![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I suggest to everybody to right down whatever you think “left”, “socialism” and/or “communism” means. There are no good or bad answers. Let's start from here. -- Anticom 15:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought that’s exactly the role of a talk page, to host “irrelevant personal opinions”, then the participants try to find a solution of compromise that would be transferred to the main page. However, I realize I am new in this forum and the rules may be different than on similar sites. I do not intent to alter in any way the content of the present page. First of all, because I don’t have any writing talents (not to mention my first language is not English). Second, despite the fact I suffered a lot at the hand of the Romanian communists I simply don’t care if the whole World agree or disagree with the fact that communism is the most criminal society the humanity ever invented. I asked people to clarify their position only as a matter of curiosity since I noticed many times people who pretend to be leftist supporting ideas/regimes clearly leaning towards right wing extreme. I am a leftist myself and I stand for a society where ordinary people can elect their representatives, are not afraid to criticize their leaders, have a decent level of life, a society tolerant towards minorities, homosexuals, foreigners (you name it). That’s why I am completely against communist societies (Cuba included) since communist societies are xenophobe, homophobe, racist and crash their own citizens most of the time for absolutely no reason. I don’t care that communists say exactly the opposite, I am telling you what communism is in the real life not what was supposed to be. I can understand a pro-Bush supporter to be pro-Castro but I cannot understand a self-declared leftist, keeping in mind that communist Cuba is racist (no black people can became a Party member), homosexuals are imprisoned, and a small group of people have the whole power and ordinary citizens nothing. -- Anticom 21:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Cuba is not a democracy and this is an elementary fact that does not require a citation. If this is unclear to anyone, Adam Carr clearly established this in the past four talk archives. Please see Archive 04, Archive 05, Archive 06, and Archive 07. This fact will be included in the intro, and my stance, along with the stance of other editors concerned with the truth here, is non-negotiable. 172 | Talk 23:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The policy page on no original research clearly states that everything has to have been published before it can go on Wikipedia. Is this some sort of gag and I'm falling for it? -- Drogo Underburrow 08:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Cuba is not a democracy and this is an elementary fact that does not require a citation. - 172
Whether any country is a democracy is an opinion. "Democracy" is not a factual state of being. There is no scientific way of judging it, no set of standards that one can point to and say, "Yep, country X is 100% democratic, I measured it." Secondly, WP:NOR nowhere states that certain facts are elementary and do not require citation. Did I miss where it says that some things are 'elementary facts' and do not require citation? Please quote where it did, sometimes I do miss things. One thing I know I don't have to do, is go and read the archives for the Cuba talk page. Adam Carr may be a wonderful person, but he doesn't write the rules here, so he couldn't have established "this". Drogo Underburrow 05:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
"Whether any country is a democracy is an opinion. "Democracy" is not a factual state of being. There is no scientific way of judging it, no set of standards that one can point to and say, "Yep, country X is 100% democratic, I measured it."
With due respect, Anticom, comparing Drogo U.'s argument to Holocaust denial is a Straw man fallacy. BruceHallman 21:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
172, if you or others believe that these disputed statements are elementary facts that do not require citations. I encourage you, as many have done before, to comply with Wikipedia dispute processes and enter mediation on this matter. If you are confident of your position then you should also be confident that the process will swiftly find in your favour and we can move on. -- Zleitzen 00:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. I am not sure if I understand this issue properly. Firstly, to assume that only one definition of democracy is 'the correct definition' is fallacious & ethnocentric in the extreme. Second, why even have this debate? In the politics section, there is ample room to discuss the pro- and anti- castro viewpoints on the merits of Cauba's claim (such as it is, but it is) to democracy. The
Democracy article itself provides ample room to discuss various merits and interpretations of the word. And we are still, by keeping this in the intro, implying that somehow the colonies remaining in the Western Hemisphere don't count, and also subtly POVing 'Cuba bad, everyone else good' - in spite of some rather ugly but technically democratic other places. Why bother doing this? What is the point?
