Talk:Human rights in Cuba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


In order to be less POV, the section should precise how you can go out of Cuba, which needs some papers (basically, invitations from strangers, familly...) but isn't impossible at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnsy (talkcontribs) 14:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Old nasty argument[edit]

Wikipedia asks for "sources" when editing an article but .... I didn't find any when reading "Human Rights in Cuba". Where are the "sources" for the number of executed people for example? Are your sources comming from ex-criminals from the Batista's regime? From cuban-american "opponents" living in Miami? Or form the American State Department and CIA? Do you call "opposition" in the early years of the Revolution the criminals "left" in Cuba at the service of Batista that couldn't go with him to the USA? As well "sources" are lacking throughout this article .... Wikipedia should be really neutral and in doing so, should be very careful in verifying sources!!!! I agree that this article strongly needs more neutral review!!!

This article strongly needs more neutral review.

Diderot 17:17, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Then do it. TDC 18:29, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the first five years of Castro’s tenure, 2900 people were executed after trial and an estimated 4200 executed without a trial. Many of these were carried out at the La Habana fortress while Che Guevara was commander. From 1959 to today, an estimated 18,000 political prisoners have been executed.

Can we have a source for these numbers?AndyL 07:16, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead and ask the Russian Government for "sources" on the numbers of russians executed by Stalin: you'd have at least one advantage, namely: Stalin is no longer in power, nor his party. Or try to find the "sources" for the numbers about Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia. (the article reads: "Pol Pot's regime killed between 4-5 million people between 1975-1979, out of a population of approximately 8 million.", with no sources mentioned other than "References" and "Further Readings").

Now try to do the same in Cuba! That happened more that 40 years ago! I wish I still had in my hands the dozens of copies of the magazine "BOHEMIA LIBRE" where Castro's regime proudly displayed photographs of literally hundreds of dissident citizens ("gusanos", or "worms", as dissidents were called) who were detained and shot summarily at "El Paredón" ("The Big Wall") without any trials, in the streets of Havana and other Cuban cities. Those executions were a constant fact of life for Cubans from 1959 up to 1956. You want sources? Find out those magazines! - AVM 20:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The article seems to be largely taken from this source though even it doesn't use TDC's numbers. AndyL 07:32, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TDC claims 18,000 political prisoners have been executed. Yet, David Horowitz in this essay claims "Of Cuba's 80,000 political prisoners, 70,000 took this path of rehabilitation" which would leave 10,000 poltical prisoners who were not rehabilitated. Even if all 10,000 were executed (rather than serving prison sentences) that still falls far short of TDC's 18,000 claim. AndyL 07:54, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are as many numbers for the number of people executed for non violent, political crimes as there are sources. They seem to range from 3K-100K. The more pro Castro the source, the lower the number.

From Rummel

I think we should come to a consensus on how many political executions have occured in Cuba since 1959. TDC 14:42, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think we should pick the liar we like most. 2601:181:8000:D6D0:DDD3:7706:E94E:4E59 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Since TDC still hasn't provided a source for his numbers I've removed:

Castro faced strong opposition early on. To consolidate his power he executed thousands who opposed him, even though many had actively participated in the effort to overthrow Fulgencio Batista. In the first five years of Castro’s tenure, 2900 people were executed after trial and an estimated 4200 executed without a trial. Many of these were carried out at the La Habana fortress while Che Guevara was commander. From 1959 to today, an estimated 18,000 political prisoners have been executed. This is one of the highest capital punishment rates in the world, although executions are not nearly as common in Cuba in recent years.

.It would be good if we could find a relatively neutral source (such as the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, that gives a culminative number or range. Based on what even a right winger like Horowitz has said, TDC's 18,000 number seems high since what we are dealing with, if Horowitz is accurate, is a subset of 10,000 "non-rehabilitated" political prisoners. If half of those prisoners were executed rather than forced to face long jail terms the number of political executions would be "only" 5,000 AndyL 18:20, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Did you read the Rummel link? I was giving a low estimate. But so as to not to allow you to turn this into another Castro-love-a-thon, I will find another source.TDC 18:22, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and I also read Horowitz' numbers as well as the submission earlier above that says the range actually starts at 3,000 (which is consistent with what Horowitz said), hence my skepticism. AndyL 18:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TDC, I believe it was actually you who said above "There are as many numbers for the number of people executed for non violent, political crimes as there are sources. They seem to range from 3K-100K. The more pro Castro the source, the lower the number. " so where did you get the 3K figure from?AndyL 20:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is for me to know and you to find out. TDC 20:13, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Fine, in that case I'm putting the 3,000 figure back in since you're being disingenous and are obviosly aware of the source but holding it back for ideological reasons. AndyL 20:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh no, no, no, my friend, you must source your information. It will have to be removed in order to protect the integrity of Wikipedia unless it has a source. TDC 20:25, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Your objection is disingenuous since *you* are my source for that number and refuse to identify your source. You know full well that the number has a source since you're the one who found it. This sort of behaviour by you is not only non-collegial but will get you booted from Wikipedia sooner or later if you don't become more cooperative and put the interests of the project above your personal political agenda. AndyL 20:26, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do you think just because you were nominated for an admin position you can threaten me?

For Shame Andy ......... for shame........... TDC 21:09, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me? My personal agenda?

As far as the source goes, I do not recal where I obtained it from, but if you put it in, I am going to remove it, because it will not be sourced. If you want the source, go find it. Stop bieng a lazy whiner.

Do lefties always expect someone else to do their work for them?TDC 20:29, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Do you always try to conceal information you don't agree with?AndyL 20:39, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am not concealing anything, I just don't recall. TDC 20:40, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt although your "That is for me to know and you to find out" comment earlier contradicts your claim that you "just don't recall". AndyL 21:08, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your graciousness knows no bounds.

Are you an only child Andy?TDC 21:09, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

No but all my parents' children are fully grown and I doubt they'd want to adopt any more so I'm afraid you're out of luck :) AndyL 21:18, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You know what's so interesting about you quoting Horowitz is that I talk to him a couple of times a year. I should ask him to look into this subject more.

If the mountain won't come to Muhammad................ TDC 21:17, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that Horowitz would be horrified to learn that his statistics are being used to cast doubt on the claims of a Castro opponent but if you ever go to court and sit through a trial you'll see that judges often take the evidence they use to come down to a decision from both sides and will sometimes take evidence given by the defence and use it to draw conclusions the defence doesn't like (or ditto with the prosecution). AndyL 21:22, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The numbers Horowitz gives are for political prisoners, not executions. TDC 20:06, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Why exactly are the numbers suspect just because they come from the OAS and US state dept? What exatly does suspect mean, and why are they suspect? TDC 20:47, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

The US state department is biased against Cuba as is the OAS and it is in their interest to exaggerate the numbers (certainly the US government has distorted statistics in the past when it relates to "enemies" of the US). The sentence is "may be suspect" btw. AndyL 20:54, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is true that the State Dept and the OAS are biased against Cuba, but does that mean these numbers are wrong or inflated? Isn't it enough to inform the reader where Lago obtained his numbers and then allow the reader to draw their own conclusion as to the suspect nature of the sources, rather than tell them? TDC 22:19, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

"It is true that the State Dept and the OAS are biased against Cuba, but does that mean these numbers are wrong or inflated?" It means they may be suspect which is what the article says. The numbers do not come from a neutral source, you've conceded that, so that means they may be suspect or do you believe that the US government never lies? If so I have some Iraqi WMD to sell you:) AndyL 22:24, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That the numbers are or are not suspect is a POV and it has no place in the article. TDC 22:37, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

How about a statement that no neutral body has concurred with US/OAS estimates?AndyL 22:46, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What would a nuetral body be? TDC 22:57, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Using numbers from a biased source is not POV? AndyL 22:48, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Once again biased according to who? To me, to you, to the reader? Hows about we tell the reader whose numbers they are, and allow them to come to their own conclusion as to thier validity? TDC 22:57, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Biased according to you since you acknowledged the US and OAS are not neutral. Are you seriously arguing that the US government does not have a bias in this matter? No one, not even the US government, would assert that. AndyL 23:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"What would a nuetral body be?" Amnesty International is neither pro or anti-Cuba. UN High Commissioner of Human Rights. Human Rights Watch. AndyL 23:04, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

AI may or may not be neutral, that is for the reader to decide. As far as I am concerned true neutral exists in very few places and realisticly should not exist at all. TDC 23:09, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

"may be suspect" is NPOV given the circumstances. It's different from saying "is suspect". The fact remains that AI, UNHCHR, HRW do not agree with the numbers.

Oh really? Please provide the information from AI, UNHCHR, HRW that disputes the number of executions and then you may well have a point. TDC 23:49, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

They don't cite his research in any of their reports on Cuba. AndyL 23:59, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And that means what exactly.......... that they have their own numbers on the number of politicaly motivated executions have taken place since 1959, or that they have not even looked into the matter? TDC 00:05, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

It means they don't accept the numbers. Can we write AI and ask them if they have their own estimate and, if not, why they don't accept the estimate you use or would that be "original research"?AndyL 03:58, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Changed the article title. I don't have any opinion about the contents, but this new title just seems to make more sense as an encyclopedia article.

Roadrunner 21:22, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--- "It is color coded to indicate degree of "ideological integration." as it is contested." This has been contested so please provide evidence that this is true. AndyL 04:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I have added some info concerning the disidents. I think this article needs some cleanup, since the work of TDC, who denies the existence of the victims of US Bombing in Afghanistan and justifies the American Nuclear Genocide committed against the Japanese civilian population , is clearly visible.

Just a general question but unless I am seriously mistaken the article has a sub-part for the Cason affair while at the same time there is a reference to this in the Political persecution-part. Shouldn't these references be moved to the Cason Affair - Section ?


