Talk:Cuba/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Revolution and Communist party rule (1959–present) outdated information

The 1959-present history section has some outdated information concerning Raul. At the bottom it talks about how Raul hopes to introduce term limits and what not as President, however he is no longer President. It would also help to include some information regarding Miguel Diaz-Canel, the new President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.67.122 (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Totalitarian states

I think that Category:Totalitarian states should be removed from this article. While Cuba was arguably totalitarian under Fidel Castro, his death has now downgraded the Cuban regime from totalitarian to authoritarian. As such, Cuba is not presently a totalitarian state and therefore should not included in this category. (The Professor (Time Lord) (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

Cuba is ranked 82th in population rather than 82nd.

Is this based on a regional variation or is it just a mistake? Kankyaku (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I would guess a mistake. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

We may have some of the best 1rd-class editors here at Wikipedia, but even we make mistakes. Thanks for catching it, Kankyaku! I have now fixed it. Since your talk page is still red, I'll be templating you shortly. Feel free to stop by the Teahouse if you ever need any help! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

We are facing small problem in the article that should be solved

This paragraph should be removed, because it is missing a lot of sources and informations. About the history of Cuba it is fully explained in the top of the paragraph; and this something does not need to add any paragraph. Zozr789 (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't delete a paragraph because it's missing sources when it already has other sources in it. If you believe there are sources that can improve the article, please present them. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Alcohol Prohibition in the United States

For the section Republic (1902–59) / First years (1902–1925), it seems helpful to understand that tourists from the United States were able to openly purchase and consume alcohol in Cuba. Perhaps the sentence "During his administration, at the time of Alcohol Prohibition in the United States, tourism increased markedly and American-owned hotels and restaurants were built to accommodate the influx of tourists." Sonja Strom (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit request--religious composition

Religious composition figures do not total 100% (and no, it's not "due to rounding"). 65% Christian figure is given and then 23% unaffiliated and 17% folk. This adds to 105%. The source that provides the 23% and 17% figures gives 59% Christian. Later, "less than half" the population was Catholic in 2006, whereas in the opening paragraph 60% were Catholic in 2016 (no source given for 2016 figures). Continuity here would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:105:B002:1101:A466:930E:F9C8:810D (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's very possible that some people have more than one religious affiliation. The way many Caribbean peoples have mixed folk religion, and particularly African voodoo; and Catholicism is well known. Similarly, in Japan there has long been a complicated affair where most people identify as secular, but adhere to strongly to some Zen Buddhist, and Shinto (their folk religion) beliefs and customs.

There is a similar effect with ethnic group percentages, with people identifying with more than one enthicity common, which leads to more than 100%. I do this myself as I am of quite disparate interracial descent, and our government here in New Zealand encourages this. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) 19:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thin Smek (talk • contribs)

Illustrating my point, the Religion section actually has a paragraph that states:

"The religious landscape of Cuba is also strongly defined by syncretisms of various kinds. Christianity is often practiced in tandem with Santería, a mixture of Catholicism and mostly African faiths, which include a number of cults. La Virgen de la Caridad del Cobre (the Virgin of Cobre) is the Catholic patroness of Cuba, and a symbol of Cuban culture. In Santería, she has been syncretized with the goddess Oshun."

Remember also that you might be pitting an estimation against an actual identification. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) 10:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thin Smek (talk • contribs)

Article contradicting itself on what Constitution is current

The country Infobox declares this:

Current constitution 24 February 1976

via this:

| established_event6 = Current constitution | established_date6 = 24 February 1976

However, the first paragraph of "Government and politics" section contains this:

The Constitution of 1976, which defined Cuba as a socialist republic, was replaced by the Constitution of 1992, which is "guided by the ideas of José Martí and the political and social ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin."[4]

Someone needs to go and check what constitution is current or otherwise explain the apparent contradiction. As I have no expertise in Cuban governance and politics, neither learnt Spanish, I should probably give it a pass. Thank you. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The current constitution of Cuba, dates from april 10 of 2019, so my suggestion is to update that field

The official statement in Spanish http://www.parlamentocubano.gob.cu/index.php/proclamada-nueva-constitucion-de-la-republica-de-cuba/

The official news in English http://en.granma.cu/cuba/2019-04-10/the-new-constitution-and-enduring-values — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgazapo (talk • contribs) 15:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Internet

Hi there, this section needs to be updated. The information is from over 8 years ago. Right now Cuba has an exponential grow in its Internet connection. There are more than 1200 public WIFI hotspots in parks, streets and squares, more than 670 cybercafés, and since Dec 2018 3G mobile data network is available in most of the country and even 4G in some areas of Havana and touristic zones as Varadero Beach. Also, very recently became legal to have an Internet connection and private WIFI at home. In addition, the current information it's not totally accurated on the "goverment control" issue, it looks like Cubans can't post a status on Facebook without being censored by the goverment, which is not true at all. Just an example of the liberty on the Internet we have that very recently two demostrations against goverment policies on LGBT rights and animal protection were organized using social media platforms.

Here are some references (All of them in Spanish though): http://www.trabajadores.cu/20181218/cuba-por-la-4g-en-2019/

https://www.infobae.com/america/the-new-york-times/2019/08/01/cuba-expande-el-acceso-a-internet-en-casas-y-negocios-privados/

https://www.bnamericas.com/es/noticias/cuba-pretende-tener-4g-en-capitales-proviciales-este-ano

https://www.bnamericas.com/es/noticias/cuba-reporta-18-millones-de-usuarios-de-internet-movil-en-40-dias

https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-48261027

--Yazle (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Fate of the Cuban indigenous peoples

Hi. I have added a summary of the cruel fate of the three indigenous peoples in Cuba. It was extracted from the wiki-articles on each people, namely Taíno, Guanahatabey and Ciboney. I have now added a singular ref to that summary as well to establish a better reffing, as it was brought up by a concerned editor.

While digging out singular refs, I discovered that cultural remains from the indigenous peoples has survived in Cuba and that genetically they are still present in Cuba's present population in a mix with African and European genes. An interesting subject. I haven't put up any info on that yet, though. But thought I would like to mention it. RhinoMind (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

2 problems ...first - we have no working source (cant just say see some other page). secondly we mention this in the appropriate section with sources that readers can see and work. Is there more we can say in the proper section perhaps..but the current addition is not an imprvment in my view. Your free to ask others what they think.--Moxy 🍁 22:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is what I added. I have corrected a dash-error in the ref-cite:

"The European colonialists attacked and displaced these indigenous tribes, used the them for deadly forced labor and slavery on a grand scale, and unintentionally brought lethal diseases their communities until their total destruction in the course of the 1500s."

There are all the refs needed. You can delete the help-note if you want, the content will still be properly reffed for inclusion.

The info is only sporadically touched in the following section on the Spanish rule, without any consistent conclusion. It is important to include a summary of their fate where these people are mentioned. It's fine that details are elaborated on in the Spanish rule section, but a summary is indeed in need to explain that they don't exist anymore. RhinoMind (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure you understand what the problem is.....there is no mention of slavery in the source. I have no doubt we can find sources....but still don't think it's in the right place.--Moxy 🍁 23:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure either. If you think we need more solid refs on the mine and plantation slavery of the indigenous peoples, I will try to dig something proper up on that. You are welcome to help out too.