Bridesmill
01:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Bridesmill, read through the old archives. We had this disussion already. Cuba fails to meet any definition of democracy. Adam Carr established this over and over again. At this stage, the calls for dispute resolution are malicious compliance meant to wear out supporters of inserting this elementary factual claim in the article. 172 | Talk 05:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
As a newcomer to this page, I'm not doubting there have been problems caused in the past by pro-Castro POV warriors. However, the solution to this is not to give free reign to anti-Castro POV warriors. It looks to me like 172 and Adam are both inappropriately attempting to own this article. Please try to remember, guys, not everyone who disagrees with you is a pro-Castro POV pushing crackpot. There is room for reasonable folks to disagree over statements like "It is the only state in the Western hemisphere which is not a democracy". If you're letting your desire for The Truth interfere with your ability to compromise, you're being a fanatic. Friday (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
User 172 has written to a number of editors with the following copied paragraph.
It should be noted that that many of the editors which resist Adam Carr and 172's edits to this article are not "Castro Supporters" including myself. Far from it in fact as I have stated many times. This dispute is between Adam Carr/172 and those who wish to uphold Wikipedia's core values of verifiability and NPOV.-- Zleitzen 12:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
What I find curious here is that several folks appear not to be paying attention to the points which they take for granted but which are anything but:
Given that, it seems simplistic, inaccurate, and academically dishonest to make the assertion in the intro. Additionally, it leaves the article vulnerable to a number of challenges. It also seems somewhat over-simplistic to categorize all who hold this opinion as 'Pro Castro fanatics'. If Zleitzen, myself, and others, argued that there is no place for that discussion in the Pol & Gov sect, fine, that might be a valid argument - but that is not what we are saying. It is perfectly possible - indeed much easier - to paint Cuba for the place it is without going there in the intro. Bridesmill 12:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The word "democracy" means "the will of the people". If imprisoning people for saying a joke about Castro or for being homosexual means "the will of the people" then yes, Cuba is a democracy. If absolute power in hands of Fidel Castro and the communist "elite" at the expense of the Cuban people means "the will of the people" then again Cuba is a democracy. This pseudo-intellectual dilemma is laughable at best, I wonder when you'll start to doubt whether Nazi Germany was a democracy or not.-- Anticom 21:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I was initially concerned that several other countries in Latin America are arguably not democracies, particularly Venezuela and Haiti. Adam already addressed this section [4] and on my user talk page. 172 | Talk 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Adam Carr proposed the following compromise in Archive 6: Cuba is the only state in the western hemisphere which does not conform to the definition of democratic government accepted by the great majority of governments and by international election monitoring and human rights organisations. The Cuban government and its supporters in other countries nevertheless maintain that Cuba is a democracy. I will insert that language for the time being. In the meantime, while he is gone, I'm not going to water down the intro any further. 172 | Talk 16:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
"Remaining a Soviet-Styled economy" is inaccuarate 172, Cuba attempted a Soviet-Style economy after the revolution but moved to a Maoist form for ten years or so. They tried to re-centralise during the 1980's (trying a 5 year plan etc) but after the Soviet collapse were forced to improvise a patchwork of economic policies. Basically Cuban handling of the economy has been a unmitigated mess, and doesn't bare close relation to the heavy planning of the Soviet model. -- Zleitzen 16:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The planning aspects over the years have been chaotic though, Bruce. With various ill advised experiments and political failures. The sugar industry, for instance, was neglected in part because Castro believed it to be "a tool of imperialism". -- Zleitzen 17:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Bruce, I'm not sure your statement about a trend towards the private sector here takes into account recent changes to the Cuban economy. It was mine, and 172's understanding that since the emergence of the Bolivarians, China and the Euro, Castro was "rolling" back some of these changes. That was the narrative that 172 was trying to express and I think he's right here. Your source only refers to figures from 2000, a lot has happened in Cuba since. See this [5]. -- Zleitzen 01:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I wish there was more current data that just 2000, still the trend from 1981 to 2000 is real. Your reference, based on the Miami Herald report, seems credible but 'short on data' and not clear whether they mean that the private sector trend has slowed, stopped or reversed. BruceHallman 13:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Now that User:172 