Talk:Cuba/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Archive
2 Why organic farming?
3 Universities
4 Embargo v. Blockade
5 Anti-communist bias
6 Removal of 66.176.126.243's changes.
- 6.1 Anti-communist bias ?!?!?!
7 There seems to be some bias and hostility erupting in here.
8 History
9 Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board
10 Big revert
11 Another revert of 199.125.186.19
12 Communist, Socialist or Revolutionary
13 82 revolutionaries
14 Iraqi POW's
15 Deleting whole contributions without even looking at them
16 Health and Education
17 Democracy in Cuba?
18 Regarding Cuba's independence
19 Backing up sources
20 Guantanamo Bay
21 State department link
22 ¡CUBANOS DE LA ATENCIÓN!
23 US occupation or "administration"?
24 Cuban cosmonaut, worth mentioning?
25 Republic of Cuba
26 Size of PCC
27 Arrgh!!!!
28 Photo
29 El Jigüe, aka 2005 205.240.227.15 ...
30 Seven Years' War
- 30.1 Paroxysms of pettifoggery
31 Politics

Why organic farming?

Why is organic farming mentioned in the economy but not the abject failure of their socialist policies? The most unique aspect of Cuba is its economic policies and how these policies have been a disaster.

Probably because 15 years ago Cuba's critics/enemies were all predicting the speedy collapse of the system on account of those disastrous policies. The rapid transformation of its food producing methods - made possible by the socialist system - played a crucial part in the system's continued survival. And Cuba is still an independent republic, resisting the various US attempts to overpower and dominate it. So where's the abject failure? MichaelW 09:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The US give Cuba a wonderful excuse; the embargo. How big the effect of it is is difficult to ascertain (though it will be big) but that's irrelevant. There's always the possibility that that has a decisive effect. Only when the embargo is lifted and Cuba is given the same amount of aid that other poor countries get (I don't know how much they do get and would really like to know) and after several decades the economy hasn't improved can you say that the economy has failed. But even then you can't say that Socialism is the cause of that. Would an article on a poor capitalist country (the majority of countries in the world) state that the poverty is a proof of the abject failure of capitalism? I don't even need to check. If anyone would state that in such an article it would be instantly reverted.

On the other hand the Cubans have made some very big mistakes, like the stupid idea in the early years to focus totally on the production of sugar. And after that not to diversify any further (just sugar, Nickel and tobacco and recently tourism). Castro (I think it was him) said that, just like they had to learn how to wage a guerrilla war whilst doing it, they had to learn economy the same way. Maybe the success of the first made him think he could pull off the second as well. This is a problem with revolutions. Those who are capable of making a revoltion a success are usually not the kind of people who are good at running a country. But they generally do not give up power. Which is a major shortcoming of revolutions, but then sometimes they are needed alas (at least Cubans are better off now than they were before the revolution - however much they may bitch about Castro, they all acknowledge that).

Also, Socialism at this scale is an experiment that has been performed only a few times. You can't base any conclusions on so few experiments, certainly if there are so many other factors at play (we're talking economy here). Socialism on a smaller scale, like in the Netherlands or Sweden, has proven very successful, though.

And what does organic farming have to do with this? DirkvdM 17:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It would seem that "organic" farming in Cuba is code for not using inorganic fertilizer because there is not any. As to people in Cuba being "happy" with Castro, one might consider that the desperation of the rafters trying to escape [1] might be interpreted by most objective observers as being a most odd reaction to happiness (El Jigüe, 9/26/2005).

Who mentioned 'happy'? I don't see the word 'happy' anywhere hereabove. Do you mean to bring up the subject? Well some are happy with Castro and some aren't. Not much different from any other country. As for the rafters, they left because they weren't happy with the economy (which was indeed on the verge of collapsing). So, like those who left in the early 1960's, they were economic refugees, except this time they were poor economic refugees.DirkvdM 06:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

By 1996 organic food production in Cuba was sufficiently advanced in research and development to command great respect from international experts, including some who had no particular feelings about Cuba politically. One of the latter told me that in certain areas they were already way beyond what we did in the UK. The national conversion to organic methods and the massive development of allotment and market gardens in Havana from 1992 on was a pragmatic response to the loss of agrochemical imports but it was successful in both upping the domestic production of foodstuffs and in convincing many skeptics of the efficacy of organic methods of production.

It should be noted that it was the Cuban armed forces who made the first substantial response to the food crisis of the early 1990s, implementing organic procedures on their farms, reproducing textbooks on organic methods, and producing herbal medicine plants on a large scale, with the aim of making the forces self sufficient in food and medicines. Raoul Castro is a regular visitor to agriculture research institutes, keeping in touch with the latest developments. When I visited in 2000 the army was passing the control of some of their profitable fruit orchards over to civilian co-operatives. MichaelW 20:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The Economy section should mention a few things that are almost exclusively Cuban

Rationing (perhaps a link to Univ of FL article on rationing)
Recurring blackouts (more frequent in the 90's but an everyday occurrence even in the 70's).
wage slavery of professionals (doctors make USD $18/month)

Ireason 04:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Ouch! That last bit is extremely POV. One might just as well reason that the uneven distribution of wealth in capitalist societies amounts to economic slavery. And I wouldn't put that in the article of every capitalist country (ie almost all countries in the world). And not because that would be instantly reverted, but just because it's very POV. Even stating something like 'some would say that....' would be out of place. That should be reserved for articles on economy in general. Anyway, isn't it obvious that in a socialist country wages are roughly the same? Well, maybe that could be mentioned.

The blackouts could be mentioned (they do seem to be more frequent in Cuba than in other countries). And I also thought about mentioning the rationing. But I wanted to mention the triple economy (Peso, USD and coupons), but then the USD disappeared as legal tender and somehow I never got around to it anymore.

There are other things that are worthy of a mention in the economy section, such as the fact that many things are for free (a partial explanation for the low income) such as education, healthcare (which are already mentioned elsewhere, but are also relevant for the economy) and housing. In effect all Cubans are house-owners. I thought I had already added that (or was that elsewhere?), but it may very well have been removed and I don't feel like another revert war. I'm having a hard enough time as it is keeping a simple photograph in the article. DirkvdM 11:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, maybe the doctor bit is POV and a description of wages and benefits of life in Cuba is more appropriate. Cuba is one of the few countries in the world where a well-educated professional with a productive job has little hope of traveling outside the country on vacation. Perhaps a new linked article called Everyday life in Cuba that explains how people live there is warranted. Although most countries' articles don't have an Everyday life in XXXX sub-article, I think Cuba is different and curious enough to warrant one. As an example, you say all Cubans are house-owners, but in reality nobody is allowed to sell their house; they are just renting from the government. They can trade homes with another willing family, but that's difficult and is about it. Home construction has not kept up with population growth and new families just live with their parents. The educational system can also be explained more fully. It is true the quality of the education is very high, but its use as an indoctrination tool should also be explained. This doesn't have to be POV, just descriptive, and it should include the advantages of living there, free healthcare, good education, guaranteed employment, sports, and not much envy. Ireason 19:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I've already written something like an 'Everyday life in Cuba' bit in the Culture of Cuba article under 'Street Impressions', where it seems more appropriate. I wanted to write more but never got around to it. If that is expanded enough it might actually become a separate article. And I don't wee why other countries couldn't have such a section. This is not a paper encyclopedia that is limited in space. There can (and should) be an article on anything and everything. It's just a matter of getting it organised properly. And making sure it's true, which can be harder. And well balanced, which may be the trickiest bit. I add my perspective, you add yours, so to say.

Cubans don't rent their houses from the government because they don't pay rent. Which is one reason the low incomes aren't as bad as they look, which is what I meant to say. They can however indeed not sell their house, just swap it (by putting a sign on the door saying 'se permuta'). Which is one of those socialist ideas that sound nice (it helps prevent uneven accumulation of wealth) but are really just a nuisance. Money may have its disadvantages, but one shouldn't forget its advantages.

I noticed the housing problem in Santiago de Cuba, where to my surprise I ran into a slum (ie ramshackle houses made of whatever material is available - including stone though on some occasions). But it was a different kind of slum, not for rejects, but with the government distributing gas and water. I wonder if the whole thing might even have been a government project. This kind of thing springing up spontaneously doesn't fit in with a socialist (planned) economy. But maybe in Cuba it isn't all as planned as, say, in the USSR.

Of course the education indoctrinates, but that's inherent to it (by definition even). When I studied economics I was also effectively indoctrinated in the free-market philosophy because it describes the society we live in.

The 'guaranteed employment' bit isn't as ideal as it sounds because (as one illegal chocolate salesman told me) it's hard work for little money. Which is why he sold chocolate on the black market. Then again I don't know the exact wages and maybe he was just lazy. Well, I suppose the truth will be somewhere in the middle as it usually is.

The 'not much envy' bit is strikingly true. When in Cuba I wondered whether the indoctrination in socialist thinking had caused the people to act in such an egalitarian fashion or that it's really the other way around. Maybe socialism is so successful in Cuba because the Cubans are 'naturally' like that. Many people have fallen in love with Cuba in the past (such as Ernest Hemingway) and I believe that is one reason. DirkvdM 07:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Dirk: Hemingway and Castro met only once, at a marlin-fishing tournament that of course Castro won [[2]]. Hemingway was upset that he was losing his property after all he had done for left wing causes. In the end the property was "donated" [[3]] to Castro; and Hemingway never returned. (El Jigüe, 9/30/2005)

What's that about? You might want to have a look at what we were talking about. DirkvdM 07:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Xe! Xe! It was you who brought up Hemingway. (El Jigüe, October 6th 2005).

Universities

Not a single word about any universities (are there any?) or even about education on Cuba!

Of course there are universities on Cuba. Education is actually one of the strongest points of Cuba. The high literacy rate doesn't come faling from the sky. DirkvdM July 4, 2005 18:43 (UTC)

The University of Havana was established in the 1728. Entrance required a Bachiller degree (equivalent to US high school plus some junior college), tuition was low, and free access was available on proof of poverty. When Castro came to power there were a number of other public (Universidad de Oriente comes to mind) and private (e.g. Universidad de Villa Nueva) universities. Castro has taken over all of these and built some more (the population of Cuba has doubled); however now proof of political orthodoxy is required to enter any Cuban University.

Embargo v. Blockade

Someone has recently changed the name of certain US actions actions against Cuba from "embargo" to "blockade". In one sense this is a correct change because both countries use this term (or bloqueo in Spanish). There was of course a blockade during the time of the Missile Crisis in the 1960s, but over an extended period of time this has really been an embargo, and "blockade" is a misnomer. In a blockade of a country, all traffic is prevented from enterring or leaving it. All ships from third countries are blocked by military force from doing business with the blockaded country. Cuba does continue to trade with other countries.

The question becomes, "Do we use the incorrect term supported by both parties to the dispute, or do we use the term that more correctly describes the factual situation?" ☮ Eclecticology 01:49, 2003 Aug 11 (UTC)

Or use both and explain? Robneild 20:01, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Meriam Webster's definition of "blockade" includes this "broadly : a restrictive measure designed to obstruct the commerce and communications of an unfriendly nation". Those who insist on the narrow definition of blockade often do so because of their political viewpoint.

Further, the more precise term "economic blockade" is often used.

Beardo 03:13, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In this context since both American and Cuban official sources misuse the term blockade your argument that it is because of a political viewpoint has no basis in fact. Some of us just like to use the language correctly. Your quotation is fine, but it does not reflect what's happening. The Americans forbid their citizens from trading with Cuba; that's an embargo. They are not AFAIK maintaining a naval presence outside Havana harbour to obstruct the shipping of other nations; if they did that would be a blockade. ☮ Eclecticology 10:25, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)

It is not a "blockade" but a Trade and Financial Embargo.

Orbis Tertius 04:25, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

US actions are a "blockade" as they are extraterritorial.

'The Helms-Burton Act's provisions include a new private right of action by providing for civil suits in U.S. courts against foreign nationals using, dealing, or trafficking in property in Cuba to which U.S nationals have claims; denies U.S. visas to executives and majority shareholders (and their immediate families) of companies trafficking in such property. The Act defines trafficking to include selling, transferring, leasing, purchasing and other activities and any "commercial activity using or otherwise benefiting from confiscated property" and directing, participating in or profiting from a company that "traffics" in "confiscated property."'

This means that even when Cuba trades with other countries it often has to do so at inflated prices to offset the loss of business with the United States suffered by those companies it trades with.

In this sense the US measures are "obstructing the commerce and communications of a [perceived] unfriendly nation".

