Talk:Elections in Cuba/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old talk archived

Since I have rewritten the article all this old Talk can be archived. Adam 00:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the re-write Adam. --Zleitzen 00:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Voting for a list of candidates

I don't think the part about the single-member electorates, or the part about there only being one candidate on the ballot paper is true. As far as I know, each ballot paper covers several seats, and people must accept or reject each candidate on the list (one candidate per seat). There is an "all of the above" box allowing people to accept all the candidates. It is impossible to reject all the candidates, since there is no "none of the above" box, and ticking none of the boxes means leaving the ballot paper blank, which can't be distinguished from an informal vote. I'll have to research this more, unless someone else wants to clear this up. Carl Kenner 05:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done some more research, and it definately appears that there are between 2 and 5 seats in each electorate (with one candidate per seat). This means voters have a ballot paper with 2-5 names on it and they have to tick which candidates they are prepared to accept, or tick "all of the above". It is definately not a single-member electorate system. See Final Results of the elections of People's Power - Our Deputies. So I'm going to edit the article to reflect this. Carl Kenner 12:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That's very interesting, I haven't seen that fact noted anywhere before. They are called circumscriptions, by the way, not electorates. This is a similar system to Singapore, which also has multi-member, but non-proportional, electoral districts. (Of course proportional or non-proportional makes no difference when no-one else is allowed to contest the elections!) Adam 13:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's quite well publicised. Fidel Castro is always calling on voters to tick the all-of-the-above box rather than ticking the several candidates individually. Supposedly it is "counter-revolutionary" to make up your mind about each one! Bizarre. Electoral districts with the same ballot paper are called "electorates" in Australia. I've never heard of "circumscriptions". I'm not sure why some electorates have 5 seats and some only have 2. I think it is one seat per 20,000 voters, and the districts are probably whatever is easiest geographically. Carl Kenner 08:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

2003 election

  • If there is going to be detailed coverage of the 2003 election, it should be at Cuban legislative election, 2003, not here. This is a general article on elections in Cuba.
  • The last paragraph is of course total nonsense and completely unacceptable. Adam 02:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • No it is the election result. If you don't like it, move to Cuba and vote against Castro. There is nothing I can do to change the election result. Carl Kenner 08:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Who is "the weatherman"?--Zleitzen 02:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of the old Weathermen from the 60s still hiding out in Cuba? Maybe Bruce is one of them. Adam 02:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Adam, why do you keep taking jabs at me? BruceHallman 03:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The weatherman, Dr. Jose Rubiera, is one of the Cuban deputies to the National Assembly who has been in the international media frequently, particularly in the wake of hurricane Katrina. He is responsible for Cuba's award-winning hurricane preparedness and disaster relief program. He is also said to be one of the few people who stands up to Fidel Castro when he is wrong. He is much more popular than the US head of FEMA, as you can see. Carl Kenner 08:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I gave Bruce an honest and direct answer to his question, but I see it has been deleted. Obviously we have a Granma subeditor at work here. Adam 09:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted, it was an edit conflict. I just figured you wouldn't want it restored, since it was said in anger, and is not consistent with Wikipedia standards. Carl Kenner 09:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ambi

I haven't made a single revert to anyone's work and you know it. If you have the power to block Adam, or prevent vandalism to this page, I order you to do so. And quit vandalising other people's work. Neither you, nor anyone else have made any complaints on this article that haven't been fixed. Carl Kenner 10:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Section

I've removed a section detailing Cuba's 2003 elections. This needs a lot of re-working before re-inclusion. Some of the associated commentary was unencylopedic, and the results themselves were inaccurately presented, as I mentioned in my edit summary. --Zleitzen 22:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did you move it to for re-working? The father's name is "Juan Miguel Gonzalez". The section is cited and seems to meet WP:V. Hard statistic about protest voting in elections is relevant, I think. The bad wording could be corrected through editing rather than be summarily deleted. If the Wikipedia consensus is that citing sources from Cuba about Cuba are not allowed, perhaps that needs some discussion? BruceHallman 00:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It's here Bruce, I don't understand the title, and a lot of the commentary. Even the election results were unclear "The weatherman"? It needs a lot of clarification. It would be best to deal with that before reintroduction. --Zleitzen 00:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed the style now that I know how to do tables :-) So cut out the vandalism. The Cuba page said the Election page contained election results, but it didn't, so I added them. If you don't like the Election results then move to Cuba and vote. I think I covered the opposition case fairly thoroughly, rather than just presenting the votes without mentioning the boycott calls or factoring them in. If you don't like the style, or clarity of an article the correct approach is to fix it, or tag the section with a style and clarity heading. Don't just delete other people's hard work. Anyway, it's fixed now. Carl Kenner 08:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Carl, please review WP:CIV and WP:NPA. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what being going on here in my absence? I removed a section to the talk page for a rework, which is legitimate. Carl reworked it a little and placed it in the correct area which is also legitimate, meanwhile Adam apparently calls another user "a malicious fool" without reason (see edit history). But Carl is asked to review WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Am I missing something?--Zleitzen 11:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What happened was that I moved that text to Cuban legislative election, 2003, where it belongs, and have now also rewritten it into some semblance of honesty. Carl appears to be an even worse wrecker than Bruce and the late Scott, and he insisted on reimporting his dishonest gargage into this article. Adam 11:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Opposing views

Ultramarine, you keep putting opposing views in the opening section. Not the large area titled "opposing views".--Zleitzen 05:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise the intro in essence states that Cuba is democratic which is not NPOV.Ultramarine 06:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine, again I don't understand your thinking. The below is verifiable and uncontestable information, whether it corresponds with your notions of what is "democratic" is beside the point.
Cuba's national legislature, the National Assembly of People's Power, has 609 members who sit for five-year terms. Members of the National Assembly represent multiple-member constituencies (2 to 5 members per district), with one Deputy for each 20,000 inhabitants. The most recent elections to the National Assembly were held on 19 January 2003. Although there are no choice of candidates at the national level of the election, with 609 candidates for 609 seats,[1] there are, however, multiple candidates in the open nomination assemblies held for the nominiation of these candidates for these seats.
What you have added "However, critics state.." is an opposing view from "critics". Therefore it goes in the opposing view section.--Zleitzen 07:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
That the nominatin assemblies are "open" is a view, not something uncontestable. As noted, another view is that the top Communist leaders decide who should be nominated.Ultramarine 07:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Read the end of chapter 6 of the book,Democracy in Cuba and the 1997-1998 Elections, Montreal:Canada-Cuba Distribution. ISBN 0968508405, pages 261 through 296, the nomination assemblies are truly open. The word 'open' and that citation meets WP:V and WP:NOR. BruceHallman 00:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
With due respect, it is the contrary citations from the State Department that lack credibility. An honest question: Why should the US State Department be considered to be a credible source? Please answer that question. BruceHallman 00:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Does the State Department describe how they gather their information, or whether they fabricate 'intelligence' about Cuba to justify a preset foreign policy? There is good evidence that under the Bush Administration, as undersecretary John Bolton was openly accused[1][2] of shoddy intelligence about Cuba during his confirmation hearings in the Senate. This raises serious credibility concerns about State Department statements about Cuba. BruceHallman 00:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The view of US State Department is certainly a noteworthy and Wikipedia:NPOV reguires that all significant views should be included. Regarding its reliability, the criticism is essentially the same by Human Rights Watch and Freedom House.Ultramarine 07:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Unless you accept that "opposing views" go in the opposing view section Ultramarine, then we'll have to go through a dispute process which I believe you are familiar with, and I imagine will tell you the same thing. We shouldn't confuse an opposing view with what is an imposing view. There's plenty of room for your US State Department "report" to show itself in the relevant section, though personally I have no idea why it is necessary in a page about Cuban elections at all and seems a rather spurious precedent to take. I'd be interested to see you try your luck placing the US view on other such pages. Or more pertinently, placing Castro's many comments on the U.S. system on Elections in the United States? Please see , Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, Ethnocentrism, American exceptionalism. Besides, as the US/Non-US ratio on Wikipedia continues to shift to the latter, your additions will likely be removed in time for the reasons I give anyway. So I'd count yourself lucky that you're even able to put them in the opposing views section at all for now. Therefore trying to get them into the opening section is an entirely fruitless practice. --Zleitzen 08:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
My question was: Why should the US State Department be considered to be a credible source? The answer given was that their views are 'noteworthy'; is that the answer? It is decidedly 'noteworthy' that the State Department is willing to 'fix' the intelligence to match the policy. Should an encyclopedia give 'credible' weight to fixed intelligence? BruceHallman 13:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
See below.Ultramarine 17:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Neither here nor below have you answered the question about credibility of your source. Please answer the question. Specifically, there are significant public concerns about the credibility of the intelligence used by the State Department by Undersecretary John Bolton regarding Cuba. Why should this questionable intelligence be used in an encyclopedia? BruceHallman 18:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Summary section of article.

