Misplaced Pages

Talk:Cuba: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:54, 23 April 2006 edit24.68.192.76 (talk) →neutrality← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:05, 14 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,087 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Cuba/Archive 23) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{Round in circles|search=no}}
]
{{Not a forum}}
]
{{American English}}
]
{{Article history
]
|action1=GAN
| action1date=3 February 2007
| action1result=not listed
| action1oldid=105193320
| currentstatus=FGAN
| topic=geography
|otd1date=2004-10-10|otd1oldid=6487069
|otd2date=2005-10-10|otd2oldid=25162774
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Latin America|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Cuba|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Caribbean|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Countries}}
{{WikiProject Islands}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Top}}
}}
{{Press|year=2006|section=May 2006
| title=Dueling edits dog Misplaced Pages's Cuba entry
| org=The Seattle Times <!--Author is Pablo Bachelet-->
| date=May 5, 2006
| url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002973183_wiki05.html
}}
{{Skip to bottom}}
{{banner holder |collapsed=yes |text=Other: old GA nominee; On this day (]); press notices; ] |1=
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
| maxarchivesize = 100K
| counter = 23
| minthreadsleft = 3
| algo = old(90d)
| archive = Talk:Cuba/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{section sizes}}
{{annual readership}}


__TOC__
{{RFMF}}


== Human Rights section in need of review; who wrote this? ==


=== <s>Torture and weird sources</s> ===
==Comment on mediation==
<s>First of all, simply writing "The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions" is not sufficient without mention of proper sources, for example NGO's or some recognized polity. I could accuse Norway of torture right now, so? What is this source supposed to be? http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Cuba67sp/indice.htm It is dated 1967? Surely something more recent should be found, otherwise the section might aswell be moved to "history of Cuba" Torture? Extrajudicial executions? I can't find any mention of these in recent reports. Not even the US state department claims the Cuban government practices torture or extrajudicial execution. Here is the recent report by human rights watch https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/cuba#3159b0 It does not mention torture, sexual abuse of inmates or extrajudicial executions. Those parts should be removed or changed to include what time this accusation was made.


'''Needs update'''
One of the things both 172 and I have learned during our long experience at Misplaced Pages (partly through several long disputes with each other), is that when dealing with people who are determined to make an article conform to their ideological proconceptions, it is necessary to adopt robust tactics (within the law, but robust). Anyone who knows about the prolonged battle waged by me (and others) with the LaRouche cult at a series of articles will know (a) that these tactics are sometimes necessary, and (b) that they are effective - the LaRouchite "Herschelkrustofky" was eventually banned from Misplaced Pages.
''Cuba had the second-highest number of imprisoned journalists of any nation in 2008 (China had the highest) according to various sources, including the Committee to Protect Journalists and Human Rights Watch''


Here it is mentioned that the statistic stems from 2008, which is good. But this statistic is kind of useless other then mentioning a previous condition. It missrepresents Cuba for the average reader. Cuba did not even make the list of this 2018 ranking for imprisoned journalists: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/12/13/where-the-most-journalists-are-imprisoned-worldwide-infographic/?sh=1b693b336332
I was asked to review this article, which I had not previously seen, because BruceHallman and Scott Greyban were running it as their own private Fidel Castro fan page. I think any impartial person reviewing the article as it was before my arrival and as it is now will see that it has been greatly improved, particularly the history and politics sections (other parts still need work). Bruce and Scott and their friends have resisted the reform of this article at every step, arguing for a straight-out pro-Castro position on the most elementary questions (such as whether Cuba is a democracy). I point out that they are doing the same thing at ] and ]. I haven’t looked in detail at ] yet (it’s on my list), but I’ve no doubt the same is true there also.
The situation of journalists in Cuba is still under scrutany, but for different reasons. For example HRC writes: Cuba has the “most restricted climate for the press in the Americas” according to a 2019 Committee to Protect Journalists report.


'''WP:POV?'''
I am naturally reluctant to accuse people I don't know of being Communists, but what other conclusion can I come to about such wilful denial of obvious facts? Of course I have my own POV - I am a social democrat who is opposed to oppressive regimes of all kinds, including Communists ones. The difference is that my POV requires me to tell the truth about Cuba, whereas theirs apparently requires them to defend blatant falsehoods. If they said “yes Cuba is a dictatorship of the proletariat and we support that,” I could at least respect the integrity of their view, even though rejecting it. But I cannot respect this dishonest insistence on promoting obvious falsehoods.
The section does not balance out the negatives with the positives, such as information about Cubans access to healthcare, free abortions and school etc. Accusations from 70 years ago are being represented as if they are currently being made (torture and executions)


'''recomendations'''
I am not opposed to any attempt at mediation of this matter, but I will not compromise on the essential question. Cuba is a communist dictatorship and must be described accurately, even if that precise phrase is not used. The statement that Cuba is the only state in the western hemisphere which is not a democracy is true, relevant and important, and should be in the opening paragraph.
1. Remove claims of torture and extrajudicial executions from the first sentence
] 02:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Mention were all accusations come from and source it
3. Remove the part about sexual abuse of inmates
4. Update section to represent current conditions.
5. Extend the section about the media with more information and remove the part about imprisonment of journalists.


-- <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ])</s> 18 March 2022 (UTC)</span><sup></sup>
: Adam, I respectfully disagree, and dispute the neutrality of the present article. I am willing to discuss resolving this dispute, though as a start could you please refrain from insults? ] 05:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2024 ==
::If the four paragraphs above Adam's signature were all written by him then there is some reality warping going on round here. As far as I can see (and remember - ooops original research) neither Bruce nor Scott have been involved in the Cuba pages for more than a couple of weeks. Is there a tool for generating a list of edits ordered by contributors rather than date. Might kill off a few delusions. ] 21:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|Cuba|answered=yes}}
I'm sorry you find the truth insulting. When I was a communist, I may have been young and stupid, but at least I didn't try to hide my beliefs behind this nauseating veneer of "neutrality." ] 06:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to give the Lucumí name for Cuba as well as it's original native name "Cubanascnan" ] (]) 23:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 23:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)


== Correction ==
::Adam, please consider for a moment that you have never met me. You have never spoken with me. You don't know my life. You don't know my eduction. You don't know my family. You don't know my age. You don't know my politics. You know nothing of my history. You have only read, at most, a few hundred words of my writing. Indeed, from what you wrote back, you don't even take what I write at face value and rather choose to infer things into my writing which I did not even write. If you believe that from so little that you can know the '''"truth"''' about me, that is sad. Indeed, it appears obvious that you do not want to know the real truth about me. ] 14:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


cuba is a state capitalist country, not socialist. Please fix this. ] (]) 05:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Please ]. -- ] 14:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ]&nbsp;]<sup>]</sup> 06:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
==Civility as an option==

] wrote (above):

:The site founder, Jimbo Wales, has stated repeatedly that product comes before process. If the rules-- including civility rules-- interfere with the goal of writing a usable encyclopedia, they are to be ignored or modified.

