Talk:Cuba

Archive 01 | Archive 02 | Archive 03 | Archive 04 | Archive 05 | Archive 06 | Archive 07

Elementary facts do not require citations

Cuba is not a democracy and this is an elementary fact that does not require a citation. If this is unclear to anyone, Adam Carr clearly established this in the past four talk archives. Please see Archive 04, Archive 05, Archive 06, and Archive 07. This fact will be included in the intro, and my stance, along with the stance of other editors concerned with the truth here, is non-negotiable. 172 | Talk 23:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Many disagree with this liberal pov--and it is a pov not a "fact". See [1]. What is reality is the undisputed fact that Cuba is not a liberal democracy. Democracy is not an ideal type, and is clearly means many different things to many different people. For the purposes of WP:NPOV, not to mention WP:NOR we have to recognise this! Myciconia 23:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: Myciconia (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Mystork (talk · contribs) and Colle (talk · contribs). From here on out, my policy will be to flag comments by sockpuppets as often as possible and not to respond to them. 172 | Talk 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have failed to do your research: User:Myciconia is User:Colle; I performed the rename myself: 02:34, May 3, 2006 Essjay (Renamed the user "Colle" (which had 908 edits) to "Myciconia") It is impossible to be a sockpuppet of onesself. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI Mystork was a sockpuppet of Colle. 172 | Talk 05:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The policy page on no original research clearly states that everything has to have been published before it can go on Wikipedia. Is this some sort of gag and I'm falling for it? -- Drogo Underburrow 08:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that no one has ever published that Cuba is not a democracy, and if so, can I put your comment on WP:BJAODN? Ambi 09:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that question directed at me? No, I'm not suggesting any such thing. However, anyone who wants to put in the article that Cuba is/is not a democracy should cite their source and attribute it in the article as the opinion of that source. That Cuba is/is not a democracy is an opinion. -- Drogo Underburrow 09:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A month ago, I recently added and the political and social conditions rank Cuba as one of the most repressive and least free nations on earth, alongside North Korea, Syria, and Sudan, according to independent international agencies like Freedom House and Amnesty International [2] to Fidel Castro article, providing sources.

Actually, the idea of difference between 'democracy' and liberal democracy' doesn't play any role with regard to Cuba: Cuba is currently a totalitarian dictatorhip, similar to the late USSR etc. It can't be a 'liberal democracy', but what is more, a pure form of one party (and one family!) dictature can not be any democracy at all ('1984': 'Freedom is slavery' etc...). During the times of the USSR existence, there were many in the west as well, who performed similar demagoguery of different types of democracy (and the 'Soviet democracy' was regarded the most 'democratic' democracy of them all!!). It looks as if we are facing similar 'democracy' advocates here.--Constanz - Talk 12:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba is not a democracy and this is an elementary fact that does not require a citation. - 172

Whether any country is a democracy is an opinion. "Democracy" is not a factual state of being. There is no scientific way of judging it, no set of standards that one can point to and say, "Yep, country X is 100% democratic, I measured it." Secondly, WP:NOR nowhere states that certain facts are elementary and do not require citation. Did I miss where it says that some things are 'elementary facts' and do not require citation? Please quote where it did, sometimes I do miss things. One thing I know I don't have to do, is go and read the archives for the Cuba talk page. Adam Carr may be a wonderful person, but he doesn't write the rules here, so he couldn't have established "this". Drogo Underburrow 05:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Whether any country is a democracy is an opinion. "Democracy" is not a factual state of being. There is no scientific way of judging it, no set of standards that one can point to and say, "Yep, country X is 100% democratic, I measured it."

No kidding? What else is an opinion? You may say that Hitler killed millions and I can say “this is an opinion”. Right? How can you convince me you’re right? Citing whatever other people wrote in the last 60 years? I can cite plenty of papers or webpages who state that there was no such thing as the Holocaust (does the name “David Irving” ring any bell?).