Two editors insist that the sentence "In practice a small group of leaders, under the direction of the president, selected the members of the highest policy-making bodies of the CP, the Politburo, and the Central Committee.", be included in the summary of the article. This sentence describing the selection at the highest level does not seem to be pertinent to the topic of Elections in Cuba. It is roughly analogous in the USA to how the Presidential Cabinet is chosen, or the Majority Leader of Congress is chosen. What does this have to do with Elections in Cuba that justifies inclusion in the summary? BruceHallman 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, that the source of this sentence has large credibility questions which have not been addressed. BruceHallman 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Similar with the undue focus on the National Assembly, as the real elections in Cuba occur at the local level. Perhaps a USA analogy might be a caucus such as the Iowa caucuses. If we are going to write about elections as they exist in Cuba, we need to address the local levels. To ignore the local levels and instead point to the highest levels levels, and then imply that they fail as 'free elections', is a form of Strawman argument. This is important if the goal is to paint Cuba as 'bad'. But rather, our job is to edit an article about Elections in Cuba as they are without the value judgements. BruceHallman 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

See similar examples Cabinet of the United Kingdom, House of Lords (an unelected body of 724 members), Lord Chancellor etc. Likewise these positions are chosen by a "small group of leaders", and are not subject to an electoral process. Although cabinet ministers are generally elected to parliament in regional elections, and are chosen for cabinet based on subsequent performance. Have any of the current U.S. cabinet been elected at any stage? --Zleitzen 16:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to understand the 'opposing view' voiced by Ultramarine, and others. It appears to be that: Elections in Cuba are not like elections elsewhere? Or, is the view that: Because elections in Cuba are not like elections elsewhere that they are bad? To claim "...must be approved in advance by mass organizations controlled by the government." without saying which 'mass organizations' and without describing the nature of the 'approval' lacks credibility. Is this analagous as saying that in the USA that Labor Unions are controlled by the Democratic Party? Or, that Republicans control the K Street Project that controls Congress? Again, what does this have to do with elections in Cuba? The article should not be used as a platform to make a statement that elections in Cuba are good or bad. We should just describe elections in Cuba, neutrally. BruceHallman 17:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The introduction now states that Cuba has "there are, however, multiple candidates in the open nomination assemblies held for the nominiation of these candidates". The source for this is extremely dubious. It is an almost 10 years old writing, "August, A. (1999). Democracy in Cuba and the 1997-1998 Elections, Montreal:Canada-Cuba Distribution. ISBN 0968508405". As noted in the title, it refers to an old election, not the current situation. As such, it should be removed from the article.Ultramarine 17:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
It is a detailed and scholarly study of elections in Cuba, and seven years back does not qualify it as old. I don't understand what you mean by 'not the current situation' as election law in Cuba has not since changed. BruceHallman 18:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
If you are crticial of the political system in the US or the UK, discuss that in the appropriate articles with sources. This article is about Cuba. Regarding the reliability of the State department report, it is essentially the same as Human Rights Watch and Freedom House.Ultramarine 17:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
"If you are criticial of the political system in..." That mantra doesn't wash, Ultramarine. No one has made criticisms of those systems, they are used as examples of how your injections are innappropriate. The 1997-1998 source is valid unless you have a more accurate up to date extract. Unless you move the "opposing view" to the "opposing views" section you will have to be prepared to enter the dispute process. --Zleitzen 18:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
A source about the 1997-1998 election is irrelevant for the current situation. It should certainly not be in the intro. It could be in the body, with the necessary qualifier pointing out that it refers to an old election. I will move both statements to the body which should satisfy all.Ultramarine 18:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Human Rights Watch has questionable credibility[3] as does the neoconservative Freedom House. BruceHallman 18:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

European Commission: Development: EU Relations with Cuba "Cuba has a one-party political system where the Communist Party of Cuba holds the monopoly of political power, under the aegis of President Mr. Fidel Castro Ruz." "Elections for the National Assembly, where only candidates approved by the local authorities can partake, take place every five years. When the National Assembly, which meets twice-yearly, is not in session the 31-member Council of State wields legislative power. The Council of Ministers, through its 9-member executive committee, exercises executive and administrative power. Although the Constitution provides for independent judiciary, it explicitly subordinates it to the National Assembly and to the Council of State. Involvement in decision-making and implementation through non-political actors has been institutionalised through national organisations, linked to the Communist Party, representing farmers, youth groups, students, women, industrial workers, etc." "Public political opposition in Cuba is not allowed, and political dissidents are pursued by the authorities.""The results of past elections: Last elections for provincial and national assemblies on January 19th 2003 confirmed the monopoly position of the only legal political party, the Communist Party of Cuba"

Human Rights Defenders in Cuba from Human Rights First states: "Cuba remains the only country in the Western Hemisphere to reject democracy and effectively outlaw peaceful advocacy for human rights and democratic reforms. Independent civil society in Cuba – including human rights defenders, democracy activists, and independent journalists and scholars – are the targets of constant persecution. The universally-recognized rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly are systematically violated by the State and victims have virtually no means of redress within the judicial system."

CUBA: fundamental freedoms still under attack from Amnesty International states: "Amnesty International calls once more on the Cuban authorities to release all prisoners of conscience immediately and unconditionally. The organization also calls on the authorities to revoke all legislation that restricts freedom of expression, assembly and association, and to put a halt to all actions to harass and intimidate dissidents, journalists, and human rights defenders."Ultramarine 18:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

None of these three citations address the question of the credibility of the US State Department regarding Cuba. Please don't just change the question and then answer a changed question. BruceHallman 20:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
None of your two sources states that there is any problem with the Human Rights report. They mention weapons of mass destruction.Ultramarine 20:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is Granma a credible source? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Answering a question with a question is not an answer either. BruceHallman 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, the April 11, 2005 US Senate Intelligence Committee testimony of Christian Westerman raises credibility questions whether the US State Department had the policy of fixing the intelligence regarding Cuba to match the policy. How does US State Department publication pass the credibility threshold of WP:V for an encyclopedia in light of this question? BruceHallman 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, that was regarding WMD, not the human rights report. As noted above, EU and NGOs have expressed similar views. Wikipedia:NPOV reguires inclusion of all significant views. If you want to criticze a view, do it in the article. Let the readers decide for themselves. Ultramarine 21:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about Iraq. Or, if by 'WMD' you mean the discredited John Bolton Cuban bioterror accusation[4] on May 6, 2002, then it very much pertains here. At question is that the US State Department was credibly accused during a hearing of the United States Senate Intelligence Committee of fixing intelligence about Cuba to justify their policy about Cuba. In light of this, how shall we know that the State Department citation (presently ref:13) is credible? BruceHallman 21:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not questioning this based on WP:NPOV, I am questioning the credibility required by WP:V. BruceHallman 21:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, let the reader decide for themselves. Include this criticisms of statements regarding bioterror if think it is relevant in the article. The article now has several statements from the Cuban government and censored newspapers. According to your logic, they should be removed. Better to include both sides.Ultramarine 21:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