This is incorrect. I can email Jimbo and check for you, if you require.

Actually, civility is one of Misplaced Pages's two non-negotiable rules. --] 16:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:FYI Jimbo Wales is one of the people to have signed the page ], a page that Raul proposed, upon my suggestion, to rename ]. Civility is important. We should all strive to be as civil as possible. Nevertheless, Jimbo Wales has made clear that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia first and foremost, and a community only insofar as it serves the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not a system of law, and all users are not equal. As a case in point, in some of the arbom cases pitting professional scholars against crakpots, such as the Skyring and the LaRouche cases, the serious editors were left unscathed, while Skyring and the LaRouche activists were put under severe sanctions. ] | ] 00:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

== Communist states of the Western hemisphere ==

As an interesting side-note to my intro edit, it appears that the only other instance of a hard-line ] existing in the Western Hemisphere was ] for two weeks in 1983. ] 04:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:Cuba has communist values, but is it actually ]? I don't see evidence that Cuba is communist. I do see that 'Communist State' is a label often used by the right wing of USA politics to describe Cuba, but is that enough reason to use it in the article? ] 04:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

::There are two definitions of a "communist state". The first would be the Marxist definition (ie the one put forward by Marx), which would be a society in which both private property and the state have been abolished (and would not therefore be a "communist state" at all). Such a society has of course never existed. The second is the "common English" definition, which is "a state run by a Communist Party with the intention of eventually establishing a communist society." Cuba meets this definition. Misplaced Pages is not a Marxist enncyclopaedia. ] 05:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

::Of course Cuba isn't ]. It is however, a ] (however oxymoronic that term may be), in the same way that China is a Communist state. This doesn't seem especially controversial to me, unless you're trying to make some kind of argument about the semantics of the term "Communist", which is all fine and good, but completely irrelevent to Misplaced Pages editing. Remember, "]." If most of the world considers Cuba a Communist state, which I think is rather obvious, that is what we report. Whether that is accurate terminology is not for us to decide. If it were, we might have to rethink labelling the U.S. a democracy :) ] 05:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:::Good point Kaldari, but if most of the world considers Belgians to be dull, is what we report there as fact ;) --] 07:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
::::Ah good point. The balance between reporting popular perception and maintaining NPOV is tricky, especially in cases where the subject's POV about itself conflicts with popular perception. In such cases it is important to present both sides, although in this case it seems one of the sides presented may be something of a straw man. Would most Cuban people object to Cuba being termed a "Communist state"? Probably not. They may object to some of the other wording though. An important question to ask, however, is why are we putting commentary about Cuba's politics in the intro paragraph? What is our motivation there? This seems to be a rather exceptional way to introduce a country's article. ] 07:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::My sentiments entirely --] 07:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC) btw you've sold your version to me, with a slight amendment--] 07:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:The words 'widely criticised', is that accurate? I can see that it is widely criticised from the right wing of the USA politics, but is there any evidence of wide spread criticism globally. Is there any evidence of criticism from Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, North Africa, Africa, Polynesia, Australia, Central America or South America? Is there much criticism from Europe or Eastern Europe? Is there much criticism from the middle or left wing of the USA. Is there much criticism from North America beyond the USA, IE Mexico and Canada. To qualify as 'widely criticised' you cannot just measure the right wing if the USA, which is overrepresented in the editor pool of Misplaced Pages. ] 04:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
::Where did this "widely criticised" text come from? The issue is not what Cuba is "widely criticised" for, the issue is what Cuba is. ] 05:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
:::What are you guys talking about? Oh wait, I found it. You guys are so 15 hours ago :) ] 06:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

::::My point still applies: The 'Cuba is not a democracy' point of view is widely held among the right wing of USA politics (and to a lesser extent in segments of Great Britain, Isreal, Marshall Islands, Palau, and the E.U.), but I have been researching this and do not see that it is a commonly held point of view in Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Arab Middle East, North Africa, Africa, Polynesia, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Central America or South America. If we are going to solve a POV neutrality dispute we need to evalutate the true extent of the range of POV's on this issue. The right wing of the USA political belief is not the 'center of the universe' of points of view. ] 16:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::I'm among "the right wing of USA politics?" That's a comment for ]. ] | ] 17:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, do you live in the U.S.? If not, you should note that almost EVERYONE from all perspectives here believe that Cuba is not a democracy (unless you live in Berkely...) ] 18:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

==Opening section, episode 234==

This statement: "Cuba is a socialist republic, in which the Communist Party of Cuba is the sole legal political party. Cuba is the only state in the western hemisphere that is not a democracy." Is accurate, brief, grammatical and to-the-point. It says what needs to be said, and no more. If people would only leave it alone we could all turn our attention to more important things. ] 08:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
:Yep. ] | ] 17:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

''"...Is accurate, brief, grammatical and to-the-point. ..."'', though also POV. Can we discuss and collaborate on wording to bring neutrality to those sentences? ] 17:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:::How is that POV? It's a concise and accurate description. says "Cuba is a unitary socialist republic. The government is totalitarian, exercising direct control or influence over most facets of Cuban life.", and that sounds harsher than this - I'd say that Adam's version is plenty NPOV. ]--] 01:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

----
Sorry Bruce but you have been outvoted. ] 18:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:Is ] subject to vote? ] 18:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
::the consensus is that Cuba is not a democracy - it is a one party state (or one party dictatorship if you prefer) and to not mention Cuba's lack of democracy _does_ violate ]. ] 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

::I would like to use this moment to state that '']'' Discuss? --] 18:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

PMA; Just because you claim a ], ], does not make a consensus. ] 18:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
:I see your point but please learn to spell properly and not use redirects please. ] 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

