Jump to content

Talk:Economy of Cuba

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Potential bias in "Economic freedom" section

[edit]

The first paragraph of the economic freedom section is sourced only to the Index of Economic Freedom, which is published by the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal. These are both very strongly conservative and pro-capitalism sources, and both have a recent history of pushing outright disinformation - albeit with non-economic subjects, such as climate change denialism. This leads me to doubt the accuracy of their assessment of a country that is primarily perceived as either a mixed economy or socialist - I do not feel that a source which is as strongly conservative as THF is able to accurately and fairly assess the freedom of an economy such as Cuba's, even if they had a history of acting in good faith and providing accurate information, which THF does not.

I believe it would be better for this source to either be replaced with a more neutral one that does not have a history of disinformation, or for it to at least be matched with a more centrist- or left-leaning source. If neither can be found, perhaps it would be best to remove this paragraph?

I'm still new to editing wikipedia, so please let me know if there is a better way to propose this change (e.g. something along the "Citation needed" tags). I would edit it to include one of those sources, but I am not familiar enough with the subject to judge if one is reliable enough. DuskTheUmbreon (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for raising this point in a detailed and thoughtful manner.
Yes, there are possibly appropriate templates you could add to the text. Assuming you are editing in visual, go to Insert. Then template. Then type "Better source needed" and select it. Another possible template is "Unreliable source?"
Keep in mind that a source having an ideological standpoint does not make a source unreliable per the Wikipedia policies (The RS policy states, "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."). I recognize you have raised other points as well in this instance, but because you also raised ideology I wanted to orient you to that. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! I greatly appreciate the tip about the template. Haven't had the chance to mess with those yet, on this site or on any other wiki.
I'll keep in mind that bias alone isn't enough to say "This isn't reliable". DuskTheUmbreon (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Republic of Cuba (1902–1959)

[edit]

I accepted this WP:AFC because there was no basis to reject. Take it to WP:AFD if you have a disagreement with this. It might be appropriate to eventually WP:MERGE this material into this article but I was reluctant to suggest now this due to WP:UNDUE considerations. ~Kvng (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About the Real GDP

[edit]

Its been a lot criticed about the real GDP who deal with the Cuban Economy, its a real matter about because its mainly based with the "Official" currency value who dont reflect the real situation of the cuban people, it must be create a new topic about the "Real measure of the Cuban Economy, based upon real values"

https://caribbeanbasinresearch.org/2025/05/22/pib-de-cuba/

https://jovencuba.com/economia-cubana-crisis-indicadores/ ~2026-11522-65 (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

April 2026 edits

[edit]

Examples of disputes

[edit]

Note: the section above has been deleted by Peripteros but is needed for dispute resolution. The WP:3 page for example state: "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page." --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A series of edits by myself, Louis Boog and reversions of those edits by edits, by Peripteros over the month of April 2026 continuing into May need some attention IMHO. The reversions border on harassment clothed in wiki jargon ( neutral point of view, "Try rewriting this sentence in your own words", "encyclopedic tone", Wikipedia is not a newspaper, "Formatting issues are still here with NPOV lacking, 'supporters laud the revolutionary government.'" Some examples: Some historians (Carmelo Mesa-Lago and Jorge Pérez-López) have broken down the history of economic policy during the Cuban Revolution (1959 to 2012 when they wrote their book) into cycles, roughly categorized as idealistic and pragmatic/reformist. (click here and scroll to pages 2-3) This is pretty obviously relevant to an article on the economy of Cuba and I have tried to add the subject in a subsection "Revolutionary era (1959–present)". I added it

  • in early April (this was deleted from wikipedia history apparently as a copyright violation)
  • again here April 27, rewriting it to eliminate any copyright problems and after that was deleted
  • here April 29 making it much shorter, getting rid of the bullet points