POV problems

Ultramarine reverted the non-neutral word 'argue' in place of the neutral words 'explain' and 'describe', causing POV problems with the article. BruceHallman 17:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Explain implies that they are right. Argue is neutral.Ultramarine 18:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Argue is more neutral then Explain Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 19:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This edit (among others) introduced POV problems in the article, 'a writing' has POV implications, it is a 'book'. BruceHallman 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Aldux

  • Aldux has reverted several changes made to the article claiming POV - would this user please explain why?
  • Ultramarine - You have also reverted without explanation - Please do likewise to help consensus and remove the POV tag which has been on the article for weeks. --Zleitzen 11:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • You are deleting sourced material from one side and keeping unsourced material from the other. See the differences_ [5]. Ultramarine 11:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Which sourced material are you referring to? And please specify what you mean by side?--Zleitzen 11:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
"Accodring to Human Rights First, "Cuba remains the only country in the Western Hemisphere to reject democracy and effectively outlaw peaceful advocacy for human rights and democratic reforms." [6]"
Also, there are many dubious claims by the Cuban government that are presented as undisputed facts without source, like this "The current Cuban electoral law was adopted by the National Assembly of People’s Power in July 1992 after "unprecedented openness in debate, not just among party members, but also among the entire populace, so as to foster greater participation and build 'the necessary consensus' for the government's policy response...Eventually, some three million people participated in the pre-Congress discussions.""Ultramarine 11:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I took the HRF piece out because it was crap and does nothing for the article, it just hovered in no mans land like a lot of the weird material I removed from the page. The statement about the unprecedented opennness is sourced, it's sourced to the US based anti Castro Cuba transition project. Besides that was already in the article. Keep talking...--Zleitzen 11:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Crap? It is a valid view. Regarding the document, you quote very selectively:

"When the new electoral law was finalized in October 1992, however, it dashed any hopes for a significant opening of OPP to alternative voices. The ban on campaigning was retained, and the nomination of provincial and national assembly candidates was entrusted to Candidacy Commissions. Through an elaborate process of consultation with and suggestions from mass organizations, municipal assemblies, and local work centers, the Candidacy Commissions (now chaired by trade union, rather than PCC, representatives) produced slates of nominees with just one candidate per seat. Voters only had the choice of voting yes or no.47 Thus, the election process at the provincial and national levels avoided the possibility of even implicit policy differences among candidates of the sort that could occur in local contests. Beginning in 1993 with the first election for provincial and national delegates under these new regulations, the government has campaigned hard for people to cast a voto unido (that is, a straight ticket vote for all the nominated candidates), which the vast majority of people have done. Voting has been portrayed more as an affirmation of support for the regime than as a means for voters to select among competing candidates or policies."Ultramarine 12:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't quote it, Ultramarine - I don't know who originally put it in. I was organising and editing the article for clarity as is my role here. Your reverts are simply unhelpful. As for the HRF - rewrite if you insist it should be in the article - in it's current form it is "crap" and not even spelt correctly. Besides your above paragraph was in my re-draft so I don't understand your issues. --Zleitzen 12:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes

The two users who have summarily reverted my organisation and clean-up of this article have done so apparently without examining the changes. All of these changes were made to clarify the Cuban electoral process for readers - only one piece of sourced information was removed (because it was badly written and said nothing). Without these changes the article is an unreadable mess with duplicate and/or irrelevant material. It should be noted that I have retained the "original research" paragraph which heads the criticism section - although it isn't sourced it helps clarify the arguments in that section.--Zleitzen 12:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sourced sections removed: "Cuba’s supporters argue that the Cuban system is more democratic than that used in multi-party democracies. The Cuba Solidarity Campaign, a group based in the United States, says: “Electoral candidates are not chosen by small committees of political parties… Instead the candidates are nominated individually by grass-roots organisations and by individual electors… The successful candidate is chosen by secret ballot. The Electoral Law of 1992 stipulates that delegates to the municipal and provincial assemblies and the 601 deputies to the National Assembly are all elected by popular suffrage using a secret ballot… Unlike the case in other states, which invariably criticize Cuba for being ‘undemocratic’, voter turn-out in Cuba is high. In April 2005, 97.7% of electors came out to vote for their deputies to the municipal assemblies.” [1]"

And: "Accodring to Human Rights First, "Cuba remains the only country in the Western Hemisphere to reject democracy and effectively outlaw peaceful advocacy for human rights and democratic reforms." [7]"

Unsourced section removed:"Critics also point out that whatever the merits of the system for electing the National Assembly, that body is itself a facade for the reality of PCC rule in Cuba. The Assembly meets only twice a year for a few days. The 31-member Council of State, in theory elected by the Assembly but in practice appointed by the PCC, wields effective state power, and the PCC Politburo, as in all communists states, is the ultimate political authority. Although the Assembly has eight standing committees, they do not exercise any effective authority over legislation. During its biannual plenums, the Assembly plays a passive role as audience for various government speakers. Once the Council of State's legislative proposals have been presented, they are summarily ratified by unanimous or near unanimous vote of the Assembly." The above is purely original research.--Zleitzen 12:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent overview. Ultramarine 12:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellant overview, Ultramarine - Your link has some good points and they're incorporated into the article. But on occasion the bias shines through. --Zleitzen 12:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

Calling attention to this diff, I ask all editors, including Aldux, to participate in the Talk page, and refrain from unexplained revert wars. The use of the word 'argues' in that sentence implies that there is a credible argument. I am unaware of any credible source to the contrary so the word 'argues' then appears to qualify as original research. BruceHallman 16:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine

Why are you repeateadly restoring this article to an inferior copy?--Zleitzen 12:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Because you are deleting sourced information you do not like.Ultramarine 13:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
As explained clearly above that is completely untrue.--Zleitzen 13:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No explanation has been given for the deletion of the views here: [8].Ultramarine 13:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Where and when have these views been deleted? Please show diffs. Explain why you have removed this section.