appears to be on a break, and User:Adam is away with meatspace work, those currently editing should perhaps ask whether they are 'NPOVing' what was here before, or simply reinserting their own POV, which will then be viciously redone by the other parties when they return? Etc Ad Nauseum, when alternatively this could become easily an FA? Are we working together for a better tomorrow or??? Or do we all need to step back & take three deep breaths? Just wondering.... Bridesmill 22:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The Society|Education section currently notes "All higher education and university education is public and available free of charge. The University of Havana, Cuba's oldest university, was founded in 1721; prior to 1959 there were other official universities including: Universidad de Oriente (founded in 1947) and Universidad Central de Las Villas (founded in 1857); private universities included: Universidad Católica de Santo Tomás de Villanueva (founded in 1946); Universidad Masónica, and the Universidad de la Salle in Nuevo Vedado. In 1961 private schools and universities were nationalized (without reimbursement)." The wording in bold is strange. It seems to imply that after 1959 something happened to all the other official universities. In fact, the only key difference between pre and post-revolution was that the private universities were nationalized. To reflect this fact more clearly, would I suggest the paragraph be re-written "All higher education and university education is public and available free of charge. The University of Havana, Cuba's oldest university, was founded in 1721. Other official universities include Universidad de Oriente (founded in 1947) and Universidad Central de Las Villas (founded in 1857). Private universities, which were nationalized without reimbursement along with private schools in 1961, include Universidad Católica de Santo Tomás de Villanueva (founded in 1946); Universidad Masónica, and the Universidad de la Salle in Nuevo Vedado." Key changes in bold. Any thoughts? Patiwat 07:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Your suggestion makes sense to me. BruceHallman 13:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe the image of Che to have encyclopedic relevance due to A) It is a typical example of a very common site in Cuba. B) Che Guevara is a national hero of the Cuban revolution. C) The image is good quality GDFL D) The German wikipedia seems to agree with me. Myciconia 08:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't Che in an article about Cuba be seen as similar to Abraham Lincoln in an article about the USA? Lincoln was not and is still not universally admired in the USA, he was controversial in life, and death, and still Lincoln has become a political icon. BruceHallman 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I still see no reason to remove it. Surely the Che mural image gives more to the revolution section than no image at all! And this image not only has historical relevance, but also ties in with modern Cuba. Someone compared him to a US founding father, but how often do peoples organizations paint artistic murals of Lincoln in public spaces? Yes you see revolutionary inspired artwork in tourist areas, bilboards, etc. But it is also very common site at state and community buildings where tourists rarely visit. I never expected this simple snapshot to be controversial! Myciconia 19:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Also, The United States article has pictures in nearly every section--why can we not do the same? We can have Marti, Castro, Che... Myciconia 19:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The recent edit by user Friday, makes citation quoting Sandy Berger talking of the Clinton administration duplicity of policy towards China versus policy towards Cuba. Sandy Berger quote [9]: "Well, I think that we have very different historical relationships with China and with Cuba. Cuba, we have had an embargo on Cuba for 37 years. It is the only non-democracy in the hemisphere. There has been very little evidence that there's any interest on the part of Mr. Castro in significant liberalization, economic or political. And at this stage of the game, to end that embargo would be to send, I think, just the wrong signal. So in each situation, you have to decide what is the best course topursue with respect to your objectives." (emphasis added) Note, that again the US policy groups economic and political together, a clear implication that the US form of acceptable democracy is 'market oriented democracy' as opposed to the 'socialist democracy' of Cuba. In short, the Clinton administration POV, voiced through Sandy Berger, uses a narrow defintion of 'democracy', that is: 'market oriented democracy'. BruceHallman 15:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it adds anything; provides a US political opinion of US approaches & objectives to several problems, rather than Cuba in the context of Cuba. confuses rather than clarifies IMHO, and could be craftily pursued /exploited for several totally opposite POVs. As such, risky business to put in an article such as this (now if there was a Analysis of Cuba/US relations article, it would be a good one, if we could somehow avoid WP:NOR) Bridesmill 15:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I restored the quote, because I didn't see any good reason here on the talk page to delete it. Sorry if I missed any superb reasoning expressed on the history page. Please copy and paste it here, if I missed anything good.
