Talk:Politics of Cuba

message: Wow!  Much correction is needed to convert this article to NPOV.  El Jigüe 1/29/06
Indeed! And I shall begin the work. WGee 00:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is not correct to refer to the legal system as a "branch" (as in America), because the courts are completely subordinate to the dictator-for-life, Castro. --Uncle Ed 16:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, Uncle Ed, "dictator-for-life"? Is that neutral point of view or truth?   Perhaps a better way to make your point would be to cite article XIII  of their constitution which does not identify a 'Judicial Branch'. BruceHallman 16:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Then perhaps you can cite the source for that claim as I requested earlier? BruceHallman 13:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal system

message: Is the entirety of this article in dispute, or only certain sections?  It is quite a large article - perhaps the tag at the top should just be put over the sections that are disputed.  --DavidShankBone 15:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy

message: Noe that I moved the election material the elections page where it should be.Ultramarine 16:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noted that you've been moving a lot of things around lately. None of it accompanied by discussion, consensus, consultation in accordance with policy. None of it justified it my view. But it'll all come out in the wash, and I'm not going anywhere in a hurry. Please explain why you are making these changes, some of which set a precedent for nation pages? --Zleitzen 16:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have provided edit comments for all changes. Regarding detailed information on elections, I though it better to present on the election page which is created for that purpose. However, alternatively we can instead also on this page present the views of the critics.Ultramarine 16:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'moving' was accompanied by unexplained deletion of material.  BruceHallman 17:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What material? Ultramarine 17:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the edit history of the page, the answer is self evident.  BruceHallman 18:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not. What exactly are you objecting to? Ultramarine 18:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This diff [] deleted information.  BruceHallman 19:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, as noted above, I moved it to the election page.Ultramarine 19:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look again, you deleted material and only moved a portion.  BruceHallman 20:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What portion was deleted? Ultramarine 20:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving material 

message: We must have something more substantial than the archetypal weasel words "critics say...", a random quote based on original research and a source slapped onto the page from some website or another which isn't attributed. Clarifying nothing.--Zleitzen 15:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics say

message: I believe this article needs to be updated as Fidel Castro (due to his current health) is unable to run the country)and the person in charge is his brother Raul Castro.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.161.9.241 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating Needed

message: ===Annex Cuba Into Venezuela===
Hi people in Cuban and Venezuelan governments. Why don't you tell Mr. Fidel Castro to annex Cuba into Venezuela before he retires. You could integrate your National Assemblies and judicial systems and other institutions, form a grass-root democracy, where small communities decide and work for themselves and your economies and natural resources, including the Cuban oil reserves could be used to fund the building of a strong 21th century socialist community. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ==Off-Topic== 

message: Hi people in Cuban and Venezuelan governments. Why don't you tell Mr. Fidel Castro to annex Cuba into Venezuela before he retires. You could integrate your National Assemblies and judicial systems and other institutions, form a grass-root democracy, where small communities decide and work for themselves and your economies and natural resources, including the Cuban oil reserves could be used to fund the building of a strong 21th century socialist community. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Annex Cuba Into Venezuela

message: Corruption in Cuba is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corruption_in_Cuba. So far it's just me (the nominator) and the article's creator. More input would be appreciated. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corruption in Cuba AfD 

message: Miguel Diaz-Canel was named Cuba's new president https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/americas/cuba-new-president-named/index.html Xin Jing (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New President 

message: I'm very new to and inexperienced with editing, and am unable to find anything on this subject in this page history – is it possible this has never been suggested? Scholars broadly agree that it is a totalitarian state, and it is listed as one by the non-partisan GlobalSecurity.org among many others. Freedom House gives it a 14/100 for freedom, the same as the People's Republic of China, and it's at the very bottom of both their Press Freedom Index the [[Freedom_of_the_Press_(report)|Freedom of the Press report from Reporters Without Borders. It quite clearly meets every common definition of totalitarianism: North-Korean levels of censorship; one party with one "candidate" per office; secret police; political prisons with forced 12-hour-per-day labor; show trials and summary executions; torture; cult of personality; state control of all media; and on and on. I definitely propose that it be so described, and thus included in the Wikipedia list of totalitarian states. I look forward to the input of other editors! Tambourine60 (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ￼ Not to mention they also straight up lied in their country report for the United States in 2022 and pretended that Roe V Wade hadn't been overturned and that the right to abortion and LGBTQ rights were still enshrined nationally LilyLawliet (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totalitarianism 

message: Most of this article relies on publications issued by the NGOs which are deeply connected to the US government, to prove to readers how "authoritarian" the Cuban government is. Loaded language is often used, like "authoritarian regime", or "political scientists agree...(which ones?); which absolutely reads as POV. There needs to be a NPOV overhaul on this article, and many of its references need to be updated, as articles from 2006 are being interpreted as facts in the year 2021. As such I have marked this article with the Political POV tag Skiyabu1 (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sources are at Politics of Cuba#Authoritarianism. Propose text here if you think it needs updated. Otherwise stop tagging the lead as it conforms with MOS:LEAD. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In all cases where this article attempts to make a blanket claim that *all* political scientists characterize the Cuban political system is disputed. Completely missing, ANY claim to the contrary. 5 political scientists are not all political scientists. This article absolutely falls under Template:Political_POV#When_to_use, and I'm not sure why other editors are so hellbent on maintaining the POV in this article, and reverting the Political POV tag when it can only improve the neutrality of the article. Skiyabu1 (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because they are centrists and right-wingers who are deliberately trying to push anti-communist narratives, most likely 184.147.109.215 (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

text: This article cites the opinions of several political scientists, including Steven Levitsky and Darren Hawkins. Which other sources should be cited in the article in order to correct its partisan bias? Jarble (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We're guided by NPOV (including WP:YESPOV), not trying to correct perceived partisan bias EvergreenFir (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political POV 

message: Does anybody know how the Candidacy Commissions are chosen? Or, if that's not public knowledge, can that fact be confirmed? 73.192.118.226 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidacy Commissions 

message: why remove information on how their elections work and replace it with "they are not democratic"? they have their own form of democracy separate from liberal democracy as you know it. why add unneeded bias to an already biased article?
also, why remove information on their election laws? political campaigns being illegal  seems like something people should know right away 2601:441:4000:BF40:8953:3E59:DD72:7CD (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it was replacing sourced information with unsourced. Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing info on how their government functions?