So, where would the right place for the info be then? (According to you that is) RhinoMind (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Yup just need some academic sources to say "grand scale" or "deadly force". As for section....it should be in the section about 1500s if slavery is the intended topic or in the section it is now if we can give a modern overview of stats like at Canada.--Moxy 🍁 02:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2019

HDI section of the of the side box- change 73th to 73rd. 147.70.46.156 (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.76.160.102 (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Original information about Cuba and it's racial demographics.

I find that some of the information is false.

Cuba is not 64% White, because the very same people who claim to be white are actually mixed race who passed for white.

51% of the population is actually mixed race 37% of the population is white, and 11% of the population is actually black.

it's been this way for a very very long time and it suddenly there's been recent changes.

Some people over exaggerate or overstate but somebody is a liar. Robeyrobs (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 April 2020

2012 Census of Cuba (latest): White 64.1 %, Mulatto or mixed 26.6 % and Black 9.3 %. The CIA accepts this data in its Cuba profile (cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html) on The World Factbook. The current racial distribution in this article is wrong (1998 data is wrong too) and obsolete. It should be changed. Bitholov (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Izno (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Official population data of Cuba

The latest data about race of the population of Cuba is the 2012 Census of Cuba. This is the source of the current race data in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62Bitholov (talk • contribs) 23:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 April 2020

I just want to edit a small thing in the Cuba article. The part that mentions mulattoes. It's written as " Cuba is 51% mulatto (mixed-race Spanish/African)" when in reality Mulattoes are mixed race of White and African not just Spanish. And Spaniards aren't the only White people that immigrated to Cuba. IceBrotherhood (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Izno (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The population make up of my country as you have it now as of April 2020 is totally 100% misleading. To talk about Cuba's ethnic make up you have to take a long and hard look at all the historical development that started in 1511 when Diego Velasquez de Cuellar arrived in Cuba from Hispaniola and begun the colonization of my country. First of all the first slaves introduced into Cuba were white from Hispaniola later as the indigenous population of today's Dominican Republic continued to decline and was necessary to import large amounts of Africans then Spanish authorities in Cuba decided to import some black slaves in order not to repeat the same atrocities that took place in Hispaniola with the indigenous population there. In Cuba however due to warfare an important part of the male population died and also many took part in the conquest of Mexico, Florida and Central America there were even Cuban Indians in Guatemala. From that day on the mixing has been between mainly white males but also black men to a lesser degree with indigenous women all through the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century even the 20th century. But from the 17th century on important white enclaves of white families particularly from Spain but also other Europeans particularly Germans continued to come and enrich the racial fabric of my beloved country. So mestizos (Spanish but also other Europeans)with Amerindian women has been the norm with zambos (indian/black) pardos (white,black,indian) and yes later mulatos (blak/white) followed. I also want to remind you that an important population Amerindians exist and is growing more and more they make up 8% of Cuba's total population. The majority of Black Africans begun to arrive in Cuba in early 19th century with an important amount imported by the British in the 18th century to head start sugar cane production, this took place during the British invasion of Havana in the 17th century. Here you have the historical base to establish three main racial groups that have contributed to Cuba's racial make up. To this we have to add Chinese introduced mainly from the Philipines as indentured servants along with a large contingent on Maya Indians from the Yucatan which help strengthen Cuba's Amerindian heritage but white's continued to arrive in the 20th century but also in the 19th century. Putting all this together will help us arrive at a more accurate presentation of Cuba's racial make up. We Cubans particularly those living in Cuba are particularly mindful of all this talk about mulatos that conspire to still from us our Amerindian heritage which truly defines (Cubania} being Cuban.

We cannot compare Cuba with neither the Dominican Republic or even Puerto Rico (two different worlds) because the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico were colonized first and a lot took place with their indigenous population that did not take place with ours in Cuba. Remember the whole idea that motivated Diego Velasquez to start colonization of Cuba was that he did not want to repeat what had taken place in Hispaniola. In 1550 Mr Angulo arrived in Cuba from Mexico he decided to end the enslavement of the American Indian and many Indian pueblos were established throughout Cuba which did not happen neither in the Dominican Republic or in Puerto Rico. With all this info I have not included the migration from Florida of Native Americans and whites particularly Spaniards running away from the changes that happened in that state as the Brits moved in to consolidate their presence in that part of the United States.

Cubans have this tendency to call Indians mulatos so when President Fulgencio Batista rose to power back in the twentieth century himself a Cuban Indian from Banes s town in eastern Cuba whcih at that time had a ethnia called Bani Indians. They are still there tough more assimilated. Some people particularly black Cubans prefer to treat him as one of is own an the tried to define him as a mulato, so begung the definition of anybody who did not look white as mulatos, and this particularly took place after the triumph of the Cuban revolution of 1959 when our Indian heritage took a back seat in order to give our black population the recognition that they deserved for having such an important role in the formation of our country because the dominant opinion was "it is better to be part Indian than part black" or having anything to do with black heritage.

The definition that you originally had there of Cuba being white 60% mestizo or was /and mulato 26.6% and black 9.3% was an acurate one even though you leave Amerindians who make up 8% of Cuba's population out but it is assumed that they are part in the mestizo component.

It is important that you reinstate that definition. I wonder who makes the decision to change that definition and on what historical account do the base their argument.

J L Molina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:442:C380:A0F0:C58B:3EC:FDF9:59EA (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The cuba ethnicity

The ethnicity portion was changed from a 2012 study to a 1998 study. It is incorrect and should be change back to reflect the current, proper demographics. Chilee2k (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

No one is going to do that, because a group of people are in the state of denial.

The way I see it, more than half the people who identify themselves as white in Cuba, or actually mulattoes which are the true majority.

Robeyrobss (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Most of the people in Cuba are mulatto, I don't understand why people like you would classify themselves as white.

In the Dominican republic, almost three-quarters of the population are mixed race.

You won't find mulattoes in the Dominican republic classic find himself as white, so what gives Cuba the privilege to classify themselves as white? Robeyrobss (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You are not Cuban and you base your approach to Cuban ethnicity on the opinions of Cuba's diaspora in the United States. Nobody can expect to arrive at an accurate and serious study of the topic on less you go to the home country and see how Cubans view themselves vs the historical background and the genetic studies which has been put in place since 2002, helps to arrive at the current ethnic definition whch is mestizos/and mulattoes. This is a very accurate description of Cuba's ethnicity. J.L.Molina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:442:C380:A0F0:35B4:402B:8637:7EA1 (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Discrepancy of ethnicity and race.

Why someone Wikipedia keep changing the racial/ethnic composition of Cuba?

I'm being very serious about. I want to go on Wikipedia and research information about different countries because that's what I do that's what I love doing.

First states that Cuba is 65% White, then just two days ago someone changed it and stated that Cuba is 51% mulatto.

The last time I checked back in 2007 and 2008 Cuba was 51% mulatto and Cuba has been a mulatto Nation for a very very long time.

Suddenly in 2012 the white population rebounded and became the majority?

I'm not buying it for a long shot. Most people that I know who are from Cuba, states that most humans are mulatto, whites are second, then the blacks, then there's a small number of Chinese people.