Anti-communist bias

I have reread the article and it became evident to me that is contains strong anti-communist/anti-Castro bias. We should somehow try to make this article NPOV... [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 15:21, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Which is it, anti-communist or anti-Castro? -- orthogonal 16:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't know exact numbers and facts too much, but my bull shit detector is ringing off the wall. For example, in the History section, pictures of flourishing Cuba before the revolution and emphasizing problems of communist Cuba look extemely non-NPOV. Use of wording like a small group of less than 100 "rebeldes" triggers the alarm too. In the Economy section there is evident nonsense that remittance from exiles amounts to third of the Cuban economy (at least wording imply this). All three paragraphs about Cuban economy describe how much US help to Cuba. All Cuban achievements and positive sides are omitted. This article evidently deserves huge refactoring... [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 20:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've checked the article's history and found that all bias is introduced by single anonymous user: 66.176.126.243. And all words that trigger alarm, are written by him. Therefore, I will try to accurately revert his changes only. It will allow the comunity to continue with clear article. [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 20:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about?! This "bias" can't be just erased! And you saying it will be clear? More like now biased towards you! Listen, all you people have the wrong idea. Castro's government is a dictatorship, and he did excute and imprison thousands of political prisoners. Castro may not have always claimed to be a communist, but he did always have communist ideals. And, he did remove other groups quickly and violently! Didn't it even say in the article that Fidel made Cuba an atheist state? People weren't allowed to celebrate Christmas, or own land! Now, before you start telling me how wrong I am, and how biased I am, let me respond with this: I am Cuban, My parents are Cuban, My grandparents are Cuban, many of my relatives are still in Cuba, at least three of my relatives were or are in jail for being "anti-castro", and we are proud Americans. You may call me biased and angry, but really, are you saying YOU aren't biased? Saying that Castro is "just a different political idealogy" and that "Cuba isn't that bad" when you have never seen the way people live, and you are denouncing anyone else who says different or was actually there? By the way, Cuba is as bad as he says, so your "bull shit detector" must be malfunctioning, dr.bug. Just because the hospitals and education is free, doesn't mean the people aren't poor, or starving, or dying, or are being "silenced". Please, just try to take the facts and not denounce them for your fantasies. In closing, I do ask that the article is reverted to it's previous form, of so-called "anti-communist bias" because I want the truth to be there, and not just the absence of it because some people don't want to face it. Thank You.

Removal of 66.176.126.243's changes.

I have removed all the contibutions of 66.176.126.243. All these contributions are disputable at the best. Considering that there was long consensus on the article before his edits, I suppose it's a right thing to remove his bias and to continue NPOV consensus editing.

It's interesting that details of meaning of one single word led to discusion and investigation during which serious fault was found - and, hopefully, eliminated!

[[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 20:56, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank You my capitalist Cuban for your right wing propaganda. The truth is that The USA once again, as it has done may times before, picks and chooses its "dictators"like Battista (sic). As for your JEWISh fictional deity called GOD, only those of us with superior intellect understand the stupidity of propagating such religious crap.

Anti-communist bias ?!?!?!

Please, is there anybody who wants to write the truth out there? I can't.

"subsumed these other groups quickly and violently" is not right!

"When Castro started to execute political opponents", sure?

"Castro claimed he was always a communist", please show me documents! (Castro said he always was, but after the missile crisis I believe. However, he is the master of the situational statement (El Jigüe, 9/27/2005).

"Historically, it has always been advanced. For example, in terms of "quality of life indicators" such as percentage of the population in the middle class, per capita income, infant mortality, life expectancy and literacy, to name a few, Cuba consistently ranked 3rd in the hemisphere throughout the 1940's and 1950's. Only the U.S. and Canada had higher statistics, according to World Bank and IMF Factbooks. In 1958, the year before the Cuban Revolution, Cuba had a higher literacy rate than Italy and Spain.",

and the Gini Index before 1957 was not the same as now (Every boys sleeps under a roof in Cuba, but maybe in Guantanamo NO)

If you have these data, link the official documents, I want see, I want believe you.

While the changes this user made might be a bit hasty, in general I support them. If any seeks to revert the article, please discuss here first. --LegCircus 16:22, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Listen, all you people have the wrong idea. Castro's government is a dictatorship, and he did excute and imprison thousands of political prisoners. Castro may not have always claimed to be a communist, but he did always have communist ideals. And, he did remove other groups quickly and violently! Didn't it even say in the article that Fidel made Cuba an atheist state? People weren't allowed to celebrate Christmas, or own land! Now, before you start telling me how wrong I am, and how biased I am, let me respond with this: I am Cuban, My parents are Cuban, My grandparents are Cuban, many of my relatives are still in Cuba, at least three of my relatives were or are in jail for being "anti-castro", and we are proud Americans. You may call me biased and angry, but really, are you saying YOU aren't biased? Saying that Castro is "just a different political idealogy" and that "Cuba isn't that bad" when you have never seen the way people live, and you are denouncing anyone else who says different or was actually there? Please, just try to take the facts and not denounce them for your fantasies. In closing, I do ask that the article is reverted to it's previous form, of so-called "anti-communist bias" because I want the truth to be there, and not just the absence of it because some people don't want to face it. Thank You.

There seems to be some bias and hostility erupting in here.

It's just my opinion but the +++ marked notes claiming that particular authors of the article are writing on a bias side. The admended article that claims to be from Encarta also strikes me of right-wing bias, especially the last few paragraphs making statements of "dictatorship". I don't object to the use of the word "dictatorship" in the article when used to illustrate the views particular groups and governments that label Cuba as such, but it's should be used as a definative term of the type of government. I'm not saying that Cuba isn't a dictatorship, I'm just saying that it's very biased language to use when their are many who feel otherwise. The govenment should be referred to as a "parliamentary republic" when not describing biased opinions. User:Tommyrot

I agree. This article is in a bad state. As to referring to the Cuban dictatorship as a "parliamentary republic", that is about as unbiased as referring to a orange as a onion. It may not be a one man dictatorship, but it is certainly no democracy. Fred Bauder 13:48, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

How about "Communist State"? It's what the CIA world factbook defines as the Cuba government type, and the wikipedia entry for Communist State seems to be accurate from my knowledge.

That article is troubled but that label is accepable. I do have a question though, as I have never closely followed events in Cuba. In both the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, power was and is closely held by a small number of men in the politburo. Is this true in Cuba or is the actual government more broadly based? Not just on paper but in terms of decision making? Fred Bauder 15:32, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

People, I've just added a small section on religion. Concerning politics: I'm not sure "Communist state" is a form of government. The official name is "Republic of Cuba". What type of republic is not specified, though "Socialist republic" might be appopriate. I don't think any communist country defines itself as communist; usually it's either "People's Republic" or "Socialist Republic" or something of that sort.

Fred, power in Cuba lies mostly in the hands of the Council of Ministers (about a dozen people headed by the bearded guy) as well as the armed forces (about a dozen generals headed by his brother). The speaker of parliament is influential but the parliament itself mainly serves to approve decisions already made. I know next to nothing about Soviet Union or China, so I can't compare, but Cuba is by no means democratic and state control (and the threat of repression) is omnipresent (not that Western countries are all shining examples of democracy...). Having said that, its political elites are (as far as I can tell) not overly corrupt (though the police is) and a class society (compared with other places) does not really exist as such; the biggest disparities in income are something like 6:1, and slightly larger for purchasing power. Also, the revolution WAS in all likelihood supported by a majority of the population.

kashasu

Power in Cuba *does* lie mainly in the hands of the Council of Ministers, but it's absolutely important to note that its members can be appointed or dismissed by the Council of State, which is elected by the Assembly, which is elected by popular and secret ballot. Elites in government are there because they are elected elites. Also, for "communist state", to a Marxist that's a complete oxymoron, however the linked article and inverted commas are sufficient to let it be. Dafyddyoung 10:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Parliamentary republic" in itself says nothing about the degree of democracy and is IMO much more accurate than "Communist state", which doesn't mean much. I say go with "Parliamentary republic" and qualify appropriately.

Also, the economy paragraph makes it sound like Cuba is holding out against the Good And Grand Natural Order of the Exhalted Free Market which is certainly not NPOV. Zocky 06:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In Cuba, the word 'communism' is never used to refer to the state or the government. Communism may be the ultimate goal, but for that, the 'new man' (hombre nuevo) has to be created first. Until then, socialism ('enforced communism', one might say) is the intermediate stage. Note also that USSR stood for 'Union of Socialist Soviet Republics'. DirkvdM 07:45, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

Listen, all you people have the wrong idea. Castro's government is a dictatorship, and he did excute and imprison thousands of political prisoners. Castro may not have always claimed to be a communist, but he did always have communist ideals. And, he did remove other groups quickly and violently! Didn't it even say in the article that Fidel made Cuba an atheist state? People weren't allowed to celebrate Christmas, or own land, and no other groups exist anymore! Now, before you start telling me how wrong I am, and how biased I am, let me respond with this: I am Cuban, My parents are Cuban, My grandparents are Cuban, many of my relatives are still in Cuba, at least three of my relatives were or are in jail for being "anti-castro", and we are proud Americans. You may call me biased and angry, but really, are you saying YOU aren't biased? Saying that Castro is "just a different political idealogy" and that "Cuba isn't that bad" when you have never seen the way people live, and you are denouncing anyone else who says different or was actually there? Please, just try to take the facts and not denounce them for your fantasies. In closing, I do ask that the article is reverted to it's previous form, of so-called "anti-communist bias" because I want the truth to be there, and not just the absence of it because some people don't want to face it. Thank You.

Four times the same comment, anonymously. That combined with your attitude doesn't make you sound very reliable to me (or most people, hopefully). Maybe Castro always had communist ideas. So? Is that supposed to be an accusation? He did do away with christmas for some time, but only briefly because there was too much discontentment about that. So apparently he does listen to dissidents. Though he certainly didn't treat them all nicely, to put it mildly. And he is a dictator, which is also bad. But that's no excuse to dismiss everything he did as bad. After all, the USA have done much worse things, but that's no excuse to start telling a pack of lies about that country. Or to distort things. Maybe nobody owns land in Cuba. So? The point is to distribute wealth equally and that's done through the state, so it's just one way of dealing with property, In capitalist countries most people don't own land either. How can you know Drbug hasn't been to Cuba? Judging by what you say I get the impression you haven't been there. Well I have and certainly people aren't rich, as in most countries in the world, but I've seen much worse in other (capitalist) countries. Most people seemed well fed and happy. DirkvdM July 4, 2005 18:43 (UTC)

History

Guys, this is crucial:

I have not much time to edit the history not to do in depth research on the history of Cuba, but it is relevant that there is 699 words on the history section, now, out of those 699 words, there is only 73 words of history before the year 1953, which effectively starts the revolutionary era, since it is the attack on the Moncada barracks. Notice the discrepancy, there is roughly 10% of the writing on a period of roughly 461 years, while there is roughly 90% of the writing on a period of roughly 52 years, or a relationship of 10% of writing for 90% of history, and 90% of writing for 10% of history. In addition to that, notice that there is a rich history of Cuba in the period between 1492 and 1953, and that after 1959 Cuba hasn't changed much, I mean, don't get me wrong, there is a lot of political talk about the island, there is a lot of opinions about the Revolution and whatnot, however, it is important for many to know the background of Cuban history, keep in mind that Cuba is the key to the Caribbean, keep in mind famous writers during the 19th century, keep in mind that Cuba has led the Latin America in several aspects, including the advent of the railroad, the advent of television, the first Latin American to go to space, and for that matter, I believe, the first black (or as many would like to say, African American, for Cubans are Americans as the rest of the inhabitants of the continent are) to go to space. In conclusion, there is a lot to write about, instead of write with so much unnecessary passion about the Revolution, for I believe not many of us live in Cuba, and thus this encyclopedia has the opinion of exiles and people that do not live in the island, and thus, to make the encyclopedia credible, it would be of great help to create a historical outline, and try to just write facts about Cuban history, and reserve our opinions to ourselves and perhaps comment about our opinions about certain historical facts in this discussion. So again, please, all together, let's try and create instead an outline of Cuban history, and then write, and only write, about the historical facts of Cuba, and leave the opinions, biased or not, to this discussion.