First of all zippy, you need to take your paxil simmer down. I have never denied that collateral targets were killed in Afghanistan. I simply disputed your assertion that US pilots and troops spend their day lacksidasicaly taking target practice on Afghan children and their blind crippled puppy dogs. But that’s a debate for another page, as is Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And clear to who? A blind man in a dark room wearing a welding mask?
Secondly, I would not object to moving information on Cason to a new article and placing a passing mention in this one. TDC 08:06, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yohoo, TDC is Back. Say, have you ever considered focussing more on your other hobbies instead of spreading right-wing propaganda in Wikipedia ? Like kneeling in front of the American Flag while wearing your vintage SS-Uniform and masturbating on a picture of Ann Coulter ?


Now that was classy! Tell me, do you always stoop to this level of discourse when being dominated by someone that although you clearly despise, cannot best in a simple rhetorical debate? I know how much it must confuse and frustrate you to realize that you are not my peer, but just another who went head to head with me just to come away feeling like a weak and ineffectual toddler desperately coming to grips with his lack of adequacy. Tisk tisk tisk, I actually expected better.

But now to disect your feeble attempt at re writng history. TDC 22:21, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Are you suffering from Illusions of grandeur ? Be assured that I feel morally and intellectually quite superior to you, hypocritical nazi scumbag.

It's Delusions of grandeur, not "illusions of grandeur", moron. You really shouldn't be insulting anyone's intelligence.


I'm sorry, but anyone who calls Amnesty International neutral is too much of an idiot to be lecturing anyone on the neutrality of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Cason trial[edit]

If we could put aside the mutual invective for a moment, I'd like to hear from TDC why the information about the prosecution's evidence at the Cason trial doesn't belong in this article. If your preference is to create a new article with just a cross-reference here, then wouldn't the entire passage be deleted? Or is there some dispute about the accuracy of the language you removed? JamesMLane 00:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good point. The Cason trial is noteworthy enough to justify a separate article and I am currently working on one in my free time. As to the information presented, I removed it for several reasons. Any objective on looker can see that any political criminal trial in Cuba basically degenerates into a kangaroo court. The controversial information that Turrican presented is also unsourced.

I would also speculate that information concerning this backing Turrican's addition would also be from a source whose objectivity (please see OAS debate above) would also be questionable or biased. I do realize that Cason was working in conjunction with several individuals in Cuba, but allow this to shore up the Cuban government's assertion that this was CIA sponsored subversion is a stretch at best.


  • Photographic evidence introduced at trial showed the accused meeting with Cason, the head of the US Interest Section.

Source please, but it is not in dispute that Cason did meet with Cuban citizens.

  • As well, evidence was introduced of up to $8 million from the US government being laundered to various groups whose goal is the overthrow of the Cuban government.

Source please. Also how valid is the accusation that these individuals were attempting to overthrow of the Cuban government and had accepted $8 mil to do so?

  • According to prosecutors, the aim of the group arrested was to organize a poltiical party which would be financed by the American government and represent the views of the United States.

Once again, these accusations are coming from the representatives of the Cuban dictatorship, and are highly questionable.

TDC 00:47, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

The deleted text made clear that it was summarizing statements by representatives of the Castro regime. A reader who wants to discount them on that basis is free to do so. The correct approach is not to censor Castro's side but to present the opposite side. Examples of NPOV would be a summary of the defense evidence, or a statement attributed to Amnesty International or some such denouncing the trial because the defense wasn't permitted to introduce evidence. JamesMLane 01:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have given a link. Not my fault if you can't read. And I am really looking forward to the Cason article you are writing. Please be sure to write a lot about the unfair trials these heroic dissidents were subject to - which would never happen in the US of course, because since the Patriot Act was introduced "terrorists" don't have a right to be tried in a fair trial anymore.

Also what I have written is that is is a standard practive of the CIA and other Government Institutions like for example the National Endowment for Democracy to influence foreign elections by giving money and practical support to their favourite parties. This is a fact and there are dozens of historic examples from Italy to Chile and this is exactly what I have written. What are you expecting - a written statement signed by the head of the CIA that they have tried to topple Castro ? This is official government policy since more than 40 years.


You have not provided a source for any of the information you added. I will give you 36 hours to do so, or it will be removed. If you continue to insinuate that the CIA is behind the Cuban dissidents, either prove it or remove it.

Run along now my little pet, the clock is ticking. TDC 15:17, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Fuck you TDC, Fuck you. Who do you think you are ? If you an want an edit war, you can have it. There was right from the beginning a link to a statement by the Cuban government. As to the CIA and NED part - maybe I should add a link to a serious history book - as opposed to right-wing propaganda. You know, sometimes I ask myself if you know that you are wrong but are propagating your lies anyways or if you are another victim of US media brainwashing.

JamesMLane : Could you try to mediate here in some way ? I personally see no sense in further direct discussion with this guy but I am not willing just to give up just because he is so persistent.


Now, now ...... watch the potty mouth you dirty birdey, or you might just get temp banned. As to who I am ... its TDC (Turrican Destruction Comitee) in the house! As for the link, I have not seen any link from the Cuban government anywhere, put please prove me wrong, paste it here. Now I know that the NED and CIA have crushed millions of non aligned and peaceful organizations and governments committed to national liberation and social justice (tm) and are responsible for the deaths of billions upon billions of fun loving and happy go lucky political dissidents, but what evidence do you have that these evil doppelgangers of corporate fascisms were at work in the Cason affair? Oh that’s right, you have no evidence. Duly noted. TDC 16:04, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not on the Mediation Committee, and it might be useful to get them involved. Even without doing so, however, I can tell you with fair confidence what they or any other sensible user would say: "Run along now my little pet" and "Fuck you TDC, Fuck you" are both absolutely unacceptable as ways for editors to converse with each other. I call your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, where one of the participants was blocked from all editing for one day for calling another "a slanderous piece of filth". In the case of the present article, I think each of you needs to take a major chill pill if the article is to go anywhere.
I have to confess that I'd never even heard of Cason until I read about the incident here, so I don't have much background to draw on. Before I start Googling for Cason, can either or both of you save me some time by directing me to links that are particularly informative? If critical information isn't available online I can trudge over to the New York Public Library, which should have pretty much any important printed source in English and some in Spanish. I myself don't read Spanish, I'm afraid. Thanks for any help you can give me in getting up to speed. JamesMLane 15:58, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

TDC : To repeat myself : I have no written evidence that the CIA or the NED are involved in the Cason affair. What I have written is that they have done so in the past and I think this statement is necessary to understand that claims by the Cuban government that these people are involved in anti-government activties is so unrealistic as you seem to think.

JamesMlane :I would like to point to my favourite reference on the subject of CIA and NED, [1] by William Blum. He also gives sources for every important statement he makes, so it should be quite possible to verify his claims. There is also a chapter about US agression against Cuba.

The Link I pasted is right after this sentence in the article, it is numbered (3) :

Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque denied these charges and stated that "Cuba has the right to defend itself and apply punishment just like other nations do, like the United States punishes those who cooperate with a foreign power to inflict damage on their people and territory"


The fact remains that neither you nor Billy Blum can provide any documentation what so ever that either the CIA or the NED has anything to do with the Cason affair. Sure you can say that the CIA and the NED has allegedly been involved in the past, but this has nothing directly to do with the matter at hand.

I have also gone over all of your edits to the article and have not found your citation. Please provide it again. The clock is still ticking. TDC 22:24, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

To clarify, the citation I seek would be the citation for the information contained specificaly in the Cason subsection. TDC 22:26, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

The Cason affair-subsection was not written by me ! My only two edits were on September 21. And I won't let myself be threatened by an ultimatum. I thought we had agreed to try to be more civil.

Another proposal to the public : I don't think that the Guantanamo-Part really belongs here. While the legal status of the Guantanamo Naval Base seems to be unclear, the Human Rights Violations inside are not committed by the Cuban Government but by the US.


Well I'll be damned, I guess you didnt. Fair warning to whomever did, please document and source or I will have to remove it. TDC 22:16, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

TDC, the source was the following link shown under external links. I will add the information and link to the source.

Quick, someone go over to the Pinochet article and write this:

"Pinochet supporters dispute the peaceful nature of Chilean dissidents. They note that several instances of disappearance and torture carried out by the military junta were directed toward Marxists with Castroite ties, who presented a serious threat to stability in the South American nation."

...and see if you get taken seriously. In the meantime, just remember that if Castro ever imprisons someone in Cuba, it's never his fault, for many reasons:

1) The Imperalist, Corporate States of America were immediately hostile to Castro once he promised free healthcare and fairness for all. This goes against the Capitalist New World Order. 2) The aforementioned hostility drove Castro into the Soviet camp. 3) Castro was truly a Jeffersonian democrat (hahaha) but because of the Mafia-CIA alliance was forced to go totalitarian and crack down on dissent. HE HAD NO CHOICE! 4) The Corporate States of America continues its oppressive embargo on the Cuban people. Nevermind that Castro is openly hostile to American "fascism" and "imperialism," we need to give him a helping hand!

Fidel Castro: Peaceful, starry-eyed democrat, turned evil by unprovoked corporate aggression. Supreme Moolah of Iran 09:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: Do you really believe that a tiny island nation can stand up to an overwhelmingly powerful Single World Superpower without taking extraordinary measures? If Fidel Castro behaved like he had nothing to worry about, how many seconds do you think he'd last? Oh, and given the fact that the USA itself and countless numbers of its allies imprison suspected terrorists in much the same way as Castro, aren't you being a tad bit hypocritical? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:14, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The US at the moment does not plan on installing a "fascist" (in Uncle Fidel's words) government in Cuba, or creating a Batista II. Castro may have had a (extremely lame) excuse to exercise absolute authority during the Cold War, but that's over and done with. Of course, if a US-friendly democracy did manage to take root in Cuba following Castro's death (which'll be awhile -- they say that Cuba's healthcare is so great he's going to live to 140) I'm sure you and like-minded individuals would deride it as a "banana republic." But that's another story.