Why is someone doing this? I believe that more than half the people who are mulatto, claim that they are white or have been at advance to White status, because mulatto see the cultural privileges that why Cubans have?

This information can be very misleading, and I don't like it one bit. Why is there always a discrepancy of Cuba's racial and ethnic composition serratus history?

Cuba has been mestizo (Spanish/European/Amerindian) mixture and then Black/Amerindian and White/Amerindian/Black mixture. Let me remind you that in Cuba and most Latin American nations mestizo and mulattoe mixture are intertwined to describe non-white Native Americans are regarded as people of color (non-black) but a very specialized type of mongoloid very multiphacetted therefore sometimes the confusion. the white population around the world is getting smaller and smaller, I don't believe for a second that the white population in Cuba is getting bigger and bigger.

hypodescent is the norm in Latin America, and I think that's what's going on. Robeyrobss (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

--Ok, first, there may be multiply reasons for why someone might self-identify as different from ones genes, assumed ethnicity etc. Secondly, the source for the figure is the CIA, so... it's possible the US government has an interest portraying things a certain way, so why don't you find better sources? Thirdly, it's not Wikipedia that keep changing the figures, but users like you and I. Fourthly, the source claims the figure is based on Cuban Census data from 2012 where people self-indemnified, some other countries which still uses old style censuses may have different practices where people might not at all be asked this question or asked it in a different way that would lead to a different outcome. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

As it was being explained recently in CUBAMAX television station which can be monitored through Dish cable during the 16,17,18,and 19 century the process of assimilation and missigenaion between Spanish/and other Europeans and Indians forming a mestizo population Spanish colonial authorities decided to categorize mestizos and even Indigenous as whites so in the 60% or 63% of White population count about 35% are of indigenous background. According to their opinions recently the population has demanded the that a reclassifying of the population take place in order to explain Cuba's ethnic composition more accurately. I want to appologize for a misquote of the British invasion that really took place in the 18th century around 1762 to be more exact previously I had mistakenly said that this invasion had taken place in the 17th century.

Btw, I actually looked up the figures you referenced and they seem to be based on the US State department figures/estimates. So the 'problem' I think is that we currently have different conflicting US government sources, if someone could find a better less self-conflicting and non-biased source (After all, see Cuba–United States relations for potential bias Cuba and US might have for each other based on their already rosy relations towards each other]] Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Verifiability challenge

Wikipedia's verifiability policy states: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." This policy is not being respected in recent edits to the article. Gatedais (talk · contribs), this is a formal verifiability challenge concerning your recent edits, namely this run of nine edits and this run of sixteen, as well as recent previous edits of yours. Please add citations for all assertions of fact added in these edits. When I removed such material, your response was to revert (here and here) contrary to policy, which states: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." You don't have the right to add unsupported content to the article, and you don't have the right to restore it when it has been removed by another editor for cause. I already explained this to you at your talk page, but you haven't responded, other than to remove the notices. Please now provide sourcing for all content you added recently, and explain why your removal of sourced content is an improvement to the article. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

A brand new editor is adding unsourced content

A new editor at Wikipedia is adding unsourced content to the article, and removing sourced content and references. I've sent them a couple of messages at their Talk page about this and invited them to come here to talk out their desired changes, but instead, they just reverted, and pushed their content in again. This bears watching. Mathglot (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

User is continuing to unilaterally remove sourced content and add unsourced content without explanation in another round of edits. Previous notifications at their talk page have been removed without comment, so I left them another one. This is starting to become disruptive. I will issue a verifiability challenge below. Mathglot (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

😂😂😂😂😂 You’re pathetic. Gatedais (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

There is continuing disruption at this article, and this user is acting in an ownership fashion, plowing ahead with no edit summaries, reverts anyone who gets in his way, even when accused of copyright problems, and still has not respond to valid concerns raised above. I'm not at this article much, and regulars should make a stand here. If it were up to me, I would seek consensus to roll this article back to version 961784453‎ of 11:35, June 10, 2020 by User:Bitholov. This disruption at the article needs to stop. Mathglot (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations

This article may have copyright violations from two or three sources:

• Earwig 67.1 – weebly.com
• 42.5 – catbull.com
• "Unite!, Vol. 2, No. 6, December 1976-January 1977" – (as credited by catbull)
• 42.5 – marxists.org

Thanks to Asukite for finding the original one. Mathglot (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverting edits by block-evading socks

I have been removing edits by block-evading socks. After removing content by three older editors, more recent editor Gatedais was identified as a block-evading sock. Removing his edits piecemeal is impossible; there are too many. This requires a rollback to revision 961784453 of 11:35, June 10, 2020. Although Gatedais had by far the majority of edits during this period, this will also remove edits by the following users:

details of edits by 14 users which may need restoration

975205296 by Frogfoot9013 (talk · contribs) – typo 974081474 by Ira Leviton (talk · contribs) – lang tags 973106633 by Tobby72 (talk · contribs) – new image 972077164 by CaribDigita (talk · contribs) 971147338 by Diannaa (talk · contribs) – remove copyrighted content 970919910 by Epelerenon (talk · contribs) – (user blocked) religion sources revert 970860488 by The Sr Guy (talk · contribs) – religion sources 970327323 by Asukite (talk · contribs) – revert plagiarism 970196238 by Basvanpernis (talk · contribs) 969527674 by Beardo (talk · contribs) 969073660 by Mathglot (talk · contribs) – undo unsourced 968525579‎‎-968525876 by Equinox (talk · contribs) – grammar}} (3 edits) 968370491 by Bracewell94 (talk · contribs) 966182945 by Haribanshnp (talk · contribs) – UCB gadget

Most of the edits in this list will be moot and not require a re-do or other action, because they are corrections or follow-on edits to rolled back material. If you believe your edit is still needed, there are two possibilities:

• ping me below, specify the revision number or timestamp of your edit, and I will redo your edit for you;
• if you prefer, you can redo your edit yourself. (let me know which).

Note that the removal of copyrighted material in rev. 971147338 by Diannaa takes precedence over the other edits and cannot wait; I will review that immediately after the rollback, and re-do the removal if necessary.

There's an irony here: my last six edits at the article removed content by three block-evading socks; this rollback will *restore* all of that content; I will have to redo those fairly tedious edits myself (unless someone else wants to help with that). For the record, they are these:

previous removals that may need to be reapplied

812610130 of 21:02, November 28, 2017 by Stumink (talk · contribs) 814988928 of 02:19, December 12, 2017 by Cskamoscow100 (talk · contribs) 942139774 of 21:15, February 22, 2020 by Minketorn (talk · contribs) 947037281 of 22:27, March 23, 2020 by Minketorn (talk · contribs) 951539262 of 17:41, April 17, 2020 by Minketorn (talk · contribs) several edits of 09:07, April 29 – 16:10, May 3, 2020 by Minketorn (talk · contribs)

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Rollback complete; copyright issue has been reviewed, and the copyrighted material was not restored as part of the rollback, so the prior removal of copyrighted material in rev. 971147338 by Diannaa is moot, and does not need to be reapplied.