Not only that, a lot of this is not needed in the main article. I don't have time at the moment, but can someone please remove a lot of the infomation. --harrismw 08:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we need to majorly cut down and re-balance the history section. There's a history of Cuba article (which isn't on the references - i'll add it just now) that can have all this stuff on it instead of having it here. Should be 2-300 words max Showoffsg 20:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It is wise to keep in mind that Castro, then on trial for the attack on Moncada Barracks, said 'history will absolve me' apparently he meant that when he gained power he would re-write history to his liking. (El Jigüe, 9/26/2005)

Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board

I would like to announce the establishment of the Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. Anyone with an interest in the Caribbean is welcome to join in. Guettarda 1 July 2005 03:52 (UTC)

Big revert

A lot of edits have taken place today, by three anonymous editors (66.124.102.100 , 64.236.245.243 and 68.232.137.250). Or is it the same person? Maybe even by Trey Stone, who appears to be 'on the loose again' (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trey Stone), but I'm just guessing now. Anyway, some of the edits were obviously biased, verging on vandalism. Others seemed serious, although stuff was added that I cannot verify. It would have taken too much time to filter through it all, so I bluntly reverted everything. Sorry if I deleted some useful information, please slap my wrist if so. By the way, the edits by Everyking were another revert and an edit of those edits, so they didn't suffer. The last edit, by 68.232.137.250, is just one big copy and paste from [4]. DirkvdM July 9, 2005 10:07 (UTC)

dude no. i only edit under Trey Stone and (sometimes when I'm accidentally logged out) 64.7.89.54. i'd appreciate it if you removed this section, or at least the stuff about me. J. Parker Stone 9 July 2005 10:21 (UTC)

But then what about the rfc? There you only dispute one sockpuppet, which implies that you admit the others. Right? Sorry if I cause you unnecessary trouble, but I can only go by what I read about you. DirkvdM July 9, 2005 18:17 (UTC)

Correction, I can also go by my personal dealings with you in our discussion on Talk:Isla de la juventud and you didn't misbehave there, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You claim your misbehavings are a thing of the past and I can imagine how a bad rep can follow you around, not giving you a second chance, so let's start with a clean slate. DirkvdM 05:36, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Another revert of 199.125.186.19

199.125.186.19 has been ranting again. Some of his contributions seem constructive and Robneild has previously attempted to clean up his contributions. I don't have the patience or time for it, so I'll just revert it all. Let 199.125.186.19 do the cleaning up himself. Then maybe his contributions can be taken seriously. DirkvdM 07:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, yet another revert. Let me point some things out this time. 199.125.186.19 dewikified dates (why?). Batista's army did fight the rebels. the wealth he robed from the legitimate Cuban owners? How does one 'robe' wealth? the USA blocked the way of Soviet vessels in international waters changed to block the way of Soviet vessels to Cuba, through international waters. While true it's a nice contortion of reality. Does this guy watch Fox news too much? Unless 199.125.186.19 reacts here, I'll revert any future edits of his (or hers) without even checking what they are. DirkvdM 11:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Communist, Socialist or Revolutionary

There is some confusion about whether Cuba is to be called Socialist or Communist. Ultramarine changed that to 'Revolutionary' in one header, which also seems a good option because that's what it's called in Cuba (the Revolution is said to continue to this day). But, as the Revolutionary and Revolution articles say, a Revolution is sudden, so this use of the term does not follow the general definition and is therefore misleading.

The ideology of Cuba, as reflected in the name Communist Party, is Communist, but Communism is a social system that cannot yet be achieved in Cuba. First the mentality of people has to change to 'el Hombre Nuevo' (the New Man), as Guevara called it, and that goal hasn't quite been achieved yet, and the means of production will have to develop. In the meantime Socialism is used as an intermediate stage to achieve that goal. Also, in Cuba there is hardly any mention of Communism. The state is always called Socialist. So I suggest using that term. DirkvdM 08:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Cuba is not, and has never been, communist. Communism is a classless, stateless society where people work according to ability and receive according to need. Cuba is however, according to Marxist theory, in a transitional stage: Namely socialism. Marxists do not believe in jumping from capitalism to communism overnight. Socialsim has to be implemented first (hence the name Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR). Socialism is in my opinion the only correct term. To use "Communism" is simply false. - NWOG

Not all Socialist states aspire to becoming stateless Communist societies. The term "Communist state" strikes me a very reasonable shorthand for those that claim to seek such an eventual ideal. Please don't quote Marxist terminology if you wish to refute my point. There is far more to Socialism than Marxism. Caerwine 01:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

for the last time. a "Communist state" is a state ruled solely by the Communist Party. Cuba could introduce market reforms and as long as the CPC still had a monopoly on power it could still be objectively called a Communist state. the term "Communist state" does not make a judgment on whether said states have achieved "true" communism. J. Parker Stone 04:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

One can readily use communist (lower case m) because it is how almost everybody describes the state capitalist, punative, and rigid structure that oppresses all in the name of history (fascism) does the same for different ideological rational. The horrors of communism and its many millions of murders are quite familiar to all. However, for a cause that worships history, it is strange that the followers of communism are most diligent in their activities that supress and distort history. It has recently come to light through a number of high level Cuban defectors that apparently Castro, not Pinochet, had Patricio de la Guardia, kill Allende so he could become a hero and martyr of "communism"[[5]] (El Jigüe, 9/30/2005)

82 revolutionaries

To answer DirkvdM's question, the issue of the level of training was sufficient to cause NWOG to edit "82 badly trained soldiers" into " 82 dedicated and trained revolutionaries", in that group of edits I reverted. WIth the broad scope required for an article on Cuba as opposed to History of Cuba, Cuban Revolution, or even Granma, it doesn't really matter how well trained they were. (Indeed, one might argue whether this article even needs to state the exact number.) Hence I was trying to avert a POV tussle by removing an element unessential to this article. Also the level of training is somewhat subjective, though the result of their first encounter with the army strongly supports the view that they were badly trained. Caerwine 14:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

That they were badly trained I have from several sources (one of which is Che's account of the revolution 'Pasajes de la guerra revolucionaria'). That NWOG changed that to the opposite, I'd sooner see as an indication that I'm right :) (just check his other edits - you reverted them all for a reason, right?). Whether this should be in this article is a different matter. The point I tried to support was that they succeeded with popular support. It wasn't much of a revolutionary force, but still they managed to defeat a well-trained regular army. A revolution will never succeed without popular support, as Che found out in Bolivia. Well, I suppose it's not a big deal after all, but then it's just two words. And I certainly don't want to give in to an idiot like NWOG. Actually, his opposition only makes me persist more (yes, there's a bit of a revolutionary in me too ...). DirkvdM 18:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I edited them because I felt it was biased, in particular because:

1. They actually won 2. They won at an extremely short time 3. As far as my knowledge, they were 300 revolutionaries at the height of the conflict. They fought against a fully mobilized island against thousands (if I remember correctly, 10 000 soldiers). 4. Many of the same revolutionaries who fought in Cuba, showed their skills in Congo and Bolivia (although they lost, they did fight for 11 months in Bolivia

Regarding Che. Che was an extremely disiplined soldier. He demanded much from himself, but also almost as much from other people.

Inti Peredo, who led the conflict after Guevara died, wrote about those who escaped and surived the encirclement of the Bolviian army, lead by the US special soldiers:

"Alone, the six survivors defeated the Rangers sixty-two times during the two months that followed and only five escaped alive."

Anyways, it was a mistake on my part to change it to "dedicated and trained revolutionaries", but I believe you made an even greater mistake. Not because they were not dedicated and trained revolutionaries, but because this is supposed to be a neutral site. Or at least, as neutral as possible. Can we just keep it at "82 revolutionaries", plain and simple, neutral and fair?

Second, I feel it is uneccesary that you call me an idiot, and resort to personal attacks in general. It might be wise to calm down before actually typing. :) Anyways, can we agree on what I proposed? NWOG, 00:45, 2. August, (UTC)

I'm sorry for calling you an idiot, but your edits were mostly just wrong and uncommented. They won, yes, and in just 2 years, but that was thanks to the popular support, which is actually the point I wanted to make, as I explained above. The 300 revolutionaries came after the landing. And Congo and Bolivia came after the revolution (which was their training school). Che was disciplined yes, but untrained.

Your argumentation may be wrong, but at least you've argumented now. Even smileys can't sufficiently compensate for the lack of personality in contacts such as these, so I should indeed have toned my comment down a bit (sleeping on it is often a good advise and it was late....). My apologies. I just reverted your edit, but I'll change it now to your proposal. I see you also did this the wrong way around, first editing and then reading the talk pages :) . By the way, a little tip; you make several saves per edit, which rather clogs up the history. I suggest using the preview button, possibly combined with a separate editor if you're afraid of losing stuff. DirkvdM 07:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Landing and the Sierra ((El Jigüe):

-One might keep in mind that Castro's landing was supported by bloody urban fighting in Santiago under the direction of Frank Pais, and that Castro's landing occurred after that fighting had started. Closer support (essentially rescue) efforts were carried out by Celia Sanchez, the bandit Cresencio Perez and his brother, and the trucks from the rice of farm of Huber Matos were used to pick up survivors. There were a number of internal conflicts between the the non-communist groups, such as those of Frank Pais and later "Daniel's" and communist cells that came to the Sierra in the 1930s and 1940s after the breakup of the ephimeral "Soviet Mabay" on the near by plains. The Che Guevara's 1957 purge of "bandits" (notice Cresencio Perez apparently still growning marijuana is untouched) in the Sierra Maestra might well be looked at as a power grab, since this event triggered many early defections (as can be evaluated reading the Che's diaries and other sources). Frank Pais and "Daniel" both seem to have been betrayed the first to the Batista police in Santiago, and the second by "strategic" withdrawal of the Che's forces during "La Offensiva" combat. –

BTW try 60,000 total Batista forces, perhaps the number of 10,000 mentioned in the Sierra, apparently include Batista forces stationed in in "La Granja" just east of Bayamo, and smaller garrisons at places like Guisa. In "La Ofensiva" Castro very carefully omits mention of the numerous supporting escopetero groups, who ranging the length of the Sierra, the foothills and the adjacent Cauto Plain. Raul Castro himself admits that there were "500 escopeteros" already in place when he went to establish is own battle "front." The activities and actions of the escopeteros were essential, but far too carefully omitted in official Cuban histories.

Iraqi POW's

Is it appropriate to put anything on here about the POWs from Iraq ? I know the US chaps may take offence but would seem like a good place for it.--130.36.75.21 08:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

1) This is about the country Cuba, which does not include Guantanamo Bay.

2) Guantanamo Bay is already mentioned (and linked) twice. A short mention of what it is used for now might be in place though. We can't assume everyone to know that and it is relevant or at least symbolic for US-Cuban relations. DirkvdM 09:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Far as I know (I might be wrong), Guantanamo bay is still in the end, Cuban territory, although the US controls Guatnanamo. And like Wikipedia says regarding Guantanamo Bay: "Because sovereignty of Guantanamo Bay ultimately resides with Cuba, the U.S. government argued unsuccessfully that people detained at Guantanamo were legally outside of the U.S. and did not have the Constitutional rights that they would have if they were held on U.S. territory " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay#Legal_status

on the other hand, Cuba is not the US. That is why I am strongly opposed to the link "State Department— US State Department views on Cuba". People would find it very strange if we would write about the United States, and add a link about Iran's views on the US, or Cuba's views on the US. Thus, I don't think we should we should write a whole page about it, but because it does affect Cuba, I personally believe it might be worth a short mention. NWOG 15.02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You've got a point. I just reverted your edits for various reasons, but that one could have stayed (I just didn't want to filter through it all again). But back to the subject. I said that Guantanamo Bay is not part of Cuba, but Cuba does not recognise that, so it certainly deserves more attention, including concerning what's going on there. DirkvdM 15:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

How about stating that the US leases land from Cuba and curently this houses some foreign nationals against their will. That way we dont get into if they are POWs or not just the facts.--130.36.75.20 14:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, and saying that they are POW's would suggest that the war on terrorism is a legitimate war. And we wouldn't want to do that, would we (I mean NPOV and all that...) :) . DirkvdM 15:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

"I said that Guantanamo Bay is not part of Cuba, but Cuba does not recognise that" Guantanmo Bay is indeed part of Cuba. However, the US occupies the land of Guantanamo Bay, and the US "lease", but does not cash it in, and does not accept their occupation of Guantanmo Bay. So in essence, the US is an unwelcome occupier in Cuba's territory. NWOG 19:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's a bit more subtle than that. If my memory serves me right, Cuba was tricked into ceding Guantanamo Bay through a signature by someone who didn't really represent Cuba and the Cubans at the time didn't do too much about it. After the Revolution they protested this but were faced with a fait accompli. All they could do was to not accept the (ridiculously low) 'rent' in protest. DirkvdM 20:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh by the way see the O'Grady column in the Wall Street Journal about Castro's prison in Guantanamo xe xe (El Jigüe, 10/7/2005)

Deleting whole contributions without even looking at them

To DirkvdM. You have admitted that you did not look over my post before you deleted my contribution. You have also threathened to delete everything I do: "From now on I'm inclined to revert any edits of yours without even checking what they are."