Besides, Communist guerrillas were active in several subversive activities in Latin American countries during the Cold War, and I'm sure several were backed by Cuba and the Soviet Union. By taking your Castroite logic I can say that it was perfectly OK for the military governments in those countries to exercise absolute authority in order to stabilize the situation. Anyhow, the US did not support such dictatorships following the Soviet Union's collapse, and did not always give unconditional support to them in the first place. If every Cuban loves Uncle Fidel so much, why doesn't he announce a plebiscite so they can reelect their dear leader? Sorry, I said reelect -- I forgot he wasn't elected in the first place.

And the Guantanamo:Cuba analogy doesn't work I'm afraid. I don't entirely agree with this Bush administration's policy, but putting suspected terrorists away is different than putting suspected dissidents away. Unless you're going to argue that every person summarily executed or imprisoned by Castro is a paid CIA agent bent on installing a fascist, imperialist government in the region. Supreme Moolah of Iran 00:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And comparing CDRs to corporations? Please. I know we're supposed to be neutral here, but the pro-Castro argument needs to be something other than 100% BS. Supreme Moolah of Iran 09:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CDRs are organizations in which membership is not technically compulsory, but which a person must join in order to get ahead. Corporations are organizations in which membership is not technically compulsory, but which a person must join in order to get ahead. Sounds like a perfect comparison to me... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:57, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your recent addition sounds like its a personal opinion and not a reference to any research or to statements made by Castro supporters (unless its a reference to you). Please provide a source for your statement, or I am afraid it will have to be removed. TDC 16:56, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

It's by no means a recent addition. It was a part of the article that got removed, and I only put it back in. Check the history every now and then. If you want this sentence removed, then I'm afraid I'll also have to remove the statement right above it, which is the opinion of Castro's critics. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ugh, this specific criticism is your specific criticism. Personal POV is not to be inlcuded in articles unless it reflects a more widely held and documentable belief. TDC 20:21, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
The idea that "corporations are organizations in which membership is not technically compulsory, but which a person must join in order to get ahead" is widely held among the kind of people who are likely to support Fidel Castro (and many people who do not support him, too). I could document it by calling here the best-known members of the online communist community to testify, if you wish. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:40, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
So, there is a pundit, academic, journalist, or some other talking head type who has specifically drawn a comparison between corporate membership and Cuban CDR membership? If there is, then the statement in contention would be a valid addition to the article. If not, then it is just your opinion. You cannot document it by calling members of the online communist community to testify, it has got to be a real honest to goodness citation. Happy hunting for it, you will need it. TDC 13:36, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
Sure thing; just as soon as you provide the same kind of documentation for the statement that "Castro's opponents argue that organizations such as the local Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, the Women's Federation, the Young Pioneers, and student organizations coerce adults and youth into participating" - which is just a few lines above the corporate comparison. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You may think those pocket jacks look good, but I'm TDC, and I'm callin your bluff and goin all in, boy
Castro's opponents argue that organizations such as the local "Committees for the Defense of the Revolution", the Women's Federation, the Young Pioneers, and student organizations coerce adults and youth into participating
[2] [3] Political Systems of the World . Derbyshire
Want more? TDC 01:47, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
Touché. Although, if the only thing you're asking for is a reference to an article on a website, does that mean I can just go make my own website, write my argument there, and then use that website as a reference for "Castro's supporters argue..."? Or perhaps you only accept websites with a certain amount of traffic, to show that they're genuine sources? That wouldn't be a problem either. I'm sure my comrades over at Che-Lives would be more than happy to help me in this matter. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:01, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Couple things. The one website I took from is the Rand corporation, big time think tank. Think tanks are good for citations. The other is a book, a political atlas, also good for citations. Let me put it to you this way, before you cite a source, think to yourself, what would I say if TDC tried to insert information from a source as credible as this.
I am leaving in about an hour to go hunting for the week, so you have plenty of time. TDC 11:10, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
In answer to the question raised by Mihnea Tudoreanu: You touch on a point of difficulty in applying the NPOV policy. Our goal is to report opinions without adopting them, but there's a limit to what opinions we can report. Somewhere in the world, there's probably someone who believes that Castro is actually in the employ of the CIA, assigned to generate a phony offshore threat that will benefit the right wing in U.S. politics. If that person manages to learn enough HTML to post his ravings, that doesn't mean we need to report it. The Wikipedia policy includes this passage:
Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
(The foregoing is from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#What is the neutral point of view?.) I think this means that we should report on a significant body of opinion, or, in some cases, the opinion of even one notable source. On the other hand, if you, personally, think the CDR's are like corporations in relevant respects, but that comparison isn't one that's generally made by other people, then Wikipedia is not the place for you to proselytize for your viewpoint. JamesMLane 00:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression that CDRs were political organizations. Corporations are not political organizations. You don't need to be a free-market conservative to be employed by a corporation. Supreme Moolah of Iran 00:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please add Category:Human rights to this article? I'm trying to populate this category, but I'm afraid editing this article would provoke the thought police to come after me. VeryVerily 23:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uh..., people? VeryVerily 07:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fidel Castro definitely needs to take a good look at himself. Scott Gall 08:57, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Every once in a while, I am still surprised by the idiocy of the would-be Walter Duranty's who post on Wikipedia. The following quote provided just such a surprise: "Just out of curiosity: Do you really believe that a tiny island nation can stand up to an overwhelmingly powerful Single World Superpower without taking extraordinary measures? If Fidel Castro behaved like he had nothing to worry about, how many seconds do you think he'd last?" Oh, so that is why Castro never held an election, even once, the entire time he was "in office". I guess that is also why Cubans don't enjoy freedom of speech, assembly, religion, the press, the right to a speedy trial, trial by jury, or any other right that is associated with a civilized democracy. Who knew that "stand[ing] up" to the United States required the enslavement of an entire nation? Honestly, the new excuses people come up with to justify the oppressiveness of murderous regimes constantly amazes me. If you go to the discussion pages on Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, you will find similar "standing up to imperialism" nonsense put forth as a reason for the murder of literally millions. You have to break a few(million) eggs to make an omelet, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


I read through it quickly, and failed to find any obviously biased statements. Where are they, if they really are biased, why are they not just reformulated? Or can we remove the POV warning? --Regebro 21:10, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's a sample: "This true apartheid is in place now."

It seems to me that relative to other human rights articles the Cuba is being held to a double standard. Comparing it to articles for less controversial countries I've found most go into lengthy discussion of de jure human rights and only occasionally qualify them with the descriptions of the status of human rights in practice which, in Cuba and in most other countries as well, tends to conflict with the flowery language of jurisprudence. This article does the opposite, it gives a detailed expose of the system's failings without providing much context. What is seemingly normal practice in many countries including the US, such as holding prisoners in isolation, is described in the most vividly mortifying detail as torture in the case of Cuba. Penal labor is referred to as 'forced labor' which seems to allude to the kind of camps you'd expect to find in North Korea, Stalinist Russia, or Nazi Germany, nevermind that comparable 'forced labor' is used widely used throughout the world. The strengths of Cuba in regard to human rights are marginalized (yes, it does have a poor human rights record, but it also has a track record of success in certain areas especially in comparison to other developing countries.) A glance at the sources used in this article reveals little attempt to draw from objective or academic sources (ie, Black Book of Communism which has been thoroughly debunked.) Cuba's weak civil liberties are primarily responsible for weighing down the country's ranking on human rights index's, from reading this article you'd think Cuba was one big gulag, in fact in some respects its government is more humane than most in Latin America. - User:DMPineau 11:00 Sept 4, 2009

The following quote is the best I have ever read in response to the absolutely nonsensical assertion that Cuba has a "track record of success in certain areas": "Wherever there is a jackboot stepping on a human face, there will be a well-heeled Western liberal there to assure us that the face enjoys free health care and 100% literacy." Another ridiculous assertion from the above poster is the assertion that the Black Book of Communism has been thorougly debunked. Sorry, but that is a falsehood, unless of course by debunked you mean the outcry from communists "academics" wbo don't like the fact that a thorougly-documented work of scholarship has laid bare the horrors of communism for all to see. And exactly what "context" can explain away the fact a legitimate election has not been held in Cuba in over a half a century? The very fact that Raul Castro "succeeded" his brother tells you all you need to know. And there is a vast difference between penal labor and "forced labor" and your attempts to assert otherwise are pathetic. Being sentenced to hard labor in the United States is not even remotely the same as being sent to a communist gulag or laogai. There is a reason Cuba is portrayed as a vast gulag: it is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Capitalist Human rights?[edit]

People don't seem to understand that 'human rights' are a capitalist charade, what Cuba is doing is not 'human rights abuses' but class struggle! Who says capitalist scum have rights? NEXT IN THE FIRING SQUAD I SAY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then you have no right to comment and those of us living freely can decide what human rights are. Gtbob12 (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

'Human rights' are propaganda made by the bourgeoisie ruling class to discredit revolutionary class struggle in countries around the world. The 'rights' of the exploiters and oppressors of humanity should be discussed here, why should capitalists be entitled to anything except death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well by all definitions made by reasonable people, you are the exploiter and oppressor, considering your opposition to human rights. So death to you I say. Furthermore, this article discusses the rights of anyone who disagrees with the House of Castro regime, whether they are "capitalist oppresors" or not. Gtbob12 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious that the commenter is trying to parody those who are defending Castro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Bay of Pigs anyone?[edit]

I find it pretty strange that, in an article about human rights in Cuba, no mention is made of the Bay of Pigs attack by the US. I mean, it's one of the things, along with the embargo, that made Castro more paranoid and thus triggered more repression from the regime.

