Talk:Cuban thaw

Finest Foreign Policy Achievement

Seems to me we ought to add something about this New Republic piece, The Cuban Thaw Is Obama's Finest Foreign Policy Achievement to Date, by one Joel Gillin, April 13 2015. Naturally, the analysis qualifies this as a success amongst some not-so-successful ventures, but still. Pandeist (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Pope Francis category

Seeing as how it's gone back and forth a few times I just want to make clear my support for including Category:Pope Francis, as he was structurally fundamental to this breakthrough. Pandeist (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Name is bad

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Title is bad because if we find one person who writes that the event is "The Cuba Sell-out", the we have to change the Wikipedia article to that. Yuck what did I step on (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggest changing name to "Re-establishment of Cuban - United States diplomatic relations" Yuck what did I step on (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Google is your friend, brother. 37,000 g-hits for "Cuban Thaw" to 200 or so for "Cuban Sell-Out." And it's what the New York Times calls it. Pandeist (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, brother. "Re-establishment of Cuban United States diplomatic relations" has 4,810,000 hits, far more than 37,000 and 200 combined. Yuck what did I step on (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You're doing Google wrong. "'No results found for "Re-establishment of Cuban United States diplomatic relations". Results for Re-establishment of Cuban United States diplomatic relations (without quotes):...." Those millions of hits you're getting aren't for what you're looking for, which gets zero hits, but from pages which happen to randomly contain words in the string, in no particular place or order. Pandeist (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

By your logic, Cuban Sell-Out is better than "Re-establishment of Cuban - United States diplomatic relations". Let's face it, Wikipedia has a lot of made up titles, like the 2014 _____ Earthquake or ______ shootings. Yuck what did I step on (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

By my logic Cuban Thaw is a better title. I don't see anybody rushing to agree with your view. Anyway you know retitlings must go through wikipedia:Requested moves, don't you? Pandeist (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I personally think it's a really dumb article name -- very dramatic and not very encyclopedic.50.58.105.200 (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Why unencyclopedic? Also, there's not much use in saying you hate the current title if you are not going to suggest a replacement. Dustin (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you're trying to scare people away from participating. Just because you think it's a good title doesn't mean I can't give my opinion that it's not. There are several much better, less dramatic and more encyclopedic replacement titles all over this talk page. I feel like you're just telling me to shut up. You don't own this page... Don't take it personally. 50.58.105.200 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Unless there's a separate thread for it, my suggestion for a new name could be "US-Cuban Relation Improvement". Opines? FriarTuck1981 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the title "Cuban Thaw" not only doesn't represent a "worldview", it specifically represents the US side of the topic. Logically, western sources will refer to the event as Cuban Thaw, as it is a thaw in relations between a western country and Cuba. But since the thaw is mutual, the title should include both countries. Besides that, only having Cuba in the title is even more absurd considering that it was arguably more the initiative of the US side that kept the relations frozen; since the US labeled Cuba as "terrorist" and imposed embargoes; so it is actually the United States who decided to thaw their stance towards Cuba. Note that if the reader is not American, then they can't even possibly guess from the title that the article has anything to do with the United States, while the US is the main actor in the event. I believe that something like "Cuba-United States Thaw" or "Cuba-United States relations thaw" would make sense. Cheers.--Der Golem (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a descriptive name, but is it the common name? Equate this to the Vietnam War, called that and not United States-Vietnam War. This is the English Language wiki, this is what it is called in the English Language. Pandeist (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This is what it is called in the English Language in the United States, but sources in other English Language speaking countries such England use "US-Cuba thaw" (BBC, BBC, Guardian); and even American sources use "U.S.-Cuba thaw" (CBS). Vietnam war involved several other countries including proxies and largely also factions within Vietnam; "United States-Vietnam War" would be inaccurate.--Der Golem (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I am unclear here, whether we speak here of the title of the page or the way the event is described in the page. If the proposal is an all out name change is a requested move not due? Pandeist (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

My intention was to comment just on the title; the article content does not have any problem in my opinion. I agree with proposing a move to Cuba–United States thaw.--Der Golem (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

See here. A search result for the exact phrase "Cuban Thaw", and excluding the word "Wikipedia" (to exclude this page, mirrors and off-site people talking about the wikipedia article), still gives 34,600 results. Cambalachero (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"US-Cuba thaw" phrase has over 150,000 --Der Golem (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I support a new title such as Cuba–United States thaw or any similar combination that includes both countries. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• 2015 Normalization of US-Cuban Relations or Keep Cuban Thaw - Per Pandeist; the right approach is always search engine testing the common name. Problem with subjects like this one is that the RS's don't really seem to settle on a single common name. "Cuban Thaw" seems to be a plurality term, so I think it's probably OK. Sometimes when there's no settled upon name in the RS, you're stuck picking something a little clunky (e.g. United States embargo against Cuba). If we're going to go with the clunky name, I suggest it be 2015 Normalization of US-Cuban Relations as a fairly clear and concise option. NickCT (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's not quite that clear cut though, is it? For example the process has actually been underway and yielding change since 2014 -- and has not actually achieved 'normalization' as yet, as there is still the embargo in place, and various other abnormal restrictions in relations between the nations. I'd add US to the tilt left, but not a year, and keep the 'Thaw' since that is likely both the most common and the most accurate descriptor. Pandeist (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• There is an article Cuba–United States relations,(also redirected in reverse), is some variant on this possible? restoration of relations? relations since 201X? (date being re establishment of formal diplomatic relations). As Pandeist says, this is a process, not a 'done deal', but terms like restoration and normalisation, don't necessarily imply that it is a 'done deal'. Pincrete (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• 2015 Normalization of US-Cuba Relations (or some rearrangement of the phrase) would be appropriate. Cuban thaw is a US-centric term and "thaw" is anyway an informal journalistic term. Note that Cuban thaw can always be a redirect to this page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• US-Cuba restoration/normalization of relations has the advantage that it will show up among other US-Cuba 'searches', though US-Cuba thaw is not objectionable, 'Cuban thaw' is uninformative to those outside US and a bit PoV. '2015' tends to assume it's all going to be over by Xmas! Pincrete (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I've seen media sources from different parts of the world use the "thaw" terminology. Adding US is reasonable. Pandeist (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• 2015 Restoration of US-Cuba Diplomatic Relations or 2015 Normalization of US-Cuba Relations are, in my view, the most concise titles per the guidelines in WP:Title. Both contain key words to aid searchability and recognition on lists of search results, and both accurately convey the content of the article in plain language, It is my opinion that "restoration" is a more commonly understood word than "normalization", but either would be an improvement. "Restore" is used here, here, and here (for example, it goes on and on), though you will also note the word "normaliz(s)e" or "normaiz(s)ation" are also used interchangeably in some of the same articles.

"Cuban thaw" has several media references too, there are also media mentions of "Iran thaw". Clearly, the word "thaw" fails to represent the extent to which diplomacy has been restored. In the case of Iran, "thaw" meant "willing to speak directly at an official level", whereas the US Embassy in Cuba is now open. Clarity can only help. Also, "Cuban Thaw" fails to identify the parties involved, and uses what may be a Cold War era American English colloquialism or at least arguably not part of common International English parlance. -- Forridean ^(T/C) 05:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC) (arrived via RFC list)

RfC discussion

Comment: Summoned by bot, I have to say that BOTH suggestions seem very vague, Cuban-US has the advantage of being clearer that its subject is inter-state relations. When 'botted' here I had no idea whether I was being asked to comment on a weather phenomenon. I see the difficulty in constructing a 'meaningful' title which is reasonably concise. Google hits will only predict these two terms, any publication which writes about the subject without using a 'catch phrase' (eg simply writes about moves to improve US Cuba relations, or which uses a technical term such as rapprochement or 'normalisation') is not going to 'score'. Additionally, there is a minor NPOV issue, to the extent that 'thaw' refers to 'softening' of positions, but the US has also 'softened'. US-Cuban seems better, but I would suggest finding a better description, more likely to be understood outside US/Cuba. The RfC is not really set up well for comment, so I have created this sub-section.Pincrete (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC) … … ps, I endorse all the points made by Der Golem above, particularly the US-centric nature of 'Cuban' alone.Pincrete (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• I suppose U.S.-Cuban Thaw would work just as well. Some sources reporting "Cuban Thaw" do turn out to have the "U.S.-" in there as well.... Pandeist (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how transitory 'thaw' is (especially outside US, although BBC is currently using 'US-Cuban thaw', I wonder how generally understood this will be in 5 years), obviously in addition to whatever title is chosen, a re-direct from 'Cuban thaw' is easy.Pincrete (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

About as transitory as the "Cold" in "Cold War".... Pandeist (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

With all respect, 'cold war' was a widely used term in US & Europe and elsewhere for 40 years, we have no way of knowing if that will be the case here, a common name is established by usage, these events are too recent to know what common name will be, if any. US common name is not always non-US common name (9-11?, Lockerbie bombing?). 'US-Cuban thaw', I think would be understood outside US, if formal names are too 'clunky'. Pincrete (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we're developing a number of options. Is it worth starting a simple straw poll below to see which option garners the most support? NickCT (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• 2015 normalization of Cuba-United States relations would be an appropriate title. WP:COMMONNAME is being cited in this discussion; while that is relevant, it is not sufficient. The rest of the policy also includes WP:POVTITLE, which suggests that in cases where the common name is not neutral, a different name, even a concocted one, is appropriate. This is absolutely one of those cases. "Cuban thaw" is very much a US centric title, especially given that immediate responsibility for poor diplomatic relations largely lies with the U.S. The title needs to be changed, even if not to the one I am suggesting. In addition, I have doubts about whether this deserves a stand-alone article, or whether per WP:NOTNEWS it should be merged into the US-Cuba relations page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NC includes five criteria for determining the best title. I think that this proposed name fails criterion #4 (concision). VQuakr (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there not some criteria which requires a title to correctly reflect what the matter is? There is no "normalization" while there is an expansive economic embargo remaining in place. What there is, is what it is almost universally called amongst its analysts, a "thaw." Prepending US to the title suffices to eliminate the concern that this fails to reflect the scope of the nations involved. The rest strays away from correct characterization of the matter. Pandeist (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pandeist: WP:NC. VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comments, normalisation is a process, one can have a degree of 'normalisation', (present state) ditto similar words. Looking into the future, I wonder if having the year in the title is a good idea, this process might continue/pause over coming years. Taking Vanamonde93's point, is it workable to include this content in 'Cuba-United States relations'?, This is what in the long run the 'thaw' will be, one chapter in that story (I ask that without knowing how much content there is).Pincrete (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • At a glance I believe combining the content of these pages would increase the length of the already lengthy relations page by more than 50%. But this is a discrete event all its own. There are lots of events between nations which could be folded into a more general page on relations between those nations, but then the folding in makes the discrete event too big a part of the relations page, and cutting it down makes it less useful than it was. I agree by the way that the date is not needed. There simply isn't any other US-Cuban Thaw out there to distinguish it from. Keep it simple!! Pandeist (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

As the one point which everybody agrees to has been the addition of the US to the title I have renamed the page United States–Cuban Thaw. Whether further alterations are required requires further altercations to inquire. Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CIA chips

@Pandeist: - Looking at this edit of yours. You state in the edit summary that "ok I see the problem, the chips Gross delivered were never actually "used by CIA agents to evade detection" -- that is a false claim". I'm a bit confused by this. The summary source explicitly says "specialized mobile phone chip that experts say is often used by the Pentagon and the CIA to make satellite signals virtually impossible to track". Is your contention that the source is wrong? NickCT (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nvm.... Rereading I guess what your saying is that the actual chips Gross delivered weren't used by the CIA, and not that the type of chip Gross delivered hadn't been used by the CIA. Apologies for the confusion. I'm going to try to reword the sentence to clarify. NickCT (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's it exactly. Looked like a claim that Gross was delivering chips to the CIA. Pandeist (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pandeist:@NickCT: both of you, thanks for the thanks, I don't think I've ever been 'double thanked' before. I'll have to make a habit of going to pages I know nothing about! Pincrete (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pincrete: - A double thank huh? I've never seen one of those. Remarkable. Anyways, you deserve it for coming up with such good verbiage. NickCT (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

United States–Cuban Thaw move back to Cuban Thaw

I think per WP:COMMONNAME this should be moved back to Cuban Thaw, with the lead sentence saying "United States–Cuban Thaw". Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

End of the thaw

It appears this article should be updated. The Thaw seems to have reversed course today with Trump's announcement of new (hostile) policies towards relations with Cuba. SecretName101 (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

As I have read it, the reversal is only partial. It would limit the travels to Cuba and the economic operations with Cuban firms operated by the military, but diplomatic relations would continue. It's not as if things simply got back to the 2013 state of things. Of course, we have yet to see the reaction of the Cuban dictatorship to those changes. But, as soon as it is clear what changes and what remains the same, the article should indeed be updated. --Cambalachero (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I have expanded the section. --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Capital T?

Why is this article titled "Cuban Thaw" instead of "Cuban thaw"? As far as I know, Cuban Thaw is not a proper name. I am not just boldly moving it, because I see the title was extensively discussed last year, and I wondered if there is some reason for the capital T that I am not aware of. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

typo

in last line of article "The Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla stated that the Cuban state "rejected" the sanctions, which it viewed as aiming to suffocate the island's economy and harm it's living standards in order to achieve political concessions" ----- it should be its instead of it's. Rayansb (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Biden Administration

No sections or content about the actions during the Biden Administration, including some reversal of the extent of reversal under Trump?

You would think that someone would have mentioned actions or events under an administration led by one who was Obama's vice president, with the thaw being a key foreign policy accomplishment under them. 2603:8000:B600:4000:4081:3387:3123:E6D1 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Made some changes to the article following an edit another editor made that introduced content about the Biden administration to the article:

1. Changed "Partial reversal of thaw" to "Aftermath" to have a more broadly defined post-Obama section that allows more room for further expansions of content as necessary.

2. Moved the contents of this section to a "Trump Administration" subsection of "Aftermath".

3. Added a "Biden Administration" subsection to help start up the content under the current administration.

And I noticed that currently the Cuban Thaw article has a more extensive record of actions under the Trump administration than the Cuba–United States relations article, presumably because the latter article is a more general summary of historical relations as a whole. But for the Biden administration actions, there's quite a lot of lines and citations in the latter article. Would it better to continue the trend of having more content in Cuban Thaw, or would it be preferable to have a greater amount of content in the Cuba–United States relations article (since Cuban Thaw is primarily an Obama-era series of events and the aftermath is more of a tangent)? 2603:8000:B600:4000:F5F7:89A3:7D8E:E1B4 (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)