Talk:Human rights in Cuba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Caribbean
Caribbean Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Caribbean, and areas of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Birds
Cuba Portal
Human rights in Cuba is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of Top priority within the scope of Wikiproject Cuba.
Cuba To-do:
48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Old nasty argument

Wikipedia asks for "sources" when editing an article but .... I didn't find any when reading "Human Rights in Cuba". Where are the "sources" for the number of executed people for example? Are your sources comming from ex-criminals from the Batista's regime? From cuban-american "opponents" living in Miami? Or form the American State Department and CIA? Do you call "opposition" in the early years of the Revolution the criminals "left" in Cuba at the service of Batista that couldn't go with him to the USA? As well "sources" are lacking throughout this article .... Wikipedia should be really neutral and in doing so, should be very careful in verifying sources!!!! I agree that this article strongly needs more neutral review!!!

This article strongly needs more neutral review.

Diderot 17:17, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Then do it. TDC 18:29, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the first five years of Castro’s tenure, 2900 people were executed after trial and an estimated 4200 executed without a trial. Many of these were carried out at the La Habana fortress while Che Guevara was commander. From 1959 to today, an estimated 18,000 political prisoners have been executed.

Can we have a source for these numbers?AndyL 07:16, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead and ask the Russian Government for "sources" on the numbers of russians executed by Stalin: you'd have at least one advantage, namely: Stalin is no longer in power, nor his party. Or try to find the "sources" for the numbers about Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia. (the article reads: "Pol Pot's regime killed between 4-5 million people between 1975-1979, out of a population of approximately 8 million.", with no sources mentioned other than "References" and "Further Readings").

Now try to do the same in Cuba! That happened more that 40 years ago! I wish I still had in my hands the dozens of copies of the magazine "BOHEMIA LIBRE" where Castro's regime proudly displayed photographs of literally hundreds of dissident citizens ("gusanos", or "worms", as dissidents were called) who were detained and shot summarily at "El Paredón" ("The Big Wall") without any trials, in the streets of Havana and other Cuban cities. Those executions were a constant fact of life for Cubans from 1959 up to 1956. You want sources? Find out those magazines! - AVM 20:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The article seems to be largely taken from this source though even it doesn't use TDC's numbers. AndyL 07:32, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TDC claims 18,000 political prisoners have been executed. Yet, David Horowitz in this essay claims "Of Cuba's 80,000 political prisoners, 70,000 took this path of rehabilitation" which would leave 10,000 poltical prisoners who were not rehabilitated. Even if all 10,000 were executed (rather than serving prison sentences) that still falls far short of TDC's 18,000 claim. AndyL 07:54, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are as many numbers for the number of people executed for non violent, political crimes as there are sources. They seem to range from 3K-100K. The more pro Castro the source, the lower the number.

From Rummel

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIF

I think we should come to a consensus on how many political executions have occured in Cuba since 1959. TDC 14:42, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since TDC still hasn't provided a source for his numbers I've removed:

Castro faced strong opposition early on. To consolidate his power he executed thousands who opposed him, even though many had actively participated in the effort to overthrow Fulgencio Batista. In the first five years of Castro’s tenure, 2900 people were executed after trial and an estimated 4200 executed without a trial. Many of these were carried out at the La Habana fortress while Che Guevara was commander. From 1959 to today, an estimated 18,000 political prisoners have been executed. This is one of the highest capital punishment rates in the world, although executions are not nearly as common in Cuba in recent years.

.It would be good if we could find a relatively neutral source (such as the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, that gives a culminative number or range. Based on what even a right winger like Horowitz has said, TDC's 18,000 number seems high since what we are dealing with, if Horowitz is accurate, is a subset of 10,000 "non-rehabilitated" political prisoners. If half of those prisoners were executed rather than forced to face long jail terms the number of political executions would be "only" 5,000 AndyL 18:20, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Did you read the Rummel link? I was giving a low estimate. But so as to not to allow you to turn this into another Castro-love-a-thon, I will find another source.TDC 18:22, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and I also read Horowitz' numbers as well as the submission earlier above that says the range actually starts at 3,000 (which is consistent with what Horowitz said), hence my skepticism. AndyL 18:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TDC, I believe it was actually you who said above "There are as many numbers for the number of people executed for non violent, political crimes as there are sources. They seem to range from 3K-100K. The more pro Castro the source, the lower the number. " so where did you get the 3K figure from?AndyL 20:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is for me to know and you to find out. TDC 20:13, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Fine, in that case I'm putting the 3,000 figure back in since you're being disingenous and are obviosly aware of the source but holding it back for ideological reasons. AndyL 20:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh no, no, no, my friend, you must source your information. It will have to be removed in order to protect the integrity of Wikipedia unless it has a source. TDC 20:25, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Your objection is disingenuous since *you* are my source for that number and refuse to identify your source. You know full well that the number has a source since you're the one who found it. This sort of behaviour by you is not only non-collegial but will get you booted from Wikipedia sooner or later if you don't become more cooperative and put the interests of the project above your personal political agenda. AndyL 20:26, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do you think just because you were nominated for an admin position you can threaten me?

For Shame Andy ......... for shame........... TDC 21:09, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me? My personal agenda?

As far as the source goes, I do not recal where I obtained it from, but if you put it in, I am going to remove it, because it will not be sourced. If you want the source, go find it. Stop bieng a lazy whiner.

Do lefties always expect someone else to do their work for them?TDC 20:29, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Do you always try to conceal information you don't agree with?AndyL 20:39, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am not concealing anything, I just don't recall. TDC 20:40, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt although your "That is for me to know and you to find out" comment earlier contradicts your claim that you "just don't recall". AndyL 21:08, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your graciousness knows no bounds.

Are you an only child Andy?TDC 21:09, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

No but all my parents' children are fully grown and I doubt they'd want to adopt any more so I'm afraid you're out of luck :) AndyL 21:18, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


You know what's so interesting about you quoting Horowitz is that I talk to him a couple of times a year. I should ask him to look into this subject more.