Yes, its all the U.S.'s fault. (Sarcasim intended). --Tenric 20:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it is all the US's fault (sarcasm also intended). Because an "embargo" by the US (note I didn't mention any other countries)is the only reason that Cuba is a hellhole. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that Castro is a communist dictator that has run Cuba into the ground, can it? I get so sick and tired of people who try and claim that Cuba's atrocious human rights record is somehow the fault of the US. By the way, the US didn't attack Cuba during the Bay of Pigs. In fact, the Bay of Pigs failed because the US support promised by Kennedy didn't materialize, thus the people of Cuba have been consigned to living as slaves for past five decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
We actually do hold partial responsibility. We made Cuba a dictatorship when we stole it from its Spanish conquerors and added it to our colonial holdings (along with Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.). If we had given Cuba a democratic government rather than a fascist one its oppressed people would never have turned to communism. Communism only ever preys on the oppressed. --TheSapient — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, And people say Americans have freedom of thought. For starters, Castro isn't a dictator, the fact that he allows opposition parties and free elections proves this. Secondly, Cuba isn't a hellhole. I get so sick and tired of people who try to claim Cuba has a bad human rights record. Cuba has around a fourteenth of the poverty in america, despite having only a ninth of its GDP. By the way, it's widely accepted that America funded and armed the rebels who tried to take back Cuba after Batista (You remember him? Loved to gamble and smoke, hated human rights, supported totally by america?) was overthrown by Castro in a popular (yes, popular, as in the people wanted it) revolution. Thus, Cuba is actually more democratic than america which has seemed to spend half it's time in the past decades funding opposition to popular revolutions around the world and crushing Socialism and Communism, even when it's voted in by a democratic system (Nicaragua, anyone?) (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk: on 30 May 2011 said the following: "For starters, Castro isn't a dictator, the fact that he allows opposition parties and free elections proves this." Can you please substantiate, with some proof, that there are indeed OPPOSITION PARTIES in Cuba. That's "for staters". After you answer that, we can tackle the topic of FREE ELECTIONS. But, for now, please expound on the OPPOSITION PARTIES and how they are viewed, treated and managed by the Cuban government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dp blogger (talkcontribs) 21:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Cuba before 1959[edit]

The article seems to cover only human rights abuses between 1959 and the present. Does this imply that there were no human rights abuses in Cuba before 1959? The first sentence says that since Castro came to power, there have been allegations of human rights abuses. Is this intended to mean that there were no such allegations before he came to power? That's what it appears to mean, and yet I don't remember Batista being a model democrat... - 19:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Another thing we need to add is some sort of context. For example, comparing human rights in 60s and 70s Cuba to those in Guatemala or Haiti during the same period or El Salvador during the 80s, or even Colombia today. Since almost all countries have human rights abuses (certainly the US, UK, France, etc), one can only get a grasp of relevance, extent, degree by understanding the relative severity of a country's abuses in the historical context and compared with similar countries. The 5,000 political prisoners executed between 1959 and 1980 in Cuba could be compared with the 100,000 political prisoners executed by Franco in Spain *after* the war was already over. - 18:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly SUPPORT this Idea. The articles name is Human Rights in Cuba , and thus should contain the whole history of Cuba in it... I suggest that there will be the following topics:


Humans Rights under Spain (including Weyler Reconcentration)

Humans Rights in Mambises War


Humans Rights under US Ocupation

Humans Rights in the Neocolony (Machado, Batista... Mella & Jesus Menendez Assesination. Represion to strikes. Supression of the University)


Humans Rights in early years of the Revolution (Trials to alleged torturers of Batista, UMAP, etc)

Humans Rights in the 70's and 80's. (USSR relations, freedoms under Socialism in Russian Style. Comparaton with Chile, Argentina and other dictarships)

Humans Rights in the 90's 00's. (USSR dissapear, Economical Crisis, Dissent, Increasing Embargo)

Of course nor of this is exclusive and all other topics already present might find their place inside. I also STRONGLY SUPPORT the idea of making comparations with other countries, since everybody is a human rights offender, and we need to be impartial, which also means that accusations shall be place in context.

Maybe other genenral topics as:

Political Manipulation

Guantanamo Bay

Jose Marti thoughts in Humans Rights

International activism in Human Rights

Communist vs Capitalist understanding of humans rights

might take place at the end.

Well. Do what ever you want... but pleas, leftist or right wing, work for the sake of neutrallity and Wiki. Alex

I also agree. Why has this not been done, yet? Also why is there no section giving the other side of the story, i.e. the justifications and explanations for why Cuba feels it must restrict certain democratic freedoms such as the fact that the US/CIA has been meddling and trying to sabotague the society since the revolution? And the arguments about what yard stick to use to evaluate human rights (there are more than one, such as the economic one). This would give the article some balance and make it at least appear more nuetral. Right now it reads like a pro-US anti-Cuba propganda piece. (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


There is no word "Censorship" in the article. Xx236 10:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The U.S. Interest Section [4] billboard controversy [5] may be of note. -- Beland 01:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I too find it very strange that Cuba's notoriously stringent press censorship has not warranted comment. --Roger Williams 07:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


What about free elections in Cuba? Do they exists, as made to believe in Cuba? 14:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a can of worms. Your first question cannot be answered without agreement to the definition of 'free'. This is commonly a source of disagreement in discussions about Cuban elections. Arguments go like this:
  1. How can elections be 'free' without freedom of speech for campaigning?
  2. Or, How can election campaigning be 'free' when (corporate) money (which buys a bigger bullhorn) has a legal equality with human speech?

BruceHallman 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

neutrality dispute[edit]

Unfortunately, this article suffers from systemic political bias and is not written from a neutral point of view. It is not possible to quickly itemize all the examples of this bias, but for instance, the first paragraph fails to acknowledge that human rights in Cuba exist in the context of of a socialist society, and the article in general appears to be written from a capitalistic point of view as if the capitalistic point of view is an absolute universal baseline of values. Why is article 62 given bias but not "Article 53: Citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society. Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at exclusive service of the working people and in the interests of society. The law regulated the exercise of those freedoms."? BruceHallman 16:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

'...the article in general appears to be written from a capitalistic point of view as if the capitalistic point of view is an absolute universal baseline of values Give me a break. Stop conflating capitalism and liberalism. Liberalism refers to the belief that government should aim to preserve individual rights, including speech, assembly, movement, and press. Capitalism refers to a form of economic organization based on commodity production and private ownership of the means of production. Human rights is a liberal concept. The subject matter here is not directly related to capitalism or socialism. 172 | Talk 11:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Section 53 should certainly be quoted, as a good illustration of the lying, hypocritical and repressive nature of the Cuban communist regime, which proclaims "rights" in the abstract but denies them in practice. Since all Cuban media is owned or controlled by the state, there is no independent or critical media, and thus no possibility that any Cuban can exercise the theoretical "freedom of speech" proclaimed by Section 53. Would Comrade Bruce like me to incorporate that into the article? Adam 12:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I say every time he utters pseudo-philosophical bullshit like "human rights in Cuba exist in the context of of a socialist society," make an edit he finds politically unpalatable. It can be kind of like the logic of a drinking game. 172 | Talk 12:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Dude, thats one KICK ASS DRINKIN GAME! :) Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I will do so. I have to say, incidentally, 172, that Cde Bruce is correct in a way. Liberalism and capitalism are in fact inseperable, and in a sense synonymous, since the institution of private property has been shown historically to be the only bulwark against the power of the state which is strong enough to offer the kinds of guarantees that liberalism requires. It is impossible to imagine a society which combined a state monopoly of property with a liberal political system. Adam 12:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There is clearly a relationship. No one can doubt that the institutionalization of private property is a necessary condition for a liberal political system. Still, the subject is very complicated, and I'm sure that way past the foreseeable future there will still be graduate seminars in political theory debating the exact nature of the relationship between capitalism and liberal democracy. But that's neither here nor there. The reason I felt compelled to distinguish the terms was because of my sneaking suspicion that Bruce did not really understand the relationship, but was advancing a crude Marxist "base determines superstructure" argument. 172 | Talk 16:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of me in the third person and calling me names is not constructive. If you would like to collaborate with me (and other editors) please let us know. BruceHallman 17:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

ok seriously, next time, before you revert an edit, notice that I was removing duplicated paragraph. if you had the brains to look in the section above, some tard Copy/Pasted part of the section into the section below. Stormscape 19:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


In the United States's Human Rights Wikipage, there was a disclaimer that reads as follow "Please note that whether many of these "issues" are human rights issues is up for debate."...notice that it was added right after the Slavery text...if, likely on top, this same disclaimer is placed in the Cuba Human Rights page, I think we have more than done good work, no matter what information is given time after...a disclaimer like that, remind people they shouldn't quote Wiki on some of these subjucts, and if they do, if they cite their sources, those reading the literary pieces will see the disclaimer by themeselves...most likely discussion will continue if that disclamer is not added...Personally, I saw some (to say the least) 'questinable' information on the United States page, but then , I saw the disclaimer and it kept me away from posting. Otherwise, I agree with the timeline etc dealing with Cuba's record before the Revolution. After reading this article over and over again, its almost impossible to believe how bias it is, which makes it almost impossible to get rid of or try to find some middle ground, specially since "Human rights in Cuba" automaticly integrates/transforms to "Human rights violation in Cuba"(this of course will be attacked by 'we are not talking about the good certain government performs, but the wrong) in turn, personally, most likely, I'll wish happy patience to those who stay and try to get some clearity into this matter.