For edits of other users pinged above, I'll wait a decent interval (couple of weeks?) to see if anyone prefers to examine/re-do their edits themself, otherwise I'll restore any edit at the end of that period that still needs doing. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller, can you look at the most recent edit history at Cuba? The rollback was removed within minutes by Ingrode (talk · contribs) in rev. 976029537 of 9:57, August 31, 2020. Can you please revert their edit, and block Ingrode? The odds that they are not a block-evading sock of Gatedais/Krajoyn are close to zero. I think they might be getting increasingly desperate. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Also at Europe. Mathglot (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. This article is a real mess as most of the edits since the end of June were by Gatedais. Doug Weller talk 09:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. As far as the "mess", I had previously removed Gatedais's edits, but they were restored immediately by Ingrode; now that they're blocked (thanks for that) I've redone the removal. This removed some possibly good edits, already listed above, although I suspect most of them are moot. The rollback undid my previous removals of edits by three other socks (listed above) but I think they're mostly redone, now. I'm going back further, and finding the history littered with Krajoyn socks, some of which I've started to remove, notably Minketorn, but a few others as well. Mathglot (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Background context

Just by way of explanation to anyone landing here and lacking the context of what's been going on at the article: this discussion section above notes problems with the edits by Gatedais (talk · contribs) at this article. The reason Gatedais went blindly forward doing whatever they wanted with no concern about policy, guidelines, edit summaries, or anyone else's opinion, is that they are one of a very long list of sockpuppets of Krajoyn (talk · contribs); they just keep doing whatever they want until they get blocked, and then they create another sockpuppet and keep right on going where they left off, sometimes editing the same article with multiple accounts at the same time. If you go back through the history of Cuba, Europe, and other articles, you will see a lot of sockpuppets who have been active there. Krajoyn and all of his sockpuppets, past, present, and future are indefinitely banned from editing at Wikipedia. If you see activity that you suspect is from someone abusively using multiple accounts (here, or anywhere), please file a report. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic groups?

What is going on here? There is no racial segregation based on skin colour in Cuba. And skin colour has never defined ethnicity. This is a US policy, and by no means a universal policy. So why enforce this on Cuba? It doesn't make any sense. I don't care how CIA views the world. It doesn't matter any bit in this regard.

If we are going to add ethnic groups, Cuba has real ethnic groups to add. Ethnic groups like the indigenous indians for example. [1] RhinoMind (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

(better ping some of those involved: @AnglicanNights:) RhinoMind (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@RhinoMind people are classified as White, black, mixed (mestizo, mulato), indigenous. See Argentina, Dominican Republic, Uruguay etc. The figure stated in the article is from Cuban census as quoted by CIA. AnglicanNights (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Skin colour does not define ethnicity. How can anyone claim that?

I understand that the US (and some similar slave nations in the Americas) have a fixation on peoples skin colour. And classifies people according to skin colour, as you say. But it has nothing to do with ethnicity. RhinoMind (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It's the Cuban government that has divided its people along these racial lines and CIA has simply quoted their census figure. I do agree with the fact that ethnicity doesn't equate to race necessarily (at least in the Latin American sense). However, the figures do provide an important insight into the country's demography and aren't dubious. RegardsNiniopad (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Niniopad is a sock of an indef blocked user.VR _talk 13:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I don't know if what you say is true or not, but I can attest that Cuba has a strange (or let's say unique) way of viewing ethnicity among its population. I think the article would benefit from elaborating on this issue. It is also touched on in the article I posted in my first comment about indigenous people in Cuba. RhinoMind (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

RhinoMind, would you like to take another look at this? As noted in previous discussion sections above, there has been a lot of sockpuppet activity at this article, and as it happens, everyone you discussed with previously in this section is a blocked sock. If you think the ethnicity figures in the article are amiss, I'd suggest you take another look at the situation, and do whatever you think is right, within the confines of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and any other relevant guidelines, of course. Mathglot (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, it seems they have both fallen through, but what they said is still relevant to the issue, I think. I haven't spend any time checking up on the claims though, so the arguments might fall apart as well, if checked properly. I can't say right now.

I was really hoping we could address the whole ethnicity issue in relation to Cuba in the article. And not just erase the etnicity-skin color figures in the info-box. Cuba has some strange ways of approaching ethnicity, and it would really help to elaborate on it in the article itself. I am no expert on this issue, and was hoping for a proper and sound discussion, with inputs from editors who know more. Still hopes. RhinoMind (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@RhinoMind:, yes, I think doing it the article rather than the Infobox is probably the right approach, although if we remove it from the Infobox, some later editor may think it's an oversight, and just add it back. Maybe we need to add a hidden comment there, if we do.

There's been some recent fiddling with ethnicity figures, and refs, again lately; I've undone them, and restored the 2005 CIA ref for now; that may be out of date, but rather that, than some wildly different figures of uncertain provenance. This whole article attracts a lot of people with a particular point of view to push, as well as socks, so we have to be vigilant. Even if the current content isn't ideal, it's better than just letting it be POVved to death. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2020

Under Castro, Cuba was involved in a broad range of military and (Change: humanitarian activity To: military activities) in Guinea-Bissau, Syria, Angola, Algeria, South Yemen, North Vietnam, Laos, Zaire, Iraq, Libya, Zanzibar, Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Somalia, Ethiopia, Congo-Brazzaville, Sierra Leone, Cape Verde, Nigeria, Benin, Cameroon, Zimbabwe and Mozambique.[19] Cuba sent more than 400,000 of its citizens to fight in Angola (1975–91) and defeated South Africa's armed forces in conventional warfare involving tanks, planes, and artillery.[20] Cuban intervention in Angola contributed to the downfall of the apartheid regime in South Africa.[21] Donarcher (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Comment: If it is already mentioned in the existing sources, please point it out. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 09:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Unsupported claim regarding home ownership

I recently found this statement: "There is virtually no homelessness in Cuba, and 85% of Cubans own their homes and pay no property taxes or mortgage interest. Mortgage payments may not exceed 10% of a household's combined income." This does not have a citation, but when I searched online for this information, it came up on the site 'King Weekly Sentinel' under the header of 'Looking for the ultimate utopian society': http://kingsentinel.com/?p=10271

However, I have not managed to find anything on the verifiability of this claim, especially given how significant it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1tome2 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the claim originates from this 2002 paper: Paramedicninja (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Reliability of TheCubanHistory.com

A recent edit added content sourced to TheCubanHistory.com, and there's at least one other use of this website going back a ways. User:AdrianCubano, I don't doubt your good faith in adding the content in that edit, but I do have questions about the reliability of the website "TheCubanHistory.com". If you check the guideline on WP:RELIABILITY, you'll see that we should base the article on "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (see WP:REPUTABLE). I'm not sure that this website meets that threshold, as it appears to me to be a self-published website by a single author (Arnoldo Varona), who provides no citations, and publishes without editorial review. That doesn't mean it's necessarily inaccurate, but it may not be high on the reliability scale, as it's very difficult to verify anything on the website.

Accordingly, I've started a discussion about this website at the Reliable sources Noticeboard, to get some other opinions about it. You can find the discussion here. There's already some good feedback there, and there may be more. Based on that discussion, I would say that we should not add content to this article which is based solely on TheCubanHistory.com; we should try to source it to a more reliable source.