If the mountain won't come to Muhammad................ TDC 21:17, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that Horowitz would be horrified to learn that his statistics are being used to cast doubt on the claims of a Castro opponent but if you ever go to court and sit through a trial you'll see that judges often take the evidence they use to come down to a decision from both sides and will sometimes take evidence given by the defence and use it to draw conclusions the defence doesn't like (or ditto with the prosecution). AndyL 21:22, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The numbers Horowitz gives are for political prisoners, not executions. TDC 20:06, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Why exactly are the numbers suspect just because they come from the OAS and US state dept? What exatly does suspect mean, and why are they suspect? TDC 20:47, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

The US state department is biased against Cuba as is the OAS and it is in their interest to exaggerate the numbers (certainly the US government has distorted statistics in the past when it relates to "enemies" of the US). The sentence is "may be suspect" btw. AndyL 20:54, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is true that the State Dept and the OAS are biased against Cuba, but does that mean these numbers are wrong or inflated? Isn't it enough to inform the reader where Lago obtained his numbers and then allow the reader to draw their own conclusion as to the suspect nature of the sources, rather than tell them? TDC 22:19, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

"It is true that the State Dept and the OAS are biased against Cuba, but does that mean these numbers are wrong or inflated?" It means they may be suspect which is what the article says. The numbers do not come from a neutral source, you've conceded that, so that means they may be suspect or do you believe that the US government never lies? If so I have some Iraqi WMD to sell you:) AndyL 22:24, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That the numbers are or are not suspect is a POV and it has no place in the article. TDC 22:37, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

How about a statement that no neutral body has concurred with US/OAS estimates?AndyL 22:46, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What would a nuetral body be? TDC 22:57, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Using numbers from a biased source is not POV? AndyL 22:48, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Once again biased according to who? To me, to you, to the reader? Hows about we tell the reader whose numbers they are, and allow them to come to their own conclusion as to thier validity? TDC 22:57, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Biased according to you since you acknowledged the US and OAS are not neutral. Are you seriously arguing that the US government does not have a bias in this matter? No one, not even the US government, would assert that. AndyL 23:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"What would a nuetral body be?" Amnesty International is neither pro or anti-Cuba. UN High Commissioner of Human Rights. Human Rights Watch. AndyL 23:04, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

AI may or may not be neutral, that is for the reader to decide. As far as I am concerned true neutral exists in very few places and realisticly should not exist at all. TDC 23:09, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

"may be suspect" is NPOV given the circumstances. It's different from saying "is suspect". The fact remains that AI, UNHCHR, HRW do not agree with the numbers.

Oh really? Please provide the information from AI, UNHCHR, HRW that disputes the number of executions and then you may well have a point. TDC 23:49, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

They don't cite his research in any of their reports on Cuba. AndyL 23:59, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And that means what exactly.......... that they have their own numbers on the number of politicaly motivated executions have taken place since 1959, or that they have not even looked into the matter? TDC 00:05, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

It means they don't accept the numbers. Can we write AI and ask them if they have their own estimate and, if not, why they don't accept the estimate you use or would that be "original research"?AndyL 03:58, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Changed the article title. I don't have any opinion about the contents, but this new title just seems to make more sense as an encyclopedia article.

Roadrunner 21:22, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--- "It is color coded to indicate degree of "ideological integration." as it is contested." This has been contested so please provide evidence that this is true. AndyL 04:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


I have added some info concerning the disidents. I think this article needs some cleanup, since the work of TDC, who denies the existence of the victims of US Bombing in Afghanistan and justifies the American Nuclear Genocide committed against the Japanese civilian population , is clearly visible.

Just a general question but unless I am seriously mistaken the article has a sub-part for the Cason affair while at the same time there is a reference to this in the Political persecution-part. Shouldn't these references be moved to the Cason Affair - Section ?

Turrican

First of all zippy, you need to take your paxil simmer down. I have never denied that collateral targets were killed in Afghanistan. I simply disputed your assertion that US pilots and troops spend their day lacksidasicaly taking target practice on Afghan children and their blind crippled puppy dogs. But that’s a debate for another page, as is Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And clear to who? A blind man in a dark room wearing a welding mask?
Secondly, I would not object to moving information on Cason to a new article and placing a passing mention in this one. TDC 08:06, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yohoo, TDC is Back. Say, have you ever considered focussing more on your other hobbies instead of spreading right-wing propaganda in Wikipedia ? Like kneeling in front of the American Flag while wearing your vintage SS-Uniform and masturbating on a picture of Ann Coulter ?

Turrican

Now that was classy! Tell me, do you always stoop to this level of discourse when being dominated by someone that although you clearly despise, cannot best in a simple rhetorical debate? I know how much it must confuse and frustrate you to realize that you are not my peer, but just another who went head to head with me just to come away feeling like a weak and ineffectual toddler desperately coming to grips with his lack of adequacy. Tisk tisk tisk, I actually expected better.

But now to disect your feeble attempt at re writng history. TDC 22:21, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Are you suffering from Illusions of grandeur ? Be assured that I feel morally and intellectually quite superior to you, hypocritical nazi scumbag.

Turrican

[edit] Cason trial

If we could put aside the mutual invective for a moment, I'd like to hear from TDC why the information about the prosecution's evidence at the Cason trial doesn't belong in this article. If your preference is to create a new article with just a cross-reference here, then wouldn't the entire passage be deleted? Or is there some dispute about the accuracy of the language you removed? JamesMLane 00:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good point. The Cason trial is noteworthy enough to justify a separate article and I am currently working on one in my free time. As to the information presented, I removed it for several reasons. Any objective on looker can see that any political criminal trial in Cuba basically degenerates into a kangaroo court. The controversial information that Turrican presented is also unsourced.

I would also speculate that information concerning this backing Turrican's addition would also be from a source whose objectivity (please see OAS debate above) would also be questionable or biased. I do realize that Cason was working in conjunction with several individuals in Cuba, but allow this to shore up the Cuban government's assertion that this was CIA sponsored subversion is a stretch at best.


Specifics:

  • Photographic evidence introduced at trial showed the accused meeting with Cason, the head of the US Interest Section.

Source please, but it is not in dispute that Cason did meet with Cuban citizens.

  • As well, evidence was introduced of up to $8 million from the US government being laundered to various groups whose goal is the overthrow of the Cuban government.

Source please. Also how valid is the accusation that these individuals were attempting to overthrow of the Cuban government and had accepted $8 mil to do so?

  • According to prosecutors, the aim of the group arrested was to organize a poltiical party which would be financed by the American government and represent the views of the United States.

Once again, these accusations are coming from the representatives of the Cuban dictatorship, and are highly questionable.

TDC 00:47, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

The deleted text made clear that it was summarizing statements by representatives of the Castro regime. A reader who wants to discount them on that basis is free to do so. The correct approach is not to censor Castro's side but to present the opposite side. Examples of NPOV would be a summary of the defense evidence, or a statement attributed to Amnesty International or some such denouncing the trial because the defense wasn't permitted to introduce evidence. JamesMLane 01:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I have given a link. Not my fault if you can't read. And I am really looking forward to the Cason article you are writing. Please be sure to write a lot about the unfair trials these heroic dissidents were subject to - which would never happen in the US of course, because since the Patriot Act was introduced "terrorists" don't have a right to be tried in a fair trial anymore.

