Talk:Special Period
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Special Period article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Peak oil in Cuba page were merged into Special Period on 2008-01-26. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I am the one who originally created this article, and it's been great to see how much it has expanded and enriched itself since the early days. For a long, long, long time, I didn't keep track of it, and when I did poke my head in to check every now and again, it wasn't really to read the thing in detail but to have a look at its 'general structure' so to speak.
But I've got to raise issue with the current sections on "Famine" and the "1994 uprising" (the latter of which links to a 'full' article of about two lines, not even enough for a stub, much less an article, and presents a one-sided view of 'human rights marchers' being clubbed by a repressive state apparatus). Both sections are vastly, vastly POV. Also, its allegations that animals from zoos and cattle in people's own fields were slaughtered for meat scream POV and seem to offer only articles from The Economist (itself a decidedly right-wing publication) to "substantiate" those claims. If these claims are going to be made, why don't you find a left-wing or at least left-leaning source that says the same thing, so that it can't be accused of being ideologically driven?
Some people, even now, fifty years after the Revolution, still insist on bashing Cuba for its 'repressive' nature. Enough. What's done is done. Batista is not coming back. Cry about it all you want. And yes, that's POV, but I'm not putting it in the article like you put your views in. ;) Kikodawgzzz (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- You should add this source to the section . --Enric Naval (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I know I'm editing out of order... I know .. sue me ... --- Anyway, it's not just the zoo animals that got eaten during el periodo especial lots of other animals that were randomly around got eaten too. If you look up an interview of a woman that had a very famous Cuban-govt approved cooking show in Cuba (cocina al minuto) you'll have her testimony on how these periodo especial times called for desperate measures for suggesting things to eat. Its rather depressing. Katanada (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Kikodawgzzz-so agreeing with what Human Rights Organizations around the world and many many refugees from Cuba have said is "wanting the Batista to come back"? Wow. The current regime in Cuba IS repressive, just like the last one was-one dictatorship was replaced by another. You can deny it all you want, it doesn't change the facts, and you don't seem to be in a position to accurately judge POV. You may not put your views in but I'm betting it's you who put the POV tags in b/c those sections didn't fit YOUR opinion-if it was really just about having better sources than tags asking for better sources would have been much better. I agree about finding more and better sources--which shouldn't be hard to do. You could even have found them yourself. I hope any editors that see will see that "not neutral tagging" is unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.185.138 (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Though to be fair, the people putting the NPOV material in should really read the sources they use to check whether what they're putting in is complete gibberish, for instance from <a href="http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/cuba/2169.html">[6]</a>, which is used to support the claim that in cuba the punishment for illegally slaughtering a cow/eating illegal beef is greater than homicide is backed up by this wonderfully innumerate statement:
"Cattle are sacred in Cuba. A colorful etching spotted at an Old Havana crafts market underscored that point, depicting a cow saying, "I'm worth more than you."
That's because a person can get more jail time for killing a cow than killing a human, under Cuban law. Cow killers can get four to 10 years in prison under a toughened crime law adopted in January. Those who transport or sell the meat from an illegally slaughtered cow can get three to eight years. Providing beef at an unauthorized restaurant or workplace can fetch two to five years. And buying contraband beef is punishable by three months to one year in jail or a steep fine. Authorities also have the power to confiscate all or part of the property of anyone involved in black-market cattle dealings.
In contrast, the jail sentence for homicide is generally seven to 15 years, unless there are aggravating circumstances. Suspects involved in contract hits, kidnap-murders, sadistic or perverse killings, the murder of police officials and other acts can get from 15 years in jail to the death penalty. "
So "4 to 10 years in jail", "3 to 8 years in jail", "2 to 5 years in jail", "3 months to 1 year in jail" are all now greater punishments than 7 to 15 years in jail or the death penalty?
Smaller numbers represent smaller quantities than bigger numbers, 4 is less than 7, 10 is less than 15, a fine is less severe than the death penalty. And remember, when in doubt, if you can take what you think is a smaller number away from what you think is a larger number, and the result is a negative number, YOU HAVE GOTTEN IT THE WRONG WAY ROUND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.248.185 (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The previously-inserted paragraphs in this section detailing zoo animals being eaten and Cuban administrative responses to illegal cow-eating come from a potentially ideologically-driven (right-wing) POV source; namely, an opinion article from The Economist titled "Cuba: Time For A Change". Pursuant to these POV allegations these paragraphs have been removed from the article until either a more balanced assessment, or more evidence of these same occurrences from a left-wing source, can be provided. Also, any attempt to reinstate them without either providing additional sources from both sides of the political divide, or a wide consensus on this Talk page by repeat editors of this article, will be reverted as an assumed POV action. Kikodawgzzz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC).
A lot of this page feels like it was writen in an opinionated manner. It feels like it needs a Wikifærie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.44.144 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I dispute much of the information in this paragraph which is self supporting. Although published by the CMAJ it is not a peer reviewed article but a letter written to the journal. The authors name has been witheld for unreasonable reason and none of the 'facts' have references to support their assertions. Much of it suggests it was written by someone biased towards the actions of the USA at this time.