Just as a general reminder: blogs and other self-published sources are generally not considered reliable sources for the purpose of WP:Verifiability, so please evaluate for reliability all the sources you use for the article. Also, be aware of published sources from Cuba that may be subject to governmental control. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I've removed some content from the section on #Revolution of 1933–1940, because it was sourced exclusively to this source. If it can be sourced to a reliable source, please feel free to re-add it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to refactor history section as summary of article

The #History section is long, and we already have an entire article on Cuban history. I propose that we refactor the #History section down to around a quarter to a third of its current size.

This article is 216kb (raw) and 79kb of prose; of which the #History section is about 1/3 of the total (see "section sizes" in the Talk header). Given that we already have an article on the History of Cuba (190kb raw; 112kb of prose), perhaps we should refactor the #History section here, cutting it back to make it shorter, and making it more of a summary of History of Cuba per WP:Summary style, after making sure that any unique information in the section is moved to the article before any cuts take place.

Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Potential Bias and Grammatical Errors in the Economy Section

The Economy section has several sections that seem to just restate a government position on various policies. I’m not sure how to fix this but perhaps a direct quotation would be better so the opinion is at least attributed. Otherwise, perhaps biased language could just be removed. There are also quite a few grammatical mistakes that seem like they may stem from the same Author.

Here’s an example with the most obvious grammatical issues highlighted: 2019, on June, the government announce increase the wages in the public sector, specially for the teachers and health personnel. The increase was about 300%.[246] Also, in October, the government open stores to by, through electronic cards, house equipment and similar using USD, Euros or other international currency, send it to Cuba by the cuban emigration. The leaders of the government recognized that the new measures were unpopular but necessary to contain the capital flight to other countries as Panamá where cuban citizens traveled and imported items to resell on the island.

I’m not familiar with editing Wikipedia so I haven’t made any changes to the page but did want to flag it as an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.164.121 (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

IP 98, thank you for mentioning this. You can do this yourself, if you wish. I've responded in more detail at your Talk page, explaining how. Mathglot (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Problems

1) The statement that the Cuban missile crisis almost led to WWIII needs a citation.

2) "Tourism was initially restricted to enclave resorts where tourists would be segregated from Cuban society, referred to as "enclave tourism" and "tourism apartheid".[257] Contact between foreign visitors and ordinary Cubans were de facto illegal between 1992 and 1997.[258] The rapid growth of tourism during the Special Period had widespread social and economic repercussions in Cuba, and led to speculation about the emergence of a two-tier economy.[259]" No. I guess this means that after the Revolution, tourism was initially restricted, but as it reads, it does not say that.

3) There is nothing about post-Obama restrictions.

4) There is nothing about the July 2021 demonstrations. 79.134.37.73 (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

1)  Done

2) Don't understand; what is your question, or what is your proposed improvement to the article?

3) WP:SOFIXIT; this is an all-volunteer project. Also, WP:NODEADLINE.

4) See #3.

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

There's no harm in suggesting parts of the page that can use improvement. "Do it yourself" to someone suggesting improvements to a page, even if they can do it themselves, is hardly constructive. They took time to point out ways other contributors could make the wiki a better place. 47.188.205.153 (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

According to the statistics, the main author of this page is an IP editor that has, either, not edited since 2006 or has moved to another IP. The next 5 users last edited the page before 2008. Although "There's no harm in suggesting parts of the page that can use improvement", if no one has cared to keep this page updated since 2008, no one will do it, unless any person decides to do it. As Math said, this is an all-volunteer project; yes, you can suggest us to improve sections and the article in general, but no one in 14 years has cared about it. Proposing an already written and sourced text is a much better alternative. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that noting areas for improvement is pretty useless. As a fellow volunteer, I edit a lot of Wikipedia pages where I am knowledgeable, and when I see a suggestion from an "outsider' (as I am when it comes to Cuba), I use this as a nudge to improve an article. I don't know what you mean by saying that the page has not been updated since 2008, since over 100 edits have been made in this month alone. If we look at the page views, we can see that from under 15,000 in early July, this page's views jumped to over 50,000. I think it's very likely that this is due to the demonstrations, and that people are looking at this page to find out, not just about Cuba in general, but about the demonstrations. That's why I wrote, hoping that someone in the know would work on this. As to point 2 (on tourism), I am saying that the article currently reads as if from the beginning of Cuban tourism or of Cuba's existence, it was "enclave tourism." However, I think (I don't know; I just think: Cuba is not one of my specialties; so I'm not going to be bold here and put in a modifier without supporting material, and, frankly, I'm not going take what could be a long time to try to track down the information that a specialist could probably find in less than a minute) it is actually meant to refer to what happened after the Castro revolution. That is the clarification I am suggesting.

79.134.37.73 (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

Questioning sources on authoritarianism, Soviet and Communist studies, elections in Cuba

I found problematic content added in this diff. For starters, some references do not have a page number to back their respective statements, which makes it harder to verify the information. Nonetheless, I have tried my best to check where in those references their respective phrases are located. Soviet and Communist Studies is an extremely controversial and polarizing subject, where consensus is hard to find. The sources do back up the authoritarianism part, but I don't think those sources point to academic consensus. The second one, "Social Revolution and Authoritarian Durability", for instance, argues in favor of a distinct definition of authoritarianism: "All the regimes encompassed by our definition are authoritarian, which should not be surprising". "Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War" attributes it to Larry Diamond. The third, "Democratization Theory and Nontransitions: Insights from Cuba" is not from a peer-reviewed journal. For instance, books like "Cuba: Between Reform and Revolution" (Oxford University Press), "We Are Cuba!" (Yale University Press), "Cuba: what everyone needs to know" (Oxford University Press), "Cuban Revelations: Behind the Scenes in Havana" (University Press of Florida); that is, University books about Cuba, do not label the country as "authoritarian"; and these things indicate, in my opinion, that it shouldn't be written in WP:WIKIVOICE. Furthermore, it's stated that "political opposition is not permitted". For this, I have not found proof in those three cited sources. In "Cuban Revelations", it's stated that the Communist Party *represses* it's opponents, and has a nuanced take on this, stating that these dissidents ("small, isolated groups of individuals within Cuba who challenge the government") are "caught in the middle of an undeclared war and the propaganda that goes with it"; that "the United States and its allies openly and covertly provide Cuban dissidents with funds and resources"; and when "dissidents are inevitably repressed, the unlucky individuals become the excuse to paint the island as a tropical gulag and justify external sanctions". Furthermore, it's stated that "most Cubans are seeking change through reform and evolution of the system", and that "most Cubans are dissidents, just not 'dissidents' as they are known abroad". (Part III, Human Rights). For the "There are elections in Cuba but they are not democratic"; I couldn't find evidence on the cited sources (WP:OR ?), and this also goes against the books I cited earlier. "Authoritarian Regimes and Their Permitted Oppositions" even says that "Cuba’s electoral system permits different forms of regime opposition", which is a bit odd considering the earlier phrase states that "political opposition is not permitted". The source for "Censorship of information (including limits to internet access) is extensive" is reason.com (??) and a Human Rights Watch book from 1999, which, aside from its glaring age, is not an organization that can be cited without attribution. The Inter American Press Association is also cited without attribution at the lead in WP:WIKIVOICE. --BunnyyHop (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC) There is zero dispute among scholars of democracy and authoritarianism that Cuba is an authoritarian regime. The extensive sources provided substantiate that. Your comment falsely claims that Comparative Politcs, one of the top journals in the field of comparative poiltics is not peer-reviewed. You also falsely claim that the sources on elections in Cuba do not characterize the elections as nondemocratic. You falsely claim that the cited sources do not substantiate that political opposition is not permitted: Cuba is literally described as a single-party authoritarian state where political opposition is repressed in these sources. Sources on information and media censorship can be improved. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC) Even looking at the sources you yourself bring to bear supports the authoritarianism designation even if they do not verbatim use the term: Sweig, "Cuba: what everyone needs to know", p. 42-44: "there was still only one political party, and within that party, Fidel Castro’s authority was hegemonic, total, and uncontested. Dissent was tolerated only on a limited basis, and only within the confines of officially sanctioned institutions." Yaffe's "We Are Cuba!" is fringe and even presents itself as being against the mainstream scholarship and conventional notions of democracy. The author is a fringe partisan. Perez's 'Cuba: Between Reform and Revolution' is also fringe, as it credulously describes democratization in Cuba on pages 267–268 without any mention of the constraints of this "democratization". No mention at all of Cuba being a single-party state. I can't fully access Frank's "Cuban Revelations: Behind the Scenes in Havana" but the parts I can access do clearly seem to describe the elections in Cuba as not being democratic. The author is also a journalist, not a scholar. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC) "even if they do not verbatim use the term". If they do not use the term and you're doing WP:OR. Sweig doesn't use "authoritarianism", and the sources do not say the opposition is prohibited but repressed; and that one I quoted earlier mentions that happens as a result of "an undeclared war" - it's a POV. It's a possibility that the rest of the problems I pointed out are due to this interpretation of sources: "supports the [...] designation even if they do not verbatim use the term". I also want to know on what basis you're calling those sources fringe; they're fringe material published on the most reliable academic publishers..? Sources cannot be rejected just because they offer a different view from that of the editor. Again, I urge you to list the pages of those sources. You also say that I'm "falsely" saying things, such as that Comparative Politics is not peer-reviewed, yet you do not prove that it is. I have looked at its JSTOR page, webpage, and I couldn't find such. I have done my best to verify those sources, and, even without a page number. I have not seen them call it as such. And, for example, this article on this peer-reviewed journal, says that "Taken together, the voting trends for the elections of the deputies in February 2013 as outlined above, and the elections of the new Council of State and officials of the Parliament, indicate that the situation is in flux, as is the entire Cuban society. It is part of a democracy in motion whereby once again the Cuban Revolution seeks to redefine itself in all aspects"; which is pretty much the opposite of what was previously inserted in the lead. --BunnyyHop (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Collapsed per violation of currently active topic ban. Mathglot (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