Also what I have written is that is is a standard practive of the CIA and other Government Institutions like for example the National Endowment for Democracy to influence foreign elections by giving money and practical support to their favourite parties. This is a fact and there are dozens of historic examples from Italy to Chile and this is exactly what I have written. What are you expecting - a written statement signed by the head of the CIA that they have tried to topple Castro ? This is official government policy since more than 40 years.

Turrican

You have not provided a source for any of the information you added. I will give you 36 hours to do so, or it will be removed. If you continue to insinuate that the CIA is behind the Cuban dissidents, either prove it or remove it.

Run along now my little pet, the clock is ticking. TDC 15:17, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Fuck you TDC, Fuck you. Who do you think you are ? If you an want an edit war, you can have it. There was right from the beginning a link to a statement by the Cuban government. As to the CIA and NED part - maybe I should add a link to a serious history book - as opposed to right-wing propaganda. You know, sometimes I ask myself if you know that you are wrong but are propagating your lies anyways or if you are another victim of US media brainwashing.

JamesMLane : Could you try to mediate here in some way ? I personally see no sense in further direct discussion with this guy but I am not willing just to give up just because he is so persistent.

Turrican

Now, now ...... watch the potty mouth you dirty birdey, or you might just get temp banned. As to who I am ... its TDC (Turrican Destruction Comitee) in the house! As for the link, I have not seen any link from the Cuban government anywhere, put please prove me wrong, paste it here. Now I know that the NED and CIA have crushed millions of non aligned and peaceful organizations and governments committed to national liberation and social justice (tm) and are responsible for the deaths of billions upon billions of fun loving and happy go lucky political dissidents, but what evidence do you have that these evil doppelgangers of corporate fascisms were at work in the Cason affair? Oh that’s right, you have no evidence. Duly noted. TDC 16:04, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not on the Mediation Committee, and it might be useful to get them involved. Even without doing so, however, I can tell you with fair confidence what they or any other sensible user would say: "Run along now my little pet" and "Fuck you TDC, Fuck you" are both absolutely unacceptable as ways for editors to converse with each other. I call your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, where one of the participants was blocked from all editing for one day for calling another "a slanderous piece of filth". In the case of the present article, I think each of you needs to take a major chill pill if the article is to go anywhere.
I have to confess that I'd never even heard of Cason until I read about the incident here, so I don't have much background to draw on. Before I start Googling for Cason, can either or both of you save me some time by directing me to links that are particularly informative? If critical information isn't available online I can trudge over to the New York Public Library, which should have pretty much any important printed source in English and some in Spanish. I myself don't read Spanish, I'm afraid. Thanks for any help you can give me in getting up to speed. JamesMLane 15:58, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


TDC : To repeat myself : I have no written evidence that the CIA or the NED are involved in the Cason affair. What I have written is that they have done so in the past and I think this statement is necessary to understand that claims by the Cuban government that these people are involved in anti-government activties is so unrealistic as you seem to think.

JamesMlane :I would like to point to my favourite reference on the subject of CIA and NED, [1] by William Blum. He also gives sources for every important statement he makes, so it should be quite possible to verify his claims. There is also a chapter about US agression against Cuba.

The Link I pasted is right after this sentence in the article, it is numbered (3) :

Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque denied these charges and stated that "Cuba has the right to defend itself and apply punishment just like other nations do, like the United States punishes those who cooperate with a foreign power to inflict damage on their people and territory"


Turrican


The fact remains that neither you nor Billy Blum can provide any documentation what so ever that either the CIA or the NED has anything to do with the Cason affair. Sure you can say that the CIA and the NED has allegedly been involved in the past, but this has nothing directly to do with the matter at hand.

I have also gone over all of your edits to the article and have not found your citation. Please provide it again. The clock is still ticking. TDC 22:24, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

To clarify, the citation I seek would be the citation for the information contained specificaly in the Cason subsection. TDC 22:26, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)


The Cason affair-subsection was not written by me ! My only two edits were on September 21. And I won't let myself be threatened by an ultimatum. I thought we had agreed to try to be more civil.

Another proposal to the public : I don't think that the Guantanamo-Part really belongs here. While the legal status of the Guantanamo Naval Base seems to be unclear, the Human Rights Violations inside are not committed by the Cuban Government but by the US.

Turrican

Well I'll be damned, I guess you didnt. Fair warning to whomever did, please document and source or I will have to remove it. TDC 22:16, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

TDC, the source was the following link shown under external links. I will add the information and link to the source. http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/extra/d0505kk.htm

Quick, someone go over to the Pinochet article and write this:

"Pinochet supporters dispute the peaceful nature of Chilean dissidents. They note that several instances of disappearance and torture carried out by the military junta were directed toward Marxists with Castroite ties, who presented a serious threat to stability in the South American nation."

...and see if you get taken seriously. In the meantime, just remember that if Castro ever imprisons someone in Cuba, it's never his fault, for many reasons:

1) The Imperalist, Corporate States of America were immediately hostile to Castro once he promised free healthcare and fairness for all. This goes against the Capitalist New World Order. 2) The aforementioned hostility drove Castro into the Soviet camp. 3) Castro was truly a Jeffersonian democrat (hahaha) but because of the Mafia-CIA alliance was forced to go totalitarian and crack down on dissent. HE HAD NO CHOICE! 4) The Corporate States of America continues its oppressive embargo on the Cuban people. Nevermind that Castro is openly hostile to American "fascism" and "imperialism," we need to give him a helping hand!

Fidel Castro: Peaceful, starry-eyed democrat, turned evil by unprovoked corporate aggression. Supreme Moolah of Iran 09:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: Do you really believe that a tiny island nation can stand up to an overwhelmingly powerful Single World Superpower without taking extraordinary measures? If Fidel Castro behaved like he had nothing to worry about, how many seconds do you think he'd last? Oh, and given the fact that the USA itself and countless numbers of its allies imprison suspected terrorists in much the same way as Castro, aren't you being a tad bit hypocritical? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:14, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The US at the moment does not plan on installing a "fascist" (in Uncle Fidel's words) government in Cuba, or creating a Batista II. Castro may have had a (extremely lame) excuse to exercise absolute authority during the Cold War, but that's over and done with. Of course, if a US-friendly democracy did manage to take root in Cuba following Castro's death (which'll be awhile -- they say that Cuba's healthcare is so great he's going to live to 140) I'm sure you and like-minded individuals would deride it as a "banana republic." But that's another story.