I consider that violation of rules (unwritten or written, still a violation).

You also wrote: "Simply copying text from elsewhere requires at least a mention of the source. And a very sloppy edit again."

I remember siting the (same) source, not once, but twice. Yes, two times. However, I felt it would be "sloppy" to site the source more than that, because my contributions were in different sections of the article. Thus, repeating the same source 20 times... Well, if you would like me to do that, then fine. I would never delete yours, or anyone else's, contributions without even looking at them. I consider that bias and a violation on your part. The second time of my larger contribution, I had different content. I removed a lot from what I added the previous time. I did add other things, WITH a source (BBC). I add these things, partly because most of the economic section is very biased. It does not give the version of both sides. The economic section is not neutral at all. I added less this time, like Wikipedia itself has suggested and gave as an example if a conflict would arise, so that it can be more properly balanced.[6] I did that, and you deleted the whole thing. I think I even used an hour our even more to get it in the proper context!

If you find something "sloppy" you should make an effort to edit it so that it is not longer sloppy, not delete it. By deleting my contribution, you deleted a whole more than what you were aware of, because you did not even look through my contribution. You simply deleted it! Now you are threathening or even outright said you will delete everything I add! You didn't even look at my source. Why? Because you deleted everything before even looking at sources! In reality, you say "I deleted your add because you don't add sources and I won't look after sources anyways, so I'll just assume you do not give any sources at all, and delete everything you do!"

You have also called me an idiot, later, after criticism, you took it back, but I don't exactly feel you are being "fair" here!

I assume you are either doing this because you want this article to be inclined to your view of the world, have a personal dislike for me or anyone else who are not inclined to agree with you, or simply like to provocate. Perhaps all of them. Maybe not. Only you know.

Anyways, stop this conduct please. - NWOG, 17:01, 3 August, (UTC)

What you assume about me ironically reflects fairly well the impression I have of you :) . I said that I'm contemplating not even looking at your edits again. So far, however, I have looked at them enough to see that most of it deserves deletion and haven't bothered too much with filtering out the bits that do deserve a place in the article. Also, your edits are indeed very sloppy. Like the extra open lines that don't make any sense (like you have done here again). I was wondering how you could spend so much time on such long edits and then, after they were deleted (by me or someone else) not bother to do them again in a more clever way. So I tested a theory and yes, it turns out you just simply copy texts from elsewhere. That is likely to be violation of copyright. Though that would not go for copying speeches by Fidel. But then if you quote someone, you should put that in quotes and mention the source. You claim you did, so I checked, but there really isn't any mention of the fact that your text came from a speech by Fidel. Especially the phrasing "Lately, we have seen an uplift of the Cuban economy" looks a bit odd in an encyclopedia when not in quotes. And now you do use qutoes to quote me with things I never said! Also, you go into way too much detail where that is not appropriate. Like I said, all very sloppy and I just don't feel like filtering through it all. Hence the inclination to just revert everything. Clean up your act and you'll have much less trouble with me. By the way, if I don't revert your edits someone else probably will. DirkvdM 20:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, now I see, in your last edit you put in the source twice. In rapid succession. Which is rather ehm ... sloppy? I didn't touch that. Caerwine beat me to it this time. DirkvdM 20:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It's night. :) Anyways: "Ah, now I see, in your last edit you put in the source twice. In rapid succession. Which is rather ehm ... sloppy? I didn't touch that." - Yes, I added it twice, because what I added was in two different places in the main article. I did as best I could. Rather, if anything, it is the structure of the article that is messy. I just tried to make it as good as possible, taken into account the chaos in the article. Personally, I think a splitting of certain subject would be a good thing. Having 20 subjects in one article that also are melted together can get confusing, not only for the editor, but also to the reader. You should decide if I am to avoid quoting what I add, or quoting what I add in a situation where sourcing needs to be done in different places in Wikipedia.(which means the same source can be used in different areas of the article). "Damn if you do, damn if you don't", eh? "But then if you quote someone, you should put that in quotes and mention the source." Okay, I will remember that. Anyways, at least I am trying to balancing the article. At one point I tried to remove the word "dictator", a supposed description of Castro, to "Leader". At the same time, I would have have done the same thing if a person would have described Castro as a "brave freedom fighter". On the quoting you correctly, I wrote "In reality". What I meant was, "what you really write is". Also, there are several things that are not sourced here, for instance: "More recent problems include high oil prices, recessions in key export markets such as sugar and nickel, depressed tourism, and faltering world economic conditions." - No source. At least what I had, came from official source, and proved contrary to what I just quoted from the Economy section. Should we delete this part too? And as you see, I've covered so many subjects now, and it does get a little confusing (another good example why we should try to keep the subjects seperate). I might have written a few things wrong now, but it is probably because I am tired. Anyways, take good care, and good night - NWOG

I didn't revert your edits because of just one thing like not mentioning that something was a quote. It was a whole range of things that would require too much work to put straight (hence the term 'sloppy'), so I reverted it, half expecting you to work on it yourself and put up a different version, as I often do when that happens to me (after all, the original editor is the best person for this). I see that the sentence you mention is indeed (almost) equal to several other texts, but the most literal 'equations' are in copies from Wikipedia, not the other way around. Or am I missing a source? Anyway, what I mean is that if it's just something like that, it's easily fixed. although it would also be a good idea to figure out who put the 'unquoted quote' there and ask them to be more careful in the future. DirkvdM 07:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Health and Education

I first thought of making a section for health, and another for education. After a few minutes of thinking, I created a section: "Health and Education". This was, however, deleted. Instead of starting a "adding - deleting war", I wanted to start a discussion on the subject, and if they are going to be seperate sections, or not. When I think of it, I think a seperate would be the best. - NWOG, 19:35, 3. August, 2005. (CUT)

Okay, are any of you seriously going to deny that the Cuban health-care system is two-tiered? Admit it, let the relevant content stay and move on. Sheesh. Unsigned by 18.187.1.62

Right, but you (inadvertantly?) deleted much of the rest that was there. I just merged both, the narrative seems cohesive enough. El_C 01:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's list some points here:

- The medical system doesn't just need doctors. There are techs, nurses, orderlies, clerks, and janitors to worry about. And for hospital survival rates, the janitors are actually more important than the others, for obvious reasons. If not for overseas deployments, Cuba would have a surfeit of doctors, but not of the other professionals. They remain too few. During deployments, docs are also scarce.

- The shortage of cleaning staff, and materiel was made all too evident by the two journalists.

If you deny these points, have the decency to come to this discussion page and defend your denial.

One might keep in mind that doctors are not free to report epidemics [7]

Democracy in Cuba?

I reverted the edits by 151.205.53.229 (and 141.153.123.69, who did exactly the same edits, and thus may be the same person) because they looked rather POV. Now I don't know all the details, but judging by other edits by 151.205.53.229 on the same day, he was on a POV-pushing spree, and therefore assumed that all his edits had better be reverted. Now that I look at it more closely, there is indeed a section he deleted that looks very POV (the other way round) and anyway certainly is too detailed. So I left that out. As for the rest, I know there is some form of democracy in Cuba. The big question is how extensive that is. The rest of the edits have more to with 'how it sounds' than with actual fact.

I did the last 'revert' mostly to draw attention to this (proposed) discussion. One reversal is about whether the petition by Sardiñas was US funded. But the main issues are about democracy; who gets elected by whom and for what reason and how much power they have (compared to whom). And, probably the most central issue, which sources are to be believed? So 'Let the discussions begin!' :) . DirkvdM 10:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with how it was reworded. If this article is going to be used to state that Cuba has a normal, functioning democracy it needs slapped with a tag pretty damn quickly.

Using mailing lists, especially from overtly extreme ideological websites, as straightforward reference cites in a manner-of-fact way is extremely poor. --TJive 10:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Also, the "US funded" thing was inserted by NWOG to discredit by inference. It has no real relevance in context to how the paragraph reads --TJive 10:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, the wording a normal, functioning democracy sounds like a rather POV attitude. Whether it is normal to have a democracy is not something an encyclopedia should have any judgement about. The edits of 151.205.53.229 and NWOG have a POV 'feel' to them, but so does yours. And that is only strengthened by your wording here. But the question is whether any of these statements are true. And whether they are relevant. But if there is some sort of democracy in Cuba, that certainly deserves mentioning, especially since many people will expect that not to be the case. Something like 'formally elected' is too vague. By whom and what does 'formally' mean?

Like I said, I don't have enough detailed information about it, but, just to give an example, I have heard that occasionally referenda are held in Cuba, which is a form of democracy. DirkvdM 14:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I was not commenting on whether it was normal to have a democracy but rather implying that Cuba by no means has a "normal" democracy. First of all the material was directly lifted from the article as well as the mail. Second, "democracy" in Cuba is completely farcical. In the Leninist tradition, Cuba approves delegates to formally nominate unopposed candidates acceptable to the government which people vote yes/no for. The votes as counted by the government regularly turn out numbers like 94.45% "united" (i.e. support for all candidates) with 98.35% turnout (as mentioned in the mail). Coincidentally all of these figures are pro-government and the vast majority are party members (even as the vast majority of Cubans are not). So it is praised by fellow communists in the west for a lack of overt rancor, which is true in a significant sense because there is not really any opposition. --TJive 15:06, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I misinterpreted what you said. Then again, what is 'normal' demoracy? Even the supposed inventors, the Greeks, didn't have a full democracy (women, children and slaves were excluded). And the kinds of democracy we're used to use delegations (elected politicians), which is a (necessary) weakening of democracy. And, to Dutch standards (parliamentary democracy), the US don't have much of a democracy (it's 'winner-take-all), but I wouldn't say they have no democracy. In other words, it comes in many forms and degrees. There is usually some form of delegation and therefore no 'direct democracy'. A referendum, however, is direct (although one can usually only say yes or no). And that seems to exist in Cuba (though only once every few years, or so I've heard). For the rest, the article isn't very clear on who has how much power and how and by whom they get elected. DirkvdM 19:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I was slightly disgusted by the sentence: "The party itself is not inclusive to new members. Prospective party members are thoroughly scrutinized by state officials and those chosen are considered strong supporters of the government and deemed model citizens." That is IMO not neutral at all. Claim: "::Also, the "US funded" thing was inserted by NWOG to discredit by inference. It has no real relevance in context to how the paragraph reads --TJive 10:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)" I cannot remember ever doing that, and I have no idea what the petition is about, and as a principle, I never discuss or edit or add something I have no idea about. So I think you are aiming at the wrong guy here. I actually did a revert now, where "US funded" is not there. I did a partly revert, now, DirkvdM, listen here. I did a revert, while I kept partly what you said, and partly what was there before, coming to a compromise, taking what I saw as the most neutral. And I think you did some good reverts, actually. Back to the subject, yes, there is a democracy in Cuba. Democracy is basically greek for "people's power", and there is a high degree of people's power in Cuba. There are also other special features of democracy in Cuba. It's not just going to the ballot box. It doesn't start at the ballot box, and it doesn't end at the ballot box. For example. I remember reading that the police have to ask for an approval of the local leader (who is elected by the people), if they want to arrest a person. This is to ensure that no dictator is going to rise up in Cuba, through the democratic process. I suggest we all take a deep breath before we actually even think about editing this, Anti-Cuban and Pro-Cuban alike. Let's not try not to edit things just because it does not exactly fit our view of the world. I did edit some things, including the claim that "The vast majority of candidates are members of the Communist Party compared to a much smaller percentage of the adult population." I edited this beecause candidates are freely elected, and the numbers of communist party members in the National Assembly might vary from each term. I also added, out of fairness, that "Approximately 15% of Cuban adults are members of the Communist Party." I also reverted it back to "Socialist state", as "Communist state" is simply an oxymoron. If you do not believe me, I suggest you actually read some Marxist books (preferably The State and Revolution by Lenin). I will give everyone and anyone a link if they want to see it for themselves. - NWOG

NWOG, The Wikipedia definition of a Communist state is "A Communist state is a state governed by a single political party which follows the principles of Marxism-Leninism." I don't see how Cuba can be better decribed than as a Communist state. Caerwine 02:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Not that this is about the subject at hand, but, to follow your lead, the Wikipedia definition of a Socialist state is fourfold, and the first three apply to Cuba. The second one explains the term (Socialism is an intermediate stage on the road to Communism) and the third one refers to the confusion we have here, namely that such states are often called Communist in 'the West' ('non-socialist countries' would be a better term, but never mind that). So we have two terms for the same thing. Which one to use? One cannot assume the reader of this to be on either 'side', so an objective reason is asked for. As NWOG pointed out (as many already have), 'Communist state' is an oxymoron (in true Communism there is no State) and therefore not a good choice. 'Socialist state' doesn't seem to have such a problem and is therefore at least a safer choice. But also consider this. Would you leave the definition of God to an atheist? (Though this is not entirely a rhetorical question.) See also 'Communist, Socialist or Revolutionary' hereabove.