172, Adam and the Wikipedia dispute process

172, if you or others believe that these disputed statements are elementary facts that do not require citations. I encourage you, as many have done before, to comply with Wikipedia dispute processes and enter mediation on this matter. If you are confident of your position then you should also be confident that the process will swiftly find in your favour and we can move on. --Zleitzen 00:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I am not sure if I understand this issue properly. Firstly, to assume that only one definition of democracy is 'the correct definition' is fallacious & ethnocentric in the extreme. Second, why even have this debate? In the politics section, there is ample room to discuss the pro- and anti- castro viewpoints on the merits of Cauba's claim (such as it is, but it is) to democracy. The Democracy article itself provides ample room to discuss various merits and interpretations of the word. And we are still, by keeping this in the intro, implying that somehow the colonies remaining in the Western Hemisphere don't count, and also subtly POVing 'Cuba bad, everyone else good' - in spite of some rather ugly but technically democratic other places. Why bother doing this? What is the point? Bridesmill 01:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. There are plenty of clearly citable details available from (more neutral) groups such as the UN and Amnesty which illustrate life in Cuba. Including the arrests of dissidents, the executions of political prisoners, the restrictions of independant media etc. There quite simply is no need for ambiguities and contestable statements. --Zleitzen 01:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bridesmill asked "...what is the point". Of course the answer is obvious, that POV finds it important to show how 'bad Cuba is', and 'Cuba is the enemy', 'we hate Cuba', 'Fidel Castro is bad', and similar. These are genuine and real beliefs of a lot of people in the world, including many powerful people. Regardless, this is, at its essence, a political POV. An editorial decision must be made, just how much political POV is suitable in an encyclopedia. BruceHallman 02:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bridesmill, read through the old archives. We had this disussion already. Cuba fails to meet any definition of democracy. Adam Carr established this over and over again. At this stage, the calls for dispute resolution are malicious compliance meant to wear out supporters of inserting this elementary factual claim in the article. 172 | Talk 05:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you find the calls for dispute resolution wearing now 172, then why didn't you accept the offer when it was first given last month. Instead you rejected it (below was the mediators response from April 17) [3]

172 has refused to participate in the mediation; since medcabal is totally informal, there's not much I can do. 172, feel free to request a new mediation from the cabal if you like, but be aware that you don't get to pick who you want the mediator to be.::I am amazed that both 172 and Adam -- users who have a huge number of edits and have a record of constructive contributions elsewhere on the wiki -- have behaved so poorly during this process. Both 172 and Adam have been rude and uncivil to other editors. There is no excuse for that, and it has materially impeded getting on with improving the article. (Mediator Sdedeo)

There is nothing malicious about this, from my side at least. I am continuing to follow Wikipedia dispute procedures and requesting that you attempt to find consensus. If you are confident of your position then you should also be confident that the process will swiftly find in your favour and we can move on.--Zleitzen 05:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo was biased from the start. It's no surprise he was one of the few signers of the failed RfC against Adam, which got support from hardly anyone but sockpuppets and LaRouche activists. Now, I'm willing to work with you. You're obviously not an idiot or a troll. However, I don't think that's possible until you convince the more disruptive members of your side (not to name any names) to take a break from this article. 172 | Talk 05:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like it if all editors that are disrupting this article took a break. By disruption I mean reverting without consensus, mediation or serious civil discussion. --Zleitzen 05:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

By disruption, I mean systematically working to undermine basic factual content in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, a community second. 172 | Talk 05:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia would not be an encyclopedia without a community! Yes, our primary goal is building an encyclopedia, but to do that properly we must work togeather. There are no blank cheques for users who feel their personal interpretation of the world constitutes "truth." Myciconia 08:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

