Talk:Cuba/Archive 10

Let's define socialism and communism

I suggest to everybody to right down whatever you think “left”, “socialism” and/or “communism” means. There are no good or bad answers. Let's start from here. --Anticom 15:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There's already too much irrelevant personal opinion on these talk pages. I'd hate to see us encourage more of that sort of thing. Friday (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought that’s exactly the role of a talk page, to host “irrelevant personal opinions”, then the participants try to find a solution of compromise that would be transferred to the main page. However, I realize I am new in this forum and the rules may be different than on similar sites. I do not intent to alter in any way the content of the present page. First of all, because I don’t have any writing talents (not to mention my first language is not English). Second, despite the fact I suffered a lot at the hand of the Romanian communists I simply don’t care if the whole World agree or disagree with the fact that communism is the most criminal society the humanity ever invented. I asked people to clarify their position only as a matter of curiosity since I noticed many times people who pretend to be leftist supporting ideas/regimes clearly leaning towards right wing extreme. I am a leftist myself and I stand for a society where ordinary people can elect their representatives, are not afraid to criticize their leaders, have a decent level of life, a society tolerant towards minorities, homosexuals, foreigners (you name it). That’s why I am completely against communist societies (Cuba included) since communist societies are xenophobe, homophobe, racist and crash their own citizens most of the time for absolutely no reason. I don’t care that communists say exactly the opposite, I am telling you what communism is in the real life not what was supposed to be. I can understand a pro-Bush supporter to be pro-Castro but I cannot understand a self-declared leftist, keeping in mind that communist Cuba is racist (no black people can became a Party member), homosexuals are imprisoned, and a small group of people have the whole power and ordinary citizens nothing. --Anticom 21:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, there are only three basic rules on Wikipidia: they are WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is peculiar. Editors are not supposed to argue about what is true, then come to a middle ground. Basically all editors are supposed to do is read books and other sources, then copy what is in them in their own words. But most editors either don't know that, or don't care and do what they want anyway. Drogo Underburrow 22:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Elementary facts do not require citations

Cuba is not a democracy and this is an elementary fact that does not require a citation. If this is unclear to anyone, Adam Carr clearly established this in the past four talk archives. Please see Archive 04, Archive 05, Archive 06, and Archive 07. This fact will be included in the intro, and my stance, along with the stance of other editors concerned with the truth here, is non-negotiable. 172 | Talk 23:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Many disagree with this liberal pov--and it is a pov not a "fact". See [1]. What is reality is the undisputed fact that Cuba is not a liberal democracy. Democracy is not an ideal type, and is clearly means many different things to many different people. For the purposes of WP:NPOV, not to mention WP:NOR we have to recognise this! Myciconia 23:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: Myciconia (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Mystork (talk · contribs) and Colle (talk · contribs). From here on out, my policy will be to flag comments by sockpuppets as often as possible and not to respond to them. 172 | Talk 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have failed to do your research: User:Myciconia is User:Colle; I performed the rename myself: 02:34, May 3, 2006 Essjay (Renamed the user "Colle" (which had 908 edits) to "Myciconia") It is impossible to be a sockpuppet of onesself. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI Mystork was a sockpuppet of Colle. 172 | Talk 05:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The policy page on no original research clearly states that everything has to have been published before it can go on Wikipedia. Is this some sort of gag and I'm falling for it? -- Drogo Underburrow 08:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that no one has ever published that Cuba is not a democracy, and if so, can I put your comment on WP:BJAODN? Ambi 09:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that question directed at me? No, I'm not suggesting any such thing. However, anyone who wants to put in the article that Cuba is/is not a democracy should cite their source and attribute it in the article as the opinion of that source. That Cuba is/is not a democracy is an opinion. -- Drogo Underburrow 09:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A month ago, I recently added and the political and social conditions rank Cuba as one of the most repressive and least free nations on earth, alongside North Korea, Syria, and Sudan, according to independent international agencies like Freedom House and Amnesty International [2] to Fidel Castro article, providing sources.