Cuba’s Point of View[edit]

Wikipedia usually states the perspective of the main issue first, and then states the perspective of the critiques. This article contains the U.S. governments, Miami Cubans, and others, usually conservatives’ perspective first, and throughout most of the article. I humbly suggest the following addition of the Cuban government’s perspective first to serve as the introduction of the article:

Cuba’s human rights values stem from the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993. According to Cuban statements on human rights recognizes the “universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated character of all human rights.” At the same time, Cuba understands that no single model of “political, economic, social and cultural” exists. Cuba holds as fact that “human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, should be treated in a global form, in a fair and equal way, in an equal footing and giving the same importance to all” of the different rights. Cuba also understands the need for “respect for national and regional particularities, as well as for the diverse historical, cultural and religious heritages.” Cuba advocates all three generations of Human Rights.

Moreover, “Cuba promotes and defends the principles of objectivity, impartiality and non selectivity in the treatment of issues related to human rights, and the refusal to use them with political dominance purposes.” On the other hand, “Cuba rejects the growing trend of countries in the North,” which set themselves “up as judges and censors of all that happens in countries in the South.” These countries in the North “hide the countless human rights violations that take place in their own territories plus others derived from the unjust international order they are imposing in their own benefit.”

Cuba has contributed “Draft Resolutions” to several human right documents. Cuba supports and “contributes with its positions and initiatives, to the progressive development of the international system of promotion and protection of all human rights for all.” Many developing countries support and imitate Cuban human rights policies. Cuba, and Cuban citizens, has had their human rights violated by the United States for over one hundred years. The first sixty years as neo-colony, followed by a half century of “low intensity war” by which thousands of Cubans have died.

The United States government, Miami Cuban emigrants, and others, usually conservatives decry the Cuban government and its socialist Constitution because it violates the human rights of its citizens. Since 1851, the United States government has condemned the Cuban political system under Spanish rule. When the United States neo-colonized Cuba in 1898, criticism shifted from the government to the people of Cuba, especially the color people. United States government criticism changed again in 1959, and has continued to the present. [Cantón Navarro, José. (1996). Historia de Cuba. La Habana, Cuba: SI-MAR S. A. ISBN: 959-7054-12-4].

The difficulty in understanding Cuba’s human rights policies objectively comes from a prolific 47-year negative propaganda campaign funded by the United States, the human rights values of the observing nation or individual, and that Cuba’s different political-economic system is foreign to the capitalist social structures. Unless one places, Cuban human rights within a historical, cultural, socio-psychological, political-economical context [Pollis, A. and Schwab, P. eds. (2000). Human Rights: New Perspectives, New Realities. Boulder, CO. Publication: Lynne Rienner. ISBN: 1-55587-979-9] one cannot possibly understand the present day Cuban three generations of human rights’ policies. Cuba’s distinctive social, political, economical, and cultural structures and procedures in many cases do not have a corresponding structures or functions in a capitalist society. This poses a problem explaining Cuba to someone unfamiliar with socialism. In other words, many human right goals carried out in Cuba could not occur in a capitalist nation, and vice-versa, making analogies difficult. Finally, nations that support universal human rights do recognize that each nation is different and value judgments enter into the decision of which human rights take precedent over others.[ Pollis, A. and Schwab, P. eds. (2000). Human Rights: New Perspectives, New Realities. Boulder, CO. Publication: Lynne Rienner. ISBN: 1-55587-979-9].

Daniel Oneofshibumi 04:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. --TJive 05:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

People interested in this topic should read Fidel, Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant, by Humberto E. Fontova, Regnery Publishing Inc. (2005) and The Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty by Alvaro Vargas Llosa, The Independent Institute (2006). Fontova in particular is a far right wing ideologue, but he cites sources other than other right wing ideologues. In particular he often cites first person sources and interviews with people who witnessed the events reported. As you read these, remember they were recommended to you by some one who is the very end feather on the left wing of the liberal branch of the progressive party.Ethanjacobs 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fontova is an admitted historical revisionist -- he believes that the "true story" has been obscured by the communist-sympathizers in the US government! In short he is an idiot. Anyhow I like the original post in this section. Cuba's POV on this is not really included in the article. The book "The Cuban Exile Movement" by Hernando Calvo and Katlijn Declercq shows very clearly that many human rights campaigns against Cuba have been historically bankrolled by the far-right exile community (many members of whom have gone from being human rights violators themselves, such as the Abdala terrorist group, to being folks that have put down their guns and instead are now banging the drum of "Cuban Human Rights" -- mind you, these are terrorist groups that have shown blatant contempt for civilians: the Alpha 66, Omega 7, and CORU attacks on Cuba and on American citizens are nothing if not blatant acts of terrorism in violation of human rights... but sure, I suppose these folks in Miami have a lot to tell us about human rights abusers... in Cuba!). It lists all the groups known to have received very large donations from these millionare white-Cuban exiles (again, many of whom have terrorist backgrounds that make them egregious human rights abusers themselves). I suggest y'all read the book I'm talking about, it features interviews in which many of the exiles and human rights activists outright admit to this stuff (not to mention extensive citations from all over the place, with enough balance to feature citations of Alvaro Vargas Llosa and other "right wing" or "anti-Castro" sources). Also, btw, I just added a section to the article detailing the hypocrisy the US is accused of due to their resolutions on Cuban human rights (in light of their support of severe human rights abusers in the governments of Guatemala, El Salvador, and currently Colombia). This is a critique of the US that has been raised not only by Cuba but also Noam Chomsky and even by some anti-Castro exiles who admit that Cuba is criticized so often for human rights because the Cuban government is "stubborn" and not as tactful as, say, the Colombian or Israeli governments (who find ways to "negotiate" a wink and nod towards their abuses from others at the UN). (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, and while we are at it, let's make sure we present Kim Jong Il's point of view on the article concerning North Korea's human rights abuses, Pol Pot's point of view concerning the millions he killed in Cambodia, etc. When you say "Cuba's point of view", you actually mean "Castro's point of view" because the people of Cuba, during Castro's regime, have NEVER been able to vote in legitimate elections in order to choose those who represent them. I guess more than 50 years without an election is just a figment of the "anti-Castro right-wingers" imagination too, right? The fact that Cubans have no right to a trial by jury, freedom of speech, assembly, the press, etc. etc. is just something completely made up by "anti-Castro" forces as well, right? As are the imprisonment and execution of thousands of dissidents under Castro. Give me a freakin break. But by far the most hilarious and pathetic part of the comment directly above this one is the fact that the commenter dismisses Fontova as a historical revisionist and then actually puts forth, no I am not making this up, Noam Chomsky as a supposedly unbiased, dispassionate commenter. You know, the above comment, in its ridiculous attempts to explain away or debunk the literally thousands of stories of Cuban humans rights abuses, sounds just like Chomsky and his pathetic attempts to claim the West invented the the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge in the 1970s. Yeah, guess who ended up being right on that issue. HINT: It wasn't Noam Chomsky. Sorry but Castro's crimes are just too numerous and well-documented to attempt to explain away as lies perpetrated by "right-wing ant-Castroites". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

THe post by Daniel Oneofshibumi is one of the most hilarious, ridiculous attempts to apologize for the human rights abuses of the Castro regime I have ever read. It is absolutely amazing, and laugh-out-loud funny that someone thinks quoting Cuba's own supposed stance on human rights somehow means they are committed to those rights. Pointing to the Cuban governments own pronouncements concercing human rights is as absurd as noting that China, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe as well as other serial humans rights abusers are on the UN Human Rights board, thus they must respect the rights of their citizens. Almost as ridiculous, providing a book published by a Cuban state publisher as a source in an attempt to debunk "western" claims concerning Cuba's atrocious human rights record. What are you going to do next, quote Pravda in an attempt to defend the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? But by far the most asinine part, while at the same time the most predictable, is the use of the age old "not everyone has the same defintion of human rights" gambit. Here is the direct quote from Oneofshibumi's absurd comment: "Cuba also understands the need for 'respect for national and regional particularities, as well as for the diverse historical, cultural and religious heritages.' In other words, you are free to say whatever you want, unless you are criticizing the government, you are free to print whatever you want, as long as the government agrees with it first, you are free to worship as you wish, as long as your church is registered with the government, you are free to assemble, as long as the assembly is first approved by the government, etc. etc. The "different cultures have different human rights values" bullcrap is trotted out anytime a civilized democracy dares criticize serial human rights violators. Oppressive regimes, such as those in China, use the same "regional human rights values" argument every time they crack down on a dissident by claiming the dissident was "upsetting public order" or some such nonsense. Theocratic Islamic tyrannies trot out a similar "defense". If I had a nickel everytime I heard "we believe in human rights, along as they comply with sharia" I would be a f*cking billionaire. The presence of "regional or national pecularities" does not explain Cuba's complete lack of legitimate elections, or refusal to recognize basic fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly, among others. Nor does it explain the imprisonment and execution of thousands of political prisoners whose only crime was opposing Castro. It quite simply amazes me to read comments from people who spend more energy trying to debunk the well-documented claims of human rights abuses committed by Cuba than they do criticizing a dictator, Fidel Castro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag[edit]

There is still much work to be done on this article before the Neutrality tag should be removed. At present I contest the article's neutrality for many reasons. Not least the age old problem of referring to incidents from the distance past used as examples of the present. Rather like saying "the US discrimates againsts African-Americans and it is illegal for them to sit at the front of a bus". If you get my drift. Cuba changes at the same rate as any other developing country.--Zleitzen 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is also littered with factual inaccuracies. It's just that so much of the Cuban material on wikipedia is inaccurate that it's a momentus job sorting it out. (See History of Cuba - so wrong it would take a month to rework). This tag should stay until all these issues have been sorted out. I'm presently working on a Cason Affair article which is related to this one - so that'll sort out a small section of the problems here.--Zleitzen 17:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Failure to reflect the Communist Party line does not make an article POV. Argyriou 07:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Failure to adhere to wikipedia citing policies and the inclusion of original research is against policy. Who said anything about "the Communist Party line"? Actually on that point, failure to include an opposing point of view would make the article "POV" but that is not relevant to my points above. See my latest sections Freedom of expression and Acts of repudiation sections for guides to how to present material and follow WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:POV policy here. --Zleitzen 13:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fact Tag[edit]

