Talk:Elections in Cuba/Archive 1

message: "elected for a five year term out of the list of the Communist Party of Cuba by municipal delegates" is absolute rubbish. I'm changing it accordingly. Dafyddyoung 15:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

message: User PMA and user 172 have unilaterally removed the POV dispute box, with the comment ".."flat earth theory" though it seems wildly illogical that a POV dispute box compares to the 'flat earth theory'.  Please explain just what 'theory' is involved in your reasoning about the POV box?  BruceHallman 21:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take the time to actually understand the neutrality dispute. Based on what you just wrote, you do not understand.  Please actually address the neutrality concern that a multi-party democracy is not the only type of democracy. See, for instance the fourth paragraph which has neutrality problems.  Unilateral removal of a POV box is not civil behaviour.   BruceHallman 21:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute box removal 

message: Most editors to this article/talk page consider the entry to be neutral. BruceHallman  seems to stand alone. I think the dispuute should be closed. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 22:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remind you of this Wiki-ism: "There is consensus among critics and proponents of voting that majority voting should not be the process we use to determine neutrality and accuracy of articles" Simply because this self selected group of editors, which you call 'most editors', hold predominately one biased point of view does not make that point of view neutral.  It is the 'popular' point of view around here, but is is not neutral, refer to this article about systemic bias.  Wikipedia has the duty to reflect neutrality based on a world view, not our personally held conservative Western view.  If you could see through the fog of political bias you might understand. BruceHallman 03:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The inclusion in the link section of an analysis from your own website does tend to cloud the consensus issue somewhat, Adam! I saw a similar barrier when I stumbled into a dispute between devoted Chomskyites and an editor whom I believe may be this bloke (read his comments about wikipedia!), on the Criticisms of Noam Chomsky page. But there are solutions which satisfy all parties, and there appears to be a happy consensus there now. Adam's link and view has every right to be included and explored, but Bruce's points about systemic bias have to be taken into account. Besides, there are more complex issues, where assessing a balance of bias between right and left does not suffice. (I prefer to prescribe the Nolan chart on these matters anyway). I think there needs to be a plain recording of the machinery of the Cuban system. And a seperate section exploring how that particular system relates and compares to other international models. Including Western liberal, Asian and contemporary South American (which are in flux). Having seen the shenanigans of the main Cuba page, these matters have to be addressed in the article, and in a fashion that should be as resistent to attack from all sides as possible. --Zleitzen 15:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry Adam, I didn't check to see who put your site on. Will mull over your points and return with ideas at a later time. --Zleitzen 00:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute 

message: "Since the electoral system does not allow oppositional candidates, these elections cannot be considered free and fair elections, in which voters had a choice of candidates from various political orientation." This sentence from the fourth paragraph is based on the presumtion that all democracy must be multi-party.  That definition of democracy is not neutral.  Also, I think it is a poor style of editing to describe what Cuba is not.  We should rather describe what Cuba is. BruceHallman 13:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone please explain the concept why all democracy has to be multi-party?  So many around here view that presumption to be 'truth'.  BruceHallman 13:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't explain it, because noone here is espousing that view per se.  Now if you want an explanation on why democracy inherently requires tolerance of opposition and freedom of speech, you merely need to read the many arguments rehashed over and over that you are either oblivious to, or are choosing to ignore.  --Bletch 23:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "Many arguments rehashed over and over" quoting Bletch. Yes, I could not have said it better.  But, 99% of what I have seen are arguments based on your original research.  Adam's latest argument,  01:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please allow me to restate the essence of my question: Why does Cuba have to meet your POV definition of democracy? BruceHallman 13:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agreed to your 12:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality dispute