Bitcoin is not a currency of Cuba and should be removed. The Aljazeera article used as a source does not even mention the supposed September 7th date. The article also doesn't say Cuba will recognize bitcoin. The word bitcoin appears once in the article, referencing El Salvador using bitcoin, not Cuba. 75.164.82.226 (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Already done Reverted in this revision, thanks! ASUKITE 21:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Ordenance task

It is mentioned that with ordenance task the wages were increased 4~9 times, but the truth is that everything ended up in an inflation without control, which was even worse with the economical problems associated to the coronavirus pandemic. As Cuba's average monthly salary rises to 4'000 pesos, packages of medications can have prices of thousands of pesos (if you find them, sometimes we have to travel to other provinces). The truth is that 1 USD ≠ 24 CUP, in fact, if you find someone willing to sell you dolars, prices can rise to 62 CUP, because the government ceased the receipt of dollars in the banks. You have no idea of the situation of the country, worthy of a book Frankernesto23 (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Cuba lost this battle

If you look at the casualty and losses section of the article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cuito_Cuanavale , it is clear cut that Cuba with their allies, FAPLA and the Soviet Union lost the battle to South Africa and UNITA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.106.56 (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

In the field of organised human violence, winning and losing doesn't appear to depend on casualties. The USSR lost far more soldiers and civilians in WW2 than any other country but still won the war. The page for the battle itself says that both sides claimed victory as each determined that it had achieved its objective. Burrobert (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

lose the battle? the "Operation Saluting October" was lost by FALPLA and the Soviet advisers for ignoring the Cuban military recommendations. The cuban reinforcements avoided the total defeat of the operation and kept the SADF and the UNITA at bay, while a counteroffensive was launched towards the south, the troops ready to enter as far as Namibia and liberate it? Defeat? Is it defeat to have finally make the SADF fully retreat, to have promoted the independence of Namibia and the end of Apartheid?

US Supported Castro?

The U.S. supported Castro by imposing a 1958 arms embargo against Batista's government.

Not particularly sure because this journal, describes the point of views of Department of Defense and State, in which both either describe the need to support Castro for hemispheric defense

The (Cuban) Government has traditionally supported the United States... In the United Nations against communism... And I think that we must not overlook the hemispheric defense responsibilities which we have, and which Cuba shares with us, of course, under the Rio Treaty

or the fact that continued corruption with Batista's regime meant that revolutionary alternatives were soon viable. It also adds the Department of Defense continued several armed forces' missions in Cuba.

Thundersparkf (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nw510510.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Population of Cuba

In 2020, the official population of Cuba was 11,181,595 inhabitants. Source: Anuario Estadistico de Cuba 2020 (in Spanish).

Request for Page Edit

Please change "On January 1, 2021, the government launch the "Tarea Ordenamiento" (Ordenance Task) (previously announced on national TV transmission by the Cuban president Miguel Diaz-Canel, with the presence of Gen. Raùl Castro Ruz, then the first secretary of the Cuba Communist Party), an effort thought by years, to finally end the use of the Cuban convertible peso (CUC) and only use the Cuban peso (CUP) in all the economy and to elevate the efficiency of the Cuban economy."

to

"On January 1st, 2021, Cuba's dual currency system was formally ended and the convertible Cuban peso (CUC) was phased out, leaving the Cuban peso (CUP) as the sole currency unit of the country. Cuban citizens had until June to exchange their CUC. However, this devalued the Cuban peso and caused economic problems for people who had been previously paid in CUC, particularly workers in the tourism industry."

Sources: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article247776195.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/1/1/what-will-cubas-new-single-currency-mean-for-the-island

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/7/16/cuba-protests-the-economic-woes-helping-drive-discontent168.213.7.236 (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2022

Add source to claim about reliance on remittances

https://oncubanews.com/cuba/envio-de-remesas-a-cuba-cayo-el-5414-en-2020-segun-expertos/

Here it is stated as a drop from 6616 million dollars to 2967 million as a consequence of the covid pandemic. Would these numbers perhaps suffice as 6616 million dollars annually is around $600 per capita annually.

http://www.thehavanaconsultinggroup.com/en-US/Articles/Article/20?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

This source also points to remittances being a significant economic factor (and as well in relation to other latin american/ central american countries) Ormbunk (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done I rewrote that paragraph using those sources, but with concrete numbers rather than a vague "reliance". ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  09:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is this not protected or at least semi?