Besides, Communist guerrillas were active in several subversive activities in Latin American countries during the Cold War, and I'm sure several were backed by Cuba and the Soviet Union. By taking your Castroite logic I can say that it was perfectly OK for the military governments in those countries to exercise absolute authority in order to stabilize the situation. Anyhow, the US did not support such dictatorships following the Soviet Union's collapse, and did not always give unconditional support to them in the first place. If every Cuban loves Uncle Fidel so much, why doesn't he announce a plebiscite so they can reelect their dear leader? Sorry, I said reelect -- I forgot he wasn't elected in the first place.

And the Guantanamo:Cuba analogy doesn't work I'm afraid. I don't entirely agree with this Bush administration's policy, but putting suspected terrorists away is different than putting suspected dissidents away. Unless you're going to argue that every person summarily executed or imprisoned by Castro is a paid CIA agent bent on installing a fascist, imperialist government in the region. Supreme Moolah of Iran 00:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And comparing CDRs to corporations? Please. I know we're supposed to be neutral here, but the pro-Castro argument needs to be something other than 100% BS. Supreme Moolah of Iran 09:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CDRs are organizations in which membership is not technically compulsory, but which a person must join in order to get ahead. Corporations are organizations in which membership is not technically compulsory, but which a person must join in order to get ahead. Sounds like a perfect comparison to me... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:57, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your recent addition sounds like its a personal opinion and not a reference to any research or to statements made by Castro supporters (unless its a reference to you). Please provide a source for your statement, or I am afraid it will have to be removed. TDC 16:56, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

It's by no means a recent addition. It was a part of the article that got removed, and I only put it back in. Check the history every now and then. If you want this sentence removed, then I'm afraid I'll also have to remove the statement right above it, which is the opinion of Castro's critics. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ugh, this specific criticism is your specific criticism. Personal POV is not to be inlcuded in articles unless it reflects a more widely held and documentable belief. TDC 20:21, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
The idea that "corporations are organizations in which membership is not technically compulsory, but which a person must join in order to get ahead" is widely held among the kind of people who are likely to support Fidel Castro (and many people who do not support him, too). I could document it by calling here the best-known members of the online communist community to testify, if you wish. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:40, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So, there is a pundit, academic, journalist, or some other talking head type who has specifically drawn a comparison between corporate membership and Cuban CDR membership? If there is, then the statement in contention would be a valid addition to the article. If not, then it is just your opinion. You cannot document it by calling members of the online communist community to testify, it has got to be a real honest to goodness citation. Happy hunting for it, you will need it. TDC 13:36, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
Sure thing; just as soon as you provide the same kind of documentation for the statement that "Castro's opponents argue that organizations such as the local Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, the Women's Federation, the Young Pioneers, and student organizations coerce adults and youth into participating" - which is just a few lines above the corporate comparison. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You may think those pocket jacks look good, but I'm TDC, and I'm callin your bluff and goin all in, boy
Castro's opponents argue that organizations such as the local "Committees for the Defense of the Revolution", the Women's Federation, the Young Pioneers, and student organizations coerce adults and youth into participating
[2] [3] Political Systems of the World . Derbyshire
Want more? TDC 01:47, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
Touché. Although, if the only thing you're asking for is a reference to an article on a website, does that mean I can just go make my own website, write my argument there, and then use that website as a reference for "Castro's supporters argue..."? Or perhaps you only accept websites with a certain amount of traffic, to show that they're genuine sources? That wouldn't be a problem either. I'm sure my comrades over at Che-Lives would be more than happy to help me in this matter. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:01, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Couple things. The one website I took from is the Rand corporation, big time think tank. Think tanks are good for citations. The other is a book, a political atlas, also good for citations. Let me put it to you this way, before you cite a source, think to yourself, what would I say if TDC tried to insert information from a source as credible as this.
I am leaving in about an hour to go hunting for the week, so you have plenty of time. TDC 11:10, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
In answer to the question raised by Mihnea Tudoreanu: You touch on a point of difficulty in applying the NPOV policy. Our goal is to report opinions without adopting them, but there's a limit to what opinions we can report. Somewhere in the world, there's probably someone who believes that Castro is actually in the employ of the CIA, assigned to generate a phony offshore threat that will benefit the right wing in U.S. politics. If that person manages to learn enough HTML to post his ravings, that doesn't mean we need to report it. The Wikipedia policy includes this passage:
Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
(The foregoing is from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#What is the neutral point of view?.) I think this means that we should report on a significant body of opinion, or, in some cases, the opinion of even one notable source. On the other hand, if you, personally, think the CDR's are like corporations in relevant respects, but that comparison isn't one that's generally made by other people, then Wikipedia is not the place for you to proselytize for your viewpoint. JamesMLane 00:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression that CDRs were political organizations. Corporations are not political organizations. You don't need to be a free-market conservative to be employed by a corporation. Supreme Moolah of Iran 00:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please add Category:Human rights to this article? I'm trying to populate this category, but I'm afraid editing this article would provoke the thought police to come after me. VeryVerily 23:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uh..., people? VeryVerily 07:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fidel Castro definitely needs to take a good look at himself. Scott Gall 08:57, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

I read through it quickly, and failed to find any obviously biased statements. Where are they, if they really are biased, why are they not just reformulated? Or can we remove the POV warning? --Regebro 21:10, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's a sample: "This true apartheid is in place now."

[edit] Capitalist Human rights?

People don't seem to understand that 'human rights' are a capitalist charade, what Cuba is doing is not 'human rights abuses' but class struggle! Who says capitalist scum have rights? NEXT IN THE FIRING SQUAD I SAY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.39.158 (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Bay of Pigs anyone?

I find it pretty strange that, in an article about human rights in Cuba, no mention is made of the Bay of Pigs attack by the US. I mean, it's one of the things, along with the embargo, that made Castro more paranoid and thus triggered more repression from the regime.