Actually, the idea of difference between 'democracy' and liberal democracy' doesn't play any role with regard to Cuba: Cuba is currently a totalitarian dictatorhip, similar to the late USSR etc. It can't be a 'liberal democracy', but what is more, a pure form of one party (and one family!) dictature can not be any democracy at all ('1984': 'Freedom is slavery' etc...). During the times of the USSR existence, there were many in the west as well, who performed similar demagoguery of different types of democracy (and the 'Soviet democracy' was regarded the most 'democratic' democracy of them all!!). It looks as if we are facing similar 'democracy' advocates here.--Constanz - Talk 12:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba is not a democracy and this is an elementary fact that does not require a citation. - 172

Whether any country is a democracy is an opinion. "Democracy" is not a factual state of being. There is no scientific way of judging it, no set of standards that one can point to and say, "Yep, country X is 100% democratic, I measured it." Secondly, WP:NOR nowhere states that certain facts are elementary and do not require citation. Did I miss where it says that some things are 'elementary facts' and do not require citation? Please quote where it did, sometimes I do miss things. One thing I know I don't have to do, is go and read the archives for the Cuba talk page. Adam Carr may be a wonderful person, but he doesn't write the rules here, so he couldn't have established "this". Drogo Underburrow 05:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Whether any country is a democracy is an opinion. "Democracy" is not a factual state of being. There is no scientific way of judging it, no set of standards that one can point to and say, "Yep, country X is 100% democratic, I measured it."

No kidding? What else is an opinion? You may say that Hitler killed millions and I can say “this is an opinion”. Right? How can you convince me you’re right? Citing whatever other people wrote in the last 60 years? I can cite plenty of papers or webpages who state that there was no such thing as the Holocaust (does the name “David Irving” ring any bell?).--Anticom 14:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

With due respect, Anticom, comparing Drogo U.'s argument to Holocaust denial is a Straw man fallacy. BruceHallman 21:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is your opinion Bruce (I wrote "you may say...", I didn't put any words in DU's mouth). Whether any country is a democracy is not an opinion. It was an opinion thousands of years ago when the Greeks first defined the notion of democracy, right now “democracy” is defined by set of rules generally accepted. I am not absurd, I don’t want to imply that certain country should follow exactly the American, Canadian, Mexican, French, German (etc.) form of government to be considered a democracy. Every democracy has the right to model their democracies according to their mentality, history, economic or geographical position, but the core values should remain the same. If you want to redefine democracy, fine by me, I am listening. But remember, no matter what your definition would be I want you to stick with it from now on. Communists are famous for adding or deleting few words that change completely the initial meaning (not that I am implying you're a communist). You remember "Animal Farm". Right?--Anticom 22:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Anticom, you have liberty to believe that democracy 'is not' an opinion. Regardless, I can see that plenty of people disagree with you, and I see at least twenty types of democracy, or more. BruceHallman 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You guys are really funny, honestly! The more you try to defend Cuban communism the funnier you become! Bruce darling, it doesn’t matter how many people disagree with me (quantity again?), you didn’t prove anything with the above link. I can build a similar page by citing only people who say Cuba is a dictatorship, so what (btw, Zleitzen I believed you were a pretty fair player in this discussion until I red your citations list)? Of course there many types of democracy but this doesn’t mean you cannot define the concept. Look on the dictionary or on Zleitzen’s page. What does it say? “1) a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. 2) a state governed in such a way. 3) control of a group by the majority of its members.” All those 20+ forms of democracy you cited share (more or less) these 3 simple principles. Does Cuban “democracy” share any of these principles? --Anticom 04:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is there is no universally accepted standard as to what constitutes democracy, but even if there was, it would still be a matter of opinion whether a country measured up to those standards. You could say "in the opinion of X that country Y is a democracy" but you could never say "Its a fact, just like the Sun is a star, country X is a democracy." Words that end in -ism are almost always words that have no hard and fast definition, and its always opinion whether they are true or not. Is Cuba a communist state? Maybe; but its a matter of opinion. Abstract categories are not scientically certifiable facts. You need to study some logic and learn the difference between what facts and opinions are. But for Wikipedia purposes, it doesn't matter; whether its fact or opinion, we still need to cite published sources, and say what they say, never what we say. Drogo Underburrow 23:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You’re playing with words and I am not impressed. Fact: Cuba is a dictatorship. Indeed this is not like saying :tomorrow Sun will rise” which is 100% accurate. I may be 70%, 90% or 100% correct, who cares as long as the overwhelming evidence is in my favor! Fact: war on Iraq has destabilized Middle East. Again I may be 60-70% or 100% correct. Who cares? You don’t need to have a PhD in politics to understand this, what you need is honesty and a bit of common sense.

