Talk:Cuba/Archive 19

One of the worst entries Wikipedia has
The Cuba page needs to be erased and re-written without anyone who was involved in the page up to this point. This entry is awful. The language has frequent grammatical errors, the sentences are choppy or they're run-ons, and the paragraphs are poorly formed. Important details are missing from major historical events. Blech

Some problematic sentences in the Exodus section
I've removed this sentence fragment - ", which is primarily based on political dissent, coupled with the chronic failure of the present totalitarian regime to provide a minimum level of economic well-being, " describing the reasons for Cuban exodus, because the particular claims in it are somewhat opinionated. Is there a more neutral way we can write this or some information that can be added that would balance the picture? I've also removed the sentence " these escapes are often daring and most ingenious. ", as it wasn't supported by the references - they are news stories about specific attempts, and using them to support the idea of Cuban emigration as daring or ingenious constitutes synthesis. Natalie (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix. I couldn't tell if it was vandalism or just real POV. Trekphiler (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of last paragraph in 'US-Cuba relations' section
I have deleted this paragraph for four reasons: 1) It is written in very poor English, such that I cannot properly understand it even after two read-throughs. 2) It is strongly POV. 3) It appears to be principally about music, and not US-Cuba relations. 4) The style is not appropriate to Wikipedia. Tobycek (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

pronunciation!?!?!?!
How are you suppose to pronounce this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.157.145 (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * -uːbə. See Cuba Nigholith (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

F.Castro's Resignation
Is Castro's resignation effective immediately? or only upon his successor's assumption of office? We should keep him listed as President until we're certain. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. All the reports I've seen state that he has announced he will not seek re-appointment when his current term expires on February 24th. He is currently still President - and his brother has already been Acting President for quite some time. TharkunColl (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cuban Motto Translation...
Patria or Muerte should be translated as "Motherland" or Death, as it is a Femenine word... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razvandj (talk • contribs) 16:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Webster's Compact Spanish-English Dictionary translates "Patria" as "Native Land". I see your argument in that it is, indeed, a femenine noun.  However, the spanish word is dervived from the identical Latin word, which in turn was derived from the Latin word "Pater", meaning father. 68.191.11.28 (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty common misconception to assume that all Spanish words that end in "a" are feminine, but this is a gross oversimplification. And just because a word is feminine doesn't mean that it can't refer to a man, or a masculine concept. "La persona", a feminine word, does not only refer to women, for example. I sincerely doubt that any fluent Spanish speak would translate Patria as Motherland. Natalie (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The misconception is not disapplicable in that case some what. Patria is LA patria. It's feminine. That said, I deferred to common usage and left "Fatherland or Death" alone. I did correct an error in that footnote, though. Albertod4 (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, read all of my comment. I also noted that just because a word is feminine that means that it has to refer to a female or a feminine word in English. Numerous words that are classified as feminine in Spanish are classified either as masculine or neutral in English. The gender of the word doesn't reflect the gender of the subject in any way. Natalie (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You moron! I only read the first guy. he is really stupid!!! A Pátria (Feminine). A Terra (The land. Also, feminine). A Pátria is just as feminine as a terra. But pátria derives from the Latin. It is the conjunction pater+ia=patria; Pater being Father and ia being land. So it can only be translated to English as THE FATHERLAND you moron! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.163.30 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect... Are any of you Cuban???? In Spanish, when a noun refers to both male and female, the male version of the noun is used but this usually occurs in the plural form of the verb. For example, La niña (femenine) and El niño (masculine) are grouped in the plural for as Los niños (masculine. Secondly, the purpose of a translation is not to ensure strict adherence to the root of the word, but rather to convey the thoughts of the original speakers. In this instance, as someone who has grown up in Cuba I can tell you with all certainty that, La Patria is universally known in Cuba as "Motherland"; a female entity that "gave birth to us all".  206.212.89.240 (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those who say "patria" should be "motherland," for several reasons. I'll start with the weakest argument. I know the personification of the U.S. is Uncle Sam, and that Germany for Germans is "the fatherland." There may be other masculine personifications, but the only other ones I can think of are feminine: mother England, Russia's and Poland's the Motherland (& Cuba, as I will demonstrate in a second). I don't know about France, but I believe it does take a feminine article at least -- "La France" and I have a fuzzy recollection of a feminine personification used in Revolution era images. So, I think the default is for a feminine personification of "country" or "native land." Perhaps that is the reason Webster's translation is "Native Land," so that it is gender neutral.