Yes, its all the U.S.'s fault. (Sarcasim intended). --Tenric 20:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuba before 1959

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

The article seems to cover only human rights abuses between 1959 and the present. Does this imply that there were no human rights abuses in Cuba before 1959? The first sentence says that since Castro came to power, there have been allegations of human rights abuses. Is this intended to mean that there were no such allegations before he came to power? That's what it appears to mean, and yet I don't remember Batista being a model democrat... -86.134.55.144 19:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Another thing we need to add is some sort of context. For example, comparing human rights in 60s and 70s Cuba to those in Guatemala or Haiti during the same period or El Salvador during the 80s, or even Colombia today. Since almost all countries have human rights abuses (certainly the US, UK, France, etc), one can only get a grasp of relevance, extent, degree by understanding the relative severity of a country's abuses in the historical context and compared with similar countries. The 5,000 political prisoners executed between 1959 and 1980 in Cuba could be compared with the 100,000 political prisoners executed by Franco in Spain *after* the war was already over. -86.134.114.171 18:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


I strongly SUPPORT this Idea. The articles name is Human Rights in Cuba , and thus should contain the whole history of Cuba in it... I suggest that there will be the following topics:

Colony

Humans Rights under Spain (including Weyler Reconcentration)

Humans Rights in Mambises War

NeoColony

Humans Rights under US Ocupation

Humans Rights in the Neocolony (Machado, Batista... Mella & Jesus Menendez Assesination. Represion to strikes. Supression of the University)


Revolution

Humans Rights in early years of the Revolution (Trials to alleged torturers of Batista, UMAP, etc)

Humans Rights in the 70's and 80's. (USSR relations, freedoms under Socialism in Russian Style. Comparaton with Chile, Argentina and other dictarships)

Humans Rights in the 90's 00's. (USSR dissapear, Economical Crisis, Dissent, Increasing Embargo)


Of course nor of this is exclusive and all other topics already present might find their place inside. I also STRONGLY SUPPORT the idea of making comparations with other countries, since everybody is a human rights offender, and we need to be impartial, which also means that accusations shall be place in context.

Maybe other genenral topics as:

Political Manipulation

Guantanamo Bay

Jose Marti thoughts in Humans Rights

International activism in Human Rights

Communist vs Capitalist understanding of humans rights

might take place at the end.

Well. Do what ever you want... but pleas, leftist or right wing, work for the sake of neutrallity and Wiki. Alex

[edit] Censorship

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

There is no word "Censorship" in the article. Xx236 10:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The U.S. Interest Section [4] billboard controversy [5] may be of note. -- Beland 01:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I too find it very strange that Cuba's notoriously stringent press censorship has not warranted comment. --Roger Williams 07:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elections

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

What about free elections in Cuba? Do they exists, as made to believe in Cuba? 14:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a can of worms. Your first question cannot be answered without agreement to the definition of 'free'. This is commonly a source of disagreement in discussions about Cuban elections. Arguments go like this:
  1. How can elections be 'free' without freedom of speech for campaigning?
  2. Or, How can election campaigning be 'free' when (corporate) money (which buys a bigger bullhorn) has a legal equality with human speech?

BruceHallman 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] neutrality dispute

Unfortunately, this article suffers from systemic political bias and is not written from a neutral point of view. It is not possible to quickly itemize all the examples of this bias, but for instance, the first paragraph fails to acknowledge that human rights in Cuba exist in the context of of a socialist society, and the article in general appears to be written from a capitalistic point of view as if the capitalistic point of view is an absolute universal baseline of values. Why is article 62 given bias but not "Article 53: Citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society. Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at exclusive service of the working people and in the interests of society. The law regulated the exercise of those freedoms."? BruceHallman 16:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

'...the article in general appears to be written from a capitalistic point of view as if the capitalistic point of view is an absolute universal baseline of values Give me a break. Stop conflating capitalism and liberalism. Liberalism refers to the belief that government should aim to preserve individual rights, including speech, assembly, movement, and press. Capitalism refers to a form of economic organization based on commodity production and private ownership of the means of production. Human rights is a liberal concept. The subject matter here is not directly related to capitalism or socialism. 172 | Talk 11:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Section 53 should certainly be quoted, as a good illustration of the lying, hypocritical and repressive nature of the Cuban communist regime, which proclaims "rights" in the abstract but denies them in practice. Since all Cuban media is owned or controlled by the state, there is no independent or critical media, and thus no possibility that any Cuban can exercise the theoretical "freedom of speech" proclaimed by Section 53. Would Comrade Bruce like me to incorporate that into the article? Adam 12:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I say every time he utters pseudo-philosophical bullshit like "human rights in Cuba exist in the context of of a socialist society," make an edit he finds politically unpalatable. It can be kind of like the logic of a drinking game. 172 | Talk 12:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Dude, thats one KICK ASS DRINKIN GAME! :) Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I will do so. I have to say, incidentally, 172, that Cde Bruce is correct in a way. Liberalism and capitalism are in fact inseperable, and in a sense synonymous, since the institution of private property has been shown historically to be the only bulwark against the power of the state which is strong enough to offer the kinds of guarantees that liberalism requires. It is impossible to imagine a society which combined a state monopoly of property with a liberal political system. Adam 12:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There is clearly a relationship. No one can doubt that the institutionalization of private property is a necessary condition for a liberal political system. Still, the subject is very complicated, and I'm sure that way past the foreseeable future there will still be graduate seminars in political theory debating the exact nature of the relationship between capitalism and liberal democracy. But that's neither here nor there. The reason I felt compelled to distinguish the terms was because of my sneaking suspicion that Bruce did not really understand the relationship, but was advancing a crude Marxist "base determines superstructure" argument. 172 | Talk 16:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of me in the third person and calling me names is not constructive. If you would like to collaborate with me (and other editors) please let us know. BruceHallman 17:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

ok seriously, next time, before you revert an edit, notice that I was removing duplicated paragraph. if you had the brains to look in the section above, some tard Copy/Pasted part of the section into the section below. Stormscape 19:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Issues

In the United States's Human Rights Wikipage, there was a disclaimer that reads as follow "Please note that whether many of these "issues" are human rights issues is up for debate."...notice that it was added right after the Slavery text...if, likely on top, this same disclaimer is placed in the Cuba Human Rights page, I think we have more than done good work, no matter what information is given time after...a disclaimer like that, remind people they shouldn't quote Wiki on some of these subjucts, and if they do, if they cite their sources, those reading the literary pieces will see the disclaimer by themeselves...most likely discussion will continue if that disclamer is not added...Personally, I saw some (to say the least) 'questinable' information on the United States page, but then , I saw the disclaimer and it kept me away from posting. Otherwise, I agree with the timeline etc dealing with Cuba's record before the Revolution. After reading this article over and over again, its almost impossible to believe how bias it is, which makes it almost impossible to get rid of or try to find some middle ground, specially since "Human rights in Cuba" automaticly integrates/transforms to "Human rights violation in Cuba"(this of course will be attacked by 'we are not talking about the good certain government performs, but the wrong)...so in turn, personally, most likely, I'll wish happy patience to those who stay and try to get some clearity into this matter.