"A letter published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) criticizes the American Journal of Epidemiology for not taking all factors into account and says that "The famine in Cuba during the Special Period was caused by political and economic factors similar to the ones that caused a famine in North Korea in the mid-1990s. Both countries were run by authoritarian regimes that denied ordinary people the food to which they were entitled when the public food distribution collapsed; priority was given to the elite classes and the military. In North Korea, 3%–5% of the population died; in Cuba the death rate among the elderly increased by 20% from 1982 to 1993."[8] The regime did not accept American donations of food, medicines and cash until 1993.[8] Thirty thousand Cubans fled the country; thousands drowned or were killed by sharks."[8]"
I would write it "The food shotages in Cuba during the Special Period were caused in part by the US trade trade embargo preventing Cuba buying food from other parts of the World. Food was not denied to the people but what food was available was shared out as fairly as possible. With better rations being made available to pregnant and nursing mothers, children, the elderly and manual workers. In Cuba no one died due to food shortages, in fact the health of the nation improved. There is no evidence to suggest political elites and the military had access to significantly better rations than anyone else nor that there was any significant increase in deaths of the elderly 1982-1993." It si the final line, however that suggests that this is emotive propaganda and not fact. It reads "Thirty thousand Cubans fled the country; thousands drowned or were killed by sharks." Where is the evidence to prove people were killed by sharks and if so how many compared to those who may have drowned?
If 2,000 were drowned and one was killed by a shark it would be accurate but misleading to write "thousands drowned or were killed by sharks." What accurate figures show the actual numbers who drowned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.0.132 (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with everything the previous comment says. This paragraph is not at all neutral and should be removed or edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.232.174.203 (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This article has many factual errors. To cite just two near the beginning of the article: The Special Period was announced before the demise of the USSR, and oil deliveries were greatly curtailed (compared to what was contracted for) already by the USSR before its demise, not a result of the demise of the USSR and the birth of Russia as the article asserts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.74.9 (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I added a disputed tag because the info in this page doesn't match in many respects what various other sources, as well as numerous Cubans, have told me. The Periodo Especial seems to have begun already in 1990 but was greatly exacerbated by the loss of Russian subsidies. But what this article doesn't mention at all is that this period is generally reckoned to have ended in 1994-1995, primarily as a result of the 1994 legalization of the US dollar as legal tender in Cuba, along with the hurried development of Cuba as a tourist destination. (As a result, for example, discussion of the 1996 Helms-Burton law is mostly irrelevant, but some 1992 laws tightening the embargo, not mentioned in this article, are in fact relevant.) Currently Cuba survives largely due to tourism.
I also think the info on the extent of the famine, the amount of weight loss, etc., needs to be expressed much more cautiously, and carefully sourced. The article currently says the average weight loss was 9 kg (20 pounds), but no one really knows. Every source says different numbers -- e.g. my Rough Guide says 4 kg, I think, while the CMAJ article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2474886/) says "lost an average of 5%–25% of their body weight", which is incredibly vague. (Does this mean that it's unknown whether the average is 5%, 25% or somewhere in between? Is it actually trying to express the spread of e.g. 1 or 2 std. dev. from the estimated mean, just badly phrased? Did the author -- whose "name has been withheld in order to safeguard her or his right to free communication" -- just make up these numbers?) There is no question there was a terrible famine, but given how ideological the entire issue of Cuba is, we need to be very careful about our sources. Benwing (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well I fixed the start date. Did you mark everything you contest with "citation needed" tags? Thanks. 96.26.79.253 (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Your statement this period is generally reckoned to have ended in 1994-1995, primarily as a result of the 1994 legalization of the US dollar as legal tender in Cuba is not shared by everyone. Can you offer support? It is contradicted by Ted Henken's 2008 book Cuba: A Global Studies Handbook ABC-CLIO. p. 438. ISBN 9781851099849 which states that in 2008 the Special Period is still ongoing. 96.26.79.253 (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your claim: The article currently says the average weight loss was 9 kg (20 pounds) is false. You left out the word "about" as in "about 9 kg". There is a book which I found that contains the statement and I cited it. 96.26.79.253 (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems that this article only cites one external article to use the word "famine" and the very quote that's used goes on about the "authoritarian nature" of the Cuban government. I think that the section should be renamed, because the use of this term to describe the food crisis in Cuba during the Special Period is not wide and doesn't belong here. KurtFF8 (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Because topics including transportation and agriculture are positioned on the page as sub-sections of "government response" is is necessary to include material that is not about any specific government response (such as Australian permaculture under the agriculture section) erroneously under the government response section.
I think it would be an improvement to move the transportation and agriculture sub sections out from under the "government response" section and put "government response" sub-sections under the transportation and agriculture sections.
What do people think about this?
Thanks 96.26.79.253 (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
- Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?]
- You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 20kilograms, use 20 kilograms, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 20 kilograms.[?] - Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “
Allpigs are pink, so we thought ofa number ofways to turn them green.”
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Breedentials (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The article says that the Special Period "was", denoting past tense. It says it began in 1989, but doesn't really say when it ended. So...when did it end? Coinmanj (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The article needs to include details about the changes that resulted - the legalisation of the USD, the opening to private businesses (paladares, casas particulares), the expansion of tourism.
Although Chavez became president of Venezuela in 1999, when did Venezuela start supporting Cuba economically ?
-- Beardo (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Beardo: Venezuela's economic support, as well as cooperation, dates back as far as the Caracas Energy Agreement, which was signed in October 2000 and gave preferential treatment to Cuba in oil trade, along with other countries. I wouldn't be surprised if support started even earlier. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
This entire article seems to underscore how bad this time in Cuban history was. It doesn’t outright say it, but it basically makes it seem like the “innovation” that came as a result were a good thing, that Cubans made some real advancements. In reality this period took a tremendous toll on the Cuban population, every day was about survival be any meaning necessary. People experienced horrible things back then. I was born in Cuba in 1990 and lived there until 1996. The stories from my family of those times would make you understand what I’m trying to convey. 2600:1700:9F8D:A010:DCAE:FF4C:1CF1:8A2C (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jesusslno, Coltranelvr67 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Qtzctl (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
