Talk:Cuba/Archive 20

Likely incorrect date of Columbus discovery
At the beginning of the History section the article claims that "On October 12, 1492, Christopher Columbus claimed the island for Spain,". This cannot be reconciled with the fact that Columbus did not learn of Cuba until October 28th (see Timeline_of_Cuban_history). Can someone who has access to the source referenced for the October 12th date (Gott, Richard : Cuba A New History. Yale University Press. p13) double check the source to see if it is claiming that Columbus did indeed learn of what is now Cuba on the 12th and not the 28th (the 28th being the correct date I believe). --Tekhnofiend (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC) It makes no sense. I suggest deletion.

intro
needs pop/siz,like:Its size is just over 1,240,000 km² with an estimated population of almost	12,000,000. Its capital is Bamako. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.69.75.105 (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

casino whorehouse under batista
this article should mention how the dictator batista killed 20,000 cubans and with the mafiosos ran cuba like las vegas. meyer lansky and the goons controlled the island and now control miami where they spread lies about cuba. fidel is not perfect and makes many mistakes but real latinos know the many good things he has done. plus some of the rules fidel has used and imprisonments has been to stop terroristas from hialeah florida like luis posada carrilles who blew up an airliner. south americans bin laden is being harbored by cuban exiles in miami and it does not mention this in the article. nor the cuban 5 who are being held prisoner in the us for trying to stop the miami alpha 66 terroristas. be fair. 170.170.59.138 (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a great book out now called "How the Mob Owned Cuba and Then Lost It to the Revolution" By T.J. English. it should be used for this article. Wash Post review 137.52.150.129 (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The mobsters Meyer Lansky, Santo Trafficante, Thomas Lucchese and Lucky Luciano + their goons, were the real rulers of Batista's Cuba which was America's whorehouse and casino, and thus the ones that Che and Fidel were removing from power with violence. 137.52.150.129 (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Structure
Please take a look on the page because it has been manipulated or something, but it's horrible. I don't know if it's only to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.168.24 (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Over the last week, I've tried to simplify and clarify the structure as follows: -re-order the sections so that the long history section come after more basic info on geography etc. -re-order within each section to make a more logical flow of thought -delete detailed information that belonged in the relevant detailed articles, especially in the history section -correct grammar. As I went through, I also corrected any obvious errors (e.g. references to Fidel as curent President) Hope this has helped make the article easier to follow. There is surely more editing to be done. Holdspa (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess the reader above was referring to the faulty reference after the HDI rank. It generates an ugly mess (a uniqueness code or something like that).  I have tried various other syntaxes but I don't find one that gives the desired result. In Konqueror and Firefox this breaks the layout horribly; Opera seems to handle it find.  I'm duplicating the reference for now, could someone more proficient in wiki-code correct this? Pietrow (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ain't that a box of weirdness? It looks like the problem is that the Infobox country template is making a wikilink out of the HDI_rank field (so that "51st" is a blue-link to List of countries by Human Development Index). So it's trying to put the superscript reference link inside another link, which you can see could get a little confusing for the parser.
 * In any case, the HDI info is all on one line in the infobox, so one single footnote should be fine. Franamax (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (Moved this section to bottom of talkpage per convention). Looking at the remaining issues of WP:SIZE, it sounds like Holdspa is working in the right direction.  Continued work needs to be done to render the history section to be a proper WP:SUMMARY of History of Cuba.  However cursory inspection suggests to me that some work would still need to be done to move history content present here, but not in the history article (Most noticibly, check to see if any images here but not there belong).  Doing this would do quite a bit to balance the WP:WEIGHT of the sections, and bring the size to something reasonable (concensus seems to be that articles on major topics like countries can be a fair bit larger than 80k). -Verdatum (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of information in Cuba
The paragraph contains only one line, which doesn't describe the situation.Xx236 (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Such as in North Korea, the "freedom" available in Cuba is the freedom of nothing.Agre22 (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)agre22

CubaNet as a source?
I would like to suggest that using CubaNet as a source violates Wikipedias policy of neutrality. CubaNet is funded by US AID and the National Endowment for Democracy. Given the state of US-Cuba relations, an agency funded only by US government agencies cannot be deemed neutral. This information about CubaNet can be found in http://www.cubanet.org/somos.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solem iguana (talk • contribs) 04:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to suggest that using any Cuban governemental source as a source violates policy of neutrality, because any governmental source is funded by Cuban government, who creates virtual reality.Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Spanish citizenship
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4BS57I20081229 Xx236 (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Population
I was under the impression that Cuba is the most populated island in the Caribbean, not just the Greater Antilles. It says in the first paragraph that the island of Cuba is the "second-most populous", however, when I checked the population of relatively large Caribbean nations (i.e. Haiti, DR, The Bahamas and Jamaica), they all have populations below that of Cuba. Please check this and make the appropriate changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olazea (talk • contribs) 23:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Population of Hispaniola is around 18.5m, at least 50% higher than CubaDraggleduck (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

first paragraph
i deleted the first paragrpah of this page. it was talking bad about the people of Miami. i thought it was offensive and removed it i hope you agree with me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.62.23 (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes
This user has, over the past few days, made massive changes to the article without first discussing any of them. Most of these changes are highly POV in nature, trying to present pre-Castro Cuba as some sort of paradise, and in general trying to make the current Cuba look bad as much as possible. An example is the lead, where he inserted the phrase "Cuba used to be a multiparty democracy and one of the most developed countries in the Western Hemisphere". What can the purpose of such a sentence be, other than POV-pushing by insinuation? Such a sentence is completely inappropriate for the lead, even if it is sourced. This user has an agenda, and it shows. I have never seen similar passages in other coutnry articles, not one. Napoles pushes his POV by using highly biased and unreliable sources, mostly websites such as these, []. Neoliberalismo.com? Give me a break! In rare instances where reliable sources are used, such as let's say The Economist, he deliberately cherry picks what he needs to push his POV and ignores the rest. This is classic POV-pushing and is unacceptable. Per WP:NPOV, I will now proceed to undo the most egregious POV-pushing. --Athenean (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Athenean, I totally agree with you. I was astonished by the recent edits by Luis Napoles, as they definitely are highly POV, and paint a misleading picture of pre-Castro Cuba. I support your observations, (eg. cherry picking) and will also work to restore balance to the article. As I have commented before, unfortunately many US sources are biased in their discussion of Cuba, not surprising really as the US was responsible for a lot of the problems in pre-Castro Cuba. Logicman1966 (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fantastic! I'm glad you agree with me.  I knew it wasn't just me who thought that.  It's going to be a lot of work unfortunately, mostly because we are going to have to inspect sources very carefully for any bias, but I think we will be able to restore some sort of balance to this article.  --Athenean (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Locigman1966, could you elaborate? They are directly from UN statistics. You can look at the full numbers at United Nations statistical service. Cuba was far more developed than most Latin American countries, although disparities existed. The article was Granma-quality when it lacked that Cuba was actually a liberal democracy and most UN statistics were on the top of Latin America.Luis Napoles (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a liberal democracy when Batista ran it? Franamax (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a liberal democracy from 1940 until the military coup in 1952.Luis Napoles (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Athenean refuted Katherine Hirschfeld (the writer of "Health, Politics, and Revolution in Cuba Since 1898: 1898-2005") because she is assistant professor in Institute for Cuban & Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami.

Is she unreliable just because she is American? A large share of English-language research happens to be American, for obvious demographic reasons. Much of the sources in this article, like in any Wikipedia article, are by American authors.Luis Napoles (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But in this article, a disproportionate number of sources are Miami-based. Is that just coincidence or what?  Hirschfeld is just a typical example.  We all know Miami is a center of anti-Castro sentiment.  You will therefore forgive me for taking Miami-based sources with a grain of salt.  --Athenean (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple of other reliable sources I would recommend for the article - [1]Isaac Saney [2]Robert Whitney. Any source that portrays pre-Castro Cuba an an island paradise should be treated with extreme skeptisism. Logicman1966 (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

- - - - - Unfortunately, this article has been completely hijacked by pig-headed anti-castroists, with masses of dubious information like 15,000 - 17,000' executed (this is at the extreme end of the possible statistics) and '20,000 imprisoned and tortured at any one time' etc. Also, the depicition of pre-castro cuba is whitewashed to death. Problem with this issue -as with many others - is that the deperate extremists, busily trying to convince themselves they are right, are the ones who keep editing whereas those who have a more balanced view don't have anything to prove and don't bother with Wilkipedia. Yes, this is a personal criticism. Personally, I couldn't care less about the Castro issue itself, but comparing the country page on Cuba with, say, that of Saudi Arabia, I have to laugh at how pathetic these ant-castroists are. This is the only country page to be lathered with blatant attacks on the current government. This is not good encyclopedic practice - the Cuba page has become a soapbox rant.

