Talk:2006–2008 Cuban transfer of presidential duties

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2006–2008 Cuban transfer of presidential duties article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

2006–2008 Cuban transfer of presidential duties was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 22, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 31, 2008, July 31, 2009, July 31, 2010, July 31, 2011, July 31, 2014, July 31, 2016, and July 31, 2023.

Caribbean Low‑importance

	Caribbean portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cuba High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CubaWikipedia:WikiProject CubaTemplate:WikiProject CubaCuba articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Cuba task list:

Task list

New article announcements:
Requests: Ambrosio Cave, Calero Cave, Centella Cave, Cuba and the United Nations, Cuevas de Punta del Este, Cura Cave, Patana Cave, Pluma Cave
Stubs: Dollar store (Cuba)
Verify: History of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista
Update: Nochebuena
NPOV: Armando Valladares, Delfín Fernández, History of Cuba
Copyedit: Armando Peraza, Bay of Pigs Invasion, Fabio Grobart, Julio Antonio Mella
Cleanup: Abelardo Colomé Ibarra, Antonio Maceo Grajales, Bay of Pigs Invasion, History of Cuba, List of Cubans, Máximo Gómez, War against the Bandits
Style: Fidel Castro
Expand: Cuba–Soviet Union relations, Baseball in Cuba, Religion in Cuba, Havana's International Book Fair, Cuba–Venezuela relations, Antonio Sánchez de Bustamante y Sirven

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Article Name

July 2006 Cuban transfer a power seems a bit odd, considering that most of the real action is going to take place during August 2006. Perhaps just 2006 Cuban transfer of power will work. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it is nominally a temporary transfer, I'm not even sure why this article exists. --Dhartung | Talk 14:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's happening now instead of then. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think this article is necessary. Coffee 15:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. Can we nominate this for deletion? --Micahbrwn 16:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a merge request / suggestion instead as certainly this event should be noted somewhere. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a huge event in Cuban history. Castro's health is deteriorating quickly. This deserves it's own article.

Unless he dies soon (like today), this article's content should be put into Castro's article. Broken Segue 16:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which Castro? There are many, many pages where the events of this page relate including various government ministers and the whole politics of Cuba series. See comments below.--Zleitzen 16:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on guys. As the only leader of a communist country in the Western hemisphere, and an unprecendented event never recorded in his 40+ years as "president", I suggest leaving this article in until these circumstances regarding his "transfer of power" (and medical condition) are more concrete.--216.52.163.1 16:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Luid[reply]

<- (unindent) It's only linked from four articles, as far as I can see. And one of those articles is Fidel Castro. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is hours old. Given me a chance! I've only got one pair of hands. I for one don't fancy repeating myself again and again as I trawl though my vast watchlist of Cuban pages. It makes sense to just have this page and a link. --Zleitzen 16:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would'nt it be better if it was 2006 Cuban transfer of presidential duties, because the title is extremely vague Q5 den 07:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good suggestion. It is definitely clearer than its current title Chovain 07:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If no one disagrees, I'm going to move it Q5 den 09:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Heisenberg"?

The Ros-Lehtinen section (apart from strangely allowing her to speak for the White House) said that Cuba must meet the "Heisenberg law" requirements. Other than the uncertainty principle I'm unable to find anything corroborating with this -- presumably she was speaking of the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act. If this is familiar to anyone, feel free to explicate, but I think it was just mistranscribed (some of the other writing suggested the editor did not have English as a first language). --Dhartung | Talk 15:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the Heisenberg law is. I believe you were correct to remove it. By the way, could users watch the info box of the Cuba page and List of Presidents of Cuba. Other users are insisting that Raul is now president - this is not the case he has merely assumed the duties as per constitution - no amount of reversions or explainations will suffice.--Zleitzen 15:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba has also been violating the law of Gravity and the Kepler Law :D

Rumors

Here are some rumors I heard from a forum.