So the USA is a republican state? The UK, a labour state? Australia, a liberal state? Fact; the state in Cuba is not governed by the communist party. I will revert the thing back, as Tjive has reverted the propaganda, and now it is again filled with a whole load of bias. PS: Tjive, you also deleted a whole load of other things. Now I'm starting to get irrritated here. please stop your foolish behavior.- NWOG

Those parties are not enshrined in the constitution with all others outlawed. I will revert you in turn. --TJive 12:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

The communst party is not an electoral party! It exist only on moral ground, and has no power beside that. The communist party DOES NOT create laws. It does NOT decide the policy of Cuba. Do you get it? - NWOG

The communst party is not an electoral party

I agree; this would falsely imply two things: 1) that the party faces opposition, 2) that there is a genuine electoral process. --TJive 12:37, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'll grant you that the Communist Party has no real power, but that's because Cuba is a dictatorship ruled by Castro who uses the party as part of his means of controlling the populace. By the way, not all Socialists accept the claims of Communists to be Socialists, so your claim that "Socialist state" has no problems is at best an overgeneralization or wishful thinking. Caerwine 13:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have a point there, but a Socialist State is chronically Socialist, so to say. Socialists come in many forms, and most will not aspire for a Communist ideology. So there seems to be an ambiguity in the term 'Socialism'. But not in 'Socialist State'. Like NWOG points out, Australia is not a 'Liberal State' just because that party rules at the moment. If they were to change the constitution so that Liberalism was enshrined in it, you could call it a 'Liberal State'. By the way, the US is a 'Repulican State'. And a 'Democratic State' too, because it's both a Republic and a Democracy :) . DirkvdM 18:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

":I'll grant you that the Communist Party has no real power, but that's because Cuba is a dictatorship ruled by Castro who uses the party as part of his means of controlling the populace." - I would like you to prove it. Where's the evidence? "By the way, not all Socialists accept the claims of Communists to be Socialists", you have got it all wrong. As with all things, I suggest actually reading some Marxist theory before discussing it. According to Marxist teory, society must go through a transitional stage, called "socialism", and sometimes "the dictatorship of the proletariat". What do you think the USSR stood for? Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. Quoting Marx "Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." I will simply delete the whole bias in that article. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place where you advocate your own views! WIKIPEDIA IS SUPPOSED TO BE NEUTRAL. Thus, I WILL delete all the crap, until someone stop deleting neutral and fair information. I will also delete the link "US State Department views on Cuba", because this is about CUBA, not the US. How strange would it be if we would put "Cuba's views on the US", in the wikipedia article for the United States of America? - NWOG

TJive, why are you so obsessed about making Cuba look bad? Second, I want you to back up that claim you made before.- NWOG

I may simply invert the question to direct at you: why are you so obsessed with making Cuba look good? However, I am not interested in the answer. I already discussed this above. Not only was the wording directly lifted from already inappropriate (and otherwise dubious) sources, but you are asserting as factual your own personal view of governance which is neither undisputed or necessary to describe the formal workings of Cuban politics. --TJive 14:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, your last revert brings your total reverts for this section to four within a 24-hour period, a violation of the three revert rule, and a block-worthy offense. Please refrain from doing this. --TJive 14:21, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I am not trying to make Cuba "look good". I am trying to avoid this turning out to be a Western propaganda article on Cuba. - NWOG

Hold your horses! This is almost getting to the stage where page protection is called for. Tjive, you've done 4 reverts in 24 hours, so don't be the first one to cast the stone. Can't we filter out the things we can agree upon and then drop the rest. And then maybe take this to the main article Politics of Cuba, which looks surprisingly stable, judging by the history. Also, other editors are at work there, who might help out in finding a consensus, because this is getting too personal. It's getting late, maybe I'll look into this tomorrow. DirkvdM 18:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Dirk, NWOG's reversions took place over multiple edits and concerned three areas in this case: the section on government, a passage on economic problems, and external links he did not like. My main concern was the government passage which I reverted three times in a day. Since he separated out the external link deletion from this I also had to reinsert it separately. Calling this a 3RR violation is a tendentious reading that would also reveal NWOG to have about ten in the same day. I do not consider this to be true, but he did violate 3RR by having four reverts of the same material. However I did not report him because he is new and should have a chance to read policy on it. If he does it again I will though.

As for the State Dept. link, the claim is ludicrous. State, CIA, etc. links are used very frequently as references not only in link sections but as citations. It is a valuable source of material and NWOG deleting it only serves to show that he wishes to remove things which look disfavorably upon Cuba, as his own comments in fact reveal. --TJive 02:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

True, such links are used a lot, but as is pointed out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, this sort of thing is not an excuse to apply it everywhere, but rather actually a bias-problem that needs to be resolved elsewhere as well. Let's face it. The CIA is by its very nature biased. I'm not talking about how they 'work out' in practise, but about the nature of the organisation. The US have a very strong (and very disputed) anti-Cuban stance and the CIA is designed to enforce that policy (in actuality they strengthen it, but that's a different matter). To use sources from other countries is one thing. To constantly rely on one source in that country is an invitation for bias. And to link to official US sites about Cuba in the Cuba article really goes too far. Unless there is a whole list of links to official sites from various countries that even out nicely. And that doesn't seem to be the case. Mind you, I'm not sure about all this either, just giving some food for thought. There are more doubtful links, as far as I can see - most seem more fit for the 'Opposition' section. What about links to UN stances on Cuba? DirkvdM 10:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a State Dept. link, not CIA, and most of the CIA links reference events involving the CIA or concern the "CIA factbook" which is rather value neutral. Going on about the "systemic bias" project is no excuse for deleting links simply because they are critical (which is what NWOG is attempting to do). If you have others of value, add them. --TJive 10:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

It's sad there had to be a discussion over this. NWOG has been inserting pro-Castro propaganda into every Cuban-related article he can get his hands on, and for some reason Dirk sees fit to engage in semantic nonsense over the definition of "democracy." While Castro was popular in the early revolutionary days (as have other dictators) his government has never been a democracy in any sense of the word -- there is no freedom of speech, no free press, no free elections, and no political pluralism. We shouldn't have to have further discussion on this. J. Parker Stone 10:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

TJive, I tried to be fair and keep both views. Instead of presenting both views in a subtle style, you have now reverted the article, and made it anti-Cuban. I tried to keep it neutral, NOT anti-Cuban, and NOT pro-Cuban. For example, I did keep "Cuba is a Single-party state." So I suggest you think twice before you do something. I did oen more refert, trying to balance it up even more. IMO everything that is in the Politics section must necccesarily stay, unless we aim to give misleading thoughts about Cuba and Cuba's electoral process. WE don't want that, or do we, TJive? - NWOG

I am not TJive, and "conceding" a known fact as if it's even disputed by anyone doesn't mean anything. J. Parker Stone 11:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

NWOG, let me discuss specifically the prose you repeatedly have tried to insert this morning (morning from my POV which is UTC -4) and in the past few days:

Although The Communist Party of Cuba is the only constitutionally recognized party, the power of the Communist Party is moral, not juridical.

The Cuban Communist Party is not an electoral party. It does not nominate or support candidates for office. Nor does it make laws or select the head of state. These roles are played by the national assembly, which is elected by the people, and for which membership in the Communist Party is not required.

As for the first sentence, until other parties are allowed to exist, statements that imply that the Communist party doesn't take steps to insure that all positions of importance are held either by them are farcical and create a non-neutral POV. It doesn't really matter whether it does that by juriducial or extra-juriducial means, the effect is the same — the Communist Party is in control of Cuba and it does not allow that control to be challenged.

The other sentences, while true to the limited extent of describing the procedural mechanisms in place in Cuba, is if treated as a piece of neutral information, not important enough to be included in this article. Only the potential propganda value would make them of sufficient importance to be pointed out here, but that value also makes them part of non-neutral POV. Caerwine 14:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"It doesn't really matter whether it does that by juriducial or extra-juriducial means, the effect is the same — the Communist Party is in control of Cuba and it does not allow that control to be challenged." - False. I suggest you read about the electoral process in Cuba, and how the Cuban society is organized. Before, yes, the Cuban communist party had political control over several aspects of society. But not anymore. You make conclusions without actually knowing the facts beforehand. in my book, that's prejudice and ignorance. I have once again tried to make a compromise. I have a question: When the hell are you going to try to present BOTH views? What you are doing, is to present a one-sided view of Cuba. I have constitantly tried to keep it as neutral as possible. Why is that a problem? Why do you have a such an urge to make this wikipedia article an anti-Cuban rant? I suggest you try to do what I have consistantly tried to do: To block out your own personal opinions, and help creating an article that neither hails Cuba as a champion of this and that, nor portrait Cuba as a hellhole where the govenrment is opression everybody and putting people in jail because they smile. You should take a look at yourself in the mirror, because what you have been adding to the article, has been nothing but horsehit bias. I am reaching out a hand here. Once again I ask: Can we come to a compromise? Are you willing to make a compromise, or not? - NWOG

NWOG, in the real world, laws on the printed page are of secondary importance unfortunately to political power held by the barrel of the gun. If that weren't true, then Batista could have been removed by a lawsuit rather than a revolution. :) Frankly, I have yet to see do anything other than to try to make this page a paean to Castro and the Communist Party of Cuba. There are some positive aspects to Cuba, but its political system is definitely not one of those. Caerwine 17:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You did not answer my question: Are you willing to make a compromise, or not? But I assume you answered that question perfectly well when you reverted it and added even more bias. I will delete most of what is written there, because of your refusal to co-operate. You do not want this to be a neutral article, and thus I see no reason for your bias to stay. I stayed as neutral as possible, I even "spoke for the enemy" (added things that does not neccesarily fit my world view) on several occasions, but you dismiss it and add even more bias. I will delete your bias until you decide to co-operate. I am looking forward to your co-operation, but you seem not very willing, at least for now. I removed your paragraphs on human rights in Cuba to the Human Rights section- NWOG

Yes, you are quite willing to engage in cooperation as long as it involves seeing things your way. The paragraph I added was not biased but actually an attempt to correct the erroneous implication left by previous editions of the article that the Cason affair was a direct result of attempt by the Varela Project to amend the Cuban Constitution by plebescite. The ironic thing about you moving that paragraph to the Human rights in Cuba article, is that if you had bothered to read the article before you had mucked around with it, the paragraph I added was a condensed version of the Cason affair already in that article. Caerwine 19:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"Yes, you are quite willing to engage in cooperation as long as it involves seeing things your way." You don't see it don't you?! You are full of prejudice. You accuse people for things they do not even do! You also remove the very important note that The Communist party is the only legal party in Cuba, but it is not an electoral party eg It does not stand for an election as an organisation. Why? Why? Why? I will ask you ONE more time, TJive, bceause you are putting my patience on the test. Will you co-operate, or not? - NWOG

NWOG, the name is Caerwine, not TJive, nor am I the other person you have confused with TJive, J. Parker Stone. Perhaps if you took the time, you would notice that there is more than one person who thinks your edits have been largely biased, and not needlessly antagonize others by confusing people with each other. Your edits are occassionally useful, largely when they are of material that is slanted too far towards the anti-Castro perspective, but that is no excuse to go too far the other way, which is what you usually do. Caerwine 22:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Cuba's independence

Cuba was occupied by the United States in 1898, until 1902. Cuba did not gain independence before the Cuban revolution. It was not a sovereign nation until then. In the little article "República de Cuba" on the right side, it says that Cuba gained independence from Spain, and that it happened during the Spanish-American War, which is false.