It is quite plainly a matter of dispute whether Cuba is "democratic" or not. Perhaps this dispute should be mentioned in the body of the article. Contributors have argued above that Berger's statement isn't correct, because it's US-centric or uses the wrong definition. Great! Simply supply a quote from a non-US source or one using the right definition.
But don't expect one quote from one source to be neutral. We need a balance of quotes that express opposing points of view. I'd say roughly 75% of Wikipedians think Cuba is "democratic" (or at least has a "good" government). Okay, then it should be easy for them to quote verifiable sources which make this very point. If not, then it's obvious that these contributors are merely pushing their own POV. But I assume good faith, so I say give them a chance to find that quote. Ready, set, google! -- Uncle Ed 18:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
And here is my guide (again):
I asked for discussion BEFORE the deletion of the Berger quote, but Lulu merely placed an edit summary instead:
I think this is misleading, since I didn't see any consensus on this talk page for the reversion. I don't know what Lulu means by "undue weight", and Lulu has apparently overlooked my comments above about how to achieve NPOV by balancing "no it's not democratic" vs. "yes it is too" quotes.
It looks like a case of using reversion to replace discussion. I wish there would be discussion first, instead of an edit war. -- Uncle Ed 19:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's have an explicit discussion about reference format. I added a footnote section, and a first note for it, and specifically decided to use the {{ref|name}} template rather than the m:Cite.php system. The use of the styles on various articles is subject to quite a bit of contention, not least in the recent RfC against User:Cyde for misuse of his "reference converter" tool. Wikipedia:Footnotes and several other pages have ongoing debates about this. The different systems have different advantages and disadvantages.
My thinking on the matter was that for this specific case, requiring that references be inlined is somewhat disruptive of flow in the editing window. For example, nearly half the lead block now is contained within a <ref> element that is rendered at the bottom of the page by the <references/> tag. Moreover, if this footnote is referenced several times, and expanded later, editors can get confused about which occurrence is first (in fact, the non-first reference was the one that was updated in the initial edit).
On the other hand, I will very happily bow to rough consensus if it is different from my own preference. But rather than get into an edit war over it, let's explicitly come to an agreement about what style to use. FWIW, I think this article could be substantially improved—and perhaps even many future disputes about support for facts staved off—by use of footnoes, whichever technical markup is used to create them. LotLE× talk 16:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you follow your own instincts on what would be the clearest format to use, Lulu.-- Zleitzen 16:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Cite.php is the preferred method. Go to Wikipedia:Footnotes, and the page is organized around cite.php, and clearly implies its the recommended method. But if that isn't proof enough, here it is stated bluntly: "In-text citations can be made using the Cite.php system (preferred)" quoted from the Cite-sources page. -- Drogo Underburrow 17:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Can we please move past the false claim that m:Cite.php is somehow mandated, contrary to the stated WP guidelines?! I am not arguing against their use here even (well, maybe very mildly)... but tell me why you want them for this article. What benefit does m:Cite.php style have for this article, in your perception, versus other citation styles we might use? (whether simple {{ref|name}} or {{ref_harvard|...} It's not like it would take a lot of convincing for me to agree... but I just can't take an argument from a non-existent authority as the reason. LotLE× talk 18:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I suggest to everybody to right down whatever you think “left”, “socialism” and/or “communism” means. There are no good or bad answers. Let's start from here. -- Anticom 15:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought that’s exactly the role of a talk page, to host “irrelevant personal opinions”, then the participants try to find a solution of compromise that would be transferred to the main page. However, I realize I am new in this forum and the rules may be different than on similar sites. I do not intent