Talk:National Assembly of People's Power

Staged National Assemblies

National Asemblies existed under different names in many Communist/Socialist states and all their activities were controlled by Communist parties. I don't know any example of a real political decision made by such an assembly. Have you got any prove sthat the National Assembly of People's Power of Cuba has a real power? If not, the article in such form should be removed. Xx236 08:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

National Assembly of People's Power of Cuba → National Assembly of People's Power — "Of Cuba" is redundant; no other body so called exists. Target name exists as a redirect with edit history. —Lapicero 19:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Proposed/Supported. Comparable examples are National People's Congress, House of Peoples' Representatives, Knesset, etc. The "of Cuba" coda would be fine if disambiguation were necessary, but that's not the case. Lapicero 20:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• This page has been moved to National Assembly of People's Power as the result of an uncontroversial move request listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dekimasuよ! 08:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Questionable sentence removed

I removed the following sentence from the Elections section:

"The nomination process is therefore conducted in accordance with the principles of direct democracy, in marked contrast to the party primary system."

Tamino (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Assembly of People's Power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722023013/http://libraries.ucsd.edu/locations/sshl/resources/featured-collections/latin-american-elections-statistics/cuba/elections-and-events-19912001.html to http://libraries.ucsd.edu/locations/sshl/resources/featured-collections/latin-american-elections-statistics/cuba/elections-and-events-19912001.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

How many Afro-Cuban members?

Cuba has, as far as I know, twice as many black people as the USA (around 30% of its population), how many Afro-Cubans are in their parliament?--2001:9E8:567A:3F00:A8B4:1738:D4E7:76F8 (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Freedom House citation

Is the Freedom House citation really necessary when there are other citations for the same passage? What do we get from a think tank funded by the US government, which has been attempting to overthrow the Cuban government for nearly its entire existence, that the citations in [4] don't give us? Dvdwinter9 (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination

@LeonTheGreat1: Please engage in discussion here rather than edit warring. Per WP:BRD, you made a WP:BOLD edit that has now been disputed, so you now need to discuss.

@Toa Nidhiki05: As for the content itself, I agree with you that this outstanding assertion that something as key as nomination committees would not be party controlled in Cuba is not supported by sources, and therefore reiterate my demand for reliable sources from LeonTheGreat1. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see apologies. I will bring sources later. Is that fine? LeonTheGreat1 (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It's fine as long as you do not reinstate the content until the consensus of editors in this discussion is in favor of it. I'm no expert in Cuban politics but I do know that truly independent government bodies basically do not exist in one-party states like Cuba. Also, even if the Cuban government claims they're "independent", they are still a WP:PRIMARY source and we still need WP:SECONDARY sources, particularly here because of how little we can trust Cuba's government.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I was wondering is this a conversation anyone can join on? LeonTheGreat1 (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can participate, but if you were thinking of inviting friends over, don’t (WP:CANVASSING).—Jasper Deng (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay. LeonTheGreat1 (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is one source. It links to evidence to pretty much everything it says. Do you have any problems with it? Here is the source: https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/12/02/cuba-elections-democracy/ LeonTheGreat1 (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This highly biased piece is not going to pass muster against the high-quality reliable sources already cited in the article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The article links evidence to every thing it says. What specific problems do you have? Just saying it is biased is not very strong. LeonTheGreat1 (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

This might be acceptable if there were not other scholarly sources cited that are much higher quality; please see WP:DUE. As it stands, though, one opinion piece by a fringe author does not trump the existing sourcing that is in the article. There is a reason why Fox News talk shows are considered deprecated, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. You're going to need much more and much better sources for this to be WP:DUE weight.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think Fox News articles cite evidence for every claim they make. The article cites other websites at times and the official Cuban government on how the political process works. I once again don’t see an issue LeonTheGreat1 (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Simply parroting the Cuban government's view doesn't cut it. None of the links cited by your link are in support of this claim. Please see WP:FRINGE, and please do read WP:DUE, both in their entireties. Whatever you say about this source, it's not as good as the ones already cited and won't be used.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

So what specific sources would you like if this does not cut it? LeonTheGreat1 (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I already said what Wikipedia needs and will not repeat it. Again, please read the policies and guidelines I have linked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Can the source be in Spanish? I could potentially give you more if it did not have to strictly be in English. LeonTheGreat1 (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

They can be Spanish but would be held to the same standards. I don't think you understand how slim your chances of getting this view into the article are. Outstanding claims like Cuban election committees being truly independent need outstandingly good sources and for that to be the view of the article, we must have been missing numerous scholarly reliable sources. Which do you think is more likely? Can you please read the policies in question and explain exactly how you intend to satisfy their requirements?--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Page 123 and more specifically 124 of Democracy and Revolution: Latin America and Socialism Today by D.L. Raby admits that the Communist party can’t intervene in the nomination process of candidates. LeonTheGreat1 (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a book by a socialist activist, with a stated activist goal, published by an activist print company. Hardly a compelling source. Toa Nidhiki05 00:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

That does not debunk what he stated. Here is a description about him: D.L. Raby is Honorary Research Fellow at the Institute of Latin American Studies of the University of Liverpool, and also holds the rank of Professor Emeritus in the History Department of the University of Toronto. Raby has written many studies of Latin American and Iberian History and Politics, and is a long-standing activist in solidarity campaigns with Latin American struggles and social movements in the UK and Canada. LeonTheGreat1 (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Whether the source is right or wrong in actuality isn’t what really matters here. This is better than your first source but WP:DUE weight still requires the version of the article as-is. Once again, you’re not just needing sources, you’re needing truly outstanding, numerous, and very high quality ones. This still doesn’t fit the bill.—Jasper Deng (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

How does this not fit the bill exactly? I’m quite confused about what you mean. LeonTheGreat1 (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

If you’re confused, you can start at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable source and WP:DUE.—Jasper Deng (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Still really don’t understand what you mean. Are you saying this is too fringe of a view? LeonTheGreat1 (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I've explained multiple times that it would be WP:UNDUE weight to include that view, because it is not the one supported by a proponderance of reliable sources.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Political groups within the Assembly

I noticed a recent edit war that included the part of the infobox referring to composition of the Assembly, so I wanted to explain here the recent edit I made to the infobox that lists 442 members in the Communist Party and 28 independents.

The official website lists 28 people as not being Party members, so they ought not be listed as belonging to the Communist Party in the infobox. This is the case even if those 28 people are, in whatever sense, under the control of the Communist Party; that information belongs more properly in the text of the article.

This is more consistent with how legislatures in other "one-party states" are treated, e.g. the article for the National People's Congress of China lists in its infobox 9 parties as well as a collection of independents. The second paragraph of that article still says "the NPC has been characterized as a rubber stamp for the ruling Chinese Communist Party".

If anyone wants to check, the 28 current Assembly Members who are not in the Communist Party are:

--superioridad ^(discusión) 05:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)