That is indeed complicated. I fixed it to some extent. See the talk page (Template talk:Cuba infobox#Independence). Whether Cuba was really independent after 1902 is debatable, but officially it was. So that needs to go in the Info Box. An explanation of that in the text is another matter, but that would have to be worded very carefully. What about a comparison with the Soviet influence in Eastern Europe? :) Now that would really bring the ceiling down! (or how do you say that). Just kidding. You have a point, but it's a bit too sharp, so to say. :) DirkvdM 18:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"Whether Cuba was really independent after 1902 is debatable, but officially it was." I agree that it should be said that it was officailly independent. However, it does not change the very fact of the concrete historical conditions. Cuba's sovereignity was limimited by among other things, the Platt Ammendment. The fact is: 1. Cuba was occupied, thus, they did not gain independence at all. Cuba was on their way of winning against Spain, but then the US invaded Cuba and occupied Cuba for years. Cuba was occupied a second time a few years later. 2. Cuba's sovereignity was severely limited by the Plat Ammendment:

"The Platt Amendment, a rider appended to the U.S. Army appropriations bill (March 1901), stipulated the conditions for the withdrawal of United States troops remaining in Cuba since the Spanish-American War, and defined the terms of Cuban-U.S. relations until 1934. Formulated by the U.S. Secretary of War Elihu Root, the amendment was presented to the Senate by, and named for, Connecticut Republican Senator Orville Platt (1827-1905).

The amendment ceded to the U.S. the naval base in Cuba (Guantánamo Bay), stipulated that Cuba would not transfer Cuban land to any power other than the U.S., mandated that Cuba would contract no foreign debt without guarantees that the interest could be served from ordinary revenues, ensured U.S. intervention in Cuban affairs when the U.S. deemed necessary, prohibited Cuba from negotiating treaties with any country other than the United States, and provided for a formal treaty detailing all the foregoing provisions.

Later in 1901, under U.S. pressure, Cuba included the amendment's provisions in its constitution. After U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt withdrew federal troops from the island in 1902, Cuba signed the Cuban-American Treaty (1903), which outlined U.S. power in Cuba and the Caribbean. Tomás Estrada Palma, who had earlier favored outright annexation of Cuba by the United States, became president on May 20, 1902.

The United States exercised that power. Following acceptance of the amendment, the U.S. ratified a tariff pact that gave Cuban sugar preference in the U.S. market and protection to selected U.S. products in the Cuban market. As a result of U.S. action, sugar production came into complete domination of the Cuban economy, while Cuban domestic consumption was integrated into the larger market of the United States. After Estrada Palma made an unabashed attempt to return to power at the end of his term in 1905, a liberal revolt contesting his government's electoral and administrative procedures followed. Roosevelt sent U.S. troops to Cuba on September 29, 1906 to crush the revolt, thus bringing about the second U.S. occupation of Cuba, which lasted until 1909." - Wikipedia on the platt Amendment - NWOG

The revolt by the organization called "Veteranos y Patriotas" was not crushed by US Forces. The rebels most old Mambi just wanted to make a point and the weak forces of Estrada Palma had already been defeated. US General Fredrick Funston (who himself had been a Mambi) negotiated a settlement -to be US President Taft took the credit, but then Taft was a politician not a general- (El Jigüe, 9/29/26/2005)

Ah, I didn't know that. That deserves a mention in the article (and of course the history aricle). But it's a bit too complicated to put in the Info Box. DirkvdM 08:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

yes, and in any case there have been historical "independent states" that have remained close to a larger power. Cuba was a Spanish colony and it gained it's independence following the Spanish-American War. the U.S. was originally a major player in Cuban affairs and during the '60s it became close to the USSR, but it was still officially independent. J. Parker Stone 10:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Backing up sources

"More recent problems include high oil prices, recessions in key export markets such as sugar and nickel, depressed tourism, and faltering world economic conditions." - From the economy section. Would someone back up this claim? The fact is, the production of national crude oil has increased four times more than what was produced at the beginning of the special period. Cuba also receive oil from Venezuela. Nickel production has increased. The income from the tourist sector increased by 11.5% compared with the year before. The number of people visiting Cuba has increased by 8%. Therefore I would like to see this claim being backed up by documentation. - NWOG

Guantanamo Bay

Rather than get into a revert war, let's talk it out here and see if we can get a consensus. I think that a mention of Guantanamo Bay does not belong in the lead sentence for the following reasons:

Technically, the Republic of Cuba retains sovereignity. The United States merely has a perpetual lease.
The status of Guantanamo Bay is mentioned later in the article.
Because of 1. and 2., the lead sentence does not need the complication of a parenthetical comment.

The stylistic reason, number 3, is my main reason for not desiring the intrusion of Gitmo into the lead sentence. Caerwine 19:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's a muddy issue that doesn't need to intrude upon the introduction. --TJive 19:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I too was going to include it but averted at the last minute... I was going to say something to the effect 'although Cuba is widely considered a borderless country the government of Cuba does not currently have jurisdiction over a small section of Guantanamo bay which is currently under leased-occupation by the US military.' But I avoided it after thinking to myself, everything about Cuba does not have to begin---- and end with the United States. I think Guantanamo Bay could be left out of the lead line. The lead is currently long enough. CaribDigita 19:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I see, that changes things. This would require an explanation that is too long for the opening sentence. I still think it should be mentioned in the intro, though. But it certainly deserves more explaining, such as the explanations given hereabove. The only mentions are in the history section and slightly more detailed in the Geography section. But the words 'sovereignty' and 'perpetual' deserve a place and the Geography section is not the right place for it. The word 'occupation' is almost right, but rather POV.DirkvdM 10:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

State department link

There has been some controversy regarding the US state department link. Some has argued that the link should be placed in "General", while others say "Opposition". Frankly I see no point in having a US state department link in General. The United States is Cuba's enemy. They have bombed an terrorized Cuba, and frankly, that link should only be in the Opposition section, where it belongs. If this was an article regaring the US, would we have an "Al Qaeda's views on the US" in "General", or in "Opoosition"? We have enough talk about the US already in this world. Let us not let the US take over articles concerning Cuba. - NWOG

Frankly, if any one link needs to be moved from Greneral to Opposition, I'd say that the CUBANET link would have the greatest claim. At least the boys from Foggy Bottom provide information even you would categorize as neutral in addition to their well-sourced disses of Cuba's woes because of Castro's oppression. That CUBANET site seems to me to be more selective in its choice of material so as to be rather uniformly anti-Castro. The fact that you haven't tried anything with the CUBANET link indcates to me that you probably based you choice what link needed moving based on pre-conceived impressions without actually examining the sites. It's a close call, but the value of the neutral information causes me to think the U.S. State Dept. link belongs in the General section not the Opposition. Caerwine 04:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Caerwine: some of the foggy bottom boys, have not yet recovered from their love affair with Ana Belen Montes, Castro's woman at the Defense Intelligence(sic) Agency. Ms Montes diddled much of the evaluations of Cuba in Castro's favor, while, it seems, the "Spooks" and the old FBI hands smiled and let her run so as to catch her friends, old fashion radios, and codebooks.

¡CUBANOS DE LA ATENCIÓN!

Es su deber patriótico a rebelar contra el régimen de Castro para el motivo de la democracia y de la libertad. NOSOTROS, que la gente cubano exige la libertad del discurso, libertad de desean, libertad del miedo, libertad de la prensa, y elecciones del Multi-partido. ¡Es nuestro trabajo llevar las calles de La Habana y de otras ciudades cubanos importantes y exigir las estas derechas!

¡Abajo Con Castro!

-- Comandante Gomez del Ejército Cubano de la Liberación

Es nuestro deber como Wikipedianos de relatar la Verdad, sea lo que sea.

¡Abajo Con Grupos de Presión!

DirkvdM 08:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

US occupation or "administration"?

The fact is, Cuba was in fact occupied by American soldiers. The US only pulled out from large parts of the country after Cuba accepted the Platt Ammendment, which limited Cuba's sovereignity, and put Cuba in US hands, yet again. Cuba WAS invaded, AND occupied. There is no question about it. Thus, I believe, occupation is a perfectly find word. Just like the occupation of Iraq before the elections. - NWOG

NWOG that makes it 1933. Please tell me aside from a base near Havana during WWII, that the US put troops in Cuba outside of Guantanamo. (El Jigüe, 10/1/2005)

There are a number of words that have roughly the same meaning here, such as administration, occupation, and regency. Occupation has decidedly negative connotations, while regency has decidedly positive connotations. Administration is the most neutral as while it clearly indicates that the United States was in charge, it provides no implications of the nature of that control. However, even beyond connotations there are other reasons to prefer administration. In the parlance of 1898 English, it would not have been refered to as an occupation (as that would have then referred to the actual assumption of control) but as an "occupancy", which is what it is called in the 1898 Treaty of Paris. To refer to a U.S. occupancy, would be somewhat silly tho, for the English of 2005 is not the same as that of 1898. Administration has not undergone any shift in connotations in the past century unlike the term occupation.

As for the comparison with Iraq, unlike Cuba of a century earlier, the term occupation was, as far as I am aware, never used by the U.S. authorities in Iraq to describe themselves. Yet more evidence of how the interpretation of the word occupation has come in the past century to indicate a negative bias that it did not formerly possess. Caerwine 22:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I feel "administration" is VERY unclear, and also somewhat biased. Would you say France and Norway was under German "administration", or occupation? Perhaps the best solution is simply to have something like what we have on Spain, AND "independence from the US -insert date-", instead of discussing semantics? Just a thought. What do you think? - NWOG

Unlike France or Norway, Cuba was not independent prior to the U.S. intervention. Given that May 20, 1902 is the date that Bush referenced in a recent message as that of Cuba's independence, one might think that it might be neutral, but given the wrangling that Indonesia and the Netherlands have had over the date of independence over the years, I'm not so certain that phrase would be any more neutral than the others. Caerwine 16:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

"Unlike France or Norway, Cuba was not independent prior to the U.S. intervention." True, however, Cuba was not independent after May, 1902, either. IMo, the line betwen "administration" and "independence" seem to be vague all up to 1959, due to the historical context and conflict between Cuban independence and US dominance. - NWOG

"dominance" has nothing to do with the technical use of "independence," no one has argued that the U.S. wasn't a major factor in Cuban government after the end of the Spanish colonial period. J. Parker Stone 05:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Good Grief! I doubt if any but the most rabid of anti-Communists would try to argue that Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Mongolia were not independent (sic are you sure you are not President Clinton as if he were defining sex (;>)) states before 1989 despite the fact that as shown in 1953, 1956, and 1968 that if they strayed too far from Moscow's line, the Soviet Army would see that that they stepped back into place. Similarly, to try and claim that Cuba has not had independence in at least the de jure sense since 1902 is ludicrous. Wikipedia doesn't bother with placing entries in the Infoboxes of the Soviet satellites showing when they were no longer under Soviet domination, so I don't see where that info bleongs in Cuba's infobox. Wikipedia uses the de jure definition of independence in the infoboxes, i.e., do other states accept ambassadors from the place and send ambassadors of their own there. Caerwine 17:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Cuban cosmonaut, worth mentioning?

Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez was the first Cuban cosmonaut and the first person from an American country other than the US to travel in space. I think this is worth mentioning in the History section, but so far, there is no word on him. - NWOG

Probably worth adding to the History of Cuba article if it isn't already there, but not to this article. Caerwine 16:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

And maybe space exploration or some similar article. Also the first black man in space. DirkvdM 08:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Cuba

Whoa there! Granted, be bold is a Wikipedia tenet, but by the time you move everything over to Republic of Cuba that belongs there, there won't be anything left here. This is not a good idea at all. France and French Republic are not separate article. Similarly Cuba should lead directly to the content you want to segregate on the Republic of Cuba article. I did consider making a separate article for Cuba (island) to hold content that was relevant to Cuba and not to the Isle of Youth, but I couldn't think of enough content that would be uniquely Cuban in that narrower sense as to be worth a separate article. Caerwine 13:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I had to get rid of the horrible "Revolutionary Government of Cuba" title; if you can think of a better way to deal with all this content, I am all ears. And FWIW no one says this particular article has to be so detailed. --TJive 22:08, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I was looking to China as a model of splitting up the articles. I am interested in your suggestions, though. --TJive 22:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

The China and Ireland splits are due to political divisiveness over what constitutes those two. Until and unless the United States hands over Guantanamo to a Free Republic of Cuba or something else that is similarly silly, there is no dispute over what constitutes Cuba. As I said, in the Talk setion of the other article, I'll need some time to think about it. Caerwine 00:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to take this opportunity to share an idea of mine. I don't think having two separate articles for Cuba and Republic of Cuba is necessarily such a bad idea. The island and the corporate entity that exercises government over the island are not the same thing, and although they could be made into one article, two might be better. This would, obviously, apply to just about every country, and it might be cumbersome and somewhat hard to manage, but if anyone wants to discuss the idea further let me know. Paul 19:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's a proposal for a merger at talk:Republic of Cuba. Not sure though if I should have pointed that out to you since I'm in favour of a merger :) . DirkvdM 07:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it even a republic? It seems that the less democratic a place is, the more adjectives like Republic and People's and Democratic they prepend to the name. Witness Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. I vote we rename Republic of Cuba to Cuban Government and remove all references to Republic. It just confuses. Ireason 04:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Size of PCC

The Communist Party of Cuba article states that as of 1997 the party had a membership of approximately 780,000 in 1997 (Fifth Patry Congress). The Demographic of Cuba article gives a 2005 estimate of 9,127,614 for the population aged 15 or older. That gives a percentage of 8.5%, but allowing for the fact that 15, 16, and 17, year olds aren't generally considered adults along with the slight population growth that Cuba had had in the past eight years, being more exact than one in ten would be overly precise with the figures available. More recent data on party membership to make a better estimate would of course be appreciated and should be added the to the Communist Party of Cuba article in addition to being used to form a better total. Caerwine 22:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Arrgh!!!!