"You need to study some logic and learn the difference between what facts and opinions are."

Here we come! The superiority complex! Are you sure it’s me who needs to learn some logic and not you? Can we stick to the facts instead of personal remarks? As a matter of fact I am a scientist and logic is my “bread”. That’s why I like to tease you, because logically speaking you don’t make any sense! If somebody need to be “more equal than the others” in terms of knowledge about communism that would be me. I lived over 20 years in a communist country and I know what I am talking about. I bet most of you know communism only from books. --Anticom 04:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said that man!--Zleitzen 23:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't encourage each other then who? Adam? You guys have no secrets left for me.--Anticom 04:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

172, Adam and the Wikipedia dispute process

172, if you or others believe that these disputed statements are elementary facts that do not require citations. I encourage you, as many have done before, to comply with Wikipedia dispute processes and enter mediation on this matter. If you are confident of your position then you should also be confident that the process will swiftly find in your favour and we can move on. --Zleitzen 00:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I am not sure if I understand this issue properly. Firstly, to assume that only one definition of democracy is 'the correct definition' is fallacious & ethnocentric in the extreme. Second, why even have this debate? In the politics section, there is ample room to discuss the pro- and anti- castro viewpoints on the merits of Cauba's claim (such as it is, but it is) to democracy. The Democracy article itself provides ample room to discuss various merits and interpretations of the word. And we are still, by keeping this in the intro, implying that somehow the colonies remaining in the Western Hemisphere don't count, and also subtly POVing 'Cuba bad, everyone else good' - in spite of some rather ugly but technically democratic other places. Why bother doing this? What is the point? Bridesmill 01:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. There are plenty of clearly citable details available from (more neutral) groups such as the UN and Amnesty which illustrate life in Cuba. Including the arrests of dissidents, the executions of political prisoners, the restrictions of independant media etc. There quite simply is no need for ambiguities and contestable statements. --Zleitzen 01:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bridesmill asked "...what is the point". Of course the answer is obvious, that POV finds it important to show how 'bad Cuba is', and 'Cuba is the enemy', 'we hate Cuba', 'Fidel Castro is bad', and similar. These are genuine and real beliefs of a lot of people in the world, including many powerful people. Regardless, this is, at its essence, a political POV. An editorial decision must be made, just how much political POV is suitable in an encyclopedia. BruceHallman 02:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bridesmill, read through the old archives. We had this disussion already. Cuba fails to meet any definition of democracy. Adam Carr established this over and over again. At this stage, the calls for dispute resolution are malicious compliance meant to wear out supporters of inserting this elementary factual claim in the article. 172 | Talk 05:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you find the calls for dispute resolution wearing now 172, then why didn't you accept the offer when it was first given last month. Instead you rejected it (below was the mediators response from April 17) [3]

172 has refused to participate in the mediation; since medcabal is totally informal, there's not much I can do. 172, feel free to request a new mediation from the cabal if you like, but be aware that you don't get to pick who you want the mediator to be.::I am amazed that both 172 and Adam -- users who have a huge number of edits and have a record of constructive contributions elsewhere on the wiki -- have behaved so poorly during this process. Both 172 and Adam have been rude and uncivil to other editors. There is no excuse for that, and it has materially impeded getting on with improving the article. (Mediator Sdedeo)

There is nothing malicious about this, from my side at least. I am continuing to follow Wikipedia dispute procedures and requesting that you attempt to find consensus. If you are confident of your position then you should also be confident that the process will swiftly find in your favour and we can move on.--Zleitzen 05:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo was biased from the start. It's no surprise he was one of the few signers of the failed RfC against Adam, which got support from hardly anyone but sockpuppets and LaRouche activists. Now, I'm willing to work with you. You're obviously not an idiot or a troll. However, I don't think that's possible until you convince the more disruptive members of your side (not to name any names) to take a break from this article. 172 | Talk 05:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like it if all editors that are disrupting this article took a break. By disruption I mean reverting without consensus, mediation or serious civil discussion. --Zleitzen 05:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

