Talk:Cuba/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Cuba. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Can we agree to a neutrality policy?

Considering recent edits of material I wrote, I am trying to understand our group edit policy. When one encounters something written in the article that has a 'black' point of view, and you feel it should have a 'white' point of view, what is our policy? 1) Edit to be 'white'. 2) Edit it to be 'grey', even when you personally believe 'white' is true. 3) Edit it to include both 'white' and 'black'. Or, is there some other policy which I don't understand?

Considering that we are trying to collaborate on the editing of the same article which none of us own, I hope that we can come to an understanding of how to mutually edit items where one see's white and the other see's black.

Could you please explain your neutrality policy?

Me first. I believe we should try #2, and if it fails, try #3. #1 is to be avoided, but around here, #1 causes revert wars, which frankly appear uncivil. Does anybody really believe that achieving neutrality is possible by just having a quicker finger to click a revert? BruceHallman 13:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If I write "2+2=4", and you write "2+2=6", it is not an acceptable compromise to write "2+2=5." The fact is that 2+2=4, and editors who can count will go on insisting on that statement being made until it is accepted. There can be no compromise between truth and falsehood. Now I agree that politics is seldom as black-and-white as arithmetic, but when confronted with a choice between "Cuba is a democracy" and "Cuba is not a democracy," the principle is the same and the same course of action must be followed. The "Government and politics" section was a pack of dishonest euphemisms so bad as to be in effect lies, and that will not be allowed to stand. Adam 13:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, you recently wrote as justification for an edit, "...tell the truth...". Though, for controversial topics, too often, truth is black and white. That is the wisdom behind the policy of WP:V which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. " Can we agree, at least, to disagree about the 'truth', and to allow participation of all to edit this article which none of us own? Some things you write I see as false, and you see as true. 2+2=4 works for numbers but not for abstract concepts like 'freedom' and 'sovereignty'. Can we commit to comply with the WP:V policy? BruceHallman 14:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce - a couple of points...

Firstly, there is no 'group' let alone a group edit policy. There is an everchanging population of individuals who fall mainly into two camps, those hostile, and those sympathetic, towards the Cuban revolution. No doubt some individuals on either side give others private support or encouragement but there is no evidence that there are two organised camps.

Secondly, some parts of our world are not defineable in terms of neutrality. They are 'contested realities'. Cuba for the last 50 years has been one such. Either side can claim that their perspective is 'the truth' but the other side will always challenge them. Even attempts to find neutral terms for basic descriptions will be battlegrounds. Look at the long running argument about the first line of the Fidel page, some claiming 'ruler' is more neutral than 'leader' and vice versa.

As long as Wikipedia remains completely open this struggle will continue and, I'd guess, that those on both sides who would rather work towards a 'some see it this way and some that way' entry will continually be brushed aside by the righteous warriors of the capitalist v communist war.

One of the key issues will be decided in the next few years. Fidel's death will reveal the truths of the Castro as dictator assertion. Should this result in the swamping of the Cuban Revolution by free market capitalism the other arguments will be rendered null and void. Should the Revolution continue the battle will also continue, in a different form. MichaelW 14:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that Cuba is a one-party state ruled by the Communist Party and its leader Castro, that no other parties are permitted, and that therefore Cuba does not mean any meaninfgul definition of a democracy. I could "verify" these statements with a list of references as long as the Cuban Constitution. Do you really want me to? It seems to me that it is up to those who want to argue the contrary position to do the "verifying." If I write that the earth goes round the sun, a statement these days generally accepted to be true, it is up to those who want to argue that the sun goes round the earth to provide some evidence. Adam 14:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, you wrote a lot more than you say here and it all added up to a rejection of a 'truth' that others here hold as self evident! Democracy is another contested term, yet you use it as if it had one written in stone meaning. In all capitalist countries we vote for parties to negotiate on our behalf with those non democratic groups who run our economy. Who the 'our' of that last statement is depends on all sorts of more basic issues few of which are decided in a way any of us would call democratic. If you wish your assertions to survive a wikiday you need to look a little deeper at the assumptions on which you base your version of the truth. As far as I can see all you are trying to assert is another variation on the Castro is a dictator theme, with little more to back it up than his continuing role as the voice and figurehead of the Cuban revolution. MichaelW 14:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, I will give you respect by answering your question. I hope you will also return the respect. You asked regarding the WP:V policy: "Do you really want me to?" I answer, yes.

We all should comply with Wikipedia policies, they were carefully designed to facilitate the resolution of conflict like that we now face. Indeed, the revert war we now experience can be ended if we all commit to respect WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Everyone, please re-read those policies and to the best of your ability follow them.

Adam, you also wrote: "It seems to me that it is up to those who want to argue the contrary position to do the "verifying." Although I can appreciate that you believe this, imagine a world where your opponents felt the same way as you? Your belief amounts to claiming: I am right, you must prove otherwise.

MichaelW, I agree with your explanation that this is a long standing disagreement and that it will not easily be resolved. I'll take your statement further and argue that we should not abandon effort to collaborate the editing of this article. To this end, we should all commit to comply with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. We all should encourage co-editors to comply with Wikipedia policy. BruceHallman 14:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, Wikipedia has its limits as a way of presenting information. Maybe you need to recognise this and quit looking for the magic wand to stretch those limits to infinity. Mediation won't do anything except temporarily lower the temperature. If you don't like the heat perhaps you should go somewhere cooler ;-) MichaelW 19:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

democracy in cuba

Michael, all persons not endorsed for a position by the Communist party cannot run. The Communist Party, which is not a democratic entity, not the people voting in elections, decides who holds political power - and Castro control the Communist party in Cuba. In order to be called a democracy, there must be some way for the people in general to express their beliefs - and more importantly, control who holds office. Yet, Cuba does not hold elections where individuals not endorced by the Communists can run, futhermore, political speech against the Communist party or the government is illegal. I am more than willing to use euphamisms (spelling) for the activities of the Communists, but to call it "democracy" bold faced lie that meets virtually no defintion of democracy.

One defintion of democracy is "one person one vote" and "secret ballots". BruceHallman 14:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see why communist apologists would chose to define it that way. What about a choice of candidates and the ability to choose a new government when the old one has been in power for 47 years? (I can't believe I am debating such idiotic propositions). Adam 15:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, 1) Can you agree that 'communist apologists' have a point of view?

2) Can you agree that their POV should be respected

when determining the neutral point of view?

BruceHallman 15:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, Once again, I will respect you by answering your questions. Regarding the 'ability to choose candidates', you make a good point, and I support that your point should be included in the article. BruceHallman 15:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The answers to your questions are (1) yes, (2) no. Adam 15:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot respect opposing points of view, I understand that you are in violation of Wikipedia policy. BruceHallman 15:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I can live with that. Adam 15:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could agree to mediation of this dispute? BruceHallman 16:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

We need to find a way to compromise, I am requesting mediation. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-04-10_Cuba BruceHallman 17:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, many people would argue that the United States is a democracy in name only and not in practice (particularily in comparison to many political systems around the world), I wouldn't agree with reading that in the piece on the US. It would be a clear breach of POV. --Zleitzen 16:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Demos - people, Craci - rule by. There must be an election in which the people can choose their representatives in order to be a democracy. That is the central detail. The US has this option - whether you like the outcome of said democracy or not. The Cubas do not - whether you like the outcome of their communist system or not. ()147.126.46.146

147.126.46.146, would you please cite your sources? Have you read the Cuban Constitution Chapter 14? [[1]] Cubans vote by secret ballot for their representatives in the National Assembly. The National Assembly votes, every five years to elect the president of the National Council. BruceHallman 19:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Demos - people, Craci - rule by." Can't see anything in there about voting for candidates of political parties. There are many ways of achieving popular rule and Cuba's way is as valid as another. Like I said earlier, what is democratic about having no popular control over the economy, as is the case in the capitalist world? MichaelW 19:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there has been no claim that capitalism or any other economic system is a requirement for democracy. However, simply having elections is clearly not enough; all of the elections in the world are not enough for democracy if political opposition is persecuted, as is in Cuba. [2] --Bletch 23:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You could outlaw political parties entirely, so long as THE PEOPLE could pick their representatives - but if you prevent anyone not endorsed by a 1 organization than the people cannot choose a leader. In capitalist nations, incidentally, economic control is declined by the government and the people. The US could decide to run a command economy; there is currently nothing in our constitution to prevent it. The problem your people seem to have is that so few people are willing to vote in favor of such an economy and therefore government control is limited. Democratic process is the problem in Cuba, and it is entirely different from the whether or not you favor the result. I happen to like Chile post-Allende, but I would never deny that it was ruled by a dictator, whatever the democratic pretensions or however much I dislike Allende - extend the same courtesy to the Cubans and Castro. The Cuban people CANNOT vote for a person not ENDORSED by the Communist party - this prevents any view but that which is supported by the Communist party from being represented in government. ()

In discussing democracy in Cuba, it is important to look beyond elections. Yes, elections are generally a part of a democracy - and Cuba does have them; their efficacy in promoting democratic participation in government MUST be discussed. However, Cuba also has alternative democratic structures in place that are designed to allow people to participate in the functioning of government - workplace councils, mass organizations (ANAP, CTC), and others. Just like the elections, the efficacy of these organizations is entirely debatable. Certainly, they have some effect, as they give people a chance to comment on proposed legislation, etc. To what degree the input of 'the people' is incorporated into that legislation is another matter entirely. I am spending my wikipedia time on Cuba's agricultural sector right now, so I'm not going to work on the democracy in Cuba stuff at this point. I will certainly contribute at a later date. Interested persons should read "People's Power" by Peter Roman. It is a well-written, excellently researched book that delves into the processes of democracy in Cuba. **Consider, too, that a democratic government with three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) would have democratic participation in all three branches. One must not leave out the role of the public in the judiciary (specifically, the role of lay judges.)** takethemud 23:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)takethemud

Human rights in Cuba

A few days ago I tried to edit some opposing point of view into this Human Rights section, but got "reverted". Could we please now work out a compromise to bring some neutrality to this section?

The lead sentence describes human rights abuses which the citation dates back to 1967. I tried to include this fact, that these accusations date to 1967, but that was edited away.

Shouldn't a NPOV shown the current state of Human Rights in Cuba at the top of the section instead of undated, yet 40 year old, accusations? BruceHallman 16:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In Cuba residual human rights vary from time to time, from harsh to really harsh [3]. At times there are New Economic Plan's as in Stalin's era in Russia, or there are periods in which the Cuban Government "let(s) a thousand flowers bloom" as in Mao's China. The Cuban prison population is enormous, some are real criminals. Many have stolen food to supplement their insufficient rations. Some are in pre-delinquent preventative detention (peligrosidad), some have insulted the government (desacato). Some have committed "economic crimes" this for the present moment can include purchasing a pig and taking it to market in Havana. Only a few prisoners perhaps 400 have sufficient repute and support outside of Cuba to be labeled "prisoners of conscience," the real number of political prisoners is unknown except by Cuban authorities. International agencies are not allowed to inspect the prisons. El Jigue 3-10-06

El Jigue, could you please cite your sources per WP:V? Still, the first sentence of the article is based on a source dated 1967. There must be a more current and verifyable sources. I wrote [some], citing recent sources, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, but I got reverted. Please, can we bring neutrality to this article? BruceHallman 18:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce I had those in but my additions keep getting reverted too and the references get mislaid [4]. Remember that Castro does not allow inspections of his prisons and the information has to be collected one case at a time. Castro's goons even beat up people overseas [5]. Ye tthe Cuban government insists it be on the UN Huma Rights Commission [6]. Will do what I can when I finish my work. El Jigue 4-10-06

El Jigue, Thanks for the links. BTW, I support having a section in the Cuba article describing specific of reports of Human Rights Abuses in Cuba, as long as it meets WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. BruceHallman 20:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

However, remember that Nestor Kirchner (president of Argentina) said that he had seen nothing in Cuba to say they were abusing human rights.

Communist State vs. Republic revert war

Could we please stop this revert war? Is there no compromise?

User:147.126.46.146 please explain your most recent revert. BruceHallman 16:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. It appears that various users have deleted information critical of the current Cuban government or modified it so as not to inform. I have restored said information. This is an encyclopedia, intended to inform of the situation and perspectives thereon - not to spout the government policy. I see no reason why important criticisms should be repeatedly altered except to prevent the readers from being informed of the situation. ()147.126.46.146

147.126.46.146, the truth is that you too delete information, in addition to restoring information. I suggest that you rather edit the text to improve the point of view towards neutrality, versus the deletion of points of view you disagree with. If we include both points of view, this can bring neutrality. BruceHallman 19:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Works both way,147.126.46.14. it is disingenuous to protest that criticisms are deleted when sympathetic comments are deleted just as often. The crux of the issue is how to stabilise a Wikipedia entry about an actively contentious subject. MichaelW 19:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Everyone should re-read WP:NPOV. We certainly disagree with each other! We need to tolerate and include opposing points of view. With such polarity of the opinions, where we cannot agree to one compromise statement, we can include both the pro and the con statements to achieve balance. BruceHallman 19:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have generally restored what was there prior to deletion and replacement with what often amounts to propaganda or something close to it. I have, and will continue, to LEAVE IN statements supporting Castro's government, but I have no intention of watching criticism either outright deleted, or simply replaced by sympathetic revisionist statements. The continual removal of UN allegations, as well as the deletion of research (and the research quoted is but the very tip of the iceberg) into Cuban support for communist militism in South America and Africa amounts to a calculated attempt to whitewash history. Deleting these statements, or just as often modifying them so as not to inform is absurd behavior to defend. ()

I think that the subject of Cuban foreign policy, including military intervention in foreign conflicts in South America and Africa deserves a section of its own in the Cuba article and should be covered in depth, as long as it meets WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. No whitewashing of history should be allowed. BruceHallman 21:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce I had a segment on that but it was deleted long ago, I protested and was banned. El Jigue 4-10-06

Regardless, I still would support a section in the article as long as it meets WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. BruceHallman 00:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the government to Communist single-party state; as far as I can tell, the criticisms against that appelation was being a "mouthful". If it is a mouthful, it is certainly less a mouthful than applying two terms in the name of WP:NPOV. --Bletch 23:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Bletch, would you please explain why you again reverted the words "Socialist Republic". Please explain what you mean when you write "in the name of WP:NPOV". My edit wasn't "in the name of..." anything, rather, it was a sincere attempt to achieve NPOV. Can you respect that? I feel that you belittle my genuine attempt by describing it as "in the name of...". Though, perhaps I misunderstand you. BruceHallman 23:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me; believe it or not but I didn't mean to imply any insincerity on your part. In any case, I object to the usage of "Socialist Republic" for the same reasons that I described before. It is an ambiguous term; I am not sold on your assertion that "socialist republic" is somehow distinct from "Socialist Republic". --Bletch 23:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Bletch, you still haven't replied to my earlier question to you: After reading Adam's commentary and reviewing Republic, I withdraw my claim that toleration of opposition is a requirement to be considered a Republic. That said, if Republic is a virtual synonym for "non-Monarchy" (yes I understand that is an oversimplifaction), then it should be avoided for its over-broadness alone. I am fine with either Communist state, Communist single-party state, or Single party state. --Bletch 17:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering your withdrawal, please summarize why the Republic of Cuba is not a Republic, I cannot say I understand the reasoning of your POV. BruceHallman 18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you please answer my question? BruceHallman 00:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ummm by writing that I did answer your question. Yes, by that definition, Cuba can be considered a republic. However, I still believe that it is inappropriate to use the term Republic for reasons that I described before. --Bletch 00:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A "Communist single-party state" is a Communist state. I've changed it back. Please keep the link to the specific article. 172 | Talk 23:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

172, yes you changed it back, but you changed it back to the POV description "Communist State".

Please, is there some way this can be compromised to be neutral. Again, can we please follow the WP:NPOV policy. BruceHallman 23:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam: That part seems understandable in the model I use which equates communism with a rigid religion. However, what I cannot grasp the rationale nor understand the reason why somethings e.g. The Cayman Trench offends some people unless of course they have funds in Cayman bank accounts or they object to Plate Tectonics El Jigue 4-10-06

I think the editor reverted in error, rather ungraciously removing your additional material as well as the sections he/she was unhappy about. Poor wiki-etiquette indeed.--Zleitzen 00:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't see what isn't neutral about "Communist state" - Castro has made no secret of the fact that he and his nation are communist. A "communist state" by nature is single party - otherwise it would not fit the definition. ()

Note that the majority of foreign language Wiki articles describe Cuba as a République populaire, or Res publica socialista etc if they state anything at all. Also of note is the English language site classification of China as a Socialist Republic. Personally I don't believe it is controversial to follow this and describe the Republic of Cuba as a Socialist Republic. The term "communist state" seems an unusual and needlessly controversial precedent and I'm not convinced by the explanation in the wiki article of that name. Though I see that even within that page there is a fair amount of open controversy about the term's use. Play safe, follow China and other wiki pages, call Cuba a Socialist Republic or nothing at all and end this edit war.--Zleitzen 03:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

'Communist State' is the label favored by opponents of the present Cuban government, the CIA, Cold War holdouts, etc.. Calling the 'Republic of Cuba' a 'Republic' sure seems natural and neutral to me. 'Communist State' has purjorative connotations dating to the Cold War, similar to now calling a government we don't like a 'regime'. Article 1 of the Cuban Constitution says: "Cuba is an independent and sovereign socialist state of workers, organized with all and for the good of all as a united and democratic republic, for the enjoyment of political freedom, social justice, individual and collective well-being and human solidarity." We should respect how they describe themselves, 'socialist' and 'republic', not judge them by applying pejorative labels. BruceHallman 03:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The term Communist state is widely used in the English speaking world to describe single party states ruled by Communist parties. A Communist state is one in which the state and the Communist party are embedded in each other. The term has a pejorative association in the United States only because Communism has a pejorative association in the United States, and that's neither here nor there. The term is accurate and I will continue to restore it. 172 | Talk 09:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag on history section

Have added tag on the history section. I believe there are a large parts that are un-encyclopedic and POV. Please see mediation cabal[7] which is in session on this matter. --Zleitzen 23:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Z: What things do you disagree with most. El Jigue 4-10-06

I think that too much of the history section is un-encyclopedic, uncited and POV, El Jigue. But I would rather go through the collaboration process with experienced editors to overhaul this article than pick individual problems from it's present form. But here are some examples I've noticed.

the United States never openly threatened Cuba again, but was said to engage in absurdly elaborate covert activities to assassinate Castro,
This is generally believed to be the closest the world has come to a nuclear war
The end of the crisis, in which President Kennedy could save face in front of the American public etc.

The article mentions the minor involvement in Congo and not the major involvement Angola etc. I could go on, but I'd rather start a process of more dramatic overhaul.--Zleitzen 00:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a referance to Angola... some one will need to put it back in. The whitewashers are awfully persistant. ()

Z There used to be a section to which I contributed heavily, that dealt with these and almost every other conflict that Castro got himself involved with. But it was deleted, just as Comandante just deleted the fact that Antonio Perez Jimenez the source for data on landholdings was a comandante (lower case) in Castro's forces in the mountains. Of course Perez Jimenez did not do any fighting that was left to the real fighters and idiots like me who followed them. El Jigue 4-11-06

The curse of the humanities majors

There are continual deletes of seemingly objective data, such as references to the contribution of plate tectonics to the formation of the Island, the role of the Chinese in the Cuban Wars of Independence, or the ethnic contribution of the Taínos, as clearly revealed by DNA studies, to ethnic composition of the Cuban population. Apparently there are some dumb humanities majors who do not think in scientific terms. El Jigue 4-11-06

Government and politics

I have restored a reasonably truthful version. I am happy to debate this, but automatic reversion to the previous pack of lies is unacceptable and will result in an edit war. I agree by the way that history section needs a major rewrite. It is far too long for this article when we also have History of Cuba, as well as being badly written and full of tendentious statements. Adam 01:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There are some major problems with the newest edit. Cuba is not a one-party state. First of all, it is biased. Second, it is false. People of the opposition have also been elected by the people, into the National Assembly, just like all the other candidates. Pablo Odén and Raúl Suárez are members of Cuban Council of Churches, a Cuban christian political party, and they're in the national assembly. Raúl Suárez is also a minister in the baptist church.

The word "ruler" (regarding Fidel) is biased, especially when people outside Cuba are split wether Cuba is democratic or not. "facade of parliamentary government" is also terribly biased. "Only candidates who are members of or approved by the Communist Party are allowed to participate" is entirely false. The controversial "Fidel Castro, exercises direct personal control over the government" is not backed up by any kind of evidence. Another very controversial claim "The real basis for Castro's power is his position as First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba." is false. Again, Cuba's politics is not based on the Communist Party of Cuba. "The Communist Party retains power, through its control of the armed forces and police" is also TERRIBLY biased. And the last, but not the least biased claim "exercised by Castro's most trusted lieutenant, his bother and official sucessor Raul Castro." is reason for my edit here at talk. There is more bias in that section.

NWOG

Removal of link to Cuban Constitution

Adam Carr, please explain your edit of 15:16, 10 April 2006 where you removed external links to the Cuban Constitution. This edit appears to be an egregious POV, and appears to not meet WP:NPOV policy. I may simply be misunderstanding you, though the comment you wrote "(i can see the Communist Party of Wikipedia is well-entrenched at this article, which i guess is not surprising. If u want an edit war on this subject, comrade, u will get one)" leaves little room for doubt, would you please explain your edit? BruceHallman 04:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not intend to remove links to the Constitution. I intended to re-instate my truthful version of the Government and politics section. My POV is clear and open - this article should tell the truth about Cuba, which is that it is a communist dictatorship (not that I have used that expression). I realise this is hard for all you old lefties who continue to worship Fidel, but sooner or later you will have to face up to this. Adam 04:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes your POV is clear and open but you are still mistaking it for the 'truth'. It strikes me that it is the critics of the Cuban revolution who are the ones obsessed with Fidel. His longevity as leader is a useful tool in the attempts to portray the situation as a brutal elite holding sway over a downtrodden and fearful population. That a long visit to Cubawill show that to be nonsense matters not. If Cuba is a communist dictatorship then the 'free' world is a capitalist dictatorship, but you won't find that 'truth' in the US Wikipedia page. Go read this essay [8] and tell us what you think.

As long as you, and others thinking they know the Truth, continue to claim their POV as the only valid viewpoint this page will not develop. The only co-operative success we have had these last few months is the line in the Fidel bio that some say he's a dictator and some say he isn't. Unless a substantial number of us on both sides are prepared to make room for the full range of perspectives to be listed then these verbal spats will run and run and run...MichaelW 08:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I am not interested in compromises between truth and falsehood. All dictators claim that their people love them, so much so that there is no need for elections to demonstrate how much they love the Great Leader, and all dictators can find gullible fools willing to testify from the safety and comfort of their homselands how wonderful the Great Leader and how everybody they met during their visit told them so, despite the curious fact that 47 years after the Glorious Revolution they are all still dirt poor. Whether the Communist Party of Wikipedia likes it or not, this article will be got into shape eventually. Resistance is futile. Adam 11:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be possible to take you more seriously if you actually responded to what had been written rather than continuing to assert your own distorted, (and hackneyed) reflections. Like I said, Castro is far more important to the likes of you than he is to most of us who sympathise with the Cuban Revolution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelW (talk • contribs) 11:53, 11 April 2006.

MichaelW, nothing on that page contradicts anything that has been said here. Whether you think Castro has has a positive or negative on Cuba, it is undeniable that he is a dictator. All I see at the page that you link is some tourist went to Cuba and had a good time. I'm sure that it is pretty refreshing going to a place without McDonalds, and I'm sure that its nice to go to a Latin American country without shoeshine boys at every turn, after all Castro jails anybody that harasses tourists. All that said, if he started waving signs stating "Abajo Fidel" in downtown Havana, I'm sure that he would have had a worse experience. --Bletch 11:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's why I like that article, not because I agree with the author's perspective, but because he does a good job of illustrating how every view of Cuba can be re-inforced by talking to people there. As you say it contradicts nothing said here. if you think everyone who harasses tourists is jailed it suggests you haven't been there, but are paying too much credence to anti Cuban propaganda.

It is deniable that he is a dictator, unless you mean by dictator, being the main voice and dominanant personality in a collective political machine. The Cuban government has since the early days been a coalition and CAstro remains at the top of the pyramid by his ability to resolve and give voice to the various strands that make it up. MichaelW 11:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No-one supposes that Castro rules Cuba all by himself - no dictator has ever done that. What the term "dictator" means is that he is the head of a dictatorial regime, one built by and around his personal authority, which his subordinates accept either out of conviction or self-interest. A dictatorial regime is one that tolerates no opposition and uses the power of the state without legal restraint against those who try to oppose it. That is how Hitler, Stalin, Peron and Batista ruled, and it is how Castro rules. I don't deny that he has a measure of popular support - as did all the above-mentioned dictators. Whether he has majority support is something that only a free and contested election could determine. In the meantime, like all dictators, he fears opposition and suppresses it by force. If Cuba is such an earthly paradise, with all that free health care and all, why do 2,000 Cubans a year risk their lives (and frequently lose them) trying to escape from it? Adam 13:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Which brings us back to doh. No one has suggested that Cuba is a paradise, that is more of your need to exaggerate to the hilt in order to give strength to your argument. Cubans leave Cuba for the same reason Mexicans cross the Rio Grande, economic osmosis.

Before Cuba can normalise their society, the United States and their anti Cuban allies need to back off and give the situation some breathing space. The hostile US stance and Cuba's most authoritarian tendencies are mutually entwined. Each side refuses to budge before the other makes the first move. Given that Cuba has far more to fear from the US than the US does from them why should they be made responsible for breaking the deadlock? Like all societies under external threat they fear the fifth column and do what they think necessary to resist. MichaelW 14:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, not really. Almost every Cuban exile who lived in Cuba I have ever spoke to in Miami started talking first about "las communistas" and political oppression. I hardly ever have heard anything about economic conditions except by way of unfavorable comparisons to Batista or occasionally the plight of relatives. Incidentally, I restored the link to the Cuban constitution. It belongs in an encyclopedia article, although I doubt that it is followed. ()

It's really rather counterproductive, not to mention inappropriate, to register personal views speculating on why Cuba is poor, or "if Cuba is such an earthly paradise why do Cubans attempt to escape" etc. See WP:NOT if in any doubt. There's any number of other spaces, blogs, etc where you can opine ad nauseam about this or any other topic; kindly use these and not wikipedia. --Zleitzen 14:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Z: There are many scholarly economic analyses of why Cuba is poor now and was relatively (to other countries in the region) prosperous before Castro. Take for instance the yearly volumes of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy. As to the present Cuban constitution, it is just one of a series of similar documents produced by the present regime, it is only followed when it is convenient to the Castro government. The last real Cuban Constitution is the mildly left wing 1940 document, which at least attempted a free concensus. As to opinion, history is rooted in a compedium first hand witness reports. Yet. there are also seemingly endless articles and books analyzed third, fourth and nth by "historians" who do not know details of Cuban history. Oh BTW what are your credentials to do such a major revision. I would hate to see "you do" yet another whitewash and gross over simplification. El Jigue 4-11-06.

This isn't an article analysing and speculating upon why Cuba is poor.
I'm not going to do a "major revision". Consensus should be reached in a manner that adheres to Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. Editors should also work in respect to these Policies and Guidelines.
Please re-read all Policies, conventions and guidelines if you need clarification of any issues.--Zleitzen 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The debate back and forth above is interesting but off topic. What concerns me is that several people appear to be advocating and exercising editorial policy contrary to Wikipedia policy. I believe that ultimately this will cause our failure to create an encylopedic article about Cuba. I ask these people to change their actions to comply with Wikipedia policy or if we cannot agree about group policy, mediation and enaction of a mediated decision. BruceHallman 14:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce do you believe it is proper that your opinion or your interpretation of Wikipedia policy shall override that of all others (Uber alles Wikipedia (:>)) or are you merely sitting in a dank Scottish cave contemplating the persistence of spiders. El Jigue 4-11-06

Of course I do not believe that my opinion should override all others, that is why I am asking for mediation and enaction of a mediated decision. We either can agree to a common set of rules and behaviours, or descend into never ending edit wars. I propose we adhere to Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines and that after due process, we ban and block those who refuse to do so. BruceHallman 15:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is always tempting to try to silence those who oppose our views; however seems most wise not to. One way to restrain myself is to remember that my objective here is merely to develop my knowledge and prepare background for my book of memories snd to better understand the mechanisms, processes, stengths and weaknesses of Castro propaganda. My book will be "Coming soon to a bookstore near you." (:>) Any educational effect on others is merely an extra benefit. Another matter that might well be raised is length, an electronic encyclopedia does not have the size limitations that printed volumes do. The very word encyclopedia at leasts in its origins in pre-Revolutionary France suggests that it is a compendium of all knowledge, while this is seemingly impossible.... thus an electronic version should not be expected to fit a Victorian type format or length El Jigue 4-10-06

Please see Wikipedia:Article size if you have any concerns about Wikipedia article length.--Zleitzen 17:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

El Jigue wrote: It is always tempting to try to silence those who oppose our views; , Of course it is always tempting, but if we follow Wikipedia policies, especially WP:NPOV, that won't occur. BruceHallman 17:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A short while ago User:Comandante deleted the links to the Cuban Constitution again. (I will make an obligatory request:) Comandante, please discuss the basis for your edit. The reality is that this has the appearance of clear and repeated failure to comply with Wikipedia policy and is destructive to the collaborative process. BruceHallman 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Government Type straw poll

With hopes of ending the edit war over "Government Type", I propose that we conduct a straw poll as follows:

---Begin straw poll rules---

The poll to start 00:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC), and ends exactly one week after the start. A first ballot winner requires more than 50% of the votes. Should none of the options receive more than 50%, a second straw poll shall begin immediately be conducted with a duration of exactly one week between the top three candidates, with a second ballot winner being the choice with the most votes. Anonymous votes are not allowed. One vote per registered Wikipedia user is allowed. With hopes of controlling sock puppets, no votes allowed by users not registered as of 00:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Sign your vote with four tildes. You are allowed to change your vote up until the end of election deadline.

---End straw poll rules---

---Begin draft of straw poll---

What is the group consensus of the most neutral description of Government Type for Cuba?

1.Communist State:

2.Communist state:

3.Communist Republic:

4.Democratic Republic:

5.One Party State:

6.Socialist Republic:

7.Republic: Adam 03:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC) (there are much more important things to worry about),

8. Remove 'goverment type' from the Country Box:

9. Show both 'Communist State' and 'Socialist Republic':

10. Socialist State:

---End draft of straw poll---

---Begin discussion of straw poll---

We can have an open discussion of the structure of the straw poll, above is just an idea as a start, please give your opinions. BruceHallman 00:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Communist State or Communist state would be the most accurate - all others are either misleading (Democratic Republic), outright wrong (Socialist Republic) or uninformative (One Party state, Communist Republic). ()

The voting doesn't start until next week. The point of discussion right now is on the design of the ballot and the rules for the poll. BruceHallman 01:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be an option to remove the Government Type altogether to avoid future edit wars? --Zleitzen 01:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point, though a parallel argument is that within paragraphs of the article itself, should the phrase 'Communist State' 'Republic' (or whatever) be used when describing the type of government. I suggest that for consistency, the winning title generally be used throughout the article, but that a paragraph or section be added to discuss the dissenting government type argument with reasoning of the dissenting opinions.

This is a silly argument. The infobox should just describe Cuba as a republic, since that is clearly the outward form of its government - it has a president and not a king. The debate on the realities of government in Cuba should take place in the "Government and politics" section. "Communist state", "socialist republic" etc are inherently loaded terms and should not be used in the infobox. Adam 04:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I ditto Adam with this. Perhaps I would add that an obvious characteristic of the type of goverment of Cuba is that it controls the economy using a different model than all other states in the hemisphere which are capitalistic. Call it central control, call it collectivism, call it Communist, call it Socalist...all would be more descriptive than just ignoring the fact. I favor calling it 'Socialist' simply because that is what they call it themselves, and that the word Communist, while descriptive of the 'one party', also carries purjorative connotations dating from the Cold War period in the USA. BruceHallman 13:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The expression "socialist state" occurs four times in the Cuban Constitution, and the expression "communist state" does not occur once. BruceHallman 00:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The word 'republic' occurs thirty-two times in the Cuban Constitution. BruceHallman 00:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If Socialist Republic is good enough for the Encyclopædia Britannica, I would propose that it is also the best option here [9]--Zleitzen 01:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering the recent development of a 'truce' of sorts, I recommend that we postpone this straw poll until later, and perhaps indefinitely. BruceHallman 18:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow! the rule of “desacato” comes to Wikipedia

.“…I favor calling it 'Socialist' simply because that is what they call it themselves, and that the word Communist, while descriptive of the 'one party', also carries purjorative (sic) connotations dating from the Cold War period in the USA. BruceHallman 13:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)”

Oh wow! A description of the reality of a one party system in Cuba is called “purjorative (sic).” Pejorative would be not to call Cuba’s “one party system.” What is next banning people from Wikipedia for “desacato” as in Cuba, for insulting Castro and the Cuban government. El Jigue 4-12-06

El Jigue, sarcasm doesn't help resolve disputes. I didn't mean to insult you. I am refering to the use of the variations of the word 'Commie' during the Cold War. Clearly there is a pejorative history to this word in the USA, even today the word 'Communist' is used as an insult by some people at times. Also, please explain your point about insulting Castro, because yes, for an article to be encylopedic it should be worded neutrally and be careful to not use insulting language if at all avoidable. Do you agree? BruceHallman 14:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Castro is a self declaered Communist and repudiated the more limited forms of socialism advocated by some of his earlier allies. He is a communist, not a socialist. The Cuban economy is communist in every sense of the word. I realize that many people don't like communists, but this would be like not calling Kennedy a democrat because lots of people don't like democrats. ()

It is a logical fallacy to use criticism of Fidel Castro to generalize about the Cuba. He is powerful, true, but Fidel Castro is simply not synonymous with Cuba, the Cuban government or the Cuban economy. Perhaps our dispute can be solved if we separate our disagreement into discrete pieces? BruceHallman 15:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

work towards resolution of neutrality dispute

Can we begin work to resolve the disputed portions?

This part from the History Section lacks in neutrality, can we work out some more neutral wording"

"The new revolutionary regime adopted successive "land reforms" and eventually confiscated almost all private property. At first, Castro was reluctant to discuss his plans for the future, but eventually he declared himself a communist, and with the backing of Che Guevara, explained that he was trying to build socialism in Cuba, focusing on government provided health care and public education, and began close political and economic relations with the Soviet Union and to a lesser extent with China. "

perhaps:

"The new revolutionary government adopted successive land reforms and eventually nationalized almost all private property. At first, Castro was reluctant to discuss his plans for the future^{[citation needed]}, but eventually (cite the dates) he declared himself a communist, and with the backing of Che Guevara, declared the goal of socialism for Cuba, focusing on government provided health care and public education, and began close political and economic relations with the Soviet Union and to a lesser extent with China. BruceHallman 14:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with this change. --Bletch 23:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, instead of suggesting that Castro was "relucant to discuss his plans", I'd change it to something a bit more verifiable along the lines of "he didn't discuss specific plans". --Bletch 13:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce it let me be brutally frank, you obviously have not read the scholarly works cited in the Cuba/Printed sources section especially Thomas 1998, let alone the soon to be published de la Cova 2006. What is happening is "inconvenient" citations are removed or hidden apparently by unconditional supporters of Castro e.g. in Cuba/Printed sources then these mendacious characters make spurious demands for deleted references and "NPOV" essays that fit their puerile illusions. Come back when you have read the Moncada section by Thomas, until then it would help your credibility to be far more discrete with your remarks than at present. El Jigue 4-10-06

El Jigue, I give you the benifit of the doubt that you have no intentions of insulting me. I agree with you that 'illusions' have no place in Wikipedia articles, though puerile writing, if it meets WP:V, has its place as I hope that children can use Wikipedia too. By the way, the historical accuracy of Hugh Thomas is the subject of some criticism, though I respect the man. BruceHallman 15:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Black market

Pennelope Goodfriend wrote:

The Cuban way of life is difficult for Americans to understand. Cubans live in a double economy: they have jobs and purchase goods legally, but they also buy and sell through the black market (where staple foods and necessities such as tools are still more accessible). These dichotomies extend further. Most Cubans have two jobs, one paid in pesos and the other in dollars. The "utopian state" promised forty years earlier no longer exists. "Post-utopian state of collapse" is a more appropriate description of the country today.

I hope the WP article doesn't try to paint Cuba as a socialist utopia, with prosperity and excellent free medical care. Because if it were, people would be crazy to risk their lives to leave it. (Or does this mean I'm "taking sides"?) --Uncle Ed 19:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Black Markets are by definition illegal, the street markets in Havanna don't look illegal to me. The CUC(dollar) economy is legal. Also, what is the point of holding Cuba up to a 'socialist utopia' measuring stick? It makes as much sense at holding the USA up to a 'capitalistic utopia' measuring stick. Cannot we just describe Cuba the way it is, without the value judgement of declaring it a failure because it didn't achieve utopia? Please, can we set aside our prejudices and try to view this through a neutral lense? BruceHallman 19:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce. What do you base your ideas on Cuba? What you are asking is to repudiate all but official Cuban government reports. Cubans on the Island have had "state captialism" forced on them. and they don't like it. For instance, in the mountains of Oriente where there are still some private growers of coffee. They must fill a quota, if the quota is not filled they must pay ten fold the price of the unfulfilled part of the quota to the government. To enforce this every crop year the Raul Castro's forces (he is in control there, hanging out in luxury at a confiscated residence near Guisa) set up road blocks to "capture" this illegal coffee. El Jigue 4-12-06

My opinion of the street markets comes from original research and first hand discussions with Cubans. Sorry about the spelling errors, at least you understood my point. Not to question your views too harshly, but isn't another reasonable perspective on the quotas that they are a socialist version of capitalistic taxation? Arguing our beliefs is getting off topic, my point is that measuring Cuba against a goal of utopia isn't encyclopedic. We should just try to describe Cuba just as it is, not as a failure because it isn't utopia. BruceHallman 20:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce let me be brutally frank, you obviously have not read the scholarly works cited in the Cuba/Printed sources section especially Thomas 1998, let alone the soon to be published de la Cova 2006. What is happening is "inconvenient" citations are removed or hidden apparently by unconditional supporters of Castro (as was Cuba/Printed sources) then these mendacious characters make spurious demands for deleted references and "NPOV" essays that fit their puerile illusions. Come back when you have read the Moncada section by Thomas, until then it would help your credibility to be far more discrete with your remarks than at present. El Jigue 4-10-06

No offense taken. I am allowed to reach my own opinions based on original research and first hand conversations with Cubans. You seem to be expecting me to not believe my own eyes and ears. Still, I am not asking to push my original research into the article, that would violate WP:NOR. Also, I am not asking that 'inconvenient' citations be removed. BruceHallman 21:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comandante reverts.

Comandante, can we discuss your edits as part of a collaborative process? BruceHallman 21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I personally think that Bletch's edits are extremely POV and bias. For one thing, why does Cuba's current political status need to be mentioned in the opening paragraph. That should just be left to geography. Secondly, calling terrorists who blow up airliners "freedom fighters" is absurd and has no place in this article. Just look at some of the things he says in his version: "After years of research on the topic, and after the acquittals of several trials on those accused, there is a strong suspicion that the attack was self-inflicted to be used as a propaganda tool against the United States and to discredit Cuban freedom-fighters." Strong suspicion by who? He doesn't even bother to provide a link. Comandante 22:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comandante, please make specific proposals. I'm not 100% against all your changes, but as far as I can tell, your pattern for objecting to a specific version of the page is to do a bulk reversion to some random version in the past, very unbecoming behavior. As for being the only Communist nation in the western hemisphere, I fail to see what is POV about that at all; it is after all a major distinction. As for the link, if "()" is correct and there was a link, I'll see if that can be dug up. Any particular reason that you waited so long to make such a simple request? --Bletch 23:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed the "strong suspicion" tidbit, and being unsourced and unattributed, I agree that it should be removed. And I've taken the liberty of doing so. --Bletch 23:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there used to be a link to an academic journal after that that was edited out... someone needs to find it and put it back in. ()

I for one, appreciate that Comandante is articulating these requests. And they seem to be reasonable requests which deserve the respect of considerate responses. BruceHallman 23:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding being the only Communist nation in the Western Hemisphere, I agree with Comandante that it is POV because of the pejorative nature of the word 'Communist', plus it is insulting to give priority to that word over the word 'Socialist'. Read the Cuban Constitution, they say socialism and, with the Communist Party at the forefront, and Cuba is an independent and sovereign socialist state.... "Communist State" is an external label primarily used by only one POV of this issue. One proposal I suggest is to substitute the word 'Socialist' or add the word 'Socialist'. Also, perhaps adding a sentence saying they they are the 'only nation in the Western Hemispher which is not Capitalistic' would be accurate and would tend to balance the NPOV somewhat. BruceHallman

I strongly disagree with the idea that the term "Communist" is somehow perjorative. This is a term that is used by both the adherents (for lack of a better term) as well as Anti-Communists. Socialist is too broad a term; socialism encompasses communism as well as "softer" socialism as practised in European nations. --Bletch 00:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Does the Cuban Constitution call their form of government "Communist", no. It describes "Communist Party at the forefront", "communist society", "communist education", "communist awareness" it simply does not say "communist state" or "communist government". Applying an external label, which if I am not mistaken originated in the CIA factbook, if not pejorative, is at least inaccurate and disrespectful. BruceHallman 00:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If Socialist Republic is good enough for the Encyclopædia Britannica, I would propose that it is also the best option here [10]--Zleitzen 01:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

How about we just keep politics out of the opening paragraph alltogether? The rest of the article is pretty much completely devoted to that. Comandante 01:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Commandante you have reverted my work on the education of Cuba without justification. Please explain this? --Zleitzen 01:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not that I want to step in here and add fuel to this but isn't making entire revert's back to some far back date a bad idea here? I have been watching this rrv fight for a day and already I have seen some good changes totaly deleted in favour of a total revert by both of you. Its making a real mess for the page and its history. Can I make a suggestiong here and suggest a sandbox page where you 2 can fight over the reverts until you both can compromise on the changes? Would be nice and would stop me from having to have the page protect over a useless fight about what is POV or not. --Scott Grayban 01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please explain where I have deleted good changes?--Zleitzen 01:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I should have said Comandante and Bletch fight over reverts. --Scott Grayban 01:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Comandante has been on a serial revert war on this page for a very long time. For a long time, he wouldn't even voice his specific objections regarding the page, and has ignored requests for discussion [11]. I'd be willing to have a sandbox, but I see no evidence that Comandante is interested in discussion. --Bletch 01:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Bletch you wrongly wrote, 'I see no evidence' in the present tense. Don't take me wrong, I think Comandantes brutal revert technique is very harmful. But give him/her the benifit of the doubt when you can! He/she is participating in discussion today. BruceHallman 03:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If he continues to vandal this article the way he has been all day I'll be putting in a for a speedy block on him for ignoring NPOV rules and 3RR. I suggest that Comandante take the offer of a sandbox or be blocked for blantant vandalism to articles here without going through the talk page as required for disputes. --Scott Grayban 01:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

On the note of Patria y Libertad translated to English is "Patriot and Liberty" and it should reflect that. --Scott Grayban 01:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Patria is ussually translated as motherland or fatherland as that is what the term means in this context. ()

Commandante, you have now removed my paragraph on "What happens after Castro?" several times without any explanation. If you feel that this paragraph does not belong in the article, please explain why; otherwise, please stop removing it. Thanks. Kwertii 02:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have Officially warned him of violating the 3RR and NPOV on his talk page. If I see one more RV from him that will be the end of his editing rights on WikiPedia. --Scott Grayban 02:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Also if he RV's again and I don't catch it, its in my watchlist, IM me on yahoo username is EvilBorg2001 --Scott Grayban 02:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Guess he got the hint but in anycase Cuba this talk page are now in my watchlist. Good artcle !! --Scott Grayban 03:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm attempting to readd the info that has been lost in Comandante's reverts; the problem is that I cannot figure out what precisely he objects to; when looking at his diffs, I see info on geography, formatting and organizational reverts that seem to get caught up in and thrown out with the bath water, and so far the two things that he has specifically referred to on talk have been addressed, yet he continued in reverting. There seems to be consensus that the "History of Cuba" section is oversized. I've also changed the comment about Cuba being the only "Communist state" in the hemisphere to say "...governed by a Communist party". If there is perceived bias by the term Communist state, surely qualifying it further to sidestep the term should be acceptable to all. --Bletch 10:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That looks OK to me, Bletch. I can understand commandante's request to remove the politics from the opening paragraph, but to include politics in that section is not unusual (eg France) and I believe that Cuba being uniquely governed by a Communist party is notable enough to warrant this. A detailed description of the governmental system (one party state, communist state etc) should be later in the article. btw I'm still rooting for that "socialist republic" definition in the info box! --Zleitzen 14:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Bletch, I very much appreciate your effort towards compromise. Cuba is 'governed' by their government. Their government is founded upon their constitution. Like every republic, the government and the constitution are not perfect, just *how* imperfect is *always* a matter of opinion.

Regardless, saying that Cuba is presently 'governed' by the Communist Party is like saying the USA is presently 'governed' by the GOP. Both statements are close to being correct, but neither are technically correct. An encyclopedia article should try to be technically correct. Saying that the Communist Party of Cuba, (or the GOP) dominates their respective goverments would be technically correct. BruceHallman 14:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair points Bruce. What would you propose for the opening paragraph?--Zleitzen 15:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this sentence would be an acceptable compromise: "Cuba is a sovereign socialist state, a republic, with the Communist Party as the dominate force." BruceHallman 15:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me also. --Zleitzen 15:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

New: Cuba Portal

I have created a page for a Cuba Portal. See Portal:Cuba. It is my hope it will serve as a gateway to those interested in learning about Cuba, and also as the backbone of Cuba-related articles here on Wikipedia, organizing them into a coherent, easy to navigate group of articles. I hope all persons interested in Cuba assist in its construction. takethemud 23:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)takethemud

Whitewashing

I would like to know why "communist" keeps being replaced with socialist, why the link to the cuban constitution keeps disappearing, why the human rights section keeps being truncated and why the pre-Castro economic statistics keep being removed. Please explain your whitewashing attempt. ()

It looks to me that broadscale reverts 'throw the baby out with the bath water', and that all the items you mention need to be collaboratively edited based on negotiated compromises. I think that all of us editors should agree to not tolerate indiscriminate broadscale reverts. BruceHallman 14:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Cuba is a socialist state, a republic, with the Communist Party as the dominate force. Cuba has a goal of becoming a communist society and a lot of people would agree that it appears to be failing in this regard. Cuba is not a communist state nor does Cuba have a communist government and to claim that it does would be imprecise. BruceHallman 15:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

() You removed my edits on education in Cuba. Please explain why? --Zleitzen 15:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Based on behaviour, it makes one wonder if (), aka 147.126.46.146 is not a sock puppet for Comandante. BruceHallman 15:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you can check Comandate's IP, correct? Cuba IS a communists state - it is NOT merely socialist - the term socialist is inaccurate and little more that an attempt at covering up the current state. I have tried to retain new additions when reverting from attempted whitewashing. Which edits on education are you talking about? As long as we are on education, why do the comments about the earliest universities in Cuba and the statistics about the current educational levels keep disappearing? Part of my reverts has restored this information, which seems to be disappearing. "Broadscale reverts" have occured because major edits have removed valid information, which has been replaced with non-information (brief statements lacking any facts or statistics in the place of the ones removed) or nothing at all. Major removals like this are really not at all acceptable - I see no reason why lots of information should keep disappearing and I see no reason current educational data and historical referances should not be retained. ()

"The University of Havana, Cuba's oldest university, was founded in 1721; prior to 1959 there were other official universities including : Universidad de Oriente (founded in 1947) and Universidad Central de Las Villas (founded in 1857); private universities included: Universidad Católica de Santo Tomás de Villanueva (founded in 1946); Universidad Masónica, and the Universidad de la Salle in Nuevo Vedado. In 1961 private schools and universities were nationalized (without payment), [12], [13]"

"In a 1998 study by UNESCO [14], and as explained by Fidel Castro, Havana, on September 16, 2002 [15] Cuban education progress is excellent. Cuban third and fourth graders were reportedly better educated in basic language and mathematics skills than children in other Latin American countries that took part in the study, with the "test achievement of the lower half of students in Cuba is significantly better than the test achievement of the upper half of students in the countries that (fell) immediately behind Cuba" in the study group [16]. [17]. UNESCO data is reported as “estimates compiled from national population censuses and household surveys and updated to 2005” [18]. Cuba’s literacy rates by this criteria at 15 to 24 years of age (both male and female) is 100% [19]."

- THESE KEEP BEING REMOVED FOR UNKNOWN REASONS. EXPLAIN PLEASE. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM REMOVING IN THE FUTURE. ()

Likewise with whitewashing the control of Cuba by the communist party and Castro personally - replacing "one Party" wish "soviergn socialist" is nothing but pure whitewashing.

Apologies to () for attributing a revert to you. I recommend you register, it's confusing to deal with one IP address and another user name, especially during this tedious edit war. I rewrote the education section because some of the grammar, language, sourcing and layout needed improvement and clarification. This was done to adhere to wikipedia standards, and has nothing to do with a "whitewash". --Zleitzen 17:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me (), your opinion of 'whitewash' is clearly POV. Please answer the following; Are you disputing that Cuba is 'soviergn' or a 'state'? Probably not, so we disagree on the word 'socialist' then; Does my citation for 'soviergn socialist state' , a direct quote from the Cuban constitution, not meet WP:V? Your answer is necessary, thanks in advance. BruceHallman 17:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason is I refer to it as white-washing is that it is replacing the term "One party" with a non-critical term - they are essentially trying to remove referances to Cuba being a one-party state by replacing it with other comments. There is NO reason that the single party government is not worthy of being noted and I am really appalled that people keep trying to edit it out because they don't want to see it. Zleitzen, if it need to we reworded, then reword it, don't just throw out entire studies and paragraphs of data because you don't like semantics, just fix the grammer (which I didn't even see anything wrong with) or whatever. Everyone (or most everyone) is aware that Cuba is an independant nation... repeatedly noting its "soveriegn" status doesn't really tell us anything... I don't care if it is noted somewhere that Cuba is independant, but not at the cost of REPLACING facts like "single party" (RookZERO 19:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)).

I have no idea which passages you are referring to. I was editing the Education section and have had nothing to do the editing of soveriegn status etc. --Zleitzen 02:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose the compromise wording "Cuba is a sovereign socialist state, a republic, with the Communist Party as the dominate force.", which appears to communicate your 'one party' concept, could this be acceptable to you? If not, please suggest an alternative. BruceHallman 19:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Dominant force" is way to vague; it implies a plurality of power that clearly does not apply with Cuba. As for quoting the Cuban consitution, please explain why that should carry weight here. The goal is to describe the reality of Cuba, not what the constitution states. --Bletch 00:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What needs to be done

This "()" thing should become a user and sign its entries like everyone else.
The history section of this article is far too long and very bad, and I will rewrite it tomorrow.
The "government and politics" section also needs more work, since it is full of contradictory statements.
I don't claim any expertise on Cuban culture, but these sections are also too long considering that separate articles on these subjects exist.
Overall I intend reducing this article to about half its present length. "Better fewer but better" (Lenin). Stay tuned. Adam 17:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please collaborate. Please follow WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V (and avoid relying on personal perceptions of 'truth'). You will probably need to 'soften' some of your wording to accomodate both sides of the POV. I agree with you that a rewrite is needed, I also hope that after the rewrite we can agree to remove the neutrality dispute box. Do you share the goal of removing the neutrality dispute box? BruceHallman 17:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

By my works ye shall know me. Adam 18:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is what you said earlier to my question:

"If you cannot respect opposing points of view, I understand that you are in violation of Wikipedia policy. BruceHallman 15:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)"

"I can live with that. Adam 15:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)""

I still encourage you to follow Wikipedia policy. BruceHallman 18:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea to edit down the length of this article. It would be good to start "diverting" some of the text to subarticles - I've already done some of this. Alot of times, I just copied and pasted text from this article into a new sub-article; this way we can retain all the text in a subarticle and remove all but the most relevant text from the "Cuba" article. That would make this article more readable and allow a greater amount of depth to be covered in subarticles. The History of Cuba article would be a great place to put alot of stuff from the history section, for example. I also created a Cuba portal that could use everybody's input. takethemud 18:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)takethemud

Hi. I have had an account for awhile... I'll stay signed in if it matters... which it really shouldn't. I guess it might be a good idea to move the Cuban Culture section over to the article of that name and just have a link instead of the information here. The problem with NPOV is that certain individuals don't like to follow the reality (not really POV) of the self-declared status of Cuba (as a Communist State) and keep deleting or modifying the quotes or links that to things like the Cuban constitution or Castro's speeches that support that statement in the hope of making the issue reflect more positively on the current Cuban regime. (RookZERO 19:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC))

RookZERO, when you write "...to follow the reality..." that is similar to the concept of 'truth'. Wikipedia is not about truth, (because truth varies depending on the believer). Re-read the policy WP:V which says "As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". BruceHallman 20:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Socialist or Communist

How about both?

Cuba is a socialist republic which has been ruled by a Communist party since ....

I think the form of government is important enough to go somewhere in the intro.

I also realize that for many decades Communists have quibbled about terminology: "the free world ain't free", etc.

One of the good things about Wikipedia is that is brings clarity to every topic. So if any particular group of advocates intentionally uses obscure jargon to hide their real (and sinister) meaning, we need not cooperate with that. It's not taking sides against someone's point of view to clarify what their POV is.

Cuba is about Castro being in control, and imposing a socialist economy on the people, whethere they like it or not. It's not a democracy, i.e., not a "republic" in the usual sense of the word. It's a dictatorship (see Totalitarianism).

By "Communist", writers in the West generally mean rule by a Communist Party or "workers party" having a strong commitment to "Communist philosophy" (see Marxism-Leninism).

Any quibbles that Cuba isn't "Communist" can be explained in this light:

Officially, Cuba calls its form of government (or economy or whatever) "socialist".
Western analysts call its form of government "Communist"

Let's not play word games; let's just write as objectivel and fairly and accurately as we can. --Uncle Ed 17:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your summary of your POV, though it is not a NPOV. I agree that one stratagy to achieve neutrality is to include both POV's, and that could be an acceptable compromise as far as I am concerned. BruceHallman 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Do any editors have issues with the below statement

"Cuba is a socialist republic, in which the Communist Party of Cuba is the leading force of society and the state."--Zleitzen 18:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

To Bruce: sometimes the best way to begin a collaboration is to announce frankly one's own beliefs. I've been devotedly anti-communist since my youth.

To Zleitzen: your wording is definitely better than mine. Let's wait a bit, then if no objections arise ... go for it! --Uncle Ed 19:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, I appreciate and respect your POV. The Zleitzen wording appears NPOV to me. BruceHallman 19:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

All due respect to you all, Castro declares himself a Communist (NOT a socialist) and rejected the "comprimised socialism" and "revisionist socialism" and "incomplete communism" (His words) of some of his early allies. Socialism is NOT the same as communism. Socialist economies are NOT AT ALL the same as communist ones. I don't know how this still needs to be debated. For crying out loud... why are people trying to use terms that Castro himself, and the COMMUNIST party themselves disagree with? The term "socialist republic" is simply wrong as a point of fact, the term "socialist" applied the economy is simply a bold-faced lie. I really cannot believe that there is anyone so crazy that this even needs to be debated. ()

(), I am confused by the logic of your argument, it appears that you are mixing criticism and descriptions of Fidel Castro with a discussion of the description of Cuba. Fidel Castro is not Cuba. BruceHallman 20:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this can be cleared up if you answer the question; Does the Cuban Constitution qualify as a verifiable source as defined by WP:V? BruceHallman 20:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately we cannot use my phrase. Because it comes from The Encyclopedia of the Nations" [20]. Also see my comments from Encyclopedia Britannica and check the definition of Cuba as a Socialist Republic there. () I suggest you open a debate with those two institutions about their "craziness". --Zleitzen 20:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

() has been blocked for not following the WP rule on signing. Also blocked for repeated WP:NPOV. --Scott Grayban 20:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently El Jigue is due to be banned again

I just received the following

"

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Cuba, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Scott Grayban 18:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)"

I have asked Sgrayban as to nature of my alleged "Vandalism" but have not yet received an answer. El Jigue 4-10-06

I did reply. Your edits have been one of the disputes on this talk page between the words communist and socialist. The majority have to rule on this first and seeing that in prior discussions on another user here this has not been resolved yet. --Scott Grayban 19:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

147.126.46.145 revert

147.126.46.145, while I can appreciate your intentions, your revert removed my good faith attempt to bring neutrality to the " Cuba is the only Communist state in the Western hemisphere and is now the only state in the hemisphere which is not a democracy." sentence, through discussion and collaboration. Are you willing to discuss this sentence? Can you propose alternate compromise, more NPOV wording? Your unexplained revert appears to not be collaborative and has the effect of an edit war. BruceHallman 19:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and put it back in. I have painted with a rather broad brush to remove certain attempts at removing critical information... I'm sorry if I didn't retain or restore your sentance. I don't have any objection to the wording of that statement and won't object to you puting that statement back in. I'm trying to keep other stuff from getting deleted out.

The original data for Cuban education papers comes entirely from Cuban goverments sources

Perusal of the bibliography of papers on Cuban educational progress appears to suggest that such studies derive their original data e.g. [21] exclusively from Cuban government sources. El Jigue 4-13-06

I guess El Jigue is implying that 'Cuban government sources' should be disqualified out of hand as being eligible to meet a credibilty threshold per WP:V. If this is true we should discuss that criteria because it has a risk of being POV. A similar contrary argument could hypothetically be made for CIA based sources, or Anti-Castro organization based sources. BruceHallman 21:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce your point of view could be considered pseudo Albiginese in that good and evil are found equivalent. In this concept of yours Castro's repressive society where dissent is punished is found equivalent to modern democracies where all data may be challenged. Thus the data from the Cuban government is viewed equally to the compendium of view points in the democratic market place of ideas. Thus NPOV by this definition of necessity pseudo Albiginese. El Jigue 4-13-04

Please explain your edits to the education section, and how they improve the article. Why are there now 2 paragraphs detailing the same study. Why are there now 2 sentences which say all "students regardless of age and gender wear school uniforms". Please bear in mind that I have tried to rework this section 4 times because of these repeated edits. --Zleitzen 20:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If it wasn't you who did this, El Jigue then I suggest you register and use 1 name to avoid future confusions which may lead to blocks or bans. --Zleitzen 21:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

scott post

Listen up all you great editors, Comandante has gotten a 24 hour ban for revert warring on the article so I would make the best of that time and get this article in shape. There are alot of POV still that need attention. I'd start editing like mad. I know there are few here that are great at writing and I hope you make the most of this time. --Scott Grayban 13:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

People should argue less and edit more, then this page wouldn't fill up so quickly. Adam 03:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Users should respect and adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines first and foremost, Adam. (see mediation on this matter). --Zleitzen 13:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets see, I guess Zleitzen likes the name calling and rude behaviour by other users and the constant arguing that goes on here and reverts my changes so I'll stop patrolling this article and talk pages for vandal and rude/nasty comments made and I'll pass along to the admin here that your not interested in a good article but a revert war that gets zip done and half if not a quarter good article. Real sad you know. Don't come to us or other admin when you have problems then. Eventually the article will be put up for deletetion at the rate this article is going. --Scott Grayban 15:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Scott, you removed comments relevant to the discussion, not just the personal attack of the user below. Your comments above do not assume good faith. I repeat the above, Users should respect and adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines first and foremost.

The removal of personal attacks must have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly. [22]

--Zleitzen 15:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Let see today:

German communist remarks were inserted
citation pointing out that the data supporting Castro's claims for education were from Cuban government source was removed
pointing by book titles that Cuban culture is world wide was removed
mention of Graham Greene's novel Our Man in Havana predicting the missile crisis were deleted, apparently because he was "British." However Hemingway's were retained well so was Stephen Crane's but then I put that in too.
Now I see (below) an apparent assertion that Cuba is democratic (that must be from some follower of Arnold August).
Phillip Agee is no longer a CIA defector but a political refugee
the absurdly short sessions and lack of real power of the National Assembly has again been covered up
"Cuba is a socialist republic, in which the Communist Party of Cuba is the leading force of society and the state" was inserted
Although based upon words of the Cuban government "The brains of educated Cubans are an important resource for the Cuban State, and thus as becoming a socialist state they are the property of the government, and export of such is strictly regulated [23]."

was deleted. Busy Busy Busy Go guys go! By the time you have finished, there will be nothing left of balance in this section. Only praise to the gods of marxist ideology. xe xe El Jigue 4-13-05

citation pointing out that the data supporting Castro's claims for education were from Cuban government source was removed.

Good faith removal. They referred to a different study, not the UNISCO study mentioned in the article.

"The brains of educated Cubans..." was deleted

Good faith removal. Had no quote marks etc, and gave no impression that this was a statement from Cuban Government.

"Cuba is a socialist republic etc"

Inserted in line with the Cuban constitution, other encyclopedia descriptions (Britannica etc), foreign language Wikipedia pages and much talk page discussion seeking consensus. --Zleitzen 13:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Democracy

Bletch, You wrote that Cuba is not a democracy, would you please provide a citation per WP:V. BruceHallman 04:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't need to. A democracy is a country in which the people are able to choose their government through free elections. Cuban law forbids any political party other than the Communist Party. Therefore there can be no free elections, therefore Cuba is not a democracy. QED. Adam 04:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam: Yes, editors on Wikipedia must provide citations, please see WP:V. BruceHallman 14:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Bletch: I see that someone edited out your 'Cuba is not a democracy', and you reverted it back, while during the same time you have not entered into a discussion here as to the verifyable reason for your edit. Perhaps there is an explanation I don't see, but the appearance is that you are editing in violation of Wikipedia policy, and as such you are causing harm to Wikipedia. Please explain yourself, and please stop your rogue editing. BruceHallman 14:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

To all: I hope we share the goal finding compromise between the POV's so that someday we can remove the neutrality dispute box. BruceHallman 14:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

To those bent on editing in their specific POV's: Read the Wikipedia policy pages again, specifically the part about 'ownership'. None of us own this article, we must share and collaborate. BruceHallman 14:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 'Cuba is not a democracy': I just did a Google search on 'Cuba democratic' and get a huge number of hits, and see that the vast concensus is split between Cuba is a bad democracy and Cuba is a good democracy and there is widespread agreement that Cuba is either a good or a bad democracy. I don't see even a small minority that say it is not at least a bad democracy, and I remind everyone that even a 'bad democracy' is a type of democracy. Perhaps the 'neutral' solution is to relocate the discussion about Cuban democracy from the front paragraph to a section down lower so we can discuss the good and the bad qualities of Cuban democracy in enough depth. It is impossible to do that in a single sentence up top. BruceHallman 14:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to question edits and comments via talk page Adam, but could you (and Bletch) provide a citation. If editors are to take the task of editing an encyclopedia seriously then it may be educational to examine descriptions in other encyclopedias such as Encarta;

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.[24]--Zleitzen 13:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This would seem the correct encyclopedic NPOV approach if one wishes to discuss Cuban democracy in the article. --Zleitzen 13:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam they are going to trundle out that old chestnut of Arnold August, the Canadian communist who is a tourist guide in Havana. Xe xe El Jigue 4-13-06

El Jigue, you are writing of 'they', but actually you should be viewing this as 'we'. We are trying to edit this article together. I am not your enemy, I am a co-editor with you. BruceHallman 14:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that the article itself states that the Communist Party is the sole legal political entity, that is enough to justify the comment about Cuba not being a democracy. --Bletch 12:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuban "elections"

Here are some materials on the 1998 Cuban "elections", from this source:

January 11: provincial and national assemblies election

August 1999: "The role and work of the candidacy commissions towards the January 11, 1998 elections to the national and provincial assemblies" (pages 299-317). "The electoral campaign for the national assembly and the provincial assemblies, November 29-January 10" (pages 317-354). "The January 11, 1998 elections" (pages 354-364). In this election there are two ballots, one "is to vote for the deputies to the National Assembly, and the other one is for the election of delegates to the provincial assembly in which the vote takes place" (page 354). "1998 election results for the National Assembly" (page 363). Gives by province the percent of valid votes, percent of blank ballots, and percent of spoiled ballots.

Azicri 2000: "The regime asked for a unified vote in the 1998 parliamentary elections for 601 delegates to the National Assembly and 1,192 deputies to the Provincial Organs of People's Power. The elections were also rated as a national referendum on the nation's socialist system. As in 1993, the regime claimed electoral victory. Almost all (98.35 percent) of the 8 million plus registered voters went to the polls. Ninety-five percent of the 7,534,008 votes cast were valid, but 130,227 (1.64 percent) were void and 266,379 (.3.36 percent) were blank-5 percent of the total ballots signified a lower negative vote than in 1993" (page 119). Gives additional statistics. "In the 1998 National Assembly there were 166 women (27.6%) and 435 men (72.3%), for a total membership of 601" (page 313). Describes their "social composition."

Chronicle of parliamentary elections and developments 32 1999: Describes the purpose of the elections, the electoral system, the background and outcome of the elections, and statistics (pages 57-59). "According to the Electoral Law, there is one Deputy for every 20,000 inhabitants or fraction above 10,000 in each of the country's 169 municipalities" (page 57). "The 1998 parliamentary elections were held simultaneously with polling for 1,192 representatives to the country's 14 provincial assemblies. For the expanded National Assembly's 601 seats (up from 589), an identical number of candidatures were finally approved, after screening, by the National Candidature Commission. While not all were members of the ruling and sole political organization - the Communist Party of Cuba - they backed the policies of the Government" (page 58). Statistics include "results of the elections," "distribution of seats according to category," "distribution of seats according to sex," and "distribution of seats according to age" (page 59).

Country report. Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Puerto Rico 1997, 3: "Although the conduct of the secret ballot in the national elections is scrupulously fair, voters only have one candidate. The results will show the number of spoilt papers and abstentions, which provides a barometer of popular support for the government. After seven years of severe economic hardship, the government is likely to have to admit a diminuition of support" (page 12).

Country report. Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Puerto Rico 1998, 1: "The results of the January elections have been cited by the government as a popular endorsement. There continues to be a firm rejection of any suggestion of the legalisation of opposition political parties. However, such rigidity contrasts with the clear increase in the space granted for religious activities, and a gradual transformation of economic, social and political culture arising from economic adjustment" (page 7). "Elections were held for the national and municipal [should say provincial] assemblies on January 11th, following unprecedented electioneering by the government. The vote is an endorsement of pre-selected candidates rather than a choice between rivals. Half of the candidates are nominated at public meetings before gaining approval from electoral committees, while the other half are nominated by official mass organisations (such as trade unions, farmers organisations and students unions). A turnout of 98.4% of registered voters was reported. Of the total votes, 5% of ballot papers were left blank or spoiled. The sum of abstentions, spoiled and blank votes was therefore only 6.5% of the total electorate. A further 5.6% chose to vote for some of the candidates (a 'selective vote') rather than endorsing all of them on a slate (a 'united vote'), as called for in the election campaign. Subtracting all the possible choices which might be interpreted as rejection of the government, 88.2% of the electorate were reported to have obediently opted for the united vote" (page 10). "The government claims that the elections represent a show of popular support, but its critics have attributed the result instead to fear or apathy on the part of those who do not support the government. They suspect that the result may reflect electoral engineering (in constituencies known to have a high proportion of voters who are more inclined to express dissatisfaction by registering blank or spoiled votes, the candidates offered tend to be highly respected local figures not associated closely with the government), the lack of independent supervision of the count or the barrage of propaganda. They also point out that the system of selection of candidates effectively excludes any truly independent voices" (page 11).

Keesing's record of world events January 1998: "The second direct election of deputies to the enlarged National Assembly of People's Power (ANPP), the Cuban unicameral legislature, was held on Jan. 11. Only candidates nominated by the PCC were permitted to contest the election. Figures issued by the National Electoral Commission showed that all 601 candidates for the 601 posts had obtained the necessary 50 per cent of the votes to be elected. The turnout amongst the 8 million registered voters was officially put at 98.35 per cent. Elections were also held on Jan. 11 to fill 1,192 seats in 14 provincial assemblies" (page 42006).

Prevost 2002: "The trends evidenced in the 1993 elections continued in 1998. There was an overall participation rate in excess of 98 percent. Nationally, 95 percent of the votes cast were judged to be valid, with only 3.3 percent blank and 1.7 percent spoiled. As in 1993 there had been strong calls from those outside Cuba who oppose the revolution for voters to use the occasion to voice opposition to the process; there is no evidence that such a protest occurred. The process of passing on political power to a new generation continued, as two-thirds of the National Assembly delegates were elected for the first time; 28 percent were women. The transition at the level of top leadership also continued, with 45 percent of the Council of State becoming members of this body for the first time" (page 351).

El proceso electoral en Cuba: 1992-1998 1998: "Quinta legislatura 1998-2003: esta legislatura está compuesta por 601 diputados, los que eligieron la Presidencia de la ANPP y el Consejo de Estado" (page 4). Lists officers. "Elecciones generales de 1998" (pages 111-197). Reproduces articles from Cuban publications, including election results and the name of each deputy with the district they represent and the percent of the vote they received.

Roman 1999: "After the...1998 [election], the percentage of deputies who belonged to the [PCC] was a little over 70 percent" (page 94). "Of the 601 National Assembly candidates for the 1998 elections, 145 (24.1 percent) were production or service sector workers; 278 (46.25 percent) were municipal delegates, including 90 presidents and vice presidents of 'consejos populares'; 166 (27.62 percent) were female, which was an increase of 32, and 209 (34.8 percent) were incumbents" (page 138).

Adam 05:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting

I have written a new history section. It is longer than I had hoped, but probably not long enough to replace the History of Cuba article, which no doubt requires rewriting as badly as this one did. Thanks for the opportunity to learn more about Cuban history, by the way.
I have fixed up the Government and Politics section.
The Culture section is awful and needs rewriting, but this is not my field. However, if no-one else does it soon, I will just copy some stuff from my trusty Funk and Wagnalls, which will at least be literate.
The religion section is also very bad - was this whole article originally written by a 10-year-old?
I have corrected the translation of "Patria y Libertad" (a rather elementary error I would have thought, why did no-one else spot it?)
I have changed the info box back to "Republic" - this is correct, simple, and non-controversial.

Hasta la vista, Adam 11:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked at this quick and will look more closely later, though I agree this is an improvment to this section, thanks. BruceHallman 14:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work. The article is now in remarkably better shape. 172 | Talk 12:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed some statements some would believe to be POV; added some links and new info; and provided info on Elections from the Elections in Cuba article. Comandante 13:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me see

that brains thing as humorous as it was is a quote from the Cuban officials (obviously some one did not read citation)
DNA studies indicate Taino line did not die out I took the trouble to get my mother's mitochondrial DNA tested because this information is found in the literature as was cited until you guys diddled it
that fatherland stuff is idiotic, Cubans regard the country female

This list foes on endlessly * I quit after you idiots are insisting Cuba is now a democracy I really wish it was so. El Jigue 4-14-06

The heat

Heated discussion aside, can everyone take a deep breath, and look at the article? I think we all can agree that the article doesn't match anybody's personal point of view, but that overall it is a really good article and that it is moving towards a central 'neutral point' between all the points of view. BruceHallman 15:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article is moving forward, Adam's edits and Commandante's latest revisions have improved the article considerably. --Zleitzen 15:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, although some POV issues remain which should be worked out, they are small enough that I would support the removal of the neutrality dispute tag based on the status of the article now. BruceHallman 16:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The contentious issues that prompted me to put a neutrality dispute tag have been resolved, for now at least. These were in the opening paragraph and the infobox, so I'm now prepared to remove the tag. --Zleitzen 18:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Grayban flexing his metaphorical muscles

Insulting will get a block as well. It violates the Wikipedia:Civility --Scott Grayban 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

writes:

Blocks User talk:205.240.227.15 [25]

Is there some hidden anger you have? Calling people idiots and such is not helping the issue at ahnd on Cuba. Now this is the last time I'll warn you about your actions on WikiPedia. They are not constructive and you could use your efforts to write a draft up and post it in a sandbox for others to see and read. Instead your obnoxious and rude to everyone because they don't see it your way. Real sad. No more warnings after this one. Next time its just going to be a block for a few weeks. --Scott Grayban 14:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

What Sgrayban does not realize that idiot as in “useful idiot” or “useful fool” is a technical term in political discourse as in Mona Sharon’s 1993 book Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First Regnery Publishing, Inc. ISBN 0895261391. (reviews at [26]). The term is in constant use e.g. [27] [28] even if Wikipedia does not fully agree Useful idiot. One of the most prominent of these Useful Idiots was Walter Duranty [29].

As stated above, it violates the Wikipedia:Civility --Scott Grayban 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

One notes that Grayban does not threaten Comandante when he calls names such as terrorist mafia etc, (apparently comandate’s revision history has been purged from Wikipedia [30] but hey but such inequality “la ley del embudo” is par for the course here it seems. Supposedly banned for 24 hours Comandante is back at it.

Your right I got him blocked for doing that. --Scott Grayban 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As to being angry, perhaps if you had risked your life for freedom in Cuba, with the bullets flying over your head, and wounding and killing those beside, and then find all you property taken, been imprisoned, seeing, and at times even burying, the executed, and then exiled for endless decades a given person, perhaps even you, would be somewhat perturbed. El Jigue 4-14-06

I have been through more then what you can believe. --Scott Grayban 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Grayban following Wikipedia principals please document what ever trauma you went through, thus we can be sure of your expertise on Cuba El Jigue 4-14-06

If the people working on this article can not be civil, that means name calling even in talk pages, is a violation of the Wikipedia:Civility. --Scott Grayban 17:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

El Jigue wrote: "...perhaps if you had risked your life...". I respect that tremendously, but I don't agree that having 'risked your life' gives a priority over other editors at Wikipedia, or gives a right to be uncivil etc.. BruceHallman 17:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Civility violations

For those of you that think I am flexing should read Wikipedia:Civility#General_suggestions before they make another rude comment on this talk page. It is a blocking offense. This talk page has been riddled with it and I have tried to curb those flame war's and revert's but I am just near the end of it and ready to get a admin to deal with the ones that don't wont to play nice here. --Scott Grayban 17:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sure this will be done most selectively (:>) xe xe El Jigue 4-14-06

I appreciate all efforts to bring civility to this, including from Scott Grayban. Even though we deeply disagree with each other on the politics of this, it is possible to respect each other as people. Don't forget, in the end, we need to collaborate. Objectifying each other only slows that down. BruceHallman 17:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There are gross errors in

"The 1952 election, was contested between Roberto Agramonte of the liberals and Batista, who was seeking a return to office. When it became apparent that Batista had no chance of winning, he staged a coup on 10 March 1952, and held power with the backing of a nationalist section of the army, and of the Communists, as a “provisional president” for the next two years. In 1954, under pressure from the U.S., he agreed to elections. The liberals put forward ex-President Grau as their candidate, but he withdrew amid allegations that Batista was rigging the elections in advance. Batista could now claim to be an elected President, and his regime tolerated a considerable amount of dissent. By Latin American standards, Batista was a very mild dictator." For instance the Liberal party was long gone by this time, it was an election mainly between the "Autenticos" and the "Ortodoxo" Revolutionary Parties.

This could be fixed, I could do it, but others are sure to inject further nonsense. So you guys fix it. El Jigue 4-14-06

From WP:Block Log =>18:02, 14 April 2006 Cyde blocked "205.240.227.15 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (Exhausting the community's patience.)

That IP, I believe is El Jigue. Hopefully El Jigue will return with a sense of civility and cooperation, because on those terms I would welcome him around here. BruceHallman 18:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to help. Just point to what you need help in. Maybe we can get this article out of POV status and get it peer reviewed. --Scott Grayban 18:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A peer review would be helpful, Scott Grayban. Individual POV issues such as the above just need to be hammered out with consensus and a degree of reason. Keeping consistent NPOV over a longer period is a deeper issue that requires some analysis. I'm attempting to create a discussion about this page within the WikiProject Countering systemic bias.--Zleitzen 18:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

After I get some sleep here I'll mull over the article and get some good editors to take a look at it from our CVU team. We have some good ones there that might be able to help on getting that main issue out of the way. So much work but it can be done. --Scott Grayban 19:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Patria y Libertad

"Patria" means "homeland" in Spanish, not "patriotism", as any Spanish speaker or English-Spanish dictionary will confirm. "Patriotism" is "patriotismo" in Spanish. Who keeps changing the English translation to say "patrioitism" in the article? Kwertii 18:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought it actually meant Mother country and Freedom... atleast my rusty spanish says so. --Scott Grayban 19:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure its fatherland [31]--Zleitzen 19:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC). Take a look at this translation of the Mexican anthem [32].--Zleitzen 19:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you try http://translate.google.com ? It says 'Mother country' and seems very credible. Considering that Fatherland seems offensive (I recall) to some spanish speaking people, (though perhaps not offensive to an english speaker). Also considering that the first impression I get when I hear of 'Fatherland' is Nazi Germany, oh well, what do I know. I suggest that 'Mother country' should be used just to be safe considering that http://translate.google.com is an excellent verifiably source. Although 'homeland' might be the safest compromise, pretty accurate and neutral. BruceHallman 20:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Patria" means something along the lines of "the physical country plus all the cultural traditions and customs of the inhabitants of the country." My dictionary here (Simon and Schuster's International Dictionary English/Spanish Spanish/English) says "country, native land, fatherland, motherland". During and after World War II, the word "fatherland" in English became indelibly associated with Nazi Germany, so I think that translation would be perjorative at best. I don't like "country" because that word is more associated with just the physical land area in English; "patria" means more than that. "Motherland" is extremely unusual in English. I vote for "homeland"; that seems to me the closest English word that captures the sense of "patria". (In any event, it doesn't mean "patriotism".) Kwertii 20:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I was confident that Cuba was one of a number of countries that is referred to as a "fatherland" when translated to English. This group includes all sorts of nations; Norway, Netherlands, and and so on. However, the more I look into the more ambiguous it becomes. I believe that for accuracy it should be "fatherland" (Castros's oft-quoted "fatherland or death" speech etc) but for avoiding controversy it may be worth using "homeland" as the two are interchangeable in translation. --Zleitzen 20:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As a native English speaker, I can assure you that nobody ever uses "fatherland" in English nowadays unless they want to evoke Nazi Germany. For example, the Department of Homeland Security in the US is sometimes disparagingly referred to as the "Department of Fatherland Security" by US leftists. Kwertii 23:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked into it in any great amount of detail, but I would speculate that the "fatherland or death" translation was done (at least originally) by people who wanted to create a subtle link between Castro and Nazis in the minds of the American public. Kwertii 23:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope that I'm not coming off as abrasive, but I am a native English speaker, and I can attest that there isn't an equivalence between "fatherland" and and the Nazis among educated people. Myriad languages explicitly "regard" the concept of homeland as masculine. The people that have that association (typically Americans that havn't travelled around much) are probably the same people that see Buddhist swastikas and think "Nazi" as well. That said, "homeland" might be a better translation for unrelated reasons. My Spanish is pretty poor, but my guess is that "patria" is used simply because (IIRC) there isn't a neuter form for that word in that language. Given that English has a neuter form for that concept, "homeland" seems more appropriate. --Bletch 11:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is extraordinarily condescending, firstly ("among educated people"?); and also inaccurate. When was the last time you saw the word "fatherland" used in any English newspaper or magazine where it was not referring to Nazis? Just do a Google search for "fatherland"; the overwhelming majority of the uses explicitly refer to Nazi Germany, and most of the rest are literal translations from other languages where the term "fatherland" does not bear any Nazi connotations. Kwertii 22:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Patria

The fact is that patria derives from the Latin pater, father, so it is correctly translated as "fatherland." This has nothing to do with Nazis, and I am not American, so spare me your childish political insults. If the Cubans want to consider their country as a female then should make their slogan "Matria y Libertad". That said, I have no objection to rendering it "homeland" if that is less offensive to politically-correct gender-neutralist ears. Adam 00:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend to insult you, and I presume you didn't intend to insult me. BruceHallman 03:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess I will continue to need to presume whether "so spare me your childish political insults" expression is an intentional insult or not. Regardless, your pater = father translation logic about "fatherland" disagrees with http://translate.google.com so it would be best in you would address your criticism to them. BruceHallman 15:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should use the translation that is correct so that the integrity remains. We maynot agree with it but I don't want to see there Motto distorted so it says something its not in English. That said I have never heard of a latin country refer to its country as a "father" but as a "mother". --Scott Grayban 07:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue is ambiguous, despite Adam's assertions. The Latin motto "Pro Rege Et Patria" used widely on English crests is translated as "for king and country" and not "for king and fatherland". Likewise the motto "Pro deo et patria" (For God and Country).

Patria (v. Patriarchal) is from the latin Pater (which became Padre in castillian)... you have Father (masc.) -Patr- as a modifier of the noun Land (FEM.) -ia-... that is why Patria (My Father's Land) takes LA... Patria is feminine, but it means Fatherland ([to El Jigue:] from the cojonudos romans, not teutons... you've fallen for the "little dictator" making-fun antics of yankis)... the cuban's "Madre Patria" is spain, not cuba... he dies for his father's LAND, LA PATRIA... o carioca --200.142.180.66 21:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Balancing cause of human rights POV paragraphs.

"Supporters of the Cuban government will often compare the human rights record to the authoritarian rule under the previous U.S. backed regime of Fulgencio Batista, and they argue that the overall current situation would have been far better if not for U.S. sanctions."

"However, the opposition argues that U.S. sanctions do not justify the communist government’s prohibitions on free speech^{[citation needed]}, free business^{[citation needed]}, its violations on human rights^{[citation needed]}, or the prohibition of personal property^{[citation needed]} for Cubans, arguing that these are purposely done as control tactics."

I agree that it makes sense to balance the POV of the first paragraph with the POV of the second paragraph. The first paragraph essentially makes one statement, 'Batista' was authoritarian, followed by a POV argument the U.S. sanctions have detrimental effect on human rights in Cuba.

While the second new paragraph with an opposing view describes four 'facts', prohibition on free speech, (disputed and not agreed), free business (it doesn't acknowledge recent liberalization of private business), violations of human rights (again does not recognize modern improvements in human rights), personal property (mostly not true, as most personal property is allowed) followed by a POV argument about control tactics.

(I admit my personal POV biases), but the first POV paragraph has one verified and agreed 'fact', and the second paragraph has four generally unverified 'facts'. These simply do not balance.

The two POV arguments do approximately balance. I support balancing the POV's here, but the four unverified 'facts' do not balance. BruceHallman 03:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Would the anonymous user 12.77.118.102 who made the 01:01, 15 April 2006 "However the opposition..." POV edit please identify himself or herself? BruceHallman 04:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally I prefer to see notable cited sources embedded into the article for these types of statements (if available). They can help reduce the potential for POV accusations etc. We are characterising a debate, so it may also be worth combining opposing statements into one depiction. A rough example would be something like this.

there is on going debate over the role of US sanctions on the record of human rights in Cuba, in 2002 The Human Rights council argued that the current situation would have been far better if not for U.S. sanctions[33]. Whilst the Liberty Council assert that the sanctions are purposely done as control tactics.[34]

This is just my personal preference, though. And it does requires research and editing of both sides of the POV. --Zleitzen 05:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

Are we ready for a 1st round peer review yet? --Scott Grayban 07:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Who are these "peers"? Some further comments:

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. Adam 08:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What problems do you have with the religion section, Adam? --Zleitzen 10:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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? --Scott Grayban 08:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

More info about Peer Reviews is at Wikipedia:Peer_review --Scott Grayban 09:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I would welcome a peer review. BruceHallman 15:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

User Bletch

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.[http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569844_7/Cuba.html#s124--Zleitzen 12:16, 15 April 2006 (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" --Scott Grayban 12:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Democracy 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. --Zleitzen 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? --Scott Grayban 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. --Scott Grayban 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. --Scott Grayban 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? --Zleitzen 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? --Zleitzen 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.

--Scott Grayban 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". --Zleitzen 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 democracy." 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? --Scott Grayban 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. --Scott Grayban 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. Comandante 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. --Scott Grayban 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. [35] --Zleitzen 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. --Scott Grayban 14:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica [36] alongside the above mentioned legally binding Cuban Constitution --Zleitzen 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. --Bletch 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.--Zleitzen 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. --Scott Grayban 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? --Bletch 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. --Scott Grayban 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. --Bletch 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. --Scott Grayban 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?--Zleitzen 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. --Scott Grayban 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!)--Zleitzen 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. --Scott Grayban 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 Wikipedia 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. BruceHallman 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 WP:3RR here. Comandante is looking for such a ban. --Scott Grayban 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? Comandante 14:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Scott discussed a ban concerning Adam's revert above, Commandante. I see no bias here. --Zleitzen 14:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have told him to stop as well. I'll do it again too Bletch if you revert or change this article in any manner other then to remove vandalism I'll have you blocked from here. This WP:3RR blantant violation will stop one way or another. --Scott Grayban 14:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Bletch just reverted the article. Comandante 14:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to accept that the days of communist rule over this article are over. Adam 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. Comandante 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. --Bletch 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? Comandante 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. --Scott Grayban 14:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Last 3RR warning

I just issued the last WP:3RR 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

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

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. BruceHallman 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. --Bletch 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. 172 | Talk 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.--Zleitzen 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. 172 | Talk 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. --Scott Grayban 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. BruceHallman 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, not us individual editors. 172 | Talk 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.--Zleitzen 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 --Scott Grayban 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. --Zleitzen 16:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen and Sgrayban, you guys can drop the argument about Britannica. Zleitzen is free to cite it because Wikipedia 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. 172 | Talk 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. --Scott Grayban 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. 172 | Talk 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? BruceHallman 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" [37], 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. 172 | Talk 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. BruceHallman 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. 172 | Talk 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. BruceHallman 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 systemic bias problem that pervades Wikipedia. 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? BruceHallman 16:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me --Scott Grayban 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. 172 | Talk 16:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

BruceHallman, 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". --Bletch 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.) BruceHallman 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. BruceHallman 19:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

BruceHallman, 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. --Bletch 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. BruceHallman 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. 172 | Talk 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 George W. Bush, Fox News and billionaire CEOs), 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 Sahara and the Sun 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. --Bletch 14:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Bletch, Wikipedia 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. BruceHallman 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. BruceHallman 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. --Zleitzen 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. --Zleitzen 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. BruceHallman 17:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen, I do not think that anyone here has attempted to apply a strict application of US constitutional standards. For what it is worth, the person that rewrote the paragraph in question is Australian. --Bletch 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 --Scott Grayban 16:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Support BruceHallman 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. 172 | Talk 16:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sgrayban, do not remove my comment again, as you did here. 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. 172 | Talk 17:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

mediation cabal

Hello all -- I am here as part of the medcabal 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? [38] If the former, what is the main locus of the dispute?

Sdedeo (tips) 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. BruceHallman 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sdedeo for answering the call. I support BruceHallman's statement above. --Zleitzen 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 WP:NPOV (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? Sdedeo (tips) 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. BruceHallman 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 Wikipedia policys. BruceHallman 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. --Bletch 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 Wikipedia:policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V? I don't recall you ever publicly stating your commitment to comply with Wikipedia policies. BruceHallman 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? Sdedeo (tips) 20:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, the Cuban Constitution [39]. 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. BruceHallman 21:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, now we need some folks to weigh in with sources that declare Cuba is not a democracy. Sdedeo (tips) 21:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Argentina has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
Bolivia has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
Brazil has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
Chile has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
Colombia has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
Costa Rica has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
Cuba has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters do not have a choice of candidates.
Dominican Republic has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
Ecuador has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
El Salvador has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
Guatemala has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
Haiti, even poor Haiti, for all its woes, now has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
Honduras has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
Mexico has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
Nicaragua has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
Panama has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
Paraguay has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
Peru has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
Uruguay has a president and congress chosen at elections in which voters have a choice of candidates.
Venezuela 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? Adam 01:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the above list answers the question posed, Adam. --Zleitzen 01:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please answer the question Adam. BruceHallman 01:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I notice you left the United States off the list, perhaps because the President is elected by the Electoral College, 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. BruceHallman 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. BruceHallman 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. Adam 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. --Scott Grayban 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[40] absolutely proves his willing to do anything to hurt the colabrative NPOV working on this article. --Scott Grayban 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. BruceHallman 03:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)