Please site the reasons for the inclusion of this tag. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

See above.--Zleitzen 17:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing material[edit]

Here's what's going to happen. I'll be removing a paragraph a week unless users provide international sources justifying their inclusion. And simultaneously inserting material directly sourced to Amnesty. This page has been in the doldrums for too long. --Zleitzen 15:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The latest source provided by TDC does not reflect the text on the page. It was also not attributed - see Acts of repudiation section for a guide on how to present such information.--Zleitzen 18:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty is not the only organization that comments on Human Rights abuses. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Give me an idea of which groups you believe are not acceptable sources? I'd be interested to read your parameters. My parameters are that sources from private and public interest groups from a declared "enemy state" (one whose methods of communication and propoganda concerning Cuba are self declared and well documented) should be attributed accordingly - If used at all - Given that there are plenty of statements about Cuba from international groups - UN, OAS etc.--Zleitzen 19:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Why not Rand? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Please provide the correct quotes from the source itself and attribute it to Rand. I'll knock up another section dealing with the alleged repression of journos, and so on, taken from Amnesty, to give users another example of how to present such material when I have a moment later. --Zleitzen 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

ID cards[edit]

The article currently says:

"every citizen must carry an Identity Card. This passport-like I.D. includes a complete personal history, showing present and past addresses, work history, marital status, and number of children. Castro's critics cite this as a form of oppression."

1) The ID cards are platicised photocards, not passport-like. 2) I'll check, but I don't think they carry that sort of detail. 3) ID cards are required by many countries - are they commonly cited as a form of opression ?

-- Beardo 17:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's soemthing on my list to investigate in cleaning up this page. You'd know a lot more about the cards than me, Beardo and I can't find anything about it, let alone anyone who "cites this as a form of oppression" - although I'm sure people do. Unless we can find notable sources that do cite it as oppression then it'll face the chop.--Zleitzen 00:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The ID cards for under-16s are still small booklets, which therefore show the child's history - but I don't see that as particularly relevant. -- Beardo 03:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


This section needs to mention the Cuban Adjustment Act.

The article says that 1.2 million Cubans left for the US between 1959 and 1993, and contains a link to a US census page which, as far as I can see doesn't mention numbers. It is not clear if that is supposed to include the undocumented number who left Cuba but never got to the US. says that there in 2004 there were 1.44 million in the US who identify as Cubans - 912,686 born outside the US, but that includes those who moved before 1959, as well as after 1993. -- Beardo 18:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that the main Cuba article refers to 1 million leaving including all other countries. -- Beardo 16:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe this dispute has been doing the rounds for some time. I may spend a moment gathering various sources - so a reliable figure can be presented on the numerous pages which mention this, no doubt they all carry different figures.--Zleitzen 16:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Under Emigration and Travel, the article states, "This quota is rarely filled; the Cuban government claims that the Bush administration has refused to comply with the act, issuing only 505 visas to Cubans in the first six months of 2003. However, this does not address the blockage of certain visa-carrying Cubans.". I think this is a pretty bold statement to be made without cited references, could anyone please confirm this with the proper quotations? I seem not to be able to find this information. --Anaythea

Should there be an entry regarding CDRs in this article?[edit]

Would a section on Cuba's CDRs (Committees for Defense of the Revolution) be appropriate here? The CDRs being a primary system to report statements counter to the revolution to local authorities seem to belong in this entry as the committees themselves could be considered grave violators of human rights. Adding the entry in an unbiased manner would be sticky however. There is of course an entry on Wikipedia already concerning the CDRs, perhaps a link? An article on Human Rights in Cuba without mentioning the practices of the CDRs seems lacking. Opinions? Options?

The article does mention the CDR's - in the Acts of repudiation section, detailing the allegations of involvement in beatings etc. Beyond that; reporting statements counter to the revolution is not really viewed as a human rights issue by international human rights groups. Anymore than US citizens reporting suspicious behaviour to Homeland security authorities etc.--Zleitzen 20:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh yes, indeed it does - my eyes deceive me. The "actos de repudio" are in essence what I was referring to.

RJ Rummel[edit]

I've removed this paragraph to talk.

The highest estimates are given by R.J. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii. He gives the number of 73,000 as the mid-point estimate of victims of the alleged democide by the Castro administration. His low and high estimates are 35,000 and 141,000 respectively. [6]

What is Rummel considering here? The source isn't clear. Are we including wars? Migration casualties? And so on. The figures are extraordinary and bear no relation to other academic studies. In fact the source seems to be citing various accounts such as "Thomas" (I presume he means Hugh Thomas, the chief English language historian on Cuba) whom I guarantee makes no such claims - a page number would be helpful for me to check. Could Ultramarine clarify what that table in the source signifies, and how the figures given in our article 73,000, 35,000 and 141,000 relate to the table (which also isn't clear). --Zleitzen 08:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Rummel has published an academic books, citing numerous sources. Cite academic criticism if disagree.Ultramarine 12:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that isn't an answer. What is Rummel considering here? What is he attributing these deaths to?--Zleitzen 12:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
He clearly lists his sources.Ultramarine 12:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll try again, what is Rummel considering here? What is he attributing these deaths to? If you are confident of your edit then surely you would be able to answer this question. --Zleitzen 12:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is his lists of sources [7] which he mentions here [8] when he calculates his estimates. Regarding the definition of democide, see the article or his books.Ultramarine 12:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, we have a better overview of the sources which we can look into later, and this "democide" definition will have to wait as well. But where do the figures 73,000, 35,000 and 141,000 presented on our page come from. I can't see them on the little table in the source. --Zleitzen 12:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Line 848.Ultramarine 12:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of Rummel figures for analysis.
Rummel is taking 3 areas of statistics to create the figures for his "democide" definition.

  1. Executed (Low 4,000, Medium 15,000, High 33,000)
  2. Prison Camps (Low 1,000, Medium 7,000, High 28,000)
  3. Boat (Low 30,000, Medium 51,000, High 83,000)

Meaning that the figure for deaths from crossing the sea in boats is between 58% and 86% of the overall total of deaths.--Zleitzen 13:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Or swimming or killed by the military trying to escape. As states in his notes, this is based on estimates by other researchers of how many have died compared to those that have managed to escape.Ultramarine 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In the end it seems as though attempting to come up with an exact number for those murdered by the regime is quite impossible - as most repressive governments don't (why on Earth would they?) keep accurate records of their own crimes. Granted, there are cases where just the opposite is true - I once worked on an article concerning rights atrocities by the Hussein regime in Iraq and was shocked to find the throughness of some documentation of crimes committed there. All-in-all however - this is an "impossible dream." One can only speak of rough estimates and estimates seem to vary WIDELY depending on what sources are used. Cheers, Goatboy95 19:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

These "estimates" should not be included in the article -- they are highly dubious as the "Boat" deaths, being the majority of "democide" deaths by far, are mostly the result of US-sponsored psychological warfare (in the form of Radio Marti and other broadcasts) that encourages such unsafe sea migration. The page needs a huge cleanup in general -- highly biased against Cuba. The page shouldn't take such dubious allegations at face value and run with it. Really for citations on this page we should only be looking at human rights reports from groups such as HRW, Amnesty International, the UN, and Oxfam, and even those should not be taken at face value since so many human rights groups have received large (documented) amounts of money from anti-Cuba (and terrorist-affiliated) groups like the CANF (the donations being a highly significant bias/conflict-of-interest issue that, although well-documented in the reports of donations to these groups and associated media commentary, is not even mentioned on this page). (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Redundant sentence[edit]

I have deleted the first sentence of the "Polical Persecution" section..

"Various estimates have been made to ascertain the number of politcal executions carried out on behalf of the Cuban Government in Cuba since the revolution. A variety of sources show that there were about 550 executions"

..which was effectively repeated immediately below.

1Z 22:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)1Z

Removing Unsourced, Non-NPOV Statement[edit]

"The Cuban Healthcare is one of the best system in america and the world."

Not only is this statement unsourced, it is obviously an opinion and not an objective fact. On top of all this it isn't even particularly well written so it's sloppy as well. Basically this sentence is everything that a wiki should not be so I'm removing it. SBoyce 17:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)SBoyce

Unsourced it was, and probably a bit coloquial (it wasn't me BTW), but Cuba's healthcare system ranks with the ones from the so-called Western World and not with the rest of the Americas. The latest repost I was able to find was this one (, where in both infant and adult mortalility Cuba is the the Tier A, joined by Canada and the USA. The WHO has many resources, unfortunatlye they hae stopped putting them in easy to see rankings, but is someone has enough patiente it's all there. Cuba's healthcare is one of the best in the Americas easily. and one of the few were people from all over the world go to get treated (eyes and fisioterapy are common in Europe). --Bellum sine bello 19:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuba has also a system to produce false data and many Western people believe any lies. I'm not an expert, but Cuba doesn't have basic drugs. Is it enough to have cheap doctors (who run away from Venesuela)? Xx236 13:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be an actual opinion or are you just venting? We should drop indicators from the WHO because, acoding to you, Cuba provides falsa data and doesn't have basic drugs? That's rich, quite NPOV.--Bellum sine bello 14:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Healthcare in Cuba "An article in Canadian newspaper National Post, based interviews of Cubans, finds that in reality even the most common pharmaceutical items, such as Aspirin and antibiotics are conspicuously absent or only available on the black market." If you don't like that article, go there and correct, don't blame me.

Cuba doesn't allow independent journalists to visit the country. It's the best prove that the government cheats. Xx236 11:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your link points to the WP article. In any event this is a discussion with a dead-end: there are articles with a different view than the one you quote(and bear in mind that that quote can be applied to many hospitals in richer countries BTW, unless it's systemic (not saying that they would be "better" than yours, but that's a judgement call), and the official stats are dismissed because they are said to be manipulated and falsified. Also falsified are apparently the death registries in the entire island, unless Cuban inhabitants are genetically so resilient that they manage to live longer and die less without healthcare than everyone else in the world. So, to sum it up, in this article we should drop official stats and base the description of Cuba's healtcare on press accounts (but not all of them, only those deemed "good" enough that reflect the "known" truth). Seems like a vicious cycle to me, but what do I know?--Bellum sine bello 17:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Healthcare deficiencies and low medicine supplies are much the result of the US embargo as well as the embargo's effect on the Cuban economy. The embargo has been faulted and deemed "inhumane" by numerous human rights and trade groups for this reason among others. Effects of the blockade should not be included in this article. (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Guantanmo Bay?[edit]

Guantanamo Bay detention camp is in Cuba and is the site of notorious human rights violations. Why is it not covered in this article? --Red King 23:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it is not relevant.

Guantanamo, as I've said elsewhere, is under the U.S's jurisdiction. If you believe that it belongs in the Human rights article on Cuba because Guantanamo is located in Cuba, then eliminate it from the article on Human Rights in the US (since Guantanamo is not within the territorial confines of the US) and bring that info to the Cuba article. I suspect, though, that you won't because you and Lapsed Pacifist, who I suspect are on in the same, are simply trying to excuse the Cuban government's actions by calling attention to the smear attacks on the U.S. I allowed Guantanamo Bay to get added to the See Also section because I did not feel like arguing with Lapsed Pacifist on that point. Nonetheless, I object to an addition on the "notorious human rights violations" in Guantanamo because this article focuses on the actions of the Cuban government, and those territories that are under its jurisdiction; if that is not clear from the introduction, then perhaps the title should be changed to reflect the focus of the article. I will do that if its what it takes. Freedomwarrior 03:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Me and you "on in the same", RK. How about that? FW, if you reckon indefinite detention without trial is just a "smear attack" on a well-meaning government, you would fit right in a totalitarian society. I know a nice warm one in the Caribbean. How's your Spanish?

Lapsed Pacifist 11:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You two have a similar edit history, and happen to very conveniently stumble upon the "need" to add something that is completely irrelevant on this article. The people in Guantanamo are not covered under the Geneva Accords because they do not fit the definition of combatants that it protects and are not covered under any of the other international agreements (perhaps, because no one foresaw the need to give protection to roaming bands that aim at destruction), which cannot be said of those on the island.

Y mira tu, deja los ataques personales que no te he atacado. My Spanish is far better than yours seeing as I've spoken it my whole life. Moreover, I am far more knowledge on Cuba's human rights situation seeing as I've had family members who've languished in one of Castro's prisons for being "counterrevolutionaries"--that is, for trying to bring about peaceful change. Freedomwarrior 16:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"...roaming bands that aim at destruction..." Like these guys? I can't for the life of me understand how you might guess at my level of Spanish, unless my not using it on the English language Wikipedia could be regarded as a clue. I haven't attacked you, I don't know why you say that. Many men have been released from US-controlled Cuba after years without charge. Innocent men, as their captors admitted. Have you been a "Freedomwarrior" for those falsely accused, or are you more selective?

Lapsed Pacifist 17:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between what those groups fight for--the freedom of the Cuban people--and what the terrorists in Guantanamo fight for--coerced conversions to Islam. One supports freedom, the other destruction.

As for your level of Spanish, I could care less; however, I have a gut feeling that you are another one of these editors who discusses the situation in Cuba without much knowledge of the language or what goes on there.

Let me remind you of what you said: "you would fit right in a totalitarian society" I hope you can read in between the lines. If you cannot, however, here's what it means: you have called me a totalitarian. I will take it for what it is though, since only those who can't make a valid, logical argument in defense of their positions have to resort to ad hominem attacks.

It comes down to values. I fight for those who believe in freedom. I am not a relativist. Regardless, I don't even understand why we are discussing this issue on a Cuba talk page. In all this back and forth, you have not even made an effort to explain why it is relevant here. Freedomwarrior 17:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You haven't studied our edit records too hard if you think we are in the same anything! But we probably both agree (for opposing reasons!) that Operation Demetrius led to 25 years of war in Northern Ireland. Consequently it baffles me that Tony Bliar was unable to persuade George Dubya that internment without trial creates far far more problems than it solves - especially if you pick up the wrong people.
Guantánamo Bay is in Cuba. You might want an article that accords with your POV on the Cuban government [if your country were under continuous threat for many years, you'd expect its government to take dubiously legal action. Oh, hang about, that's exactly what your government has done!] but the rest of us are trying for a comprehensive, NPOV encyclopedia.
So let's start with some facts. Guantánamo Bay is not US sovereign territory. It was leased to the US by a previous government of Cuba - as per Hong Kong - and is sort of under US jurisdiction. But not quite. The Constitution of the United States does not apply there. The US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction there. The Geneva Convention doesn't apply there. The International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction there. It's never-never land. So why am I not surprised that you don't want to ruin a perfectly good diatribe against the Government of Cuba by including an even worse example. --Red King 22:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't need any geography lessons. I know that Guantánamo is in Cuba (not the US). I am not trying to push my POV on the Cuban government or the U.S. government. I am making an argument of relevance. The article begins with a discussion of the human rights record of the Cuban government and the focus remains on the government throughout. De facto, the article is about the government and its human rights record. If I need to rename the article to reflect that, then so be it.

The supposed abuses in Guantánamo are documented in several articles, as I've said before. There is a section on the Guantánamo Bay prison in the U.S. human rights article, even though Guantánamo, as you claim, is not US sovereign territory. To remain consistent, if you want to add a section on here because it Guantanamo is in Cuba, then you have to eliminate the excerpt on Guantánamo on the U.S Human rights article and shift it here, because it is not in the US.

The article is either about the government's abuses on (this is what I'm claiming and more in line with what the article has been up to now) or anything that happens in the territory of that country, even if the government has no control (which would mean that all individual actions have to be documented).

An addition on Guantanamo is of no relevance here and nothing but a POV fork.

Freedomwarrior 23:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. You people talk of the massive horrors committed in Cuba as if all that matters is who's blame it is, and I spy not a sentence where anyone sounds as if they care a bit for those captured and tortured and treated as those in hell. Apparently those people are not as important as you two, sitting in your comfortable chair, talking about if another group of tortured people is worthy enough to be mentioned in this article that's on the top of your minds, until your done and move on to something else completely skipping the consideration that those tortured are human beings just like all of us, not existing only as pixels on your computer screen. Right now, at the time your seeing this message, please ACTUALLY think about those who were treated as inhumanely as ever, and, if you will, show it on this little article so at least people will know... (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Time-magazine-machado.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Time-magazine-machado.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is a big ball of original research[edit]

This thing needs massive clean-up; it looks like a laundry list of various observations that shed no light whatsoever on the "debate" mentioned in the opening sentence. For example, "Educational and cultural policy is based on Marxist ideology by law, and The Code for Children, Youth and Family states that a parent who teaches ideas contrary to communism can be sentenced to three years in prison." Okay? Where is the evidence that this has been identified as a "human rights" issue or has sparked any debate? People in various places can be arrested for all sorts of things. I'm of the opinion that Americans are thrown in jail for all sorts of harmless offenses regarding drugs and sexuality, but I couldn't just list these in an article about "human rights" without some sort of qualification. Either the connection between these observations and "human rights" concerns needs to be elucidated, or the observations need to be removed entirely. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the only original-research issue with the page. Just look at some of the citations outside of those coming from human rights groups -- highly dubious. For instance the article should not quote, as it currently does, the CANF's "estimate" of how many people have been "executed" by the Castro government, as the CANF is the furthest possible thing from a reliable source on this matter. We should only be looking at sources such as reports by human rights groups, and also taking into account the possible bias of several of these groups given the large recorded donations they've received from the CANF, the NED, and other rabidly anti-Castro organizations. (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreement with the last entry[edit]

This article does need revising completely, it makes assumptions based on concepts alien to the capitalist society. One example of this, it consistently mentions that the private sector are not allowed to do this or that...note, there is no (or very little) private sector; the idea is so that everyone has the same right. Additionally, much of the evidence presented is outdated, many references made to the 60s and not to the year 2008, at least. Finally, where is the evidence for all these claims?

One point, the blockade (or the US. embargo) actively hinders any country that wants to deal with Cuba, meaning that Cuba does not have access to free trade and therefore what little it has, it has to be divided evenly amongst everyone. It is also worth noting that there is no one dying of starvation, the crime rate resulting in death is almost non existent, everyone can afford medical treatment (state run), every one has free education, every one has the basic food basket; can this be said of other developed countries in the north or Europe?