[edit] Cuba’s Point of View

Wikipedia usually states the perspective of the main issue first, and then states the perspective of the critiques. This article contains the U.S. governments, Miami Cubans, and others, usually conservatives’ perspective first, and throughout most of the article. I humbly suggest the following addition of the Cuban government’s perspective first to serve as the introduction of the article:

Cuba’s human rights values stem from the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993. According to Cuban statements on human rights recognizes the “universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated character of all human rights.” At the same time, Cuba understands that no single model of “political, economic, social and cultural” exists. Cuba holds as fact that “human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, should be treated in a global form, in a fair and equal way, in an equal footing and giving the same importance to all” of the different rights. Cuba also understands the need for “respect for national and regional particularities, as well as for the diverse historical, cultural and religious heritages.” Cuba advocates all three generations of Human Rights.

Moreover, “Cuba promotes and defends the principles of objectivity, impartiality and non selectivity in the treatment of issues related to human rights, and the refusal to use them with political dominance purposes.” On the other hand, “Cuba rejects the growing trend of countries in the North,” which set themselves “up as judges and censors of all that happens in countries in the South.” These countries in the North “hide the countless human rights violations that take place in their own territories plus others derived from the unjust international order they are imposing in their own benefit.”

Cuba has contributed “Draft Resolutions” to several human right documents. Cuba supports and “contributes with its positions and initiatives, to the progressive development of the international system of promotion and protection of all human rights for all.” Many developing countries support and imitate Cuban human rights policies. Cuba, and Cuban citizens, has had their human rights violated by the United States for over one hundred years. The first sixty years as neo-colony, followed by a half century of “low intensity war” by which thousands of Cubans have died.

The United States government, Miami Cuban emigrants, and others, usually conservatives decry the Cuban government and its socialist Constitution because it violates the human rights of its citizens. Since 1851, the United States government has condemned the Cuban political system under Spanish rule. When the United States neo-colonized Cuba in 1898, criticism shifted from the government to the people of Cuba, especially the color people. United States government criticism changed again in 1959, and has continued to the present. [Cantón Navarro, José. (1996). Historia de Cuba. La Habana, Cuba: SI-MAR S. A. ISBN: 959-7054-12-4].

The difficulty in understanding Cuba’s human rights policies objectively comes from a prolific 47-year negative propaganda campaign funded by the United States, the human rights values of the observing nation or individual, and that Cuba’s different political-economic system is foreign to the capitalist social structures. Unless one places, Cuban human rights within a historical, cultural, socio-psychological, political-economical context [Pollis, A. and Schwab, P. eds. (2000). Human Rights: New Perspectives, New Realities. Boulder, CO. Publication: Lynne Rienner. ISBN: 1-55587-979-9] one cannot possibly understand the present day Cuban three generations of human rights’ policies. Cuba’s distinctive social, political, economical, and cultural structures and procedures in many cases do not have a corresponding structures or functions in a capitalist society. This poses a problem explaining Cuba to someone unfamiliar with socialism. In other words, many human right goals carried out in Cuba could not occur in a capitalist nation, and vice-versa, making analogies difficult. Finally, nations that support universal human rights do recognize that each nation is different and value judgments enter into the decision of which human rights take precedent over others.[ Pollis, A. and Schwab, P. eds. (2000). Human Rights: New Perspectives, New Realities. Boulder, CO. Publication: Lynne Rienner. ISBN: 1-55587-979-9].

Daniel Oneofshibumi 04:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. --TJive 05:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

People interested in this topic should read Fidel, Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant, by Humberto E. Fontova, Regnery Publishing Inc. (2005) and The Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty by Alvaro Vargas Llosa, The Independent Institute (2006). Fontova in particular is a far right wing ideologue, but he cites sources other than other right wing ideologues. In particular he often cites first person sources and interviews with people who witnessed the events reported. As you read these, remember they were recommended to you by some one who is the very end feather on the left wing of the liberal branch of the progressive party.Ethanjacobs 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Tag

There is still much work to be done on this article before the Neutrality tag should be removed. At present I contest the article's neutrality for many reasons. Not least the age old problem of referring to incidents from the distance past used as examples of the present. Rather like saying "the US discrimates againsts African-Americans and it is illegal for them to sit at the front of a bus". If you get my drift. Cuba changes at the same rate as any other developing country.--Zleitzen 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is also littered with factual inaccuracies. It's just that so much of the Cuban material on wikipedia is inaccurate that it's a momentus job sorting it out. (See History of Cuba - so wrong it would take a month to rework). This tag should stay until all these issues have been sorted out. I'm presently working on a Cason Affair article which is related to this one - so that'll sort out a small section of the problems here.--Zleitzen 17:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Failure to reflect the Communist Party line does not make an article POV. Argyriou 07:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Failure to adhere to wikipedia citing policies and the inclusion of original research is against policy. Who said anything about "the Communist Party line"? Actually on that point, failure to include an opposing point of view would make the article "POV" but that is not relevant to my points above. See my latest sections Freedom of expression and Acts of repudiation sections for guides to how to present material and follow WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:POV policy here. --Zleitzen 13:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact Tag

Please site the reasons for the inclusion of this tag. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

See above.--Zleitzen 17:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing material

Here's what's going to happen. I'll be removing a paragraph a week unless users provide international sources justifying their inclusion. And simultaneously inserting material directly sourced to Amnesty. This page has been in the doldrums for too long. --Zleitzen 15:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The latest source provided by TDC does not reflect the text on the page. It was also not attributed - see Acts of repudiation section for a guide on how to present such information.--Zleitzen 18:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty is not the only organization that comments on Human Rights abuses. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Give me an idea of which groups you believe are not acceptable sources? I'd be interested to read your parameters. My parameters are that sources from private and public interest groups from a declared "enemy state" (one whose methods of communication and propoganda concerning Cuba are self declared and well documented) should be attributed accordingly - If used at all - Given that there are plenty of statements about Cuba from international groups - UN, OAS etc.--Zleitzen 19:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Why not Rand? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Please provide the correct quotes from the source itself and attribute it to Rand. I'll knock up another section dealing with the alleged repression of journos, and so on, taken from Amnesty, to give users another example of how to present such material when I have a moment later. --Zleitzen 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ID cards

The article currently says:

"every citizen must carry an Identity Card. This passport-like I.D. includes a complete personal history, showing present and past addresses, work history, marital status, and number of children. Castro's critics cite this as a form of oppression."

1) The ID cards are platicised photocards, not passport-like. 2) I'll check, but I don't think they carry that sort of detail. 3) ID cards are required by many countries - are they commonly cited as a form of opression ?

-- Beardo 17:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's soemthing on my list to investigate in cleaning up this page. You'd know a lot more about the cards than me, Beardo and I can't find anything about it, let alone anyone who "cites this as a form of oppression" - although I'm sure people do. Unless we can find notable sources that do cite it as oppression then it'll face the chop.--Zleitzen 00:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The ID cards for under-16s are still small booklets, which therefore show the child's history - but I don't see that as particularly relevant. -- Beardo 03:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emigration

This section needs to mention the Cuban Adjustment Act.

