party state says such countries with Marxist-Lenninist ideologies are often referred to as Communist states. Food for thought. --Bletch 23:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Bletch, you too are confusing '...socialist republic...' with 'Socialist Republic'. Can you at least agree that the world called Russia a Socialist Republic, when part of the USSR, without regard to whether they were actually a '...socialist republic...' BruceHallman 23:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I might be revealing my ignorace, but in Cuba the National Assembly is elected in elections, and then nominates and elects the president. Is that structurally different than the USA electoral college system? BruceHallman 23:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's probably fair to say that Russia was officially titled a "socialist republic" under the USSR, but that isn't really relevant. The purpose of the government entry in the infobox is to identify what type of government is actually in place. You are correct that there is a national assembly in Cuba that officially elects the president, but the whole process is a sham when other political parties are forbidden. --Bletch 00:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The SR is USSR standing for Solcialist Republic is as irrelevant as the "Democratic Republic" GDR and the "People's Republic" in PRC. Jooler 17:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

At least you are admitting that, nominally at least, Cuba has elections. I also can appreciate your opinion (POV) that they are a sham.

Could you point me to a verifiable reference that shows that Republics must have political parties, and if so, how many? BruceHallman 14:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

One could also argue that Cuba is a Kingdom, since the head of state position is permanent and inheritable through the family line. However, the Cuban government has its own nomenclature for instance the defacto requirement for "volunteer" labor. El Jigue 4-7-06.

Bletch, writng that the 'sham' quality of an election is the reason behind your argument appears to fail the WP:NOR and WP:NPOV tests. El Jigue, your opinions are valid, but too appear to fail the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR tests. Jooler, your opinions too are valid, but appear to fail the WP:NPOV test.

The summary of this leans towards the conclusion that "Socialist Republic" is clearly against your POV's but never-the-less "Socialist Republic" is in accordance with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I am still open to hear and discuss more of your arguments if you have them to offer. BruceHallman 18:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that any elections, no matter the nature, is enough to justify dubbing a nation a republic. Please back *your* information up with sources; as far as I can tell, your entire argument seems to rest upon the idea that the government label should reflect the official positions of the country in question; thats a very tough thing to justify. --Bletch 13:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I demand your proof, you demand my proof. Of, we both agree, a 'tough thing to justify'.

Therefore you argue that your POV must stay in place until I convince you otherwise.

I estimate we have about a zero chance of convicing each other to change our POV's.

You wrote "the burden of proof is on you". I just re-read WP:NPOV and did not see that to be Wikipedia policy. Would you please re-read the WP:NPOV and point to the basis for your "the burden of proof is on you" requirement? Thanks in advance, your considerate response is necessary to resolve our dispute. BruceHallman 16:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Bletch, read for instance Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Word_ownership, specifically the sentence: "The fact that a right-wing Russian nationalist party is called the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia isn't covered by any senses of the word provided in the dictionary." If you could take that concept to heart, when you consider the capitialized "Socialist Republic" versus "...socialist republic...", as you reflect upon potential compromises about this matter.

I don't recall your response to my question about a distinction between the meaning brought with the capitalization. The essence of your argument relys upon the false presumption that capitalization has no effect on the meaning of that compound worded noun. BruceHallman 17:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm slowly beginning to understand you. Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Word_ownership doesn't apply here. For the concept to apply, the term "Socialist Republic" would have to be an accepted term for a communist governed single party state, which it is not. --Bletch 22:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is. The basic structure of the Cuban government closely parallels and was patterned after that of the U.S.S.R., which was commonly known as a group of "Socialist Republics". (I concede the distinction from "...socialist republics..." if that helps you.)