172 wrote above: "Bridesmill, read through the old archives. We had this disussion already. Cuba fails to meet any definition of democracy. ", Indeed yes, there has been plenty of 'discussion', and indeed no, there has been very little attempt to show that Cuba fails to meet any definition of democracy. 172, please specifically point to the citations to which you refer. There has been several citation that Cuba is tough on political dissidents has had a questionable human rights record, but those two arguments do not even come close to proving that "Cuba fails to meet any definition of democracy.". BruceHallman 13:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this page, I'm not doubting there have been problems caused in the past by pro-Castro POV warriors. However, the solution to this is not to give free reign to anti-Castro POV warriors. It looks to me like 172 and Adam are both inappropriately attempting to own this article. Please try to remember, guys, not everyone who disagrees with you is a pro-Castro POV pushing crackpot. There is room for reasonable folks to disagree over statements like "It is the only state in the Western hemisphere which is not a democracy". If you're letting your desire for The Truth interfere with your ability to compromise, you're being a fanatic. Friday (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also. Isn't this article supposed to be about Cuba? Why does it have to be framed as a pro-Castro versus anti-Castro battleground? BruceHallman 14:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This page should be largely concerned with geography, brief history, culture etc. See Iran, see Pakistan. Both much larger countries with far more questionable human rights records. Also both countries are steeped in governmental anomalies. Yet all this attention is on Cuba. The pro-Castro versus anti-Castro battleground doesn't interest me at all. I couldn't care less if Castro dropped dead tomorrow, quite frankly. I just want proportion, weight and NPOV. The activities of certain editors only strengthens my resolve to make sure that this is achieved for the sake of the wikipedia project. --Zleitzen 15:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a democracy

User 172 has written to a number of editors with the following copied paragraph.

Adam Carr recently started bringing the Cuba article up to standard, gradually rewriting each section. In the meantime, his work has been resisted for several weeks by a group of Castro supporters who dispute, among other things, that the fact that Cuba is not a democracy. Adam Carr is now at a conference for a couple of weeks, meaning his work will likely be undone. If you have the time and the interest, please take a look.

It should be noted that that many of the editors which resist Adam Carr and 172's edits to this article are not "Castro Supporters" including myself. Far from it in fact as I have stated many times. This dispute is between Adam Carr/172 and those who wish to uphold Wikipedia's core values of verifiability and NPOV.--Zleitzen 12:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What I find curious here is that several folks appear not to be paying attention to the points which they take for granted but which are anything but:

• there is debate (perhaps spurious, but debate nonetheless) in regards what democracy is and whether Cuba is quote democratic unquote. That debate cannot be sloughed off with a four word clause in the intro; this is admitted to by virtue of a reasonably lengthy discussion on the topic in the Politics & Gov't section
• there are entities/states in the Western hemisphere which, by virtue of their being dependencies/colonies are arguably not democracies; their fates being in the hands of countries elsewhere (which themselves may be democratic but that is not the point)
• there are quote democracies unquote in the western hemisphere whose records in terms of human rights and freedoms are arguably as bad or worse than those of Cuba

Given that, it seems simplistic, inaccurate, and academically dishonest to make the assertion in the intro. Additionally, it leaves the article vulnerable to a number of challenges. It also seems somewhat over-simplistic to categorize all who hold this opinion as 'Pro Castro fanatics'. If Zleitzen, myself, and others, argued that there is no place for that discussion in the Pol & Gov sect, fine, that might be a valid argument - but that is not what we are saying. It is perfectly possible - indeed much easier - to paint Cuba for the place it is without going there in the intro. Bridesmill 12:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree w/ Bridesmill. We got to get rid of comments such as "pro-Castro fanatics, communists, bastards..." I just don't care if Adam is on vacation or is in a meeting w/ Kofi Anan. This is a collaborative work and respect is the key. I have to add that controvertial statements and edits should be referenced. Cheers -- Szvest 15:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

I just joined this discussion/article. Reading this talk page discussion, I think I get some sense of the matters disputed, but I'm sure the talk page archives contains hundred of pages along the same lines.

In general, this sentence that had appeared in the intro (I took it out) is absolutely unacceptable on several grounds: It is the only state in the Western hemisphere which is not a democracy. In the first place, this sentence makes judgements about all the other states in the Western hemisphere, which is far overbroad. I will not play some petty game of false specifics, but there are at least several other states in the WH which are at least arguably not democracies.

