Talk:Tourism in Cuba

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Spucket4, Bwood20. Peer reviewers: Bwood20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A note

I took out a large portion of the article that was taken word for word from here: http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/c/13238.htm

Another note

This article is a piece of shit. How come there is NOT ONE sub-article on this page that states that prostitution turist are all over the island from europe???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.47.225 (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of date

This article seems to have been written in 1999, which is weird, because Wikipedia has only been around since 2001. I'm not sure what the right course of action isAlex Klotz 00:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it should just be updated to reflect the current state of tourism, while keeping some of the "historical" info. I think Economy of Cuba also should be updated because that is where I got this information from - I am pretty sure I just cut and paste it. takethemud 01:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)takethemud

FYI: Tourism apartheid in Cuba

Some people have been working on documenting issues related to South African apartheid. One major theme that developed is tourism apartheid. It has an article section here: Tourism apartheid in Cuba. Thoughts are invited. (Most people working on the apartheid related material are not experts in Cuba-related topics.) --Ben Houston 00:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work (just can't get the staff) - but I would recommend that Tourism apartheid in Cuba be removed to its own article. And linked with summary from both here and the Apartheid_outside_of_South_Africa page.--Zleitzen 00:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cuban apartheid under the lens http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHbrof-tQPw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.176.31 (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant thread from one of my sandboxes

(pasted from User:Zleitzen/Tourism)

Hi Zletizen -- It should be noted, I believe, that the "apartheid" restrictions do not apply to members of the Nomenklatura who can and do circulate freely in the areas that are "off limits" for "ordinary" citizens. -- Polaris999 15:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to be sure you have seen this: http://www.opendemocracy.net/content/articles/PDF/1439.pdf which I found quite interesting. -- Polaris999 15:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much Polaris. That's a very perceptive article detailing some important factors that don't often get aired. Getting to the heart of the issue - seeing through the contradictions and paradoxes surrounding Cuba (and what I call the "blizzard of propaganda") - is near impossible, though this article makes a stern effort. Ironically the unpredictability of Cuban politics took another turn shortly after that article was written, when US payments from Cuban American families were halted by the Bush administration and the dollar was removed from circulation in Cuba.

What I'm doing on this page is as a result of problems elsewhere and a long backstory. Various "apartheid" articles appeared some time ago, apparently stemming from a few anti-Israeli editors' efforts to portray Israel/Palestine as a "state of apartheid". In reaction to this POV assault, which couldn't be deleted, pro-Israel editors scoured the media to find all other uses of the term. In the melee that ensued, this article "allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba" was created. A few of the regulars on the Cuban articles expressed concerns that it was inherently POV, and largely false. But due to the nature of the article's title, there was no way to illustrate the context and full story behind this, nor neutralise the inference. So I recommended that it be merged with the Tourism in Cuba article to allow for a rounded view with deeper context. This was contested by the pro-Israel lobby - I wasn't really satisfied with their reasoning. So I plan to re-work the Tourism in Cuba page in such a way as to make the "allegations of tourist apartheid" article simply redundant. Just another episode in the endless disputes over the representation of a small island!--Zleitzen 02:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zleitzen -- I think that your approach as outlined above is ideal. The term "tourist apartheid" seems nonsensical to me, although it is much used. IMO the situation surrounding tourism in Cuba is far too complex to be described by one overly simplistic term. -- Polaris999 02:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your draft

(pasted from User:Zleitzen/Tourism)

Hello Zleitzen -- I have just read this for the first time and am very impressed. You have done a superb job of achieving balance — all too often certain basic economic realities are not even mentioned when complaints are levelled against "tourist privileges" in Cuba. The statement by Castro that you cite re how much meat can be imported per "tourist night" sums it up perfectly. It is extraordinarily easy for "scholars" such as Gunn who have only academic knowledge of the economic dilemmas facing developing countries on a daily basis to make superficial criticisms, isn't it? -- Polaris999 01:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Polaris. What I intend to do is rewrite the lower half of the page (the allegations bit which was largely written by other editors) in the upper section at the top - with the aim of providing some context and background to the litany of criticisms. Any help is welcome!

