Talk:Cuba

Archive

I removed the section on human rights because it is an aberration from the standard form for Wikipedia country others. In other articles there are a series of standard sections on history, politics, economy, and demographics-- each with a link to their respective main articles, along with a "miscellaneous" or "other" section for everything else. In other articles, human rights go under "other" or under the related articles. This is the case for the United States. It is even the case for other communist countries like People's Republic of China. [1] Thus, it appeared that the inclusion of a section on human rights in this article was at best arbitrary or at worse politically determined without reference to the NPOV policy. 172 | Talk 09:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went down further in the article and noticed that "education," "healthcare," and "republic" (a long extra section on contemporary Cuban history) were also left up as extraneous sections. Editors need to follow the standard templates. Human rights, education, and health might be the compelling political issues on both sides of the Florida Straits, but on Wikipedia we have a set of standards we need to follow and thus have to stay as consistent as possible across articles. Health, eduaction (sic), and human rights do not get individual self-standing sections in the country entries. Therefore, I created a miscellaneous topics section featuring links to the main articles, which is standard in country entries. 172 | Talk 10:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caerwine,

The saracastic comment on my talk page was not a sufficient reason for restoring improperly placed text. You say that the article has been subject to many edit wars. That is the case because the content was politically determined (what else explains why sections left under the "other" heading become the foci in this article?), not determined by the standard encyclopedic template, until my edits. Once this article follows the same template as United States, Russia, People's Republic of China, Colombia, Mexico, et al only then will the page history be stable. 172 | Talk 22:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caerwine,

You keep on reverting back to the nonstandard version while ignoring the talk page. You have yet to explain why this article should follow a nonstandard template, and focus on the Castro regime, instead of general information on the country. Take it to this talk page-- not my user talk page. 172 | Talk 22:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the sections that had been left under the now former Republic section haven't been the focus of the edit war. They were a result of hasty cut and paste merge from the former Republic of Cuba article which hadn't been integrated at all into the main text. Simply deleting that text because you didn't like the format was sloppy editting. Same with the Healthcare section, you deleted the content and added a redlink for a Healthcare in Cuba article. The least you could have done was put that content in a new article under that redlink. Nice formatting is all well and good, and a desirable good, but deleting text only because of its format is ludicrous.

The content of the infobox and of the History section, which are as standard as one could hope for in their formatting, so attributing the edit war to the way this article has been formatted is plain incorrect. Incidetally, I asked you to please tell me where this Wikipedia policy for the format of Country articles is spelt out. I'll happily follow a hashed out policy or recommendation, but I'm not going to take the word of any single person who apparently deletes content just because he doesn't like how it is formatted. Caerwine 23:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have things upside down. Hasty cut and paste merges from redirected articles constitutes sloppy editing. Removing long, rambling, extraneous material so that an article conforms to standards, however, constitutes proper copyediting. If someone writes a lot of material but doesn't find a proper place for it, the thing to do is store it in a temp article (say) Republic of Cuba/temp, rather than just dumping it in any article... If you want to know how the format is spelled out, compare the articles on you own. Take a look at the entries on Russia, People's Republic of China, United States, Colombia, and Mexico (2-3 of which too have controversial human rights records like Cuba), as I suggested earlier. 172 | Talk 23:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who did the hasty cut and paste, and in any case, that merge is now complete. I don't see anything here that I would consider extraneous, tho it is still verbose in places. I do find it strange that you kept deleting the Education and Health sections when there is an Education secction in the United States and Mexico articles and a Public health section in the People's Republic of China, so those two sections can clearly be justified by the examples you've given. Caerwine 23:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The new version does not "satisfy my tastes." It is clear that the choice to start assessing the criticisms of human rights groups of the government in this article but not other country articles is politically determined. (Ironically those human rights groups are based on a paradigm that human rights are universal.) It is also clear that the choice to start focusing on UNESCO's more upbeat assessments of the country's public health in this article but not other country articles is politically determined-- the only difference is that this section throws a bone to the Castro apologists. 172 | Talk 23:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With the current content of the human rights section, if it doesn't get separated out in a section of its own it would belong in the Politics section. I certainly would see nothing wrong with incorporating a Human rights section in every country article. I'm still waiting for you to indicate where one can find a Wikipedia guideline or policy concerning the content and formatting of Country articles. I'll happily defer to that, as such a guideline or policy would help reduce the edit wars here, but at this point all I see now is a question of taste in presentation now that the merge from Republic of Cuba has been completed. Caerwine 23:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the choice of using WHO data (not UNESCO, that's the Education section) for the Public health section was motivated solely because it had a broader set of measures than those included in the CIA factbook. (I was the one who added that table to the then already extant Healthcare section.) The data that was gotten from the WHO source, is if anything, less upbeat than that of the CIA factbook, tho that may be due solely to differences in the data year used. Caerwine 00:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban Presidents