::I propose that the above brief exchange started by ] be considered for ]. Does anyone want to ] on ]? --] 01:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the definition of democracy linked in the passage about Cuba 'not' being a democracy, and I could not find anywhere in that language that would bar Cuba from being considered a representative democracy. It is a POV itself to speak of what is or isn't democracy, needless to say. The use of the term 'communist state' seems to find itself almost solely in the language of the U.S - not an encyclopedic view unless one views encyclodpedic information simply to have their own nation's chauvanist prejudices confirmed and reconfirmed. Bruce seems to make all of the relevant points about world consensus vs. american consensus. No countries called 'communist states' have called themselves such - this american label has more to do with mccarthyism than lucid political labels.
] 10:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the expression "Communist state" ought to be removed from the opening section, since the term has no clear definition. The statement that Cuba is "a one-party state ruled by the Communist Party of Cuba" is clear and unambiguous and should be used instead. The statement that Cuba is not a democracy is also clear and unambiguous, and true. A democracy is a state in which the people have the right and the ability to choose their own government. This necessarily requires (a) regular free elections at which rival parties can run candidates, and (b) a political culture which allows public opposition to the government, through a free press and a right of free assembly etc. Cuba has none of these things. ] 10:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:Another key point weighing against the idea of describing the country as a "Communist state" is the fact that the Communist Party was in may ways emasculated by Castro – subsumed within his government rather than being the real locus of power as was the case in Europe. It is an oversimplification to describe the Castro regime as Communist in the way that one might apply the term to Poland pre 1989. --] 13:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not really true. What happened was that the Soviets, on the recommendation of Guevara (a trusted lifelong Communist), decided to back Fidel and Raul, and told Blas Roca to subordinate himself and the old PCC cadres (a pretty rotten lot corrupted by years of backing Batista) to the Castros. In exchange the Castros agreed to toe the Soviet line and make Cuba an orthodox Soviet-style state, which it became and still is. Because Fidel has a beard and makes long speeches in Spanish he seems a bit more romantic than, say, Erich Honnecker, but there is really no difference. ] 13:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

: Regardless, we are in agreement over the first part of the contentious paragraph so my interest on this matter is largely academic. But I would add that I disagree that Che Guevara, who ended up against Soviet wishes heading off to foment global revolution, can be accurately described as ‘a trusted lifelong communist’. Furthermore, Cuba made its biggest step towards what you might describe as ‘an orthodox Soviet-style state’ in the period between 1968 (when Castro supported the invasion of Czechoslovakia) and 1970 (after the failure of the push for a record sugar harvest) – that is, after Guevara’s death. There is much more to be said on the differences between the various Soviet aligned states (as well as on the paradigmatic issues raised by the obsession with Cuba that this debate represents, with the fact that the spotlight is directly so excessively on one country rendering the historical objectivity being sought increasingly chimeric – how much time has been spent on the Honduran entry?), but if you are prepared to reduce your own argument to the proposition that there is no difference between the imposed Soviet puppet Honecker and Castro then it is clear that your interest is ideological rather than historical, and thus no appeal based on either contradictory facts or more subtle narratives is likely to sway you. --] 16:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
::Re: ''But I would add that I disagree that Che Guevara, who ended up against Soviet wishes heading off to foment global revolution, can be accurately described as a trusted lifelong communist.'' That observation is neither here nor there. Adam Carr was correct. In the period when the Soviets decided to back Fidel and Raul on Guevara's recommendation, Guevara was a trusted lifelong Communist in the eyes of the Soviets. It was later-- the period leading up to Guevara's disappearance from Cuba-- that Guevara started to lean more and more toward the Chinese model, and, as you put it, "ended up against Soviet wishes heading off to foment global revolution." ] | ] 19:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to Zleitzen above: the reason so many people are preoccupied with Cuba is that it is a uniquely symbolic country to both left and right in the US (not being an American I can perhaps see this more clearly). The American left has been in love with Fidel since the 60s, as the quintessential bearded romantic revolutionary who has successfully defied the Yanquis all these years. As the vision of socialism as a social system has faded, the most powerful remaining emotional force behind the American left is anti-Americanism (or anti-US imperialism to use their own vocabulary). So long as Fidel stands (or these days is propped up) as a symbol of anti-Americanism, the left will go on loving him, happily ignoring or denying (as we see here) the squalid realities of his tinpot despotism and the empoverishment of 11 million people. The American right, of course, correspondingly hate Fidel with a deep and visceral hatred, which is why they have gone on with the futile and stupid economic blockade all these years, despite the obvious fact that it has done more than anything else to keep Castro in power. (If there is anything more stupid than an American leftist, it is an American rightist. Despite all, I remain pro-American, but it is a struggle sometimes.) ] 02:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:Knowing very little about the American "left", beyond a cursory glance at liberal media outlets, I'll bow to your greater knowledge. But all this has little to do with an accurate portrayal of Cuba, both historically and in the present. And little to do with the verifiability issues we should be concerned with here. --] 02:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, I don't recognize much reality in your stereotyping of Americans. Thinking Americans of all stripes have good reason to be upset at the injustice of decades of embargo 'in our name' and upset at the not-so-well hidden agenda hoping to overthrow '''yet another''' country 'in our name'. More than a few Americans actually notice and object when the USA has abusive foreign policy. ] 03:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you are prize example of what I am talking about, of course you can't accept what I am saying. You are typical of the American left in your inability to see this issue in anything other than these childish cliches. In the view of many "thinking Americans", getting rid of Castro would not be "overthrowing a country" - it would be liberating 11 million people from slavery. You of course disagree, but please don't insult our intelligence by pretending that all "thinking Americans" agree with you. There is a lot not to like about the Cuban-American lobby and the American right (I am, for the record, a social democrat), but they are correct on the essential point that Castro is an odious dictator who ought to be removed, one way or another, from power so that the Cuban people can choose their own government. It is also wrong to say they have a "hidden agenda" about overthrowing Castro - they are quite open about it, and so they should be. ] 03:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

== Civility ==

User:PMA recently wrote of an edit by User:Comandante "Sorry Mr Sockpuppet go somewhere else - no need for "soverign state" either". The editor Comandante is a well known editor in ] and name calling, "Mr. Sockpuppet", is a personal attack and should be avoided. Please be civil. ] 20:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
----
He was also pushing Marxist POV under the guise of NPOV in many articles - after ], I, like Adam and 172, have learned to be firm with such POV pushers - i have been called a ] and a ] in my efforts to battle the extremists of every colour. Like Adam and 172 i will not tolerate the pushing of POV wether it be right or left wing. ] 20:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:That, even if true, is no reason for calling people names. You are the one who is being uncivil here. ] 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