Beginning in 1993 with the first election for provincial and national delegates under these new regulations, the government has campaigned hard for people to cast a voto unido (that is, a straight ticket vote for all the nominated candidates), which the vast majority of people have done. Voting has been portrayed more as an affirmation of support for the government than as a means for voters to select among competing candidates or policies--Zleitzen 13:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Cubafacts.com is a well known anti-Castro POV website, and inclusion of information from that site should be scrutinized for credibility, and if determined to be credible it also should be phrased neutrally. BruceHallman 13:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The same goes for statements by the Cuban government and its censored newspapers. Here is the view of the Polity IV project: [9]Ultramarine 13:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Regardless. The reverts and rationale have not been explained by Ultramarine or Aldux. My restructuring has nothing to do with "deleting sourced information I do not like" as I clearly explain above. It is to make the article understandable to readers. Ultramarine's version which he is insisting on is an unqualified mess with a POV tag over the top. --Zleitzen 13:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I have explained and added sources. Make small changes and explain them. As a minor point, do no start an article with a "See also".Ultramarine 13:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep talking, you haven't explained why your version makes for a better article. You haven't explained what views from Cuba-facts I have deleted. You haven't explained why you removed the voto unido section. You haven't answered my question about "sides" earlier up the page. It is your edits that should be under scrutiny, my changes were almost entirely superficial and structural. What content changes I have made are justified above. --Zleitzen 13:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
"Critics also point out that whatever the merits of the system for electing the National Assembly, that body is itself a facade for the reality of PCC rule in Cuba. The Assembly meets only twice a year for a few days. The 31-member Council of State, in theory elected by the Assembly but in practice appointed by the PCC, wields effective state power, and the PCC Politburo, as in all communists states, is the ultimate political authority. Although the Assembly has eight standing committees, they do not exercise any effective authority over legislation. During its biannual plenums, the Assembly plays a passive role as audience for various government speakers. Once the Council of State's legislative proposals have been presented, they are summarily ratified by unanimous or near unanimous vote of the Assembly."You complained about the lack of reference. I have added one.Ultramarine 13:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
You've added a source, so it can go in - although I have my doubts as to whether the source and the paragraph had any correlation. So it was justifiably removed. Can we now move on and make this article readable and take the POV tag off? By the way you still haven't answered any of my questions above. So I am still under the assumption that your reverts were in bad faith.--Zleitzen 14:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I have answered many of your questions. See above. Again, make small changes with edit summaries that explains them. That way I am certain we can work something out. Please do not make a single large scale edit without detailed explanations.Ultramarine 15:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry Ultramarine but you haven't answered these questions
  1. Why have you removed the voto unido section?
  2. What do you mean by "sides"?
  3. Why is your version still on the page, a version which fails to communicate it's subject matter according to the Wikipedia style guide and has a POV tag? Whilst you have reverted a version with a clear introductory passage verifiable by all sources and apportioned sections for additional clarity.
Please address these issues as soon as possible.--Zleitzen 18:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
1. This seems ok and should be added. 2. Supporters and critics of Castro's regime. 3. POV tags are perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia. What is not acceptable is your removal of the tag without discussing this. Also, your introduction is strange. An article should not begin with a "See also".Ultramarine 19:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Readable

Right, lets roll up sleeves and make this article readable and coherent. Below is a summary of how I organised the page before reverts took hold. (Note as above that the removal of material was from both of Ultramarine's "sides", was relatively minimal and designed to ensure clarity)

  1. Introduction:Elections in Cuba have two phases: (1) election of delegates to the Municipal Assembly, and (2) election of deputies to the Provincial and National Assemblies. Municipal assemblies are elected every two and a half years. Elections to the National Assembly of People's Power take place every five years. The most recent elections to the National Assembly were held on 19 January 2003. Candidates for both assemblies are nominated on an individual basis and no political parties are permitted to campaign. All elections take place by secret ballot.
  2. Electoral Law section. 1976 Constitutional amendment. 1992 Electoral law.
  3. Municipal Elections section (needs work)
  4. Elections to the National Assembly
  5. Criticisms which in my version had four paragraphs and one introductory original research paragraph, but I don't personally care how many criticisms go in that section. As long they're referenced to serious sources - are well presented and coherent.
  • Don't care where the "See also" line goes as long as it's clear for readers
  • I don't believe the article needs the section about "Cuban supporters claiming Cuba is a democracy" as it is well covered in another article.
  • No wholesale naughty reverts without explanation. Please check the diffs carefully - just because a section appears or disappears from an area, it doesn't mean material has been added or removed from the article. It often means that material has merely been moved to a different location. So don’t hit the revert button too soon.--Zleitzen 00:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The neighborhood nomination assemblies are where the 'grassroots' of Cuban democracy occurs. Where in your outline does that get described? BruceHallman 01:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere in the under developed Municipal Elections section, Bruce. The article needs to flow in my view, with the official overview i.e. Electoral Law section - then a clear description of the process from bottom to top, ending with the National Assembly elections. I believe it's the clearest way to describe how the system works. Then the criticisms by sources which question the validity of this process. --Zleitzen 01:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reorganized the material. Thoughts? Ultramarine 16:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Leading with 'one political party' is POV. Cuba is a socialist republic. Political parties are not allowed to campaign in the elections. Why lead with a sentence about political parties? BruceHallman 17:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
"ARTICLE 5. The Communist Party of Cuba, a follower of Martí’s ideas and of Marxism-Leninism, and the organized vanguard of the Cuban nation, is the highest leading force of society and of the state, which organizes and guides the common effort toward the goals of the construction of socialism and the progress toward a communist society,"Ultramarine 20:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the effort Ultramarine, but my first priority is that this article needs a clear introduction. I have added that.
  • I note that you have removed and added far more information than I did during my reconstruction, with less explanation, just a "I have reorganized the material. Thoughts?". By rights I should give your work the same courtesy you have given mine. But it's just as well I have manners enough not to revert an hour or so of someone else's time without due explanation.
  • Will address your changes fully in due course. --Zleitzen 22:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


Ultramarine, Article 5 doesn't really directly address Elections in Cuba, while Article 68 does directly:
"Article 68: State agencies are set up carry out their activity based on the principles of socialist democracy, which are manifested in the following regulations:
a) all members or representative bodies of state power are elected and subject to recall;
b) the masses control the activity of the state agencies, the deputies, delegates and officials;
c) those elected must render an account of their work and may be revoked at any time;
BruceHallman 14:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Have changed socialist democracy to socialist republic, Bruce. I'd rather keep these issues of democracy off this page. I'm not sure the section lower down about "Cuban supporters and democracy" is neccessary either. --Zleitzen 00:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am OK with that revision, though I was just directly quoting from Article 68 of the constitution which should meet WP:V. BruceHallman 02:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cuba - legality - parties

The statement "Cuba has only one legal political party", which I always assumed was the case is not actually true, it's a little bit more complicated than that due to a constitutional change. On other Cuban party pages I've been writing the below.

Although changes to the Cuban constitution in 1992 decriminalized the right to form political parties other than the Communist Party of Cuba, these parties are not permitted to campaign or engage in any public political activities on the island

Does anyone have any thoughts? --Zleitzen 23:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca revert

Rebecca reverted my removal of "no candidate who is opposed to the PCC’s policies has ever been selected". The PCC don't campaign on policy issues, and don't campaign at all, so there are quite simply no policies to oppose. The Cuban government make policies. A government made up of independant and PCC members. So it's not a correct statement. Hence it's removal.--Zleitzen 12:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Although changes to the Cuban constitution in 1992 decriminalized the right to form political parties other than the Communist Party of Cuba, these parties are not permitted to campaign or engage in any public political activities on the island." I think this sentence is an improvement. BruceHallman 16:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This might be better still:
"Although changes to the Cuban constitution in 1992 decriminalized the right to form political parties other than the Communist Party of Cuba, none of these parties are permitted to campaign or engage in any public political activities on the island."
BruceHallman 16:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The Communist Party engage in public activities Bruce. They hold vast conferences every 5 years and are able to organise on a regular basis. It's just that they don't campaign.--Zleitzen 16:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I just edited the section on the Varela Project. The former version inaccurately implied that the Cuban Constitution was violated by the rejection of its proposals. ("However") As anyone can see from the text of the Cuban constitution, there is nothing requiring that a proposal be accepted, nor requiring a referendum be held because of a proposal. Consistutional changes and referendums are at the discretion of the National Assembly.