A stronger argument has already been presented by two of the comments above. La Republica de Cuba is feminine (one feminine article, two feminine endings). Although, I do agree with Natalie that just because a word in Spanish takes a feminine article or ends in an "a" does not necessarily make it a feminine object or concept that has to be translated as feminine. I am a fluent Spanish speaker who was born in Cuba; in this case it should be translated as motherland.

Finally, and definitively, the reason it should be translated to its feminine equivalent is that we Cubans personify Cuba as a woman. Traditionally, Cuba is personified as a woman wearing a red cap with one star at about the middle of her forehead, and a dress with the stripes of the Cuban flag (blue & white). She usually has black hair, I think dark eyes, and is usually, though not always, white. I have never seen Cuba personified as a man. My entire life I have seen Cuba personified as a woman. Unfortunately, I can't paste the images, but I can provide links:

http://cubangraphics.com/cg/522.jpg

Here's another slightly, different personification, in black and white:

http://www.thegully.com/essays/cuba/cuba_img/cuba_libre_hw.jpg


 * As far as I know, these images are very old and are in the Public Domain.

Finally, to the anonymous poster: there's no reason to call people names. If it is moronic to translate "patria" as motherland, then we Cubans have been morons for at least a hundred years. Morons though we may be, the motto should be translated as the people of the country whose motto it is mean it and understand it.

So, I (will) have changed it to "motherland" after I post this; if this is not satisfactory, I suggest it be translated as "Our Country or Death" or "Our Homeland or Death." "Homeland" is used in the wikipedia translation of the national anthem. Ileanadu (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so I can't make the change to that part of the article. Will someone please do so. Ileanadu (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ***Will someone please tell me who can change content in the box at the top right?***
 * Also, there's a small footnote symbol letter a with the motto, but there is no corresponding footnote that I can find anywhere. Does it need to be deleted?
 * Ileanadu (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the motto to read "Our Homeland or Death", per discussion above. The symbol, a superscripted $a$ appears to refer to footnote $a$ at the bottom of the infobox.


 * Thank you! Ileanadu (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Incongruity in reporting of the Maine Incident
The following point seems to be wrong in one of two places.

"On 15 February the Maine was blown up in Havana harbour, killing 266 men. Forces in the U.S. blamed the Spanish for blowing up the Maine.

Those skeptical of the U.S. accusations were suspicious because the most important officers were at a party on shore. There were 81 foreigners and 82 black seamen among the 25 officers and 318 enlisted killed." Assuming one of the numbers is correct either 266 men were killed or 318 were killed; this quotation claims both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.12 (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The return of El Jigue
EJ has made a couple of postings here today (which have since been deleted). Has his ban been lifted? GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, his ban was permanent. However, because he uses an IP address instead of a user account, the IP address was not blocked indefinitely. I have reblocked it for six months, and if he returns when that block expires it will be blocked again. As a banned user, he is not allowed to participate in any way, which is why I reverted his edits. Natalie (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just checking. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, on that note I think I'm going to archive some of this old discussion. Anything that hasn't has a new comment for several months is probably dead. Natalie (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Battleship Maine
"The U.S. battleship Maine, the largest Navy ship built in an American shipyard" Perhaps it should say "the largest Navy ship at the time"? Or perhaps the modern US battleships are smaller or being built in a shipyard outside the US? Just wondereing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.167.96.195 (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

General POV Problems
Two major problems i have with the Cuba page are: the one-sidedness of the human rights section, it is clearly in support of the Cuban exiles in Miami. This is clearly reflecting an American stand-point that infers Cuba as a dictatorship with one collective will, that of the Castro brothers. Maybe too many Americans are confused between Cuba, the nation, and Guantanamo Bay, which is inside Cuba, and its human rights violations.

The second problem i find with the article is its general lack of description of positives found in Cuba, such as free and universal education. I do agree with the section about health care, except for the last segment claiming that doctors are fleeing the nation. Contrary to those three sources listed, the WHO released a report last year claiming that only 1-3% of Cuban doctors have in fact defected to other nations and none of which have defected to the United States. They predominately stay in countries that Cuban doctors serve as an outreach program for Cuban doctors to help third world countries. The reason why Cuba send their doctors abroad is because they have the highest doctor to patient ratio in the world, somewhere around 1 to 33. In terms of education, nothing is said about how Cuba transformed a nation that had a population of about one quarter illiterate, to a country within one year (1961-1962)able to report a literacy rate of 97%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.66.174 (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree - there are a number of sections in this article that need a lot of improvement. I know that it is hard to find accurate information about Cuba, but quite frankly some of the stuff here is just US propaganda. I lived in Cuba for 12 months, and can attest that the current situation there is not accurately reflected by this article. In addition to the high quality health and education systems you mentioned, I would add their achievements with housing and food. There are no homeless or starving people in Cuba, sadly the same cannot be said of the US. Logicman1966 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, i was taught in Cuba because of the excellent medical program that is available to everybody in the world. If you have the desire to learn, you can go and become a doctor. Unfortunately, i did this program in the early 90s, obviously there is more red tape for this program currently. But according to one book by Jonathon Kozol, "Children of the Revolution", there is a illiteracy rate of roughly 2% in Cuba, whereas at the same time in 1976, the United States has a generous illiteracy rate of 6.9%, yet that is from an American census. The UNESCO reports it to be three times higher, around 20%. 24.15.66.174 Though i find many problems with this article overall, i feel that it will never be completely unbiased and or rational towards Cuba. I just want people to know that the island is not an isle of evil on its own free will, but an oppressed island be WE oppress it. The entire ideal of Cuba was created to be an island that was free from oppression and the oppression they were seeking freedom was America.