The article says that 1.2 million Cubans left for the US between 1959 and 1993, and contains a link to a US census page which, as far as I can see doesn't mention numbers. It is not clear if that is supposed to include the undocumented number who left Cuba but never got to the US. http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/23.pdf says that there in 2004 there were 1.44 million in the US who identify as Cubans - 912,686 born outside the US, but that includes those who moved before 1959, as well as after 1993. -- Beardo 18:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that the main Cuba article refers to 1 million leaving including all other countries. -- Beardo 16:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe this dispute has been doing the rounds for some time. I may spend a moment gathering various sources - so a reliable figure can be presented on the numerous pages which mention this, no doubt they all carry different figures.--Zleitzen 16:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Under Emigration and Travel, the article states, "This quota is rarely filled; the Cuban government claims that the Bush administration has refused to comply with the act, issuing only 505 visas to Cubans in the first six months of 2003. However, this does not address the blockage of certain visa-carrying Cubans.". I think this is a pretty bold statement to be made without cited references, could anyone please confirm this with the proper quotations? I seem not to be able to find this information. --Anaythea

[edit] Should there be an entry regarding CDRs in this article?

Would a section on Cuba's CDRs (Committees for Defense of the Revolution) be appropriate here? The CDRs being a primary system to report statements counter to the revolution to local authorities seem to belong in this entry as the committees themselves could be considered grave violators of human rights. Adding the entry in an unbiased manner would be sticky however. There is of course an entry on Wikipedia already concerning the CDRs, perhaps a link? An article on Human Rights in Cuba without mentioning the practices of the CDRs seems lacking. Opinions? Options?

The article does mention the CDR's - in the Acts of repudiation section, detailing the allegations of involvement in beatings etc. Beyond that; reporting statements counter to the revolution is not really viewed as a human rights issue by international human rights groups. Anymore than US citizens reporting suspicious behaviour to Homeland security authorities etc.--Zleitzen 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh yes, indeed it does - my eyes deceive me. The "actos de repudio" are in essence what I was referring to.

[edit] RJ Rummel

I've removed this paragraph to talk.

The highest estimates are given by R.J. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii. He gives the number of 73,000 as the mid-point estimate of victims of the alleged democide by the Castro administration. His low and high estimates are 35,000 and 141,000 respectively. [6]

What is Rummel considering here? The source isn't clear. Are we including wars? Migration casualties? And so on. The figures are extraordinary and bear no relation to other academic studies. In fact the source seems to be citing various accounts such as "Thomas" (I presume he means Hugh Thomas, the chief English language historian on Cuba) whom I guarantee makes no such claims - a page number would be helpful for me to check. Could Ultramarine clarify what that table in the source signifies, and how the figures given in our article 73,000, 35,000 and 141,000 relate to the table (which also isn't clear). --Zleitzen 08:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Rummel has published an academic books, citing numerous sources. Cite academic criticism if disagree.Ultramarine 12:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that isn't an answer. What is Rummel considering here? What is he attributing these deaths to?--Zleitzen 12:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
He clearly lists his sources.Ultramarine 12:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll try again, what is Rummel considering here? What is he attributing these deaths to? If you are confident of your edit then surely you would be able to answer this question. --Zleitzen 12:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is his lists of sources [7] which he mentions here [8] when he calculates his estimates. Regarding the definition of democide, see the article or his books.Ultramarine 12:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, we have a better overview of the sources which we can look into later, and this "democide" definition will have to wait as well. But where do the figures 73,000, 35,000 and 141,000 presented on our page come from. I can't see them on the little table in the source. --Zleitzen 12:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Line 848.Ultramarine 12:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of Rummel figures for analysis.
Rummel is taking 3 areas of statistics to create the figures for his "democide" definition.

  1. Executed (Low 4,000, Medium 15,000, High 33,000)
  2. Prison Camps (Low 1,000, Medium 7,000, High 28,000)
  3. Boat (Low 30,000, Medium 51,000, High 83,000)

Meaning that the figure for deaths from crossing the sea in boats is between 58% and 86% of the overall total of deaths.--Zleitzen 13:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Or swimming or killed by the military trying to escape. As states in his notes, this is based on estimates by other researchers of how many have died compared to those that have managed to escape.Ultramarine 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In the end it seems as though attempting to come up with an exact number for those murdered by the regime is quite impossible - as most repressive governments don't (why on Earth would they?) keep accurate records of their own crimes. Granted, there are cases where just the opposite is true - I once worked on an article concerning rights atrocities by the Hussein regime in Iraq and was shocked to find the throughness of some documentation of crimes committed there. All-in-all however - this is an "impossible dream." One can only speak of rough estimates and estimates seem to vary WIDELY depending on what sources are used. Cheers, Goatboy95 19:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant sentence

I have deleted the first sentence of the "Polical Persecution" section..

"Various estimates have been made to ascertain the number of politcal executions carried out on behalf of the Cuban Government in Cuba since the revolution. A variety of sources show that there were about 550 executions"

..which was effectively repeated immediately below.

1Z 22:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)1Z

[edit] Removing Unsourced, Non-NPOV Statement

"The Cuban Healthcare is one of the best system in america and the world."

Not only is this statement unsourced, it is obviously an opinion and not an objective fact. On top of all this it isn't even particularly well written so it's sloppy as well. Basically this sentence is everything that a wiki should not be so I'm removing it. SBoyce 17:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)SBoyce

Unsourced it was, and probably a bit coloquial (it wasn't me BTW), but Cuba's healthcare system ranks with the ones from the so-called Western World and not with the rest of the Americas. The latest repost I was able to find was this one (http://www.who.int/whr/2004/annex/topic/en/annex_member_en.pdf), where in both infant and adult mortalility Cuba is the the Tier A, joined by Canada and the USA. The WHO has many resources, unfortunatlye they hae stopped putting them in easy to see rankings, but is someone has enough patiente it's all there. Cuba's healthcare is one of the best in the Americas easily. and one of the few were people from all over the world go to get treated (eyes and fisioterapy are common in Europe). --Bellum sine bello 19:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuba has also a system to produce false data and many Western people believe any lies. I'm not an expert, but Cuba doesn't have basic drugs. Is it enough to have cheap doctors (who run away from Venesuela)? Xx236 13:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be an actual opinion or are you just venting? We should drop indicators from the WHO because, acoding to you, Cuba provides falsa data and doesn't have basic drugs? That's rich, quite NPOV.--Bellum sine bello 14:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Healthcare in Cuba "An article in Canadian newspaper National Post, based interviews of Cubans, finds that in reality even the most common pharmaceutical items, such as Aspirin and antibiotics are conspicuously absent or only available on the black market." If you don't like that article, go there and correct, don't blame me.