By disruption, I mean systematically working to undermine basic factual content in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first, a community second. 172 | Talk 05:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia would not be an encyclopedia without a community! Yes, our primary goal is building an encyclopedia, but to do that properly we must work togeather. There are no blank cheques for users who feel their personal interpretation of the world constitutes "truth." Myciconia 08:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

172 wrote above: "Bridesmill, read through the old archives. We had this disussion already. Cuba fails to meet any definition of democracy. ", Indeed yes, there has been plenty of 'discussion', and indeed no, there has been very little attempt to show that Cuba fails to meet any definition of democracy. 172, please specifically point to the citations to which you refer. There has been several citation that Cuba is tough on political dissidents has had a questionable human rights record, but those two arguments do not even come close to proving that "Cuba fails to meet any definition of democracy.". BruceHallman 13:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this page, I'm not doubting there have been problems caused in the past by pro-Castro POV warriors. However, the solution to this is not to give free reign to anti-Castro POV warriors. It looks to me like 172 and Adam are both inappropriately attempting to own this article. Please try to remember, guys, not everyone who disagrees with you is a pro-Castro POV pushing crackpot. There is room for reasonable folks to disagree over statements like "It is the only state in the Western hemisphere which is not a democracy". If you're letting your desire for The Truth interfere with your ability to compromise, you're being a fanatic. Friday (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Also. Isn't this article supposed to be about Cuba? Why does it have to be framed as a pro-Castro versus anti-Castro battleground? BruceHallman 14:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This page should be largely concerned with geography, brief history, culture etc. See Iran, see Pakistan. Both much larger countries with far more questionable human rights records. Also both countries are steeped in governmental anomalies. Yet all this attention is on Cuba. The pro-Castro versus anti-Castro battleground doesn't interest me at all. I couldn't care less if Castro dropped dead tomorrow, quite frankly. I just want proportion, weight and NPOV. The activities of certain editors only strengthens my resolve to make sure that this is achieved for the sake of the wikipedia project. --Zleitzen 15:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a democracy

User 172 has written to a number of editors with the following copied paragraph.

Adam Carr recently started bringing the Cuba article up to standard, gradually rewriting each section. In the meantime, his work has been resisted for several weeks by a group of Castro supporters who dispute, among other things, that the fact that Cuba is not a democracy. Adam Carr is now at a conference for a couple of weeks, meaning his work will likely be undone. If you have the time and the interest, please take a look.

It should be noted that that many of the editors which resist Adam Carr and 172's edits to this article are not "Castro Supporters" including myself. Far from it in fact as I have stated many times. This dispute is between Adam Carr/172 and those who wish to uphold Wikipedia's core values of verifiability and NPOV.--Zleitzen 12:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What I find curious here is that several folks appear not to be paying attention to the points which they take for granted but which are anything but:

• there is debate (perhaps spurious, but debate nonetheless) in regards what democracy is and whether Cuba is quote democratic unquote. That debate cannot be sloughed off with a four word clause in the intro; this is admitted to by virtue of a reasonably lengthy discussion on the topic in the Politics & Gov't section
• there are entities/states in the Western hemisphere which, by virtue of their being dependencies/colonies are arguably not democracies; their fates being in the hands of countries elsewhere (which themselves may be democratic but that is not the point)
• there are quote democracies unquote in the western hemisphere whose records in terms of human rights and freedoms are arguably as bad or worse than those of Cuba

what do you understand by Western hemisphere? If the answer is Western Europe and North America (Canada, USA, Mexic, Cuba) then yes Cuba is the least democratic country. --Anticom 21:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that, it seems simplistic, inaccurate, and academically dishonest to make the assertion in the intro. Additionally, it leaves the article vulnerable to a number of challenges. It also seems somewhat over-simplistic to categorize all who hold this opinion as 'Pro Castro fanatics'. If Zleitzen, myself, and others, argued that there is no place for that discussion in the Pol & Gov sect, fine, that might be a valid argument - but that is not what we are saying. It is perfectly possible - indeed much easier - to paint Cuba for the place it is without going there in the intro. Bridesmill 12:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree w/ Bridesmill. We got to get rid of comments such as "pro-Castro fanatics, communists, bastards..." I just don't care if Adam is on vacation or is in a meeting w/ Kofi Anan. This is a collaborative work and respect is the key. I have to add that controvertial statements and edits should be referenced. Cheers -- Szvest 15:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

I agree, no name calling.--Anticom 21:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I just joined this discussion/article. Reading this talk page discussion, I think I get some sense of the matters disputed, but I'm sure the talk page archives contains hundred of pages along the same lines.