The second part of course, is whether Cuba is or is not a democracy itself. Any one sentence answer to this is certainly has no place in the lead; nor, for that matter, is WP the place to give any definitive affirmative or negative answer at all. It depends greatly on what you mean. Cuba has a constitutional system that includes non-partisan elections; in a procedural sense, this has a democratic form. De facto, these same elections fall short of democratic ideals of free and fair elections. The Cuban constitution similarly protects many civil liberties that are often considered central to democracies (but which ones so considered varies greatly, as does whether democracy depends on specific protections or only on procedural mechanisms). And again, de jure protections of civil liberties are often not enforced in practice... but then, to a greater or lesser degree, similar gaps between legal and practical protections exist in other WH states such as the Canada, Mexico, USA, Peru, Haiti, etc. LotLE×talk 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree, and you echo the arguments that many users have made on this matter for nearly a month. Do those who insist on it's inclusion wish to continue disputing this matter?--Zleitzen 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I was initially concerned that several other countries in Latin America are arguably not democracies, particularly Venezuela and Haiti. Adam already addressed this section [4] and on my user talk page. 172 | Talk 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Adam Carr proposed the following compromise in Archive 6: Cuba is the only state in the western hemisphere which does not conform to the definition of democratic government accepted by the great majority of governments and by international election monitoring and human rights organisations. The Cuban government and its supporters in other countries nevertheless maintain that Cuba is a democracy. I will insert that language for the time being. In the meantime, while he is gone, I'm not going to water down the intro any further. 172 | Talk 16:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Among the problems in 172's above sentence are that it is:

1. Too long
2. Too ugly and circumlocutionary
3. Filled with original research
4. Very, very soap-boxish
5. Completely unnecessary.

Here's a sentence which is factual and says everything that needs saying in the lead: Cuba is a socialist republic in which the Communist Party of Cuba is the sole legal political party. LotLE×talk 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, LotLE's version is better for the reasons given above. Friday (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not my sentence. Did you read my talk page post above? It's Adam's. Please read through the archives so that you know what's being disputed. In the meantime, I'm out of here for a long time. I'm thoroughly sick of Wikipeida, especially after Friday's post suggesting that I'm acting as an "anti-Castro POV-pusher." I'm sure the editors who've accused be of being a Stalinist, among other things, in the past will disagree. I invited some of them to take a look at the article. Hopefully they'll show up. 172 | Talk 17:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto to Lulu. The other problem with the proposed lengthy piece is that it leaves wiggle-room to insert other 'noxious' governments that "do not conform to the definition of democratic government" but nevertheless are technically 'democratic'. Bridesmill 17:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto to Bradesmill. First (introductory) paragraph certainly is not a place where contested statements should be. The place for such statements is in Goverment and Politics stations.

I think that now we can finally settle one of the issues in this article!--RockyMM 17:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Form of government in lead

User:Zleitzen just took out the neutral sentence that had been in the lead about the form of government of Cuba; to wit: Cuba is a socialist republic in which the Communist Party of Cuba is the sole legal political party. I am of the opinion that that is generally worth including in the lead. The exact sentence does not seem to occur in the government section, though clearly a very similar description does.

For a quick comparison, I looked at the article on the other countries that were mentioned as geographically close to Cuba. That's not necessarily representative of all country articles on WP, but it seemed convenient. Of those, Haiti and the US had material in the lead that describe their general form of government, while Jamaica, Mexico, and Bahamas do not. It's ambiguous whether the description of the Cayman Islands as a territory counts as a comment on its form of government. So I think the general moral can only be that nation articles are a mixed bag in this regard. It's certainly not unhead of to describe form of government in lead, but neither is it a pro forma requirment.

