Talk:Cuba#Neutrality

First of all, simply writing "The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions" is not sufficient without mention of proper sources, for example NGO's or some recognized polity. I could accuse Norway of torture right now, so? What is this source supposed to be? http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Cuba67sp/indice.htm It is dated 1967? Surely something more recent should be found, otherwise the section might aswell be moved to "history of Cuba" Torture? Extrajudicial executions? I can't find any mention of these in recent reports. Not even the US state department claims the Cuban government practices torture or extrajudicial execution. Here is the recent report by human rights watch https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/cuba#3159b0 It does not mention torture, sexual abuse of inmates or extrajudicial executions. Those parts should be removed or changed to include what time this accusation was made.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herooow (talk • contribs) 18 March 2022 (UTC)

As I read this Wiki on Cuba that my son used in part for a report, I noticed an out of date reference he used and had points deducted for citing an inaccurate reference. The sentence I'm referring to is "It is located where the northern Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and Atlantic Ocean meet." He paraphrased that sentance and others, citing it on his reference sheet. His teacher deducted points for his references to "The Gulf of Mexico" instead of "The Gulf of America". I had a discussion with the teacher and she basically said that thats why it pays to verify source information. A bit ridiculous in my opinion. Then I got to thinking that she's probably not going to be the only teacher who is going to be strict about it. I understand the recent name change is only reflected in The United States of America and this is a site used by people from all over the globe. But I believe adding some sort of notation site wide to accurately reflect the change of name that happened only in the United States would benefit the many students who use Wiki for information. Just some food for thought. 71.28.161.97 (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia should itself not be used as a source for academic/scholarly work; the sources used in a Wikipedia article can be.

:This is best discussed at Talk:Gulf of Mexico. 331dot (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Cuba’s nominal GDP (2023) from UN is false. Cuba has been in a deep economic crisis for years, so it‘s impossible for nominal GDP to go from $147 billion in 2022 to $201 billion in 2023. The Cuban government told the UN a huge lie.Lepidux (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:And we're supposed to write something like that in the article instead, perhaps citing your word for it? Verifiability, not truth, etc. Remsense ‥ 论 07:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::Feel free to do whatever you like.Lepidux (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::So... nothing? (Help:Referencing for beginners) Yue🌙 00:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Perhaps it would be best to include an impartial mention of this, such as "...unaligned with Cuba's current state of economic crisis" (With a source on the decline of Cuba's economy.) Just a suggestion, im not that experienced with wikipedia editing. Whisp775 (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The population of Cuba is reduced to eight million, according to an independent study.

https://en.cibercuba.com/noticias/2025-03-26-u1-e43231-s27061-nid299621-poblacion-cuba-reduce-ocho-millones-segun-estudio

Cuba has lost 24% of its population in the last four years, a decline that typically occurs only in wartime contexts. The report highlights the massive exodus and questions the government’s data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Exodus Kartasto (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:That article is written by a bunch of Gusanos, I don't think it is very reliable. It is not even reliable enough to be cited as a second estimate. Easternsahara (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Do they have a news bureau locally or is that media outlet using word of mouth? CaribDigita (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Almost certainly word of mouth, the Cuban government would not let an anti-governmental force to undermine their glorious nation. Tourists can visit Cuba, so that might be how they are getting their information, but more investigation into their practices must be conducted to find their reliability. For now, I think we should use other estimates such as that by the World Bank or UN. Easternsahara (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Cuba|answered=yes}}

For the first sentence of the Government and politics part, there seems to be an obvious grammatic error; the first occurence of "countries" should be changed into "country". Dodobird0 (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Aston305 (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

There are discrepancies between the text of the sixth paragraph under "Economy" and the what the sources say.

1. The first sentence states "According to the Heritage Foundation," but the source (281) is an article from the National Catholic Reporter. The Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source, but regardless, the National Catholic Reporter article has nothing to do with Cuban credit accounts; it's an article about the Catholic experience in Cuba. I couldn't find any connection between the sentence here and the content of the article. I would recommend deleting sentence entirely.

2. The second sentence states that Cuba's exports of sugar dropped from 35% to 10%, due to a variety of reasons, "including a global sugar commodity price drop that made Cuba less competitive on world markets." I have two suggestions here:

a. Add dates for the two percentages. The source gives 35% from 1955-59, 10% from 1997-2001.

b. The part about the global commodity price drop is misleading. There was a price drop in 1995-96, but the source is actually from 2001 and shows that the price rose after '96 and then went down again due to a hurricane. The source is talking about the price over time, and 1995-96 is a fluctuation. Additionally, there is nothing in the source about Cuba becoming "less competitive on world markets," so I would recommend deleting that part. If we must include something cited to this source (although it seems out of date), to me it seems less important to note the global price of sugar and instead I would propose changing the sentence to "From 1995-1997, sugar accounted for 52% of Cuba's export earnings." Itsasatire (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I've added the 'needs additional citations' tag to the top of this article, as I've found multiple instances where the cited evidence is almost certainly prejudiced (cf. requirements for sources to be free from bias [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability here]).

For example (non-exhaustive):

n. 105 cites a 1984 CIA report as evidence for Cuba's dependence on COMECON; I think it's self-evident that this can't be taken as unprejudiced. See also n. 134.

n. 107 cites a very small local newspaper - see its 'About' page [https://en.escambray.cu/about-escambray-newspaper/ here] - as if it were a reputable historical source. Note the prejudiced, politicised tone of the original, e.g. 'Cuba's central Escambray highlands became the scenery for another Cubans' victory over imperialism'; 'terrorist plots and slaughters got increased'; 'the existing 45-year old embargo that was to have become yet its everlasting punishment'.

n. 132 cites a Russian state-sponsored newspaper in support of a lionising assertion ('in one of the fastest military mobilisations in history'). See also n. 148 for the rather bizarre citation of a regional Chinese state newspaper.

Evidently, these vary in significance. I think n. 105 is particularly problematic, as it serves as the only evidence for a central claim about the Castro revolution: 'One of the goal's of Castro's revolution was to achieve economic independence, but Cuba instead became heavily dependent on Soviet subsidies'.

I am well-aware that it's better to fix than simply commentate, but I don't have time right now to check these. I might get around to it as and when, but thought I'd flag it for others.

KukaiKoboDaishi (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)