"I talked to some people in Cuba and apparently there's been some sort of mobilization of the CDRs.

They say Fidel will be back in a few weeks, and wants to celebrate his birthday then, with the Cuban people..

The U.S. might try to pull some sort of shit in the mean time, and so we need to alert.

The weird thing is that for the surgery he's getting, recovery is only a day or two (at most).. this could mean a few things.. like that he wants to lay back for two or three weeks to see how things function.. in preperation for the future when he won't be around any more."

"I'm hearing things that don't sound so good.. Apparently, "Granma" hasn't come out today, all flights in and out of Cuba are canceled, all Hotels are closed, police and military patrols are going on, and the Politburo has taken control of things temporarily. I'm also hearing that Fidel is in a medically induced coma."

"According to sources in the Island, the political climate in La Habana is one of "either a coup or a funeral." Hotels shut down because they are under government orders to reserve the rooms for them; meetings in all ministries with military officers presence; flights canceled and police and military patrols in certain areas of the capital not ussually showing this kind of presence...

Fidel is in a medically induced coma as of now...

The rumor mill is working overtime. However, according to "serious" people on the Island (everyone is trotting the line of their favorites) Fidel is dead and people are starting to line up either behind Raul or Lage. Alarcon is said to be very, very upset because he wasn't even mentioned for anything...

Perez Roque and Valenciaga are said to be playing a big role now as intermediates, really in favor of one of the candidates...

The State Council has been bypassed for the Politburo, an unexpected move that means Raul is firmly in power..."

Source

I'm not sure what to make of it all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.105.54 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As you say - rumours. As far as I could driving in Havana today, there were less police on the streets than in recent weeks. In general the city continues as usual, but slightly muted, as most are concerned about what may happen. One hotel reported a lot of extra bookings as foreign journalists flew in. Granma was issued today, with Fidel's declaration covering the front page. A message from Fidel was read on the evening news. The Politburo has always been the main strategic forum. I doubt Lage will try to challenge Raul. (The were comments in AP about Raul's lack of appearance but Lage was not obvious on TV either - perhaps they are dead, too ? -- Beardo 07:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, regarding the rumors... I think it is important factual information to include that there exist lots of rumors about the president's possible death (personally I think they are bunk, let's get that out of the way now). I see someone has just re-added it with a source, that is good. I suspect it will be deleted, though, by people who say that rumors don't belong in an encyclopedia. I do agree with that, but I think the widespread existence of rumors very much belongs in an encyclopedia. Can we reach a concensus on the talk page so it doesn't just become a revert battle please? --Jaysweet 14:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors should be handled with extra care, so as long as they are discussed in a major reliable source that's OK, but just including them or linking to highly partisan sources such as think tanks or whatnot is just not a good idea. --Dhartung | Talk 18:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is CNN.com a sufficently reliable source and non-partisan enough? ;) "Some in Florida speculated that the leader who has defied the United States for nearly half a century already could be dead" appears in the second paragraph of this article[1]. I'm not going to make the edit because I am very confident it will be deleted anyway by an overzealous WP:VERIFY enforcer, but if someone else would like to, go for it! (And for the record, I think these rumors are stupid and uninformed—but I also think they are an important part of the story) --Jaysweet 18:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Do not merge or remove this article. It is a neccessary link from a number of pages including the Raul Castro page and the Politics of Cuba series. It means that we don't have to keep repeating ourselves again and again on the up to 50 Cuban politics related articles. --Zleitzen 16:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess more is yet to come, so don't merge it yet. poppe 16:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge As the event includes someone who is both the Head of State of a major country and notable in his own right, and as there has been no (to my knowledge) peaceful transition or transfer of power in Cuba since Castro took over, this event is notable enough for an Encyclopedia article. Obviously it doesn't include much information presently, but once more information is available, it appears likely to grow to a full-length article. --Tim4christ17 16:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge--Constanz - Talk 16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think this article belongs on Wikipedia at all. From what I read, it's not like any major political upheaval is happening. Life in Havana continues as usual. Washington has made it clear that the embargo and diplomatic status are to continue as normal. In short, everything is status quo ante. Therefore, I recommend deletion. --Micahbrwn 20:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say, give it a week. If Castro dies or is permanently incapacitated, this might turn out to be a major event, in which case it will be useful to have already gotten a head-start on the facts (though it would probably then be merged into the Castro page). If he gets out of surgery and he's fine, then yeah, delete it. --Jaysweet 20:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge The Castro article is already 92k. Epachamo 22:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article tells about an important event. Look how big it is. Do you actually think that it's possible to fit all that in Castro's main article. Deleting it wouldn't help either. If you deleted it, then no one would know about it. It should just stay its own article. Mrld 11:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Moved from its own section on 17:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC) --Micahbrwn 17:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fate of this article depends on what happens. Should Cuba take on some vast change in government, I would recommend this be merged into an article detailing that process. Should Castro return to power and rule as if this never happened for, say, at least 3 months, I would take all of this information and merge it into a sentence or paragraph in the Castro article. AdamBiswanger1 20:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which Castro article - Raul or Fidel? And there are over 50 Cuban political and historical articles. Also, see Reagan transfer of power, Bush transfer of power. This article is essential in any form. --Zleitzen 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, now that's a strong argument... I think we do have a concensus that the article should stay for now -- but as far as what to do after, I don't know now. I was in favor of merging if it didn't turn out to be a big deal, but the Bush transfer of power was so incredibly not a big deal in retrospect, and you point out that it has its own article... heh, maybe those articles should be merged? :) --Jaysweet 20:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a significant enough event to merit retaining the article, which has a good amount of interesting, relevant and cited material. TransUtopian 07:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HDI

America again started to talk about democracy and human rights. I think they don't know that the Human Development Index of Cuba is higher than USA's HDI. America looks like a total comedy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.224.182.162 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. The US's HDI is 0.13 points higher than that of Cuba. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The HDI has nothing to do with democracy and little to do with human rights, other than the most fundamental, so I don't see your point. Ddye 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Yeah, this "fact" should be put on the article page. It's so obviously NPOV. </sarcasm> Seriously though, no offense, but why is this even on the talk page for this article? This has nothing to do with the transfer of duties; it has to do with Cuba-United States relations. If you want to discuss it there, go for it, man... --Jaysweet 17:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it doesn't necessarily belong there either. Talk pages are for discussing changes to the articles, not the actual subjects. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I gotta admit, I'm a little new to Wikipedia... is it bad Wikiquette to just delete a whole section from the talk page? --Jaysweet 17:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the jury's still out on that one. If it's blatantly insulting to the point of vandalism, it can be deleted; no problem. This topic, although irrelevant, is not all that damaging, and so I think it's okay to just leave it and move on (although I doubt too many people would object to its deletion). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

I'm not sure if this article is entirely neutral on the possible outcomes of Fidel Castro's illness. It does not give any information on how pro-Castro groups have reacted or if Cuba might stay under the control of Raul Castro if Fidel were to be permanently incapacitated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.236.51.44 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Cuban reactions

We ought to have something about the Cuban reactions. -- Beardo 08:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text of announcement

Two things. It says it "as read by" the minister... well, was one version read by him in English? Or is there a translating party that should mentioned? Also, it didn't seem to be clearly sourced. gren グレン 11:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't address your first concern, but as for the second: I seem to remember reading this in one of the other references. I'll rereference it. Chovain 12:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the reference was Granma, so I doubt we're going to find out who did the translation beyond that. Chovain 12:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I give up trying to have the text of the announcement in this article. As a general rule, and if copyright and length permit, I strongly believe it's better to include sources in articles. These web-page citations are very ephemeral-- there's no relying on them to be at the given urls even a few days into the future, nevermind years and decades. If we incorporate primary source docs into our own articles, we've captured them forever. But two editors have blown away the translation & I'm in no mood for fighting. JDG 14:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no copyright problems could we add it to wikisource and link that to this article? -- ¡Viva la Revolución! PiMaster3 14:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, when Wikisource started up I was very hopeful it would fulfill that role-- a repository for primary source documents, especially newspaper articles from around the world (or excerpts up to copyright limit), but instead it looks like our own Project Gutenberg: Fiction, Poetry, etc.,. (and I thought Wikibooks was our Project Gutenberg). Although I do see one section that includes things like de Gaulle's Appeal of June 18, Woodrow Wilson's declaration of war on Germany, etc.,. Hmm, maybe... JDG 15:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what Wikisource is and should be for. The fact that it is misused isn't germane to whether it should be used for its intended purpose. --Dhartung | Talk 18:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the full text announcement be in the article? I feel as though a full primary document isn't particularly encyclopedic. Wouldn't a link under the abbreviated text or at the end of the article be more efficient?Kanmalachoa 16:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the concensus above was not to include the text, but someone put it back in. -- Beardo 16:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the concensus as per below was to dump any quotes or information concerning this event whether they are pasted straight from CNN written in journalese, are primary documents, or are a 10 line quote from the White House. Either we're trying to create a wikipedia article or we're reporting everything in the news, Beardo.--Zleitzen 18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the full text is already present on Wikisource, and there is no apparent reason to preserve the text both places, I have substituted the text with a link to wikisource. Besides, the wikisource edition was a better translation -- "partner" is an awkward translation of "compañero". --Thorsen 10:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Castro's death

Should the rumors of his death be included in this article? A number of major news sources have been claiming it. --¡Viva la Revolución! PiMaster3 ^talk 22:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been added several times, and deleted on the grounds that "rumors don't belong in an encyclopedia." See "Rumors" section above. Personally, I think it is relevant information, even though I think the rumors are ludicrous. And as you said, major news outlets are reporting on it, e.g. the CNN link I provided under "Rumors" above.

In any case, it would be pointless to add it before reaching concensus on the Talk page, because it will just be deleted. --Jaysweet 22:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think this is that relevant. But I'm also more concerned with the "President Bush told him the administration was caught off guard" material. I don't think that is relevant either and contains a number of problems. I'd like to see that removed as well, the world doesn't revolve around Washington.--Zleitzen 22:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the section, I have removed it to talk:

On August 2, Senator Robert Bennett (R-Utah), said President Bush told him the administration was caught off guard by the announcement Monday of Castro's illness, and Republican senators began drafting legislation aimed at prodding the Communist nation toward democracy. "The president's comment was that everybody was caught by surprise, and we'll have to wait and see" what U.S. action is necessary, said Sen. Bennett, of his White House meeting with Bush on Tuesday. "I think all of us can say we had no idea this was coming."^[1]

I find this tremendously relevant and feel it should go right back into the article. The world may not revolve around Washington, but the future of Cubans basically does... The more an editor or admin yells the word "encyclopedic", the less weight should be given to their convictions on what should or should not appear in an article. Wikipedia stopped being a mere encyclopedia years ago (it is more like some kind of never-before-seen MegaCompendium), but even if one wishes to maintain the encyclopedia veneer, the above paragraph and mentions of rumors is not at all out of place because nearly all modern encyclopedias have "yearbook" volumes released along with their main book sets, and these volumes contain just such material. It may be that only a small portion of the initial speculative material is enshrined in the "main" encyclopedia (Enc. Brit. calls it "Macropedia"), but what of it? We have undertaken to keep up with current events by having a whole quadrant of our front page called "In the news". These people who shout "unencyclopedic" will have to argue away that arrangement before they can touch the inclusion of material like this... In short, restore. If they want a revert war they'll be dealing with more than just you (Jaysweet and PiMaster3). JDG 22:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "if they want a revert war" aids the process? Who are "they"? Sorry but I would rather maintain the "encyclopedia veneer". And this means assessing balance, and not just detailing every news report that comes out. I don't need telling about US-Cuba relations, I've made over 2000 edits in that area to date. This article is about the transfer of duties from Fidel to Raul - not the United States. --Zleitzen 22:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"They" would be people who remove or move perfectly good material due to an unrealistically narrow conception of what Wikipedia is. I've noticed that the people who've had contributions summarily cut from this article have chosen to be docile to this point... But which "aids the process" less: to talk honestly about a possibly looming revert war or to busily take ginsu knives to the article because you've got some very exclusivist notions on valid content? JDG 23:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha, yeah, and for the record, nobody should assume I've got their back in a revert war. Unless it's the most blatant possible vandalism, e.g. blanking the whole article and writing "poop", I will never revert somebody more than once. I've got better things to do with my time. (like pooping) --Jaysweet 23:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I don't really understand what point JDG is trying to make? I have never engaged in a "revert war" and never will. --Zleitzen 23:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long have you been a member? It's very rare to never have been drawn into a revert war. I bet Jaysweet has even held it in at times while dealing justice... Just wait a bit Zleitzen. JDG 23:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here long enough to edit for long periods on far more controversial Cuban related articles than this one. And I'll still be incorporating and working on this page in one-three-six months time. It's my subject. I've studied it, taught it and now in my old age am carrying on writing about it here for wikipedia making thousands of edits so far. There is no need for any talk of "wars" of any kind. --Zleitzen 23:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As if all editors will strike you as as reasonable as you strike yourself (that's 3 uses of "as" in 4 words-- not easy). I'll just repeat: wait a bit. JDG 07:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bit about Bush should go back - in the US reactions section. -- Beardo 04:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes at least 2 of us. Will do. JDG 07:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "White House surprised by Castro's illness". CNN. 2006-08-02. Retrieved 2006-08-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Is Kommersant reliable when they say Raul is missing??

I would like to point out that the Kommersant article alleging that Raul Castro has disappeared from the public spotlight also states that "Washington believes the two brothers to be dead," which, as far as I know, is patently false.

Unless the person who made the edit can provide another source, or somebody comes along at tells me that Kommersant is a reliable source for these sorts of things, I am going to delete that detail in about 30 minutes. --Jaysweet 21:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I know I probably shoulda waited longer, but I gotta go. Having a bunch of people over tonight for tacos and Mexican beer. :) Anyway, I deleted it but, if true, I think that is a very interesting detail, and I would encourage someone to re-add it if they find a better source! Thanks! --Jaysweet 22:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across a reuters article on this today, so I've re-added it. Feel free to move it from the intro if you'd like, there didn't seem to be any other place.--Elcocinero 17:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. --Jaysweet 17:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul showed up yesterday to greet Chavez, so missing no more. -- Beardo 23:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

statement of text

I would suggest the most appropriate place for the text is on Wikisource, not Wikipedia. --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 04:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture Section

Please discuss here before deleting this section. State your reasoning, thank you.Coolguy1368 1:45, 13 August 2006

Though I wasn't the one who deleted it, I don't object to a Popular Culture section or something along the lines of International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict by Citizens. I don't know if Ya se acabo is notable enough for inclusion. I personally don't mind it, but would like to hear your reasoning for its inclusion. TransUtopian 15:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel that (1)it is not notable enough for inclusion and (2)it means that somehow the Cuban transfer of presidential duties is being used to boost sales of some American rappers upcoming album and get hits on my space. --Zleitzen 18:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would be okay under Cuban American reactions in Miami, but their isn't a section. It is popular culture but its not to boost sales, he's speaking his mind on the incident. He was born here, but he is from Cuban decent.Coolguy1368

Is Raul still in charge?

The article doesn't make clear if Fidel is back in charge again. Surely his recovery isn't taking that long. --Alcuin 02:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Raul is still in charge. Although Fidel received some visitors during the recent non-aligned summit, it was notable that he didn't make it to any functions, let alone make any speaches - Raul was the main Cuban speaker, plus Perez Roque, Alarcon. -- Beardo 02:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discharging

The article has been changed from "Raúl Castro is now assuming all of the presidential duties of the state" to "Raúl Castro is now discharging all of the presidential duties of the state". I don't know how that sounds to other users, but to me that sounds rather like Raúl is in the process of producing a rather painful shit on behalf of the Cuban state! Was there a particular problem with "assuming duties"? Here is the wording of the Cuban constitution (pun not intended)

Article 94: In cases of the absence, illness or death of the president of the Council of State, the first vice president assumes the president’s duties.

--Zleitzen 10:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(laughing) That's not how it should be viewed (still laughing). I do see what you mean however, what was meant is, Raul Castro is still discharging (executing or performing) the powers & duties of the Cuba Presidency. Perhaps a better word (in place of assuming) would be 'continuing'? 'assuming' means (in this case) 'to take power' which Raul already did (July 31). By saying he's assuming, make it appear as thought he's just taken powers. PS Thanks for the chuckle. GoodDay 16:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New photos

What about this - http://www.juventudrebelde.cu/UserFiles/Image/fotos-fidel/2007-01-30/fidel-castro-hugo-chavez-3.jpg ?

Or http://www.juventudrebelde.cu/UserFiles/Image/fotos-fidel/2007-01-30/fidel-castro-hugo-chavez-2.jpg ? -- Beardo 07:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAC comment

Image:Fidel Castro 102006.jpg is missing a Fair Use Rationale. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

I've now reviewed this article for promotion to Good Article status.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

I've had to make a few edits to fix up some serious formatting and consistency errors in the article, and I believe the article's lead is possibly a bit long. I'd suggest checking out WP:LEAD for some suggestions on how to fix this up. :)

As mentioned in the talk post above, Image:Fidel Castro 102006.jpg is missing a Fair Use Rationale. This also needs to be rectified before I can promote this article.

I'm happy with the references, stability, and neutrality of this article however, and it seems to be coming along nicely.

Hopefully the editors here can fix this article up quickly, so I'll place this article ON HOLD for a maximum period of 7 days. Drop me a note on my talk page when you're ready for this article to be re-assessed. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted a number of things that require fixing;

Douglas also warned against trying to create instability - grammar problem - was also warned you mean?
the Cuban television channels showed a six-minute- grammar again, remove 'the', change 'showed' to 'aired'
Castro also dismisses rumors that he is dead - no need for the redundant 'also'
Wu Guanzheng should not be bolded
show a fresh video - fresh video? how about 'new'
Please convert the external links such as this [2] to the -ref- format.
Both Image:Granma 1 agosto 06.jpg and Image:Fidel Castro 102006.jpg need fair use rationales
References need fixing to follow consistency. All web references require a name, publisher (the website), date (if applicable) and date retrieved (today). Currently, references 1-3 follow this format as do 28+ but need some formatting changes
The See also section comes before references
publisher=Miami Herald. Formatting problem with reference 32
Time.com, 2006-10-06. Retrieved on October 8, 2006 - wikilink the date (2006-10-06)
Nothing to do with GA but it looks better if the categories are in alphabetical order.

All for now. M3tal H3ad 11:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding in the additional info. Not all of it is required for promotion to GA Status, but would indeed help push along the article. I didn't notice the second image issue however. I'll do a thorough look over again in a couple of days. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are - layout, reference and prose issues. M3tal H3ad 12:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These issues have not been addressed and the hold time has now expired. As a result, I am failing this article. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Granma 1 agosto 06.jpg

Image:Granma 1 agosto 06.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 ensure 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) 22:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't make sense

I believe this article doesn't make sense anymore. Since Fidel has formally resigned and Raul was elected, perhaps this site should be more focused and more clearly laid out. Mikeonatrike (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting there. A number of editors are changing this article to reflect events from 2006 to today and beyond. You can help! -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]