Sources are given, including the text of the Cuban constitution and Amnesty International's description of the events surrounding the Varela Project's proposals. I might comment that Amnesty International's description is much less POV and hostile to the Cuban government, even in tone, than the former version of this section. Evan345 08:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice that Rebecca has reverted the removal of the disputed tag, which was added by Bruce Hallman on 23rd May (supplemented by CJK who changed the tag by agreement with Bruce, if I recall for format reasons). Given that it was Bruce who recently removed the tag it would seem that his issues with the article had been resolved somewhat. And he was within his rights to remove it - is there something I'm missing here?--Zleitzen 14:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Clearer distinctions

I've read through this talk page, and noted that you guys seem to have reached some sort of modus vivendi. I certainly would not want a repetition of the old arguments (and would prefer the article being left as it is rather than that). However, there are some points where I suspect that the present articles confuses issues, to the disadvantage for the reader. If you agree I'm right, and it is possible to make these distinctions more visible without causing edit wars and/or too much "ideological" debate, I think it would benefit the article.


(1) As far as I now understand, the present Cuban laws (since the beginning of the '90s) make a great difference between elections to municipal assemblies on one hand, and those to provincial and national ones on the other. If I'm right, the present article gives a mixed impression of these two rather distinct systems. They ought to be easily discernible, even to the casual reader.

In the elections to the municipal assemblies, there are one seat electorates (exclusively). In each one of these, the voters have a true choice between several candidates - casting their votes in secret, and as far as discernible having them counted correctly. However, the choice of the voters is limited to the official nominees. Nomination is performed on public meetings open to all the electorate, where of course not only your neighbours but also the authorities, may note what you say. I've actually not only found this description; but I have also found no denial of it anywhere, even in the most critical text on the Cuban elections. I therefore find it rather odd to have it regaled to a "Comments by the Cuban governments" section. The controversy should be about whether or not such elections are democratic (inter alia, in light of the explicit prohibition of party activities or nominee campaigning); and whether or not the open nomination process in practice is free or actually under "tight control".

In the elections to the national and provincial assemblies, on the other hand, the voters have lists with exactly as many candidates as seats. Several seat electorates seem to be the rule. The voters have the formal possibility to vote for all, some, or no candidate. As a reader, I'd like information on what the different alternatives mean in theory, as well as in practice. If the rules coincide with the old Soviet and East European laws, a candidate would be elected if and only if she or he got over 50% of the votes - sometimes calculated not in terms of cast votes, but in terms of all registered voters of the electorate. I could make a guess that the formal rules in Cuba are similar; but of course I'd like to know. It would also be interesting to know what kind of provision the law makes for the case that a candidate actually would not be elected: Would the seat be left vacant; would there be a new nomination process and an extra election to fill the vacancy; or have the law-makers not bothered to make formal rules for a case which they are sure would never happen in practice?

I have not found satisfactory explanation of the present formal nomination process to national and provincial assembly elections. However, if the rules are similar to the nomination rules in the '80s, when election but not nomination to higher assemblies was performed by the municipality assemblies, then the so called mass organisations play a vital rôle. That means that not "representatives of the youth, women, small farmers" et cetera would partake in the nomination; but well representatives of the official organisations for youth, women, small farmers, et cetera; and the CDR representation would just reflect the fact that they are counted among the mass organisations.


(2) The formulations on the one-or-multi party questions confuse me, and probably other readers. I think one should separate the question whether other parties are legal from the question whether there is any legal actively political opposition. Actually, I think one should discern three subquestions:

(2a) Are there legal parties (apart from the communist party) on Cuba? Actually, it was just about half a year I heard the claim that there are; I then was both surprised and suspicious; but now I'm rather sure the answer is yes. Since 1992, the law does not outlaw other parties; and there has been parties formed after this change of law, and still existing, with officially acknowledged leaders, living in Cuba. I am not sure this goes for all parties enumerated in List of political parties in Cuba; several of them seem to be rather exile-cubano based; but it definitely seems the case for some, like the Democratic Solidarity Party (formed 1993). If a party has existed for more than 15 years, with the knowledge of the authorities, in accordance with the legislation, and there has been no attempt to disbandle it, then that party should not be labelled "unlawful" or "illegal".

(2b) What possibilities or restrictions do the official Cuban laws provide for such parties? IMHO, the answer would be no or almost no opportunities; but this is of course my own interpretation. We should restrict to facts (outside the "critics" and "comments" sections); and for the elections in Cuba they seem clear enough: By Cuban law, no party may nominate candidates, or try to further its leadership or its ideas through election campaigning. This does not make the parties equal to the law, since PCC is guaranteed a rôle as a driving force by the Cuban constitution, but other parties are not guaranteed anything.

Thus, formally, an opposition party member could be nominated to a municipal assembly seat. I do not know if this ever has happened (I rather doubt it); but even if it did, the nominee explicitly would be forbidden to allude to his/her party or to support for e.g. the party programme as reasons to vote on him/her.

There are also some other important legal restrictions, perhaps of greater interest on the pages about the Cuban parties than in the election article. I am not sure of all of them (and sources should be provided); but various articles mention prohibition against assemblies of more than 3 people; against using any (even otherways legal) means to try to change the socialist character of the state; and against "sedentism", which I guess covers any form of national-wide opposition than just giving opinions in an ongoing discussion on a question which is not yet decided. However, this may be open to interpretation. There seems also to be laws against receiving money from foreign governments for opposition activities.

(2c) The really controversial question: Are there ways the authorities are preventing efficient opposition, apart from the open and legal ones? Are the authorities using e.g. harassment, arrests without proper legal procedures, or pretext or even trumped up charges within a formally legal process?-JoergenB (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

See my comment below. I am still intending to re-open debate on this article, but I have been distracted by other things recently. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Gobbeldygook

"Since Cuba became a one-party republic and the Communist party became the official political party, Cuba has been both condemned and praised by certain Cuban groups, international groups, and foreign governments regarding democracy. The Cuban government responds that the Cuban political system is democratic. The nature of the political participation in Cuba has fostered discussion amongst political writers and philosophers. Varied conclusions have been drawn, some of these have led to Cuba being described as a dictatorship, grassroots democracy, a Soviet democracy or a revolutionary democracy, but not a liberal democracy."

What on earth does this load of gobbeldygook mean? It's a pathetic fudge that says nothing at all. Let's have a clear statement that (a) Cuba is a one-party state in which the Communist Party is the only legal party and in which no organised opposition is permitted (b) that the great majority of international observers regard Cuban elections as having no genuine democratic content but rather as window-dressing for communist rule and (c) that the Cuban government and its international supporters respond that elections in Cuba really are democratic because [whatever it is that they say]. I will have a go at this shortly. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


I agree. This article as it is a pathetic attempt to obscure the fact that Cuba is a communist dictatorship. End of story. "grassroots democracy"? Give me a break. Soviet style democracy? That is like nazi Germany style ethnic minority rights.

Jakub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.9.58 (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Municipal elections underway now...

I don't have a paid subscription to the Caribbean News Agency (CANA), but in its sample news section (on the right) it says:

Article: CUBA-ELECTIONS-Millions expected to vote in municipal elections

HAVANA, Cuba, CMC – Polling stations opened Sunday for almost 8.5 million Cubans to elect their municipal legislative bodies, the 14th election of this type since 1976.