 * This article has had a problematic history, mostly due to one POV pushing editor. You are all welcome to expand or balance the article, provided you have reliable sources (of course). If you'd like to get some background on the contentious history, the last talk archive includes conversations with this one particular person and will give you a sense of where these issues have come from. Natalie (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Natalie, if it is El Jigue you are referring to I think that your view of the page's history is rather narrow. There is a 'problem' maintaining a stable and NPOV page about a contemporary and utterly polarised subject. El Jigue is simply one of the most trenchant asserters of the truth of the antiCastro perspective. There are plenty of others on both sides of the divide. It isn't as if 'reliable sources' can be taken as a sign of legitimacy, the argument simply moves to what constitutes a reliable source. The anti Castro crew will disparage the CIA factbook when the evidence supports Cuban claims. Revolution supporters will question the reliance on US periodicals especially those with connections to the Miami Cubans...
 * As long as the ideological war continues between the Cuban and US governments this page will continue to be a battleground, and there is nothing wrong with that. Objectivity of knowledge is a mythical destination Wikipedians can aim for, and in some cases, of which Cuba is an excellent example, the attempts to produce an NPOV page consist mainly of competition and negotiation between opposed perspectives, and anything approaching objectivity is unlikely to survive in the crossfire. The archives of the Cuban talk pages is a good source of information about the ideological battles which the subject generates. MichaelW (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True, my view of this page's history is basically restricted to the last six months or so. I am also responding to the specific issues raised by these people, who are commenting on the more rightward slant of the article. If the opening post had been complaining of the leftward slant my response would have been different. However, I think that particular editor's influence was quite strong, just by virtue of his willingness to edit constantly and completely refuse to discuss.
 * That said, your points about the polarization of this particular topic and the arguments about sources are good ones. However, I think cooler heads are involved and so, hopefully, there won't be so many arguments about including facts (sans editorializing) that may cast a good or bad light on the country. Natalie (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as the ideological war continues between the Cuban and US governments - Polish liberals continue an ideological war against Cuban censorship and political persecutions. Does it mean that Polish liberals are US spies?

There are different types of illiteracy, one of them is accepting any written text.

high quality health and education systems - what is the source of drugs? They aren't able to produce all of them and aren't able to buy. education system - either the system is effective and produces zombies or it produces free people, which means is uneffective. Cuba claims 99.8% literacy (List of countries by literacy rate), which is very suspicious, less than Georgian 100%, but still hard to believe. There are more than 0.2% of handicapped people in any society. Xx236 (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC) United States goverment only makes any human rights remarks according to its own interests. For instance, who does have more rights, a Saudi or a Cuban woman?. Needless to say,a Cuban!!!!!. As that kingdom is affordable oil supplier and its unconditional US alliee, human rights situation just don't matter. HYPOCRISY!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.4.20.20 (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this page is very one-sided and right-winged. It is also very poorly written. It has no information about how the influence of the right-winged US constantly sabotages the nations chances of improving. It also does not mention anything positive about the Cuban government, like the fact that the HDI-rating of Cuba went up 0.017 points from 2005-2006, the highest increase in the world for that period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai robert (talk • contribs) 14:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WW I Correction
I have eliminated the erroneous statement that Cubans flew in the Lafayette Escadrille. According to www.theaerodrome.com/forum only two Cubans are known to have flown in France, neither with Escadrille N.124, which was staffed wholly with French and Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BTillman (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Among Latin American countries, only Brazil went to fight in World War I.Particular individuals of Cuba could be went to fight, but not a real force.Agre22 (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)agre22

Protection
I went ahead and indef semi protected this article because of extreme anon vandalism that is continually accruing even after multiple other protections, and directly after the last protection expired. Feel free to request un-protection when you feel it is time. Tiptoety talk 16:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Deaths on the Maine
The number of deaths listed for the Maine Incident is inconsistent:

"On 15 February the Maine blew up in Havana harbour, killing 266 men." "There were 81 foreigners and 82 black seamen among the 25 officers and 318 enlisted killed."

Someone should find the accepted death toll and erase the incorrect one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.173.68 (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Independence Day holiday
Why is the Cuban Independence Day holiday not listed in this article? Badagnani (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are taling about May 20, it is not celebrated in Cuba, and very few Cubans (in Cuba) know of its significance. October 10 is celebrated as the start of the independence struggle. -- Beardo (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Mind finishing the story? What happened in May 20 of what year?  I thought October 10, 1968 was the Independece Day (not to be confused also with July 26, 1953) ... Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Demographics
The last sentence of the first paragraph under the Demographics section reads as follows:

"It should be noted that the vast majority of the ones who are considered white actually have some degree of Amerindian ancestry."

This is a grossly inaccurate/unsubstantiated statement which should be deleted, not to mention poorly written. It would also seem to violate at least two of Wikipedia's article policies.

It should be noted? Why? Who wrote this? Readers can be directed to "note" all they want. They won't find many "degree(s) of Amerindian ancestry" in the overwhelming majority of Cubans, *most* of whom are descendants of Spanish settlers, West African slaves, or varying degrees of the two (see data provided in article, or the CIA World Factbook, or the Cuban Government's own statistics).

Unlike Mexico, Central, and South America, with their larger, more mountainous hinterlands and territories, the decimation of Cuba's pre-colonial indigenous population and its culture was far more complete, resembling more a total genocide (hence the Spaniard's introduction of slave-labor from West Africa). As a result, in modern-day Cuban society, culture, and national demographics, there is relatively little trace of pre-colonial "Amerindian ancestry" to be found. The statement in question is as absurd as saying, 'It should be noted that the vast majority of Americans who are considered white actually have some degree of Native American ancestry.'. Simply absurd and unfounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.75.194 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Carpio et al., Genetic structure of a Cuban population..., DOI 10.1007/s00414-005-0522-3, which states "The autochthonous aborigines present at the time of the discovery (1492) were exterminated in a relatively short period of time. Their presence in the contemporary Cuban genetic background is believed to be very small.", I have removed the sentence. Franamax (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In the info box it states that 65 percent of Cuba of Spanish descent. That is basically the whole white population. But history tells us that Italian, Portuguese, Germans and even Polish persons emigrated to Cuba. Galati (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Galati


 * My guess is that intermarriage has blurred the bloodline distinctions&mdash;The child of an Italian person by a person whose parents are a Spanish/Polish couple is of (at least) Spanish, Polish, and Italian descent. That child's great-grandchild more than likely carries other bloodlines as well. In any case, the source figures reported in the infobox should be cited. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Demographics of Cuba reflects the edit Galati has made here, if references are found, they should be put in that article too. I agree with BB about the blurring (which is true everywhere in the world), perhaps the better wording would be just "primarily Spanish", then the reader can choose to go to the Demographics article to get the precise details. Franamax (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Furthermore, the summary section of the article states: Its people, culture and customs draw from several sources including the aboriginal Taíno and Ciboney peoples, the period of Spanish colonialism, the introduction of African slaves, and its proximity to the United States. Given that esentially 100% of the native population was wiped out by disease within 50 year of colonization (as stated later in the History section), this would be an incorrect statement. 206.212.89.240 (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Operation Northwoods
Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a U.S false flag plan from 1962 as a "preliminary submission suitable for planning purposes" for the agenda of generating U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. The plan says, "The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere." Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by the Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, to the Secretary of Defense.

Several proposals were listed. One was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign" against the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. Others were real or simulated actions against various U.S military and civilian targets. Operation Northwoods was part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. It was never officially accepted or executed.

For more information see article Operation Northwoods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.225.63 (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

End of the Castro brothers
If Fidel and Raul Castro were killed in an airplane crash, how would the Cuban people react? 68.4.61.237 (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 29 May 2007 If Fidel and RAul Castro were killed in an airplane crash, some people in Cuba would be happy, some other would be sad, and some other wouldnt care, but nothing would change in the socio-political aspect since this is a government supported by the great majority of the people in Cuba and their deaths wouldnt really affect their socio-political life, sorry for the spelling but english is not my first language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.151.196.10 (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "since this is a government supported by the great majority of the people in Cuba" I wont agree on that. Its a dictatiorial regime, and most Cubans are controlled by the Cuban government. Freedom of speech doesnt really exist as I understood. There's just one political party which is the communist one. From the outside people might look happy, but while being there I heard other stories. Only the happy few (government officials etc.) can do whatever they want and they have all the resources (=money) to buy anything. "Juan-Carlo on the street" earns 15 dollars a month and is limited to his coupons for primary needs... Im afraid that whenever the castro brothers wont be in charge anymore, there will always be some army general or other official(s) who want to take over power. Nothing will change then either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.145.44.136 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not dictatorial. Maybe slightly oppressive because of non-stop U.S. efforts to invade, assassinate its government members, bomb airliners, or embargo its people. Stop lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.203.86.136 (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong historic information
Cuba was actually first discovered by Cristopher Colombus on the 28th of October 1492. Falcon-eagle2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cuba Was not discoverd by Christopher Colombus, It became known to Europeans when he arrived.JusticeBlack (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution
Since the fall of the Soviet Union when Cuba was obliged to open it itself to international tourism there has been a lot of prostution in Cuba. With comparitively wealthy tourists and bored young women (and some pretty young men) wanting the little luxuries that the planned economy cannot provide this was inevitable. This is not such an inditement of the Cuban system as it might appear. The young women are not starving nor are their children - if they have them - in need of medical care, they are just bored and want some nice things. They are just as likely to run off with a tourist's fat wallet as have sex with him. The Cubans have a special word for these young women 'Jineteras'. Maybe this is worthy of it's own Wiki article? What do people think? Anyway I think that the article should have some mention of this as it very obvious to any visitor pretty much as soon as you get to Havana.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  11:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Since writing the above I see that the article already exists.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  11:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

1905 Cuba book on the internet
The 1905 book Standard Guide to Cuba: A New and Complete Guide to the Island of Cuba is available in its entirety on the internet and has some great public domain photos and text. Bebestbe (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone who has got access on this article correct the pronunciation of República de Cuba?
The current IPA symbols used for transcriptions of Spanish:. The vowel "e" is a mid-vowel in Spanish, typed. 84.120.160.88 (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Demographics WAY incorrect,
Demographics of Cuba are wrong...the country is not mostly white it's mostly mulatto it's 51% mulatto, 37% white NOT 65% like it says on Cuba's main page on this site and 11% black and 1% Chinese : https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html#People someone needs to fix that a.s.a.p.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.206.152 (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It is actually the CIA factbook that is incorrect. The CIA Factbook can only guess as to the demographics of Cuba since it has not had a presence in the island since 1960. Those numbers are based on the last pre-revolution census and extrapolated based on an assumed rate of mestizaje (comparable to other Latin-American countries). Given that the CIA cannot provide an accurate count, the Cuban government statistics are appropriately used. If anything, the Cuban government statistics exagerate the numbers of minorities as it aggressively pursues a policy of minimizing European contributions to Cuban culture and society and instead emphasizes Afro-Cuban influences.206.212.89.240 (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that another problem is that race in Latin American countries has long been defined differently than in the U.S. usually in the U.S. if you are the decedent of people of color you are considered a member of that group but in countries like Cuba the general understanding of being European has been if you have one European ancestor. As a result many Cubans who in American would be viewed as black, multi-racial, Hispanic, etc. likely consider themselves European (i.e. Spanish) because of a European ancestor. It is true that according to American definitions of race and ethnicity the majority of the population is multi-racial (brown-skinned) and not white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.179.180 (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Dated footnotes?
Sorry to bother, but I couldn't help but notice that several of the footnotes here are nearly a decade old or more. Maybe renew them if more recent materials are available? Referring here to, for instance, http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/Cuba996-09.htm. I believe that there have been other reports on Cuba since '99. 80.202.248.7 (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First, new threads should be posted at the bottom of the talk page. As for your point, in many cases there is no more recent source. Where you know of one, please add it. -Rrius (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Thomas" :
 * "constitution" :
 * The first secretary of the Communist Party, Fidel Castro, is concurrently President of the Council of State (President of Cuba) and President of the Council of Ministers (sometimes referred to as Prime Minister of Cuba). Country profile: Cuba BBC online
 * Constitution of the Republic of Cuba, 1992. Cubanet.
 * The first secretary of the Communist Party, Fidel Castro, is concurrently President of the Council of State (President of Cuba) and President of the Council of Ministers (sometimes referred to as Prime Minister of Cuba). Country profile: Cuba BBC online
 * Constitution of the Republic of Cuba, 1992. Cubanet.

Can we make this article a FA?
Shouldn't we create a task force to make this article a FA? Right now, IMHO, is a big mess full of information that is irrelevant or that belongs to other Cuban related articles. I am willing to help, but this topic can be hot since I can easily see that keeping the neutrality will be difficult. We will have people from the left and from the right, but if we respect each other's opinions this could be a great sample of cooperative team work. Anyone out there willing to participate? Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Shouldn't we create a task force to make this article a FA? Right now, IMHO, is a big mess full of information that is irrelevant or that belongs to other Cuban related articles. I am willing to help, but this topic can be hot since I can easily see that keeping the neutrality will be difficult. We will have people from the left and from the right, but if we respect each other's opinions this could be a great sample of cooperative team work. Anyone out there willing to participate? Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

EST?
Unless Cuba is part of the U.S., is this really accurate? OK, I know, same time zone, but...technically not "EST", right? TREKphiler  hit me ♠  03:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact it often deviates from EST - frequently changing a few days different. And for ~2½ years Cuba stayed on summer time. So a good point. -- Beardo (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Add External Link.
CubanoAmericano (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC) I think this page would benefit from the following non-controversial external link:


 * Vintage Cuban historic collectible memorabilia and antiques.

What better way to learn about a country, it's people, culture, economy, history, etc... than to view it's past in a non-divisive manner. Thank you, CubanoAmericano

there needs to be something about water temperatures between 1994-2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.202.100 (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

GDP figures contradicting "economy of cuba" page"
the GDP (PPP) figure for 2007 is reported at $125.5 billion in this page, while in the Economy of Cuba page it's less than half, only $51.11 billion. this is why I added the contradiction template.

Slight contradiction
"the undoubted propaganda value of Castro's considerable prestige" Doesn't "prestige" necessarily contradict with "propaganda"? Propaganda has no basis while prestige naturally does. Anyhow, propaganda is a term that is almost always used derogatorily by intention, much like "terrorist". 143.89.188.6 (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Exploiting his prestige for propaganda purposes is what's at issue. And propaganda can just as well cover advertising, tho I agree its usage is perjorative. TREKphiler   hit me ♠  18:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

'Propaganda' is a perjorative word in the right wing dictionary only. As Trekphiler notes advertising is another form of propaganda. What if the statement was along the lines of "...Castro's considerable prestige was good advertising...". The statement in the article is accurate and descriptive and can only be taken in a perjorative sense if one takes on board the right wing assumptions that say effectively - all communists are liars. It's not so much a contradiction as a polarising term. MichaelW (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Cuban culture (reggaeton?)
I believe the section in this article about cuban culture can be considerably improved. In my opinion, the article begins correctly pointing the fact that Cuba is a melting pot of cultures and from then on attempts to exemplify this mixture. In the spirit of the wikipedia this should be a short section with a link to the bigger article as it is. In the spirit of any encyclopedia, this section should reflect the main cultural achievements and in my opinion largely fails to do so. I enumerate

1- The sports paragraph fails to mention the fact that Cuba is a big achiever in terms of sports in the international arena (more olympic medals than the rest of the latinamerican countries combined). That's probably a relevant figure if you describe a country's sports nevertheless, not crucial. Now, cricket, written as one the pastimes in Cuba is not played in Cuba at all. It should be removed. Then the other half of the paragraph is dedicated to a full quote on the government of Cuba not sending any boxers to the 2007 championship(it is not even written which championship you are referring to). This is totally out of place in a paragraph that is supposed to summarize all of Cuba's sports. One sentence on the worries of the cuban government about defectors, maybe. Their full statement on the possible defection of cuban athletes in ONE sport, in ONE competition which happened already a year ago, it's pretty much absurd to me.

2- First paragraph in Cuban music is ok. Then there are another 3 paragraphs of a total of 9 making it roughly one third of the section, dedicated to rap and reggaeton and post-1990 music in Cuba. Now apart from inaccuracies, this is a major example of the shift of focus from the relevant things, that I would say permeates the whole article. As a young cuban living in Cuba and as a reggaeton dancer it is my personal opinion that as of now, the impact on the whole of cuban culture from colonial Cuba to present of reggaeton is minimum... which is what the article is supposed to say. Rap and reggaeton still are a minority, strong but still a minority among the cuban musical performers. Reggaeton is danced by everybody in Cuba because it is a country where people dance but many people that dance reggaeton don't LISTEN to reggaeton. I can't give you a precise figure for that other than my personal experience. Point being that an article that doesn't mention at all afro-cuban jazz or nueva trova or Benny More, both movements with strong cultural impact well outside Cuba, dedicating 3 paragraphs to cuban reggaeton seems out of place to me.

3- The statement 'Music in Cuba is not the same as it was' is misleading. Of course there is a movement on synthetized music, but this sentence made me think that arts academies is Cuba 'are not what they were'. This is hardly true and there is a strong surge of quality musicians at this moment in Cuba. But this could be my interpretation of the sentence. It is not that important.

4- The sentence 'Dance in Cuba has taken a major boost since 1990' is not true. Dance has always been a major part of cuban culture at least, since well before the cuban revolution. Fiestas in Cuba were not conceived without dancing in the 50s as well as in the 90s. The ways of dancing have of course changed and evolved but my parents danced the chronological equivalent of casino when they were 25, or 15, as much as we dance it now.

5- The statement 'Provocative dance allows inhabitants to free the mind and allows people of all social classes to rebel against the political and social injustices within the period' is nonsense. Dancing in Cuba has nothing to do with political and social injustices and is a silly attempt to mix politics with something that it is not. Cubans were provocative always even at the time when most of them definitely agreed with the Revolution. Furthermore, there are A LOT of people in Cuba who still agree with it, you know? And they also dance reggaeton. So, why do they dance for? People in Europe who know how to do it also dance reggaeton the same way the cubans do, what are they protesting for? Bodily usage in Cuba is not any form of rebellion, is the evolution of the bodily usage that always existed in Cuba and other Caribbean countries. Furthermore the article you refer in the text does not speak about Cuba but about reggaeton in general terms which is most applicable to Puerto Rico, where it was born. Again, this is my personal opinion, but I think that it would be shared by many inside Cuba.

6- Cuban literature. Fine, but then there is the Cervantes Prize, the most prestigious prize of Literature in the Spanish language. Three cubans have been awarded with it of which only Guillermo Cabrera Infante is mentioned. The other two, Alejo Carpentier and Dulce María Loynaz fell into oblivion. Alejo Carpentier was a precursor of the realismo mágico and Dulce María is maybe the most important cuban female poet. There are other writers forgotten, many well known inside Cuba but well.

7- No mention of cuban Cinema which has produced at least two directors with an impact at the continental level, Humberto Solás and Tomás Gutiérrez Alea. No mention of Cuban ballet which is one of the few along french and russian to create a school.

Those are my criticism to the article, hope they are well received Airsh (talk • contribs) 12:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"whatever his official titles"
Hi. I strongly opposed the edition that adds an povvy and unsourcable piece saying


 * "Fidel Castro has been the strongman in government, whatever his official titles, since the adoption of the Constitution in 1976"

