Talk:Cuba/Archive 8

message: Our mediation has been pending since April 28, waiting it appears, for a response from Adam.  I point your attention here in case you missed it.  BruceHallman 13:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pending mediation. 

message: Now that we seem to have fixed up the History, Politics and Human Rights sections, the remaining problems are:
*The Economy section is too long and needs to be cut in half, with the surplus exported to Economy of Cuba.
*The Infrastructure section doesn't have much to recommend it and could well be abolished.
*The "table" in the Health section looks hideous and should be moved to Public health in Cuba.
*The culture section is if anything now too short, and not very good. Adam 03:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opps, that hadn't crossed my mind. Time for a self-criticism, I suppose. 172 | Talk 07:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And your present paragraph doesn't mention the US embargo, 172. Your re-write omits that elephant in the room. Nor does your re-write recognise any of this  or this  or this  etc, etc. But we're in for the long haul towards NPOV, so we will have plenty of time to discuss the economy section in more detail once more pressing issues are resolved. --Zleitzen 12:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: (1) My omission of the embargo was intentional. Still, if you want to add a few details on the embargo, please go ahead. Since you're the main author of the article, I'll defer to your editorial judgment on how to organize the article. In case you're interested, I'll lay out my reasoning on the omission. First, when I was writing the section and contemplating the choice of adding a few lines on the about the embargo, I realized that by the time the reader would work his or her way down to the "Economy" section, the embargo had already been mentioned about half a dozen times, particularly in the "History" section. Hence, I was interested in avoiding redundancy. Second, while I do not disregard the role of the embargo in cementing Cuba's isolation from the world capitalist system, I think that's a topic belonging under a broader discussion of economic history in the "History" section. My assumption is that a section entitled "Economy" is not necessarily going to offer an economic history. The "Economy" section is supposed to be a discussion of the contemporary Cuban economy, right? (The model I had in mind was something along the lines of a shorter version of the type of write-up one would find in Economist Intelligence Unit country report.) At any rate, if you disagree, I won't make an issue out of it. (2) Regarding the claim that Cuba is a net-importer of sugar, the figure is indeed quite surprising. I found that claim in the Heritage Foundation's most recent report on Cuba.  While I'm not much of a fan of Heritage generally, I don't think the factual accuracy of their reports is too much of a question. Still, if you want to remove the claim, go ahead. It's only one possible anecdotal illustration of the deep-seated structural problems in Cuba commonly associated with other past Soviet-style command economies. If you can think of more relevant, please add them. 172 | Talk 16:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tasks remaining

message: Maybe as an archive worker I'm being a bit sensitive but I am finding it a tad disturbing that the archives of this discussion are being manipulated, probably by Adam and his allies. Last time I dropped by I  wrote some comments, under the heading 'The Cold War continues...', on Adam's claims to be the standard bearer of the truth round here. The next time I looked a new page had been started, and the last section of the previous page, (now Archive 5) had been broken up by subheadings all of which begin with 'Bruce complains about...'. My contribution and Bletch's response had completely disappeared and the end of the previous section been merged with the contributions that followed, and  copied over to form the top of this page. Strategic duplication?
Looking further I noticed that each of the four archive pages formed since Adam's arrival here had two things in common, Adam had been the last or last but one contributor, and the histories of the pages almost totally erased. Care to tell us how you did it, Adam? Care to tell us how it tallies with your commitment to facts and truth? 
:Here follows the missing bit MichaelW 15:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ==the cold war continues...==
To respond to an earlier bit of empty rhetoric - who cares what Adam thinks?  Back after a while away I see nothing much has changed. Those sympathetic to socialist Cuba are dismissed as apologists and/or naive, while those critical are describing 'reality', 'the truth' and saying certain things are'obvious' or 'factual'. Bruce is described (by an unchallenged sockpuppet) as frustrating when he is clearly reacting from a sense of frustration. Adam damns him as a communist, rather than, more generously,patronise him as naive. What qualifies you, Adam, to claim to be writing something 'factual'? All you will do is present the arguments you consider relevant, while ignoring the ones which weaken the POV you are trying to assert. What is factual about that? You have shown over and over that your definition of democracy pertains solely to the method by which governments are chosen and ignores the actual social and economic structures within which those governments work. By keeping the focus of the argument on the definition of democracy as you define it you avoid dealing with issues like the value of a balloted vote as opposed to the raw economic power of private ownership.
How much time do you want to spend trying to convince us that you, and only you, know best? It appears to me that you aren't interested in a solution to this page's problems. No matter what you write, no matter how accurate it is within the limits that you set, the perspectives that look beyond your limits aren't going to fade away, simply because you and your supporters insist that they do so. 172 promised you an edit war when he asked for your assistance. Is that what you are here for? the fight? Your continuing displays of contempt for those who dare disagree with you suggests that this is so and that you see the discussions here strictly in terms of win or lose, rather than a struggle to reach agreement. MichaelW 01:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well guess what, democracy is solely about the process which leaders are chosen, and the ability to openly criticize the government.  And by those measures, Cuba's democracy is non existent.  No amount of sugar can make that bitter pill easier to swallow.  Sure, you can go and say that Cuba which is not a democracy is probably a more pleasent place to live than Haiti which is a democracy, but that is no more relevant to the question of democracy than the price of a cigar. --Bletch 01:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive manipulation

message: The present citation for the 'not a democracy' phrase is this CIDH link.  That citation does not even include one instance of the use or the word 'democracy' or 'democratic'.  For that reason, that citation appears to be not pertinent.   BruceHallman 18:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'not a democracy citation' 

message: I propose a gentlemen's agreement to quickly make things run more smoothly here. I'll agree to abstain forever from editing any Cuba-related articles if BruceHallman does the same. It's a tit-for-tat deal that'll make things easier for all of us (especially the two of us). 172 | Talk 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With due respect; I renew my commitment to act like a gentlemen, to act civilly and to honor all the Wikipedia policies including WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.  I trust you are willing to make the same commitment? BruceHallman 21:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do. Now, we are both at loggerheads with respect to how those polices apply here. Neither of us are indispensable. It makes sense for both of us to part ways to deescalate things around here. 172 | Talk 21:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we agree that there is more than one point of view regarding the 'not a democracy' claim.  Then we agree that the article should try to represent a neutral point of view on that topic. Then we agree that the 'not a democracy' assertion must meet WP:V with a credible citation.  BruceHallman 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think your position is very wrong. You think I'm wrong. With both of us gone, the net effect is zero. 172 | Talk 21:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are saying my point of view is wrong.  I can appreciate that you believe this.  But, you misunderstand me. I have not announced my point of view.  You do not know my point of view.  I have only sought to include the significant contrary point of view into the article.  The fact that I am seeking to do this does not mean that I endorse that point of view personally.  BruceHallman 22:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope you are not saying that I am wrong to ask that the policies neutrality, verifiability and civility be honored.  That is all that I am asking.  BruceHallman 22:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're going in circles. I said I consider your applications or interpretations of those policies consistently wrong. My request should have been easy enough to understand. I'm sure the other editors will get the point. This is my last comment under this heading, unless you show in interest in the detente I was proposing. 172 | Talk 22:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think there's a need for either party to retreat from working out the issues on the page, although an edit war should be unnecessary. At present the "not a democracy" wording alerts readers to the abject failure of this page (as the Miami Herald recognises) and the credibility of those who insist on it's inclusion. So even whilst causing damage to the reputation of Wikipedia, your reverts have served a certain purpose, 172. --Zleitzen 00:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed you are famous now in Miami, Dr Carr!! See top of page.--Zleitzen 00:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How entertaining. Miami is of course full of people who know a lot about the realities of Cuban "democracy." Perhaps some of them will come and help us edit the article. Won't that be fun, comrades? Adam 01:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the state of the article Adam, I thought that was already the case! The Herald piece is not the only thing that tickled me today, I've just looked at Merecat's Police State citation and it refers to Camp X-Ray! Marvellous! --Zleitzen 01:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a derogatory term meaning "The Great Dick-eater." While I whole-heartedly agree, it obviously shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, as it is something Bruce will be all too happy to pronounce as being in violation of wiki NPOV. --Mcmachete 03:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to BruceHallman

message: #"Cuba is a totalitarian police state, which relies on repressive methods to maintain control".  Merecat 21:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreeing what Cuba is not results from knowing what Cuba is 

message: Adam accused Bruce of engaging in "obfuscation and delaying tactics". Other editors should bear in mind that it is Adam not Bruce that is holding up the much needed mediation process . See below:
===Decision of the Mediation Committee===
Pending acceptance. User:Adam Carr stated that he "reserve[s] [his] rights"; I'm concerned about the intended meaning of this phrase, as it suggests to me that the level of agreement necessary to have a productive mediation may not be present. I'd like Adam to clarify his intent before the matter is assigned to a mediator. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Obfuscation and delaying tactics

message: Pending acceptance. User:Adam Carr stated that he "reserve[s] [his] rights"; I'm concerned about the intended meaning of this phrase, as it suggests to me that the level of agreement necessary to have a productive mediation may not be present. I'd like Adam to clarify his intent before the matter is assigned to a mediator. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision of the Mediation Committee