I have been on a culture study in Cuba for a year and it is in my opinion that this article is out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Предложение об удалении статьи[edit]

Плохо обснована, не объективна. Советую удалить! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Лев Фернанд (talkcontribs) 15:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
...was curious what this said, so took it to Yahoo translation: "Proposal about the removal of the article It is badly [obsnovana], not objective. I advise to move away!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabberwock359 (talkcontribs) 16:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

politics aren't relevant here[edit]

From both ends of the political spectrum there seems to be much desire to alter this article to suit user's political agenda, however I would like to point out that political POV has no relevance on Wikipedia, or Academics in general. What is this, Conservapedia? I recommend that those editing this article mature a little. I'm pro-Cuba however I realize that the negative aspects of Cuba's society must be recognized. This does not mean that it's positive aspects be ignored. For this article, sources are more important than ever, so I believe anything on this article not sourced should be deleted. Is that a reasonable request? --Mike Oosting (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

For this article, sources are more important than ever - No, they are exactly as important as for other articles, and there is no reason to treat this article differently from others. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
agreed, however just suggesting how to clean up this article as it is very biased, with most statements based on opinion instead of fact. --Mike Oosting (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
You take one statement that you think is based on opinion, and either fix it so it's not, or add {{cn}} tags or discuss it on the talk page. And then when that issue is done, you find the next statement you think is based on opinion, and so on. Start from the top. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


Find one example of a tortured persion at Cuba the last 20 years! Torture is banned by Cuban law. It have been since the early 1960s The torture under Fulgencio Batista was a main argument for the revolution! Find other sources th an newspapers from the West - especially in the USA! I've found an article in New York Times where it stays about that the US government pays journalists all over the world to pay non-true articles. I'm sure that Cubans aren't being tortured on Cuba. But I know that the USA torture Cubans and pay Cuban dissidents to do terror on Cuba! Between 1959 and 2007, nearly 3500 people (can't remember the exact number) have been murdered by dissidents that have been sent to Cuba by the USA. And that's what the USA call "political prisoners"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have such an article, then please point a link to it. As to your torture complaints, the statements of dissidents should be enough to confirm that torture indeed does take place. Furthermore, your contention that all sources come from the USA is absurd. The statements on press freedom in Cuba were based on reports by Reporters Without Borders- an organization which is based in France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- allegations of torture are dubious at best. Really, we need to at least qualify these allegations as at most, torture in Cuba has existed on a very limited basis, with only a few allegations (mostly uncorroborated), and clearly on a level far below the widespread (and actually documented) torture that has occurred in many other (mostly US-client) states in the region, such as close US allies Colombia, Honduras, and Mexico, and historically in states of US allies such as El Salvador, Chile, and Argentina. The few uncorroborated quotes on the page that purport to "exemplify" torture should not be included, as they are just that: uncorroborated quotes from a few individuals. Torture in Cuba is, as far as I know, limited to allegations that Armando Vallardes was "tortured" because he was supposedly deprived of medicine and a wheelchair, when it turned out his claims to being permanently confined to a wheelchair were fraudulent (as, on his release from Cuba, he skipped off the plane in perfectly good health, leaving the "human rights" activists in the receiving audience stunned at having been defrauded by the claims that they were working to free a "paraplegic poet"). In general the page is highly biased against Cuba -- allegations are over the top, and aside from prisoners of conscience, all other "human rights abuses" alleged here are uncorroborated and clearly not large-scale episodes -- especially allegations relating to torture and supposed "extrajudicial" executions. We should balance the page -- we should, for instance, mention and cite the document that was leaked from the US interests section ten or so years ago, where US officials there complained that evidence of "persecution" among those claiming political refugee status was very low and that most supposed "political refugees" were (in the eyes of these US officials of the US Interests Section) really only economic refugees attempting to flee the economic conditions on the island -- this document complained that the US state department was attempting to make a "business" out of becoming a "dissident," leading to unsubstantiated allegations of political "persecution" by people who simply wanted a way out of the economic troubles of the island and had in fact not experiened persection (and in many cases had never even participated in dissident activities). I can find and cite this document and commentary on it. The page also could note that the human rights situation in Cuba, while problematic, is in terms of urgency a far cry from the human rights "crises" of the region, as the only large-scale issue in Cuba is the problem with prisoners of conscience (whose status as "independent" dissidents is questioned anyhow in light of the funds received by many of them from the NED and Miami groups), while in contrast, there have been forced disappearances in Colombia, Honduras, and Haiti in recent years, mass forced displacements in Colombia, and many (verifiable) cases of torture in these US-client states. The issue with "prisoners of conscience" in Cuba, while important, is not nearly the same sort of human rights crisis as what's been happening for years in those countries. I mean, even the USA has come in for allegations of serious human rights abuses as part of the "war on terror" -- in fact, just about all verifiable cases of torture in Cuba that I can think of, have happened at Guantanamo Bay at the hands of the US government (btw since Guantanamo is in Cuba, maybe this should be mentioned). (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice apology of a dictatorship. (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


The title for the first section is 'Communism'. However, that isn't a good title for the article so could someone change it? Also Cuba existed before Castro came to power, and there were human rights violations back then too, so someone should also add those. Czarcalvinsk (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The history of pre-Castro human rights abuses is accounted for in the article. It takes up a small portion because A: it is not the modern, contemporary government, and B: the "human rights" movement actually surfaced mostly in the 70s, and although the Batista/Machado/Spanish governments were guilty of mass human rights abuses by the modern standard (much moreso than the Castro government), the fact is that they weren't really referred to as "human rights" abuses back then, nor was there a "human rights" movement to protest them. In light of the fact that the abuses under Castro pale in comparison to, for instance, those of the Batista years, the article includes a section about Batista and other pre-Castro governments, but like I said, it's limited for the reasons I just gave. (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
That point is true, but Communism still makes no sense as a title. It should be something like: Post-revolutionary Human Rights. Czarcalvinsk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC).

There may not have been "modern standards" in the old days but didn't England have enough standards back then to invade and quell some of the worst abuses ( recognized even back then). ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:8000:D6D0:DDD3:7706:E94E:4E59 (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

'a.k.a. "El Paredón"' as "extrajudicial execution" is misleading[edit]

The phrase "El Paredón" should not be associated with the alleged extrajudicial executions, as the phrase refers more to the "revolutionary trials" where the worst of Batista's policemen along with proven CIA agents were executed immediately after the revolution's triumph -- those executions, often accompanied by crowds chanting the phrase "Al paredón" ("To the wall"), were hardly "extrajudicial" as they not only involved trials with extensive evidence presented in each case, but the trials were also were televised. Meanwhile, the allegations of "extrajudicial" executions, such as the one Raul Castro was accused of carrying out in the early years, are unrelated to the public executions associated with the phrase "Paredón." I'm going to just remove the reference to the phrase, and keep the general statement that Cuba has been accused of extrajudicial executions. (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

refugees section[edit]


Following to the US government, some 1 200 000 Cubans (about 10% of the current population) left the island for the United States between 1959 and 1993,[26] often by sea in small boats and fragile rafts. Nevertheless, this is disputed.

perhaps i'm missing something obvious, but what is meant by 'following to the us gov't'? does it mean according to u.s. govt stats or cubans fleeing the repression of communism to the west? (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


This is an amateur web page and is not a reliable source. All citations to it will be removed, particularly because a lot of literature exists about the article's content.

Black Book of Communism is not a serious source, but is a work of pop-history from a commercial publisher - a work that's been extensively criticized. The focus of the book is not Cuba and therefore does not belong in this article. SadSwanSong (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Anybody have a thought on the use of this as a source: ? It's used several times throughout the article but it links to an article from a magazine posted to a yahoo group. I can't find the original article on the website . (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:SadSwanSong has been found to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Jacob Peters. Any edits to the page made by him may be reverted without any further reason. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

POV template[edit]

As the discussion for the POV section template is long dormant, I've removed it per #3 in the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

I'd encourage editors to continue to revising to correct any issues they see, however. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Fidel is/was a dictator - often brutal - including framing co-freedom-0fighters and executing them - even very respected leftwing souces like tariq ali in his recent book on cuba says it - but:

STILL this artical is seriously biased against the cuban govt. (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Human rights in Cuba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human rights in Cuba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Much of the claims made are from Human Watch and similar groups. It is probably best to take their views with a grain of salt. Estimates for executions that vary by powers of 10 to 100 aren't likely to be verifiable. 2601:181:8000:D6D0:DDD3:7706:E94E:4E59 (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Why aren't specific dates listed in the opening?[edit]

It currently reads: During Spanish colonization, the oppression of the indigenous populations was chronicled at length by clergyman Bartolomé de las Casas. The subsequent transportation of African slaves to the island, which lasted over 300 years, led to British military intervention and a determination "to put a stop to these abuses"

When was the Spanish colonization, when was it chronicled by this guy, what was the starting and ending year of African slaves being brought over, when the did British military intervention happen? Dream Focus 12:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Human rights in Cuba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Officially Atheist[edit]

The article states Cuba was "officially atheist" until the 1990s. This is not true. The only officially atheist state in world was Albania under Enver Hoxha. Cuba is a secular state. (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Human rights in Cuba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Human rights in Cuba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights in Cuba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia using people of my sexual orientation for propaganda[edit]

Why have my statements about this OUTRAGEOUSLY biased article been blocked from publication on here. Is Wikipedia really a complete pretense? Only one-sided agendas (American-only) will be allowed. Sounds like what you're saying about Cuba!

Please stop using the bigotry against gay people like me to advance the ideological strait jacket being imposed by American policies and general hypocrisy 2407:7000:8402:B200:8DA6:AE74:9111:8217 (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 05:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This article's intro is terrible[edit]

It's hard to know where to start. The most obvious issues are with the links to "Óscar Elías Biscet" and the "International Committee for Democracy in Cuba." First off, there's nothing in the Oscar article about what he was actually protesting, or even if his protesting was political or anything. He's pro-freedom or something? Is he a prisoner of conscious? That entire article manages to avoid any purpose for anything. Why did the cuban government care about him? Nobody using wikipedia knows, so this link is useless.

The name "international committee for democracy in cuba" should have immediately set of alarm bells. I went to their actual website "" Turns out, not only are they the oldest, whitest 8 european dudes you've ever seen, but some of them are dead. The website hasn't been updated since 2008 and one of them died in 2011. Clearly this is not a cite-worthy group.

Anyways, the first three references in this article are from 1) human rights watch, a notoriously pro-american NGO, 2) Organization of American States, not even notoriously pro-american so much as venomously pro-american, and 3) someone opening a lawsuit against Cuba in 2005 over alleged torture. So what happened with the suit? Who knows.

I could keep going but you get the picture. The issue is this article is highly political, and Wikipedia is not equip to handle outside influences at this magnitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Methadonecliniccynic (talkcontribs) 08:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)