However, given that the political form of Cuba is often of more prominent interest to readers than is that of other nations (often of more prominence than specifics of its population, geography, etc), I think leaving a neutral sentence in the lead is a good idea. Obviously, not anything that introduces POV with praise or condemnation, as some earlier versions had, but a brief factual statement. Does anyone disagree? LotLE×talk 19:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the Cuba is a socialist republic ... line needs to stay as well; this is totally uncontested, and places the whole rest of the article in appropriate context. I'm glad this article is on a NPOV 'path', lets not have the pendulum swing the other way?Bridesmill 19:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the 'Cuba is a socialist republic..' sentence has not been subject to much dispute. Though, this was mostly because of being overshadowed by other larger disputes. As I see it, the 'type of goverment debate' is central to the battle between the two camps of the POV, and the most neutral path is to not give 'type of goverment debate' prominance in the introduction, and instead discuss the controversy further down the page. We should ask ourselves: What is the reason to have the 'type of government' sentence in the introduction? The only honest answer is that it was due to a POV fight. What a shame, as our goal should be to write an encyclopedia article, not engage in POV fights. BruceHallman 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not so sure if that is the case; point of intro is tell the story in a para or so; and for folks to get a page into reading about Cuba, which is a bit strange by any stretch, before getting a hint as to why it is a bit out of the ordinary is just not helpful. Leaving this statement out of the intro smacks of POV & trying to make the place all sweetness and light. Which it isn't. I really don't care 'how' the line got there, point is, it's a good line. Bridesmill 19:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever the history of how the sentence got into the lead, the question should be what readers want to see. If Cuba were the only nation article that had "type of government" in the lead that would be suspicious. But many such articles do: (as mentioned) United States and Haiti; (also) Russia, Singapore, Poland, Turkey, Canada, etc. I also tried a number of other countries that omit such a mention from the lead. So it's not a simple rule either for or against inclusion. But as I said, in this case, I think it's better to mention, omission seems more POV than inclusion of a neutral sentence. LotLE×talk 19:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I get your point, and honor it. Though, I still argue that the most neutral path is to deal with all the controversy down in the body of the article. Bear in mind some potential (other camp) POV items that are also eligible in the introduction, like universal Cuban healthcare, stellar Cuban education statistics, etc.. Why stop with one POV 'pet issue' in the introduction and not others? Keeping all the POV 'pet issues' out of the introduction is more neutral for that reason. BruceHallman 19:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How's this for a compromise: I changed the info box to read "socialist republic" rather than simply "republic". That seems more accurate in any case, but also puts the relevant information "in the lead". The stuff like universal health care and education don't seem absurd to include in the lead either. I guess I'd be curious whether you can find good analogies in other nation articles. I found a number that mention form-of-government, but I didn't notice any that describe form-of-healthcare in the lead (though I wasn't looking for that). Cuba isn't unique in having universal healthcare, and the others that have it seem not to lead with that (nor is it unique in being socialist; but as mentioned, form-of-government seems to earn lead fairly frequently). Of course, if I missed some examples, that would be a good point for inclusion of universal healthcare in lead. LotLE×talk 19:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the sentence in the first place, but the reason for removing it is because if it remains dangling there it has the danger of becoming a repeated WP:BEANS issue. I may be alone here in thinking that the status of Cuba's government is not one the first things that immediately leaps out when I think of the place. To me and many others Cuba is primarily associated with it's distinct Caribbean / Latin culture. But I have no great objections to any decision either way if it works. --Zleitzen 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think your 'socialist republic' edit to the government box is a good neutral compromise. It is worth some research, but Cuba is unique in healthcare I think among Latin American countries. Their per capita GDP is 1/15th that of the USA, yet Cuba and the USA both have an infant mortality rate of 7 per 1000, that is remarkable. The Dominican Republic which has a similar per capita GDP as Cuba and has an infant mortality rate of 44 per 1000 BruceHallman 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We do not have the right on Wikipedia to decide for ourselves what form of government Cuba has and state it as a bald fact. To do this is to flout official Wikipedia policy. We need a sourced statement about what form of government Cuba has. I suggest someone find out from a published source what Cuba calls itself, and put that in the intro, clearly identifying that the source is the Cuban government itself and citing the published source so anyone can look it up. Drogo Underburrow 06:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Cuban constitution calls Cuba a Republic. It adds that it is guided by Socialist principles etc. Socialist republic is correct in the paragraph. Republic is technically correct in the info box. The constitution is linked in the article.

ARTICLE 1. Cuba is an independent and sovereign socialist state of workers, organized with all and for the good of all as a united and democratic republic, for the enjoyment of political freedom, social justice, individual and collective well-being and human solidarity.

ARTICLE 2. The name of the Cuban state is Republic of Cuba, the official language is Spanish and its capital city is Havana.

