Talk:Cuba/Archive 5

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Government and politics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Government Type straw poll 

message: .“…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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Wow! the rule of “desacato” comes to Wikipedia

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  work towards resolution of neutrality dispute 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Black market

message: 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)
thread_title:  New: Cuba Portal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Apparently El Jigue is due to be banned again

message: 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)
thread_title:  147.126.46.145 revert 

message: Perusal of the bibliography of papers on Cuban educational progress appears to suggest that such studies derive their  original data e.g.  
 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)
thread_title: The original data for Cuban education papers comes entirely from Cuban goverments sources

message: 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)
thread_title: Cuban "elections"

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Rewriting

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The heat 

message: :Insulting will get a block as well. It violates the Wikipedia:Civility --Scott Grayban 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: As stated above, it violates the Wikipedia:Civility --Scott Grayban 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I have been through more then what you can believe. --Scott Grayban 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Grayban flexing his metaphorical muscles

message: "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)
replies: text: I thought it actually meant Mother country and Freedom... atleast my rusty spanish says so. --Scott Grayban 19:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure its fatherland --Zleitzen 19:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Patria y Libertad

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Patria

message: :"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, free business, its violations on human rights, or the prohibition of personal property 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. Whilst the Liberty Council assert that the sanctions are purposely done as control tactics.
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)
thread_title:  Balancing cause of human rights POV paragraphs. 

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