Really, this article should be wiped out, written from scratch by an unbiased party, and locked from all modification. Just because people have wikipedia accounts doesn't make them any more mature. - - - - - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.243.194 (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation mistake
Under Government and politics; Human Rights, the wikipedia site qoutes: Citizens cannot leave or return to Cuba without first obtaining official permission, which is denied.

It has a link to http://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2006/01/18/cuba12207.htm where you can find almost the same text:

The Cuban government forbids the country’s citizens from leaving or returning to Cuba without first obtaining official permission, which is often denied.

The word "often" plays a major role here. There is a big difference in not being allowed to leave Cuba at all, and it being hard to obtain an official permission. Please fix this as soon as possible :)

J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.81.232 (talk) 07:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC) why dont you fix it yourself??? 72.153.198.211 (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Corruption in Cuba AfD
Corruption in Cuba is up for deletion at Articles_for_deletion/Corruption_in_Cuba. So far it's just me (the nominator) and the article's creator. More input would be appreciated. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article should be deleted - if necessary its contents can be summarised by a sentence or two in this article. It seems to be mostly based on the contents of one book, and I'm not sure that the material is reliable anyway. Logicman1966 (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Military section
Reads ....

Cuba become a remarkably militarized society. The tiny nation built up the second largest armed forces in Latin America, second only to Brazil. From 1975 until the late 1980s Soviet military assistance enabled Cuba to upgrade its military capabilities. Since the loss of Soviet subsidies Cuba has scaled down the numbers of military personnel, from 235,000 in 1994 to about 60,000 in 2003. The government now spends roughly 1.7% of GDP on military expenditures.

==

Besides the incorrect tense of "become", this paragraph needs work. If the Cuban military grew to 235,000 by 1994, but is now only 60,000 soldiers, out of 11 million people, that does not sound like a remarkably militarized society. In fact, it sounds like Cuba has a small military.

The paragraph should be rewritten to accurately reflect the current state of the military. The United States spend 4% of GDP on the military, while Cuba spends 1.7% of GDP on the military. No one would claim that the United States is a highly militarized society. We have a lot of people working in the military, yes, but many of them are overseas maintaining peace.

~Aaronhoffmeyer
 * Agree, I tried a more neutral wording. "remarkably militarized" would need more sourcing than a military website from 27 years ago. Opinions may differ as to whether the US itself is highly militarized, but that's a discussion for another day :) Hopefully my changed wording will withstand scrutiny (which I welcome). Franamax (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Luis Napoles
Which POV-pushing academy did you graduate from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.71.89 (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

New currency for Cuba.
Coming soon. New currency...

CaribDigita (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * SUCRE (currency)
 * Venezuela, leftist allies create regional currency
 * Proposed ALBA currency the sucre poses dilemma for Dominica government

Atheist state
Fidel Castro stated Cuba "is secular, not atheist".

Shouldn't this be corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.157.117 (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be corrected, and should be better sourced. I took a quick look at Republic of Cuba constitutions here. They're in Spanish, which I do not speak. Using Google language tools for rough translations, I see that


 * The 1940 constitution says something like:


 * Article 54 of the 1976 constitution says something like:


 * As I read that, freedom of religious belief was allowed, though any action to "oppose the faith or religious belief to the Revolution" was unlawful and punishable. Perhaps the "faith or religious belief to the Revolution" was defined in some citeable supporting wource to be atheistic&mdash;I don't know.
 * The 1976 Constitution with reforms through 2002 says something like:


 * This supporting source cited in the article is a dead link. The archive copy as of Jan 22, 2008 says:


 * A January 21, 1998 New York Times article, Cuban Church: It's Weak but Unified, said,:


 * -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oil in Cuba
The aticle is weak about oil in Cuba.This site [] tells about fall of oil production in Cuba.From just 65,000 brents in a day, in 2003, to just 51,300 brents in a day.This other site: [] supports that oil production in Cuba isn't just very small, but it is also falling.The fact is the failure of communism also in this product.Agre22 (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)agre22

Extreme bias
In any given year, there were about 20,000 dissents held and tortured under inhuman prison conditions. It is estimated that 15,000-17,000 people were executed.

The source is the Black Book of Communism, which we can all agree isn't a very respectable source. Someone should change it, it's very unprofessional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.120.202 (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

- - - - -

Absolutely, if there are any moderates out there with a wikipedia account. Either this article gets a majior overhaul or it is removed completely, 'cause right now it's farcical. -Aidan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.243.194 (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC) yea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.18.189 (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"However, Kennedy denied American troops and other direct involvement, and the plan failed."
I do not understand what is meant by, "However, Kennedy denied American troops and other direct involvement, and the plan failed.". What did he deny the troops? Did he deny that he used troops? Did he deny the use of troops to someone?

I changed the line, "By 1961, hundreds of thousands of Cubans had for the United States." to "By 1961, hundreds of thousands of Cubans had left for the United States." I hope that that was a minor change. fogus (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Education
The paragraph does not describe the impact of the government on education. The government defines curricula and manuals to the level of single words. Such education becomes frequently indoctrination. Xx236 (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The two sources for the 80% pre-Castro literacy rate include a website with the motto "Free Minds and Free Markets", whose title employs the scientific term "Tyrant" (presumably not in reference to Batista). The other source opens with a Ludwig von Mises quote. These dubious secondary sources undermine the no doubt flawless primary sources, and they should be deleted. I'm afraid the majority of this page was written by bored, retired Cold Warriors. Tomblikebomb (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

OAS acceptance (under Cuban Revolution and the Cold War)
Added information 03/Jun/09 about OAS resolution to lift Cubas expulsion, I'm not watching the article or the talk page and I'm not going to be even remotely offended if anyone would like to word it differently. Regards, Sketchbugs (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Economy misinformation
The section says that the penalty for killing a cow is higher than the penalty for killing a person. While it's true that the maximum sentence for killing a cow is higher than the minimum sentence for killing a person, homocide carries both a higher minimum and a higher maximum sentence. Neither of the contributor's sources agree with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomblikebomb (talk • contribs) 21:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So anti-Castro!
This article is incredibly biased and clearly suffers from too many American sources and too much focus on the country's relations with the USA. The USA has a trade blocade on Cuba but what about the rest of the world? In the sensible countries of Europe there is no blocade. We support trade with Cuba. We holiday in Cuba. Can someone at least attempt to write this article offering both sides of the arguement and not this pro-USA bullshit that currently dominates.--217.203.145.137 (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This article reads like a CANF report or something off of a right-wing anti-Castro blog. 137.52.150.129 (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Cuba page is highly inaccurate
The Cuba entry is full of factual errors and is highly biased. A quick example: it claims that Cuba's infant mortality rate (a widely recognized index of the health of a country's population) has worsened since before the Cuban revolution. In fact the opposite is true. Even the CIA reports that Cuba's infant mortality rate of 5.82 per 1000 births is better than that of the United States, which is 6.26. (See https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/cu.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html). See also BBC report in 1998 that Cuba's infant mortality rate was in 1998 the lowest in the vcountry's history. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/75547.stm The entire Cuba page needs to be rewritten by an unbiased hand. Sgarnerlaw (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, unfortunately there are serious problems with this article. There is a recurring theme of maliciously mis-representing information cherry-picked from references, the objective being to cast Cuba in a bad way. Complete lack of balance.
 * Your example of infant mortality is a good one (there are many others); here is the sentence currently in the article – “Infant mortality was the 28th in the world in 2006, worsening since 1957, when it was the 13th best in the world.”
 * Boy, that paints a pretty grim picture. However, if you actually check the information in the two references cited (112 and 125), you can construct a much more balanced summary of the situation -
 * “Infant mortality in Cuba declined from 32 (infant deaths per 1,000 live births) in 1957, to 10 in 1990-95. Over the same time period, infant mortality in USA declined from 26 to 9. (reference 112). Infant mortality in 2000-2005 was 6.1 in Cuba, and 6.8 in USA. (reference 125)”
 * I agree that a major overhaul of the article is needed. I am disinclined to get involved any more, as previous effort have been arbitrarily deleted by the pro-US zealots. Good luck. Logicman1966 (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. However, I would nonetheless like to go ahead and remove the most egregious examples of bias, and hope that you guys would back me up in that case.  --Athenean (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This article needs a full rewrite almost. So much anti-Cuba propaganda. 137.52.150.129 (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Miami Mafia authoring this article
This article should mention how South Florida aka Calle-Ochoville/Little Havana is populated by The brutal dictator Batista’s former henchmen & torturers, many of whom escaped the firing squads they should have gotten. The city is filled with family members of Batista’s goons, BRAC secret police, and War Criminals who killed 20,000 Cubans. They allied with the Mafia who ran Cuba as America's Whorehouse and Casino. These former very wealthy and still current Oligarchs enjoyed the de facto slave labor Batista's Cuba afforded them and are now mad that their latifundios & haciendas were confiscated by Fidel and co. These Mostly white Cubans spread a large amount of disinformation about the island - making the writing of an accurate article here on Wikipedia nearly impossible. Not to mention their alliance with the terrorists and CIA backed killers like Luis Posada Carriles = "South America's Bin Laden" who blew up Cubana Flight 455 in 1976, Felix Rodriguez = point man for Oliver North in Iran/Contra, trained central American death squads, Alpha 66, Brigade 2506, etc. They all attack Cuba, blow up hotel lobbies, hijack ferries and planes, strafe Cuban beaches with gun fire, drop poisonous pathogens on Cuban crops, poison Cuban water supplies. While being harbored in Miami with U.S. $. Go to Versailles restaurant in Miami where these assassins will be sitting at the best table. Basically this would be like allowing Al Qaeda to write their own article. 137.52.150.235 (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Change
Can someone change this line at the end of the foreign relations section?: ] United States President Barack Obama stated on April 17, 2009 in Trinidad & Tobago that "the United States seeks a new beginning with Cuba"[89], and reversed the Bush Administration's prohibition on travel and remittances by Cuban-Americans from the United States to Cuba.[90]