It looks like this atricle is once again the focus of an edit war as the anti-Castro wackos have a contest with the pro-Castro wackos to see who can score the most propoganda points. Unfortunately, this means that attempts at productive edits of the article are going to be largely moot until this sillyness subsides. Caerwine 17:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Dislexia is one thing (I have it too) but the use of uncorrected poor translations of material from official Cuban sources is just weird. Darn it if the "pro-Castro wackos" were educated in the US they should be expected to write better, otherwise one is tempted to wonder if instead they are working from Cuba.

Hey if you don't like Castro and the Communist party, that's just fine with me, but I don't see any value whatsoever in changing wikilinks that point at Communist Party of Cuba to a non-existent Fascist Party of Cuba regardless of your political beliefs. I'm going to try to fix this up, but the recent edit history is a mess, especially the tripe injected by 69.180.117.169. Gabe 19:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What's with people who seem to equate Fascism and Communism? I would think a little History/Poli-Sci 101 would be in order here, besides isn't Communism bad enough?! You don't have to make allusions to Nazism for something to be wrong. *shrug* Regardless I don't see what value it does other than to make you feel like you have a bigger pee-pee by breaking links to articles in an attempt to annoy Castro into... I don't know what... do you think he's gonna step down because somebody defaced a Wikipedia article? Geez. I would imagine he'd read the Spanish version anyway...

Gabe

Yes Gabe the Spanish version is interesting. I have been trying to edit out foreign language syntax that has crept into the far different English version, make the piece shorter without removing information, and above add detail, context and as much nuance as is possible in such a short space. As to the size of one's "pee pee" it is well known that Cubans have an advantage (xe xe). Seriously the early explorers commented on this, yes they really did saying that in order to please their lecherous women, the indigenous men used natural products to this effect. Now that is what I call "upfront." Even the good father Bartolome de las Casas commented on Taina brides "pulling a train on their wedding nights."

Photo

The photo of the 'yank tank' has been moved or removed several times. I don't see why. It's a typical Cuban image and the location makes sense because it is a general image (it's not about the economy). Any reasons for the (re)moving? DirkvdM 07:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

In the location between the Country infobox and the table of contents, it leads to a lot of white space which is why I moved it down. Once past the start, I couldn't find a better location than the one I chose to polace it, tho I admit it wasn't ideal. As to why others have been deleting it, you'll have to ask them. Caerwine 13:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've left them in pretty much the same location but just moved them right and left to eliminate the white space. If you don't like it change them back. Whatever you think is best. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather 13:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the pic, but I think the caption could be made more explicit: "U.S.-built cars from the 1950s are still a common sight on Cuba's streets", or your own less pathetic suggestion. Máquina in Spanish would need an accent, and who calls them "Yank Tanks"? Not the locals, surely?

Oh, and someone broke the history section, All those funny square brackets round the occasional word? Didn't know what the hell they were doing, so he removed them all. I'm not sure how far back we have to go to repair that. It's been in a lot of flux over the past few days. –Hajor 14:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so it's about the different rendering on different computers (different browsers and/or screen sizes). I already had a hunch that might be it, even though I tested it in different sizes. That's always a problem with HTML (although the adaptability certainly has advantages I wouldn't want to do without). But it would have been nice (saved time and effort) if the reason for moving it would have been given. Anyway, looks good now. DirkvdM 07:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The doctor photo has been removed for now, pending a possible copyright problem as I found it elsewhere attributed as an AP file photo. Please don't add it back unless it is determined that it isn't a copyright violation. Caerwine 17:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice job with the history section, Caerwine. Thanks. –Hajor 17:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hogging the credit eh what! (El Jigüe, 9/24/2005)

I notice somebody keeps erasing updates and keeps putting the car photo back along with an old, unrevised, chauvinistic and eurocentric version of Cuban history. It is difficult to explain how a European can complain about war and misdeeds in 20th century. Of course the "erasor" could merely be very insular and ignorant of world history (El Jigüe, 9/26/2005).

Considering the marginal input that the indigineous culture had on today's Cuba, the fact that you obliterate links already in the text with your wholsesale replacement of the history section, and include extraneous information about Shakespeare and German spy plots during the world wars, you're darn right I leep reverting what you keep doing to the article. All this article needs is a summary of Cuban history concentrating on that portion of Cuban history essential to understanding the Cuba of today. At 35 KB, the article is already slightly longer than desirable. There is a whole other article, History of Cuba, set aside for doing a more detailed exposition on Cuban history. Placing your extra historical contributions there instead of here would definitely be preferred. Caerwine 23:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Caerwine it is spelled indigenous, and yes the indigenous culture now guajiro is much alive in Cuba, for crying out loud look at the photo of Batista, or at Raul Castro for that matter. Apparently you are not sufficiently aware of the this, nor the relative peace vs a viz Europe that Cuba enjoyed in the first half of the 20th century. Cuba only suffered short term presidents, in 1933, far more commonly the problem was quite the reverse. You appear to think "liberals" defeated Machado actually it was the Conservative (that is the political party) in the army that finally did that after being attacked on all sides by different groups including the remaining Mambi. Guiteras played a relatively minor role, I think this bomb throwing radical group accomplished only one badly managed miitary ambush. Stop reading the managed pap that the pro-Castro idiots keep churning out and do some serious reading, but then you probably cannot read Spanish let alone Taino (El Jigüe, 9/26/2005) .

I freely admit that my spelling is atrocious. The question is not whether the culture is alive, but how much of an impact it has on the society as a whole. I certainly wouldn't expect to devote large chunks of text about the native cultures of what is now the United States in a brief gloss of its history and the U.S. had native groups resistant to encroachment much longer than Cuba did. This article is not the place for a long exposition on Taino culture or other parts of Cuban history. The current length of the history section in this section is about the right length for this article and adding large chunks of text is NOT appropriate. If you feel that the text is unbalanced in its coverage of Cuban history, please rectify the situation by deleting text roughly equivalent in length to what you add. If you want to add additional details then please do so in the History of Cuba article which is not overly long and has room for expansion, as has already been pointed out to you repeatedly. Caerwine 13:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the matter will be given some consideration when the worst Castro pap is gone. As to the Taino matter, considering the influence their descendents and their customs still have in Cuba, and given the miracle of mitochondrial DNA analysis, i will continue to honor some of my ancestors (El Jigüe, 9/27/2005).

Meanwhile read my new version at site before you decide to erase it. It has all your links. Important points are made include filling in the lacunae on: links to US War of Independence, and Civil War, La Guerra Chiquita (which places Martí in far fuller context), a lead to a book on Narciso López at amazon.com that has web accessible pages, mention of the Cuban constitutional presidents, and even has citation leading to the photo of the truck raft (El Jigüe, 9/28/2005).

You definitely need to learn the value of brevity in my opinion. Let me address your additions in some detail.

The pronunciation of Ciboney is an irrelevant detail here that should be left to the Ciboney article.
Atlanean myths at best deserve a mention in the History of Cuba article. Given their general unacceptance, they don't need to clog this article.
The Taino were spread far beyond Cuba, so except for details that are Cuba specific, Taino culture and trivia should be left to that article not this one. About the only thing that I see worth saving of your changes in this article would be changing the Taino description from neolithic to chalcolithic if you can source it. Neolithic includes ornamental and ceremonial metal use, but I haven't seen anything that indicates that the Taino were undertaking the transition to copper tools, and that assertion would contradict the information given in the Taino article itself, so if that info is incorrect, it needs to be corrected there as well.
Details about how Spaniards at the time of colonization thought of themselves as Aragonese, Castilian, etc., are also not of sufficient import to clog this article with them, not unless one can link some aspect of Cuban history or culture significant enough to be mentioned in this article to that fact.
There is ZERO significance in so far as Cuba is concerned to warrant including Caribbean trivia related to Shakespeare and Raleigh in this article. Those details might be appropriate in an article about Cuban influences on English Culture, but they don't belong in this article at all.
Mentioning the non-fortification uses of La Cabaña is a good idea, but there isn't really space for the details in this article. I editted that section to keep the general mention and placed a red link to encourge someone who has the time and souces to do a more comprehensive article on its use as a prison. Mentioning specific usages tho, is a detail that should go elsewhere, as I really doubt that it would be possible to be both brief and neutral once names start being mentioned.
While I doubt not that there were Cubans involved in the US Civil War, they weren't there in significant numbers, so unless a major figure in the Ten Years' War was a participant, that's a level of detail that should be left to the article about the Ten Years' War or maybe the History of Cuba article.
I am under the impression that in so far as Cuba was concerned, both Lopez's filibusters and La Guerra Chiquita were both minor enough in their effect to be left out of this article, tho they certainly belong in the History of Cuba article.
Since the period from 1909 to 1940 was apparently relatively quiet, then simple silence here should suffice. The details, as usual, would be welcome in the History of Cuba article, but spending three paragraphs to say things were relatively calm when one could do say it with none, is extremely excessive.

In my opinion, most of what you want to add to this article this belongs in Wikipedia, but it does not belong in this article. Not every detail tangentally related to Cuba belongs here. Caerwine 22:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting comments; however, you are saying words to the effect that “I left the important stuff” as the rancher answered the bull after he castrated him. Thus, perhaps I will use your statements without permission in my next paper, as examples demonstrate how Castro’s minions have brain washed two and half generations of pseudo intellectuals.

If you were writing this way on English history you might write about naked savages dressed only in woad; or would standing in awe and hero worship call Oliver Cromwell “the Protector” instead of “the Dictator;” you might skip over English victories and emphasize the defeats. Then you again perhaps you would emphasize the cruel bombing of Hamburg, without addressing Conventry, on and on…..

You keep insisting that the Taínos were primitives, without understanding that the Arawak culture is the substratum on which the so called “higher civilizations” of the Americas drew on. You do not understand nor appreciate their art , their ability to navigate, or their skills in developing hundreds of crops.

You dodge the significance of my statements, you complain about the length of coverage of the “Republican” period of Cuban history which replaced uninformed words to the effect that these governments were brief, words which echo Castro’s propaganda chiefs. You do not wish to know about the troubles of1906, 1912, 1917 or even 1930s in Cuba. You wish to ignore the world of that time.

If you really knew Cuban history you would know which band of Cuban brothers were at the orchard at Gettysburg and then fought in Cuba, you would know how much Cuban colonials contributed the American Revolution, you would know how many so called English (really American colonials) died in Havana, or on the way from Guantanamo (they called it Cumberland) towards Santiago. You might know there were Cuban, as well as English, and French pirates, You might even know how many Welsh miners died near El Cobre.

You argue points in a way that makes me think you were half educated in Cardiff by crazed leftwing radicals, that you think you know more than people who were there and felt the cruel reality of Cuba today. (El Jigüe, 9/28/2005

What you repeatedly fail to realize is that this article is named Cuba, not History of Cuba. Putting all of what you want to put in here makes the article overly long, especially when there is a perfect good article History of Cuba to place an more extensive description of the past. This article should ideally touch the highlights of all the aspects of Cuba and point the interested reader towards articles that give him a fuller account of the specific aspects of what they are interested. A reader who comes to the Cuba article and who is not interested in Cuban history should not be forced to sit through an article that contains large amounts of material that does not interest him. If this article tried to treat every aspect of Cuba the way you are treating those parts that interest you it would be five times as large and one-fifth as useful. Caerwine 04:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

One further thing, between your complaining I'm a pro-Castro stooge and NWOG complaining I'm an anti-Castro stooge, I take comfort in knowing that I must be somewhat close towards advocating a neutral POV on this issue. Also, don't my username fool you, I've never even been to Wales. I was born in Dade County and live in South Carolina and I've never even been to Wales. Caerwine 05:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My apparent mistake since Caerw Castle is in Wales e.g. [[8]] Being brief has no virtue, if it sells out to anygiven ideology. Propaganda is by definition brief

Wikipedia is one of the most frequently cited resources on Cuba and yet it still does not properly screen out Castro propaganda. For instance the proportion of US held land in 1959 is said to be 75%, yet if one investigates the matter in depth one finds this is based on the data of Antonio Núñez Jiménez, a Castro Comandante, who fought with the Che [[9]], which is then inserted uncritically into international agency data. A more realistic figure of less than 47% must be calculated out of the academic literature. This and much else has been "bolixed" by pro-Castro propagandists. Thus if one wishes to present both sides of the argument, there seems to be no solution except to put in a long piece. I will do what I can to divide it up as you say, but it is most difficult and will take time. Meanwhile if you wish to be objective a thoughtful long article is better than a short propaganda piece. (El Jigüe, 9/29/2005).

SUBDIVISION OF HISTORY SECTION

I am reaching a degree of completeness for this section that

could allow subdivision into segments such as: Cuban indigenous cultures, conquest and early Spanish rule, the English in Havana, later Spanish rule and independence wars, early republic, 1933, late republic and WW II, Castro in Cuba, Castro overseas adventures, etc all in the context of global and cultural events(El Jigüe, 10/2/2005).

El Jigüe, aka 2005 205.240.227.15 ...

Why can't you add all your info to the History of Cuba article? --Hottentot

And learn how to edit properly. Knowing stuff is one prerequisite for working on Wikipedia - unless you do a copy-edit. Knowing how thing work here is, however, another - unless you're a passer-by who adds a bit of stuff that others can then format properly. But if you do big edits you should know how to do it properly. Otherwise you're just as likely to get your edits reverted at the history article. DirkvdM 08:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

My editing may be imperfect; however, you may notice that over time I have corrected and added a number of matters that were omitted. For instance, Batista's coup in 1952, was almost but not quite bloodless, I recall that there was a guard or two killed at the presidencial palace. You will notice some other additions, that should not have ignored, e.g. the deaths of many colonial militia in Havana in 1762-1963 (the figures given are considered low by others) and the not inconsiderable activities of the Spanish colonial militias, many of them Cuban, during the US War of Independence. (El Jigüe, 10/4/2005)

Pre-Castro figures for ownership of farm land are incorrect: At the time when Batista was deposed, officially 75% of Cuba's farmable land was said by Castro supporters to be owned by foreign individuals or foreign (mostly US) companies [[10]] based on statistics of Antonio Núñez Jiménez, a Castro Comandante [[11]]. Calculations based on other data [[12]]. [[13]] suggest 45% or less is a far more realistic figure. The new revolutionary government adopted “land reforms” that placed all but about 9% nominal and less than 5% (real) under direct government control [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] and confiscated all the private property [[17]] owned by upper and middle class Cubans and foreign companies. Cuba now is a "socialist state" thus property rights reside in the State not individuals. Individuals may have usofruct, a less common word in English, that means they can use the property but only at the sufferance of the state. This is one of the reasons Comandante Sori Marin was shot (El Jigüe, 10/4/2005)

No, usufruct means ownership by use +``1

Perhaps not

u·su·fruct Audio pronunciation of "usufruct" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (yz-frkt, -s-) n.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=usufruct

"The right to use and enjoy the profits and advantages of something belonging to another as long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way"

u·su·fruct Audio pronunciation of "usufruct" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (yz-frkt, -s-) n.

   The right to use and enjoy the profits and advantages of something belonging to another as long as the property is not damaged or altered in any way.

This is Castro government practice. One can live in a house, most often a subdivided pre-Castro house, as long as one is in the government's favor. Literally it means Castro say's "my way or the highway."

If one has usufructo of a patch of coffee in the mountains, that was respected because of service in the War Against Batista, one must sell to the government at government price. If one does not meet the quota set one has to pay as much as ten times the price in fines. To enforce this during coffee harvest army roadblocks stop and check all loads.

As to the Spanish motives in the American Revolutionary War. They not absolutely selfserving, the provided much war material to George Washington, and action was not limited to Florida, but also to the West.....[18]

El Jigüe (October 4th 2005)

I won't bother to read the above since the real issue is not what you put in but how you do it and obviously you still don't get it. DirkvdM 18:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Not bothering to read is not a very good argument. Also considering process above content in an encyclopedia is not the wisest thing either. However, I have tried to be a good soldier, and correct things within these limited parameters. New corrections about the "Bay of Pigs" emphasizes the problems of that circumstance notably the massive pre-emptive arrests. A French reporter I met while being held in the "Palacios of the Deportes" estimated these numbers at 200,000. An academic reference [[19]] is added in case your prefer it to first hand testimony. El Jigüe (October 5th 2005).

“Cohaba”the term used here is apparently a misspelling of Cohoba which is the old Spanish transliteration (then h was not mute as in modern Spanish, today j is used for the h sound) for ceremony in which narcotic ground seed of the cojóbana tree; was smoked in twin nasal Y-shaped pipes also called Cohoba. The cojóbana tree is believed by some to be Yopo, Anadenathera peregrina [[20]] although I think it may have been a generalized term for narcotic including various quite toxic Datura and related genera (Solanacea). The corresponding ceremony using cohoba-narcotized tobacco is transliterated as cojibá (the terminal accented á indicates action in Taíno). This corresponds culturally to the, in my view idiotic, practice of drug induced “astral traveling” so common to the Americas and else where. El Jigüe (October 5th 2005).

Look at the header. This thread is not meant to spew random info. It's about you. If you want to talk about a different subject then start a new thread. Learn how Wikipedia works. I make some mistakes too, but I'm not that thick-skulled. And can you blame me for not reading the above if you write something like "Also considering process above content in an encyclopedia is not the wisest thing either." ? DirkvdM 04:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Xe! Xe! Han! Han! Dirk that was an even less wise reply. I correct a spelling mistake, and you get all "bent out of joint." El Jigüe (October 6th 2005).

Dirk what gives you did not repair recent sabotage. El Jigüe (October 6th 2005)

Ahah somebody did something finally was that you Dirk who removed any mention of Castro's dubious overseas activities, and removed certain details of the Cubana crash. They were athlete- soldiers, they got gold medals, five I believe, but it was in the PAN AMERICAN games not the Olympics and they were surrounded by Cuban and North Korean bigwigs. That means the plane was full of uniforms. That does not excuse the bombing, but helps understand it. If you has true faith in your cause you would not omit such things. Titch! Titch! El Jigüe (October 6th 2005)

No, that was not me and there is an extremely simple way to find that out. But if you're that disinterested in how Wikipedia works I'm not going to tutor you. Simply click 'help' in the sidebar and start reading. It's not very compicated for simple text-edits. Just one thing. Sign with four tildes as shown below the edit box. Didn't you even read that? Clean up your act and your edits might get taken a bit more seriously. DirkvdM 10:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Dirk I do not find it "compicated;" what I find absurd is that my ancestors and I have been directly and centrally involved in Cuban affairs for (yes) thousands of years, and yet you who have had no direct involvement with the Island believe you are far better informed. It is particularily interesting that you have not noticed that the main article still had, until I removed it, the offensive and imprecise words "Native Cubans." El Jigüe (October 7th 2005)

Seven Years' War

Like all four of the conficts from 1689 to 1763, the one that ended in 1763 had different names in Britain and in the British colonies. I strongly doubt that war is called the French and Indian War in Cuba, as the Cubans fought neither French nor Indians in that war. Furthermore, the equivalent article on the Spanish Wiki is Guerra de los Siete Años, which also suggests that Seven Years' War is the better name to use in this article, so there is no need to place a (sic) or a reference to the French and Indian War in this article in addition to Seven Years' War. Caerwine 05:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Caerwine, your statement is illogical and strangely Eurocentric (see below). The (sic) refers to the apparent inability of some historians to correctly subtract 1754 from 1763. Since, this is an article in English, written here in the US, it is most appropriate to call it the "French and Indian War". Many colonials from what was to be the US died in Havana during this war. And George Washington fought in this war, his relatives had fought with Lord Vernon who was major supporter of this war in England. The reason that GW called his home Mount Vernon relates to this. The French and Indian War is the American phase of the conflict the European phase is usually called the "Seven Year War' e.g. "The North American phase of this conflict is known in the United States of America as the French and Indian War. Many of the Indians (Native Americans/First Nations) sided with France although some did fight alongside the British. The name "Seven Years' War" is used in the United States to refer only to the European portions of the conflict (1756–1763), not the nine-year North American conflict or the Indian campaigns which lasted 15 years (including Pontiac's Rebellion)[[21]]. You might also read William Fowler's Empires at War: The Seven Years' War and the Struggle for North America 1754-1763 (Hardcover) [[22]] By the way the present term is "Native American" not "Indian, just because Columbus was confused more than 500 years ago does not mean you have to be." El Jigüe (October 7th 2005)

While the article is written in English, it is not written by only those in the U.S., nor is it intended to be read by only people there. The simple truth is that of the two names used in English for the war, it appears that only Seven Years' War is used in Spanish, despite the fact that for Spain it was actually a three year war since Spain and its colonies did not become involved until 1761. Secondly, as much as I strive for some some degree of Political Correctness, it is extremely silly and hyper-PC to refer to "Native Americans" (Didn't you complain earlier about the usage of "Native Cubans"?) when talking briefly about the two principal enemies of the English American colonists in the "French and Indian War". Caerwine 18:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Paroxysms of pettifoggery

Caerwine If one checks the US colonial losses at Havana were only second to those on the Plains of Abrahams Quebec or should I say Kebec (xe xe). I notice you go into paroxysms of pettifoggery to get all excited about this and complete ignore the constant erasure by pro-Castroites of mentions of the dictator's misdeeds.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. velly int-er-er-esting!" Surely this is not pedantry or prejudice on your part? Xe! Han! Han! Xe! El Jigüe (October 7th 2005)

That's because I've given hope of doing anything with NWOG except reverting his damage, and his edits never contain anything except propoganda (or the removal of facts counter to that). I still entertain a slim hope that you can become something more than a nuisance, especially since my primary disagreement with you continues to be that you fail to realize that this is a summary article, and hence by its very nature needs to be brief. You don't need to editorialize the section titles to indicate that they are summaries, that's what the links to other articles, marked up in accordance with Wikipedia's usual standard to indicate that if you want more info than what's in this section, you go there. The data you have has been generally interesting, if not always on topic or useful in a summary article. Caerwine 03:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Caerwine thank you for your most kind words. What bothers me most is unbalanced view points, the omission of pertinent historical fact, such as the succession and contribution of each of the Cuban presidents in the first half of the 20th century and the misunderstanding of advances and depth of the Taíno culture. Omissions of this kind leave the impression of far more primitive circumstances before Castro, and thus provide false "achievements" under the last 47 years of Castro's rule.

For instance Castro's stage set in the Plaza de la Revolucion was all built by Batista (he got a cut from the construction). Castro talks from the Karl Marx theater, but only those in the know realize this is the vast pre-Castro Blanquita Theater, a place used as a prison in the Bay of Pigs aftermath. The difficulty faced is admittedly wordage necessary to convey this clearly.

If you can find the time read what I add. The reason I mention gold and coppery alloys is not only to show the reality of the Taíno culture, but to try to show the greed Spanish must have felt when faced with breast plates of gold El Jigüe (October 8th 2005)

Right now, my first priority is to try and integrate the mass of text added by the merger with the Republic of Cuba article. Dealing with that and your additions to the history section is not something I can do at the same time and try to retain some degree of coherency. Caerwine 00:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Politics

I've created three new stub articles National Assembly of People’s Power of Cuba, Council of State of Cuba, and Council of Ministers of Cuba so that the details of those three institutions can be dealt with there rather than this article. They should also be linked to from any articles that contain lists of legislatures and cabiniets as appropriate. Caerwine 00:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you realize that much of this is merely convenient fiction (El Jigüe, 10/9/2005)

For now. During the collapse of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European satelites, the rubber-stamp legislatures there started exercising to one degree or another the power that they held in theory but in reality did not dare exercise in opposition to the leader's dictates. Caerwine 17:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives