Talk:History of Cuba

anti-cuban text
2005-03-15... still present 15 April 2009

63.83.249.12 has added anti-cuban text and deleted bits of text that apparently aren't anti-cuban enough. I've re-installed the latter, but left his additions in place, which seems the proper thing to do; every perspective should have it's place.

I added a bit to the this writer's argument about the effectiveness of the embargo. But in retrospect I think both these bits should really be placed in the separate text on the embargo. The text is somewhat out of date; the Helms-Burton Act is not mentioned. I added one mention of it, but I suppose that needs some more work.

Is there any reason to call the cuban government Stalinist? Sounds like silly name-calling to me. Just as the usage of the word regime. I suggest that all these occurrences (here and in texts about other countries) are replaced by the neutral word 'government'.

Kurce
I know this is trivial but the section on early history mentions this as an agricultural product produced in Cuba yet a google search produces no result that defines what Kurce is or means. Is this a typo in the article or is this some obscure agricultural product that is no longer produced or perhaps it has a different name today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.140.124 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe it was supposed to be "rice," not "kutrice." Rice was one of Cuba's major crops, along with tobacco. I thought about changing it, but perhaps it's some sort of regional name for something, since adding a "kut" before the word "rice" would be a strange typo to make?

I can't help but think that the author has some knowledge I don't about "kutrice."

ObadiahKatz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As there's no clarification by now on this I think it should be changed to "rice" to avoid confusion. A search for "Kurce" only turned up this page. Grobburgess (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this is vandalism of long standing, from this edit in 2010, very likely by someone named&mdash;well, you can guess his name as well as I. Now fixed. What a travesty that it took this long.  Found, due to your messages, so thanks for that.
 * You'll notice that in the previous version before the fix, it was "kurce" so if you stare at that a little bit, I think you'll figure out the name of the person responsible for the vandalism.
 * Please note that I've added a text template to all occurrences of the nonsense word to obfuscate it in such a way that search engines cannot find it (but search-on-page can, if you're already here), so the vandal won't have the satisfaction of googling it and finding this page. This means I've changed the wikicode of your entry above, without however changing the rendered page at all. This is a technical violation of WP:TPO, but I hope that you will approve of this change; if you need additional explanation, I'm happy to oblige. Mathglot (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Odd Syntax strikes again
One could notice that the above critic uses "cuban" without capitalization, suggesting that his native language is one that like Spanish does not capitalize such words as "cubano." The common English usage is Cuban

adj : of or relating to or characteristic of Cuba or the people of Cuba; "Cuban rum" [syn: Cuban] n : a native or inhabitant of Cuba [syn: Cuban]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

One also notices that this author confuses anti-Cuban with anti-Castro clearly delineating her/his political views.

xe xe (El Jigüe, 11/2/2005)

First of all, how is the ethnicity of the "above author" of any relevance? Secondly, if he was de-capitalizing "Cuban" because he speaks Spanish, he would have also de-capitalized "Stalinist". Finally, confusing anti-Cuban with anti-Castro is not at all uncommon. As an American, I typically use the former term when the latter would be more appropriate. Rather than a Cuban spy, he could simply be an arrogant American, like me, or, most likely, someone who just misspoke. Making so much out of his word choice is silly and baseless. Furthermore, it implies either that being Hispanic somehow renders one's opinions and contributions invalid or that he is a Cuban agent in the employ of Castro, which is fairly ridiculous. --70.20.23.229

defense of the present Cuban government
Under the missile crisis it says "the U.S. blockaded Cuba to force the USSR to withdraw their newly-installed MRBMs from the country". I believe that should be "the USA blockaded USSR ships in international waters to prevent them from delivering missiles to newly-built launch sites in Cuba". But I'm not entirely sure. Anyone? Also, a bit more about the reasons for sending the missiles and the way the situation was dealt with an the way it was resolved is called for. I'm no expert, but as I understand it, the USA had many more missiles aimed at the USSR than the other way around and the USSR tried to even the balance and this was resolved by the USA removing missiles in Turkey. But this was kept secret, resulting in the USSR looking weak. Who knows more about this?

Under 'Cuba after the Sovjet Union' it says "This led Castro to open the country to tourism from Europe and Asia". And America, Africa and wherever, I suppose, or was it done in stages? Sounds unlikely to me.

Then there's a bit about the rapid-action brigades that says they were employed against anti-government protesters. That may be, but it stands to reason that there was a lot of theft going on (as someone in Cuba also pointed out to me), so I'd say that would have been their primary target.


 * The US blockade was meant to stop two things: the reinforcement of Soviet and Warsaw Pact troops. SLBM’s and MRBM’s were delivered 6 months prior to the blockade and already present and fully assembled in Cuba. I am not sure if there were any more SLBM’s and MRBM’s on board the inbound blockaded ships (something that might need to be researched).


 * The missile issue in its totality is all a PR thing anyways. Although the Soviets had far fewer ICBM’s and intercontinental bombers that could penetrate US airspace, in 1963, they had more than enough nuclear subs with ballistic missiles to offset this. That’s the thing though, people (the public) never really thought about subs because no one could see them. Missile tests and bomber parades are high profile events, but subs by their very nature were secretive and the public, both NATO and WP, did not know much if anything about sub capabilities. The Soviets also wanted to use Cuba as a wedge in the western hemisphere, and placed the missiles there as an act of “good will” towards the Cubans. That’s why it was mainly a PR stunt to put missiles in Cuba.


 * As far as the rapid reaction forces, they were created to deal with a twofold problem, rising crime and anti-Castro rallies and organizations. Realistically the police could have handled the crime problem, but in order to deal with both crime and demonstrations while maintaining a degree of plausible deniability the “rapid reaction forces” were cobbled together from party and Castro loyalist. The official line was that these were spontaneous and independent organizations fighting crime and counterrevolutionaries. I believe you can find the information in the 1994 HRW report . TDC 22:35, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * On February 21, 1960 Castro nationalized all businesses in Cuba and undertook other communist reforms.

I've removed this sentence because it does not fit the facts. The first land reform bill was indeed as early as May 1959. The US owned oil refineries were not nationalized until June 29, 1960 (because they refused to refine Soviet crude oil). Other major US enterprises were nationalized on August 17. Small businesses were not nationalized until 1968.

Also, rather than using the provocative phrase "other communist reform", it would be more NPOV to simply list what those reforms were, and let the reader decide. Eclecticology 11:43 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Looks like this page needs a lot of work. As it looks now it could have been written by a sitting US president. Sorry :-/ I will fix :-) --BL


 * As of now parts of it could have been written by a Cuban government official. The are some fairly bad POV violations now.


 * "The United States used this as a final pretext to enter a conflict (see: Spanish-American War), which was practically already won by Cuban revolutionaries."


 * A rewriting of history to minimize US involvement. True, Cuban revolutionaries had won an important battle on April 2, 1898 under Colonel J.P. Quijano at Chambas (Morón), Cuba, causing the Spanish Governor General Blanco to temporarily suspend hostilities on April 10, shortly before the USA entered the war, but Admiral Pascual Cervera was being sent from Spain with a large number of reinforcements in order to restart the conflict, which began again at the end of April.  The US blockaded Admiral Cervera's ships and destroyed his squadron.  "Practically already won" is too strong of a statement, since the fighting resumed and Cervera's reinforcements were so great in number.  At the very least, the US involvement certainly hastened the end of the hostilities.  At the time of the suspension of hostilities, the Cuban revolutionaries controlled the eastern half of the island (primarily the rural areas), while the Spanish forces controlled the western half.  Most historians believe that a stalemate would have continued for some time, especially once Cervera's reinforcements arrived.

Odd view of Cuban history
The above view of history is most odd. Cervera was an admiral not the Governor of Cuba. And most odd is the mention of Quijano's battle generally considered minor. What a weird history you are consulting it appears you are following. That chronology somehow has left out major battles like Peralejo, La Invasion, the taking of Tunas and Guisa, etc. ete. By the beginning of US contact General Calixto Garcia, having taken most places on the Cauto plains, was sitting in Bayamo after the Spanish had fled. waiting for the US connection and The message to Garcia. You might go to and that is far from complete.(El Jigüe, 11/2/2005)

and on go the less informed criticisms

 * Also, I'm fairly sure that Spain did not send over one million men to the island to supress the rebellion; all other sources I've checked have it at 220,000. I'm a slight bit skeptical of the claim that so many of the Spanish soldiers stayed in Cuba after the war because of povety back home, considering how Cuba was ravaged by the war and was in abject poverty itself.  Please look at some of the external links supplied in the Spanish-American War article.

I've removed the following which mixes some fact and some fiction with sweeping generalizations to arrive at a highly POV result. Some of the material was already in other parts of the article, and much of it is not verifiable. &#9774; Eclecticology 05:54, 2003 Nov 14 (UTC):===Soviet and Chinese Influence===


 * In 1960-61, Castro took over all industries, including those owned by Americans, except for small tobacco farms and other retailers who were allowed to remain independent while under government surveillance. Cuba?s government was state controlled like the Soviet models.  Che Guevara was head of the Ministry of Industry and they set up elaborate plans for production.  Sugar production was continued so that the profits could be used to pay for the increase of exports.  Since these ideal plans were not well thought out they failed due to a severe lack of needed technology and capabilities, as well as, the skilled laborers and professionals to run it.  They also did not have the adequate funding and consequently industrial and agricultural production fell.  Add to this the amount of debt owed to the Soviet Union and Europe nations and the complete collapse of the economy was inevitable.  The scarcity of food led to severe rationing and that was dependant on the stores being able to stock their shelves with the necessary goods.  In 1963, Castro realized the extent of the devastated economy and reverted to self-sufficiency and a priority of sugar and tobacco production, but this also failed.


 * Castro was determined to be the sole leader of Cuba and was already the head of the government and military and now the economy. To fix the economy, Castro and other Cuban officials turned to the Chinese models.  These put the rural society before the urban cities by applying more of a Marxist approach which did not work because this was based on a working class revolution.  Cuba was not industrialized to have a proletarian society living in the city slums in overcrowded conditions.  They also put an end to all bureaucracy.  Literacy was extremely important and he formed a system of educating the rural society and to prove that you could read and write you were expected to write Castro a letter.  A change from material or profit incentives to a more moral based reward system was created so that workers gained recognition, acknowledgement and status for their hard work, dedication and production instead of monetary benefits.  It was believed that patriotism and nationalism were enough to compel people to work harder. There was no longer any private ownership left except for a small number of tobacco farms.  The Cuban government provided many free goods and services, none of which were of good quality, and tried to end the use of money.  A goal of 10 million metric tons of sugar was created that needed the entire nation?s effort to complete.  Only 8.5 million metric tons were actually produced and even though this is more than was ever produced before, it was also considered a failure and drained the production of other goods, especially food.  The economy and the country as a whole was devastated and Castro returned back to the Soviet Union.  (Ian Rogozinski)

Plagiarism and distortion exposed
An instance of plagiarism has been brought to my attention:


 * Batista's rule fueled increasing popular discontent and the rise of active urban resistance groups, a fertile political environment for Castro's 26th of July Revolutionary Movement.

Compare that sentence to the following, which appears at |http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2886.htm:


 * Batista's dictatorial rule fueled increasing popular discontent and the rise of many active urban and rural resistance groups, a fertile political environment for Castro's 26th of July Movement.

Identical but for the words dictatorial, many, and rural, and Revolutionary, which were deleted. Evidently material from the US State Department was not far enough to the right for the purposes of the plagiarist-propagandist who wrote this text.

I am going to restore the original version of the sentence and give a reference.

I hope, but doubt, that the person who stole and modified this sentence is duly ashamed of himself. Shorne 22:53, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mediation requested
User VeryVerily's intransigence and impossible behaviour have left me no option but to request mediation. People who have anything to add to my request are asked to visit Requests for mediation. Shorne 11:01, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorn I think you should keep in mind Ana Belen Montes of the National Defense Agency, she was passing on info to Cuba and diddling all such Cuban info to make Castro a little better, until she was caught with her old fashioned short wave radio and code book. Much of the older stuff on Cuba is hers....(El Jigüe, 9/26/2005)

Factual Accuracy
This page seems to leave out things, and some of the previous debates on this talk page don't seem to be resolved. Therefore I added the Factual Accuracy warning. You can remove it if you feel this page is factually accurate, I just put it in because I have a feeling that it isn't. For instance, the entire period of the Spanish-American War is blank. They don't even mention it. YourNickname 19:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Third War of Independence
Since I can't imagine anyone in the context of Cuban history trying to draw a distinction between the 1895 Insurrection and the Spanish American War as separate wars, I would guess that the anonymous editor who changed Second to Third probably was considering the Ten Years' War as the Second War of Independence and either the Bolivarian efforts of the 1820s or the filibuster efforts c.1850 as the First War of Independence. Caerwine 22:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Caerwine most do not count Narciso Lopez's expeditions, believing them to support US statehood annexation (sp?) what you forget is "la Guerra Chiquita" of 1880,which although rapidly defeated was not insignificant (El Jigüe, 9/26/2005)

205.240.227.15 lingo

 * ...and civil rights legislation against discrimination was enacted ordered minimum employment quotas for Cubans.

Is it me or is it the phrase? I can't figure out what is meant here. DirkvdM 04:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That should be ordering. It was in the Menocal administration and the legislation was to assuring a quota of Cubans employed in businesses. It was aimed primarily at Spanish owned firms who prefered to import their relatives from Spain. My grandfather was instrumental in its passage.....xe xe (El Jigüe, 10/16/2005)

Women in Cuba needs better citation
In particular the line "Although the official line is that "The Revolution" freed the women of Cuba, even Castro supporters have to admit prejudices did not fade overnight. Cuban women in authoritarian Cuba where superiors hold much power, still have to "fight" for respect in the workplace." should have a direct footnote as it is stated as a fact. If no footnote is added, I'm going to assume it's POV and remove it. Vanessa kelly 03:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Mulata Mistresses
A paragraph from "Race and Women":


 * However, it should be noted that elected president Carlos Prio, as well as the first President in Arms of Cuba Carlos Manuel de Cespedes, kept Mulata mistresses e.g. the most beautiful Celia Touzet who gave him three children [34], [35]. In 1894 Elena González Núñez, a beautiful woman married José Maceo [36] (Estenger, 1939); José Maceo although said to be mulatto, was far darker than his brother Antonio Maceo yet Elena was “White” with blue eyes.

The claim regarding Carlos Manuel de Cespedes is unsubstantiated here or in the separate article about him. The footnoted reference for the Carlos Prio/Celia Touzet claim is a cached gossip item from what appears to be a Miami talk radio station. The Jose Maceo sentence is out of place. Is there a story that follows? Consequences? Social reaction? Otherwise, it is again simply a gossip item. Unless someone objects, I'm going to remove the paragraph. The same De Cespedes/Prio sentence appears in the Carlos Prio Socarras article. There's no discussion over there, so I'm announcing here my intention to axe it. Orestesm 04:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Cespedes mistress was given a Cuban Government pension....and she is placed by some at the site of his death, other historians emphasize that only old women were there, but they seem determined to write her out of Cuban history. Whatever, Cespedes mistress is buried close to him in Santiago de Cuba. El Jigue 11-12-06

Colombus and Cipango
No mention in this article that when Christopher Colombus explored the island he thought it could be Cipango (european name for Japan at that time), since Colombus was looking for a short route to Asia.--tequendamia 11:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

deleted the following
Fidel...

as a student-gangster, one of the "trigger happy boys" (los muchachos del gatillo alegre) Enrique Ros and is widely believed responsible for several murders.


 * Please source the "trigger happy boys", and put it in context, what does this mean?  I have no idea?


 * Enrique Ros and is widely believed responsible for several murders.


 * who is Enrique Ros, why should a wikipedian care? Please explain who this man is


 * "widely believed" is a weasel term. Widely believed by who? Please source your information, add footnotes peferably.Travb 09:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Chibás, entangled in an accusation that proved false


 * What accusations? How were they proven false?  At least list what that accsation are. Travb 09:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

After a very promising start in his first (elected) term his policy was now very hard on the people and discontentment grew.


 * How was this dictator term "promising" at the start? This is not explained.


 * How was it a very hard policy? This is very important to explain, because it seeds the disconnect for the revolution. why would people support the overthrow of this leader? Travb 09:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

added three unref tags
Three large important section of the contemporary history of Cuba is unrefenced. Please verify your sources.

As per: Verifiability

This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

Signed: Travb 09:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

early history later history
Early history parts of this article need help. There are paragraphs of duplicate material that need to be consolidated into single paragraphs. In some of the later history, writing needs to be re-done in standard English--some material is still in rough English translated from the Spanish. Thanks Hmains 18:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

2003 ferry hijackings
This had two ferry hijackings with six executions from the first, and ? from the second. All sources I have seen had one hijacking and three executions. -- Beardo 08:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm amazed you managed to find such a subtle piece of baloney on this page otherwise rampant with errors. I've removed it - it was certainly 1 hijack 3 executions. And the Catholic church did not openly back the Varela project. --Zleitzen 08:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No poor countries have succeeded?
"Another consideration here is that Cuba already was a very poor country in 1959 and hardly any poor countries, capitalist or socialist, have managed to escape poverty in the 20th century, so political orientation can't be conclusively said to be the determining factor."

What about Greece, Portugal, and/or Ireland? and Japan and Taiwan

Not to mention (South) Korea, which went from being a Japanese colony to having the 10th-largest economy in the world.


 * It's bollocks and has been removed.--Zleitzen 23:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it complete bollocks. It says 'hardly any countries', not 'no countries'. You have to admit there is something to it. Out of more than 100 poor countries in the world just a few have escaped poverty over the last century or so. The division between rich and poor countries has remained pretty much the same, so that seems to be the most decisive factor (money makes money). Also, Greece, Portugal and Ireland happened to get rich after they joined economically with the EU, so having rich trading partners is more likely the cause (hint!). Anyway, there have been too few 'communist' countries to base any statistically sound conclusions on (and Russia has certainly improved economically). Whether any of that is relevant here is another issue. :)
 * However, I notice another strange phrase in that section: "But now the United States pressures other nations and U.S. companies with foreign subsidiaries to restrict trade with Cuba. This hinders Castro's historic argument of blaming the United States for Cuba's grave economic situation." I'd sooner say that supports it. Or do I misunderstand this? If so, it might need a rewrite. DirkvdM 18:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many strange phrases on the page Dirk. I'm still at about the year 1540 with my gradual rework of the article and can only work chronologically so I may reach that phrase in about 6 months! As for the above, by bollocks I mean that the sentence is meaningless within the article and has no context, it is also an uncited opinion. The other phrase you noticed makes absolutely no sense at all, you're right! --Zleitzen 18:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems inaccurate to state that Cuba was a very poor country in 1959, since despite the damage to infra-structure in the countryside in late 1958 there was little damage in major cities. Of course before 1958 Cuba's economy/per capita was ranked among the upper three or four countries in the Americas. To verify this statement one has only to look at the buildings built during this period e.g. La FOCSA. Will supply references at a later date. El Jigue 12-8-06

"In the 1950s, Cuba's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was roughly equal to that of contemporary Italy, and significantly higher than that of countries such as Japan, although Cuba's GDP per capita was still only a sixth as large as that of the United States. According to the United Nations at the time, "one feature of the Cuban social structure [was] a large middle class"

It wasn't poor relative to the rest of world at the time under Batista.

Cuba under attack
In this section the disastrous effect of disease on the English and English Colonial (North American troops) is seemingly rarely mentioned in histories, and yet this must have been a major factor in 1763 exchange. Will add some references once I finish a pressing project. El Jigue 12-08-06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Thanks EJ. I mention it as a critical factor in relation to the earlier Cumberland bay episode. I haven't read anything yet about disease and the British in Havana 1762. Will look further into it.--Zleitzen 06:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd love to see some references. (Despite being a Brit in Cuba, I am almost as ignorant of this episode as the average Cuban !) -- Beardo 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Cuban War of Independence
I cannot believe that there isn't a separate article on the Cuban War of Independence (when there is on the Ten Years War) - unless it is under another name. I wonder about starting it by copying what is here. -- Beardo 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Article overall
There are lot's of things that need work. Not enough pre-1959, too much post.

There needs to be something about Angola (that looms large in the history of Cubans - almost the way Vietnam does for Americans - except the side Cuba supported won. There are lots of veterans wounded there. [Does anyone have statistics on Cuba's casualities]. Many Cubans first trip overseas was to Angola. (Either that or a separate article).

The section on Castro's illness is way too long, as it is covered in detail elsewhere. In the long term it will not be a main section - a footnote in the history.

-- Beardo 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Cuban Involvement in Africa
Cuba was actively involved in Africa for 25 years. Cuban Intervention in Guinea-Bissau and Angola was instrumental in ending imperialism in Africa and in the independence of Namibia. At the hight of their involvement there were 450.000 Cuban troops involved in a war against FNLA and UNITA, the latter supported by South Africa; very unique and no small feat for a little country halfway around the world. Cuba keeps the numbers of its fallen soldiers secret. Estimates go up to 10.000.

All this considered i do find it surprising that there is no mention of this in Cuba's recent history. Sundar1 11:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction: The 450.000 troops refer to the overall involvement over the period of 25 years which, in light of the total population of Cuba, is an impressive figure. Sundar1 (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Battle of Cuito Cuanavale and its outcome is disputed to this day with a vast amount of sources taking opposing views. Some have great difficulty in understanding the other view is different than a defense of apartheid. For accuracy's sake I've balanced it out. Virgil61 (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, and you have some good sources. Natalie (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Granma 1 agosto 06.jpg
Image:Granma 1 agosto 06.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cuba comment
Well if you ask me i think cuba is a beautiful and most sightful places ever-xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.221.158 (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

bias
This article seems fairly heavily biased towards not only Batista but also the USA. There are a lot of subjective comments which seem to to use fairly vague sources or sources of questionable authority that were published at the height of anti-communist propaganda in the USA. This isn't surprising given the amount of Cuban exiles who are quite vocal about Castro but it is disappointing to see them vandalise an article like this on Wikipedia.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Biased as hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.5.233 (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

yea its pretty terrible, even by anti-castro standards. especially the "socialism" section. it reads more like a rambling polemic, and a bad one at that, rather then an encyclopedia article. - anon

Is there any verification that 20,000 dissidents were imprisoned "in any given year"? It is obvious that the scale of repressions in 1950-1960s was much lager than in 1970s - present day. Olegwiki (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article cites a supporting source for this claim but does not specify a page number. It turns out that the source is partially previewable via Google books, and the support is found on page 194. Note 12 on that point in the book probably cites a further source, but that note would appear on Page 207, which is not previewable. Perhaps your local library has a copy of the book. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Cuba recognizes that this article article needs a massive amount of work (clean up, npov, fact checking, source checking etc), and has that flagged as "Urgent!!" [inserted:that was for the Cuba article. They have this article tagged as currently undergoing verification.]. They would probably welcome additional participants. Wtmitchell Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Black Book of Communism" is not neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.152.118 (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of recent revert, request for comment on concerns
User:Luis Napoles, I have recently reverted this large edit you made to this article with the explanation of "clean up" - and thus I wanted to take the chance here to explain my reasoning for doing so - and allow you to provide rationale for the array of alterations which took place in this single edit. In chronological order:

(1) I'm not quite sure why you removed the note that "native populations were rapidly declining"? This fact is not in dispute and could easily be sourced. (2) To your deletions regarding the U.S. Foraker Amendment etc, do you dispute the factual accuracy of these notations, or are you removing them because the citation needed tag you possibly placed there was not answered?

(3) You have chosen to remove the terms of the Platt Amendment. Do you dispute that these were in fact the terms, or are you removing this because you were unable to locate a ref? The latter could easily be done.

(4) You removed the sentence stating that the Platt Amendment "gave the United States the right to intervene militarily in Cuba". Is this something that you dispute from a factual standpoint?

(5) You also removed notations that "Havana and Varadero became tourist resorts, adorned with casinos and strip-clubs." Is your removal from this that you dispute its factual accuracy, its relevance? etc

(6) You deleted the entire section on "Opposition to the Regime". Do you dispute that this is relevant to the History of Cuba, or that it is not accurate?

(7) You unilaterally removed the July 2009 POV tag on the "repression" section.

(8) You have switched the terms "liberation movements" to "communist groups". Although many of these groups prescribed to some sort of socialist/marxist/communist ideology - they also classified themselves as "liberation movements". Do you find the term in itself to be pov, even if it were used in quotations to denote that this is the way those groups described themselves?

(9) Perhaps most puzzling, you have removed the description of Joseph Mobutu as a "long-time dictator" while then declaring that Laurent-Désiré Kabila became Congo's "new dictator". Not only did you not provide a source for the latter, but you also have offered no rationale for why you then do not recognize Mobutu as a dictator? (Nearly all are unanimous on this both left and right)

(10) You have removed mention of the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale which had no fact tag or anything and merely called it a "military excursion", is it your view that this somehow provides more information to the reader?

(11) You removed all external links with recent material, except for a 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Cuba? What makes this link more valid than any of the others?

Thanks for your time, and please take your time providing a response if you'd like. Red thoreau (talk)RT 07:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "This fact is not in dispute and could easily be sourced". Then source it. If it has been unreferenced for a while, in this case for two years, it must go.Luis Napoles (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sugar plantations in the 1800s
"In the 1800s, Cuban sugar plantations became the most important world producer of sugar, thanks to the expansion of slavery and a relentless focus on improving the island's sugar technology. Use of modern refining techniques was especially important because the British abolished the slave trade in 1807 and, after 1815, began forcing other countries to follow suit. Cubans were torn between the profits generated by sugar and a repugnance for slavery, which they saw as morally, politically, and racially dangerous to their society. By the end of the nineteenth century, slavery was abolished.

However, leading up to the abolition of slavery, Cuba gained great prosperity from its sugar trade. Originally, the Spanish had ordered regulations on trade with Cuba, which kept the island from becoming a dominant sugar producer. The Spanish were interested in keeping their trade routes and slave trade routes protected. Nevertheless, Cuba's vast size and abundance of natural resources made it an ideal place for becoming a booming sugar producer. When Spain opened the Cuban trade ports, it quickly became a popular place. New technology allowed a much more effective and efficient means of producing sugar. They began to use water mills, enclosed furnaces, and steam engines to produce a higher quality of sugar at a much more efficient pace than elsewhere in the Caribbean.

The boom in Cuba's sugar industry in the nineteenth century made it necessary for Cuba to improve its means of transportation. Planters needed safe and efficient ways to transport the sugar from the plantations to the ports, in order to maximize their returns. Many new roads were built, and old roads were quickly repaired. Railroads were built early and changed the way that perishable sugar cane (within one or two days after the cane is cut easily crystallizable sucrose sugar has "inverted" to turn into far less recoverable glucose and fructose sugars) is collected and allowing more rapid and effective sugar transportation. It was now possible for plantations all over this large island to have their sugar shipped quickly and easily. The prosperity seen from the boom in sugar production is a major reason that Cuban ethnicity became further enriched by new influx of Spanish migrants. Many Spaniards immigrated to Cuba, calling it a place of refuge."

The section is unsourced. Could somebody find sources for these paragraphs? Luis Napoles (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Proclamation of Montecristi
This is unsourced: "On 25 December 1895 three ships loaded with fighters and weapons, the Lagonda, the Almadis and the Baracoa set sail for Cuba from Fernandina Beach, Florida, loaded with weapons and supplies that had been difficult and costly to obtain. Two of the ships were seized by US authorities in early January, who also alerted the Spanish government, but the proceedings went ahead. Not to be dissuaded, on 25 March Martí presented the Proclamation of Montecristi (Manifesto de Montecristi) which outlined the policy for Cuba’s war of independence:
 * the war was to be waged by blacks and whites alike;
 * participation of all blacks was crucial for victory;
 * Spaniards who did not object to the war effort should be spared,
 * private rural properties should not be damaged; and
 * the revolution should bring new economic life to Cuba." Luis Napoles (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is copied from here.Luis Napoles (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ramon Leocadio Bonachea
I seek information on my great grandfather. I understand that he was a member of the nationalist forces and was exiled to the US in order to avoid arrest and execution. Oscar Cano  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.140.82 (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Try the reference desk. -- Trevj (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparent error
I haven't tagged this -- it looks to me like an error, but it may be a misunderstanding on my part. The article asserts, "The 1940 Constitution, which Julia E. Sweig describes as extraordinarily progressivist, was adopted by Batista administration.[70][71] The constitution denied Batista the possibility to run consecutively in the 1944 election." I am unable to find such a prohibition in the 1940 Cuban Constitution. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.historyofnations.net/northamerica/cuba.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The "Modern era" section
Is the "Modern era" section supposed to be "recent bad things about Cuba"? It contains nothing about the reforms, nothing about the economic rebound (its GDP/capita went up from $2300 in 1998 to $6000 in 2011) and the newly-found focus on tourism. It doesn't mention at all its close relationship with Chavez's Venezuela or Cuban medical internationalism.

Now it looks like a piece of anti-Cuban propaganda. bogdan (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC),
 * Good suggestions. I'll add some info and refs on the Cuban economy, medical int. etc. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. The Modern era section is more balanced now. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on History of Cuba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130612075403/http://www.elnuevoherald.com/209/story/112259.html to http://www.elnuevoherald.com/209/story/112259.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Indian should be indigenous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cuba#Spanish_conquest_and_early_colonization

this paragraph is especially guilty. Descriptor "indian" is antiquated language which now more specifically suggests asian decent. Indigenous is more specific / accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comomomo (talk • contribs) 03:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Cuba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090709154810/http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/000797.html to http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/000797.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828201858/http://www.canf.org/2005/1es/noticias-de-Cuba/2005-nov-07-el-campo-de-entrenamiento.htm to http://www.canf.org/2005/1es/noticias-de-Cuba/2005-nov-07-el-campo-de-entrenamiento.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090321182911/http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=16771 to http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=16771
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090702082005/http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Cuba_report.pdf to http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Cuba_report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Cuba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090713105818/http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/ca/cuba/asce/cuba8/30smith.pdf to http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/ca/cuba/asce/cuba8/30smith.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120709162710/http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/FACTS_Web/Cuba%20Facts%20Issue%2043%20December.htm to http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/FACTS_Web/Cuba%20Facts%20Issue%2043%20December.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301123039/http://sshl.ucsd.edu/collections/las/cuba/1990.html to http://sshl.ucsd.edu/collections/las/cuba/1990.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

EW GROSS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.217.31.57 (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Anti-colonial rhetoric
Noticed there is some strong anti-colonial rhetoric in the Early Spanish Colonization section, focussing solely on the crimes of Spanish colonizers, with little to nothing about the actual development of colonial infrastructure or the role it played in expanding the Spanish Empire. The main source is a book from a disgraced former British journalist and KGB asset, which cannot be considered objective or credible.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Adolescente reconcentrado. Restos óseos de miles de víctimas..jpg

Politics
The section under politics has paragraphs with no citation or improper citation. Much work is needed to clean up the citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshaparvathi (talk • contribs) 18:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Undoing vandalism
I've just removed a small silly edit. The text I've removed read "However, they took the haitians [sic] sugar while the haitians where [sic] fighting in war and now they have sugar in their tanks. They are to be believed 98% flamboyant." This was between mention of the Ten Years' War and the Spanish American war. I'm only writing here because this is my first time doing something like this, so if really does believe there's merit to the Haitian-Cuban Sugar Crisis, they can make their case. Entomas (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Precise timeline, please
It would be helpful if months were provided, so that readers could have a sense of the pace of Castro's actions. For example: dates, or at least months, should be provided for the following: "The new government of Cuba soon encountered opposition from militant groups and from the United States, which had supported Batista politically and economically.[153] Fidel Castro quickly purged political opponents from the administration. Loyalty to Castro and the revolution became the primary criterion for all appointments."Dogru144 (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Concern re image
After seeing this image removal from the Spanish–American War article, I have added a discuss tag to the caption of which appears in the Escalation of the war section of this article. I'm not a regular uploader or maintainer of images, but perhaps some action needs to be taken on the image page or its talk page as well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)