This makes it sound like Bush was responsible for the ban's on travel, when it's been a policy long before Bush was president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailer2 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editorial...
This is one of the most poorly written, least accurate and politically biased articles I have read on Wikipedia. The author/s fail to recount the amount of gross poverty, political corruption, oppression present in Cuba during Batista's reign. I trust that Wikipedia will in future try to insure that History is not changed to support political views, and that readers are given the opportunity to make changes to politically motivated propaganda. Whether or not one agrees with Castro or not, history should not be changed and facts should not be erased or sculpted to support a political agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.215.77 (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * unfortunately you are correct. this article is an embarassment to cuban history and the thousands of victims under batistas dictatorship. 137.52.150.198 (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

talk page needs to be archived
at least those posts that are years old and thus not active. 137.52.150.198 (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cuba under Batista
Fidel, Che, and Raul were able to overthrow the dictator Batista because of several conditions in the country. These caused widespread resentment for Batista and his US and mafia backed oligarchy. Such conditions were:


 * Americans owned 70 % of the arable land.


 * 1% of the population controlled 46 % of the wealth.


 * Batista's goons and secret police killed 20,000 Cubans (tortured even more).


 * 67 % of the population were illiterate.


 * 50 % of the population lived in Bohio shacks.


 * Dissidents were hung and left to dangle in the streets as a warning sign.


 * The Mafia (Meyer Lansky & Co) ran Havana and used Cuba as a whorehouse for rich gringos from the U.S.

ALL THESE FACTS SHOULD BE ADDED to the article and I can source each one of them in the near future or feel free to yourself. They are easily verifiable. gracias. 137.52.150.252 (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the above are described in Economy of Cuba. From English Wikipedia:
 * South Korea's real gross national product expanded by an average of more than 8 percent per year, from US$3.3 billion in 1962 to US$204 billion in 1989. Per capita annual income grew from US$87 in 1962 to US$4,830 in 1989. Xx236 (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What does South Korea have to do with the above comment? 137.52.150.129 (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The "137.52.150.129|137.52.150.129" is liar.Because: 1-Batista never executed anyone.He was a coward, but not a vampire, such as Fidel Castro. 2-The level of education in Cuba was among the best in Latin America. 3-Level of normal rent of a cuban was better than in South Korea.Today, the salary in South Korea is more than 1,500% bigger than in Cuba. 4-Americans owned less than 10 % of the arable land. 5-There were more than 100 newspaper.Today, there's just one newspaper; state-owned. 6-More than 10% of cuban population went to exile, since this revolution, in 1959. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agre22 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

>What the hell are you talking about? 'Batista never executed anyone?' is a disgusting fallacy. He was a mass-murdering maniac who did no good for the country in return, contrary to Fidel Castro, already excessively villified here.(why does this article not mention, for example, the massive humanitarian projects Castro' cuba has promoted around the world?). Castro has many black marks in his record, but none so bad as Batista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.243.194 (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The U.S.-Cuban amnesty relationship from the Marti Cuban patriots sought shelter and support in the 1890's against Spanish rule to the time before the rise of Castro in 1958, was tainted by the brutality and oppressive nature of the Batista right-wing military regime focused on self-interests instead of the welfare of Cuban people. I'm not anyway a communist, but the Batista days of the 1920's to 50's was a failure in democracy though lacking complete democratic rule and was aided by the United States government. Batista was nearly abandoned during World War II (the "voyage of the damned" of German Jewish refugees situated in Havana before they were denied entry in Miami, Florida, USA), except for Batista's insisting he's not fascist and equally anti-communist in the cold war era. Castro, Batista and any other ruler after Cuban independence (1903) from original Spanish and U.S. military rulers seems to indicate a lack of emphasis for relative democratic rule in the island's long history as a country or a people. But if general Raul Castro dies, quits or overthrown by military hotheads rejecting political reform and U.S. pres. Obama's offering of peace or restored normal diplomatic relations, what would the U.S. and the world do to put an end to the lone totalitarian regime in the Americas? How would Canada, Mexico and Venezuela under Hugo Chavez react to the introduction of democracy in Cuba? The Castro regime's only diplomatic relations are with either U.S. allies and other center-left presidents or governments (i.e. Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Suriname). But to date, only the U.S. out of the entire western hemisphere refuses to fully accept Cuba's current government and the recent purges by Raul Castro insures to the U.S. and Cuban governments on what the current political stance on each other is somewhat easening, except the U.S. wants Cuban officials to implant new political reform on human rights and laws deregulating freedom of speech or criticism of the Castro regime. + Mike D 26 (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Trinidad link in the photo caption needs to be fixed.
It links to the island rather than the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.166.115 (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the wikilink. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong link
The link for insular redirects to island. It should instead redirect to insular area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_area Praseemkul87 (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. In this context insular means 'of or pertaining to an island or islands'. Cuba is an island nation,so the link is correct.  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 10:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

official language?
why do they speak spanish in cuba?for that matter why do they speak spanish in any country other than spain?oh that's right cuba is another land and people that was invaded,raped,murdered,pillaged,conquered and assimilated by the spanish.and don't forget about all the slaves ripped from their homelands in sub-saharan africa by the spanish and brought to the western hemisphere.cuba's history has a lot in common with the u.s.a.'s history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.190.51 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is a disgrace to wikipedia. Hang your heads —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.184.147 (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a few edits on grammar, writting, etc....
Under demographics: "During the 18th, 19th and early part of the 20th century large waves of Canarian, Catalan, Andalusian, Galician and other Spanish people emigrated to Cuba." Should be changed to "....and other Spanish people immigrated to Cuba." They immigrated TO Cuba and emigrated FROM Spain not "emigrated to Cuba" as it states. Does that make sense? or am I wrong?

Also, the line "Included are a small number of U.S. American-descendants from the United States arrived in Cuba in the late 19th/early 20th century period." This sentence would make more sense by either deleting the "included are" or by adding "that" in "from the United States (that) arrived in Cuba"

I realize these are petty suggestions and would have just quietly changed them myself but the article is locked.

¡Viva la Información! Cheers!

(ps- sorry if i am putting this suggestion in the wrong place)
 * ✅, thank you. —SpaceFlight89 16:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Under Human Rights, 3rd Paragraph, 2nd Sentance. Repeated words (see below) "In the 1990s Human Rights *reported that reported that* Cuba's extensive prison system, one of the largest in Latin America, consists of some forty maximum security prisons, thirty minimum security prisons, and over 200 work camps."