Zleitzen 06:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Cuban constitution is a primary document. While at certain times it is permissible to use primary documents in support of statements on Wikipedia, a statement in a published secondary source would be much preferable. Certainly somewhere the Cuban government has stated in print what form of government Cuba has. Combining terms used in different places in the Cuban constitution smacks dangerously close to synthesizing material, and hence could be considered as original research. In any event, the statement in the article needs to be attributed to the source used, the reader needs to know who says that Cuba is a socialist republic. Stating it as a bald fact is not acceptable. The sun is a star, but Cuba is not a 'socialist republic'; it only calls itself that, but calling itself that doesn't make it so. Drogo Underburrow 07:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a rather excessive disputive for its own sake, ISTM. In any case, I added two external citations to two other ordinary reference works (Atlaspedia and EB Online) that lead with the same description. I have it in the infobox now (it looked too disruptive in the lead paragraph itself). It doesn't really look great there either, maybe moved father down into the "government" section would be less obtrusive. In any case, the "socialist republic" description is commonplace, and essentially uniform in all sources. What next, demanding a citation for the fact Cuba is south of Florida? LotLE×talk 07:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you can tell the difference between a geography fact that no one will dispute, and a political claim that is a matter of contention and needs a source attribution. Far from being excessive, my comment was quite modest and accomodating. If you prefer, I can take the position that the intro should state not what the Cuban government calls itself, but what the majority of sources call Cuba. - Drogo Underburrow 10:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We have many citations from UN, EU, etc that also officially describe Cuba as a "socialist republic" or "republic" if you so require. This has been discussed and agreed many times on this page and your queries form part of a larger project, which should help answer a number of these key questions when completed. --Zleitzen 13:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see, is everything else would be opinion because there is no universally accepted standards of government-type categorization. Tomato, tomato, totalitarian dicatorship, socialist democracy. Myciconia 07:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone should write an article explaing what sort of government a Socialist republic is. --Uncle Ed 14:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oops, I guess they did. That link redirects to Socialist state. --Uncle Ed 14:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Your one party quantifier is OK by me, but I believe that to expand this again will only create more problems as many users have recognised. I have a thousand citations from all sides about this, and the only way to incorporate the themes is in the goverment section. Your Sandy Berger statement was a new one though!--Zleitzen 14:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Berger quote is very useful- just what we needed. It's nice to see people actually paying attention to WP:V instead of just arguing the merits of their own opinions and original research. Friday (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't find it useful. There are literally thousands of citations available on this matter, many that have already been through the mill if you wish to check the archives. This version is akin the one that was rejected some time ago for many of the reasons given above. It is not appropriate to have such a contested statement in the opening section. --Zleitzen 14:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Economy

"Remaining a Soviet-Styled economy" is inaccuarate 172, Cuba attempted a Soviet-Style economy after the revolution but moved to a Maoist form for ten years or so. They tried to re-centralise during the 1980's (trying a 5 year plan etc) but after the Soviet collapse were forced to improvise a patchwork of economic policies. Basically Cuban handling of the economy has been a unmitigated mess, and doesn't bare close relation to the heavy planning of the Soviet model. --Zleitzen 16:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but relatively speaking, it comes closer than just about any country in the world today. At any rate, I'm out of here for now. 172 | Talk 17:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your words 'unmitigated mess' seems polarized. In the last decade, their pharmaceutical industry and their tourism industry, both somewhat successful, have 'mitigated' the economic mess a bit. BruceHallman 17:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh go live off a ration card. 172 | Talk 17:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The planning aspects over the years have been chaotic though, Bruce. With various ill advised experiments and political failures. The sugar industry, for instance, was neglected in part because Castro believed it to be "a tool of imperialism". --Zleitzen 17:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought that it was Che Gevara who was the first to undermine sugar industry on Cuba on purpose, because it symbolised opression and capitalism to him.--RockyMM 17:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the pair of them shared that ideology. --Zleitzen 17:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me to think I am saying that the sugar industry is not degraded, a mess so to speak. I just tried to point out that their economy is not entirely 'unmitigated'. Isn't another recent problem in the agricultural sector the high cost of petroleum and fertilizer? This explains in part the push for organic farming methods, fertilizer is expensive. Also, the private farmers markets are a 'mitigation' of the economic 'mess' or at least a start, both for the ease of the transportation costs and for the 'free market'. Also, the paladoras are a mitigation of the 'mess' too. BruceHallman 17:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair points, Bruce. And as most Latin Americans know by now, politically motivated economic "mess" is by no means exclusive to the policies of leftist governments. --Zleitzen 17:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, I'm not sure your statement about a trend towards the private sector here takes into account recent changes to the Cuban economy. It was mine, and 172's understanding that since the emergence of the Bolivarians, China and the Euro, Castro was "rolling" back some of these changes. That was the narrative that 172 was trying to express and I think he's right here. Your source only refers to figures from 2000, a lot has happened in Cuba since. See this [5]. --Zleitzen 01:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish there was more current data that just 2000, still the trend from 1981 to 2000 is real. Your reference, based on the Miami Herald report, seems credible but 'short on data' and not clear whether they mean that the private sector trend has slowed, stopped or reversed. BruceHallman 13:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at the summary of the report here [6] and it seems that the press report may have slanted the findings. Top marks for eagle-eye Hallman and another factoid to go into my burgeoning Cuban notebook!--Zleitzen 14:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor note of caution