to alter in any way the content of the present page. First of all, because I don’t have any writing talents (not to mention my first language is not English). Second, despite the fact I suffered a lot at the hand of the Romanian communists I simply don’t care if the whole World agree or disagree with the fact that communism is the most criminal society the humanity ever invented. I asked people to clarify their position only as a matter of curiosity since I noticed many times people who pretend to be leftist supporting ideas/regimes clearly leaning towards right wing extreme. I am a leftist myself and I stand for a society where ordinary people can elect their representatives, are not afraid to criticize their leaders, have a decent level of life, a society tolerant towards minorities, homosexuals, foreigners (you name it). That’s why I am completely against communist societies (Cuba included) since communist societies are xenophobe, homophobe, racist and crash their own citizens most of the time for absolutely no reason. I don’t care that communists say exactly the opposite, I am telling you what communism is in the real life not what was supposed to be. I can understand a pro-Bush supporter to be pro-Castro but I cannot understand a self-declared leftist, keeping in mind that communist Cuba is racist (no black people can became a Party member), homosexuals are imprisoned, and a small group of people have the whole power and ordinary citizens nothing. -- Anticom 21:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Cuba is not a democracy and this is an elementary fact that does not require a citation. If this is unclear to anyone, Adam Carr clearly established this in the past four talk archives. Please see Archive 04, Archive 05, Archive 06, and Archive 07. This fact will be included in the intro, and my stance, along with the stance of other editors concerned with the truth here, is non-negotiable. 172 | Talk 23:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The policy page on no original research clearly states that everything has to have been published before it can go on Wikipedia. Is this some sort of gag and I'm falling for it? -- Drogo Underburrow 08:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Cuba is not a democracy and this is an elementary fact that does not require a citation. - 172
Whether any country is a democracy is an opinion. "Democracy" is not a factual state of being. There is no scientific way of judging it, no set of standards that one can point to and say, "Yep, country X is 100% democratic, I measured it." Secondly, WP:NOR nowhere states that certain facts are elementary and do not require citation. Did I miss where it says that some things are 'elementary facts' and do not require citation? Please quote where it did, sometimes I do miss things. One thing I know I don't have to do, is go and read the archives for the Cuba talk page. Adam Carr may be a wonderful person, but he doesn't write the rules here, so he couldn't have established "this". Drogo Underburrow 05:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
"Whether any country is a democracy is an opinion. "Democracy" is not a factual state of being. There is no scientific way of judging it, no set of standards that one can point to and say, "Yep, country X is 100% democratic, I measured it."
With due respect, Anticom, comparing Drogo U.'s argument to Holocaust denial is a Straw man fallacy. BruceHallman 21:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
172, if you or others believe that these disputed statements are elementary facts that do not require citations. I encourage you, as many have done before, to comply with Wikipedia dispute processes and enter mediation on this matter. If you are confident of your position then you should also be confident that the process will swiftly find in your favour and we can move on. -- Zleitzen 00:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. I am not sure if I understand this issue properly. Firstly, to assume that only one definition of democracy is 'the correct definition' is fallacious & ethnocentric in the extreme. Second, why even have this debate? In the politics section, there is ample room to discuss the pro- and anti- castro viewpoints on the merits of Cauba's claim (such as it is, but it is) to democracy. The
Democracy article itself provides ample room to discuss various merits and interpretations of the word. And we are still, by keeping this in the intro, implying that somehow the colonies remaining in the Western Hemisphere don't count, and also subtly POVing 'Cuba bad, everyone else good' - in spite of some rather ugly but technically democratic other places. Why bother doing this? What is the point?