The title speaks for itself, this is the biggest Caribbean nation keyword, nation Coopdeloop22 (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

07:10, 19 July 2021 ToBeFree talk contribs changed protection settings for Cuba [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access (indefinite) [Move=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (CC) Tbhotch^™ 15:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Popular Councils

Should Popular Councils and the town with the same name as the Popular Council be different wikipedia pages or the same? Because Vega Alta, Cuba is a Popular Council and a town and there’s a Popular Council section, should the section be a Wikipedia page or stay like that? CubanoBoi (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

For the intro, please mention that it is "an island country in the Caribbean. 2600:100C:A202:871A:4F6:FD13:9359:2A79 (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It already says: "island country comprising the island of Cuba, as well as Isla de la Juventud and several minor archipelagos. Cuba is located where the northern Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and Atlantic Ocean meet."PrisonerB (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2022

In the "Capital" section of the infobox, can anyone remove the unnecessary word "City" from "Havana City"? 64.114.239.31 (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for the suggestion. -Vipz (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Gini score is old

The gini score on the sidebar is from 2000, which is pretty old and not that useful. I think it would be better to have it removed or updated (if a source exists for it, though I haven't seen one). KlayLay (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

False source for claim Batista was supported by US in 1940

From the history section of the article, it is claimed that "Back in power, and receiving financial, military, and logistical support from the United States government, Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike." The source is an entire chapter, from pages 199 to 238, by Lillian Guerra in the book A Century of Revolution Insurgent and Counterinsurgent Violence during Latin America’s Long Cold War. After reading the entire chapter (after first using control F to search for mentions of Batista and the United States), there is no mention on any of the pages of this chapter of the US supporting Batista for his return to power in 1940.

It's extremely propaganda-like to make citations to books and then cite broad ranges of text for a specific claim, knowing most people won't read the entire citation to check, particularly when the claim is in fact not supported by the source. Coreyman317 (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cuba Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2023

2603:8080:C800:A75C:1DED:F3E7:10E6:5DE7 (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

In this article it says that Cuba has one of the best infant mortality rates in Latin America and the Caribbean. That is a lie, dozens of children die every month in hospitals, or before being born, due to malnutrition, hunger, lack of medicines, lack of medical equipment and electricity. Lack of drinking water and hygiene in hospitals and health centers in general. The children who survive grow up hungry, without resources to go to school, or transportation. Developing other deseases because they have to live in marginality, and they grow up looking for sustenance to eat and help their parents in extreme poverty. Hence the prostitution, theft, and the illegal sale of basic necessities at exorbitant prices. Which leads them to the total corruption of a society corrupted in every way today. Going to school is not important, nor becoming a professional because you won’t earn enough to live on. So the children with values and principals in Cuba only dream of leaving the country one day to have a future for them and their families.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a tough call. The World Health Organisation says Cuba has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the Caribbean, but rumours and attack articles from Miami say otherwise. Who knows what to think. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Internet censorship - problematic and outdated sources

The following quote comes from the third paragraph of the article lead and has three citations:

"Censorship of information (including limits to Internet access) is extensive,"

There are three citations. The first article cites an entirely different article for this information published all the way back in 2003 from a far less prestigious journal called "Foreign Policy", which publishes articles with titles such as "The Evils of Self-Determination" and other articles that sound like conspiracy theory ramblings, like this one here.

The last two citations are also incredibly dated. One cites a piece of yellow journalism from a libertarian website, an article written in 2008. The other cites an article dated all the way from 1999 ! This source come from a time when all computers had glass screens and 10MB of RAM. They can't be used as reliable sources to learn about the internet in 2023.

I intend to remove these citations and this sentence from the header.

The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 01:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Cuba (Island) proposition

I propose to separate article about Cuba (island) and Cuba (country), the same as with Malta and Malta (island). We already have article "Geography of Cuba" so the text from this article about this island could be used in order to create this new article. Prkp99 (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Someone needs to update or change Citation 5 to cite the current constitution

Cuba is a Marxist-Leninist state, and it says so in both the 1976 and 2019 constitutions, so I suggest updating the source so the info box cites today's Cuban constitution. 2600:4041:552C:3200:2CE4:498F:CC24:2447 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

it does say it is a Marxist Leninist state, it just also states that it is Unitary, one party, socialist, and a republic. CubanoBoi (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Human rights section - torture allegations

I want to explain to fellow editors why I just deleted some very controversial content. I've had a look at the first sentence of the "Human rights" section which reads like this.

"The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (also known as "El Paredón")."

There are two sources for this paragraph.

The first source is a US State Department report from 2016. The report doesn't make any mention of torture, executions, or "El Paredón". In fact the report doesn't mention any human rights abuses in Cuba. Even if it did, the United States government is not a reliable source of information on Cuba, considering both the USA's long record of hostilities towards Cuba coupled with their track record of dubious allegations against foreign governments they wish to topple (Nurse Nayirah, Iraq WMDs, etc).

The second source is an Organization of American States report on Cuba published in 1967. Regardless of how reliable this source may be, why are we using sources published from over half a century ago to comment on contemporary Cuba? Imagine if a wikipedia editor used articles on segregation written by Rosa Parks to describe America in 2023.

I am astounded at the poor quality of much of the content on the Cuba wiki page, especially on such sensitive topics as torture and censorship. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree as an anti-socialist Cuban, this page needs to be rewritten (atleast that section), this article looks like it was mostly made by Cuban-Americans that want to put the government look bad (more then it already is). I believe (not done much research on this so it might be untrue) that the only time that Cuba did torture was in the Military Units to Aid Production, but am unsure. CubanoBoi (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

References

The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Fake Statistics

I cite these studies that question the statistics prepared by the Cuban government and taken as a reference in international metrics. ComradeHektor (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

They are not the only analyzes that have been done, I clarify. ComradeHektor (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2023

Delete the "Back in power, and receiving financial, military, and logistical support from the United States government..." where since the source [104] doesn't even mention the claim in the nearly 40 pages referenced. Coreyman317 (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Even if that source doesn't say so, the United states definitely did support Batista, see Cuba–United States relations#Relations from 1900 to 1959 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Undue "extreme poverty" lead section sentence

Hello @Wilfredor, what I was requesting here was that the statement to be sourced to several high-quality academic sources. It should also be put into context (embargo, etc.) and elaborated, as done in the Economy section. When several academic sources are in consensus about a statement, claims do not need to be attributed in-text — and such claims are then appropriate for due inclusion in the lead section. –Vipz (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Poverty is only mentioned twice in the article, both times in respect of the 88% extreme poverty figure. An examination of poverty in Cuba would be a good addition to the page but needs more than a one sentence statement based on a report from a marginally reliable source. Does anyone have any doubts about the 88% figure? I had a look around to see what other information is available. Apparently the Cuban government does not release data about poverty. The United Nations Development Programme releases a report which measures something called a global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI). The global MPI is a key international resource that measures acute multidimensional poverty across more than 100 developing countries. By this measure, poverty in Cuba is fairly mild in comparison to other developing countries, with 0.7% of the population experiencing severe poverty.[2] Burrobert (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Burrobert The problem is that these indices do not measure things such as the scarcity of basic products, in addition to the fact that they are usually made with the exchange rate to the official dollar, which is not the exchange rate that is normally obtained on the street (same problem with Argentina). 186.32.217.46 (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Burrobert, thank you for bringing this to light. As a Venezuelan who has visited Cuba, I must admit your comment offered a momentary chuckle. It's very important to understand the challenge of conducting an independent and comprehensive study in a nation under a dictatorial regime. The claim suggesting that Cuba's poverty levels mirror those of developed countries is, to put it mildly, perplexing. I completely agree that on Wikipedia, we should rely on high-quality academic sources, and I've provided one to support the information. However, using the discussion page to make such astonishing claims is a tad humorous. IMHO, I respect the importance of sourcing and ensuring our content is as accurate as possible. Let's collaborate and ensure we represent the reality as best as the available data allows. Wilfredor (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