Now that User:172 appears to be on a break, and User:Adam is away with meatspace work, those currently editing should perhaps ask whether they are 'NPOVing' what was here before, or simply reinserting their own POV, which will then be viciously redone by the other parties when they return? Etc Ad Nauseum, when alternatively this could become easily an FA? Are we working together for a better tomorrow or??? Or do we all need to step back & take three deep breaths? Just wondering....Bridesmill 22:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points Bridesmill. The aim should be to reinforce the article to protect it from all sides. --Zleitzen 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Society | Education: Suggestion to clear up wording

The Society|Education section currently notes "All higher education and university education is public and available free of charge. The University of Havana, Cuba's oldest university, was founded in 1721; prior to 1959 there were other official universities including: Universidad de Oriente (founded in 1947) and Universidad Central de Las Villas (founded in 1857); private universities included: Universidad Católica de Santo Tomás de Villanueva (founded in 1946); Universidad Masónica, and the Universidad de la Salle in Nuevo Vedado. In 1961 private schools and universities were nationalized (without reimbursement)." The wording in bold is strange. It seems to imply that after 1959 something happened to all the other official universities. In fact, the only key difference between pre and post-revolution was that the private universities were nationalized. To reflect this fact more clearly, would I suggest the paragraph be re-written "All higher education and university education is public and available free of charge. The University of Havana, Cuba's oldest university, was founded in 1721. Other official universities include Universidad de Oriente (founded in 1947) and Universidad Central de Las Villas (founded in 1857). Private universities, which were nationalized without reimbursement along with private schools in 1961, include Universidad Católica de Santo Tomás de Villanueva (founded in 1946); Universidad Masónica, and the Universidad de la Salle in Nuevo Vedado." Key changes in bold. Any thoughts? Patiwat 07:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. LotLE×talk 07:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion makes sense to me. BruceHallman 13:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Zleitzen 13:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

172's unilateral removal of image

Re: [7], [8], et al.

I believe the image of Che to have encyclopedic relevance due to A) It is a typical example of a very common site in Cuba. B) Che Guevara is a national hero of the Cuban revolution. C) The image is good quality GDFL D) The German wikipedia seems to agree with me. Myciconia 08:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A) If you want a "typical" or "common" site, why not one of more historical and cultural importance that carries zero POV controversy, such as "El Castillo del Morro" or the "Varadero Beach" (both of which any Cuban can identify while that mural is only on display in a section that receives high tourist traffic)? Additionally, that picture is not about the site, but the image of Che (and a relatively obscure one at that - and half my family is from Santa Clara). Unless you meant the word "site" as something seen and not location, to which I point out there are no pictures of graffiti in the New York City wikipedia page. B) Che being a hero is without a doubt pure POV. To many Cubans he was not. C) An image's quality has absolutely NO bearing on its worthiness in an encyclopedic article. D) It doesn't belong in the German Wikipedia article, either.

I'll concede that a picture of an obscure mural of Che might be relevant in the Che article. --Mcmachete 09:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't Che in an article about Cuba be seen as similar to Abraham Lincoln in an article about the USA? Lincoln was not and is still not universally admired in the USA, he was controversial in life, and death, and still Lincoln has become a political icon. BruceHallman 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)