I just created a user account today and as SpaceFlight89 am hoping this is the right place to post this, Good Article. Done Thanks for your help! GrooveDog (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

in the "Foreign relations" section, I am wondering if "to on" is a typo in the following sentence: "Cuba was a major contributor to on Soviet-supported wars in Africa, Central America and Asia."

gdp is not correct
The gdp of Cuba is 108.000 billions of usd, and per capita is 9.500 usd https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html

--Travieso94 (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That URL is the supporting source cited in the article. The info there says that GDP (PPP) is $108.2B, which is what the article says. This article erroniously ranked that as 65th while the supporting source ranks it contrarily at 64th, so I corrected that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC) The List of countries by GDP (PPP) article gets the 108.2B figure right but erroniously ranks it as 62nd, but I'm not going to undertake the task of correcting that article.

Literacy
The text mention's the literacy level of Cuba over fifty years ago (which is based upon an unreliable source) but has no mention of the literacy level these days (which is exceptionally high). Would someone like to find the exact figures for these days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.252.121 (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Link
Population referenece (number 5): Where it says: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/CU.html

Should Say: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.46.131 (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Drought in Cuba
This site: [Drought] talks about a drought in Cuba.Agre22 (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

The shield
The shield image need to be flipped horizontally. The stripes must be on the right hand side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.217.133 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian site about tourism in Cuba
This Brazilian site: [GA] has an article, in Portuguese, about this subject. Reading the article, I realized that tourism in Cuba isn't a good thing. Cuba is an expensive and bad place for tourism.Agre22 (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

you eat buttey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.227.187.246 (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

MAINE
Reading the article I miss that the USA institutions recognized in 1998 that the maine was sink following orders from Washintong. So that the USA-Spanish was was recognized to be totally illicit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.18.23.120 (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Type of state
Cuba should be considered a communist dictatorship. Just like the article on the Third Riech or the "dictatorship" of Batista, Fidel and cuba should be considered a communist Dictatorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dld1992 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Under Human Rights, 3rd Paragraph, 2nd Sentance. Repeated words (see below) "In the 1990s Human Rights *reported that reported that* Cuba's extensive prison system, one of the largest in Latin America, consists of some forty maximum security prisons, thirty minimum security prisons, and over 200 work camps."Cuba should be considered a communist dictatorship. Just like the article on the Third Riech or the "dictatorship" of Batista, Fidel and cuba should be considered a communist Dictatorship. 8:52 7 december 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddiquix (talk • contribs) 01:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

just coz criminal scum gets a proper prison sentence, not like in usa 3 years for murder, you hate the communist government. Get lost. Viva Cuba, Hasta La Victoria Siempre —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbatimdat (talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

CUBA'S MILITARY POWER
I found the following info pertaining to Cuba's current military model and technology. I request that it be added to the article. Thank you. "Cuba is the leader in IW in Latin America, at least according to more quantitative measurements. It has the most SIGINT ground stations in the region, and the most EW sets installed aboard combat aircraft and naval combatants. It collects voluminous diplomatic and military COMINT, facilitating crypt-analytical processes and providing invaluable strategic and military intelligence. Although Cuba has the second largest armed forces in Latin America behind Brazil, on a technological military basis, it's military is no doubt more precise and more powerful than Brazil's." --Malcx (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * At the present time, I would have to vote to reject this language, for the following reasons:
 * 1 To me the sourcing is insufficient.  I went to the cited amigospais web site.  The website seems to be a Questionable source.  The article is on a small recently started Zine.  The article cites no sources and does not disclose where its research came from.
 * 2) Even if the claims were better cited, I would reject the language proposed because it is unclear as to time (is this ongoing now or at some time in the past? If it is now, it seems to contradict most other sources which have the Cuban Military decreasing in size).  Additionally the language includes too many acronyms and, if it were ever to be inserted into the article would need to be rewritten for clarity.
 * All in all, pending a more verifiable source and language clean up, I would vote to reject. Franklin Moore (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Celestra (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The website is a credible source among military buffs. I note that the possible reasons why you reject adding this info into the article entails you: 1) being a biased american on latin american affairs, and, 2) knowing very little about latin american military history, since you possess little knowledge in that field.
 * At any rate, I will find more sources. I will request another opinion if the second reference is not accepted for the possible above reasons.

Malcx (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see a comment that was added that I did not make. The comment was: "Disregard my previous statements." This was added to my above commentary to the aritcle. For the record, I have never made nor gave anyone permission to make this statement on my behalf. As a result, I will take the liberty of removing it myself. Thanks.

Malcx (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-revolutionary Cuba and the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy
Both of the citations for positive view of the level of Cuba's pre-revolutionary economy come from the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy, which after a cursory glance is:


 * Presumably partisan, per their mission statement, The primary mission of the organization is to study the elements and processes involved in a transition to a free market economy and a democracy
 * Seems suspect as a valid academic publication

Additionally, in citation 41, it notes that the position put forward is not the consensus opinion. I'd like to thus suggest, at a minimum, that the phrasing near:


 * In 1958, Cuba was a relatively well-advanced country [...]

To be at the very least noted as a point of some scholastic disagreement rather than matter of fact and potentially bolstered with more reliable references.

Scott.wheeler (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that the user, Scott.wheeler, possesses very little knowledge about how advanced Cuba was technologically and economically before Castro took power in the nation. Cuba has made many advances in economics, technology, and medicine in its pre-Castro history that most people, including Scott.wheeler, are totally oblivious about. There have been countless scores of authors who have specifically written upon this subject and who undoubtedly uphold this view. It is therefore sad to see someone who takes only one opinion from only one source without taking into consideration the vast pool of information forwarded by credible sources that support the view that Cuba was an advanced society in the 50's. As a matter of fact, Cuba was only third on the scale of advancement in economics and education behind the USA and Canada in all of the Western Hemisphere. This is well documented.

--Malcx (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The text mention's the literacy level of Cuba over fifty years ago (which is based upon an unreliable source) but has no mention of the literacy level these days (which is exceptionally high). Would someone like to find the exact figures for these days? Or else remove the point about the literacy, since the way it's now somewhat suggests that literacy would be considerably lower these days.

Also, user Malcx talks about countless authors and things being well documented without giving any citation. Any unbiased verification?