Bridesmill
01:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Bridesmill, read through the old archives. We had this disussion already. Cuba fails to meet any definition of democracy. Adam Carr established this over and over again. At this stage, the calls for dispute resolution are malicious compliance meant to wear out supporters of inserting this elementary factual claim in the article. 172 | Talk 05:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
As a newcomer to this page, I'm not doubting there have been problems caused in the past by pro-Castro POV warriors. However, the solution to this is not to give free reign to anti-Castro POV warriors. It looks to me like 172 and Adam are both inappropriately attempting to own this article. Please try to remember, guys, not everyone who disagrees with you is a pro-Castro POV pushing crackpot. There is room for reasonable folks to disagree over statements like "It is the only state in the Western hemisphere which is not a democracy". If you're letting your desire for The Truth interfere with your ability to compromise, you're being a fanatic. Friday (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
User 172 has written to a number of editors with the following copied paragraph.
It should be noted that that many of the editors which resist Adam Carr and 172's edits to this article are not "Castro Supporters" including myself. Far from it in fact as I have stated many times. This dispute is between Adam Carr/172 and those who wish to uphold Wikipedia's core values of verifiability and NPOV.-- Zleitzen 12:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
What I find curious here is that several folks appear not to be paying attention to the points which they take for granted but which are anything but:
Given that, it seems simplistic, inaccurate, and academically dishonest to make the assertion in the intro. Additionally, it leaves the article vulnerable to a number of challenges. It also seems somewhat over-simplistic to categorize all who hold this opinion as 'Pro Castro fanatics'. If Zleitzen, myself, and others, argued that there is no place for that discussion in the Pol & Gov sect, fine, that might be a valid argument - but that is not what we are saying. It is perfectly possible - indeed much easier - to paint Cuba for the place it is without going there in the intro. Bridesmill 12:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The word "democracy" means "the will of the people". If imprisoning people for saying a joke about Castro or for being homosexual means "the will of the people" then yes, Cuba is a democracy. If absolute power in hands of Fidel Castro and the communist "elite" at the expense of the Cuban people means "the will of the people" then again Cuba is a democracy. This pseudo-intellectual dilemma is laughable at best, I wonder when you'll start to doubt whether Nazi Germany was a democracy or not.-- Anticom 21:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I was initially concerned that several other countries in Latin America are arguably not democracies, particularly Venezuela and Haiti. Adam already addressed this section [4] and on my user talk page. 172 | Talk 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Adam Carr proposed the following compromise in Archive 6: Cuba is the only state in the western hemisphere which does not conform to the definition of democratic government accepted by the great majority of governments and by international election monitoring and human rights organisations. The Cuban government and its supporters in other countries nevertheless maintain that Cuba is a democracy. I will insert that language for the time being. In the meantime, while he is gone, I'm not going to water down the intro any further. 172 | Talk 16:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
"Remaining a Soviet-Styled economy" is inaccuarate 172, Cuba attempted a Soviet-Style economy after the revolution but moved to a Maoist form for ten years or so. They tried to re-centralise during the 1980's (trying a 5 year plan etc) but after the Soviet collapse were forced to improvise a patchwork of economic policies. Basically Cuban handling of the economy has been a unmitigated mess, and doesn't bare close relation to the heavy planning of the Soviet model. -- Zleitzen 16:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The planning aspects over the years have been chaotic though, Bruce. With various ill advised experiments and political failures. The sugar industry, for instance, was neglected in part because Castro believed it to be "a tool of imperialism". -- Zleitzen 17:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Bruce, I'm not sure your statement about a trend towards the private sector here takes into account recent changes to the Cuban economy. It was mine, and 172's understanding that since the emergence of the Bolivarians, China and the Euro, Castro was "rolling" back some of these changes. That was the narrative that 172 was trying to express and I think he's right here. Your source only refers to figures from 2000, a lot has happened in Cuba since. See this [5]. -- Zleitzen 01:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I wish there was more current data that just 2000, still the trend from 1981 to 2000 is real. Your reference, based on the Miami Herald report, seems credible but 'short on data' and not clear whether they mean that the private sector trend has slowed, stopped or reversed. BruceHallman 13:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Now that User:172 