I can't see how this isn't an opinion. Not to say that the language whatever his official titles is very poor. What sources are supposed to support this? --Damiens .rf 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, after this recent message left on my talk page, I even more convinced this is a huge POV issue. But of course, I'm still open for valid arguments here. --Damiens .rf 19:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Damien, you are in the right - AVM's message is an attempt to bully you into submission. Whether Castro was a 'strongman' is by the by. He appears to be basing his statement on first hand experience i.e primary research, which is forbidden under Wikipedia rules. If he is serious about including this description he will have to find a reliable source which describes Castro in this way and quote that instead. I've just reverted his latest attempt so am joining you in the firing line! MichaelW (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This argument is absurd Castro is/was a dictator, as is anybody who rules for almost fifty years. The left is now gearing up to push the Obama administration into recognizing the Castro Government. This argument merely tends to support that effort. El Jigue 208.65.188.149 (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome back El J. You, like AVM, don't get it do you - it isn't about whether he was or wasn't a dictator, strong man or whatever - it is about finding an acceptable source to reference that shows that some people intepret his actions and attributes in this way. In past versions of this page and the Fidel page we have had formulations which noted that some, for cited reasons, see Castro as a dictator and others, for other reasons, don't. AVM has just reinserted his edit as before, unsupported by external reference, with the edit summary "your POV vs. my POV, which one is the TRUTH? - read the "Strongman' article to learn!"
 * So I read the article. First line "A strongman is a political leader who rules by force and runs an authoritarian regime. The term is often used interchangeably with "dictator..." The reference for Castro is a CNN article written last year which describes him as an ailing dictator. No description of what makes him a dictator, just a lazy hack cliche, which is being referenced by a lazy Castro hater in the expectation that we who disagree will suddenly see the light of his reasoning. Sorry I don't see reasoning or TRUTH - I see lazy POV pushing, so I've reverted it once again.MichaelW (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Do I always have to do your work for you. Depalma, Anthony 2006 The Man Who Invented Fidel: Castro, Cuba, and Herbert L. Matthews of The New York Times. Public Affairs (Perseaus), Cambridge MA ISBN-10 1586483323, ISBN-13 978-1586483326 p. 265 "... For decades, all but the most radical works about Castro have essentially balanced his idealism and uncanny ability to survive against the ruthlessness of his dictatorship. To people everywhere in the ..." As to ruthlessness let us consider the friends he tricked into uneven battle as in Moncada (see de La Cova, Antonio Rafael 2007 The Moncada Attack: Birth of the Cuban Revolution. University of South Carolina Press ISBN-10 1570036721 ISBN-13 978-1570036729). Then there is tne execution of old comrades in arms such as Arnaldo Ochoa (Prieres Manuel 2006 (accessed 3-14-07) La camorra pequeño-burguesa-militar raulista. Guaracabuya. http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagmp084.php Republicanos comunistas españoles ideologos y asesores de la guerrilla de Raul Castro (Comandancia de Bayate-Oriente-Cuba-1958) http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagmp090-Republicanos-Comunistas-Espanoles-Ideologos-Raul-Castro.php "RAUL CASTRO: el eterno componedor de su hermano.. Se dice que la mañana del 13 de julio de 1989 el General Arnaldo Ochoa Sánchez caía frente a un pelotón de fusilamiento Castro-Comunista en los fosos de una fortaleza militar.). El Jigue 208.65.188.149 (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not my work you are covering - it's AVM who's the slacker. MichaelW (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael nobody has changed that statement back, and perhaps it should stay that way, just to make clear the pro-Castro bias of the article in its present form. Besides I am banned from changing it back. El Jigue208.65.188.149 (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Until you have trashed every good thing there is to say about Castro and modern Cuba you would continue to describe the article as pro-Castro. Personally I reckon all that Castrophobia is just a front for good ol' all American anti-communism. Fidel finally pops his clogs, Raul retires undefeated, a collective leadership is laid bare and you would still be crying 'dictator' and slagging off the Cuban government as undemocratic. MichaelW (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael it would be more productive for you to reinsert the deleted adjetive than make a personal attack on me. El Jigue208.65.188.149 (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't get all thin skinned, dear chap. That wasn't a personal attack - it was my opinion of your basic standpoint. Do I insult you - thinking you are an anti-communist? MichaelW (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Rubbing my eyes. EJ you're back. Wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Goodday Thank you Just dropping by and marveling that such misguided, maladroit, stubborn loyalty of Castro supporters continues at this late date. El Jigue208.65.188.149 (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting Events
This article currently misrepresents the historical events leading up to the Missile Crisis. A better summary of events would be as follows - (1) ex-Cuban dissidents, equipped and trained by the US, perpetrated the disastrous Big of Pigs invasion. (2) a year later, Soviet agents obtained reliable information that the US was planning a larger scale invasion of Cuba. (3) The US further provoked and threatened USSR by installing nuclear missiles in Turkey. (4) Cuba permitted USSR to installed missiles on on Cuban soil, for two reasons - (a) to provide a counter-balance to the US missiles in Turkey (b) to provide a deterrent to a US invasion of Cuba. (5) Cuba's actions appear to have been justified, because both of these threats were neutralised; the US removed the missiles from Turkey, and promised not to invade Cuba. I plan to add this information to the article, not sure about where is the most appropriate place. Logicman1966 (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My comments:
 * I am not sure about (2), better souce it
 * (3) happened way before (1)
 * Missiles in Cuba were removed before the missiles were removed from Turkey
 * I might be wrong though. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Miguel, I believe the Turkey missiles removal was accorded in the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Logicman, be careful with non-neutral terms, like "disastrous". --Damiens .rf 11:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * But if I am not mistaken, the missiles in Turkey were installed way before, not during the crisis. Also, the agreement was to remove the Cuban missiles first, the soviets simply stopped to put them operational. Only a few months later the missiles in Turkey started to be dissarmed, over a period of several months. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Damiens, Miguel, you're both right. The Sovs agreed not to make them operational, the removal from Turkey was part of the deal & removal started soon after (which the U.S. had planned to do anyway, BTW). Miguel, you're also right on 3) way before 1); that's why the U.S. was so willing to remove them: they were considered obsolescent (obsolete?). I'm also very dubious 2) is true. And it's widely considered trading the missiles in Turkey for a Communist gov't in Cuba was an extremely bad deal...  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  19:47 & 19:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Correction
Under ethnic groups, there is no mestizo, only mulatto.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Source please? —Ms2ger (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

New path for Cuba
If an anti-Semitic person were elected president in the 2012 US presidential election, he would blame the Jews for all of Cuba's Castroism (Cuban Communism), especially since Karl Marx, as the apostle of modern communism, was born of Jewish ancestry. How would you find that scenario? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.61.237 (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

International intrigue section
It makes no sense. I suggest deletion.