One notes that some appear to have a dislike for the succession of Cuban presidents, and keep deleting any references to them except Batista. Could this be taken to suggest a bias against elected presidents in general? Or does this censor find Cuba's democratic traditions distasteful? (El Jigüe, 10/11/2005)

What it indicates that this article is the wrong place to list every leader of Cuba. Note that there are a grand total of seven presidents mentioned in the United States article, over a longer period of time than the Republic of Cuba. The article could use one or two references to people between de Cuellar in 1511 and Marti in 1895, but between 1895 and 2005, I think mentioning Marti, Palma, Batista, and Castro should be sufficent for this article unless there is something of signifcance that can be mentioned about them. Unfortunately, on a topic as broad as all of Cuba, simply winning an election is not sufficient enough. Caerwine 00:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, to eliminate the democratic presidents, is to fall under a self serving propaganda thesis of Castro, that Cuba never really had a democracy, a thesis that is patently absurd. In the US peaceful transition was almost always the rule, as much as Jefferson Davis Wanted to change that. Still a tabulated list of US presidents would be nice. Marti never was an elected President in Cuba the Spanish would never allow an election that is why the Cubans were fighting remember. Marti was President in Arms (e.g. President of the Republic in Arms). Batista's 1940 election was irregular to say the leasr. Castro is not really a president, he was never elected (except later by rubber stamp communist party hacks) and said "electiones para que" remember.

BTW When you wrote de Cuellar for a moment I did not realize who the heck you were talking about, Diego Velazquez de Cuellar is commonly called Diego Velazquez. the de Cuellar refers either to his birth place or is his mother's last name. I will get you a few Spanish governors a good one and a bad one Conde de Pozos Dulce or Martinez Campos and Weyler the Butcher (Angel Castro Castro's father served with him). However, they were appointed by the Spanish king usually for four years, and were supposed to raise their own salaries in any way they could. Often they simply soaked the people on the Island and then left after their term taking their monies back to Spain.

In memorium Rogelio González Corzo (alias Francisco), leader of Catholic youth shot in la Cabaña, on the 20th of April 1961. We went to the University of Havana together he always will be 29, and I just get older. (El Jigüe, 10/11/2005)

It wasn't Davis, it was the warmongering Lincoln who did that. :)

This is not the History of Cuba article as much as you seem deteremined to make it that. If you feel it disproportionately emphasises the post-1959 era, it would be much better to trim that portion than to add more elsewhere. Caerwine 05:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caerwine hmmmmmmm Davis, you "Welsh" really stick together (:>) Seriously I have addressed your comments as carefully as I can, but not checked all the material for the dislexic spellings of others. (El Jigüe, 10/12/2005)

What is the rational for removing even the one line on Castro's activities, yet leaving endless stuff on what Castro claims done to him (El Jigüe, 10/12/2005)

Havana vs La Habana

There have been certain revert warriors that among other changes, have been insisting that the capital of Cuba be identified by its Spanish name, La Habana. Given that this is en.wikipedia.org, the capital of the Czech Republic is identified as Prague, and not Praha, and the capital of Italy is identified as Rome, not Roma. Given these conventions, why should Havana be identified as La Habana contrary to the existing conventions? --Bletch 14:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blech, You are probably correct, however this should not be taken to extremes because then Guantanamo would be known as Cumberland xe xe (El Jigüe, 10/12/2005)

Given that the guideline is standard use in the English language, and Guantanamo Bay is called just that in English, I'm not sure how the name "Cumberland" fits in to things. --Bletch 18:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bletch that was a joke. Cumberland was the name given to Guantánamo when the English took it in the first part of the 18th century, but then [2]],[[3]], [[4]], all this relates to the war of Jenkins ear, and Admiral Lord Vernon (and through him to George Washington's halfbrother Laurence after whom George named his famous residenc residence). Cumberland (Guantanamo) was where in 1790 the English Garrison died of fever as had another English force previous [[5]] , before they could attack Santiago by land [[6]]. All this goes on and on until 1898 where Cuban scouts have save the neck of the Marines, in a story variously told, and involving Steven Crane. (El Jigüe, 10/12/2005)

Ahhh ok... funny the Guantanamo Bay article does not have the word Cumberland in there at all. Care to add this info to that article? --Bletch 23:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have often wondered about this. Which spelling came first? Considering that the Havana spelling would in Spanish be pronounced as Habana, it looks a bit odd to see the 'b' in the Spanish spelling. DirkvdM 06:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good question; a quick Google search doesn't seem turn up anything. I'm somewhat inclined to guess that it was Havana in Spanish at some point; for whatever reason, English speakers have not mutilated the spelling of Latin American city names the way they have European city names. --Bletch 16:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bletch I checked Alfredo Zayas former elected Cuban president's book Lexografia Antillana 1914 edition, you are correct it was once spelled with a v, its full name was San Christoval of Havana , however, the name Havana is Taino, believed although Zayas does not say so to sabana (savanna). The English version was originally Havanne. BTW I inserted the Guantanamo stuff as suggested (El Jigüe, 10/13/2005)