Cuba's current literacy rate is very high, somewhere around 98%. I agree that it is a problem that this is not mentioned in the article, but the literacy rate for 1958 is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.67.249 (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OAS issues
The article contains the following sentences: "'On 3 June 2009, the OAS adopted a contentious resolution to end the 47-year exclusion of Cuba, but the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton walked out in protest as the resolution was being drafted. Cuban leaders have repeatedly announced they are not interested in rejoining the OAS.[57]'" While the substance is technically true and verifiable from the cited source, it is incomplete and leaves the reader with the impression that the resolution was adopted over the objection of the US. This is not true. While it is true that Clinton walked out of the meeting, the cited source goes on to say: "However, in the early hours of Wednesday, Clinton's deputy Thomas A. Shannon approved the resolution unchanged." The cited source also quotes Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya as saying "We are all completely in agreement. The cold war has ended here in San Pedro Sula." (emphasis mine). I do not believe that we should put all of the ends and outs of who did what into the article but do believe that we should make clear that in the end the US agreed with the resolution. I therefore propose replacing the language with the following: "'On 3 June 2009, the OAS adopted a resolution to end the 47-year exclusion of Cuba. The meetings were contentious, with the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton walking out at one point, however in the end the U.S. delegation agreed with the other members and approved the resolution. Cuban leaders have repeatedly announced they are not interested in rejoining the OAS.[57]'" What do others think? Any objection or suggestions for better wording. Franklin Moore (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Having heard no objection to my suggestion, I will make the edit I suggested. Franklin Moore (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Embargo and overall POV
The US embargo is barely mentioned in regard to it's huge economical consequences for the island's economy and it's inhabitants. Plus the article constantly rants about cuban denounced human rights violation but does not state that this embargo has been denounced almost unanimously by the UN seven consecutive times. Or that it is opposed by even US-based NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. That is by no way minor data. You can compare the English article with the Spanish article and find the English has a very strong POV, while the Spanish is more mild one gibing equal respect for the pros and the cons, which is here nonexistent. Also, despite the abundant description of shortcomings and supposedly government-induced disadvantages there is no mention of Cuba being actually very developed -especially in Human Development Index in relation to other Latin American countries (for example, even Brazil). If it were my choice I would rewrite the entire article giving place to responses by leftist sources and Cuban authorities to leave space for both sides of the story and thus the whole part of the truth, which is to say all points of view shall be respected. However that seems unlikely giving the strong interests of doctrine and reality imbued on this article. However, to even honor minimally the worldwide view wikipedia policy, the UN and NGOs resolutions and positions against the embargo should be mentioned as well as the economical effect on the island. It is not a minor issue and can be included with the best nonpartisan wording. I hope someone with the power does it, for the improving of wikipedia and against the prospect of it turning into another "conservapedia". --NimoStar (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would certainly not say that this article is perfect and there have been numerous claims of POV over the years (coming both from those opposed to the current government and those more favorable to that government). At present I do not see a major POV issue in the article, but would be willing to look as specific language if you wish to direct me to it. I would certainly not compare this article to those about Cuba on Conservapedia (e.g. take a look at their article on Castro - which states that he is presumed dead, (a claim which is defended on its talk page). I will say that the article does reference the US Embargo numerous times and includes a link to a fairly extensive article about the subject which includes the statements of the UN and others critical of the Embargo, see United States embargo against Cuba. Considering the length of the specific article on the subject, I do not think its entirety should be reproduced in this main article.  However, if you feel that some specific language in the current article should be rewritten and/or expanded upon, I would suggest that you draft such specific language and posted it here so that a consensus can be developed.  Franklin Moore (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is a matter of "supporting" any government. ity is about stating facts in a balanced way according to NPOV policy. I don't see how being one person alive or dead changes the neutrality subject; not because one is dead has to be that a negative look, only factual innacuracy at the most. Many historical figures are dead and that doesn¿t make them better or worse... coming back to the subject, the embargo is at most, barely mentioned and not discussed in this article, and the embargo article is not even linked as a "main article" as are many others (including some biased as "sociolismo", because amicalism exists in all societies and being argentinian you shuold know that, ah?). Many paragharps are about accusations of human rights violations, and it goes thorough almost all sections consuming a disproportionate amount of space, besides having it's own section where there should be all grouped. The wording is also nonneutral, saying for example that Raul "purged" some of Fidel's officers, while a purge remits and almost directly references stalinism and mass murder, whcich in this xcase was no more that the constitutional destitution of a very limited number of persons of their current positions. Certainly would the US presindent change some of it's miniters it wouldn't be referenced in the USA article as a "purge", am I not correct? All countries shall be treted with the same respect and neutral wording, and interpretations shall be left as referenced in opinion sections and attributted. The improving of this article has a long way to go correcting this "mistakes" I am sure are intentional. The spanish article of Cuba is not even locked and is more complete and neutral than this one, because it relies more havily of facts that providing interpretations and positions disguised as simple unquestionable statements that are not such, as the one I cited (and there are countless).--NimoStar (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that "Purged" does carry heavily negative connotations and as the source for the material uses the word "removed" and does not use the word "purge" I did an edit to that effect. As to your more generalized statement that the entire article is biased, as i said above, I do not think you are correct.  If you have other specific examples, like with purged above, bring them up and once again if you have specific language that you think better discusses the entire embarge, draft it and list it here.  Franklin Moore (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I still insist onthe overall POV. It is very evident when you compare this article to the one in other language wikis. Articles about most countries do not extensively treat the accusations that country has received from others; see for example USA: "Human Rights" is not even mentioned once, despite numerous claims from organizations and the UN about many unethical policies (including the embargo of Cuba; others could be the extensive use of tasers, absolute electronical surveillance, CIA worldwide illegal detention camps, etc.); in contrast, in the Cuban article the phrase appears eleven times, all of them in negative connotations. As for the embargo issue, a good start would be adding in the "economy" section : "Since 1958, Cuban economy is heavily affected by the US-imposed embargo, which has been condemned by the United Nations general assembly seventeen consecutive times, and further denounced by important NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch." Reference on official UN page: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10529.doc.htm --NimoStar (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A couple of points, deficiencies in the article on the United States should result in you commenting on that page's talk page and seeking to improve that article; such deficiencies should not be used to argue that this page should change to "balance" deficiencies. As to your broader point about the U.S. Embargo, while there is a separate and lengthy Wikipedia article on the topic, I would personally agree the topic is significant enough that a small separate section appear on this page outlining the issue and directing readers who wish more detail to the main article on the subject.  However, in order to be unbiased it would be necessary not only to point out that the UN and many NGOs have condemned the Embargo they have also condemned the Cuban government for using the embargo as a pretext (the UN's word - not mine) to crack down on the internal political opposition within Cuba.
 * As this article is frequently the subject of contention, no major change should be made without a full discussion and after reaching consensus as to the change. I am willing to work with you and others at improving this article by including a section regarding the Embargo.  Franklin Moore (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Another issue is whether it should actually be referred to as an 'Embargo' or a 'Blockade' (with Cuba preferring the latter term, I believe). The difference would seem to be that an Embargo would be essentially a bilateral restriction between the US and Cuba while the pressure the US applies to other nations and businesses with no connection to the US to prevent them trading with Cuba would indeed make US policy more akin to a blockade against Cuban trade. BarryNL (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The events leading up to the revolution
The article reads that 84 people landed on Cuban shores, but does not say that most (between 70 and 72, depending on the source) were killed by the Batistan military. The surviving 8 people, including Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, and Che Guevara, went into hiding and started building support for the revolution.

The article also does not mention the initial attack on a military post Castro's command, his subsequent imprisonment and exile to Mexico which preceded the revolution. These are important parts of Cuba's modern history. The Granma boat landing with Castro et al comes out of nowhere in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.67.249 (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of multi party democracy and USSR model
Cuban Revolution and the Cold War; "... He directed the CIA to conduct the Bay of Pigs invasion using the CIA's elite Special Activities Division and Cuban exiles to restore multiparty democracy in Cuba".

Oh please, can we edit this? I thought it was known that multiparty democracy in Cuba wouldn't have been restored, another US puppet dictator would have. I understand that "He directed the CIA to conduct the Bay of Pigs invasion using the CIA's elite Special Activities Division and Cuban exiles to restore an American puppet dictator in Cuba" is not accpetable, but I think it's fair if it's left as "He directed the CIA to conduct the Bay of Pigs invasion using the CIA's elite Special Activities Division and Cuban exiles to restore a non-communist regime in Cuba".

actually, the "US" puppet was the first prime minister of Cuba AFTER the revolution who was forced out by Castro (as were many non communist revolutionaries). During the Cuban revolution, he had been an opponent of Batista and had led student opposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.143.205.87 (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also questioning the removal of "By 1963, Castro moved Cuba towards a full-fledged Communist system modeled on the USSR." to "By 1963, Castro moved Cuba towards a full-fledged Communist system", because Castro's and today's Cuba are not modelled on the state capitalist oligarchy of the 60's onwards USSR, but on a more genuine socialist system. You may think I'm POV, but if anyone wants to argue I can provide links and such to prove otherwise.

Edit request from 155.198.37.30, 4 May 2010
THe pesidents are Horacio Kenworthy and Roberto Johnson tyhey have recently come into power by voting BNP

There's also a fragment ("As the variety and quantity of available rationed goods declined.") in the "Economy" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.168.165 (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

155.198.37.30 (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- &#47; MWOAP &#124; Notify Me &#92; 16:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Audio of the Pronunciation of Cuba
The Spanish audio of depicting the pronunciation of República de Cuba need to be remade. The current audio can hardly be heard at all. --Joel M. (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

History (Pre-Columbian era) lacking to mention Arawaks
The following image claims that Arowak was a native tribe in Cuba while the article fails to mention the Arowak. The article in connection with this image only mentions Taíno and Ciboney. A search of the whole article reveals that the word Arowak only appears in this image.

Since I don't have knowledge of Cuba's history I can't fix this.

Is the women in the image really an Arowak? How can it be confirmed?

Section where the clearification should be made:


 * Before the arrival of the Spanish, the island was inhabited by Native American peoples known as the Taíno and Ciboney whose ancestors migrated from the mainland of North, Central and South America several centuries earlier.

P.S. I think the sentence structure of the text above can be improved greatly and I'll probably work on it. --Joel M. (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok nevermind on confirming the image to be of a Arawak, the image it self says it is, Indiana Arrowukas. --Joel M. (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV problem with the Spaniards
There tends to be problems with NPOV, here is one that really stuck out at me while editing.

Cuba - Period between wars


 * Pro-independence agitation was revived in part by resentment of the restrictions imposed on Cuban trade by Spain during the 1890s. This caused hostility to Spain's increasingly oppressive and incompetent administration of Cuba. Few of Spain's promises for economic reform in the Pact of Zanjón were kept.

The line, incompetent administration of Cuba, appears to be not a NPOV. Incompetent to whose view point, the writer or the Spaniards living in Cuba? If a source can be found that shows that the Spaniards living in Cuba thought Spain's administration of Cuba was incompetent, then it should be written as such.