How interesting to learn that Commandante lives in Cuba. If he has a computer and free access to the internet that makes him part of the privileged elite in Cuba - a country where after 47 years of the joys of socialism most people can barely feed themselves - and probably a Communist Party member. We can judge his edits accordingly. ] 01:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
:If Comandante indeed is found to be editing from Cuba or claims to be editing from Cuba, he should be immediately and indefinitely banned by an admin-- no arbcom ruling needed. There has been a big fuss (I think much to do about nothing) about staff members of ''elected'' members of the U.S. House editing articles, triggering some IP bans. If Congressional staffers are banned, certainly a propagandist for Castro deserves the same. ] | ] 05:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
::I would not favour that course of action. ] 05:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
::So, we simply assume that if the IP address is Cuban, that he must be a propagandist working for the Cuban government? While very possible and maybe even likely, it certainly cannot be proven. Why ban him for that when his ] gets him in enough trouble? Where does this information come that he is from Cuba? --] 12:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Comrade Hallman said so above. ] 13:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
:After looking at what his Marxist cohorts have done to ] i feel that a carcinoma must be resected from the 'pedia. ] 15:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce has been trying to ensure that the main views of Cuba are covered by the article. His reward has been to be continually attacked by some of those opposed to the Cuban Revolution. It does leave me wondering if Commandante is not the one with the right attitude, i.e. there is no way to avoid the Cuba pages being an ongoing battle between the two sides and the continual assertion of the anti Castroite POV is best opposed by its opposite rather than the evenhanded approach some of us have attempted. BTW Bruce was referring to the article not the island. ] 17:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:I'm also concerned by the standard of debate, and the level of invective here. My full statements on the matter will be heard in due course. --] 17:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
::I just don't think that Marxists like Michael should be allowed to run wild on these sort of pages - Remember Ruy Lopez/Richardchilton etc etc. I'm just concerned is all. ] 18:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
:::Run wild, out on the edge of time, child
:::Carry your dreams away, love
:::No one can hold you now
:::For you are an island
:::Ah those Bee-Gees knew a thing or two about wild marxists running free, spreading their diseased viewpoints all over the internet. ] 18:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
::::Brilliant!! Who is this lunatic? I demand a regular column. Every week a different rant against a percieved injustice. Coming soon ''The Voices Made Me Do It'' and ''The Clocks Keep Looking At Me''. ]
::::::Speak for yourself, darling. You are the one who dreams of marxists in bondage...] 19:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I hope that rhymes in Spanish. ] 21:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Why? Is blank verse too POV for you?? MichaelW
:::::I would reserve judgement if I were you, PMA. I believe it was you who tried to claim victory in an undemocratic vote to call Cuba undemocratic in an forum which explicitly describes itself as not a democracy ;)--] 19:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::I never tried to claim victory on anything - i merely used an incorrect metaphor to describe an apparent consensus about POV pushing. ] 19:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Have been informed that PMA blocked Michael W for the above exchange citing "The reason given for MichaelW's block is: "POV edits, article
degradation,
POV pushing, abuse of other editors, lack of good faith".--] 03:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
:And yet here I am sneaking in the back door, threatening to bring more discomfort to PMA's oh so ordered worldview. No, seriously folks, I would like to know what the possible penalties are that I can visit on PMA for misuse of his admin privileges. I have no proof he was conspiring with my partner to get me to bed early, but partially refreshed by a fitful night - dreams of pursuit - me as Sylvester, Taz as Tweety Pie - I return, courtesy of a work computer,to protest my innocence of the charges brought against me and to enter counter charges of "...debating serious matters while low on humour...selfish use of privilege...insane accusations of lunacy..." I could go on (and on and on) but then like my accuser I would be taking a minnow for a whale. MichaelW
----
:::Was there a reason why you blanked most of the page, PMA. Or was it a genuine mistake?--] 18:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
::::Look at my talk page - the bug me and Redvers talk about. ] 18:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::No problem.--] 18:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

==Ugly white space==

Why is there a huge ugly white space on the main page now? ] 01:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it. ] 01:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

== Human Rights ==

Can we move on and discuss the section on human rights, I'm thinking in terms of 172's statements here and so propose reducing the section in keeping with other pages concerning countries with particular recent human rights issues, such as ] and ]. There is already a human rights page so there is no need to encourage charges of systemic bias by over elaborating here.--] 23:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What should go in an article, and at what length it should be treated, should be judged according to what think potential readers of the article are likely to be interested in reading. I agree that since there is already a ] article (much improved of late, no thanks to the Communist Party of Misplaced Pages), the topic doesn't need to be extensively covered here. ''But'' this is not merely a feeder page to other articles, and some people won't read further than this page. Since one of the most important things about Cuba is that it is the only remaining dictatorship in the Anmericas, and one of the few remaining Communist Party-ruled states in the world, its human rights position must be discussed and at a reasonable length at the main Cuba article. ] 03:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:I was thinking of a couple of paragraphs stating the main issues, with citable sources etc. Something along these lines

:''The Cuban Constitution and the Penal Code allow for severe sanctions against exercising freedom of expression if the activities of individuals are deemed to be "counter-revolutionary" or a "threat to national security". Restrictions on travel outside Cuba can be applied to dissidents etc
:''Cuba has consistently been condemened by Human Rights Watch, Oxfam International and Amnesty International for opposing U.N. Human Rights measures demanding internal reform etc In 2005 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that 71 journalists and trade union activists were being held in “alarming conditions” having been sentenced to terms ranging from 6 to 28 years, following summary trials. Many Human Rights groups are denied permission to enter the country Cuba etc''
:''Since the revolution Cuba has also been resistant to the increased social liberalism developed elsewhere in the region. As recently as 1997, the Cuban Penal Code sanctioned "Publicly Manifested Homosexuality" with up to one year in prison etc''--] 03:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