"By this measure, poverty in Cuba is fairly mild in comparison to other developing countries ". Developed countries are not included in the MPI measurement. Burrobert (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Burrobert, I value the diligence you've displayed in seeking high-quality academic sources and the contextual information from the UNDP's Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI). However, as someone with firsthand experience and a deep connection to the region, I'd like to emphasize the importance of looking beyond the numbers. And yes the MPI is a significant metric, it isn't a comprehensive representation of all aspects of poverty. It's well-documented that the nature of a regime can significantly hinder the availability and transparency of data. Independent journalism and research in such environments often face challenges. But IMHO, a metric like the MPI, though valuable, might not capture the complete socio-economic reality in nations where data can be controlled or suppressed. Drawing parallels between Cuba and other developing nations based on the MPI alone might give a skewed perspective. We must consider other elements such as access to basic commodities, the real street value of the currency, and other socio-economic factors that aren't encapsulated in the MPI. I propose that instead of concentrating on a singular percentage or metric, we expand our scope to include qualitative accounts and broader indicators. This would provide a more nuanced understanding of the situation in Cuba. I'm committed to ensuring our discussions and articles reflect a balanced and well-informed view of Cuba's intricate socio-economic landscape Wilfredor (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

At least some version of the extreme poverty statement must be included, it adds balance to the statements that Cuba outperforms in literacy, infant mortality and life expectancy. In fact, I would say that issues regarding the healthcare system should also be reflected. As the main section states: "Challenges include low salaries for doctors, poor facilities, poor provision of equipment, and the frequent absence of essential drugs". --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I already explained above in another section why this data is mostly false or outdated. You cannot have low infant mortality with high levels of malnutrition ComradeHektor (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2023

Christopher Columbus didn't discover Cuba, people were already living there. He just landed there. 2600:6C4E:237F:5C08:5B9:DFB1:C8E7:C188 (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I don't see where it says Columbus discovered Cuba. It says he arrived there and that there were already people there. RudolfRed (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2023

other languages--Haitian Creolebr<<Englishbr<<Lucumí 2600:1700:3356:EC00:504A:B56:4202:8D24 (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've add all the languages mentioned in the Languages subsection. Liu1126 (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Democratic Pluralist Ideology

Many edits are confusing democracy with partisan or pluralist democracy. Single party democracies exist *prior* to our own ideological beliefs on what the correct form of democracy is. Democracy is not pluralism of *parties* (partisanship) but the pluralism of *participation* in the form of *voting*.

People vote in Cuba, have elections, and change policies at local, regional, and national levels. Recently, they even rewrote their constitution starting at the grassroots level. It is, regardless of ideology, a literal democracy. Nraisbeck (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

"rewrote their constitution starting at the grassroots level"?? The Cuban constitution ascribes the role of the party to be the "leading force of society and of the state". Did the party stand aside while the grassroots did whatever they wanted?? Unlikely.--Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"Democracy is when billionaires entirely control all major political parties, allowing roughly half the populace to choose which spokespeople they would prefer to explain the decisions of the ruling class; freedom of the press, similarly, is when billionaires control the media." — American Rich Guy Burger Foundation, 100% Not Funded By Nazi CIA Cutouts Bobs34724 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Cuba is very clearly a democracy, but it doesn't fit the very narrow definition of democracy that the United States lays out. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources disagree. X-Editor (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't engage in SOAPBOXing. There are billionaires in communist countries, they're called communist party bureaucrats. X-Editor (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@X-Editor: although I agree with your suggestion in your first sentence, the latter sentence appears to be whataboutism on your end. We're speaking of Cuba here, and I presume you were talking about China. There appears to be only one entry at Category:Cuban billionaires at the moment: José Fanjul (amusingly, an American-based Cuban-born businessman and friend of literal Nazis/KKK members). As for billionaires in communist countries in general, maybe it's because these countries are state capitalist at this stage, with China being the most prominent example of a state capitalist country. If a country produces domestic billionaires, it's not communist, apart from rhetoric. –Vipz (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for engaging in whataboutism, as such, I'm not going to elaborate further on my second point. X-Editor (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@X-Editor: feel free to elaborate if you wish, we're here to learn from each other while trying to improve articles on those subjects. –Vipz (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

When I say communist party bureaucrats are billionaires, i'm not refers to billionaires in the capitalist sense, I'm refers to billionaires in terms of power. There may be no billionaires in communist countries, but the people in charge of the communist parties in these countries effectively are billionaires. But in the end, all of this is just my opinion. I was just annoyed by the soapboxing. X-Editor (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@X-Editor: Thanks for elaborating, it's worth it to avoid confusion. Criticism of bureaucracy is not in shortage among orthodox Marxists (particularly those critical of Leninism). See the theory of new class for example.

That said, different forms and views on democracy exist, although the Marxist–Leninist approaches haven't exactly led to attractive forms of such in practice. And of course, trying to come about socialism democratically gets you a CIA-funded, U.S. sponsored coup.

I believe it's a bit ironical that in 2022 Cuba advanced LGBT and gender equality rights through a democratic referendum while over in the U.S. nine undemocratically appointed Supreme Court 'justices' took away abortion rights, undemocratically.

Now, all of this requires a serious consensus among reliable scholarly sources to consider any changes. –Vipz (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The new class critique is exactly what I'm referring to, hopefully a mistake like that is not repeated in the future.

"And of course, trying to come about socialism democratically gets you a CIA-funded coup." That's not always the case, India was essentially democratic socialist for a long time from 1947 to 1991.

"I believe it's a bit ironical that in 2022 Cuba advanced LGBT and gender equality rights through a democratic referendum while over in the U.S. nine undemocratically appointed Supreme Court 'justices' took away abortion rights, undemocratically." I completely agree with this, which is why we need more democracy, not less.

"Now, all of this requires a serious consensus among reliable scholarly sources to consider any changes." Couldn't agree more.

I'm glad we could have this conversation. X-Editor (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Why didn't the US intervene in India? ZFT (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Missing Hyperlink for English Language

It seems like at some point the hyperlink for the English Language in the Other Languages section got dropped somehow. If this is purposeful please educate me, I'm very new to editing. ErisAvernus (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed, not sure why it wasn't linked. –Vipz (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks :) ErisAvernus (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2023

North Hudson, NJ is not a real place. The term is not used informally either. It should be changed to Union City, NJ or Hudson County, NJ.

thumb 108.4.241.237 (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Changed to North Hudson County RudolfRed (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is the CIA used so often

Is there a reason we are citing CIA information as opposed to probably more reliable, and likely less biased, data like that of the UN for example? They do have a clear geopolitical interest, and a history of stretching facts to support that interest across the whole region. I'm not trying to say that the CIA is outright lying but more that the inherent biases in the people making the data may render it less accurate than the UN's data as an example. Hexifi (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)