| Revision as of 04:22, 18 April 2006 editZleitzen (talk | contribs)17,201 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:05, 14 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,006 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Cuba/Archive 23) (bot |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles|search=no}} |
|
] |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
] |
|
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
] |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|
| action1date=3 February 2007 |
|
|
| action1result=not listed |
|
|
| action1oldid=105193320 |
|
|
| currentstatus=FGAN |
|
|
| topic=geography |
|
|
|otd1date=2004-10-10|otd1oldid=6487069 |
|
|
|otd2date=2005-10-10|otd2oldid=25162774 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Latin America|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Cuba|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Caribbean|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Countries}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islands}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press|year=2006|section=May 2006 |
|
|
| title=Dueling edits dog Misplaced Pages's Cuba entry |
|
|
| org=The Seattle Times <!--Author is Pablo Bachelet--> |
|
|
| date=May 5, 2006 |
|
|
| url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002973183_wiki05.html |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Skip to bottom}} |
|
|
{{banner holder |collapsed=yes |text=Other: old GA nominee; On this day (]); press notices; ] |1= |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
| counter = 23 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
| algo = old(90d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:Cuba/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
{{annual readership}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Human Rights section in need of review; who wrote this? == |
|
{{RFMF}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== <s>Torture and weird sources</s> === |
|
|
<s>First of all, simply writing "The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions" is not sufficient without mention of proper sources, for example NGO's or some recognized polity. I could accuse Norway of torture right now, so? What is this source supposed to be? http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Cuba67sp/indice.htm It is dated 1967? Surely something more recent should be found, otherwise the section might aswell be moved to "history of Cuba" Torture? Extrajudicial executions? I can't find any mention of these in recent reports. Not even the US state department claims the Cuban government practices torture or extrajudicial execution. Here is the recent report by human rights watch https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/cuba#3159b0 It does not mention torture, sexual abuse of inmates or extrajudicial executions. Those parts should be removed or changed to include what time this accusation was made. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''Needs update''' |
|
== Peer Review == |
|
|
|
''Cuba had the second-highest number of imprisoned journalists of any nation in 2008 (China had the highest) according to various sources, including the Committee to Protect Journalists and Human Rights Watch'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here it is mentioned that the statistic stems from 2008, which is good. But this statistic is kind of useless other then mentioning a previous condition. It missrepresents Cuba for the average reader. Cuba did not even make the list of this 2018 ranking for imprisoned journalists: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/12/13/where-the-most-journalists-are-imprisoned-worldwide-infographic/?sh=1b693b336332 |
|
Are we ready for a 1st round peer review yet? --] 07:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The situation of journalists in Cuba is still under scrutany, but for different reasons. For example HRC writes: Cuba has the “most restricted climate for the press in the Americas” according to a 2019 Committee to Protect Journalists report. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''WP:POV?''' |
|
Who are these "peers"? Some further comments: |
|
|
|
The section does not balance out the negatives with the positives, such as information about Cubans access to healthcare, free abortions and school etc. Accusations from 70 years ago are being represented as if they are currently being made (torture and executions) |
|
*I have now read the Human Rights section, and it is as bad as the History section was. I give notice that I will rewrite it when I have looked up some sources. |
|
|
*The culture and religion sections are still very bad. |
|
|
*I suspect the rest of the article also needs rewriting, though I am not an expert on health, education etc in Cuba. The whole article seems to have been originally written by semi-literate and very naive admirers of the Castro dictatorship, and probably it all now needs to be replaced. ] 08:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''recomendations''' |
|
:What problems do you have with the religion section, Adam? --] 10:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
1. Remove claims of torture and extrajudicial executions from the first sentence |
|
|
|
|
|
2. Mention were all accusations come from and source it |
|
::A '''Peer Review''' is when the article is reviewed by top wikipedian editors that read and comment on what still needs to be changed to avoid POV and other common mistakes like layout and presentation of the article. BTW what happen to the Coat of Arms area? --] 08:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
3. Remove the part about sexual abuse of inmates |
|
|
4. Update section to represent current conditions. |
|
|
5. Extend the section about the media with more information and remove the part about imprisonment of journalists. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
-- <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ])</s> 18 March 2022 (UTC)</span><sup></sup> |
|
:::More info about Peer Reviews is at ] --] 09:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2024 == |
|
::::I would welcome a peer review. ] 15:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Cuba|answered=yes}} |
|
== User Bletch == |
|
|
|
I am trying to give the Lucumí name for Cuba as well as it's original native name "Cubanascnan" ] (]) 23:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 23:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Correction == |
|
Bletch, you have reinserted the statement "Cuba is the only state in the western hemisphere which is not a democracy" in the first paragraph (again). This comes after a week of edit wars, blocks and bans over this issue. Please review talk page history and cite a source for this. For guidance I provided the encarta description of Cuban democracy, I'll repeat it here; |
|
|
::''The revolution professed centralized democracy, meaning that popular participation occurs within designated mass organizations established and controlled by the state. The Communist leadership believes that traditional democracies in Latin America often become military dictatorships or become subject to government corruption, which renders their democratic institutions meaningless. In theory, the Cuban government avoids dictatorship and corruption by creating a strong, centralized political structure that makes every effort to incorporate the opinions of the people when making policy decisions. This, to their way of thinking, qualifies Cuba as a democracy and not a totalitarian government. However, Castro makes all major decisions, without popular referendums.'' Encarta MSN.] 12:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cuba is a state capitalist country, not socialist. Please fix this. ] (]) 05:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Actually I have seen this sourced on military and government sites. When I run across it agin I'll post the link for it but I believe Bletch is correct in a sense. The source I read was "Its the only country in the North America that is a Communist State" --] 12:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] ]<sup>]</sup> 06:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
] is very broad term that is not limited to particular political systems. Encarta recognise this and write accordingly, keeping to encylopedic standards. The communsist state argument was hammered out at length above. And personally I believe there is a problem of bias in relying on US military and government sources on these matters. Rather like relying on Fidel Castro's opinions of the US to inform the United States article. --] 12:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:One man's struggle is another man's war. The wording between Communist and Socialist will never be deceided here. For instance, in China they don't call themselves socialists, they clearly call themselves Communist with overtones of a People's Republic to make it sound better but in all there documentation they refer to communist. Fidel has a close relationship with China and more then once Fidel has aligned to communist ways. Socialist is also broad because it was used in Nazi Germany as well. So there must be a consensus that neither fit as well then. So what do we call Cuba? --] 12:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::And prior to the former USSR falling he aligned with them to. So either Cuba is a Communist State or not. Socialist is just another word to make it sound better. --] 12:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::How about we just say Cuba is a Socialist or Communist State depending on the person's view? Something like that is not a POV but a fact. --] 13:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It's a tricky business, Scott. But terms such as democracy, communist state and socialist ''cannot'' be used in "short hand" in an encyclopedia. Each term has to be used in the proper form. This is why other encyclopedias use particular language and terminology (see encarta above or encyclopedia britannica entries on Cuba etc). Bletch's statement contradicts that method. Although I may believe in passing that "Cuba is the only state in the western hemisphere which is not a democracy", I am creating a short hand for the term that does not correspond with the true definition. Btw, I thought there was some consensus that the first paragraph wouldn't contain such political detail in any case? --] 13:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Another conflict arises from providing alternative POV's on this. ie. Cuba is a Socialist or Communist State depending on the person's view. By that rationale an article on (say) Ireland could carry the (albeit unlikely) statement "Ireland is a democratic or theocratic depending on the person's view". That is a poor example, but do you see the problems here? Who has this different view? --] 13:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Oh I see the problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
#Is Cuba a Socialist or Comunist State |
|
|
#If its either one above then then Bletch is correct when it comes to Political Geography of Cuba. |
|
|
--] 13:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Cuba is a Socialist Republic (as in UK is a constitutional monarchy), in which the Communist Party of Cuba is the sole legal political party. That I believe is the correct entry and corresponds with the terminology of other encyclopedias etc. Although the Bletch edit I query here was "Cuba is the only state in the western hemisphere which is not a democracy". --] 13:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Adam, Why don't you stop the reverting for a bit and talk here and lets hammer out the issue of "Cuba is the only state in the western hemisphere which is not a ]." and be done with it now. Or does the need of another block in order before we can get this worked out in the talk? --] 13:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"Cuba is a Socialist Republic , in which the Communist Party of Cuba is the sole legal political party." isn't correct either. The Communist Party of Cuba is not the sole political party. They do allow other's to participate. However The Communist Party of Cuba does hold the majority of the political seats which does make them the ruling party. --] 13:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually it is the sole legal political party. Some self-proclaimed political parties claim to operate, but they are not recognized by the constitution. Those who run for office, however, do not have to be a member of any political party. On another note, this statement "Cuba is the only state in the western hemisphere which is not a democracy.", is an obvious POV and not a fact so it should be permanently removed. The rest of the article is political enough. ] 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You mean '''legal''' as in the only one allowed to get voted seats? That's incorrect. Source your claim for that. If you mean '''legal''' as in the only one that can vote and the other political parties are just there to amuse everyone that's true. Cuba only tollerates the other political parties because the International Community demands that. Now will Cuba ever allow these other political parties to gain any significant role in the government? Never. That would undermine there Comunist goals. --] 14:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The communist party is the only legal political party in cuba, according to the Cuban constitution and all other sources including US Government. --] 14:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:And you cite a US Gov. article. You said that you wouldn't trust such information. Site another place. --] 14:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Encyclopedia Britannica alongside the above mentioned legally binding Cuban Constitution --] 14:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You can play word games with the term "democracy", but in the end if you have a party with a monopoly on political activity and other parties or forms of opposition cannot play a serious role, then the country in question is not a democracy. --] 14:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It would be much easier if we could circumvent the issue, and accept your specific definition of democracy. Then your statement would stand without issue. However, as an encyclopaedia we need to acknowledge that the democracy has no such specific definitions. These are not word games, they are the inevitable part of the process of compiling an accurate encyclopaedia. I'm fairly confident that a peer review from experienced encyclopaedia writers would come to the same conclusions. (Judging from other encyclopaedias this would seem to be the case). It's a nuisance but theres not much we can do about it if we're serious here.--] 15:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Can't use Encyclopedia Britannica as a source because the user is required to buy a subscription to see the entire article. That is biased. It's small section about it but you can't read the whole thing. I vote that we use the term "'''Cuba is a Socialist Republic , where other political parties are allowed to participate but the Communist Party of Cuba holds the majority of seat's and vote's.'''" That certainly encompasses everyone's idea's into one sentence and its NOT POV. --] 14:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Thats a good start, but "holds" is too ambiguous; one might suspect that the "hold" is temporary, as in the United States. In that sense, the Republican Party "holds" majorities in the US House, Senate and Executive Branch. Any ideas for a better term? --] 15:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::How about '''"Cuba is a Socialist Republic , where other political parties are allowed to participate but the Communist Party of Cuba has the majority of seat's and vote's."''' You can't get any better then this without going back to the revert war again. --] 16:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I'm sorry, but that still has the same ambiguity problems; if anything substituting "holds" with "has" is more ambiguous. --] 18:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Guess there will not be a compromise and the real fact of the political system will never be acommplished then. I'll just step out and go back to pratrolling this article for revert wars until there is no one left to work on it. "holds" or "has" is not ambiguous but since you seem to think it so be it. I'll enjoy the revert warring though. --] 18:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't realise you were asking for a source to go within the article itself. Why not use the Cuban Constitution and keep the earlier phrase?--] 15:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well since we seem to stuck on needing sources we might as well have something we can read without the need to spend money for it. And the article sourced should be in its entire and not a piece of it. --] 16:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
No problem, Scott. Regardless, the Cuban constitution is the best possible source for this legal matter, and it's linked within the article. (Or it was the last time I looked!)--] 16:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:As much as I would like to we all know that there constitution is certainly biased and does not reflect what the Internation Community say's. If we used all the information about Cuba strickly from the Cuban Government we all know that this article will be whitewashed to no end and all our work to provide a great article becomes null. I would like a vote on my last revision to my suggestion above. It is the most accurrate statement we are going to get without a whitewas statement. --] 16:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Scott, I am curious about the source of the ''"Can't use Encyclopedia Britannica as a source because the user is required to buy a subscription to see the entire article."'' rule. Commonly that information is available for free in public libraries who share there subscription of the online Encyclopedia Britanica to the public for free. Indeed, many people can only afford to access Misplaced Pages from public libraries (because they cannot afford computers and cannot afford to pay for a dedicated personal internet connection). Or, when I cannot afford to pay the subscription fee for a print magazine (or buy a book), I go to the public library to read their copy for free. ] 15:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The next revert will get this article protected == |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok now I am getting tired of this. The next revert done without talking on the talk page and getting this worked out will not only find themselves blocked for a long time. There will be no more reverts by anyone unless there is vandalism period. Everyone is violating the ] here. ] is looking for such a ban. --] 14:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I just stated my reason for deleting that POV statement and now your threatening to ban me. That's typical. I wonder why you haven't threatened to ban Bletch who keeps on sneaking his bias into the article? ] 14:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Scott discussed a ban concerning Adam's revert above, Commandante. I see no bias here. --] 14:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have told him to stop as well. I'll do it again too ] if you revert or change this article in any manner other then to remove vandalism I'll have you blocked from here. This ] blantant violation will stop one way or another. --] 14:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Bletch just reverted the article. ] 14:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You need to accept that the days of communist rule over this article are over. ] 14:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You need to accept that Cuba is a sovereign, Socialist state, and that at the end of the day, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. ] 14:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There has never been any contraversy regarding Cuba being "sovereign" and "socialist"; the question was whether it is a democracy or not. --] 14:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
So are you guys going to do anything about Bletch? Or are you going to sit around and hope that i revert him so you can block me as well? ] 14:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:So uncalled for Adam. It has nothing to do with anyone being a communist here. Its called compromise and if you, Bletch and Comandante can't act civil leave. I can't get simplier then that. --] 14:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Last 3RR warning=== |
|
|
I just issued the last ] warning for Adam, Comandante, and Bletch. And i'll post it here as well so that everyone can see it and can't claim I'm being biased here. |
|
|
|
|
|
Since you are an active participant in this |
|
|
|
|
|
{{3RR}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Bletch:"...the question was whether it is a democracy or not..." == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the section above Bletch wrote: "''the question was whether it is a democracy or not.''" |
|
|
Yes indeed, and repeatedly I have been trying to engage you, Bletch, in a discussion of just this question, though I get a clear impression that you evade our efforts to engage in a discussion of this question. Re-read the message archives and you will see many questions directed to you about this issue which you did not answer. Restating a couple key questions: Please cite a reference that democracy is required to have parties, and if yes, how many parties? In other words, how correct is your assertion that a one party democracy not a democracy? You have not demonstrated that your assertion is not original research. Also, I grant that many people share your POV that democracy in Cuba is very disfunctional. Still, why is a bad democracy not a type of democracy? You *repeatedly* revert your POV sentence that Cuba is '''not''' a democracy, and your POV to be accurate perhaps should say that Cuba has a bad democracy. ] 15:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There has never been a question of parties per se; its the question of tolerating political opposition. I believed that I made this clear many times in the archives. --] 15:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::''In other words, how correct is your assertion that a one party democracy not a democracy?'' BruceHallman, have you been paying much attention to the news since the fall of the Berlin Wall more than 15 years ago? No one who argues that single-party Communist regimes are "people's democracies" has to be taken seriously these days. While Western political scientists have always endlessly disputed the appropriate meaning and definition of democracy, all political scientists agree that contemporary democracies include, at a minimum, the following features: fully contested multiparty elections with full suffrage and the absence of major fraud, combined with some guarantees of political competition, including freedom of speech, assembly, and association. Cuba is not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination as the term is understood in the contemporary English-speaking world. ] | ] 15:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::In which case Encarta, Encyclopedia Britannica etc are incorrect in their understanding of the term "democracy" and you are correct.--] 16:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Please avoid obscurantism. The discussion in an encyclopedia's entry on "democracy" is going to be extremely broad because the term has been understood in vastly different ways over time dating back to the ancient Greeks. When we are talking about whether or not a ''present-day'' country is a democracy, it is clear that we are applying the contemporary understanding of the term, not (say) Thucydides' or Pericles'. In the contemporary English-speaking world, when describing a country as a "democracy," it is clear that we mean liberal democracy. ] | ] 16:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::As stated above, we can't use Encyclopedia Britannica as a source since you need to buy a subscription in order to read articles so lets stop referencing them because its a biased statement. --] 16:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Scott, I can read Encyclopedia Britannica, including both the paper and the online version, for free in my local public library. ] 20:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Zleitzen's reference to ''Britannica'' is irrelvant, but for another reason. We are not limited to citing free online material. Books and websites that are not free access have always been cited on Misplaced Pages. If that bothers you, get in touch with the Wikimedia Foundation, as the Foundation has the authority to make major changes in the way things are done on Misplaced Pages, not us individual editors. ] | ] 16:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using other encyclopaedias as examples of method within a talk page, not as sources for the article, Scott.--] 16:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Its a comparison. Same thing. If '''everyone''' can not read the same thing its useless because your inviting a war over words because they can't read it. Let's just aviod any source or any other site that requires that to keep this within the scope of verifiable by '''anyone''' --] 16:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I can't read the whole thing either. I'm just giving examples of how encyclopedic standards are applied. --] 16:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Zleitzen and Sgrayban, you guys can drop the argument about ''Britannica''. Zleitzen is free to cite it because Misplaced Pages editors have always been free to cite books and non-free access websites. At the same time, Zleitzen's citation of ''Britannica'' is irrelvant for reasons I stated above. ] | ] 16:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ummm, '''172''' Right now I'm trying to get a vote on something different here and would like to get just '''one thing''' agreed on so we can move on. 3 disputes right now and all I'm looking for is one to get resolved and we are close to it. --] 16:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Poll or no poll, the discussion under this heading pertains to BruceHallman's claim that Cuba can be considered a democracy. This matter is settled: Cuba is ''not'' a democracy. All political scientists agree that ''contemporary'' democracies include, at a minimum, the following features: fully contested multiparty elections with full suffrage and the absence of major fraud, combined with some guarantees of political competition, including freedom of speech, assembly, and association. ] | ] 16:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: 172, please, "...all political scientists agree..."? Could you provide a verifiable credible citation to substantiate that statement, it seems wildly incredible. And, the matter is not settled. Would you address my point that even a bad democracy is at least a type of democracy? ] 19:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Since you don't appear to know much about how contemporary Western social scientists understand democracy, I recommend reading David Collier and Steven Levitsky, "Democracy with Adjectives" , which offers a broad overview by two of the leading scholars on democracy that I often assign undergrads. Note Collier and Levitsky's discussion of a "procedural minimum" for democracy. ] | ] 07:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Thanks, that is an interesting paper. Regarding the quality of 'competitive elections' in their hypothesis: You cannot ignore local level elections. Are you arguing that Cuba has no 'competitive elections' anywhere anytime, even at the lower level elections, such as local unions, towns, precincts? Probably you are not. Once again, I see that framing this article as a pro-Castro versus anti-Castro debate skews our view. This article should be about Cuba. By the way, I do support including a NPOV section in the article the Cuban electoral system. I just am not convinced that 'cuba is not a democracy' is a credibly sourced statement, and the Collier/Levitsky paper did not convince me otherwise. ] 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::In the English-speaking world "democracy" is understood to mean liberal democracy. If you want to live in a society where a single-party communist regime is described as a democracy in written publications, go to Cuba. Or better yet go to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, another democracy like Cuba. I am done discussing this matter with you. I refer to Adam Carr's list. ] | ] 16:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Adam Carr's list appears to be original research. I take it that when you write "I am done discussing this matter..." considering that the matter that we are discussing is a request for citation, that you are abandoning your attempt to provide a citation. ] 17:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Adam's Human Rights section rewrite == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your editing efforts I can see that you spent a lot of time and thought which I appreciate. Though regretfully, what you wrote includes too much point of view and too little citation and too much original research. So, I must add a neutrality dispute box to the section. Perhaps it would make sense to move it to a sandbox to hash out the differences? I am not arguing that the previous Human Rights section is better or should be reverted as it had many problems too. |
|
|
|
|
|
There is so much in your section that quickly listing all the specifics of my dispute is not possible. However, starting with the first sentence, you wrote "...the rights of the individual..." as if we all agree what the rights of the individual should be. In reality your concept is ethnocentric, similar to the ] problem that pervades Misplaced Pages. In the second sentence you write of "the states political aims" as if there is no validity to the concept of "''.socialist state of workers, organized with all and for the good of all... ''" Again, ethnocentric, you are bringing a Free Market capitalistic value belief system towards the forming the basis of your condemnation of a social system that deliberately eschews capitalism. |
|
|
|
|
|
Can we at least agree that the context of their human rights falls within the context of a socialist society, and that applying capitalistic values on that system is a logical falacy? ] 16:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Works for me --] 16:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
''...you are bringing a Free Market capitalistic value belief system towards the forming the basis of your condemnation of a social system that deliberately eschews capitalism.'' BruceHallman, you're way off. Virtually the entire section can be referenced by citing the Cuban constitution itself. Cuba is a one-party state in which the state is ''constitutionally'' subordinate to the Communist Party, and the government restricts freedom of speech, association, assembly, press, and movement outside the control of the party. Adam Carr's section elaborates on this fact in a straightforward and factual manner. ] | ] 16:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:], I'm afraid that I do not comprehend your objections. I've read that section over several times and fail to recognize anything that can be remotely associated with "free market capitalism" or "capitalistic values". --] 18:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::172, sorry, you are out of line to remove the neutrality dispute tag without first resolving the neutrality dispute. Your simple denials of my points of dispute does not solve the dispute. Your statement "Cuba is a one-party state" (so what?) "in which the state is constitutionally subordiante to the Communist Party" (not true, and even if true, so what?) the government restricts freedom of speech etc.... ( which, according to the opposing POV, are limited restrictions, sensible, legal and constitutional. The article doesn't respect or represent the opposing point of view in this regard. It only represents the anti-Castro and capitalisitic POV.) ] 19:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Bletch, I am not surprised that you cannot see the neutrality problems, no offense intended, but you show a pattern of not being able to see or respect opposing points of view. ] 19:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::], just so I can understand where you are coming from, are you arguing that limitations on freedom of speech, expression, assembly are "capitalistic values"? I'm only asking so I can further understand what exactly your POV is and to resolve my confusion; please correct me if I am wrong in this case. --] 20:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Perhaps I can make my point about freedom of speech through a comparison: Both the USA and Cuba have constitutional rights to freedom of speech. In Cuba their Constitution requires that the socialist state of the people own the newspapers and the broadcast media, collectively, for the socialist purpose and the regulation is controlled by Communist Party values and interests. In the USA, the capitalist system effectively requires that only millionaire and billionaire corporations can own the newspapers and broadcast media, and the regulation is effectively controlled by corporate values and interests. From the perspective of the individual person, Joe Blow so to speak, both these states have 'freedom of speech' and relative to newspapers and broadcasting at least, neither of these states have 'freedom of speech' for Joe Blow. ] 00:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::''In the USA, the capitalist system effectively requires that only millionaire and billionaire corporations can own the newspapers and broadcast media, and the regulation is effectively controlled by corporate values and interests.'' BruceHallman, if you continue to use this talk page as a soap box for your left-wing opinions without engaging in the serious content considerations of the article, I will start an RfC looking into your conduct. You have presented no valid reason for keeping up the neutrality dispute tag. I will remove it. ] | ] 07:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Bruce, I really appreciate that you've made this opinion of yours clear. Why is it that you did not say that from the very beginning? Your arguments would have been much more clear if you had. Look, say what you want about the USA (and I am no fan of ], ] and billionaire ]s), but the USA - for all of its faults - is way way ahead of Cuba with regards to freedom of speech. Every week, I regularly see people waving signs calling for Bush's impeachment, end to the war and the usual stuff. In Havana, do you see signs calling for Fidel's "resignation"? What would be the consequences if one engaged in this behavior? Trying to imply equivalence in this regard is like saying that the ] and the ] are equivalently hot. |
|
|
:::::I cannot help but wonder if being clear was not your goal, and this is some elaborate rhetorical game for you. And you are doing your best to (with the exception of the Cuban constitution) avoid explicit concrete statements and instead are keeping your statements as vague and all encompassing as possible which you are using (along with accusations regarding policy compliance) as rhetorical weapons. --] 14:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Bletch, Misplaced Pages policy compliance is critical if we ever hope to create an encyclopedia article. Also, my POV is not the subject here, creating a NPOV Cuba article is the subject. ] 17:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::User:172, I am not using this talk page as 'a soap box for my left wing opinions',. My paragraph, 00:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC), which you criticised was a direct response to Bletch's question that I explain myself. Answering (and not ignoring) direct questions is a form of repect. To the contrary, I generally avoid the grandstanding of my opinions just because this talk page is about the article, and not a soap box for our POV's. Regardless, the Human Rights section suffers from a cultural political bias. One way to solve that problem, perhaps would be to rewrite it to remove the overt and implied value judgements, to instead be based upon human rights reports of some neutral international organizations, such as perhaps Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. ] 17:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think one of the problems here is the tendency to view Cuban internal issues through a lens framed by particular cultural standards. Being from the UK, I may have a different perspective on the application of the media and freedom of speech. For example, if one was to apply such standards to the British broadcasting media then would that be worth mentioning in the UK article? Something along the lines of "The British government restricts freedom of speech" etc, citing the many cases concerning the relationship between the BBC and the British Government. Again, there is not one model of media freedom of speech as there is not one model of democracy. This is an international encyclopedia, there should be no parochial standards. --] 14:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:To clarify, the British media does not comply with US models of constitutional freedom of speech. Likewise, British ''constitutional monarchy'' does not comply with many models of democracy. Yet it would be considered misleading to state that "the UK is not a democracy, and has restrictions on freedoms of speech" because they don't adhere to these models. --] 15:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::"''...the tendency to view Cuban internal issues through a lens framed by particular cultural standards.''" That sums up my criticism of the neutrality problem with the Human Rights section perfectly. ] 17:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::], I do not think that anyone here has attempted to apply a strict application of US constitutional standards. For what it is worth, the ] that rewrote the paragraph in question is ]n. --] 00:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Vote requested == |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I would like a vote posted in this section and please only sign with a '''support''' or '''oppose'''. No need for anything else to be posted. |
|
|
|
|
|
The vote is for the use of '''"Cuba is a Socialist Republic , where other political parties are allowed to participate but the Communist Party of Cuba has the majority of seat's and vote's."''' for the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Support=== |
|
|
'''Support''' --] 16:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Support ] 20:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
===Oppose=== |
|
|
|
|
|
I am going to ignore this poll. I encourage other users to ignore it as well. Adam Carr has already expended enough energy settling this matter. This matter no longer needs to be discussed. ] | ] 16:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Sgrayban, do not remove my comment again, as you did . Removal of talk page comments is considered vandalism. Talk page straw polls are nonbinding. Users have the prerogative to respond in any civil manner, including explaining why the vote may be irrelevant. ] | ] 17:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==mediation cabal== |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello all -- I am here as part of the ] to help us come to a solution to part of the article conflict. |
|
|
|
|
|
I am somewhat familiar with the kind of dispute that is going on. However, the talk page here is huge, and before joining in I wanted to check to see if people wanted me here. Please let me know what the consensus is, i.e., do you want a third party to come in and help out, or are discussions moving along well without me? If the former, what is the main locus of the dispute? |
|
|
|
|
|
] <small>(])</small> 20:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi Sdedeo, I think there is a small recent improvement in the dispute, though very small. My view of the main point of the dispute centers around the deeply entrenched emotions behind the anti-Castro and the pro-Cuba camps of the POV. I suggest that both parties accept the validity of the opposing POV and that we tolerate the inclusion of both of the POV's. Presently, there is a pattern of insisting on the inclusion of only one of the POV's, and the deletion of the opposing POV. We need to face the reality that the opposing POV is not going away or changing anyday soon and learn to tolerate and respect each other. ] 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thanks Sdedeo for answering the call. I support BruceHallman's statement above. --] 22:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
OK, thanks. Is there a particular point in the article where people are battling? Can you maybe provide a diff? In the end we will need to include all POVs, of course, following ] (which also means that superminority POVs are given less weight and prominence.) Perhaps putting in some sources and in general sourcing POVs (e.g., "According to Amnesty International..." "According to the US State Department..." "According to the Cuban government...") will help resolve things? ] <small>(])</small> 20:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am not able to speak for everyone. Like I tried to say, from my opinion, the other POV prefers to simply delete my POV rather than accomodating it. Unfortunately many of the items are binary, and both POV need to be accomodated with not too much chance of showing just a middle position. For instance one user persistently wants to write 'Cuba is not a democracy' even though they do have elections, though some believe they have bad elections. Or, another instance, I recently disputed the neutrality of the Human Rights section with a neutrality box, and one user simply denied that there was a neutrality problem and just instead deleted the neutrality box without an attempt to resolve my points of dispute. ] 20:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::In short, if people around here agreed to follow WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V I would not have asked for your help. But in truth, some people around here refuse to follow those Misplaced Pages policys. ] 20:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:In principle, I have zero problems with attributing assertions, whether they are held by 10%, 51% or 99% of the world at large. --] 20:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I appreciate your statement Bletch, can you also state publicly that you agree and commit to follow all the ], including ], ] and ]? I don't recall you ever publicly stating your commitment to comply with Misplaced Pages policies. ] 21:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure we can find sources to discuss what to call Cuba's political system. Can you provide sources that state that Cuba is a democracy? And sources that dispute that? ] <small>(])</small> 20:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Certainly, the Cuban Constitution . Though it might not be proper for me to state the opposing point of view, but I see that they believe that because the Cuban elections are 'not fair' that therefore the Cuban electoral system is not a democracy. ] 21:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
OK, now we need some folks to weigh in with sources that declare Cuba is not a democracy. ] <small>(])</small> 21:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*] has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*] has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*] has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*] has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*] has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*] has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*] '''has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters do not have a choice of candidates.''' |
|
|
*] has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*] has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*] has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*] has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*], even poor Haiti, for all its woes, now has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*] has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*] has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*] has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*] has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*] has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*] has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*] has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates. |
|
|
*] has a president and congres chosen at elections in which voters had a choice of candidates, although it may not get another such opportunity if Chavez gets his way. |
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone spot the out-country-out? ] 01:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't believe the above list answers the question posed, Adam. --] 01:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Yes, please answer the question Adam. ] 01:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Also, I notice you left the ] off the list, perhaps because the President is elected by the ], not by the people per se, nor do the people chose the candidate, but rather the political parties choose the candidate. And, more to the point, the two political parties write the rules of government so that *only* those two parties can have effective power. I am not saying the USA is not a democracy, but I am saying that the USA is a type of democracy, somewhat flawed, and Cuba is a type of democracy, somewhat flawed. ] 01:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::The mediator asked you to provide a citation, similarly, I have been asking the anti-Castro camp for a citation for more than a week. Your previous answers to my request are of interest. Adam Carr: "''elementary facts do not require citations''", User:172 "''BruceHallman's dispute regarding this claim stated on talk is highly unsatisfactory''", and other similar refusals to provide citation. ] 01:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The above is a list of Latin American countries - the US and Canada, and the English-speaking Caribbean countries, are of course also democracies. I didn't say they are ''perfect'' democracies, and I agree that the US for one is far from a perfect democracy, as are several Latin American countries. But none of them are one-party states, none of them ban all opposition, nome of them have 100% state-controlled media. ] 07:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone realize this yet or not that there are only 3 words that is making this article POV ? '''Communist, Socialist, and Democracy.''' The same 3 words that comminusts and socialist use in there anti-american propaganda and the same 3 words used in American propaganda. Have we not learned anything at all? Adam is bent on labeling Cuba as a communist state just like the US. Government does. Cuba use the samething in order to provoke hate towards the US. See anything wrong at all ? No one will be happy until 1 is dead and the other wins. Samething for the opposite countries. --] 02:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::And I 100% oppose that Adam be allowed to edit on this article seeing that his post on my talk page absolutely proves his willing to do anything to hurt the colabrative NPOV working on this article. --] 02:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Scott, I can appreciate your observation about the three 'fighting words', and your hypothesis that this is a two-way fight. Though, in my opinion at least, just the anti-Castro camp is likely to use the words 'Communist' and 'not democratic' disparagingly. Also, they are generally loath to deem validity to Cuba by using the word 'socialist' or 'republic'. The pro-Cuba camp would be more likely to use the words 'imperialist' and 'capitalist' to disparage the USA and you will notice that these words are generally missing from the argument. The reason I say this is to point out that the disparaging words and the POV fighting is not a equal 'two way street' in this case. For instance, although I have been wrongly charactorized a 'communist' by some around here, indeed I am not a 'communist' and that I am favoring that point of view in part out of sense of duty to advocate to move to a neutral POV. If the tables were turned, my instinct would be to argue just the opposite POV, as I do indeed believe that the Wiki-duty is to advocate for neutrality. I also disagree that 'no one will be happy until 1 is dead'. I think that if the extreme elements leave (or learn to tolerate a neutrality policy), that there are many people around here that will step up and edit this article for neutrality, verifiability and NOR. ] 03:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==mediation cabal try again== |
|
|
|
|
|
I am going to repeat this question: we need some folks to weigh in with sources that declare Cuba is not a democracy. |
|
|
|
|
|
Just to be explicit, we need ''external sources'': e.g., Amnesty International? Some other human rights group? Another government? |
|
|
|
|
|
We can't proceed without this. |
|
|
|
|
|
] <small>(])</small> 05:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
Above links found with Google search using the term '''Cuba is not a democracy''' --] 20:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Hee hee. Great. Some of these are not the best (e.g., the NIH one!) but this is an excellent place to start. Adam, since you are the strongest opponent of the use of the word "democracy", do you have any links to add? |
|
|
|
|
|
I see the structure of the para going something like "The Cuban constitution establishes, at least in principle, a state that has the main features of a democracy. However, numerous sources dispute the idea that Cuba is a democracy in any real sense. Source X says. Source Y says. Source Z says." |
|
|
|
|
|
] <small>(])</small> 20:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Columbia University is one of the leaders of research of Governments and even in there research I find.. |
|
|
<blockquote>On October 19, 1998 voting by secret ballot yielded 515 municipal delegates. The national assembly is also fully democratic but nominations are carried out by mass organizations and citizens committees. 1.6 million people were consulted by the citizens committee and 60,000 were put forward on the first electoral list. Cuba uses computers to allow review of the candidates and their records, including Fidel Castro himself who received 98% of the vote in the last election. Another sign of the popularity of socialism, despite the hardships imposed by imperialism, is that no more than 10 percent of the ballots were spoiled, a protest that anti-Communist groups urged.</blockquote> |
|
|
That clearly shows a "democracy" even if its weak. --] 20:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
OK! Let's wait for Adam to weigh in here with his sources. It looks like we'll have a range of opinions: "Democracy... weak democracy... really very weak democracy... not in any sense a democracy", which we can then source to various groups and governments. ] <small>(])</small> 20:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Add to your list of range of POV's that of Reverend Lucius Walker, President of Pasters for Peace who is quoted as saying of Cuban elections as being <b>''"...the most democratic in the world."''</b>. I cannot say that I agree with his POV, but he is a well known and recognized community leader in the USA who is an authority on Cuba. ] 23:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I've found this European Union report from the net which I believe solves many of the wording issues on this article, and also carries a brief description of Cuba's electoral system, history and human rights etc. To my mind, the tone of this report should be the direction this article should be taking (alongside the other encyclopedia articles I have been quoting as examples on these pages). I recommend that all editors of this article examine it's contents. --] 00:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Good article. Very first statement there ''"Cuba has a one-party political system where the Communist Party of Cuba holds the monopoly of political power."'' is exactly what I have said in the past. However, the article does seem to a bit overzealous on personal POV's and not a general consenses. Even though they label Fidel as head of everything they leave out the current political actions where in a study from Columbia clearly shows a "democracy" even if its a very weak one. You can't argue that just because Fidel is head of everything its not a "democracy" nore is a one party country as others want to suggest. If that was the case there would "zero" other candidates and certainly not ''"voting by secret ballot"'' because that would certainly undermine the statement of a sole one party socialist state. --] 01:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks very much both Bruce and Zleitzen -- I suggest we wait for Adam to weigh in now. ] <small>(])</small> 00:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The EU document seems to me to be an accurate description of the Cuban political system. ] 01:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks Adam and I agree. It also supports the statement in the opening paragraph of this article "Cuba is a socialist republic, in which the Communist Party of Cuba is the sole legal political party". So I hope everyones OK with that one? --] 01:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
That statement is not in dispute. The statement in dispute is the statement that Cuba is the only country in the Western Hemisphere which is not a democracy. The EU document makes it clear on my reading that Cuba cannot be called a democracy, because it is a one-party state in which no serious opposition to the regime is permitted. Are BruceHallman and Scott Grayban going to accept that proposition? If yes, then the dispute is over. If not, then we have not progressed. ] 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No problem. As for the second wording issue "Cuba is the only country in the Western Hemisphere which is not a democracy", I think the article still requires a citation for progression. --] 01:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:So we are going to discount the study by Columbia and this document which shows that there is a ''weak democracy''? How sad. Shows a very a narrow mind about other articles definition and clear proof that there is the beginnings of a democracy. I think some people are just in denial of this. It would ruin there one track thought that Cuba is a bad country and must discredited at all cost. --] 02:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I am absolutely "in denial" that Cuba is a democracy of any description. The basic prerequisites for democracy are (a) freedom of political organisation and (b) freedom of expression. Cuba has neither of these, and the Castro regime is making no moves to allow them to exist. Cuba is a dictatorship, plain and simple. The fact that the usual gaggle of "Pasters for Peace" and similar gullible idiots choose to deny this does not alter the fact. I could quote you reams of similar rubbish uttered by similar people about Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Mao and even Pol Pot. ] 02:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Quote me '''one''' article that clearly states ''"Cuba is the only country in the Western Hemisphere which is not a democracy"'' that is '''NOT''' Americian Government influenced and I'll concede. I just spent 2 hours on google trying to find anything other the Bush and the US. Government saying this. And if you can't then that is a clear POV based on American anti-Cuban hate propaganda. --] 02:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
That took 20 seconds. I'll give you a google lesson some time. ] 02:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Uhh maybe I'm just a iliterate American here but that article in no way states your claim. ''"Behind those figures lie not just human suffering but also an unfairness that is inimical to democracy"'' only states that the democracy is lacking. It does not support your claim. --] 02:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I also notice you seem to like calling me names under your breath that I'm a some kind of commie here. First off I served in the USAF for 20 years, retired as a Master Sargent, have over 14 ribbins and citations. I served in the first Iraq/Iran war and numerious other conflicts. So don't even think I am anything other then American here, I just happen to have a open mind and read more into what our government wants us to believe. --] 02:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*the ''Economist'' article says: "all but a wretched pair (Haiti and Nicaragua) of Latin American countries are officially classed as “middle-income” and '''all (except Cuba) are democracies'''. Which part of this don't you understand? You asked for a source and you got one, so don't now try to wriggle away. |
|
|
*Re your CV - most admirable: you ought to know better than to defend a tinpot despot like Castro. ] 03:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Adam. For the record (if other users can't access that article), Adam sourced an economist article ''Not always with us'' dated Sep 15th 2005 |
|
|
which states; |
|
|
:''There is a reason for that oversight: all but a wretched pair (Haiti and Nicaragua) of Latin American countries are officially classed as “middle-income” and all (except Cuba) are democracies.''--] 02:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I didn't see that. But no matter. 3 other sources I qouted shows a clear start of a democracy even if its a weak one. '''So we will just discredit all those as blantant lies, even though one is done by a well respected University that even the US Gov. likes to quote from.'''''Italic text'' --] 03:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You said: "Quote me one article that clearly states "Cuba is the only country in the Western Hemisphere which is not a democracy" that is NOT Americian Government influenced '''and I'll concede'''." I quoted you a plain statement from a reputable and independent source, and now you are dodging and wriggling out of that commitment, as I knew you would. Why should I not conclude you are a common liar? ] 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Damn straight I do. Just like you dodged all my links. Your nothing more then a pro-Bush hate Cuba type person. Your the type of person that would stomp and crush anyone who doesn't think your way. You have shown that on my talk page and even admitted to it. Instead of discounting my links that show a democracy is starting you want to disprove that. Your a sad person and closed minded. I showed '''proof''' that no matter what '''anyone says''' there is a democracy starting and I know its a weak one but it is there. If anyone is suppressing the facts it is you Adam. --] 03:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I repeat: you said: "Quote me one article that clearly states "Cuba is the only country in the Western Hemisphere which is not a democracy" that is NOT Americian Government influenced '''and I'll concede'''." I quoted you a plain statement from a reputable and independent source. Why will you not now keep your word and concede? ] 03:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Could I propose that these issues of Cuban democracy/lack-of be contained in the main body of the article? Rather than in the brief opening paragraph. Does everyone agree on this? --] 03:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
No. ] 03:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Zleitzen, give up, this article is being dominated and controlled by narrow-minded Bush activists. When I showed proof of a democracy starting its tossed to the side as a lie. That's fine and I expect that from people like Adam. That said I '''dispute the entire NPOV''' on this article. As for proof on that I submit my talk page as proof of Adam's goal about this article. The mediation cabal should take that into consideration as evidence that Adam will not comply with WikiPedia's policy on ]. --] 03:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think there's too much to worry about. Adam provided a relevant source as requested. I guess he must be still grumpy about the cricket last year! ;-)--] 04:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::For what it is worth, Adam Carr's quote from the Economist magazine was an 'opinion piece' note the word 'opinion' in the URL and the "opinion" 'click through' link on the magazines website. I am not saying that 'opinion' doesn't count, but realisticly there is a very broad range of opinion about this question and Adam Carr's opinion (and that of magazine article) is not in the center, but rather on the far edge of the spectrum. ] 13:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Some opinions count for more than others. I'll take ''The Economist'' over you any day. ] 13:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::As an aside, the economist article is of interest to me for another reason. "All but a wretched pair (Haiti and Nicaragua) are officially classed as “middle-income”" is very telling in understanding the historical relationships between the US and others in the region. But I don't want to get ahead of myself, here. I recommend we wait for the mediator before getting into further discussion about how they relate to the article. --] 14:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has gone off the rails. Adam, you need to be more polite when dealing with other contributors. ] <small>(])</small> 16:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== An honest opinion == |
|
|
''Next comment restored from diff after being deleted by ] without pointing a link to it as required'' |
|
|
I'm no Historian, Politician, Economist, Journalist, Academic, Wiki-scholar and giving my honest opinion the whole history of Cuba's communist politics on this page is grossly and undebatebly biased. Its style of language and tone is immaculetly vulgar and poorly constructed. I think the entire history of Cuba in the 20th central deserves a good clean up and dispute over its supposed neutrality. {{unsigned|82.23.247.222}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Adam Carr deleted out this talk page entry |
|
|
without giving any explanation as to his reason for the deletion. Although the comment which Adam deleted is blunt, it is not a personal attack and is rather a general criticism, so I am left to wonder about why Adam deleted the comment. Adam, please explain. ] 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think the answers for these questions concerning Adam Carr's edit pattern can be found on ]'s talk page. --] 02:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Mr. Adam remove one more talk comment because it doesn't fit your answer and I'll have you removed from WikiPedia for blantant vandalism to talk pages and articles. I have issued this warnig multiple times. You are pushing the wrong person here. --] 02:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please do not remove messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to ] your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted comments. Thanks. <!-- Template:Wr0 (first level warning) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
*I'll remove anything from my Talk page I damn well please, as I am perfectly entitled to do. |
|
|
*I am thoroughly sick of ]'s pious lectures about standards of behavior at this page, which are no more than a cover for his political agenda in maintaining this article as a farrago of lies and communist propaganda. ] 07:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Those lectures fall under the rule "]." So I'm considering starting an RfC on BruceHallman. ] | ] 08:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
If we are going to have a mediation here, we need to stay focused. Please everyone stop misbehaving; don't remove talk page posts for now (except to archive), and please leave the lecturing to me! I am sure we can resolve this problem very quickly; the next thing we need is some sources (see my post above.) Thanks, ] <small>(])</small> 17:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Communist Cuba == |
|
|
I could not find specific discussion on this part of the text so I removed it because it is a point of view and not a fact that providing health care and education for a population is impossible. |
|
|
"Cuba’s economic dependence on the Soviet Union was deepened by Castro’s determination to build his vision of a socialist society in Cuba. This entailed the provision of free health care and education for the entire population – an ambition which has proved unaffordable even in many developed countries, let alone in a small country with very limited resources and restricted trade. Through the 1970s and ‘80s the Soviets were prepared to subsidise all this in exchange for the rather dubious strategic asset of an ally under the noses of the United States and the undoubted propaganda value of Castro’s considerable prestige in the developing world." |
|
|
|
|
|
I would also defend changing Communist Cuba. Communism is a form of society without state, Cuba has a state and therefore should not be called such. Socialist Cuba would be more apropriate. I will cite sources on this matter soon. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, this is the first edit I make in wikipedia, I would like to apologize in advance for any mistakes I may have made. |
|
|
] 12:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You are welcome here. You happen to be dropping in to a place that sometimes encounters heated arguments, so be prepared to try to take it calmly. I really recommend reading the ] pages and the ] as they provide useful, and even essential information. ] 13:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Democracy and communism== |
|
|
|
|
|
It will be useless for us contributors to argue about whether Cuba is "democratic" or not, because for one thing we contributors are never going to agree on a definition of "democracy". Having president freely elected by the people means one thing to a lot of ] (yes, we elected Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush) and another thing to many other people (no, the ] elected him or Supreme Court appointed him). That argument will never settled. |
|
|
|
|
|
What we MIGHT be able to agree on is what the '''differences''' have been over the last several decades between, say, the U.S. government and the Castro government. I think a table would be useful. We could list factors such as free press and free speech during the election period (US yes, Cuba no), must be a citizen of the country to run for office (US: yes, Cuba: er, when was the last election, 1959?); which leads to frequency of presidential elections (US every 4 years, Cuba: once per lifetime of president?). |
|
|
|
|
|
These things are hard to see in a paragraph, because of word-wrapping. And there are many other differences and possibly some similarities in the form of government, both actual and "on paper". |
|
|
|
|
|
The analysis above applies to whether Cuba is "Communist" or not; we will never be able to agree on a definition of "communism". Some emphasize its political aspects, others emphasize its economic aspects, still others speak of ideology. |
|
|
|
|
|
It would be better to '''describe''' the politics, economy and culture of Cuba under Castro one aspect at a time. Take emigration, for example. Is it allowed, forbidden, or what? For those who choose to leave Cuba (even temporarily), may they travel as a family, or must some family members stay behind? If so, why? (as hostages to ensure return?) And if it's forbidden, is it a capital crime to leave the country without permission? Is the Navy authorized to sink boats with artillery fire on their way out of territorial waters? |
|
|
|
|
|
After each aspect is listed and described as thoroughly, accurately and fairly as possible, I suggest we then turn our attention to '''commentary'''. Fans of Cuba will no doubt assert that the objectively listed factors prove (in their eyes) that Cuba is "democratic", "free", an excellent example of "socialism" (not "Communism"), etc. Opponents of the Castro regime will certainly use the same list to prove (in '''their''' eyes) that Cuba is "undemocratic", "totalitarian" and a typical example of "Communism". |
|
|
|
|
|
But let's write the facts before the commentary, please. --] 14:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I appreciate your ideas, and yes we will likely not agree to a definition of 'democracy'. The trouble is that we will also not agree to the defintion of 'free speech', ''et al'', either. For instance you said regarding 'free speech' above "(US:yes, Cuba:no)", a valid opinion. But a contrary opinion is that the US version of 'free speech', where corporations have equal right of speech as real people and that corporate lobby money in government and political campaigns is a protected form of 'speech' so that billion dollar corporations have the protected right to shout louder than real people, can hardly be viewed as the USA having more 'free speech' for real people compared with Cuba. Not necessarily my POV, but I write that POV to show the range of POV's on the subject. Or, when was the last time a USA presidential candidate got elected without the relying upon the use of corporate money 'speech' in their campaign? Not in our lifetime. Are such corporate funded elections truely 'free'? How does the 'freedom' of Cuban electoral system measure up against the western concept of 'free' elections? My point is that in order for the article to be neutral, in many cases we will have to include the range of the POV's. ] 14:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Although I am an editor who is not a particular supporter of Castro, I still believe that this article should be incommensurable. Meaning that Cuban policies should not be overtly depicted in ''comparison'' to other models. To do this would set a precedent in wikipedia and open the article up to charges of systemic bias. Again I urge that editors read established, carefully worded, peer-reviewed encyclopedias to learn how to present Cuba in an encyclopedic fashion. --] 14:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It will be a challenge to find English language peer-reviewed encyclopedias that too are not victim of systemic bias that come from being a Western English speaking 'peer'. Should the pool of peers not also include those from non-English, former Soviet Union, from Angola, from Cuba, etc. or is the pool of peers you describe only those who grew up on one side of the ], (i.e. who see corporate money speech and corporate lobby money as a valid form of 'free speech') ? ] 15:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I understand exactly what you mean Bruce, the language and cultural barrier is one of the main obstacles here for NPOV. My comments address Ed Poor's table propostion above. --] 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::''or is the pool of peers you describe only those who grew up on one side of the ], (i.e. who see corporate money speech and corporate lobby money as a valid form of free speech''. Uh, Bruce, there is an idea that we call "civil society" that we talk about here in the West. I suggest you put down ''Granma'' for once and start reading about it. I recommend starting with Habermas' work on the public sphere. ] | ] 18:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion is going off the rails again; Ed's original suggestion ("show, don't tell") is I think the key to resolving conflicts here. It's important to remember that "democracy" is a very fuzzy concept (Ancient Greece: a democracy? Pre-civil War US? etc.) All we can do is describe what is happening in Cuba, and describe how others view these things. ] <small>(])</small> 18:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:When describing whether or not a country today is a democracy, it is obvious that we are using the term as it understood in the contemporary English-speaking world: regular, contested, free and fair multiparty elections. No Western political scientist who studies democratization regards Cuba as a democracy. I already explained this matter to Bruce. End of discussion. ] | ] 19:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sources there would be very helpful. Can you cite an academic article discussing this? Something like ''Foreign Affairs'' would be good, e.g.. While the views of Western political scientists are very important and should be given strong weight, they won't end up being the only sources. ] <small>(])</small> 20:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== neutrality dispute == |
|
|
|
|
|
User:Sgrayban just added the POV box. Would you please describe the nature and details of the dispute so that we may negotiate an agreement to resolve the dispute? ] 15:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==medcabal continuing to try== |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry people, but you are all flipping out and arguing with each other, and it is making it hard for me to mediate here. |
|
|
|
|
|
We have a set of sources: Some of them (e.g., the Cuban constitution itself, the pastors for peace, which seems to be a non-negligible group) say Cuba is a democracy, some say it has democratic features but is not a full democracy (e.g., the State department, Columbia), some say it isn't a democracy (EU, Economist), some say it shouldn't be called anything but a dictatorship (Free Cuba group). |
|
|
|
|
|
We are going to have to state all, or most, of these positions in the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
Does anybody object to the rough sketch paragraph that looks like this: "The Cuban constitution establishes, at least in principle, a state that has the main features of a democracy. However, numerous sources dispute the idea that Cuba is a democracy in any real sense. Source X says. Source Y says. Source Z says." |
|
|
|
|
|
] <small>(])</small> 16:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks for continuing the mediation Sdedeo. I would support such a paragraph being developed in the article. And I'm keen to see this represented according to NPOV. --] 16:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Btw the EU didn't say Cuba is not a democracy. It made no statement on the matter. --] 16:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::So do I but Adam wont reply. Your NPOV and he isn't. Its useless to try anymore. Its only going to stay a revert war until the whole lot are blocked for good here. --] 16:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::As I said on my talk page, I'm hopeful that the mediation can finish quickly and successfully. What we most need is for people to be as brief as possible, and to avoid getting sucked into larger debates. It might be helpful if people responded only to me, and not to each other, to avoid arguments -- your call. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::As for the EU article, it technically refers to the island as a "Socialist republic", whatever that means. We should save the EU criticisms for the Human Rights section, and I think we should probably have a reference to that section (i.e., "See Human Rights below") in the democracy para. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Again, since Adam seems to be the main opponent here, let's now wait for Adam to weigh in on whether he is OK with the rough sketch para above, or if he can suggest an alternative. ] <small>(])</small> 17:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Forget it. Looking at his contributions he is editing right now and is ignoring your comment ] - last edit was 06:38, April 17, 2006 which was just a few minutes ago. --] 17:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Just looking at the current version: |
|
|
|
|
|
:Cuba is a socialist republic, in which the Communist Party of Cuba is the sole legal political party . There is a wide range of opinion about democracy and Cuba with opinions ranging from that Cuba is not a democracy to that Cuba is the most democratic country in the world . |
|
|
|
|
|
This actually seems rather OK to me, although we could use more of the sources that people have identified. Anyway, that's another possibility. Again, I'll just wait for Adam to weigh in on whether either of these versions are OK with him. (Actually, AFAICT, Adam isn't online and hasn't been editing for awhile.) ] <small>(])</small> 17:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I too am willing to wait some more for Adam's response and to give Adam the benifit of the doubt. Though Adam wrote that he doesn't want to fight about the 'democracy' issue so perhaps his silence is an indicator that he doesn't dispute the status quo, and that we can now move on? ] 17:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I think the "silence" of Dr. Carr (he is not an anonymous editor, so show some respect) has much more to do with his impression-- he can correct me if I'm wrong-- that you are not a legitimate editor but a communist propagandist. Frankly, I think his view of your behavior is evidenced above, in your complete misrepresentation of something he told on my user talk page. He definitely did ''not'' tell me "that he doesn't want to fight about the 'democracy' issue." Instead, he was telling me that he might not dispute my tentative suggestion that some might consider at least one additional country in Latin America, aside from Cuba, to be ''another'' non-democracy. I'm certain that Dr. Carr remains committed to fighting attempts by ''fidelistas'' to remove factual content that presents ''el comandante'' in a negative light. ] | ] 18:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Dr. Carr? Of what? Credentials please? As for the Personal Attacks that your comments clearly state is a blocking offense without a warning. I would keep your comments like that to yourself. You are argumentive, disruptive and a troll of talk pages looking at your contributions here. --] 19:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I apologize if I disrespected you or Dr. Carr. I certainly did not intend to do so. Though, I disagree with your evaluation that I am "not a legitimate editor". I look forward to cooperatively editing with you in the future. ] 18:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please do not insult other editors, 172, and please try to ]. Let's not derail things with an argument; can you let us know if you are OK with either of the two suggested paragraphs in this section. ] <small>(])</small> 18:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Again, we are getting derailed. Please everyone try to stay focused. Since Adam and now 172 both seem to be the main opponents here, let's wait to see whether or not they are OK with the two paragraphs in this section. ] <small>(])</small> 19:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a social club. The site founder, Jimbo Wales, has stated repeatedly that product comes before process. If the rules-- including civility rules-- interfere with the goal of writing a usable encyclopedia, they are to be ignored or modified. Dr. Carr and I are both professional historians and editors experienced as anyone around here. We know how to deal with the crackpots, cultists, and cranks who attempt to wreck articles. Trolls often manipulate naive third parties into thinking that they're acting in good faith; but admins and mediators should be bullshit detectors. If propagandists are sabotaging articles, the administration is supposed to help legitimate editors deal with trolling, not enable trolling. ] | ] 19:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have noted and notified admin of ] trolling, ] and 4th revert which the later 2 are a blocking offense. Yes I am keeping tract until you are gone from here. --] 19:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Uh, I made three reverts today, which is allowed. Read ]. BTW, if I should be blocked for uncivility because I accused another editor of trolling, so should you. "Yes I am keeping tract until you are gone from here"-- that's not too nice either, is it? ] | ] 19:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
172, your incivility is interferring with us trying to come to a consensus here, please lay off. Can you please let us know if you are OK with either of the two paragraphs above, and will you ''please'' stop reverting, as I asked you to do below. If you and other editors cannot do this, I will request page protection. ] <small>(])</small> 20:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm okay with the version I'm revering back to. Cuba is not a democracy. It is inaccurate and misleading to suggest that that's a matter up for debate in the intro. Mediation and consensus are not higher priorities than a basic encyclopedic principle like accuracy. ] | ] 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
If you revert the page again, you will be in violation of ], and judging from your block log you know what happens next. I have never advocated putting inaccurate information in the article. ] <small>(])</small> 20:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm not impressed by the condescension. Content editors do messier work than mediators, and we get into disputes and edit wars at times. But our work is more valuable. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia first. It is a community only insofar as the community serves the goal of writing an encyclopedia. ] | ] 20:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
Please stop reverting; we need to let the article develop and evolve. Please let me know if you wish to participate in the mediation or not. ] <small>(])</small> 20:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, look, I hesitate to say anything since I feel like I might be adding fuel to the fire, but per Freedom House, and this is a direct quote regarding politcal rights: "''Cubans cannot change their government through democratic means. Fidel Castro dominates the political system, having transformed the country into a one-party state with the Cuban Communist Party (PCC) controlling all governmental entities from the national to the local level. Communist structures were institutionalized by the 1976 constitution installed at the first congress of the PCC. The constitution provides for a National Assembly, which designates the Council of State. It is that body which in turn appoints the Council of Ministers in consultation with its president, who serves as head of state and chief of government. However, Castro is responsible for every appointment and controls every lever of power in Cuba in his various roles as president of the Council of Ministers, chairman of the Council of State, commander in chief of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR), and first secretary of the PCC.''" That plainly states that semantics aside, Cuba is not a democracy. Freedom House is an independent NGO that has no ties the the U.S. Government that I am aware of, and I believe it is a credible source in this case. ] 23:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)-- |
|
|
|
|
|
==everyone stop reverting now please== |
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone stop reverting now: we ''must'' allow the article to develop in the usual wiki fashion. I have undone the series of reversions that just occured. There is no way we will reach consensus unless we allow the article to evolve in the usual fashion. If you have a problem with a particular passage, edit it, modify it, whatever, but do not simply revert. ] <small>(])</small> 18:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Only a wishful thinker== |
|
|
|
|
|
Would argue that Cuba is the most democratic country in the world. There are no free elections, no freedom of speech, and no other political parties. Unless anyone can prove that wrong, this will be the extent of my discussion. ] 19:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Fair question. "Cuba is the most democratic country in the world" is a real point of view along a full range of points of view on this subject. I think the essence of the belief depends on the relative definition of 'free'. For instance are elections and government dominated by corporate money 'free', some say yes, some say no. In Cuba, the elections are not dominated by corporate money, and by that measurement, they are more free and the "most democratic". Similar argument for presidential elections won based on an election offical ruling of a party partisian in a state governed by the candidates brother with systematic disenfranshisment of African American voters. By that measure, Cuba has more 'free' elections. I am not saying that I hold that POV, but just explaining logic of the POV to help you understand. ] 19:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
CJK, I think you just joined the discussion -- welcome. I am here as a mediator to make sure we can get an NPOV section on Cuba's political system and human rights record; our main goal right now is to accumulate sources which are sorely lacking. Please do not revert the page; the only way we will reach a conclusion here is if we allow the article to evolve from its present unsatisfactory state. ] <small>(])</small> 20:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi all, would it be helpful to incorporate 172's statement above into the article, alongside other opinions. Something along the lines of "Western political scientists assert that Cuba is not a democracy" with the economist citation or any other more detailed sources 172 could provide? --] 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This is a good idea -- thank you -- but first of all I'd like to establish if 172, Adam and (now) CJK are OK with the basic idea of sourcing claims and counterclaims about the nature of the Cuban political system. ] <small>(])</small> 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Adam Carr cited ''The Economist''. That's sufficient. Let's avoid wordiness. ] | ] 20:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
We are going to have to cite more than one source in order to resolve this conflict. Are you OK with that? Are there any sources in particular you object to? In general, avoiding wordiness is good, but sometimes on the wiki it's not possible. ] <small>(])</small> 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Elementary facts do not require so many citations. The quality of the article is a higher priority than mediating the dispute. Thank you for the efforts, but mediation is not necessary. ] | ] 20:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that people disagree on how to describe the Cuban political system, and it is one of wikipedia's jobs to report that, and to source those things. We really do need to cite other sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
You and others are reverting each other and flaming each other on the talk page: mediation is certaintly necessary. Do not waste my time: if you no longer wish to participate in the mediation, let me know now. |
|
|
|
|
|
] <small>(])</small> 20:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The fact that people disagree is neither here nor there. Encyclopedias are supposed to be accurate, even if some people want to believe inaccuracies. BTW, why are you asking me if I "no longer" wish to participate in mediation? I never asked to participate in mediation to begin with. ] | ] 20:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Do you wish to participate in the mediation or not? Please give me a firm answer. ] <small>(])</small> 20:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::So now you're offering? I'm open with the possibility, but not with you. Nothing personal-- I'd just rather deal with a mediator who has been on Misplaced Pages longer, and whom I've seen around the history and politics articles more often. ] | ] 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
OK, you are refusing to participate in the mediation. Thanks for letting me know sooner rather than later. I will leave some final thoughts on the talk page, and close the mediation at the medcabal. Please feel free to make a new request to the medcabal. ] <small>(])</small> 21:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
If some don't think the U.S. or any other western country is a democracy because the corporations throw around their money, then they should argue it out on that page. That arguement has no bearing on Cuba, and the blindingly obvious need not be sourced. If we need citation that Cuba is not a democracy, then maybe we need citation that Cuba is in Latin America and not Africa. ] 20:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The reason the argument about corporate money and 'free elections' is relevant is that the term 'free elections' must be defined on a relative scale. In other words, 'free' relative to what? Cuba, for instance, does not have an unresoved controversy about ]. Are their elections more 'free' because they do not have the corrupting influences of big corporate money equating to 'free speech'? Or, a legal equality granted to corporate speech as opposed to free speech rights of real people. Again, this is not necessarily my POV, but I am describing is as an illustration of why that POV has bearing to ] and should be represented in the article. ] 21:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Stop with the "corporate money" cliche. It doesn't impress me and my own political orientation is left-of-center. I expect more depth out of teenage undergraduates, and much more from people with whom I'm supposed to be collaborating. Do you have any understanding of the development of civil society in the Western democracies? ] | ] 22:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::172, you know as well as anyone (or at least you should) that there is never consensus amongst political scientists on anything. Democracy is no different, despite your assertions. There are plenty of respected political scientists that would argue that no country on earth practices democracy (polyarchies anyone?). And most political philosophers would agree that term has been manipulated for political leverage. Political scientists would balk at the dogmatic line of argument you appear to be taking. And it's why respected encyclopedias tread carefully and avoid this line of reasoning. --] 01:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==medcabal finished== |
|
|
|
|
|
172 has refused to participate in the mediation; since medcabal is totally informal, there's not much I can do. 172, feel free to request a new mediation from the cabal if you like, but be aware that you don't get to pick who you want the mediator to be. |
|
|
|
|
|
Some final thoughts. Re: the article itself: the "Human Rights" section is abysmal by current wiki standards. There are no sources (zero!) provided, the presentation is extremely confused, and minor and major things are all mixed up. This section needs a real rewrite. Re: the "democracy" debate: I've made it clear what I think the "canonical" wiki solution should be. |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: user behavior. I am amazed that both 172 and Adam -- users who have a huge number of edits and have a record of constructive contributions elsewhere on the wiki -- have behaved so poorly during this process. Both 172 and Adam have been rude and uncivil to other editors. There is no excuse for that, and it has materially impeded getting on with improving the article. Sgrayban, CJK and 172 (again) have been involved in a revert war, which is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
|
I urge everyone to stop the incivility and rudeness right now, and I urge people who encounter it ''not'' to rise to the bait and to simply ignore (i.e., not respond) to this sort of thing. The latter suggestion here is just as important as the former: don't allow yourself to get wound up. I wish everyone the best, and I hope people can get back to the real business of creating an encyclopedia sooner rather than later. ] <small>(])</small> 21:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thank you Sdedeo for helping us. ] 21:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:''172, feel free to request a new mediation from the cabal if you like, but be aware that you don't get to pick who you want the mediator to be.'' Sure we can. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, and mediation is voluntary. And one does not have to be a declared "medacom" member to mediate a dispute. Thanks for your intent to help. ] | ] 23:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that's not the way the medcabal works in general -- it's hard enough getting any mediator, let alone one made to order. In the meantime, and I can say this now that I'm no longer involved, please don't thank me; you have wasted my time by participating in a mediation up until you didn't get the result you have been continually revert-warring back to. |
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen behavior like yours before (you're the third one): first you participate in the mediation, although you dish out a good amount of rudeness and incivility all around. Then as we move towards a consensus, and you don't have much ground to stand on, you declare that the prose is inelegant. Finally, there's a coda where I go back and forth trying to get you to declare clearly whether or not you want to participate in the mediation -- that took a few rounds. |
|
|
|
|
|
] <small>(])</small> 23:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Uh, I never asked to participate in mediation nor was I ever participating in it. I was responding to some of your comments because you decided for one reason or another to get involved in the discussion. I don't know what brought you here. You just showed up. If you feel like you're wasting your time, I suggest changing your approach to mediation or dropping the gig and picking out some other work, like editing articles. ] | ] 23:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I posted repeatedly that I was here as a mediator, titled sections with "medcabal", and explained in detail why I was here; you had ample time to declare that you resented or refused this. While you claim now that you were unaware that you were participating in a mediation, I find that rather hard to believe. I don't believe I wasted my time, I believe ''you'' wasted my time, and further that you are quite aware of it. That's the last I'll say on this matter; fortunately wikipedia is a large enough space that we don't have to encounter each other again. ] <small>(])</small> 00:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== arbitration == |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't want to raise this to the next level in haste or unilaterally, but per the ] procedure, the next step would be to request arbitration. Are there other people in this group of editors who are willing to jointly request this matter be appealed to the ]? ] 21:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I would suggest waiting. Just because I failed it doesn't mean that a compromise can't be reached. My suggestion at this point would be to take a few days off, and to come back later: things seem way too heated right now and it is possibly the case that the current stalemate will only be resolved when people leave and "new blood" comes in. |
|
|
|
|
|
:RfAs take a long time and are very unsatisfying: see ] for one experience. Many times in my experience conflicts have died down of their own accord (we do have one user banned for 3RR, which might also help cool the flames.) Anyway, best of luck -- ] <small>(])</small> 21:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I support the request to move this dispute to the next level of the ] procedure. --] 22:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This dispute is getting ridiculous. Its just between the vast majority who recognize that Cuba is undemocratic versus the tiny minority who say it might be. Due weight should be enforced and I'm sure the arbcom would agree (though given my past experience, I could very well be wrong). ] 00:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I see 3 maybe 4 people arguing one way vs those arguing for wikipedia and encyclopedic standards to be upheld, personally. --] 01:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RFC == |
|
|
|
|
|
The RFC didn't have a pointer to the discussion page, so I'm starting one. The text currently reads: |
|
|
|
|
|
:Cuba calls itself a socialist republic, in which the Communist Party of Cuba is the sole legal political party. Cuba is the only state in the western hemisphere which is not a pluralist democracy in addition to being the sole Communist state in the region. |
|
|
|
|
|
This seems accurate and NPOV to me. If someone says otherwise, please respond to this comment. -- ] 01:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think it would be more acurrate to say it is the "sole state governed by a communist party". However I still find it useful to link it to the Communist state page, I have no clue on how to do this, if any one does help me! |
|
|
] 01:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi ], I requested the Rfc. But have added the "pluralist" since then to make it less subjective. I believe that |
|
|
*"Cuba calls itself" and then "being the sole Communist state" is contradictory, inaccurate and portrays systemic bias. Cuba ''is'' a socialist republic, in which the Communist Party of Cuba is the sole legal political party, according to the Cuban constitution. What other people call it should be mentioned somewhere later in the article. --] 01:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Your statement is a conclusion, rather than an argument. "Socialist republic" doesn't seem to have any real semantic meaning, except in the Orwellian sense--many socialists would disagree with the characterization of Cuba as a socialist republic, and certainly most republicans would disagree with the oxymoron of a one-party republic; you call the phrasing contradictory without identifying a contradiction; you call the phrasing inaccurate without identifying the inaccuracy. I still don't understand why anyone would challenge the current phrasing on grounds other than style. -- ] 02:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I agree that the "socialist republic" is a conclusion, FRCP11, but we've agreed on that by using many sources etc after a dense period of discussion. "Communist State" is also a conclusion. The difference is that the first conclusion relates to the Cuban constitution, the second is a label applied to Cuba from outside. "Communist State" is inaccurate because, as ] has explained, technically there can be no such entity as a "communist state". Communism is to live in a stateless society. --] 02:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::So? It's a label applied from outside. Misplaced Pages is descriptive, not prescriptive. That Communism defines itself to be stateless doesn't mean that there haven't been states understood to be Communist states: the Soviet Union; North Korea; Cuba. There are many words that have drifted from their etymology. There exist Arabs who are both Semites and "anti-Semites"; "corporate governance reform" can make corporate governance worse. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Would you prefer "Communist dictatorship"? |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I said "contradictory, inaccurate, and portrays systemic bias" was conclusory: you hadn't justified those claims (and still haven't, except in a prescriptive sense). I did not say that about "socialist republic," which is simply glurge, and thus needs the "calls itself" qualifier to have any semantic meaning. -- ] 03:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Apologies if I'm not making myself clear here, this debate tends to leave one weary! To clarify, we have two descriptions. I believe the second is a Western term that should be discussed in the main body of the article rather than the intro. --] 03:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::'''That's''' what the debate is about? Again, you state the conclusion, rather than giving an argument for it. ] would seem to require balancing the Cuban Orwellian self-description with the neutral objective observation that Cuba is not actually a republic, as well as noting its unique status in the Western Hemisphere as the only Communist state here. It's the one most notable thing about Cuba: it's a Communist dictatorship on the US's doorstep. Leaving out of the introduction would be an attempt to sanitize that violates NPOV. -- ] 03:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
OK, we disagree. I don't believe that the one notable thing about Cuba is that it's a Communist dictatorship on the US's doorstep. I believe the European Union when they catagorise Cuba as a Socialist Republic (see source). I also believe that the term "Communist state" originated in Western society from the fact that the vast majority of such states are or were run by Communist parties who hold a monopoly on political power. Therefore the label "Communist state" this should be discussed in those terms. --] 03:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Comment on mediation== |
|
|
|
|
|
One of the things both 172 and I have learned during our long experience at Misplaced Pages (partly through several long disputes with each other), is that when dealing with people who are determined to make an article conform to their ideological proconceptions, it is necessary to adopt robust tactics (within the law, but robust). Anyone who knows about the prolonged battle waged by me (and others) with the LaRouche cult at a series of articles will know (a) that these tactics are sometimes necessary, and (b) that they are effective - the LaRouchite "Herschelkrustofky" was eventually banned from Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
I was asked to review this article, which I had not previously seen, because BruceHallman and Scott Greyban were running it as their own private Fidel Castro fan page. I think any impartial person reviewing the article as it was before my arrival and as it is now will see that it has been greatly improved, particularly the history and politics sections (other parts still need work). Bruce and Scott and their friends have resisted the reform of this article at every step, arguing for a straight-out pro-Castro position on the most elementary questions (such as whether Cuba is a democracy). I point out that they are doing the same thing at ] and ]. I haven’t looked in detail at ] yet (it’s on my list), but I’ve no doubt the same is true there also. |
|
|
|
|
|
I am naturally reluctant to accuse people I don't know of being Communists, but what other conclusion can I come to about such wilful denial of obvious facts? Of course I have my own POV - I am a social democrat who is opposed to oppressive regimes of all kinds, including Communists ones. The difference is that my POV requires me to tell the truth about Cuba, whereas theirs apparently requires them to defend blatant falsehoods. If they said “yes Cuba is a dictatorship of the proletariat and we support that,” I could at least respect the integrity of their view, even though rejecting it. But I cannot respect this dishonest insistence on promoting obvious falsehoods. |
|
|
|
|
|
I am not opposed to any attempt at mediation of this matter, but I will not compromise on the essential question. Cuba is a communist dictatorship and must be described accurately, even if that precise phrase is not used. The statement that Cuba is the only state in the western hemisphere which is not a democracy is true, relevant and important, and should be in the opening paragraph. |
|
|
] 02:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
Here it is mentioned that the statistic stems from 2008, which is good. But this statistic is kind of useless other then mentioning a previous condition. It missrepresents Cuba for the average reader. Cuba did not even make the list of this 2018 ranking for imprisoned journalists: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/12/13/where-the-most-journalists-are-imprisoned-worldwide-infographic/?sh=1b693b336332
The situation of journalists in Cuba is still under scrutany, but for different reasons. For example HRC writes: Cuba has the “most restricted climate for the press in the Americas” according to a 2019 Committee to Protect Journalists report.
The section does not balance out the negatives with the positives, such as information about Cubans access to healthcare, free abortions and school etc. Accusations from 70 years ago are being represented as if they are currently being made (torture and executions)
1. Remove claims of torture and extrajudicial executions from the first sentence
2. Mention were all accusations come from and source it
3. Remove the part about sexual abuse of inmates
4. Update section to represent current conditions.
5. Extend the section about the media with more information and remove the part about imprisonment of journalists.
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (CC) Tbhotch 06:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)