Speaking of source, there seems to be a lot of big claims in this section that has no citation. It has been a year and nothing has been done about it. What are we going to do about this? I for one prefer have less information rather than having misinformation. --Joel M. (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction concerning ownership: Spain Vs. Britain
The following passage doesn't make sense to me.


 * Cuba remained a Spanish possession for almost 400 years (1511–1898), with an economy based on plantation agriculture, mining and the export of sugar, coffee and tobacco to Europe and later to North America. The work was done primarily by African slaves brought to the island when Britain owned it in 1762.

The article claims that Cuba was in Spanish possession in 1511 to 1898. But then it says that Britain owned it in 1762? This doesn't make sense.

I think maybe the sentence is grammatically incorrect and should read like this:
 * African slaves brought to the island, when Britain owned it, in 1762.

Which would mean that African slaved were brought to the island in 1762. But the problem still remains, Britain owned what??

Can someone shed light to this? --Joel M. (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a mistake in the article. Britain owned Cuba only for nearly 1 year when the English took Havana during a Britain-Spain war. Actually, not the whole island, only the Havana region. Havana was given back to Spain in exchange to Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.142.140 (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Claim that Ciboney had copper trade & artifacts found in the main land - Lack of proper citation
I removed the following statement from the article for its use of weasle words, "Some have suggested", and it lacks proper source/reference. The statement had a source, it is shown below, but it does not support the claim made.

The source listed shows a greenstone but the page does not claim if the amulet was made by the Ciboney tribe and it certainly does not claim that Ciboney's "copper trade was significant."


 * "Some have suggested that copper trade was significant, and mainland artifacts have been found."


 * citation used for claim above: - Greenstone zoomorphic amulet in form of Condor of the Andes. publisher = University of Cambridge accessdate=2007-12-18

Matter of fact, the page explains that the amulet was found in Vieques, Puerto Rico and it's of Huecoid culture (300 B.C.).

If a source can support the specifics of the clams above, then the information can be added to the article along with proper citation of research. --Joel M. (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Some toughs

 * The U. S. Department of State website cite Cuba in a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism aside with Iran. This is a worth citation in the article.
 * In North Korea article the lead emphatizes a defacto dictatorship single-party state. This article feels pov in ommit this information in the lead, suggesting the country as well stabilished democracy. In general the tone of the article looks pro-Cuba. --Ragnarok Addict (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On your first point, I agree that it should be mentioned at the start of the article.
 * On your second point, I haven't noticed yet but I haven't read the whole article yet. I'll get back to you when I read the whole article. :) --Joel M. (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the first point. The inclusion of Cuba in this list has been heavily criticized by other states and politicians, even in the US, and is not supported by any hard evidence. It can be politically motivated and influenced by the Miami anti-Castro lobby. In this point the US Government can not be considered a neutral and reliable information source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.142.140 (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is still a fact that the U.S. listed Cuba as a terrorist group even if it has been criticized by other states and politicians. The statement, "The U.S. Department of State website cite Cuba in a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism" does not mean that Cuba is a terrorist sponsoring country.


 * It can be said that "the U.S. listed Cuba as a state that sponsors of terrorism." and then quote other sources that claim that there's no proof that Cuba actually sponsors terrorism.


 * In any case, The U. S. Department of State website does cite Cuba in a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism and that is a verifiable fact. -- Joel M.   Chat ✐  06:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Spanish-American War in Cuba - section missing surely
Your copy goes straight from 'Spain and the United States declared war on each other in late April.' to 'After the Spanish-American War...' There must have been a section summarising the course of the war, that has been accidentally deleted.86.146.212.87 (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right, the Spanish-American War section is not complete. It's not that it was accidently deleted, it's because no one has written it yet. Would you like to help us write this section? Your help would be greatly appreciated.
 * I went ahead and added the template pointing to the main article of the Spanish-American War incase the reader would like to read more about the war. --  Joel M.   Chat ✐  16:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The elimination of the US dollar in Cuba in 2004
I visited Cuba in April 2005 and the US dollar was still widely in circulation alongside the Convertible Peso and the Cuban Peso. The Euro was not in circulation at that point.

188.221.167.249 (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information but unfortunately it can't be used in Wikipedia because it constitutes Original Research but research can be done to find a reliable source that collaborates with your experience. Then the information can be added with accompanying source. -- Joel M.  Chat ✐  14:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Education
"A file is kept on children's "revolutionary integration" and it accompanies the child for life.[145] A person's university options depend on how well the person is integrated to Marxist ideology;[145] permission must be obtained from the "Committee for the Defense of the Revolution".[146] "The Code for Children, Youth and Family" states that a parent who teaches ideas contrary to communism can be sentenced to three years in prison.[145]"

This information is wrong in some cases or explained in very back and white terms in others. I was born in Cuba on 1985 and came to the US in the year 2005 I went thru the educational system. The file (I can provide a copy of mine I have it) is kept but it only has information about psychological, sociological and educational development, it has the students grades and teacher evaluation, it would also hold mentions about really bad behavior in school or bad interactions with other students, the file is kept from pre-school (kindergarten) to the superior education. Then a summary is made and a new file is started for your work history, that one is little bit more aligned with these comments, it is kept in this file your participation is public gatherings, meetings, demonstrations, etc. If you belong to the Communist Party, if you do volunteer work, if you vote, etc. It also of curse reflects how good you perform at work, etc. I never worked in Cuba so I speak for what I've heard from my parents.

The university options DO NOT depend on anything other than a standard test taken by everyone who wants to enter the university system. A Math and Spanish test are required for every major and then a Physics test is required for Engineering and Sciences and a History test is required for Liberal Arts. The scores on the tests are averaged and divided by two; then your average in 10th, 11th and 12th grade is divided by two and the sum of this 2 numbers is your final score to enter the university system. Before the test you are given a ballot where you place up to 10 majors of your choosing and then the majors are assigned by from a list organized by the grades up until class capacity has been met. So for example I got to do Mechanical Engineering which was my 5th choice because I dint do too well in my Physics test. There is no other condition. Now while in the university you are required to take a class called Marxism in order to graduate and you are sometimes evaluated on your voluntary work and involvement in the political process and sometimes in very extreme cases (doesn't participate on anything and show complete disregard for the established norms) this can lead to expulsion, I was in the university system (CUJAE http://www.cujae.edu.cu/) for a year and half before I came here and they didn't drop anyone.

I don't know what "The Code for Children, Youth and Family" is never heard of it, I am guessing it is part of the Cuban constitution, but I am not very familiar with it unfortunately. If this code exists and has the aforementioned article I know is not enforced. In general if you speak out ideas contrary to the government established ideas you can get in trouble even prison. In Cuba police doesn't need a reason to take you and you know not to give them one. There is no right to due-process or anything like that, you have to be very careful about what and where you speak that much is true, but the Cuban people however have learned to deal with this over the years, and it rarely happens anymore, unless you are some kind of activist or Journalist writing about it. Since I can remember I know not to speak out of place, that speaking certain things can get you in trouble, although this "prohibited things" are not written into law or outlined anywhere, everyone knows what they are. There are some people who out of malice to gain favoritism with the authorities will denounce you for saying things or acting a certain way but this is becoming less and less common as these people are alienated by everyone and sometimes prosecuted by other people for what they've done (Chivatones we call them).

The same reference 145 says: "If any student speaks about God, his parents will be called to the school, warned that they are "confusing" the child and threatened." that is not true anymore, since 1992 Cuba has relaxed its views about religion, it is true that before that year prosecution was high for religious activities and being religious was cause of expulsion from Universities and the school system or worse but since 1992 that is not the case anymore, in fact they do teach both Evolution and other views including creationism, intelligent design, etc in school but they emphasize of curse that religion is just a believe and that science is the inly truth as set forth by Marx in his writings, but a lot of people agree that religion is fantasy and that science is the only way to explain and understand the world so that is not a bad thing at all.

If you have questions or need more details I will be happy to answer them. Again I have my School File with me and I can provide copies of it. Its a rather large booklet but I think I can manage to scan it to PDF. I don't have copies of the tests I took for the university or any record of it other than my certified grades. I have other documents that might prove useful.