all were deleted by Peripteros, the latest one here. My question, how would you include this point -- the different cycles of economic policy -- without using words/phrases like idealism, pragmatism and command economy? using those expressions is hardly a copyright violation of Creative expression (WP:CP). --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Louis P. Boog, you do not have to copy and paste discussions for editors to discuss with you. When editors give you feedback on your edits, please don't view it as "complaints" or "harassment" but genuine attempts to improve the content you add to Wikipedia. In the specific example you mention here, if the Cuban economy has experienced different cycles of economic policy, write it out in your own words. Unlike academic research or newspapers, Wikipedia is not meant to be a summary of certain researchers but rather an encyclopedic article about the general topic. If you'd like, you can rewrite that section and another editor can help you copy edit to ensure it complies with our core content polices. Peripteros (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think my edits "improve the content" of the article and you think your deletions improve it. What is "NPOV lacking" but a complaint. It seems to me you are deleting text that adds to the content of the article using narrow, legalistic requirements and excuses. But of course I have to assume good faith on your part.
I guess the (one of) the dispute here is whether terms like cycle, idealistic, pragmatic, etc. that were not "my own words", are creative expression or generic terms that do not violate copyright law. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to discuss this content specifically as it's the first edit removed for copyvio by Diannaa back on April 7th, so its a good starting point. Your goal is to incorporate the ideas published in this text into the article. When you copy too much of the text or paraphrase too closely, the text gets automatically flagged and permanently removed. While the term command economy is a general concept, there is no such thing as an "ideal" or "pragmatic" economy. Those are terms the authors use to describe what they believe to be cycles in Cuban economic and social policy. Obviously relevant to the topic of the article but the last thing we want to do is pass off their work as our own. You should revise and re-add the text! I can help copy edit it so you can see how to phrase it appropriately. Peripteros (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have to retract what I said about "generic terms". Some of what you've deleted I would call generic but yes, Carmelo Mesa-Lago and Jorge Pérez-López are using those terms (idealistic, pragmatic) for their own theory of Cuban economic policy going in cycles. But you will note that this April 29 edit puts those terms in quotations. I put it to you this is not excessive quotation and writing about Carmelo Mesa-Lago and Jorge Pérez-López ideas without those terms "in my own words" would be unnecessary, and could cause confusion. --~2026-26727-49 (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please log into your registered account whenever making comments. My suggestion to you is to revise the text in a summary format, with little to no quotations, and other editors can help you copy edit it to ensure alignment with our core content policies. Peripteros (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
icon Response to third opinion request:
I can't tell, from reading the talk page and looking at the edits, what the actual issue is. I can make these guesses:
Repeated wholesale deletions by @Peripteros: sounds like WP:OWN. He is not the sole interpreter of the Close Paraphrasing policy. The policy itself is full of qualifications and ambiguities. I don't see a problem in the few sentences shown here.
A sentence was deleted because it did not have a citation. It should be tagged [citation needed] instead.
Both of you seem to have read the Mesa Lago article. You ought to be able to agree on what this author is asserting (his primary thesis). Once you tell us what that is, it may not be necessary to recite these mind-numbing statistics. If you're only picking up the statistics and not the author's opinion, that's a violation of WP:OR.
The question in the edit comment, "Why are you copy-pasting duplicate information in both sections?" is disrespectful. The obvious answer to the question is, "I forgot."
Something that nobody else objected to: the repeated references to Batista and the Castros. Did they make every economic decision, or were other people involved? Why are they, and not any earlier leaders, mentioned? Why is Batista described as a dictator, and his regime as a "military dictatorship", but no similar things are said about the Castros? This sounds like a violation of WP:NPOV. Julian in LA (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2026 (UTC)|}[reply]
Thank you @Julian in LA: for taking the time to reply. and I hope you are still watching this page. As the person who made the request I'd say the issue can be summed up as which are improving the article -- my edits or @Peripteros: deletions?
Taking the example I entered above -- namely my attempt to add to the beginning of the Economy_of_Cuba#History history section
  • in early April (this was deleted from wikipedia history apparently as a copyright violation)
  • again here April 27, rewriting it to eliminate any copyright problems and after that was deleted
  • here April 29 making it much shorter, getting rid of the bullet points .
Do you see Peripteros' insistence that "rewriting this sentence in your own words, without the excessive quotes. This remains WP:OVERQUOTE", as proper wikipedia form, or even making sense? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One of the deleted revisions (Revision as of 16:06, 21 April 2026) belongs to the Currencies section. I'm not sure if this is a point of dispute. Its first sentence refers to an informal black market exchange rate. My understanding of "black market" is that it is illegal and risks arrest. I don't know what an informal exchange rate is. If this is to be restored, it should be clear whether these exchanges are legal, and what is informal about them.
"Is it legal to exchange in the informal currency market? No, but everyone does it, both Cubans themselves and foreigners." https://mundounique.com/en/mercado-divisas-cuba/ I did it when I was in Cuba.
The remaining part gives this month's exchange rates. The objection was based on WP:RAWDATA, "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." It looks like the real objection is that the stated rates were out of date the day after they were inserted here, and are of no use to anyone reading the page next month or next year. It can also be said that they are of no value unless a RS says that they are better or worse than last year, or better or worse than other comparable countries, and offers a reason why. Julian in LA (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My idea in adding the rate was to give a general idea of the rate, not as a guide for visitors to Cuba. That's why I added "As of 21 April 2026, according to the elTOQUE news website".--Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concept but it's just not content suitable for the article unless substantiated with better, reliable sources and context. Peripteros (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a nice reliable source:
Cuban peso hits a record low against the US dollar in informal markets
Cuba’s widely used informal market ...
The currency hit 500 pesos to the dollar in informal channels, according to the independent news website El Toque
experts have long used the informal exchange rate as a gauge of the health of the Cuban economy.
By ANDREA RODRÍGUEZ
Updated 2:17 PM PDT, February 11, 2026
https://apnews.com/article/cuba-us-dollar-exchange-rate-trump-sanctions-35d92af89c53eb2d061bcef7445a09d3 Julian in LA (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This makes more sense to include as a concise summary of how the nation's unique currency situation interplays with its broader economy. Peripteros (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Peripteros: Pinging you in case you're not following this page.
The Revision of 17:56, 27 April 2026 shows extensive deletions. These should be discussed on the talk page beforehand. If the original editor doesn't understand why they were made, they have not been fully discussed.
One sentence was changed to replace sugar, tobacco, coffee and tourism to just "sugar." Was this done to better reflect the source? This is not explained in the revision note. It also adds the word "fueled." Aircraft and cars are fueled. As an economic term, it is used only by newspapers and has a very vague meeting. This is where it would be appropriate to drop a few statistics to explain that the US was their principal trading partner.
The next deletion includes a series of bullet points. The first paragraph is a political one that is discussed elsewhere. The second one introduces the terms "idealism" and "pragmatism." The terms are attributed to the Mesa Lago paper, but there is no explanation of what they mean. I certainly don't know. It is followed by eight bullet points that will have no meaning to someone who hasn't read the paper and understands those terms. That's a good reason to remove them. If they have been copied unchanged from the paper, that's another good reason.'
'“idealist” cycles are those dominated by policies that move away from the market, while “pragmatist” cycles are market-oriented.' https://www.rienner.com/uploads/51cb22c8e9c96.pdf would it suit you if idealistic and pragmatic were changed to move away from the market and market-oriented? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You should just summarize the concepts here, e.g. pro-market versus pro-state. The close copying of the source is introducing issues to the article. As mentioned before, “pragmatist” and “idealist” cycles are not standard economics terms. Peripteros (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The next deletion involves the pre-Special Period. I assume that the term Special Period was used by the government, not by its opponents or by historians. If so, it should not be used here. If you are referring to the dates in the section header (1968–1990), there is no need to introduce any new names; just explain what happened during those 30 years.
Special Period in the Time of Peace (Período especial en tiempos de paz), is the government's euphemism but is widely used. It has its own wikipedia article. Is it OK if it is used with quotation marks and a brief explanation? such as "Special Period in the Time of Peace" was an extended period of economic crisis in Cuba that began in 1991[1] primarily due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The term Special Period is widely used so quotes are not needed. I believe it's already extensively covered within the article, so I'm not sure what this adds to the topic? I wouldn't use the term "pre-Special Period" to describe the 1980s. Peripteros (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph doesn't refer to any specific event. It just says there was an era of low poverty. You should tell us whether this continues a trend from the previous period or represents a change. If there is a change, we need to know why it happened.
have added to the first sentence to explain. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Cuba&diff=prev&oldid=1352754713 --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If comparing the Cuban poverty rate to the rest of Latin America is that important, the comparison should have its own section, covering all time periods. This is a communist country, after all, and we should know whether communism has really reduced poverty.
Several of the edits add the words "however" and" but" without improving readability or clarity. Julian in LA (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to this suggestion by Julian in LA, these words "however" and "but" are considered to be weasel words that do not reflect the encyclopedic tone expected on Wikipedia. Peripteros (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
taking some other edits,
In the Revision as of 16:44, 30 April 2026, The first two paragraphs look like editing that any editor is entitled to do, and it seems to be an improvement. The Poverty paragraph is different. It starts by saying the "poverty rate" has risen. This seems to be the percent of population living below a "poverty line." Some of the bullet points mention skipping meals. Reports on food scarcity in other countries mention malnutrition. It would be nice to know if malnutrition is described by these sources.
The next paragraph moves to a different subject, homelessness. Nobody knows the relationship between poverty and homelessness; the United States is still a rich country, but homelessness is in the news every day. Excuses made by a government minister add little to this discussion of economic policy; it is a problem, no matter what its cause is. If a reliable source said that specific solutions have been proposed, that would justify inclusion here, with its own heading. Otherwise, the remaining paragraph should be deleted. Julian in LA (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Former Labour Minister Marta Elena Feito Cabrera’s comments dismissing poverty received fairly routine news coverage and doesn't quite warrant inclusion on this article. Challenges to how poverty is represented by the Cuban government is common and isn't terribly informative about the Cuban economy. Peripteros (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph beginning "supporters laud the revolutionary government" looks like politics, not economics. If the standard of living has declined since the Revolution (has it?), that should be described. The dispute over the effect of the trade embargo can be described also. As to whether US opposition is a legitimate excuse, the same excuse was made by Allende in Chile. Somebody should have taken them both aside and explained that one should expect this and plan for it before one starts a revolution. Julian in LA (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But the sentence goes
Supporters laud the revolutionary government of the Castro brothers for their efforts to eliminate poverty and economic dependence in Cuba and note how much of Cuba's economic troubles can be traced to the U.S. trade embargo.
It's talking about economic performance, economics and politics being pretty closely intertwined in this case. -Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When you added this text initially, you did not properly link to the targeted page causing a formatting issue. It's fine for another editor to in good faith fix the link but this continues to happen so please "preview" your edits before hitting submit. I still do not believe that the phrase "supporters laud the revolutionary government" is neutral. Peripteros (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the embargo, it's mentioned several places in the article, for example: In its 2020 report to the United Nations, Cuba stated that the total cost to Cuba from the United States embargo is $144 billion since its inception.[1] Whether it's legitimate or lame excuse for poverty, the Cuban government and its supporters talk about it a lot and its very much part of any discussion of the Cuban economy.
"If the standard of living has declined since the Revolution (has it?), that should be described."
It's hard to find hard facts on that much of the work sounds like this from PBS:

Cuba ranked fifth in the hemisphere in per capita income, third in life expectancy, second in per capita ownership of automobiles and telephones, first in the number of television sets per inhabitant. The literacy rate, 76%, was the fourth highest in Latin America. Cuba ranked 11th in the world in the number of doctors per capita. ...[but in the countryside] Sugar production was seasonal, and the macheteros -- sugarcane cutters who only worked four months out of the year -- were an army of unemployed, perpetually in debt and living on the margins of survival. Many poor peasants were seriously malnourished and hungry. Neither health care nor education reached those rural Cubans at the bottom of society.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/comandante-pre-castro-cuba/ --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is considered a reliable source, so I suggest summarizing the decline in living standards given this information without copy and pasting this entire quote. Peripteros (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good source for prerevolutionary Cuba, but how did it change after the Revolution?
Another issue, that I haven't gotten into in detail: An index of income inequality is mentioned. If Communist Cuba has a inequality problem, who are the people on top? Not landowners. If they are all well-connected government officials, that is significant. Julian in LA (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Batista v. Fidel Castro, I guess it's kind of a tradition to call Batista a dictator and Fidel Castro a .... he's had a bunch of different titles through the years. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that the American press has always used the word "dictator" in every reference to Fidel Castro. Example: www.khou.com/article/news/cuban-dictator-fidel-castro-dies-at-90/285-356082160 Applying the word to Batista but not Castro makes you sound like a supporter of the current regime.
@Peripteros: Can I remove the references to all three of them? Will it detract from the explanation of Cuban economic policy? Julian in LA (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That sound's fine. My hope is that any content added is written in an encyclopedic tone and with the proper formatting. Having these contributions re-written and re-added would be welcome, especially if supported by a third opinion. Peripteros (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note. The first sentence of the Wikipedia article lede on Fulgencio Batista includes "... Cuban military officer, political leader, and dictator...". The article on Fidel Castro does not put "dictator" so front and center. The last sentence of the lede says, "His critics view him as a dictator whose administration oversaw human rights abuses, the exodus of many Cubans, and the impoverishment of the country's economy." Having said that, I have no objection to removing references to dictator in the article. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Louis P. Boog: The original proposal, which I still prefer, is to remove all references to all three of them. We could, instead, identify each of them by one of their official titles or as "Cuban leader", or without any title – all are familiar names to anyone interested in Cuba. Julian in LA (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Julian in LA No objections. Fidel is a little complicated because (if I remember correctly) he was at different times President, Prime Minister and just Commander in Chief (Comandante en Jefe). Louis P. Boog (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Davis, Stuart (2023). Sanctions as War: Anti-Imperialist Perspectives on American Geo-Economic Strategy. Haymarket Books. p. 143. ISBN 978-1-64259-812-4. OCLC 1345216431.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economy_of_Cuba&oldid=1352866603"