There are numerous variables to be considered before one can significantly improve the neutrality and accuracy of the lower "allegations" section. Perhaps the most obvious is that the term "tourist apartheid" is a Anglo-construct. Thus when another user (who lives in Havana and took umbrage with the page) was asked to provide counter sources, they were simply not available due to the fact that all references to the term were English. The best I could find to add a bit of balance was the Fidel quotes. --Zleitzen 02:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you see: http://www.miami.com/mld/elnuevo/news/world/cuba/16032860.htm  ? -- Polaris999 22:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Polaris. That article exactly covers the issue in hand and will be put to good use - and it is current as well. The climate in Cuba can change quite rapidly, sometimes too quickly for the outside media so anything up to date on this subject is a bonus.--Zleitzen 00:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Impact on Cuban society

This section deals with the impact tourism has on Cuban society, beyond the "allegations" claims. --Zleitzen 06:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to deal with both. The word "apartheid" is ugly, but it's notable, so lets stop trying to hide it. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I must say that in general I think the changes you've made to the section are quite good, and tend to make it more balanced. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well you know my thoughts on the other article - it is well written and source perfect providing a great resource for feeding other articles. And I have since used at my template for writing and assessing attributed material. But I think it isolates an issue and pins it to a buzzword rather than a legitimate phenomenon to the detriment for the reader. The issues are very important and need to be detailed, that people have called it "apartheid" isn't very important. By framing it in terms of allegations, it becomes more about the accusers, not the subject matter itself. There are a lot of problems around the growth of those kinds of articles, and I don't know what the answer is. The balancing act becomes ever more difficult. As I imagine you appreciate dealing with all that Israel nonsense.--Zleitzen 07:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered incorporating some of your material into the Tourist apartheid in Cuba article? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, if one was trying to hide this "ugly word", then I wouldn't imagine that person would have written it numerous times in the article, added references from one's own academic texts that referred to the term, and even explicitly written it into the lead. There appears to be a misunderstanding of motives. I believe the goal here is to write material that most closely resembles an encyclopedia article.--Zleitzen 00:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I was concerned about the fact that your edits removed any link to the main Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba article, from which much of the material was taken, and was not restored for almost 3 weeks, until I restored it myself. Regardless of the use of the term "apartheid", it seemed that any connection to the more detailed article, by name, or even by link, was being hidden. How do you see it? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The answer to both questions is fairly straightforward. The other article, which we created and agreed was the best temporary way to spin off the material until this article was developed, is now a content fork. A rational, agreeable and more serious approach is that the material appears on this page. Particuarly given that the subject matter is consanguine to most, if not all the other material on the page, and should not be viewed in isolation, as that is not helpful to the reader. In relation to the word apartheid in this respect, it is a notable term of a certain merit that deserves discussion, but an encyclopedia wouldn't use that as the hook to hang the horse. The policies and the impact of those policies should be the focus. These policies, which include the "tourist enclaves", "anti-harrassment laws", government attitudes to prostititution, the legalisation and then removal of the dollar (yet to be fully detailed), the growth of the two tier society are all interconnected. The other article merely takes one buzzword that only covers an isolated aspect and details its usage via multiple quotes and sources. On this page, we're hoping to provide a more comprehensive view.

Whatsmore, it seems to be more productive if editors who are attempting to improve this article are not drawn into the wikipedia games surrounding the "apartheid articles" fiasco, and are allowed to lift articles to good and hopefully featured article status without such hinderance. That a circus of editors whom I have never encountered before, nor appear to have any interest or knowledge of the subject, previously came in from an unrelated article and opposed various efforts to improve this article, should be more worthy of people's curiosity and investigation. To summarize, we are writing this article for the benefit of readers, and also taking into account the smooth running of that process. What other business is going here is something I can neither explain nor understand. But I too would like some answers.--Zleitzen 03:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to fathom how you could state that the original article which a section in this article summarizes is a "content fork". It was an article developed out of the Allegations of apartheid article, not this one, and there was hardly any agreement to "spin off" anything from this article. A summary of that article in this one can hardly turn the original article into a "fork". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not way I remember it, nor see it now. Here is the thread to refresh memories about the discussion when that article was created[1]. Here is the thread where various editors, on their own volition, request a merge between that article and this. [2]. That amounts to six or seven editors assuming the perfectly rational position that the material be merged. Your response was "This has little to do with tourism per se, and everything to do with government policies." and "It is far more than just hotels; it is also things like restaurants, beaches and medical services". There seems to be a confusion on your part to what this actual issue is about. It is about tourist hotels, restaurants solely for tourists, tourist beaches, and medical care for tourists. There is nothing in the other article, that isn't in this. Other than one or two more Readers' Digest lengthy pull out quotes. Which still refer to the material covered here. This isn't a summary of the other article, it is actually more comprehensive than the other article.--Zleitzen 08:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Back in July, when the other article was created, and this issue was brought up, you wrote to another editor,

"However, since you've raised the issue, do you think Allegations of Israeli apartheid also be "better integrated" into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles, since it has more to do with Israel than with Apartheid?"

Which only reinforces my belief that the obfuscation over this stems from unrelated disputes, and the good faith contributions to the Cuban articles are being sacrificed to some wider crusade. How do you see it?--Zleitzen 08:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm the person who actually wrote the "Cuban apartheid" material, on July 11,[3] and it was definitely in the Allegations of apartheid article, one of many sections discussing various countries accused of apartheid. In order to protect the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article from being re-merged back into Allegations of apartheid, User:Deodar proposed the Cuba material be spun-off to its own article and the next day User:Briangotts spun it off into its own article Allegations of Cuban apartheid So, to start, it's quite clear that this is a spin-off of Allegations of apartheid, not Tourism in Cuba. Four months later someone suggested merging the article to this article, an idea which you eagerly supported and immediately attempted to implement; however, you and the other editor were the only people supporting this suggestion, and six other editors opposed the idea. So, rather than "six or seven editors assuming the perfectly rational position that the material be merged", you and one other editor held this view, and 6 editors strongly opposed it. For you to now claim that Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba is merely a temporary "spin-off" of this article, and that many editors support this view, is, to my eyes, an extreme revision of history. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not following me, Jayjg. I had no problem with the tourist apartheid page but it was agreed to be the best temporary way to "spin off" the material from the Allegations of apartheid page - until this article was developed. That was the unchallenged opinion of three or so editors in July - Deodor, HOTR, myself and is clear from the threads provided. That is what I believed to be the state of play until editors recently discussed a merger. As we can see from the thread on the other page, someone else suggested a merger, User:The Literate Engineer, (agreed by myself and an anon editor). That's five editors excluding Beardo who I assume agrees with the merge, and Polaris999 who described the merge proposal as ideal (see pasted thread above). I then spent time researching material for this page - creating an article from scratch - attempting to ensure that good coverage was achieved etc. When lo and behold and group of editors (your five editors) descended from an unrelated set of articles to start calling the shots here with the rather counter-intuitive rationale of "Israel has its own page - why not Cuba!". That rationale seems to be a case of WP:POINT. WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point includes this wording:

"The contributor may point out inconsistencies, perhaps citing other cases that have been handled differently. And the contributor may postulate: "What if everyone did that?" (This neglects two important things about Wikipedia: it is inconsistent, and it tolerates things it does not condone. These are arguably not defects.)"

ie. not good practice when we're trying to write serious articles for an encyclopedia. In fact very poor practice to my eyes. If people want to trade articles in a poker game, then I would rather they do it in their own corner of wikipedia, and leave people who want to work on comprehensive articles unhindered.--Zleitzen 09:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Refresher

Here is the correspondance that the conversation above refers to. It may be worth re-examining these comments to see if I've misunderstood them and have "revised history". Perhaps they may help clarify things somewhat.--Zleitzen 13:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

July

It would be appropriate to better integrate it into Cuba-related articles (such as Tourism_in_Cuba) since it has more in common with Cuba that it has with apartheid. User:Deodar [4]

I think it would be somewhat disproportionate to have a Tourism in Cuba article that is 4/5th about "Tourism apartheid". It is quite long for an entry in this article however so it would be logical to spin it off. User:HOTR 04:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[5]

I'll take a look at the Tourism page over the next week or so, and try to pad it out with more info. Then it may be an idea to merge the Cuban apartheid and tourism pages together, when there is more equal weight given to other areas. I hope I've made sense?--[6] User:Zleitzen

October

Hi. I looked over the article Tourism in Cuba and over this one, and Tourism in Cuba is a one-sentence-long stub. This article, meanwhile, has a title that it appears has generated some complaints about violating NPOV. I was wondering if yall might consider merging this article into the Tourism in Cuba article so as to add content to what ought to be a fully-developed article and to remove the article name issue here. Thanks. The Literate Engineer 16:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you about the need to merge, however the tourism in Cuba article is still a stub and these allegations would dominate it somewhat, to its detriment. What I'll do, perhaps, is write that Tourism article in full over the next few days and then we can think about merging. How does that sound?--Zleitzen 20:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds awesome, Zleitzen. The Literate Engineer 20:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that is what is needed. All that was lacking was someone to volunteer to improve the main tourism article. Well done Z. -- 80.225.170.83 01:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Taxi photo

That taxi photo isn't really apt, as that sort of taxi is for Cubans and charges in ordinary pesos. We need a photo of a tourist taxi. -- Beardo 08:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What about a pic of a Cocotaxi, Beardo? --Zleitzen 08:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - but I was think more of one of the white Ladas. -- Beardo 08:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

State of this article

I think with a bit more work, this article could easily become Cuba's first featured article. Any thoughts?--Zleitzen 09:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge of "tourist apartheid"

{{RFCsoc | section=Merge of "tourist apartheid" !! reason= Has been tagged for merger into [[Tourism in Cuba]] since 27 October. Two votes support, no oppose. As this article has involved in controversies, a broader consensus would be welcome. !! time=[[User:Victor falk|victor falk]] 12:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)}}

Survey

• Support This spin-off article does not mention anything not covered in this article's section. It is actually smaller than that section (545 vs 854 words), which should be a strong hint...--victor falk 09:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support I suggested the merger in the first place. -- Beland 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak OpposeConfused the term is different than the fact - Propose term talk about etymology - coined by who, etc..--Keerllston 13:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support. If this is all the material that exists on the topic then keeping it here seems to be a good option.Bless sins (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I made a merged version in my sandbox. Basically, it's "tourist apartheid" with the first two paragraphs of "Impact on Cuban..." instead of the intro.--victor falk 12:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Brazilian site about tourism in Cuba

This Brazilian site: [GA] has an article, in Portuguese, about this subject. Reading the article, I realized that tourism in Cuba isn't a good thing.Agre22 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Blindspot: The Cuban military controls the tourism industry

The article doesnt address this at all, but the tourism industry in Cuba is run by an umbrella company called GAESA (Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A.) which itself is run by the Cuban military. Everything from hotels to restaurants to shopping centers are all run by the military or to quote an article from Reuters "That means when you enter a shop in Cuba to purchase a bottle of water, soda or beer, you probably are patronizing a military establishment."

Relevant reading:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cuba-military/cuban-militarys-tentacles-reach-deep-into-economy-idUSKBN1962VK

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cuba-canada-tourism-1.6124982

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm1217

Friedbyrd (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

dead links

the link for the source info for the "tourist amount in cuba" image is dead Porridgeluver (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)