::''Retentionist death penalty, haven't signed up to the International court'' --] 03:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:The dictatorship, one party state talk is irrelevant. Authorities of all types commit gross human rights violations. See Australia until 1972, UK in Northern Ireland etc --] 03:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
::The prevailing understanding of human rights in the Western world centers around individual rights with respect to speech, movement, assembly, association, and the press. In this sense the discussion of human rights cannot be separated from the discussion of one-party rule. I will revert the removal of any content in the rewrite of the human rights section. ] | ] 04:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:::Which parts of my proposed paragraphs do you disagree with, in principle rather than style? Given that were pasted entirely from UN, EU, AI, Human Rights Watch reports.--] 04:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC) --] 04:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
::::I was stating disagreement with your comemnt ''The dictatorship, one party state talk is irrelevant''. I was not commenting on proposed ''additions''. Since Adam Carr is the author of the section, I'll defer to his judgment about what gets added. As far as I'm concerned, since he was the only one to take the time needed to rewrite the article, turning a crapy article into a relatively good one, he earned the right to be editor-in-chief around here. ] | ] 04:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::Unfortunately, there is no "editor-in-chief around here", and no-one can earn such a right. This is Misplaced Pages. Btw "The prevailing understanding of human rights" would concur with statements from the UN, EU, AI, Human Rights Watch etc, would it not? --] 04:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::Do you have trouble understanding people? I was stating disagreement with your comment ''The dictatorship, one party state talk is irrelevant''. While I think the section is in good shape as it is, I did not object to the ''addition'' of summaries of reports by the UN, EU, AI, Human Rights Watch etc. in the section. ] | ] 05:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I would appear to be having trouble understand you, 172. And judging from the previous mediators failed attempts to reach consensus with you, I would not be alone in that assessment. It is hoped that in future disputes, mediation(s) and arbitatration(s) on these matters you could clarify yourself.--] 07:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Chirst. Of course I think the UN, EU, AI, Human Rights Watch etc are important sources to cite. I didn't say that all along because I have no idea what you want to do here. Are you arguing that we ''add'' content? Or are you still arguing ''The dictatorship, one party state talk is irrelevant''? ] | ] 17:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
For the record I'm ''not'' thinking in terms of reducing the content of the section. As Adam Carr effectively argues, Cuba's human rights position must be discussed and at a reasonable length. While standardization across articles is important, until the more extreme pro-Castro POV-pushers are out of the way, the question of whether or not a particular section should instead be a subsection is far from a high priority. Besides, the new section is very well written and helpful to readers. If a section is of sufficiently high quality, it's more reasonable to make an exception to the standardization. ] | ] 03:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:I would endorse the NPOV policies you advocate here, 172 "''Thus, it appeared that the inclusion of a section on human rights in this article was at best arbitrary or at worse politically determined without reference to the NPOV''"--] 04:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
::Quit quoting my ancient comments out of context. I already responded to that matter. I do not favor the removal or the reduction of the superior quality rewrite. ] | ] 05:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
:::On a similar theme, Could you explain why you removed a sentence here and reinstated it here . An explanation could help dispel any concerns that your motives were merely to participate in an edit war and not to seek consensus to improve the article. --] 10:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
::::Adam Carr made a convicing case for including the sentence on my talk page, putting to rest my concerns that a couple of other countries in Latin America might be considered non-democracies as well. I then had no reservations about including the sentence. Unlike some ideologues (like the kinds that insist that Cuba is a democracy), I try to "seek truth from facts," as Deng Xiaoping would put it. ] | ] 16:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, having put some more thought into the suject, I don't think standardization with other articles is at all of a concern with respect to the human rights section. Human rights sections have become more common over the past year. Last year, for example, I noted that the PRC did not have such a section. Now it does. ] | ] 05:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. (By the way, does Zlietzen ''seriously'' suggest that either Britain's actions in Northern Ireland, or whatever it is that he thinks happened in Australia before 1972, are equivalent to a regime from which more than 1 million have been forced to emigrate, and which has imposed 47 years of dictatorship? If so, he is living in a moral universe I don't recognise.) ] 06:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:No, you're right, I wouldn't suggest equivalence here. I would suggest that what happened in Australia before 1972 was worse. . --] 07:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I will be charitable and attribute that comment to utter and total ignorance about Australian history rather than to <personal attack removed>. ] 08:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:"Gross human rights violations" (as the actions of the Australian authorites are described on that page) occur regardless of how many names appear on some ballot paper, Adam. And no amount of press freedoms etc in Turkey prevented the atrocities that unfolded during the 1990's. Again your statements appear to be motivated by ideological concerns rather than logical, and no serious examination of the evidence seems likely to enlighten you. But then you have been honest in your declarations in that respect from the start. --] 08:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
::What do World Book/Britannica say about Cuba and related matters? maybe we could use that as a start? ] 08:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
:::Feel free, I haven't read it yet. I'm only aware of Amnesty International, Oxfam International and Human Rights Watch reports relating to Cuba. --] 09:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If Zleitzen or anyone wants to contribute to ], they are welcome to do so and we can debate these issues there. But on ''this'' page we will not be distracted by the well-known communist diversionary tactic of playing bogus ] games. Of course there have been human rights violations in Australia, the UK, the US and all other democratic countries. We know this because those violations have been exposed, documented and in most cases redressed through action by civil society, the media, the judiciary and/or the political opposition in those countries, as is possible in a democracy. The reason you know (something) about the Stolen Generation issue in Australia, for example, is that the issue was exposed by civil society action within Australia. The situation in a country like Cuba is ''qualitatively'' as well as ''quantitatively'' different: there are not only more human rights violations, and worse violations, but they exist as a matter of deliberate government policy. Indeed the survival of a regime like Castro's ''requires'' human rights violations such as the denial of free elections, the suppression of civil society and the persecution of dissidents. That is why ''this'' article requires a section on human rights in Cuba, which states the facts about the situation in Cuba. ] 10:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for linking to the moral equivalence page, Adam. The wording 'there can be no moral or ethical hierarchy decided between two sides in a conflict, nor in the actions or tactics of the two sides' illustrates my position better than I ever could. I'm surprised to learn that it has become a "communist diversionary tactic". I would agree in part with of your statement above, and certainly on the suppression of civil society and the persecution of dissidents. The rest of your quantitative differences would have to be quantified. That is what we are asking here at Misplaced Pages. --] 10:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you really take the view that "there can be no moral or ethical hierarchy between two sides in a conflict, nor in the actions or tactics of the two sides"? Do you apply that maxim to World War II? Do you argue that there no was "moral hierarchy" between the Nazis and the Allies? If so, no doubt you would have enjoyed living in a Nazi-ruled world (unless Zleitzen is a Jewish surname of course - one of the reason Jewish intellectuals generally reject moral equivalence is that they understand better than most the real-world consequences of moral choices in politics). By taking this position, you convict yourself of moral bankruptcy out of your own mouth. I believe in moral hierarchies. I believe that democracy is morally superior, not just preferable in a utilitarian sense, to dictatorship. ] 11:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:Speculating on whether my name is Jewish, in particular when attempting to invoke ], only adds to the litany of poor choices you have made since you decided to contest these issues. Is this another one of your "robust tactics" in order to assume editorial control of this article? --] 11:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I said "robust", not "cheap". I was making a serious point about moral choices in politics, to which you have not responded. ] 11:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:I believe all your tactics to be cheap, and none of your points to be serious, Adam. A further response from me is unneccesary. --] 12:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought you might at least have the courage to follow the logic of your position to its conclusion (that was no moral difference between the Nazis and their enemies), but I over-estimated you. ] 12:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:No effort on my part will encourage you to take any of your arguments seriously, Given that my attempts to bring a NPOV approach to this Cuban article are met with such teenage ahistorical arguments about the nazis (Which enemies do you have in mind? Stalin?) I feel there is no need to answer your question. One of the worst outcomes of this debacle is that I was in the process of encouraging colleagues, historians and archivists from the Institute of Latin American Studies in London, to contribute and proof read specific details and information to the page. The enthusiasm soon waned when individuals took a look at the outrageous behaviour that goes on here, largely instigated by you. And that’s a great loss to this encyclopaedia. --] 13:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
::I thought it became the Institute for the Study of the Americas a couple of years ago. ] | ] 16:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
:::It was subsumed, the political archives project is certainly worth a look though (which is in itself co-opted with Commonwealth Studies) --] 17:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If it wasn't for me this article would still be the pack of lies it was before I was invited to come and look at it, a state of affairs you were evidently quite happy with. So spare me your pious crap. ] 13:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:It seems our arrival at the page coincided. But our approaches have differed somewhat, I have applied Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies and seeked consensus at every turn, you have not. Given that you continue to reject wikipedias fundamental tenets, I suggest you find a different forum to espouse your notions of moral superiority, where personal attacks, speculations about users ethnicity and insults are tolerated. --] 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see why mention of Cuba being a dictatorship is POV in any way, shape or form. The human rights abuses are an explicit result of governmental policies; disregarding it would be like disregarding how the ] was meticulously planned and instigated by a small group of people. Just because human rights abuses have had other causes does not make it irrelevant. --] 14:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
----
Cool down the heat please gentlemen. ] 17:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