appears to be on a break, and User:Adam is away with meatspace work, those currently editing should perhaps ask whether they are 'NPOVing' what was here before, or simply reinserting their own POV, which will then be viciously redone by the other parties when they return? Etc Ad Nauseum, when alternatively this could become easily an FA? Are we working together for a better tomorrow or??? Or do we all need to step back & take three deep breaths? Just wondering.... Bridesmill 22:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The Society|Education section currently notes "All higher education and university education is public and available free of charge. The University of Havana, Cuba's oldest university, was founded in 1721; prior to 1959 there were other official universities including: Universidad de Oriente (founded in 1947) and Universidad Central de Las Villas (founded in 1857); private universities included: Universidad Católica de Santo Tomás de Villanueva (founded in 1946); Universidad Masónica, and the Universidad de la Salle in Nuevo Vedado. In 1961 private schools and universities were nationalized (without reimbursement)." The wording in bold is strange. It seems to imply that after 1959 something happened to all the other official universities. In fact, the only key difference between pre and post-revolution was that the private universities were nationalized. To reflect this fact more clearly, would I suggest the paragraph be re-written "All higher education and university education is public and available free of charge. The University of Havana, Cuba's oldest university, was founded in 1721. Other official universities include Universidad de Oriente (founded in 1947) and Universidad Central de Las Villas (founded in 1857). Private universities, which were nationalized without reimbursement along with private schools in 1961, include Universidad Católica de Santo Tomás de Villanueva (founded in 1946); Universidad Masónica, and the Universidad de la Salle in Nuevo Vedado." Key changes in bold. Any thoughts? Patiwat 07:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Your suggestion makes sense to me. BruceHallman 13:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe the image of Che to have encyclopedic relevance due to A) It is a typical example of a very common site in Cuba. B) Che Guevara is a national hero of the Cuban revolution. C) The image is good quality GDFL D) The German wikipedia seems to agree with me. Myciconia 08:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't Che in an article about Cuba be seen as similar to Abraham Lincoln in an article about the USA? Lincoln was not and is still not universally admired in the USA, he was controversial in life, and death, and still Lincoln has become a political icon. BruceHallman 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I still see no reason to remove it. Surely the Che mural image gives more to the revolution section than no image at all! And this image not only has historical relevance, but also ties in with modern Cuba. Someone compared him to a US founding father, but how often do peoples organizations paint artistic murals of Lincoln in public spaces? Yes you see revolutionary inspired artwork in tourist areas, bilboards, etc. But it is also very common site at state and community buildings where tourists rarely visit. I never expected this simple snapshot to be controversial! Myciconia 19:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Also, The United States article has pictures in nearly every section--why can we not do the same? We can have Marti, Castro, Che... Myciconia 19:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The recent edit by user Friday, makes citation quoting Sandy Berger talking of the Clinton administration duplicity of policy towards China versus policy towards Cuba. Sandy Berger quote [9]: "Well, I think that we have very different historical relationships with China and with Cuba. Cuba, we have had an embargo on Cuba for 37 years. It is the only non-democracy in the hemisphere. There has been very little evidence that there's any interest on the part of Mr. Castro in significant liberalization, economic or political. And at this stage of the game, to end that embargo would be to send, I think, just the wrong signal. So in each situation, you have to decide what is the best course topursue with respect to your objectives." (emphasis added) Note, that again the US policy groups economic and political together, a clear implication that the US form of acceptable democracy is 'market oriented democracy' as opposed to the 'socialist democracy' of Cuba. In short, the Clinton administration POV, voiced through Sandy Berger, uses a narrow defintion of 'democracy', that is: 'market oriented democracy'. BruceHallman 15:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it adds anything; provides a US political opinion of US approaches & objectives to several problems, rather than Cuba in the context of Cuba. confuses rather than clarifies IMHO, and could be craftily pursued /exploited for several totally opposite POVs. As such, risky business to put in an article such as this (now if there was a Analysis of Cuba/US relations article, it would be a good one, if we could somehow avoid WP:NOR) Bridesmill 15:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I restored the quote, because I didn't see any good reason here on the talk page to delete it. Sorry if I missed any superb reasoning expressed on the history page. Please copy and paste it here, if I missed anything good.