CaribDigita (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Elections in Cuba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Elections in Cuba. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Elections in Cuba. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Article incomplete

It appears that this is the only or one of the only articles on an existing country's electoral system where the focus with over half of it's content (at time of last visiting it) lies on commentaries & criticisms rather than explaining the system or displaying past election results as is common for other articles on the same topic with usually a smaller or no commentary section at all. If this is merely a lack of people expanding the article to be more consistent with other articles, then the respective hint should be added onto the top of page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C27:6090:44A5:A2ED:A0AB:DDEA (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Questionable neutrality

The three sources for Cuba's elections being non-democratic are either published by American universities, or co-written by authors at American universities. Given Cuba is an ideological opponent of the United States, they have a clear and vested interest in discrediting them and therefore American academic publications will be written for this purpose. These are not wholly neutral sources for this matter, this statement should be supported by sources that do not have a vested interest in undermining Cuba, or the article should be reverted to the prior version which correctly framed this statement as the belief of western academics. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Scholars at US universities do not have a "clear and vested interest" in discrediting the authoritarian regime in Cuba. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
They absolutely do, as universities often rely on government funding that may be withheld if they publish dissenting opinions. Furthermore, you claim "no evidence has been presented that these scholars are americans". I never claimed them to be American themselves, I don't know that. One source is published by Cornell University Press, the other two co-written by Chiara Superti (whose affiliation is Columbia University) with one of those also written by Jorge I. Domínguez (Harvard University). This was all easily verifiable by checking the sources yourself. The evidence is *in* the sources. If you can expect people to read the sources to back up your "not democratic" claim, I don't think it's unreasonable I expect you to be able to verify the authors and publishers of the sources. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Your basic assertion is based on the flawed idea that because the US government has issues with the Cuban government any academic in the US must be anti-Cuban, a completely false belief and not a reason to remove sources. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Non-democratic elections

There is no dispute in RS that these elections are not democratic. It's a violation of NPOV to present this as an actively contested issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I have added additional sources arguing in favour of describing Cuba as democratic, hopefully this will resolve the dispute and prevent further edit warring. 86.8.203.33 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
You added one 1999 paper from a low-quality journal that argued that "citizen participation" "may yet provide the vehicle for the further development of a uniquely Cuban model of democracy", and two op-eds published in socialist propaganda outlets. The notion that these elections are democratic are extraordinary and require extraordinary sourcing. There is no dispute in academic RS that the Cuban regime is authoritarian and there are no democratic elections in Cuba. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Why are you insistent on simply removing sources that present an alternative point of view? I'm happy, in the interests of neutrality, to allow both points of view to stand. Your claim that "the notion that these elections are democratic are extraordinary" shows that you are operating on the assumption that Cuba inherently cannot be democratic. We all have our biases but you are letting your own biases take primacy and trying to justify your attempts to turn this into a blatantly partisan article. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
It is clear there is a concerted effort by some users to edit this page without consensus in order to present a partisan agenda. I have tried repeatedly to introduce balance to the article, strongly believing such dissenting sources should not be removed without a clear consensus being reached. Dissenting sources have been dismissed as "kook" sources or propaganda, this is not the job of wikipedia editors to judge. My edits do not remove any sources and only make the article more balance, but it is clear such balance will not be tolerated by other editors as they insist the article must present their own agenda unchallenged. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
See WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is no dispute whatsoever in high-quality academic sources that Cuba has an authoritarian political system and that the elections are not democratic. Not only is the Cuban regime authoritarian, but it's a full-fleged authoritarian regime, as the elections aren't sufficiently open to even count as competitive authoritarianism. You have introduced nothing of substance to challenge this, except two op-eds from non-RS, as well as one 1999 article from an obscure journal and a non-peer reviewed book by a non-expert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Given the clear dispute here and lack of consensus, why should the article revert back to your version for the duration of the dispute? Especially as you have made sweeping edits removing sources that you don't like with flimsy accusation that they are "fringe". You were happy to make these edits with no consensus needed, but insist on a consensus and, in your own words, "extraordinary evidence" for claims that go against your own world view. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Because policy is clearly on the side of reliable sources. You really need to provide stronger mainstream sourcing here. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello. The page is lying. We Are Cuba of University of Yale: It says on page 9 Cuba has participative democracy. Please fix. Thanks.

Sorry, didn't you know any sources that assert Cuba is democratic are inherently unreliable? 82.33.72.42 (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Stop the presses, I agree with Snooganssnoogans, which never happens. Cuban elections are not democratic. Hence why people go in the streets and shout "Libertad!". Adoring nanny (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Why does this page call Cuba non-democratic? Its 2019 constitution approved by popular referendum clearly provides for many democratic mechanisms [2]. Refer to Title I, V, VI, VIII, and IX for examples. You could include some foreign American interpretations if you want but the official state policy should be told first in such an article to maintain neutrality. Snooganssnoogans is exhibiting bias on this page and talk. 12:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cuba Solidarity
  2. ^ https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Cuba_2019.pdf?lang=en

Edit dispute over the article lead

Snooganssnoogans is attempting to enforce an article lead that does not accurately reflect the content of the article. Specifically, they are insistent on inlcuding an objective declaration that "elections in Cuba are not democratic". This statement is supported by many sources, but other parts of the article (esp. the "political writers and academics" section) include longstanding sources arguing in favour of Cuba as a grassroots democracy. I have repeatedly attempted to restore balance to the lead to accurately reflect the diversity of opinion on this topic. Snoogans (who only started editing the page in mid July 2021, prior to this the lead was of poor quality but more balanced) has repeatedly removed my edits and adopted an aggressive and confrontational attitude, classifying any material that disputes their position as "fringe nonsense" or similar. They had no consensus with which to make such sweeping edits altering the tone of the article lead in such a partisan way. While I dispute the neutrality of Snoogans' sources, and concede the bias of some of my own, a biased source is not in itself unreliable. You are going to struggle to find truly unbiased sources on Cuba, especially English language sources. Cuba is an ideological enemy of the United States and its allies and thus most English language sources will reflect this ideological view. I think it is also telling that while this dispute is ongoing, Snoogans insists that their version of the article must remain visible. Cuba is simply assumed to be non-democratic, and the onus is on others to prove otherwise.

Nevertheless I think Snoogans has made valuable contributions to the article and introduced new and relevant sources. In my edits, I have endeavoured to not remove content added by Snoogans besides obviously partisan objective statements. In working to make the lead more neutral and reflective of all points of view, I have continued to include Snoogans' sources, even reading them and expanding on their content to outline their primary arguments that Cuba is not democratic, while also elaborating on arguments from my own sources (both new sources, and those longstanding sources that have been present in the article for years) that argue Cuba is democratic.

Snoogans has, unfortunately, not extended the same courtesy to me. They have removed anything new I have tried to add, accused me wrongly of removing their additions, and dismissed all sources that go against their view. I find it particularly telling that they think they can dismiss sources as non-reliable that have been present in the article for years, without any consensus, though make no attempt to remove them elsewhere in the article. They seem fixated on arguing that I have no basis to attribute their sources to "western academics"; these sources being a book published by an American university and papers written or cowritten by authors based in the US or affiliated to American universities. I invite them to explain specifically how these are not examples of western academics.

One final point I will raise is that we must be aware of WP:Systemic bias, specifically the section on users with little free time. Snoogans is a prolific editor, with time to devote effort to dozens of substantive edits each day. I, while having more free time than many, do not have this luxury. I intend to keep up this dispute but I am worried that Snoogans may use their clear abundance of free time to their advantage, knowing that when they introduce new content I am careful to include it in my edits, taking up my time; while they continue to simply undo my edits immediately with no care to what contributions I have made. This cannot be allowed to be how this dispute ends, with one user wearing down the other simply by having the luxury of more time. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