Zleitzen, speaking from the standpoint of someone who was similarly trapped in a relativistic rhetorical corner when arguing with Adam Carr, my suggestion is get out of that corner. Adam Carr is a skilled debater. A couple of years ago, he battled me when I was giving credence to the idea that Kim Jong-il might be interested in de-Stalinization because he had appeared in a few good photo-ops with Kim Dae-jung and Madeline Albright. Several years later, the position I was trapped into representing then looks even more ridiculously naive with hindsight. Now, do you have specific objections to you have to any of the content in the new human rights section? Do you have specific recommendations about adding any content to the section? Or is you criticism of Adam Carr's rewrite entirely political? ] | ] 17:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:My thoughts on the human rights section are, ironically given the above heated exchange, that there are not enough specific charges. I'd like to mention the “alarming conditions” that the 2003 dissidents were described as suffering etc, and less vagaries. The piece on this page should deal with contemporary human rights issues, the human rights page should deal with historical matters such as the church etc. As for the role of the "one party state" in this, I believe it should be presented as an opinion - Sourced to international groups (Miami and so on) and dealt with proportionately. As for Dr Carr, if he wants me to exalt the moral superiority of Stalin and the architects of the destruction of Hiroshima, then he's speaking to the wrong person. And don't even mention Winston Churchill! --] 18:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
::We should start with the general and work our way down to the specific in this section. The overview of the status of speech, assembly, association, the press, and movement within the framework of the one party state is essential. I think Adam Carr's rewrite does a good job with that overview. Now if you want to go into more detail on contemporary human rights issues, quit arguing that we go into more detail and start adding more detail yourself. I'm happy with the section as it is, but I have no objection to expanding the section. You can work that out with Adam Carr. ] | ] 19:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


If the task at hand is to write an article that meets ] and ] my opinion is that debate skills can harm more than help. That is, unless, you are such a skilled debater that you can debate all of the POVs. I haven't seen yet that Adam has that skill. Though I suspect that he ''could'' debate the various POVs if he wanted to do so. ] 19:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

== MichaelW block by PMA ==

I am just curious about the appearance of conflict of interest, where administrator PMA (who holds one POV) blocks editor MichaelW (who holds the opposite POV). I am willing to give the benifit of the doubt, but the appearance seems wrong. Could we discuss:

:1) What exactly did MichaelW do wrong to justify the 7 day block.

:2) What is the protocol regarding appearance of conflict of interest and administrative action.

Thanks in advance, I am looking forward to constructive and civil answers and discussion. ] 14:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:I actually have to side with Bruce on this one. The block of ] was warranted given his history of poor cooperation, but all that ] did was make some insipid comments. Certainly unconstructive, yes, but hardly worthy of a seven day block. That is, unless there is more to what happened than what I see here. --] 15:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
----
Please look at ] for why i have such a poor view of Marxist POV contributors to the 'pedia - i have given them many chances as my remark about the editor now known as Ruy Lopez on that page proves - also i have been here for many years and have been an admin for three - i am not some cluless newbie who petulantly blocks people. For what it's worth i unblocked MichaelW when told of my mistake by the Powers That Be. ] 15:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks PMA. Though I would still like answers to my two questions above, would you answer them please? ] 15:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
----
His open advocation of pushing a Marxist POV on thispage - also see his own talk page for his use of phrases such as "capitalist fanboys" - as i said with my experience of people like Richardchilton and his sockpuppets and cohorts i am wary of lefist POV pushers - ditto for right wing POV pushers when it comes to the crimes and death squads of right wing governments of Africa, Asia and the Americas - i try to protect articles from both "The Communist Peoples Party" on one side and "The National Salvation Front" on the other as someone put it on here some years ago.

As for your second question - i do not know the answer i am afraid.
] 16:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


For what its worth PMA didn't unblock me. .pkg performed the honours, several hours after PMA claimed to have done so, released me from my cage, spilling over with pent up fury at having my inalienable rights to free speech curtailed by an Australian editor who saw fit to call me a lunatic because I quote some Bee Gees lyrics. Fortunately for you all I have run out of ranting time. I'll have to answer PMA's misrepresentations and spurious charges another time. Until then have fun... ] 23:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
----
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:MichaelW - that says just who unblocked you. ] 00:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you keep accusing me of bad faith I'm going to start doubting my own reality. You may have thought you unblocked me, but you didn't. .pkg found two autoblocks still in place at 8.00 UT last night. Look to your competence not my honesty. ] 06:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

== Article has become excessivly political. (that is bad) ==

I came to look at my favorite article today! Low and behold the politics/human rights has been bumped up before culture, economy, geography etc. And the intro states Cuba is not a democracy--in its own seperate line--. Cuba is not a -liberal- democracy. Really, people, please!

And then I checked out the human rights section! Out with the facts, in with the accusations. While the introducation is a little off-base, this section is insane!


"...in which the rights of the individual are subordinated to the interests of the state."

Looks like it was ripped right off a Miami dissadent site. Believe it or not America, some countries put society before the individual.

Young Poineers "coercing" people to join? Is this widespread, because I had no idea!

And just so we are clear, Cuba is now one of the more gay-friendly places in Latin America (they are not searching them out anymore, anyways)... I'm at a loss for words.. ] 06:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
----
*looks at above*
please register - anon comments indicate to many that you do not have the courage to stand behind your words. Also your words and phrasing indicate that you may be Commantante or a very close relation - in which case you have been banned and this will only reset the block. ] 06:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

How pleasant this place now is! PMA, I noticed you reverted my edit on the grounds that I was not registered. I was under the impression that wikipedia promotes "anon" editing. ] 06:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:Hi PMA, I don't think you can revert a post because the user is not registered. Debate the issues with the user first is best. Thanks --] 06:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

::::I am confused, PMA reverted my edit again! How does one defend themselves from all these accusations at once!] 06:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::Phrases such as "ripped from a Miami dissident site" etc gave an impression that you have a firm pro-Fidel/communist POV. as i said on the talk page of Cuba i try to defend the 'pedia from both right and left wing ideologs. ] 06:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
::::Personally I think the "non-multiparty" is more accurate PMA. And thanks for changing that. --] 06:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a *communist*?!! (: I can understand why communists might not be allowed to edit here, but no, I am not a communist!

Perhaps we could discuss how the human rights comment in question (that I maybe a little sharply cricisised) might not be compleatly sound, as it only shows one (individual before the group) point of view! I don't have much time, but I would love to help improve the article, --It had actually motivated me to travel to Cuba, and I hate to see it go down hill!] 06:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

== The Succession ==

The most likely scenario is "after Castro, Castro"--i.e, Raul.

The sorts of coup-making generals that many in the US have in mind have probably been purged long ago. And while of course Raul does not have his brother's charisma, his availability as an obvious and "safe" successor will appeal to the party (and military) leaders as a way of avoiding "chaos" (i.e., anything that might threaten their power). After Raul though is another question. ] 07:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Administrator: May I go ahead and edit the crap out of the "human rights" section? Most of the stuff there is unquestionably from one distinct point of view (such as the individualist p.o.v.) or is unsourced allegations and innuendo! Perhaps I could look in the history to find a better incarnation? ] 07:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
:Sure - although do you have the cites (from neutral sources of course) to back up your changes? ] 07:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

::No, I don't think that would be possible, considering the outrageous nature of the statements in that section. It should be noted that the section is not sourced either. That is why I suggest reverting the entire section to a prior incarnation!] 07:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
:::Wow I had no idea this would be so time consuming! It just seems so obvious to me. It is biased to put human rights allegations BEFORE things such as the culture of Cuba! The U.S. article doesn't have its human rights issues in the second paragraph, I don't even have to check the article to know that! ] 07:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

LOOK!
"the rights of the individual are subordinated to the interests of the state" --is this debatable? Of course? It is an individual rights VS group rights situation. Cubans have less individual rights, but they have more rights as a society! You wouldn't write "the rights of society(state?) are subordinated to the interests of the individual" in the USA article--but it is just as true! C'mmon! --and neither is a human rights argument!-- ] 07:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:You'd need to check the wording of the Cuban constitution for that, which I think is linked to the article. I would agree that the statement's inclusion is debateable in it's present context. And everything here ''should'' be verified and and given due weight. --] 07:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Look! "Cuban infrastructure has suffered greatly after almost five decades of communism regime. Before 1959, sugar production averaged some 7.5 million tons of sugar per year, produced in roughly 150 sugar cane mills. In 2005, more than 80 of those sugar mills had been dismantled by the regime. The rest of industrial facilities have suffered a similar fate."

The infrastructure section was once a factual description of the infrastructure, NOT a pseudo-historical rambling about how things were supposedly better 50 years ago but changed because of "communism" "the rest of industrial facilities have suffered" That can't even theoretically be correct! Ferchristsakes!] 08:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:For the record: '''The user Neztielz has nothing to do with me!''' and I have no idea why they decided to use that name after putting messages on my talk page(!?)--] 08:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

*All edits will be judged on their merits, but if the anonymous editor tries to return the Human Rights section to the pack of lies it was before recent rewriting, he/she/it will be vigorously opposed.
*Also he/she/it should become a registered user. It is true that anonymous editing is allowed, but it is not encouraged and many users (including me) have a low tolerance of anonymous edits.
*] should note that user names which parody other users' names are not allowed and can result in banning. ] 09:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks Adam, have advised the user to read policies and change his/her name before future contributions. See ]. --] 15:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

== neutrality ==

Has anybody else noticed that all the fighting is getting in the way of finding neutrality? ] 17:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This may be asking a lot, but can we avoid arguing 'facts' and 'truth'? Instead can we focus of identifying and defining the various Points of View and then choosing the neutral point? Can our arguments be about the credibility of citations and not about our personal opinions? ] 17:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is a great idea! Lets take this phrase I have brought up: "...in which the rights of the individual are subordinated to the interests of the state." Now this is just from the typical American p.o.v. which states that a states individual rights superceed the rights of society as a whole. You could just as easily write in the U.S. article human rights section, "...in which the interests of society is subordinated to the decision of the individual." Do you all see how this can be interpreted MANY different ways?

Furthermore, most of this stuff is blatant lies, especially in the human rights section. In the infrastructure section, it only adresses accomplishments PRIOR to the revolution, and mistakes AFTER it. I don't think I need to describe how that is biased!] 18:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
::For those of you who don't believe me, here is an article contradicting the statement that the cuban oil industry has collapsed.
].

