Talk:Republic of Cuba

Opening comments

This article contains a lot of material moved out of Fidel Castro, SqueakBox 20:25, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Because of this I have also placed the NPOV sticker that is there on this article as well, SqueakBox 21:50, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have my doubts about this section: "Human rights and relationship with the United States". It seems to me that Cuba has human rights issues and it has a long, complicated relationship with the US, not all of which has to do with human rights (ie, the economic blockade). I think a separate section on the relationship will be needed. -- Viajero | Talk 21:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I restructured things a bit; still needs work though. -- Viajero | Talk 22:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

mv from article

I have moved this text here because I'd like to see a citation for it to be included in the article:

Although the vast majority of Cubans who fled during the Mariel boatlift were legitimate asylum seekers, Castro used the event to expel estimated 20,000 convicts, homosexuals and mentally disabled Cubans.

-- Viajero | Talk 16:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

I am no longer a regular contributor, but I just have to say something about the existence of this article, which is pretty distressing. First, no political entity is officially named the "Revolutionary Government of Cuba," so the title cannot be a proper noun. In other words, "government" should not be capitalized. Second, this is not a topic for a self-standing article. The correct place for the content here is History of Cuba under the section covering 1959 to the present. Another possibility is Politics of Cuba, under the section coverning this same period... I will redirect this article and move the content to the politics article or create a separate daughter article linked to the history (History of Cuba (1959-present)), unless someone beats me to over the next couple of days... To the creator of the article, I recommend reviewing the naming conventions for the history and politics articles. 172 06:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the intro

I removed a claim in the into calling Castro the "world's longest serving head of state." This is incorrect. Castro was not Cuba's president (i.e. head of state) until 1976. (The presidency in Cuba is ceremonial, with real power resting in his post as CPC head.) Until then, his title was prime minister (head of government). BTW, even had he been head of state the entire time since 1959, he would still not beat Elizabeth II... The other changes pertain to issues brought up above and in the edit summary. 172 06:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is being petty. One can be the de facto head of state without a specific title, especially without the title 'president'. Would it not be fair to call Castro "world's longest serving leader of a state or country"? And as for the comparison with Elizabeth II, what is there to compare? Isn't she merely a ceremonial figurehead, since Parliament and the Prime Minister really run the country?

gmann 09:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are some mistakes in the article

However, much of these events occurred during the early 1960s, and there is no evidence suggesting that the U.S. is currently engaged in a subversion campaign against Cuba. That's incorrect. In the last ten years there have been at least two northamerican laws supporting subversion and secret war against Cuba.

One of them is the Helm's-Burton law, which finances anti-Castrist groups in Miami and media broadcastings in open infringement to international laws. It also forbids third-countries companies to negotiate with Cuba.

The other one is a report by the US state department suggesting a founding of 41 million dollars. One of it's objetives is economic war against Cuba by means of economic sabotage agaist Cuba principal incoming: tourism.

Yes, surely CIA's hand is not directly in this. US goverment don't need to budget CIA for that if they have a private "agency" in Miami in charge of these business: [[1]] user:Alcides

no comment. J. Parker Stone 20:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is going to need some serious cleanup after TJive's misguided effort to separate the island of Cuba and its government into two separate articles. I'm not certain how that ought to be accomplished. Simply going back to the Revolutionary Government of Cuba is one idea, but the old article was overbroad and unfocussed if that was to be the title. Merging with the Politics of Cuba article is another. I'll need some time to think about it before I can propose anything concrete. Caerwine 13:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually mess with content so that cleanup is required for its own sake; I simply changed the titles around. "Revolutionary Government of Cuba" is one of the worst possible titles for this content, as already discussed above. However, much of it becomes redundant anyway across not only Cuba but Politics of Cuba and so forth, so I will await further suggestions.