My contributions to this article: peer-reviewed studies from top journals and recognized experts for the completely uncontroversial claim that the authoritarian regime of Cuba does not have free and fair elections. Your contributions: Fringe publications, state propaganda outlets, and pro-Cuba websites that declare Cuba to be a fully fledged democracy. An example of your contributions is a piece published in an inaccessible source called "World Socialism Studies", which is run by the Chinese state, which says "the Cuban socialist regime has been resolutely safeguarding national independence, implementing democratic politics." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Snoogans, what consensus did you have to edit the lead of the article to completely alter the tone? Do you think your lead accurately reflects the content of the article? What of the sources "political writers and academics" section that argue Cuba is democratic? Should the article lead not reflect these as well? Will you concede that it is accurate to describe American universities and those affiliated with them as belong to western academia? You call my source inaccessible, yet it is very easy to access: you click the link! Yes it is in Chinese, but that is not "inaccessible". Indeed it is more accessible than your sources which are locked behind academic paywalls, yet I don't use that as an argument to discredit them. Your sources are entirely from western academia and thus represent a narrow biased point of view. That does not make them unreliable, but these cannot be the only sources used. And again. Your lead does not reflect the content of the article! 82.33.72.42 (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Juxtaposing "cuba-solidarity.org" and Chinese state-controlled propaganda outlets with top academic presses, journals and recognized experts is a violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
By your own standards, I take it you will not object to this source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0094582X9302000102, published in the peer-reviewed journal Latin American Perspectives? 82.33.72.42 (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
It's a low impact Marxist journal. I have no objection to throwing rhetoric by defenders of the regime in somewhere in the body of the article, as long as the text clearly describes these assessments as fringe. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
It's not that much lower impact than some of your sources, and that can be explained by the systemic biases in western academia that favour content in line with the prevailing liberal ideology. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Liberal ideology, whatever its flaws does not have an overwhelming track-record of dictatorships, cult of personality, and mass murder. We don't use low rate Marxist journals for the same reason we don't use low rate fascist ones.3Kingdoms (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Not to argue over merits of liberalism but it is somewhat historically disingenuous to pretend liberal regimes have a "moral high ground", the indigenous Americans and people under the British Raj would likely object to that. You are in danger of losing your neural point of view with this. 12:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how this relates to what I said. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
We do not use state-controled media for facts about a country.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Why is state-controlled media inherently less reliable than private media? Yes, it will be biased, but private media will still be biased in favour of its owners. Most major newspapers, accepted as reliable sources by wikipedia, are owned by a small number of wealthy capitalists and therefore will promote capitalist class interests. Yet this is not (and I agree should not be) grounds to dismiss them as unreliable. But your view of state media is clearly ideological, why can't you recognise this? Furthermore, this is blatantly untrue. For example, the "Elections in the United Kingdom" page includes numerous state-controlled sources (the Electoral commission, parliament.uk, the BBC). There are clear preconceived notions about Cuba among a certain clique of editors who are blind to their ideological biases, I am at least aware enough to admit my biases. This is textbook WP:Systemic bias. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Because state-run media are told what to say, by the state. Private media are not, they are independent. Please read wp:rs. And read wp:soap. By the way, the BBC is not state-controlled it is independent of government (very publicly so).Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Are you saying that the owner of a private newspaper cannot dictate what material is and isn't published? That is not independent. The BBC is not independent, its board is appointed by the Privy Council which then in turn appoints the director general. The BBC is reliant on funding through the license fee, and license fee payment is enforced by law. Therefore the BBC is clearly not independent, as it must continue to appease the British Parliament lest Parliament abolish its primary source of funding. This form of indirect control is common in liberal societies as it obfuscates the power of the capitalist class and creates an illusion of freedom. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
No, and if we tried to use one of the newspapers for facts about them the same issue would arise a COI. It's why we use Third-party sources, not primary sources. If you do not think the BBC is an RS take it to RSN, they are independent of state control as the government (which is not parlement) does not tell them what to say (this is the last I will say on the BBC here, lay off the wahtaboutism).Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
State control is more broad than government control, and nevertheless the British governement is largely composed of MPs and must control a majority in parliament, in practice parliament and government are united behind the same agenda. There is a clear conflict of interest for capitalist controlled sources discussing Cuba, as they wish to see the socialist regime dismantled so they can exploit Cuba for private profit. Conflict of interest does not just relate specifically to content about individual owners, they will use media they own to advance their private interests elsewhere. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Except there are numerous socialist publications in capitalist countries, the idea that capitalist always seek the overthrow of foreign socialist regimes is false, and that speaking of the UK, the former head of the opposition party was sympathetic to Cuba all disprove your point. When a state like Cuba runs camps to imprison people who speak out against it we don't take their media as reliable sources. Same reason we wouldn't take Das Schwarze Korps as a reliable source if Nazi Germany still existed. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Read wp:soap any argument based on "capitalist sources ARE WRONG" is not valid by our policies. This is now getting wp:tenditious and needs to be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I second this. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
I veto this, debate is still lively. 1:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
What debate ? 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Way the introduction is phrased

On September 27, 2021, I modified the wording of the introduction to the article. Namely, I changed the claims that Cuba's elections are not democratic and that it is a one-party government from being presented as undisputed facts to something that is said by critics of the government. Additionally, with later reference to the organs that nominate candidates for an election, I changed the phrase from "firmly controlled" to "sanctioned" by the Communist Party. In my view, the former seems to present a negative, rather than neutral, view.

Within three minutes of my edit being saved, Snooganssnoogans reverted the page to the last revision before mine.

As for the first change, I believe that the sources and claims should stay, as they are from valid sources and they represent a legitimate point of view. However, I believe that they are merely the opinions of people and should be considered as that, rather than as an undisputed fact. For comparison, articles such as 2018 Russian presidential election and 2018 Venezuelan presidential election make similar statements to the ones on this article, but they are presented as being a claim or criticism, not an absolute fact. Rhino Ryan (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

We should always present opinions as opinions, no matter their degree of support. For example in Elections in the United States, voter suppression is included under "Criticisms" and is not even mentioned in the lead, despite the fact that there is consensus in reliable sources that there is suppression of votes based on race and other factors. TFD (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the phrasing in the United States article should be applied to this one, in that claims and criticisms get made and they should be presented as that, not an undisputed fact. Rhino Ryan (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no dispute in reliable sources that Cuba is an authoritarian one-party state and that its elections are not democratic. The content in question is sourced to peer-reviewed publications authored by recognized experts – this content should not be framed as "critics say". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Those sources and claims should be left in. However, as is the case with similar articles, I think that they should be presented as being claims or criticisms, not facts.
As The Four Deuces pointed out, Elections in the United States contains various criticisms from experts and legitimate sources, but they are only listed as being claims, not facts. Do you think that that should be changed, along with the articles I listed earlier about Russia and Venezuela? Rhino Ryan (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no dispute in reliable sources whatsoever that elections in the US are democratic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
The specific topic of the criticism or what is being criticized is irrelevant. Either criticism should be presented as just an opinion (as the articles on the United States, Russia and Venezuela do) or they should be presented as an absolute fact (as you seem to want).
Again, on the articles that have been brought up that use the style you dislike, do you think that their opinions should be treated as an absolute fact, rather than just something some people are saying? Rhino Ryan (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
That's a strawman argument since no one claimed that the U.S. was not democratic. However, as explained by Ed Pilkington, chief reporter for the Guardian US, it is a "flawed democracy," partly because of voter suppression.[10] Yet only an extremely biased editor would suggest that the second sentence in Elections in the United States should be "Elections in the United States are democratically flawed."
When writing articles, policy requires us to provide the same weight on facts and opinions one would expect to find in neutral reliable sources. Compare for example two articles about Cuba in A Guide to Countries of the World (Oxford University Press 2010,. p. 81)[11] and Conservapedia.[12] What distinguishes them is not so much whether the information is accurate but which facts they choose to present and what emphasis they give to them. Wikipedia articles should read more like ones in books published by the Oxford University Press than Conservapedia.
TFD (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
We go with what RS say, not what state controlled media say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
As I explained above, the issue is not what reliable sources say but how they say it, that is, what weight they provide to different facts and opinions. I suggest you read the two articles I linked to, from the Oxford University Press and Conservapedia. While they both provide the same information, the tone is markedly different. Weight, which is policy, requires that articles be written more similar to ones from the Oxford University Press than Conservapedia. TFD (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans and TFD are correct here. There is no question about what reliable sources say. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with the emerging consensus here that this article - mainly the introduction - needs revision on tone and NPOV. No one in this discussion is disputing that there are reliable sources that say Cuba's elections are not truly democratic, or that those sources should be removed. The issue is in how this information is presented and structured within the article, as per WP:STRUCTURE. The second sentence of the very first paragraph is not the place for criticism, no matter how well sourced or substantiated it may be, of the article's subject. This is firmly against the norm of the formatting and structure of similar Wikipedia articles, as per the examples above. By presenting this information in the lead paragraph, it suggests, confusingly, that Cuba itself officially considers its elections "undemocratic", which it does not. Outside observers of the Cuban regime do, and that should be included in the introduction, but not as an objective fact without further context within the first paragraph. WilliamTravis (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It's obviously highly pertinent to note that the elections are not democratic. That's why it's in the second sentence. It's not a "criticism" but an uncontested fact in reliable sources. Lastly, no one reads the Intro and walks away with the perception that the Cuban regime brands itself as non-democratic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Certainly, and there's no reason it shouldn't be in the introduction. But it's not correct to say it's "uncontested". This is a contested fact, because it is contested by Cuba itself. There may be many reliable sources that contradict Cuba's official position, but the introduction does not reflect this, and that's my point. I suggest you review WP:NOOBJECTIVITY, specifically this sentence:

when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so

There's nothing wrong with stating there are many sources that dispute Cuba's own official position that its elections are fair. But the introduction of the article should explain that with context. I personally came to this article to read about what Cuba's official electoral process is, and to contrast that with what outside observers say about how it actually works. Instead the introduction is poorly written, as the opening paragraph insinuates the notion that they are officially undemocratic by making that claim without further context, which is obviously ridiculous and doesn't make any sense - yet that's what the article suggests with how it is written and structured. This needs revision to be more clear, and to present a NPOV in the opening paragraph, as per the guidance above.
A better way to phrase this, for example, would be to say "International observers, such as (insert sources here), have said that elections in Cuba are undemocratic, saying... (etc.)" in a new paragraph, while the first paragraph describes the de jure electoral process. See, as yet another example, Elections in China. The de jure process is described first, and the de facto process, as described by outside observers with a critical POV, is described after. That is how the introduction should be structured here. WilliamTravis (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:FALSEBALANCE. It's a violation of NPOV to mislead readers into thinking there's an active debate about whether Cuba's elections are democratic. There is no disagreement in RS about whether Cuba is a democracy. If you read the Intro and walk away with the idea that the Cuban government calls its own elections non-democratic, then that's just poor reading comprehension. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
No, this is not an issue of false balance. It would be if I was suggesting that we include statements from fringe or non-reliable third-party sources that contradict the claim that elections in Cuba are undemocratic in practice, or that the article should suggest both have equal merit or giving both equal weight. I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting we include what the primary source (the Cuban government in this case) claims about its own electoral process, and then explain that many reliable outside sources contradict those claims, because that's relevant to this article. This is how many other articles similar to this one are structured. I've already provided an example to demonstrate this. It's not about giving equal weight to contradicting sources that are disputing facts, it's about providing proper context for the reader about the subject of the article so they better understand it.
Again, go back to the guidance from WP:NOOBJECTIVITY I quoted before: "we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so".
"Poor reading comprehension" is just an excuse for poor writing, in this case. Any reader will immediately realize "elections in ___ are undemocratic" is a self-contradictory statement. This needs to be elaborated on with proper context in the opening paragraph to explain what this unintuitive statement is actually saying, i.e. (paraphrasing) "while the Cuban government claims to be democratic, many reliable sources say otherwise". Elaborating with a paragraph that says this, and explains both how the process works in theory and how it works in practice, would make much more sense and provide a much clearer picture than the introduction does currently.
Again, as a case example, I came to this article to learn about the electoral process and procedure in Cuba - both in theory and in practice. The introduction fails at giving a sufficient overview of the subject matter of the rest of the article, which is meant to be its purpose. The introduction is unfocused and mainly gives weight to debunking whether or not Cuba is a democracy, but not the electoral process itself, which is what this article is meant to be about. It is poorly written and needs to be revised, and I've done my best to provide constructive criticism of how this could be accomplished. I would ask you to consider that I've offer these suggestions in good faith, rather than to debate the claims the article is making. WilliamTravis (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

As I said before, the issue is tone. We don't begin Elections in the United States for example by saying that America has voter suppression. Instead we say in paragraph 3, "The restriction and extension of voting rights to different groups has been a contested process throughout United States history." (For clarification, this "contested process" included burning black people alive, hanging them or merely denying them the vote.) Also Snooganssnoogans has repeatedly said that U.S. democracy almost collapsed after a fascist coup attempt on Jan. 6, yet that's not in the article lead either. TFD (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

BUt whilst there may be vote suppression it is still not a major (if not dominant) feature of its system.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure, and that's why I have no problem including it in the introduction. My issue isn't debating whether or not Cuba is "democratic", or if that should be mentioned or not. My issue is how informative and readable this article is. Unfortunately the introduction is an unfocused mish-mash of tertiary facts about Cuba's politics, but not how its electoral system works - whether in theory or practice - which is meant to be the subject of this article. I'm fine with including a secondary paragraph about how Cuba has been called undemocratic or repressive or whatever in reliable sources, but this article is meant to be about its electoral process - whether that system is "democratic" or not. This introduction strays from that subject to prove a point, and, whether or not it's well-sourced or factual, is still an example of WP:SOAP given what it chooses to focus on and give weight to. WilliamTravis (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
It's an intrinsic component of Cuban elections that they are not democratic. No one is preventing you or anyone else from adding content to the article (or the lead) that describes how these elections work in practice in detail. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Edits Immediately Removed by a Biased Editor

I added some sources from the "Political Writers and Academics" Section of the article as well as a book written by an expert on Cuba to add some more nuance to the very authoritative intro section. These edits were almost immediately undone by the user named Snooganssnoogans. These sources have been in this article for years, so its strange that they were undone with almost no justification other than "These sources are not reliable". I doubt this user even looked at these sources as there is no way one could remove sources that they have honestly considered that fast.

I suggest doing something about this as countless others in the talk section have suggested making changes to this article, all of which have been undone by Snooganssnoogans. To the user in question, I suggest looking up the names of the authors who wrote these sources: They are recognized scholars, not fringe ideologues like you make them out to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrobeli (talk • contribs) 00:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The sources in question were not authored by recognized experts and they were not published in peer-reviewed publications. Some of the sources were literally sourced to pro-Cuba organizations. They are WP:FRINGE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
That is just not true, two were books (or parts of books) written by experts specialized in Cuban studies and the other was a study written for the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami. Considering that Miami is home to the largest number of Cubans in the United States, this is likely the primary institute for Cuban affairs in the USA. Please look at these sources before dismissing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrobeli (talk • contribs) 01:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
The LeoGrande paper has been restored. The other sources were not by experts and not published in recognizable peer-reviewed publications. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

tag not needed

I don't see any reason for a POV tag. See WP:DRIVEBY. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Look at the talk page. There are multiple cases of political disputes. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
None of which are active, the tag is for when there is an active dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Political Neutrality tag.

As seen in above disscussions, the Political Neutrallity of the article is clearly disputed, which is why I believe it needs the tag. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

None of which have been active for over a month. Thus consensus is there is no POV issue. If you want to actually discuss what you think the POV issue is you need to start a discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Evident bias by author

Omission of crucial details in the cuban elective process, and unnecessary, pejorative naming of government institutions and procedures. 67.80.81.72 (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Then I suggest you contact the sources we use. As we base what we say on what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elections_in_Cuba/Archive_2&oldid=1125258776"