I'm just curious so don't start flaming and throwing childish threats at me for this....
*Who here has been to Cuba?
*If you have been there why is nothing stated about the current human rights situation.
*If this is suppose to be a NPOV talk and article why is there no mention of Cuba's direct offer's of assistance on the aftermath of Katrina to the U.S. that was turned down? NPOV thought here but that action even from a '''commie dictator''' surely should be noted on human rights someplace.
Just seems this section is very pro-american based on the reports after the bay of pigs and nothing else. I wonder if I'll get banned for this now. --] 03:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And this part in the human rights section, ''Another clause in the 1976 Cuban constitution states that anyone suspected of being prone to commit a crime in the future, as a preventive measure, can be sent to jail indefinitely.'', another POV is the American law has such a thing as well. Its called ''Civil Commitment'' which states the exact same thing. Googling for ''American Civil Commitment'' there are humdred of articles on this including the ACLU(American Civil Liberties Union) opposing this as well. It directly allows the US Government to imprison anyone that has commited a prior crime, and in some States no crime but based only on actions and statements, to be sent to jail indef. --] 03:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

:My point is, how can this be a human rights violation when my own Gov. does the same thing and gets away with it? --] 03:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

:I've been to Cuba! Didn't get to meet Castro though.... ): I checked this website before I went, it used to be very nice. A lot of the stuff that is here is completely false, especially in the human rights and infrastructure sections. And you're hard pressed to find reference to any accomplishments made by Castro. Those that I did find had refutations by "the heratige foundation."
:--We have done a bit of research, and the heratige foundation was founded explicitly to give advice to Ronald Reagan in combating socialism in Nicaragua, and stopping socialism has been one of its central goals ever since. Hardly a "npov" source!
:And everywhere else there are editorial comments such as this "this crisis was not sufficient to persuade Cuban Communists that they should voluntarily give up power, nor was the economic crisis grave enough to bring about the fall of the government." I really do love Cuba, and hate to see all of this here. ] 04:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:05, 14 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cuba article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Cuba. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Cuba at the Reference desk.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former good article nomineeCuba was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 3, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 10, 2004, and October 10, 2005.
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconLatin America Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCuba Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CubaWikipedia:WikiProject CubaTemplate:WikiProject CubaCuba
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cuba task list:

Task list

WikiProject iconCaribbean Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconIslands
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands
WikiProject iconSocialism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
              Other: old GA nominee; On this day (2005); press notices; American English

    Section sizes
    Section size for Cuba (53 sections)
    Section name Byte
    count    		 Section
    total
    (Top) 22,544 22,544
    Etymology 980 980
    History 177 79,102
    Pre-Columbian era 3,112 3,112
    Spanish colonization and rule (1492–1898) 7,955 7,955
    Independence movements 9,723 9,723
    Republic (1902–1959) 71 19,028
    First years (1902–1925) 5,436 5,436
    Revolution of 1933–1940 2,170 2,170
    Constitution of 1940 3,498 3,498
    Batista regime 7,853 7,853
    Revolutionary government (1959–present) 48 39,107
    Consolidation and nationalization (1959–1970) 13,467 13,467
    Foreign interventions (1971–1991) 7,058 7,058
    Political readjustments (1991–present) 18,534 18,534
    Geography 2,124 12,328
    Climate 3,216 3,216
    Biodiversity 6,988 6,988
    Government and politics 14,983 52,784
    Administrative divisions 1,394 1,394
    Foreign relations 18,050 26,473
    Embargo by the United States (1960–present) 8,423 8,423
    Military 3,436 3,436
    Law enforcement 3,202 3,202
    Human rights 3,296 3,296
    Economy 27,322 35,271
    Resources 2,469 2,469
    Tourism 5,436 5,436
    Transport 44 44
    Demographics 1,815 43,722
    Largest cities 1,797 1,797
    Ethnoracial groups 5,692 5,692
    Migration 16 7,592
    Immigration 1,602 1,602
    Emigration 5,974 5,974
    Languages 1,485 1,485
    Religion 6,587 6,587
    Education 4,311 4,311
    Health 11,614 14,443
    Diet and Nutrition in the Cuban Household 2,829 2,829
    Culture 798 13,751
    Architecture 2,195 2,195
    Literature 1,409 1,409
    Music 2,101 2,101
    Dance 1,616 1,616
    Media 2,796 2,796
    Cuisine 1,152 1,152
    Sports 1,684 1,684
    See also 163 163
    Notes 34 34
    References 33 33
    Bibliography 12,195 12,195
    External links 1,798 1,798
    Total 274,705 274,705


    Human Rights section in need of review; who wrote this?

    Torture and weird sources

    First of all, simply writing "The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions" is not sufficient without mention of proper sources, for example NGO's or some recognized polity. I could accuse Norway of torture right now, so? What is this source supposed to be? http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Cuba67sp/indice.htm It is dated 1967? Surely something more recent should be found, otherwise the section might aswell be moved to "history of Cuba" Torture? Extrajudicial executions? I can't find any mention of these in recent reports. Not even the US state department claims the Cuban government practices torture or extrajudicial execution. Here is the recent report by human rights watch https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/cuba#3159b0 It does not mention torture, sexual abuse of inmates or extrajudicial executions. Those parts should be removed or changed to include what time this accusation was made. 

    Needs update

    Cuba had the second-highest number of imprisoned journalists of any nation in 2008 (China had the highest) according to various sources, including the Committee to Protect Journalists and Human Rights Watch

    Here it is mentioned that the statistic stems from 2008, which is good. But this statistic is kind of useless other then mentioning a previous condition. It missrepresents Cuba for the average reader. Cuba did not even make the list of this 2018 ranking for imprisoned journalists: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/12/13/where-the-most-journalists-are-imprisoned-worldwide-infographic/?sh=1b693b336332 The situation of journalists in Cuba is still under scrutany, but for different reasons. For example HRC writes: Cuba has the “most restricted climate for the press in the Americas” according to a 2019 Committee to Protect Journalists report. 

    WP:POV?

    The section does not balance out the negatives with the positives, such as information about Cubans access to healthcare, free abortions and school etc. Accusations from 70 years ago are being represented as if they are currently being made (torture and executions) 

    recomendations

    1. Remove claims of torture and extrajudicial executions from the first sentence 2. Mention were all accusations come from and source it 3. Remove the part about sexual abuse of inmates 4. Update section to represent current conditions. 5. Extend the section about the media with more information and remove the part about imprisonment of journalists.

    -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herooow (talk • contribs) 18 March 2022 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2024

    This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

    I am trying to give the Lucumí name for Cuba as well as it's original native name "Cubanascnan" 2600:1700:3356:EC00:3CAC:B50:4E1:F672 (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

     Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

    Correction

    cuba is a state capitalist country, not socialist. Please fix this. 70.53.52.32 (talk) 05:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

     Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (CC) Tbhotch 06:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    Categories: