Talk:Cuba/Archive 6

message: Are we ready for a 1st round peer review yet? --Scott Grayban 07:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What problems do you have with the religion section, Adam? --Zleitzen 10:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: More info about Peer Reviews is at Wikipedia:Peer_review --Scott Grayban 09:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would welcome a peer review. BruceHallman 15:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  User Bletch 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The next revert will get this article protected 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Since you don't appear to know much about how contemporary Western social scientists understand democracy, I recommend reading David Collier and Steven Levitsky, "Democracy with Adjectives" , which offers a broad overview by two of the leading scholars on democracy that I often assign undergrads. Note Collier and Levitsky's discussion of a "procedural minimum" for democracy. 172 | Talk 07:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bletch:"...the question was whether it is a democracy or not..." 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vote requested 

message: Support --Scott Grayban 16:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Oppose

message: 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?  If the former, what is the main locus of the dispute?
Sdedeo (tips) 20:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks Sdedeo for answering the call. I support BruceHallman's statement above. --Zleitzen 22:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Certainly, the Cuban Constitution .  Though it might not be proper for me to state the opposing point of view, but I see that they believe that because the Cuban elections are 'not fair' that therefore the Cuban electoral system is not a democracy. BruceHallman 21:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't believe the above list answers the question posed, Adam. --Zleitzen 01:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please answer the question Adam. BruceHallman 01:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: And I 100% oppose that Adam be allowed to edit on this article seeing that his post on my talk page absolutely proves his willing to do anything to hurt the colabrative NPOV working on this article. --Scott Grayban 02:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: mediation cabal

message: I am going to repeat this question: we need some folks to weigh in with sources that declare Cuba is not a democracy.
Just to be explicit, we need external sources: e.g., Amnesty International? Some other human rights group? Another government?
We can't proceed without this.
Sdedeo (tips) 05:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add to your list of range of POV's that of Reverend Lucius  Walker, President of Pasters for Peace who is quoted as saying of Cuban elections as being "...the most democratic in the world.".  I cannot say that I agree with his POV, but he is a well known and recognized community leader in the USA who is an authority on Cuba. BruceHallman 23:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found this European Union report from the net   which I believe solves many of the wording issues on this article, and also carries a brief description of Cuba's electoral system, history and human rights etc. To my mind, the tone of this report should be the direction this article should be taking (alongside the other encyclopedia articles I have been quoting as examples on these pages). I recommend that all editors of this article examine it's contents. --Zleitzen 00:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good article. Very first statement there "Cuba has a one-party political system where the Communist Party of Cuba holds the monopoly of political power." is exactly what I have said in the past. However, the article does seem to a bit overzealous on personal POV's and not a general consenses. Even though they label Fidel as head of everything they leave out the current political actions where in a study from Columbia clearly shows a "democracy" even if its a very weak one. You can't argue that just because Fidel is head of everything its not a "democracy" nore is a one party country as others want to suggest. If that was the case there would "zero" other candidates and certainly not "voting by secret ballot" because that would certainly undermine the statement of a sole one party socialist state. --Scott Grayban 01:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Adam and I agree. It also supports the statement in the opening paragraph of this article "Cuba is a socialist republic, in which the Communist Party of Cuba is the sole legal political party". So I hope everyones OK with that one? --Zleitzen 01:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem. As for the second wording issue "Cuba is the only country in the Western Hemisphere which is not a democracy", I think the article still requires a citation for progression. --Zleitzen 01:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So we are going to discount the study by Columbia and this document which shows that there is a weak democracy? How sad. Shows a very a narrow mind about other articles definition and clear proof that there is the beginnings of a democracy. I think some people are just in denial of this. It would ruin there one track thought that Cuba is a bad country and must discredited at all cost. --Scott Grayban 02:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Quote me one article that clearly states "Cuba is the only country in the Western Hemisphere which is not a democracy" that is NOT Americian Government influenced and I'll concede. I just spent 2 hours on google trying to find anything other the Bush and the US. Government saying this. And if you can't then that is a clear POV based on American anti-Cuban hate propaganda. --Scott Grayban 02:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Uhh maybe I'm just a iliterate American here but that article in no way states your claim. "Behind those figures lie not just human suffering but also an unfairness that is inimical to democracy" only states that the democracy is lacking. It does not support your claim. --Scott Grayban 02:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also notice you seem to like calling me names under your breath that I'm a some kind of commie here. First off   I served in the USAF for 20 years, retired as a Master Sargent, have over 14 ribbins and citations. I served in the first Iraq/Iran war and numerious other conflicts. So don't even think I am anything other then American here, I just happen to have a open mind and read more into what our government wants us to believe. --Scott Grayban 02:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a reason for that oversight: all but a wretched pair (Haiti and Nicaragua) of Latin American countries are officially classed as “middle-income” and all (except Cuba) are democracies.--Zleitzen 02:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see that. But no matter. 3 other sources I qouted shows a clear start of a democracy even if its a weak one. So we will just discredit all those as blantant lies, even though one is done by a well respected University that even the US Gov. likes to quote from.Italic text --Scott Grayban 03:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Damn straight I do. Just like you dodged all my links. Your nothing more then a pro-Bush hate Cuba type person. Your the type of person that would stomp and crush anyone who doesn't think your way. You have shown that on my talk page and even admitted to it. Instead of discounting my links that show a democracy is starting you want to disprove that. Your a sad person and closed minded. I showed proof that no matter what anyone says there is a democracy starting and I know its a weak one but it is there. If anyone is suppressing the facts it is you Adam. --Scott Grayban 03:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Zleitzen, give up, this article is being dominated and controlled by narrow-minded Bush activists. When I showed proof of a democracy starting its tossed to the side as a lie. That's fine and I expect that from people like Adam. That said I dispute the entire NPOV on this article. As for proof on that I submit my talk page as proof of Adam's goal about this article. The mediation cabal should take that into consideration as evidence that Adam will not comply with WikiPedia's policy on WP:NPOV. --Scott Grayban 03:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it is worth, Adam Carr's quote from the Economist magazine was an 'opinion piece'  note the word 'opinion' in the URL and the "opinion" 'click through' link on the magazines website.  I am not saying that 'opinion' doesn't count, but realisticly there is a very broad range of opinion about this question and Adam Carr's opinion (and that of magazine article) is not in the center, but rather on the far edge of the spectrum. BruceHallman 13:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, the economist article is of interest to me for another reason. "All but a wretched pair (Haiti and Nicaragua) are officially classed as “middle-income”" is very telling in understanding the historical relationships between the US and others in the region. But I don't want to get ahead of myself, here. I recommend we wait for the mediator before getting into further discussion about how they relate to the article. --Zleitzen 14:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: mediation cabal try again

message: Next comment restored from diff after being deleted by User:Adam_Carr without pointing a link to it as required
I'm no Historian, Politician, Economist, Journalist, Academic, Wiki-scholar and giving my honest opinion the whole history of Cuba's communist politics on this page is grossly and undebatebly biased. Its style of language and tone is immaculetly vulgar and poorly constructed. I think the entire history of Cuba in the 20th central deserves a good clean up and dispute over its supposed neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.247.222 (talk • contribs) 
Adam Carr deleted out this talk page entry Revision as of 00:48, 16 April 2006 82.23.247.222 entitled 'An honest opinion'
without giving any explanation as to his reason for the deletion.  Although the comment which Adam deleted is blunt, it is not a personal attack and is rather a general criticism, so I am left to wonder about why Adam deleted the comment.  Adam, please explain. BruceHallman 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the answers for these questions concerning Adam Carr's edit pattern can be found on Scott Grayban's talk page. --Zleitzen 02:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mr. Adam remove one more talk comment because it doesn't fit your answer and I'll have you removed from WikiPedia for blantant vandalism to talk pages and articles. I have issued this warnig multiple times. You are pushing the wrong person here. --Scott Grayban 02:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An honest opinion 

message: I could not find specific discussion on this part of the text so I removed it because it is a point of view and not a fact that providing health care and education for a population is impossible.
"Cuba’s economic dependence on the Soviet Union was deepened by Castro’s determination to build his vision of a socialist society in Cuba. This entailed the provision of free health care and education for the entire population – an ambition which has proved unaffordable even in many developed countries, let alone in a small country with very limited resources and restricted trade. Through the 1970s and ‘80s the Soviets were prepared to subsidise all this in exchange for the rather dubious strategic asset of an ally under the noses of the United States and the undoubted propaganda value of Castro’s considerable prestige in the developing world."
I would also defend changing Communist Cuba. Communism is a form of society without state, Cuba has a state and therefore should not be called such. Socialist Cuba would be more apropriate. I will cite sources on this matter soon.
Also, this is the first edit I make in wikipedia, I would like to apologize in advance for any mistakes I may have made.
Chico 12:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome here.  You happen to be dropping in to a place that sometimes encounters heated arguments, so be prepared to try to take it calmly.  I really recommend reading the Wikipedia:Help pages and the Wikipedia:Policy as they provide useful, and even essential information. BruceHallman 13:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communist Cuba 

message: It will be useless for us contributors to argue about whether Cuba is "democratic" or not, because for one thing we contributors are never going to agree on a definition of "democracy". Having president freely elected by the people means one thing to a lot of Americans (yes, we elected Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush) and another thing to many other people (no, the electoral college elected him or Supreme Court appointed him). That argument will never settled.
What we MIGHT be able to agree on is what the differences have been over the last several decades between, say, the U.S. government and the Castro government. I think a table would be useful. We could list factors such as free press and free speech during the election period (US yes, Cuba no), must be a citizen of the country to run for office (US: yes, Cuba: er, when was the last election, 1959?); which leads to frequency of presidential elections (US every 4 years, Cuba: once per lifetime of president?). 
These things are hard to see in a paragraph, because of word-wrapping. And there are many other differences and possibly some similarities in the form of government, both actual and "on paper". 
The analysis above applies to whether Cuba is "Communist" or not; we will never be able to agree on a definition of "communism". Some emphasize its political aspects, others emphasize its economic aspects, still others speak of ideology.
It would be better to describe the politics, economy and culture of Cuba under Castro one aspect at a time. Take emigration, for example. Is it allowed, forbidden, or what? For those who choose to leave Cuba (even temporarily), may they travel as a family, or must some family members stay behind? If so, why? (as hostages to ensure return?) And if it's forbidden, is it a capital crime to leave the country without permission? Is the Navy authorized to sink boats with artillery fire on their way out of territorial waters?
After each aspect is listed and described as thoroughly, accurately and fairly as possible, I suggest we then turn our attention to commentary. Fans of Cuba will no doubt assert that the objectively listed factors prove (in their eyes) that Cuba is "democratic", "free", an excellent example of "socialism" (not "Communism"), etc. Opponents of the Castro regime will certainly use the same list to prove (in their eyes) that Cuba is "undemocratic", "totalitarian" and a typical example of "Communism". 
But let's write the facts before the commentary, please. --Uncle Ed 14:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your ideas, and yes we will likely not agree to a definition of 'democracy'.  The trouble is that we will also not agree to the defintion of 'free speech', et al, either.  For instance you said regarding 'free speech' above "(US:yes, Cuba:no)", a valid opinion.  But a contrary opinion is that the US version of 'free speech', where corporations have equal right of speech as real people and that corporate lobby money in government and political campaigns is a protected form of 'speech' so that billion dollar corporations have the protected right to shout louder than real people, can hardly be viewed as the USA having more 'free speech' for real people compared with Cuba.  Not necessarily my POV, but I write that POV to show the range of POV's on the subject.  Or, when was the last time a USA presidential candidate got elected without the relying upon the use of corporate money 'speech' in their campaign?  Not in our lifetime. Are such corporate funded elections truely 'free'?  How does the 'freedom' of Cuban electoral system measure up against the western concept of 'free' elections?  My point is that in order for the article to be neutral, in many cases we will have to include the range of the POV's.  BruceHallman 14:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It will be a challenge to find English language peer-reviewed encyclopedias that too are not victim of systemic bias that come from being a Western English speaking 'peer'. Should the pool of peers not also include those from non-English, former Soviet Union, from Angola, from Cuba, etc. or is the pool of peers you describe only those who grew up on one side of the Iron Curtain, (i.e. who see corporate money speech and corporate lobby money as a valid form of 'free speech') ? BruceHallman 15:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand exactly what you mean Bruce, the language and cultural barrier is one of the main obstacles here for NPOV. My comments address Ed Poor's table propostion above. --Zleitzen 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: or is the pool of peers you describe only those who grew up on one side of the Iron Curtain, (i.e. who see corporate money speech and corporate lobby money as a valid form of free speech. Uh, Bruce, there is an idea that we call "civil society" that we talk about here in the West. I suggest you put down Granma for once and start reading about it. I recommend starting with Habermas' work on the public sphere. 172 | Talk 18:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: When describing whether or not a country today is a democracy, it is obvious that we are using the term as it understood in the contemporary English-speaking world: regular, contested, free and fair multiparty elections. No Western political scientist who studies democratization regards Cuba as a democracy. I already explained this matter to Bruce. End of discussion. 172 | Talk 19:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources there would be very helpful. Can you cite an academic article discussing this? Something like Foreign Affairs would be good, e.g.. While the views of Western political scientists are very important and should be given strong weight, they won't end up being the only sources. Sdedeo (tips) 20:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Democracy and communism

message: User:Sgrayban just added the POV box.  Would you please describe the nature and details of the dispute so that we may negotiate an agreement to resolve the dispute? BruceHallman 15:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality dispute 

message: Everyone stop reverting now: we must allow the article to develop in the usual wiki fashion. I have undone the series of reversions that just occured. There is no way we will reach consensus unless we allow the article to evolve in the usual fashion. If you have a problem with a particular passage, edit it, modify it, whatever, but do not simply revert. Sdedeo (tips) 18:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: everyone stop reverting now please

message: Would argue that Cuba is the most democratic country in the world. There are no free elections, no freedom of speech, and no other political parties. Unless anyone can prove that wrong, this will be the extent of my discussion. CJK 19:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair question.  "Cuba is the most democratic country in the world" is a real point of view along a full range of points of view on this subject.  I think the essence of the belief depends on the relative definition of 'free'. For instance are elections and government dominated by corporate money 'free', some say yes, some say no.  In Cuba, the elections are not dominated by corporate money, and by that measurement, they are more free and the "most democratic".  Similar argument for presidential elections won based on an election offical ruling of a party partisian in a state governed by the candidates brother with systematic disenfranshisment of African American voters.  By that measure, Cuba has more 'free' elections.  I am not saying that I hold that POV, but just explaining logic of the POV to help you understand. BruceHallman 19:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi all, would it be helpful to incorporate 172's statement above into the article, alongside other opinions. Something along the lines of "Western political scientists assert that Cuba is not a democracy" with the economist citation or any other more detailed sources 172 could provide?  --Zleitzen 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Adam Carr cited The Economist. That's sufficient. Let's avoid wordiness. 172 | Talk 20:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elementary facts do not require so many citations. The quality of the article is a higher priority than mediating the dispute. Thank you for the efforts, but mediation is not necessary. 172 | Talk 20:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact that people disagree is neither here nor there. Encyclopedias are supposed to be accurate, even if some people want to believe inaccuracies. BTW, why are you asking me if I "no longer" wish to participate in mediation? I never asked to participate in mediation to begin with. 172 | Talk 20:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So now you're offering? I'm open with the possibility, but not with you. Nothing personal-- I'd just rather deal with a mediator who has been on Wikipedia longer, and whom I've seen around the history and politics articles more often. 172 | Talk 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason the argument about corporate money and 'free elections' is relevant is that the term 'free elections' must be defined on a relative scale. In other words, 'free' relative to what? Cuba, for instance, does not have an unresoved controversy about campaign finance reform.  Are their elections more 'free' because they do not have the corrupting influences of big corporate money equating to 'free speech'? Or, a legal equality granted to corporate speech as opposed to free speech rights of real people. Again, this is not necessarily my POV, but I am describing is as an illustration of why that POV has bearing to Cuba and should be represented in the article. BruceHallman 21:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop with the "corporate money" cliche. It doesn't impress me and my own political orientation is left-of-center. I expect more depth out of teenage undergraduates, and much more from people with whom I'm supposed to be collaborating. Do you have any understanding of the development of civil society in the Western democracies? 172 | Talk 22:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 172, you know as well as anyone (or at least you should) that there is never consensus amongst political scientists on anything. Democracy is no different, despite your assertions. There are plenty of respected political scientists that would argue that no country on earth practices democracy (polyarchies anyone?). And most political philosophers would agree that term has been manipulated for political leverage. Political scientists would balk at the dogmatic line of argument you appear to be taking. And it's why respected encyclopedias tread carefully and avoid this line of reasoning. --Zleitzen 01:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In his work on "polyarchy" Robert Dahl is using the term "democracy," along with "republicanism" and "liberalism," in its classical sense. When an encyclopedia is referring to whether or not a particular country today is a "democracy," it is clear that we are dealing with "democracy" in its contemporary sense. In its contemporary sense the term is associated with liberal democracy. 172 | Talk 09:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dahl defines a "democracy" as an "ideal" system in the sense that there are no examples past or present. He writes about a spectrum of varying polyarchies. Respected encyclopaedias recognise these complex ambiguities and thus explicitly avoid judging whether or not a particular country such as Cuba is a "democracy,". It's not up to us to assume that readers associate the term with Western liberal democracy. This is an international encyclopaedia after all, read by people from Taiwan to Trinidad. --Zleitzen 10:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read Dahl. You're not telling me anything new. We are not dealing with the ideal-type of democracy. We are dealing with how the term is commonly understood to apply to contemporary regimes in the English-speaking world. And actually, yes, it is up to us to assume that readers associate the term with Western liberal democracy. This is the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Naming conventions clearly states "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity." That means "democracy" in the sense in which it is used in English-language publications like The Economist-- not Granma, not an academic ideal-type, not the ancient "democracy" of Greek thinkers like Thucydides and Pericles. 172 | Talk 11:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Only a wishful thinker

message: 172 has refused to participate in the mediation; since medcabal is totally informal, there's not much I can do. 172, feel free to request a new mediation from the cabal if you like, but be aware that you don't get to pick who you want the mediator to be.
Some final thoughts. Re: the article itself: the "Human Rights" section is abysmal by current wiki standards. There are no sources (zero!) provided, the presentation is extremely confused, and minor and major things are all mixed up. This section needs a real rewrite. Re: the "democracy" debate: I've made it clear what I think the "canonical" wiki solution should be.
Re: user behavior. I am amazed that both 172 and Adam -- users who have a huge number of edits and have a record of constructive contributions elsewhere on the wiki -- have behaved so poorly during this process. Both 172 and Adam have been rude and uncivil to other editors. There is no excuse for that, and it has materially impeded getting on with improving the article. Sgrayban, CJK and 172 (again) have been involved in a revert war, which is ridiculous.
I urge everyone to stop the incivility and rudeness right now, and I urge people who encounter it not to rise to the bait and to simply ignore (i.e., not respond) to this sort of thing. The latter suggestion here is just as important as the former: don't allow yourself to get wound up. I wish everyone the best, and I hope people can get back to the real business of creating an encyclopedia sooner rather than later. Sdedeo (tips) 21:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Sdedeo for helping us. BruceHallman 21:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 172, feel free to request a new mediation from the cabal if you like, but be aware that you don't get to pick who you want the mediator to be. Sure we can. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and mediation is voluntary. And one does not have to be a declared "medacom" member to mediate a dispute. Thanks for your intent to help. 172 | Talk 23:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh, I never asked to participate in mediation nor was I ever participating in it. I was responding to some of your comments because you decided for one reason or another to get involved in the discussion. I don't know what brought you here. You just showed up. If you feel like you're wasting your time, I suggest changing your approach to mediation or dropping the gig and picking out some other work, like editing articles. 172 | Talk 23:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: People may not want mediation, but they may be reluctant to tell you to go away if you show up just to avoid coming across as rude. You know, for a mediator, you're pretty abrasive. 172 | Talk 09:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: medcabal finished

message: One of the things both 172 and I have learned during our long experience at Wikipedia (partly through several long disputes with each other), is that when dealing with people who are determined to make an article conform to their ideological proconceptions, it is necessary to adopt robust tactics (within the law, but robust). Anyone who knows about the prolonged battle waged by me (and others) with the LaRouche cult at a series of articles will know (a) that these tactics are sometimes necessary, and (b) that they are effective - the LaRouchite "Herschelkrustofky" was eventually banned from Wikipedia. 
I was asked to review this article, which I had not previously seen, because BruceHallman and Scott Greyban were running it as their own private Fidel Castro fan page. I think any impartial person reviewing the article as it was before my arrival and as it is now will see that it has been greatly improved, particularly the history and politics sections (other parts still need work). Bruce and Scott and their friends have resisted the reform of this article at every step, arguing for a straight-out pro-Castro position on the most elementary questions (such as whether Cuba is a democracy). I point out that they are doing the same thing at Human rights in Cuba and Elections in Cuba. I haven’t looked in detail at History of Cuba yet (it’s on my list), but I’ve no doubt the same is true there also.
I am naturally reluctant to accuse people I don't know of being Communists, but what other conclusion can I come to about such wilful denial of obvious facts? Of course I have my own POV - I am a social democrat who is opposed to oppressive regimes of all kinds, including Communists ones. The difference is that my POV requires me to tell the truth about Cuba, whereas theirs apparently requires them to defend blatant falsehoods. If they said “yes Cuba is a dictatorship of the proletariat and we support that,” I could at least respect the integrity of their view, even though rejecting it. But I cannot respect this dishonest insistence on promoting obvious falsehoods.
I am not opposed to any attempt at mediation of this matter, but I will not compromise on the essential question. Cuba is a communist dictatorship and must be described accurately, even if that precise phrase is not used. The statement that Cuba is the only state in the western hemisphere which is not a democracy is true, relevant and important, and should be in the opening paragraph. 
Adam 02:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, I respectfully disagree, and dispute the neutrality of the present article. I am willing to discuss resolving this dispute, though as a start could you please refrain from insults? BruceHallman 05:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the four paragraphs above Adam's signature were all written by him then there is some reality warping going on round here. As far as I can see (and remember - ooops original research) neither Bruce nor Scott have been involved in the Cuba pages for more than a couple of weeks. Is there a tool for generating a list of edits ordered by contributors rather than date. Might kill off a few delusions. MichaelW 21:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Adam, please consider for a moment that you have never met me.  You have never spoken with me.  You don't know my life.  You don't know my eduction. You don't know my family. You don't know my age. You don't know my politics. You know nothing of my history. You have only read, at most, a few hundred words of my writing.  Indeed, from what you wrote back, you don't even take what I write at face value and rather choose to infer things into my writing which I did not even write.  If you believe that from so little that you can know the "truth" about me, that is sad.  Indeed, it appears obvious that you do not want to know the real truth about me.  BruceHallman 14:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith. -- FRCP11 14:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on mediation

message: User:172 wrote (above):
:The site founder, Jimbo Wales, has stated repeatedly that product comes before process. If the rules-- including civility rules-- interfere with the goal of writing a usable encyclopedia, they are to be ignored or modified.
This is incorrect. I can email Jimbo and check for you, if you require.
Actually, civility is one of Wikipedia's two non-negotiable rules. --Uncle Ed 16:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI Jimbo Wales is one of the people to have signed the page Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, a page that Raul proposed, upon my suggestion, to rename Wikipedia:Product over process. Civility is important. We should all strive to be as civil as possible. Nevertheless, Jimbo Wales has made clear that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, and a community only insofar as it serves the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a system of law, and all users are not equal. As a case in point, in some of the arbom cases pitting professional scholars against crakpots, such as the Skyring and the LaRouche cases, the serious editors were left unscathed, while Skyring and the LaRouche activists were put under severe sanctions. 172 | Talk 00:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Civility as an option

message: As an interesting side-note to my intro edit, it appears that the only other instance of a hard-line Communist state existing in the Western Hemisphere was Grenada for two weeks in 1983. Kaldari 04:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cuba has communist values, but is it actually communist?  I don't see evidence that Cuba is communist.  I do see that 'Communist State' is a label often used by the right wing of USA politics to describe Cuba, but is that enough reason to use it in the article? BruceHallman 04:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two definitions of a "communist state". The first would be the Marxist definition (ie the one put forward by Marx), which would be a society in which both private property and the state have been abolished (and would not therefore be a "communist state" at all). Such a society has of course never existed. The second is the "common English" definition, which is "a state run by a Communist Party with the intention of eventually establishing a communist society." Cuba meets this definition. Wikipedia is not a Marxist enncyclopaedia. Adam 05:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course Cuba isn't communist. It is however, a Communist state (however oxymoronic that term may be), in the same way that China is a Communist state. This doesn't seem especially controversial to me, unless you're trying to make some kind of argument about the semantics of the term "Communist", which is all fine and good, but completely irrelevent to Wikipedia editing. Remember, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If most of the world considers Cuba a Communist state, which I think is rather obvious, that is what we report. Whether that is accurate terminology is not for us to decide. If it were, we might have to rethink labelling the U.S. a democracy :) Kaldari 05:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point Kaldari, but if most of the world considers Belgians to be dull, is what we report there as fact ;) --Zleitzen 07:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah good point. The balance between reporting popular perception and maintaining NPOV is tricky, especially in cases where the subject's POV about itself conflicts with popular perception. In such cases it is important to present both sides, although in this case it seems one of the sides presented may be something of a straw man. Would most Cuban people object to Cuba being termed a "Communist state"? Probably not. They may object to some of the other wording though. An important question to ask, however, is why are we putting commentary about Cuba's politics in the intro paragraph? What is our motivation there? This seems to be a rather exceptional way to introduce a country's article. Kaldari 07:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My sentiments entirely --Zleitzen 07:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The words 'widely criticised', is that accurate?  I can see that it is widely criticised from the right wing of the USA politics, but is there any evidence of wide spread criticism globally.  Is there any evidence of criticism from Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, North Africa, Africa, Polynesia, Australia, Central America or South America?  Is there much criticism from Europe or Eastern Europe?  Is there much criticism from the middle or left wing of the USA.  Is there much criticism from North America beyond the USA, IE Mexico and Canada.  To qualify as 'widely criticised' you cannot just measure the right wing if the USA, which is overrepresented in the editor pool of Wikipedia. BruceHallman 04:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did this "widely criticised" text come from? The issue is not what Cuba is "widely criticised" for, the issue is what Cuba is. Adam 05:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you guys talking about? Oh wait, I found it. You guys are so 15 hours ago :) Kaldari 06:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point still applies: The 'Cuba is not a democracy' point of view is widely held among the right wing of USA politics (and to a lesser extent in segments of Great Britain, Isreal, Marshall Islands, Palau, and the E.U.), but I have been researching this and do not see that it is a commonly held point of view in Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Arab Middle East, North Africa, Africa, Polynesia, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Central America or South America.  If we are going to solve a POV neutrality dispute we need to evalutate the true extent of the range of POV's on this issue.  The right wing of the USA political belief is not the 'center of the universe' of points of view.  BruceHallman 16:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm among "the right wing of USA politics?" That's a comment for Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. 172 | Talk 17:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communist states of the Western hemisphere 

message: This statement: "Cuba is a socialist republic, in which the Communist Party of Cuba is the sole legal political party. Cuba is the only state in the western hemisphere that is not a democracy." Is accurate, brief, grammatical and to-the-point. It says what needs to be said, and no more. If people would only leave it alone we could all turn our attention to more important things. Adam 08:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. 172 | Talk 17:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that POV? It's a concise and accurate description. Encyclopædia Britannica says "Cuba is a unitary socialist republic. The government is totalitarian, exercising direct control or influence over most facets of Cuban life.", and that sounds harsher than this - I'd say that Adam's version is plenty NPOV. rjg6755--24.107.121.69 01:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Is WP:NPOV subject to vote? BruceHallman 18:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the consensus is that Cuba is not a democracy - it is a one party state (or one party dictatorship if you prefer) and to not mention Cuba's lack of democracy _does_ violate WP:NPOV. PMA 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to use this moment to state that Wikipedia is not a democracy Discuss? --Zleitzen 18:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I see your point but please learn to spell properly and not use redirects please. PMA 18:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose that the above brief exchange started by PMA be considered for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Does anyone want to vote on that? --Zleitzen 01:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Another key point weighing against the idea of describing the country as a "Communist state" is the fact that the Communist Party was in may ways emasculated by Castro – subsumed within his government rather than being the real locus of power as was the case in Europe.  It is an oversimplification to describe the Castro regime as Communist in the way that one might apply the term to Poland pre 1989. --Zleitzen 13:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless, we are in agreement over the first part of the contentious paragraph so my interest on this matter is largely academic. But I would add that I disagree that Che Guevara, who ended up against Soviet wishes heading off to foment global revolution, can be accurately described as ‘a trusted lifelong communist’.  Furthermore, Cuba made its biggest step towards what you might describe as ‘an orthodox Soviet-style state’ in the period between 1968 (when Castro supported the invasion of Czechoslovakia) and 1970 (after the failure of the push for a record sugar harvest) – that is, after Guevara’s death.  There is much more to be said on the differences between the various Soviet aligned states (as well as on the paradigmatic issues raised by the obsession with Cuba that this debate represents, with the fact that the spotlight is directly so excessively on one country rendering the historical objectivity being sought increasingly chimeric – how much time has been spent on the Honduran entry?), but if you are prepared to reduce your own argument to the proposition that there is no difference between the imposed Soviet puppet Honecker and Castro then it is clear that your interest is ideological rather than historical, and thus no appeal based on either contradictory facts or more subtle narratives is likely to sway you. --Zleitzen 16:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: But I would add that I disagree that Che Guevara, who ended up against Soviet wishes heading off to foment global revolution, can be accurately described as a trusted lifelong communist. That observation is neither here nor there. Adam Carr was correct. In the period when the Soviets decided to back Fidel and Raul on Guevara's recommendation, Guevara was  a trusted lifelong Communist in the eyes of the Soviets. It was later-- the period leading up to Guevara's disappearance from Cuba-- that Guevara started to lean more and more toward the Chinese model, and, as you put it, "ended up against Soviet wishes heading off to foment global revolution." 172 | Talk 19:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Knowing very little about the American "left", beyond a cursory glance at liberal media outlets, I'll bow to your greater knowledge. But all this has little to do with an accurate portrayal of Cuba, both historically and in the present. And little to do with the  verifiability issues we should be concerned with here. --Zleitzen 02:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening section, episode 234

message: Why is there a huge ugly white space on the main page now? CJK 01:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ugly white space

message: I am just curious about the appearance of conflict of interest, where administrator PMA (who holds one POV) blocks editor MichaelW (who holds the opposite POV).  I am willing to give the benifit of the doubt, but the appearance seems wrong.  Could we discuss: 
:1) What exactly did MichaelW do wrong to justify the 7 day block.  
:2) What is the protocol regarding appearance of conflict of interest and administrative action.  
Thanks in advance, I am looking forward to constructive and civil answers and discussion. BruceHallman 14:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually have to side with Bruce on this one.  The block of Comandante was warranted given his history of poor cooperation, but all that MichaelW did was make some insipid comments.  Certainly unconstructive, yes, but hardly worthy of a seven day block.  That is, unless there is more to what happened than what I see here.  --Bletch 15:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks PMA. Though I would still like answers to my two questions above, would you answer them please?  BruceHallman 15:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MichaelW block by PMA 

message: I came to look at my favorite article today!  Low and behold the politics/human rights has been bumped up before culture, economy, geography etc.  And the intro states Cuba is not a democracy--in its own seperate line--.  Cuba is not a -liberal- democracy.  Really, people, please!
And then I checked out the human rights section!  Out with the facts, in with the accusations.  While the introducation is a little off-base, this section is insane!  
"...in which the rights of the individual are subordinated to the interests of the state."
Looks like it was ripped right off a Miami dissadent site.  Believe it or not America, some countries put society before the individual.  
Young Poineers "coercing" people to join?  Is this widespread, because I had no idea!
----
*looks at above* 
please register - anon comments indicate to many that you do not have the courage to stand behind your words. Also your words and phrasing indicate that you may be Commantante or a very close relation - in which case you have been banned and this will only reset the block. PMA 06:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi PMA, I don't think you can revert a post because the user is not registered. Debate the issues with the user first is best. Thanks --Zleitzen 06:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confused, PMA reverted my edit again!  How does one defend themselves from all these accusations at once!-art 06:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Phrases such as "ripped from a Miami dissident site" etc gave an impression that you have a firm pro-Fidel/communist POV. as i said on the talk page of Cuba i try to defend the 'pedia from both right and left wing ideologs. PMA 06:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think the "non-multiparty" is more accurate PMA. And thanks for changing that. --Zleitzen 06:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has become excessivly political.  (that is bad) 

message: The most likely scenario is "after Castro, Castro"--i.e, Raul.
The sorts of coup-making generals that many in the US have in mind have probably been purged long ago. And while of course Raul does not have his brother's charisma, his availability as an obvious and "safe" successor will appeal to the party (and military) leaders as a way of avoiding "chaos" (i.e., anything that might threaten their power). After Raul though is another question. PMA 07:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure - although do you have the cites (from neutral sources of course) to back up your changes? PMA 07:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think that would be possible, considering the outrageous nature of the statements in that section.  It should be noted that the section is not sourced either.  That is why I suggest reverting the entire section to a prior incarnation! -art 07:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow I had no idea this would be so time consuming!  It just seems so obvious to me. It is biased to put human rights allegations BEFORE things such as the culture of Cuba! The U.S. article doesn't have its human rights issues in the second paragraph, I don't even have to check the article to know that! -art 07:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You'd need to check the wording of the Cuban constitution for that, which I think is linked to the article. I would agree that the statement's inclusion is debateable in it's present context. And everything here should be verified and and given due weight. --Zleitzen 07:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record: The user Neztielz has nothing to do with me! and I have no idea why they decided to use that name after putting messages on my talk page(!?)--Zleitzen 08:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Adam, have advised the user to read policies and change his/her name before future  contributions. See Wikipedia:Changing username.  --Zleitzen 15:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Succession 

message: Has anybody else noticed that all the fighting is getting in the way of finding neutrality?  BruceHallman 17:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality 

message: Reading this article is very informative. I should read this along time ago. However negative Adam want's this article to remain can be disputed again because in the article Essential Background: Overview of human rights issues in Cuba (Human Rights Watch, 31-12-2005) I see some positive things that are not even mentioned here. For instance in the section on that website article, Freedom of Assembly, is says that...
*:Freedom of assembly is severely restricted in Cuba, and political dissidents are generally prohibited from meeting in large groups. In late May 2005, however, nearly two hundred dissidents attended a rare mass meeting in Havana. Its organizers deemed the meeting a success, even though some prominent dissidents refused to take part in it because of disagreements over strategy and positions. While barring some foreign observers from attending, police allowed the two-day event to take place without major hindrance. The participants passed a resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners.
Yet this is not even mentioned at all here. Negativity does sell but we shouldn't we also state what is good in order to keep a NPOV article? Ladies in White (Damas de Blanco), a group of families of imprisoned dissidents, isn't even mentioned either. --Scott Grayban 08:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a strategy to achieve consensus about neutrality of this section  to be sure that all 'facts' have citations from neutral credible sources.  Human Rights Watch as cited above seems neutral and credible. BruceHallman 16:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats good!  Cuban trade unions are 5000x more influential than are their counterparts in the USA (where I assume you are from, sry if I'm mistaken)...  Cuba has a DIFFERENT system, that doesn't mean wikipedia is obliged to paint it as a negative, or even compare it in every manner to the United States.  Leftists can rattle off thousands of terrible things about the US system of governance, but that isn't what the USA article is based on... Why can't you just give out the facts without adding personal tilt to side or the other? -art 01:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Clearly you must know (considering the PHD) that the difference between Cuba and Soviet Eastern Europe is immense.  Cuba succeded in their version of perestroika and glasnost, where the Soviets failed.  In Cuba, trade unions are DIRECTLY involved in the decision making process, and they are not organs of the Communist party. -art 19:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Rights Watch 

message: Scott also has an entertaining blog, with flying saucers! At Scott's blog I find the following statement about me:
:If this is what Wikipedia consists of then there articles are worthless, biased, unreliable and most certainly WP:POV because that statement clearly defines that when anyone who feel’s they “are right they MUST impose that thought on others at all cost”. These same people claimed they are some sort of Dr. in something that they wouldn’t tell and would not prove there credentials. Although I am sure they are lying because no scholar would conduct themselves in this manner. Even the UN Security Council behaves better when the member’s are criticized.
I would remind Scott that accusing me of lying about my qualifications is seriously defamatory, unlike anything I have said about him. Luckily for Scott, I do not believe in suing people. Incidentally, Scott has never actually asked me about my qualifications. If he's really interested, I have a PhD in history from the University of Melbourne. Here is a library reference to my doctoral thesis. Adam 01:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to admit, it would be frustrating to have to work with someone who supposedly has a PHD, who either does not notice, or is ignoring, the vast amount of BS that has been put into this article.  Also, is this the place for personal issues? -art 02:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scott and defamation

message: PMA, I agree that the edit without discussion pattern on Cuba is a problem.  Though, in the interest of fairness may I suggest that we move the disputed clause '...and is the only state in the western hemisphere that is not a multi-party democracy [4].' to a sandbox until after mediation?  There is a POV dispute over that clause and it is schedule for mediation.  To leave it in with a protected status seems unfair from the perspective of one POVs and not the other.  BruceHallman 20:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially considering PMA was the one who started the edit war, with no explanation.Mystork 20:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PMA protection 

message: Below is a sandbox for the Cuba Government section. All users can play in it and give it their best shot! --Zleitzen 21:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuba Government Sandbox

message: In Cuba education is free and mandatory. The current statistic of 96% comes from a biased source, the frist line of this source is a quote: "the choice is between capitalism and chaos". http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/cb/cuba/asce/cuba8/30smith.pdf
The current UN figure is 100% http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/cuba.html
Grantplus 01:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Grantplus, I would err on the side of caution with that 100% stat. Although it comes from a firm source it seems open to certain speculation, there is this source  which details youth literacy rates (99.8%). As the section is education it may be more appropriate. There is also this rsource here  saying that adult literacy rates are 96.9. Take your pick! --Zleitzen 02:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Education