It is quite plainly a matter of dispute whether Cuba is "democratic" or not. Perhaps this dispute should be mentioned in the body of the article. Contributors have argued above that Berger's statement isn't correct, because it's US-centric or uses the wrong definition. Great! Simply supply a quote from a non-US source or one using the right definition.
But don't expect one quote from one source to be neutral. We need a balance of quotes that express opposing points of view. I'd say roughly 75% of Wikipedians think Cuba is "democratic" (or at least has a "good" government). Okay, then it should be easy for them to quote verifiable sources which make this very point. If not, then it's obvious that these contributors are merely pushing their own POV. But I assume good faith, so I say give them a chance to find that quote. Ready, set, google! -- Uncle Ed 18:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
And here is my guide (again):
I asked for discussion BEFORE the deletion of the Berger quote, but Lulu merely placed an edit summary instead:
I think this is misleading, since I didn't see any consensus on this talk page for the reversion. I don't know what Lulu means by "undue weight", and Lulu has apparently overlooked my comments above about how to achieve NPOV by balancing "no it's not democratic" vs. "yes it is too" quotes.
It looks like a case of using reversion to replace discussion. I wish there would be discussion first, instead of an edit war. -- Uncle Ed 19:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's have an explicit discussion about reference format. I added a footnote section, and a first note for it, and specifically decided to use the {{ref|name}} template rather than the m:Cite.php system. The use of the styles on various articles is subject to quite a bit of contention, not least in the recent RfC against User:Cyde for misuse of his "reference converter" tool. Wikipedia:Footnotes and several other pages have ongoing debates about this. The different systems have different advantages and disadvantages.
My thinking on the matter was that for this specific case, requiring that references be inlined is somewhat disruptive of flow in the editing window. For example, nearly half the lead block now is contained within a <ref> element that is rendered at the bottom of the page by the <references/> tag. Moreover, if this footnote is referenced several times, and expanded later, editors can get confused about which occurrence is first (in fact, the non-first reference was the one that was updated in the initial edit).
On the other hand, I will very happily bow to rough consensus if it is different from my own preference. But rather than get into an edit war over it, let's explicitly come to an agreement about what style to use. FWIW, I think this article could be substantially improved—and perhaps even many future disputes about support for facts staved off—by use of footnoes, whichever technical markup is used to create them. LotLE× talk 16:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you follow your own instincts on what would be the clearest format to use, Lulu.-- Zleitzen 16:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Cite.php is the preferred method. Go to Wikipedia:Footnotes, and the page is organized around cite.php, and clearly implies its the recommended method. But if that isn't proof enough, here it is stated bluntly: "In-text citations can be made using the Cite.php system (preferred)" quoted from the Cite-sources page. -- Drogo Underburrow 17:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Can we please move past the false claim that m:Cite.php is somehow mandated, contrary to the stated WP guidelines?! I am not arguing against their use here even (well, maybe very mildly)... but tell me why you want them for this article. What benefit does m:Cite.php style have for this article, in your perception, versus other citation styles we might use? (whether simple {{ref|name}} or {{ref_harvard|...} It's not like it would take a lot of convincing for me to agree... but I just can't take an argument from a non-existent authority as the reason. LotLE× talk 18:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)