There is a lot of old people out there that think Cuba hasn't changed since the 70s and 80s and there is another lot of people who explains things in very extremist way. I am in no way defending the government of Cuba or its policies I am merely relating my experiences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.114.138 (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Updating the territorial organization
According to a recently approved law by the National Assembly (August 2010) the division in provinces has changed: The Havana (La Habana) Province has been divided in 2 new provinces: Artemisa and Mayabeque. Thus the number of Provinces is now 15 plus the special municipality (not entering in any province) of Isle of Youth (Juventud). Addiotnaly Havana city has recovered its original name: Havana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.142.140 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Where did you learn of this? Can you give us a few sources to aid in the editing? Thanks. -- ℐℴℯℓ ℳ.   ℂℌAT ✐  22:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are the sources: http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2010/07/23/nacional/artic02.html http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/2010/06/08/nacional/artic04.html http://www.periodico26.cu/noticias_cuba/julio2010/artemisa_mayabeque300710.html

Related Wikipedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisa_Province http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayabeque_Province —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.114.138 (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The map is updated, but the list of provinces is not. Note that the number 8 province is missing, that's why the error isn't so evident. Many provinces in the map are not tagged with their actual names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.184.43 (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Correction please
Just a minor correction but the hovertext on the main map says Cuba is highlighted in green where actually it is highlighted in RED.

I was unable to make this change myself

WhiskyGolf (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Etymology - Cuba named by Columbus
Another claim states that the name Cuba was given by Columbus after the ancient town of Cuba in the district of Beja in Portugal.

Source: da Silva, Manuel L. and Silvia Jorge da Silva. (2008). Christopher Columbus was Portuguese, Express Printing, 396pp. ISBN 9781607028246.

Please explain here why you feel that this is a bad source or why this information should be removed. -- Joel M.   Chat ✐  16:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As explained when I removed it, the source is a fringe theory, and per Fringe theories (and Reliable Sources for that matter) should be removed from this page. The claim that the name of the island of Cuba comes from the town of Cuba, Beja, Portugal, derives from José Mascarenhas Barreto and his book The Portuguese Columbus: Secret Agent of King John II. It is based on his theory that Columbus was born Salvador Fernandes Zarco in 1448 in Cuba, Portugal. All books that claim this, such as Da Silva's cited above and in this article, merely parrot this claim. As such, they are not WP: Reliable Sources for the Cuba article, and such sources only belong on the Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus page. Here is a sampling of scholarly opinion on the Barreto book:


 * Henige, David. “Review: The Portuguese Columbus: Secret Agent of King John II.” The Hispanic American Historical Review 73, no. 3 (August 1993): 505-506.
 * "In all this, some issues have shown themselves to be timeless—and deathless. One is his nationality; well over a dozen places have been suggested over the years, including Denmark, England, and America. No amount of Columbus' own testimony, contemporary opinion, or documentary evidence has managed to bring closure to this issue."
 * "The Portuguese Columbus is a discursive and organizational disaster."
 * "Few readers will be persuaded by either the substance or form of Barreto's arguments."

I hope I don't have to add more such sources, but I can. To have in this article a fringe theory on par with a standard theory, gives undue credence to the fringe theory of Barreto and his ilk that Columbus was Portuguese. No standard biographies of Columbus states he was Portuguese, from Cuba, Beja, Portugal, or that Cuba is anything but a native word heard by Columbus. In fact, Columbus first heard the word as "Colba," and wrote it thus in his log-book of the first voyage (see Samuel Eliot Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus (New York: MJF Books, 1997), 250.) Seems to me he would have written "Cuba" first off if that was his birthplace; that or we must agree with Barreto that all such Columbus documents are forgeries or cover-ups.
 * West, Delno C. “Review: The Portuguese Columbus: Secret Agent of King John II.” The American Historical Review 98, no. 5 (December 1993): 1590.
 * "Generally speaking, scholars agree that Columbus was born in the important and cosmopolitan Republic of Genoa to Christian parents.... Such scholarship fails to impress nationalistic advocates and Columbus hobbyists who want to claim him for Greece, France, Spain, Majorca, Catalonia, and elsewhere. In this massive book, Mascarenhas Barreto, journalist, broadcaster, and teacher of the sociology of art and the history of discoveries, tries to make the case that Columbus was Portuguese." (Emphasis added.)
 * "With pages of genealogical charts, Barreto proposes that Columbus was in reality Salvador Fernandes Zarco.... He was born, Barreto claims, in the Portuguese town of Cuba (thus the real reason for the name of the Caribbean island) near Vila Ruiva in 1448....  According to Barreto, Salvador Fernandes Zarco, who took the code name Christobal Colón, was a secret agent of King John II."  (Emphasis added.)
 * "This book is filled with unconventional speculation and circumstantial evidence. The author has a vivid imagination. Reading this book is somewhat like reading an espionage novel: if you do not take it seriously, it makes the book fun to read."

To conclude, this bit exists already where it belongs: Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus, it does not belong on the Cuba page because it is a fringe theory, based only on the fringe idea that Columbus was Portuguese.

TuckerResearch (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you are getting so bent out of shape about this. The info was cited and notably placed in the proper section. I saw no fringe theories being pushed at all. Edit warring is not the way to get things done. Its great that you came to the talk page, but that is only the first part of the WP:DR. You can't continue to edit war after the removal has been challenged. I am not taking sides, only observing what I see. Please continue the discussion, but as your removal has been challenged, its poor form to continue to remove. I will re-add the cited sentence until consensus says otherwise.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Who says I'm "bent out of shape"? Your tone and your pretentious lecture to me fails to assume good faith, doesn't it?

If you look at the edits, I first tried to add a phrase to the sentence in question to show that it is unsupported by the consensus and majority of scholars. A user deleted that bit as "weasel words." Fine, my attempt at compromise language dashed at the get go, I removed the said language, as it is from an unreliable source and connected to a fringe theory. The same editor added it back then demanded I explain myself on the talkpage, as if he owned the etymology section. I explained myself convincingly. Why don't you sternly lecture him for adding and supporting bunk instead of me for offering proper scholarly material. It doesn't matter that it is "cited," the citation itself is unreliable and fringe. Just because Immanuel Velikovsky says the planet Venus shot out of the planet Jupiter and I can cite Worlds in Collision doesn't mean I can change the Venus page accordingly, it belongs on the Velikovsky page. Put the matter to a vote or take it to the reliable sources notice board, but don't try to bully me with your pronouncements. And since you still claim to see no fringe theory in the deal, I'll state it again: only one scholar and his followers, who hold to the fringe conspiracy theory that Columbus was Portuguese and born in Cuba, Beja, Portugal, believe he named the island of Cuba after his birthplace. I can't make that more plain. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you claiming the thought that Columbus might have named the island after the the ancient town of Cuba in the district of Beja in Portugal is inaccurate because you found book reviews that criticizes the book The Portuguese Columbus: Secret Agent of King John II?


 * Those book reviewers criticize the fact that Columbus was born in Portugal, not that Cuba might have been named after a town in Portugal.


 * Also, this might be a good moment to point out the source for the claim in the article did not come from The Portuguese Columbus: Secret Agent of King John II, rather it came from Christopher Columbus was Portuguese! So if you want to argue your stance, please find material related to the book Christopher Columbus was Portuguese! Here's the book in Amazon: Link to Amazon.


 * The rest of your argument continues on the fact of where Christopher was born while the fact you are removing has noting to do where Christopher was born. You are assuming because Christopher was born in Italy, or where ever you believe it to be, that he could not have named it after a town in Portugal. Are you also claiming that Christopher didn't spend time in Portugal?


 * Let me point out that the origins of the name of the island is not clear. That means there are multiple theories as to where this name came from. If it came from the Taino people or Columbus, we can't say for sure. The section shows two theories and presents both claims. The reader will see that there are multiple theories as to where the name came from so even if one, or both, theory are wrong, the reader was not misinformed.


 * I move on now to the reply you made on 19:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC) in reply to Jojhutton.


 * You did add a phrase to the setence to show it is "unsupported by the consensus and majority of scholars", as you say, but you failed to show the consensus of majority of scholars. Since you failed at supporting your claim, I naturally removed it as being unverifiable.


 * When you saw your addition was retracted for being weasel words, you took it upon your self to remove the whole passage that you disagree with from Wikipedia with a simple explanation that it is a fringe theory in the edit summary without considering the 600+ editors that watch the article.


 * You then go on to say, "[Joel] demanded I explain myself on the talkpage, as if he owned the etymology section." I did not demand that you do anything. I just placed a talk back to your talk page so we can discuss the issue instead engaging in an edit war. The exact phrasing was, "Let's discuss the problem you have with the etymology section of Cuba." User_talk:Tuckerresearch I fail to see how I acted in anyway as to show I, "owned the etymology section."


 * You then go on to say that you, "explained [yourself] convincingly," but your claims are unverifiable and then you go on to cite the wrong book in your claim against the passage. I am not supporting bunk, I am supporting information that is verifiable and allowing the reader to make up their mind about the passage. The reader has the right to know that there are more than one theory. You don't only cite the wrong book, your scholarly material for supporting your point are book reviews.