Cuba doesn't allow independent journalists to visit the country. It's the best prove that the government cheats. Xx236 11:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your link points to the WP article. In any event this is a discussion with a dead-end: there are articles with a different view than the one you quote(and bear in mind that that quote can be applied to many hospitals in richer countries BTW, unless it's systemic (not saying that they would be "better" than yours, but that's a judgement call), and the official stats are dismissed because they are said to be manipulated and falsified. Also falsified are apparently the death registries in the entire island, unless Cuban inhabitants are genetically so resilient that they manage to live longer and die less without healthcare than everyone else in the world. So, to sum it up, in this article we should drop official stats and base the description of Cuba's healtcare on press accounts (but not all of them, only those deemed "good" enough that reflect the "known" truth). Seems like a vicious cycle to me, but what do I know?--Bellum sine bello 17:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guantanmo Bay?

Guantanamo Bay detention camp is in Cuba and is the site of notorious human rights violations. Why is it not covered in this article? --Red King 23:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it is not relevant.

Guantanamo, as I've said elsewhere, is under the U.S's jurisdiction. If you believe that it belongs in the Human rights article on Cuba because Guantanamo is located in Cuba, then eliminate it from the article on Human Rights in the US (since Guantanamo is not within the territorial confines of the US) and bring that info to the Cuba article. I suspect, though, that you won't because you and Lapsed Pacifist, who I suspect are on in the same, are simply trying to excuse the Cuban government's actions by calling attention to the smear attacks on the U.S. I allowed Guantanamo Bay to get added to the See Also section because I did not feel like arguing with Lapsed Pacifist on that point. Nonetheless, I object to an addition on the "notorious human rights violations" in Guantanamo because this article focuses on the actions of the Cuban government, and those territories that are under its jurisdiction; if that is not clear from the introduction, then perhaps the title should be changed to reflect the focus of the article. I will do that if its what it takes. Freedomwarrior 03:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Me and you "on in the same", RK. How about that? FW, if you reckon indefinite detention without trial is just a "smear attack" on a well-meaning government, you would fit right in a totalitarian society. I know a nice warm one in the Caribbean. How's your Spanish?

Lapsed Pacifist 11:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You two have a similar edit history, and happen to very conveniently stumble upon the "need" to add something that is completely irrelevant on this article. The people in Guantanamo are not covered under the Geneva Accords because they do not fit the definition of combatants that it protects and are not covered under any of the other international agreements (perhaps, because no one foresaw the need to give protection to roaming bands that aim at destruction), which cannot be said of those on the island.

Y mira tu, deja los ataques personales que no te he atacado. My Spanish is far better than yours seeing as I've spoken it my whole life. Moreover, I am far more knowledge on Cuba's human rights situation seeing as I've had family members who've languished in one of Castro's prisons for being "counterrevolutionaries"--that is, for trying to bring about peaceful change. Freedomwarrior 16:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


"...roaming bands that aim at destruction..." Like these guys? I can't for the life of me understand how you might guess at my level of Spanish, unless my not using it on the English language Wikipedia could be regarded as a clue. I haven't attacked you, I don't know why you say that. Many men have been released from US-controlled Cuba after years without charge. Innocent men, as their captors admitted. Have you been a "Freedomwarrior" for those falsely accused, or are you more selective?

Lapsed Pacifist 17:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between what those groups fight for--the freedom of the Cuban people--and what the terrorists in Guantanamo fight for--coerced conversions to Islam. One supports freedom, the other destruction.

As for your level of Spanish, I could care less; however, I have a gut feeling that you are another one of these editors who discusses the situation in Cuba without much knowledge of the language or what goes on there.

Let me remind you of what you said: "you would fit right in a totalitarian society" I hope you can read in between the lines. If you cannot, however, here's what it means: you have called me a totalitarian. I will take it for what it is though, since only those who can't make a valid, logical argument in defense of their positions have to resort to ad hominem attacks.

It comes down to values. I fight for those who believe in freedom. I am not a relativist. Regardless, I don't even understand why we are discussing this issue on a Cuba talk page. In all this back and forth, you have not even made an effort to explain why it is relevant here. Freedomwarrior 17:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't studied our edit records too hard if you think we are in the same anything! But we probably both agree (for opposing reasons!) that Operation Demetrius led to 25 years of war in Northern Ireland. Consequently it baffles me that Tony Bliar was unable to persuade George Dubya that internment without trial creates far far more problems than it solves - especially if you pick up the wrong people.
Guantánamo Bay is in Cuba. You might want an article that accords with your POV on the Cuban government [if your country were under continuous threat for many years, you'd expect its government to take dubiously legal action. Oh, hang about, that's exactly what your government has done!] but the rest of us are trying for a comprehensive, NPOV encyclopedia.
So let's start with some facts. Guantánamo Bay is not US sovereign territory. It was leased to the US by a previous government of Cuba - as per Hong Kong - and is sort of under US jurisdiction. But not quite. The Constitution of the United States does not apply there. The US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction there. The Geneva Convention doesn't apply there. The International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction there. It's never-never land. So why am I not surprised that you don't want to ruin a perfectly good diatribe against the Government of Cuba by including an even worse example. --Red King 22:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't need any geography lessons. I know that Guantánamo is in Cuba (not the US). I am not trying to push my POV on the Cuban government or the U.S. government. I am making an argument of relevance. The article begins with a discussion of the human rights record of the Cuban government and the focus remains on the government throughout. De facto, the article is about the government and its human rights record. If I need to rename the article to reflect that, then so be it.

The supposed abuses in Guantánamo are documented in several articles, as I've said before. There is a section on the Guantánamo Bay prison in the U.S. human rights article, even though Guantánamo, as you claim, is not US sovereign territory. To remain consistent, if you want to add a section on here because it Guantanamo is in Cuba, then you have to eliminate the excerpt on Guantánamo on the U.S Human rights article and shift it here, because it is not in the US.

The article is either about the government's abuses on (this is what I'm claiming and more in line with what the article has been up to now) or anything that happens in the territory of that country, even if the government has no control (which would mean that all individual actions have to be documented).

An addition on Guantanamo is of no relevance here and nothing but a POV fork.

Freedomwarrior 23:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Time-magazine-machado.jpg

Image:Time-magazine-machado.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)