One solution is simply to redirect this and all related redirects to the "Cuba" article and merge any relevant content still here into respective articles--human rights, economy, etc. --TJive 00:47, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Food statistics

What caused the high consumption of food before the Revolution? There was a lot of poverty. Of course it was a holiday resort, so did Al Capone et al eat all the food? :) This requires explaining. Also, the present consumption is given in terms of cereals, tubers, and meat. Indeed people complain about the lack of meat, which is why there is a lot of illegal butchering, which perpetuates the problem because that way the live stock can't be built up. But also, Cubans eat a lot of icecream, pizza and rice, and that is something you will of course not see in those figures. If there is no better indicator I'd say those statistics had better be removed because they are misleading. DirkvdM 20:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cars, telephones and tv's

The number of automobiles in Cuba has fallen since the 1950's -- the only country in Latin America for which this is the case. That can of course be explained by the fact that there were loads of Gringo residents in Cuba, with their cars. Something that will not be the case for other Latin American countries. At least not to that extent (I'm now thinking of Panama). And this of course also affected the amount of telephone lines and tv's. DirkvdM 21:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to say that the only reason there was a significant decline of cars after the 1950s was because foreign travel decreased? It sounds kind of shaky. About what percentage of people in Cuba were not Cubans? CJK 23:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It will have been a combination of 'travel' and residence. I don't mean to say that the leaving of these people caused the decline (although that of course had something to do with it), just that a comparison is made with other Latin American countries without specifying that this was a cause for the difference. Which makes it misleading. So I amended that. Which was reverted 11 minutes later :( . So I put it back again :) . What percentage of people in Cuba were from the US is indeed an important figure here. The amount of luxury cars is an indication (assuming that most of these were meant for expats and tourists). More important still is how much money they represented (per capita and relative to the rest). I wouldn't be surprised if it were something like 1% of the population having 10-20% of the money (especially when you take assets into account), meaning that much of it will probably have been spent on things that the country as a whole could not really afford (luxury items). DirkvdM 07:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a cogent citation to attribute a particular argument to in regards to that, insert it. Your own personal arguments do not belong on the page. --TJive 19:13, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Merging

This article should be merged with Cuba. Although I am aware this in reference to a distinct period of time, it still covers much of the same issues. For instance, Federal Republic of Germany redirects to Germany and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam redirects to Vietnam.

By the way, is anyone aware of Cuba's official name before the Revolution? CJK 23:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which revolution? What did the 'Taino' call the land, and themselves before the invasion? Or the Ciboney before them?

After the invasion of the USA to displace Spain as the colonizer, it was called something in Spanish I suppose that would be traslated into English as "The Republic of Cuba".

This is the most detailed site I have located so far in my brief googling on Cuba: http://www.cubaheritage.com/cats.asp?cID=1

re merging, I as a reader think they are duplicative and should be merged. and also objectively edited. I noticed what appeared to me to be some non-objective editorizing that was included merely to attempt to discredit Castro and his 'dangerous' anti-capitalist leanings. Let the chips fall where they may, but keep it accurate and not agenda driven, if that is possible.

This line, under education, comes to mind:

"Panama, Paraguay, Colombia, Brazil, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Haiti -- which all ranked just behind Cuba in this indicator during the 1950's – have equaled or bettered Cuba's improvement when measured in percentage terms."

No proofs or references are provided to validate this otherwise irrelavent assertion. The topic is CUBA not those places. If a comparison is needed, give the actual statistics. The tone of that sentence implies to me a strong alternative political agenda.

Also this link may be a useful resource: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWcuba.htm

Interesting but uncited information on early cuba history: http://www.cafelocubano.com/vida/history.html

Links and more links - more than you want to know :) http://www.factbites.com/topics/History-of-Cuba

gmann 09:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to find there were two articles on Cuba and had the same thought, so, yeah, by all means merge. That's going to be quite a bit of work though. Is there any way that could be split between several people? I'd be happy to help (if I find the time ....). DirkvdM 07:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE213.67.49.17 15:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. --Hottentot

Yeah, these definitly need to be merged

I was just thinking this myself. I will have a go, SqueakBox 16:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]