 * Who is bulling you, Mr. TuckerResearch? You have offended me by making unfounded claims about my person and my intentions. Why did you attack me with claims that I, "demanded," anything from you and acted as if I owned the section? Why don't you focus your energy on defending the reason you feel so strongly about instead of devoting time to defacing my person?


 * Thank you. -- Joel M.   Chat ✐  23:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, the book currently cited, Christopher Columbus was Portuguese!, merely follows Barreto, he was the first to use the Zarco and Cuba, Beja, Portugal, claim. I can't find book scholarly book reviews for Christopher Columbus was Portuguese! or articles about it because (1) it is not written by a reputable scholar, (2) and it is not published by a reputable outfit (in fact, it is printed by a on-demand publisher, very reputable). Also, take a look at Da Silva's website http://www.dightonrock.com/: it is dedicated to the proposition that the Portuguese discovered America and Columbus was Portuguese. These are fringe theories. You might believe them, I admit that the Portuguese may have reached America before Columbus, but we have no proof of this.

Yes, Columbus spent time in Portugal, but Columbus was not Salvador Fernandes Zarco, nor was he born in Cuba, Beja, Portugal. The claim that he named the Caribbean island for for his birthplace stems from this fringe conspiracy theory and this fringe conspiracy theory only. Only Barreto and Da Silva and "Columbus was Portuguese" authors make this claim. Nobody else does. No other Columbus biographers ever state that he named Cuba for the town in Portugal. Find me a source that does not buy the "Columbus was Portuguese" theory that states Columbus named Cuba for the Beja town. YOU CAN'T. I first figured that "weasel words" would do the trick, I figured proving that the "Zarco=Columbus=Cuba=Cuba, Portugal" theory was fringe and unreliable should have been enough. I guess I was wrong.

Let's look at Columbus's own journal (which the "Columbus was Portuguese" conspiracy theorists insist, like all good conspiracy theorists, was doctored) - from Robert H. Fuson, ed. and trans., The Log of Christopher Columbus (Camden, ME: International Marine Publishing, 1987):


 * p. 90: October 21, 1492: "Then I shall sail for another great island which I strongly believe should be Japan, according to the signs made by the San Salvador Indians with me. They call that island Colba..."  (Emphasis added.)
 * p. 91: October 23, 1492: "I want to leave today for the island of Cuba, which I believe to be Japan..." The translator notes in a footnote: "This is the first correct spelling of the Indian name.  It is one of the few native place-names that has survived."  (Emphasis added.)

Where is the entry: "I named the island for my hometown in Portugal" or "I named it for that town Cuba in Portugal." IT IS NOWHERE. Columbus and later Spanish authors all stated that Cuba was an Indian name. No contemporary Portuguese authors say: "Hey, it's named for that Cuba town in the Beja District."

Here, I will note actual Columbus scholars:


 * Fernández-Armesto, Felipe. Columbus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
 * p. viii: "For instance, the rationally unchallengeable evidence of Columbus's Genoese provenance has not prevented mystifyers from concocting a Portuguese, Castilian, Catalan, Majorcan, Galicia, or Ibizian Columbus...."
 * p. 85: Columbus arrives in Cuba. No mention on the Portuguese town.
 * Index: there is no mention of the Portuguese town of Cuba.
 * Morison, Samuel Eliot. Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus. New York: MJF Books, 1997. (It won the Pulitzer Prize for Biography.)
 * p. 7: "There is no mystery about the birth, family or race of Christopher Columbus. He was born in the ancient city of Genoa...."
 * p. 250: "Now the Indians decided to take their inexplicable captors to 'Colba' (Cuba) by the regular canoe route...."
 * Index: there is no mention of the Portuguese town of Cuba.
 * Thomas, Hugh. Rivers of Gold: The Rise of the Spanish Empire. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003.
 * p. 43: "Columbus was a citizen of Genoa...."
 * p. 85: "On 24 October Columbus left for what he thought would turn out to be Cipangu, Japan, or part of it: 'another very large island... they call it Colba....' 'Colba' turned out to be Cuba."
 * Index: there is no mention of the Portuguese town of Cuba.

Only unreliable sources that focus on fringe conspiracy theories concerning the supposed conspiratorial Portuguese nationality of Columbus claim that he was born in Cuba, Beja, Portugal, and named the Caribbean island for it. It is a primary piece of their supposed evidence! To present it in the Cuba article as a possible derivation on par with the Amerindian theory is misleading, and lends a conspiracy theory undue weight. To say that the island of Cuba was named for the Portuguese Cuba does a disservice to the original Indian inhabitants of the island and is only used to support the "Columbus was Portuguese" conspiracy theory.

I suggest adding a bit to the beginning of the sentence in question noting where the theory comes from, since you are so opposed to removing it. Might I suggest:

Scholars who believe that Christopher Columbus was Portuguese state that Cuba was named by Columbus for the ancient town of Cuba in the district of Beja in Portugal.

I think that this is an acceptable compromise.

CV - TuckerResearch (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe you are mistaken. I do not believe that Columbus was born in Portugal and I do not subscribe to the idea that Columbus named Cuba after a town in Portugal.


 * I am all for removing the claim if it does not belong.


 * What I do not agree with were the actions you took by introducing loaded phrases into the article without citation OR discussing it with us. Then you removed the whole thing without stating anything more than "this is a fringe theory" in the edit comment line. That is in very poor taste and should not be done. I reverted your deletion, not because I agree with the statement or because I want to bully you, but due to:


 * The statement that you removed were cited.
 * The edits you made were not cited and/or discussed.


 * I am not a historian nor do I pretend to be; but all editors, regardless of their education or background, should document the reason behind major edits especially those that changes cited claims.


 * When I make edits that remove facts that are "cited" or not cited, I document it in the article's talk page. That's how it's supposed to be done. Here is one such discussion | here are more such edits I make the edits and then discussed it on the talk page. Everyone who comes across my edits know why the edits were done and have a chance to voice their opinion. No problems at all and everyone is happy.


 * If you would have just told us, "hey, I'm going to remove this because this guy is basing his argument on a far fetched fringe theory and isn't credible. Here's why it's a fringe theory: Fact A, Fact B, Fact C," we could have avoided this whole issue.


 * And stop taking this issue personal. No one is attacking you or what you are trying to do. You just made a decision on something and didn't tell anyone about it. Take a step back for a second and try to view it as someone else. There are over 600 people watching this page, you think you are the only one interested in making Cuba as accurate as possible? If we all work together, we can make the Cuba article a shining model of what an article could be, but we need good communication.


 * -- OK, enough of that. --


 * Yes, you have made your point with your above comment. The claim does seem to be a far fetched theory and my own personal research has turned up nothing to support the claim. Also, yes the book is published on demand which does not add to the creditability of the work.


 * I think now the question is:
 * Should the reader know about this theory?
 * What will the reader gain from knowing this theory is out there?


 * I lean towards the theory staying. My reasoning is:
 * This is a theory that is out there, even if it's not popular
 * Showing the reader that a great number of scholars disagree with this theory and why will help the reader to be better informed and be better armed to discuss the topic.


 * That said, the edits you made to the statement seems well suited for the time being.

Scholars who believe that Christopher Columbus was Portuguese state that Cuba was named by Columbus for the ancient town of Cuba in the district of Beja in Portugal.


 * I think the quote above should be used in replacement of what is already there until we decide to keep or delete the theory. If we do keep the theory, then I think it should be rewritten to alert the reader that the theory is not popular or credible by citing sources that support that position. Both sides need to be cited of course, representation for each camp.


 * All the same, I do understand why someone would want to remove the statement completely from the article. I do not object to it being removed. I just want to talk about it to see if it can be made to stay for the reasons I mentioned above.


 * So, shall we give this issue a week before setting anything into stone? -- Joel M.   Chat ✐  05:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally, I'm an inclusionist, and I am all for keeping the bit as long as it is made apparent that this is not the generally accepted theory, I am against its inclusion if it is treated as equal in validity to the accepted derivations. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If we do keep it, how do you propose the section should be rewritten? -- Joel M.   Chat ✐  16:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording is fine as it currently stands. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, it has been more than one week and no one else entered the conversation. I suppose this discussion is now closed. -- Joel M.   Chat ✐  15:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Scholars this, scholars that. Cuba was what the indigenous people of the land called it. Columbus during his second voyage to the new world actually named it Juana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.170.90 (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)