Bletch, your refusal to answer my questions makes compromise difficult. For instance, you have not answered my request of you to cite a reference that republics must have parties, and if so, how many. You have not answered my question about the meaning of the capitalization of the title "Socialist Republic" and the distinction from "...socialist republic...". You have not addressed my question as to why your evaluation of 'sham' is not original research. You have not addressed why using a perjorative label of government type should be considered NPOV. You have not addressed my point that the formal title of the country 'Republic of Cuba' brings weight to this decision. Neither do you appear to have read or re-read the [[WP:NPOV] policies as I have suggested. You have not constructively offered anything to help bring a neutral balance point to this issue, rather you just strongly defend your POV. Bletch, please try to bring a spirit of neutrality and compromise to this dispute. BruceHallman 04:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done my best to answer your questions. The formal title bears no weight at all. If it did, the DPRK could be called "democratic". Also, your assertion that capitalization plays a role at all seems to qualify as original research. FWIW, I went to the page on Socialist Republic (which redirects to Socialist State) and I see an ambiguous term, and no reference at all to capitalization being significant at all. I can see Communist state being viewed pejorative, which is why I am willing to accept the term Single party state. --Bletch 12:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If capitalization isn't significant, why does english use capitalization?

You still have not answered my request of you to cite a reference that republics must have parties, and if so, how many. The reason for my question is that you seem to believe that there is no such thing as a 'one party' (or zero party) republic. Where can I see that your belief is verifyable? BruceHallman 15:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

After reading Adam's commentary and reviewing Republic, I withdraw my claim that toleration of opposition is a requirement to be considered a Republic. That said, if Republic is a virtual synonym for "non-Monarchy" (yes I understand that is an oversimplifaction), then it should be avoided for its over-broadness alone. I am fine with either Communist state, Communist single-party state, or Single party state. --Bletch 17:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering your withdrawal, please summarize why the Republic of Cuba is not a Republic, I cannot say I understand the reasoning of your POV. BruceHallman 18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling Cuba a kingdom would be inaccurate as well, as first of all Castro's regime is run by a government system not similar to a monarchy, and passing power to heirs within the family is not uncommon even in non-monarchies. Raul, as heir apparent, is very unlikely to actually get to take power anyway. The specific mechanism of choosing "elected" officials in communist states - that is, by the party apparatus selecting one (or occasionally more) candidates which they allow to run for a particular seat is essentially unique to communism. "Single party states" may be states where only one party is legal (Nazi Germany for instance) or where only one party is popular enough to have any say in the government (Singapore). It doesn't necessarily mean the communist system for selecting candidates is in place. Cuba is communist, not socialist - Castro attacks the "compromise" view of socialists with regularity. ()

I have been asked to comment on this debate, which has been had before at other articles. The modern definition of "republic" is "any state which has a republican, ie not monarchical, form of government." It has lost the 18th century sense of being equivalent to "a democratic state." Since Cuba has a president and not a king, it is in this sense a republic. It is also a communist state - a state in which all political power and property is held by the state. Adam 02:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Republic" is not equivalent to "Democracy." The term "Communist state" describes a specific state of government - see my last couple comments. To simply use the term "Republic" as a catch-all for any and all states that aren't ruled on a day-to-day basis by a person calling his/herself a monarch is a stretch - and one that does not inform readers at all.

Nevertheless, that is what the word now means. Every country in the world is either a monarchy or a republic (except the Vatican, which is a theocracy), and Cuba is therefore a republic. If you find the description uninformative, you can qualify it - a democratic republic, a federal republic, a communist republic etc etc. Adam 04:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

So you'll accept the Vatican as a theocracy, but not, say, Iran, where Mullahs have government positions by right? (I can actually accept Iran as a Republic, b/c its government structure has some "republican" characteristics) The word use of Republic, even if appropriate or accurate, which I and other argue it is not, would not inform at all, except to say that Castro doesn't call himself king... which means nothing. ()

Please sign your edits. Adam 05:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

References to Cuban Constitution

Recently Bletch deleted external links to the Cuban Constitution, with the explanation 'rv'.

To me at least, this edit appears to be egregious POV. I might be wrong, but would like to hear an explanation why links to the Cuban Constitution do not belong in an article about Cuba. BruceHallman 15:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that was a mistake, caught up in the "fun" with User:Comandante. I've restored the links. PS - the Cuban Constitution should be moved over to Wikisource. --Bletch 17:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

print and media state property

The article presently states: "However, the present Cuban constitution states that all print and electronic media are inalienably state property" citing a USA State Department reference. Could someone, who is more fluent in Spanish than I, please identify which Article and Chapter of the Cuban Constitution is being referenced by the State Department? Thanks in advance. BruceHallman 16:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Answered my own question, Article 53. And, I notice that the State Department misquotes, omitting the words 'social property', distorting the meaning. BruceHallman 18:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)