Talk:Cuba/Archive 7

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)
replies: text: It is an arena where users can participate and discuss the issues free from so called "robust tactics" and counter-productive antagonistic sparring. Because if I don't believe that a user is making a valid contribution, I can happily delete the comments within my rights. It's come to this, I'm afraid, Adam. If you were to agree to adhere to civility policies on this page, my sandbox would be unneccessary. --Zleitzen 15:08, 25 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)

text: Various characters who have since been blocked, El Jigue etc, disputed and kept tampering with it when it said 100% - if I recall they were adding provisos etc. We're best off putting the citation least prone to misinterpretation. --Zleitzen 13:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Education

message: I've sprotected because I see there's reverting against anons, and a sockpuppet account has just turned up elsewhere who may be heading here. If anyone thinks sprotection is inappropriate, let me know and I'll undo. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sprotect means that anon IPs and new accounts can't edit it, so it stops vandalism and some sockpuppetry. Everyone else can carry on as normal. I'll unprotect if you think there's no problem, so let me know. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: In line with my suggestion above, here is my proposed settlement.
*The paragraph in the opening section describing Cuba's form of government is deleted.
*The infobox describes Cuba as a "republic".
*The Government and Politics section reads as follows.
:Cuba is a socialist republic whose government is controlled by the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC). The PCC leader, Fidel Castro, is both President of the Council of State (President of Cuba) and President of the Council of Ministers (Prime Minister of Cuba). The President of Cuba is chosen by the National Assembly, for a five-year term. There is no limit to the number of terms the President can serve, and Castro has been President since the adoption of the current Constitution in 1976. The Premable of the Constitution names Castro as Cuba's leader.
:The Cuban constitution states: "the Communist Party of Cuba... is the superior guiding force of society and the state." No other political parties are permitted. Although the Constitution offers guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly, these are effectively negated by Article 62, which states that "None of the freedoms which are recognized for citizens can be exercised contrary to... the existence and objectives of the socialist state, or contrary to the decision of the Cuban people to build socialism and communism. Violations of this principle can be punished by law." In practice, public opposition to the Communist Party or the communist system is illegal and dissidents are regularly imprisoned.
:Cuba's national legislature, the National Assembly of People's Power (Asamblea Nacional de Poder Popular), has 609 members who serve five-year terms. All Cuban citizens aged over sixteen years and who have not been found guilty of a criminal offence can vote. Article 131 of the Constitution says that voting shall be "through free, equal and secret vote." Article 136 says: "In order for deputies or delegates to be considered elected they must get more than half the number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts."
:In practice, although the voting process itself is free, the process for nominating candidates for election to the National Assembly is controlled by the PCC and organisations affiliated to or controlled by it. As a result, at the National Assembly elections of January 2003, there was only one candidate in each of the 609 electoral districts. More than 70% of these were members of the PCC, and the remainder were non-party candidates approved by the PCC. 
:The Cuban government and its supporters maintain that Cuba is a democracy, because voters have the right to reject the single candidate on the ballot paper, and because if 50% of voters do so a new candidate must be nominated. International human rights organisations and organisations which promote democracy and free elections reject this view. They argue that Cuba is not a democracy, because
**No party other than the PCC is allowed
**No candidates other than those approved by the PCC can stand for election
**The mass media are completely controlled by the PCC
**It is not possible to publicly advocate the rejection of PCC-supported candidates
None of this is referenced at present, but if the general text is acceptable then references can be added. I am happy for those who think that Cuba is a democracy to change the sentence beginning "The Cuban government and its supporters maintain..." so that it better reflects their views (at reasonable length). Indeed I am keen to see their exposition of why Cuba is a democracy. But I will not agree to any watering down of the statements in the 2nd and 4th paragraphs. Adam 05:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested settlement

message: Some comments on paragraph 4: The election process is managed by the state, not by the party. The relationship between the state and the party is extremely complex. Without meaning to cause offence, Adam, I don't think you've even begun to grasp (or to attempt to grasp) this relationship, so it might be best to avoid wild simplifications like 'effectively controlled by'. It doesn't help anything except to fudge the issue. With regard to there only being one candidate for each post in 2003, does this relate to the part of the national assembly elected from the street level, or from the mass organisation? (You ignore this fundamental part of the elction process). I have never heard this anywhere before, I find it intrigueing if true, although your interpretation of PCC-imposed cadidates is far from the only possible explanation - it could for example be that the community decides democratically who will go forward in a pre-election process (I have been to Cuba several times, and the level of collective community organisation makes this perfectly plausible). If you genuinely want to avoid POV, you should point out that whilst there may have only been one cadidate for each post in 2003, anybody can stand for election from the local level, they are restricted to a single side of A4 paper for their election manifesto, continue to receive the same wage they were on in their job previous to election, and are subject to recall by their electors at any time. All enitrely verifiable. It may also be good to have something on the historical development of the political system in Cuba, as there is a vast difference between the processes and structures of the early revolution and present, taking account of the 'rectification period', etc. -- Tom
I haven't been to Cuba, but I know enough about how Soviet-style systems work (and the Cuban system is a direct descendant of the 1936 Soviet Constitution) to know that however much window-dressing Communist regimes instal to fool gullible visitors (and I recommend Sidney and Beatrice Webb's Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation to you for the best-known example), the Communist Party controls the whole process from beginning to end. I am aware that the National Assembly is "elected" by two different processes, and I have no objection to this being mentioned (although this level of detail probably belongs at Elections in Cuba), so long as the impression is not created that these are genuine elections, because they are not. Both the "street" and the "mass organisations" in a Soviet-style system are controlled by the Party. The Party controls the media, has a monopoly of coercion and controls the courts - no more elaborate explanation is needed for the absence of opposition. I have been to Vietnam and Laos, where I was told exactly the same kind of stuff about how these countries are "real" democracies despite the communist parties' monopoly of power. The same kind of stuff was routinely spouted by the numerous apologists for the Soviet Union, Poland, the DDR, and even Romania and Albania, for decades until they were all made to look very silly in 1990. The same thing will happen to Cuba-apologists when Fidel dies and the regime collapses a few years from now. Adam 11:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Election Process

message: : Overall, your suggested addition is an improvement, though I see a few things that are a tad bit POV and should be adjusted to bring more neutrality.  Also, as a demonstration of good faith, I suggest you now remove the disputed clause from the opening paragraph of the article.  BruceHallman 13:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I made suggestions in the past I was met with name calling and personal threats.  When I objected to that incivility I was met with no remorse, but instead more name calling and personal threats. How do I know things will be different now? BruceHallman 15:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The proposed paragraph on goverment and politics is much better than stating something highly debatable like "only country in Western hemisphere that is not democracy". I'm for it! --RockyMM 15:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think the infobox should just read "republic." I understand why this term would be used since the President is theoretically elected by a council, and a republic does not require limits on terms (even though Cuba does have term limits). Fidel Castro's Cuba would be considered closer to being an autocracy, much like Mobutu Sese Seko used to claim that Congo's government was a democratic republic even though it was clearly an autocracy (from Wiki's Republic page]]: "Autocrats might try to give themselves a democratic tenure by calling themselves president (or princeps or princeps senatus in the case of Ancient Rome), and the form of government of their country "republic", instead of using a monarchic based terminology"). Per my citations above (13-17), Cuba is rarely recognized as a democracy, and even non-democratic republics are named such because the governments' principals and power are not beyond the control of the people. Therefore, I think there should be some clarification in the infobox, such as: "socialist republic, though widely recognized as oppressing opposing political thought through show elections and imprisonment and thus is considered a socialist dictatorship" (see citations 18-21). Or something to that effect. I think simply declaring Cuba a republic is perhaps irresponsible. -- mcmachete 18:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good faith

message: ::It has been falsely suggested that I did not make a proposal.  1) I suggested we all publicly agree to some ground rules of our collaboration, that is WP:RULES, etc..  If we cannot all agree to respect a common set of guidelines, we are doomed.  2) I also suggested that we start by negotiating an agreement on a basic outline of the sections of the article, and then we collaborate on writing the sections.  BruceHallman 19:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, perhaps some people around here can appreciate that the personal attacks and personal threats have poisoned the collaborative atmosphere.  We would be best served to take a different tack before we can proceed collaboratively.  If I am stonewalling anything, I stonewall incivil behaviour. BruceHallman 19:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty ironic, given that your actions are in violation of WP:POINT; you are serving more to disrupt the discussion than anything else.  Adam has made a proposal and explicitly solicited your commentary; instead of providing commentary on his proposal you try to avoid discussing the proposal and try to go on a sidetrack about agreeing to guidelines.  BTW - everybody by virtue of being on Wikipedia is implicitly agreeing to follow Wikipedia policy.  I suggest, in the interests of keeping on talk page on focus, any comments by User:BruceHallman that are not directly relevant to Cuba itself be ignored.  --Bletch 21:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote that we disregard BruceHallman's proposal, and follow Adam's suggested settlement. --Bletch 22:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Settlement of what and with whom? BruceHallman 23:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal =

message: :Adam, your recent edit to the Cuba article included a revision comment using 'name calling', a type of personal attack incivility.  Please try to be civil.  I think that your proposed text is POV, and I think that your POV should be represented in the new Government and Politics section.  Your new requirement that the 'length is maintained' amounts to a statement that there is no room for more 'length' (necessary to include alternate POV's).  Please explain now a neutral POV can be achieved if you are compelled to delete out opposing POV (as you did with your recent edit to the article), and if you allocate only enough length in the Government and Politics section for your own POV? BruceHallman 14:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am willing to contribute edits to the article with a contrary POV to yours. I trust I will not be met again with personal attacks and threats.  The last sentence of the first paragraph appears deliberately misleading and POV, as the preamble describes the leaders of the historical revolutions leading to modern Cuba, including Castro. I think the last sentence of the second paragraph should say that a common reason for imprisonment of dissenters is that they collaborate with, or take money from foreign powers interested in overthrowing the incumbent government.  The fourth paragraph should describe how the nomination process occurs in open public local town meetings. The fifth paragraph and the bullet points contain heavy POV.  The international organizations you describe are largely declared to advocate the overthrow of the incumbent government in Cuba.  Campaigning is not allowed for or against the PCC. The mass media is controlled by the government not the PCC. It is possible for individual people to publicly advocate for and against candidates in the nominating town meetings, what is not allowed is to campaign, and what is especially not allowed is to take foreign money from interests opposed to the incumbent government for the purpose of campaigning against the incumbent government.  I doubt you can credibly verify the 'the remainder were non-party candidates approved by the PCC' statement.  The phrase 'They argue that Cuba is not a democracy' is a falacy because the word 'democracy' has multiple defintions. Indeed, we should address that commonly the criticism of Cuban democracy is often qualified  as 'free market democracy' and similar. We should also address that the 'free speech' criticism is often a criticism that there is no tolerance for foreign money funded political campaigns, particularly ironic when the USA as similar laws outlawing foreign money funding of political campaigns.  BruceHallman 15:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: incivility

message: :Could I encourage you to not steer this 'talk' page towards never ending arguments about 'truth'?   I got my information about dissenters being imprisoned for taking USA money from the Varela Project article here on Wikipedia where the arrests of dissidents was for the crime of taking USA money, not the crime of expressing dissent.  By the way, in the USA you also can be prosecuted for the crime of taking campaign money from foreign agents too. BruceHallman 20:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the Ollanta Humala quote interesting, because although it counters Chavez, it came from a fellow Bolivarian. It shifts the debate away from a US-Cuba axis and into an international context. I have no idea why Adam finds the paragraph incoherent and/or inconclusive, given that it describes factual events rather than unsourced ponderings, and clearly references web pages where readers can discover more about different viewpoints. --Zleitzen 03:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: truth

message: :Might it be possible to write the article without using the word 'democracy' at all?  BruceHallman 22:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, don't be too quick to proceed simply becuase Bruce has been so frustrating. I think Zleitzen's ammendment to your proposal, along with my additions regarding various global assesments of Castro's government, would be important inclusions to present a more complete picture. --Mcmachete 23:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Name calling, 'comrade' used mockingly, is incivil, please be civil.  Proceeding unilaterally isn't exactly nice either.  Your use of the word 'factual' is very much like the concept of personal opinion of 'truth', and I remind you yet again, per WP:V, Wikipedia isn't about 'truth'.  BruceHallman 00:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Your use of the verb 'bleating' is an insult.  You accuse me of an agenda to 'prevent the truth', which is not my agenda.  I do not have an agenda to prevent your POV from being in Wikipedia.  My agenda is to get the opposing POV into Wikipedia beside your POV for the purpose of neutrality, see WP:NPOV.    BruceHallman 01:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, don't be intimidated by Bruce. You are doing a good job. Personally, I Bruce is kvetching, not bleating - though frankly he does so much of it, it's hard to tell some times. Merecat 03:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Democracy