In general, this sentence that had appeared in the intro (I took it out) is absolutely unacceptable on several grounds: It is the only state in the Western hemisphere which is not a democracy. In the first place, this sentence makes judgements about all the other states in the Western hemisphere, which is far overbroad. I will not play some petty game of false specifics, but there are at least several other states in the WH which are at least arguably not democracies.

The second part of course, is whether Cuba is or is not a democracy itself. Any one sentence answer to this is certainly has no place in the lead; nor, for that matter, is WP the place to give any definitive affirmative or negative answer at all. It depends greatly on what you mean. Cuba has a constitutional system that includes non-partisan elections; in a procedural sense, this has a democratic form. De facto, these same elections fall short of democratic ideals of free and fair elections. The Cuban constitution similarly protects many civil liberties that are often considered central to democracies (but which ones so considered varies greatly, as does whether democracy depends on specific protections or only on procedural mechanisms). And again, de jure protections of civil liberties are often not enforced in practice... but then, to a greater or lesser degree, similar gaps between legal and practical protections exist in other WH states such as the Canada, Mexico, USA, Peru, Haiti, etc. LotLE×talk 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The word "democracy" means "the will of the people". If imprisoning people for saying a joke about Castro or for being homosexual means "the will of the people" then yes, Cuba is a democracy. If absolute power in hands of Fidel Castro and the communist "elite" at the expense of the Cuban people means "the will of the people" then again Cuba is a democracy. This pseudo-intellectual dilemma is laughable at best, I wonder when you'll start to doubt whether Nazi Germany was a democracy or not.--Anticom 21:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree, and you echo the arguments that many users have made on this matter for nearly a month. Do those who insist on it's inclusion wish to continue disputing this matter?--Zleitzen 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I was initially concerned that several other countries in Latin America are arguably not democracies, particularly Venezuela and Haiti. Adam already addressed this section [4] and on my user talk page. 172 | Talk 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Adam Carr proposed the following compromise in Archive 6: Cuba is the only state in the western hemisphere which does not conform to the definition of democratic government accepted by the great majority of governments and by international election monitoring and human rights organisations. The Cuban government and its supporters in other countries nevertheless maintain that Cuba is a democracy. I will insert that language for the time being. In the meantime, while he is gone, I'm not going to water down the intro any further. 172 | Talk 16:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Among the problems in 172's above sentence are that it is:

1. Too long
2. Too ugly and circumlocutionary
3. Filled with original research
4. Very, very soap-boxish
5. Completely unnecessary.

Here's a sentence which is factual and says everything that needs saying in the lead: Cuba is a socialist republic in which the Communist Party of Cuba is the sole legal political party. LotLE×talk 16:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, LotLE's version is better for the reasons given above. Friday (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not my sentence. Did you read my talk page post above? It's Adam's. Please read through the archives so that you know what's being disputed. In the meantime, I'm out of here for a long time. I'm thoroughly sick of Wikipeida, especially after Friday's post suggesting that I'm acting as an "anti-Castro POV-pusher." I'm sure the editors who've accused be of being a Stalinist, among other things, in the past will disagree. I invited some of them to take a look at the article. Hopefully they'll show up. 172 | Talk 17:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto to Lulu. The other problem with the proposed lengthy piece is that it leaves wiggle-room to insert other 'noxious' governments that "do not conform to the definition of democratic government" but nevertheless are technically 'democratic'. Bridesmill 17:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto to Bradesmill. First (introductory) paragraph certainly is not a place where contested statements should be. The place for such statements is in Goverment and Politics stations.

I think that now we can finally settle one of the issues in this article!--RockyMM 17:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Economy

"Remaining a Soviet-Styled economy" is inaccuarate 172, Cuba attempted a Soviet-Style economy after the revolution but moved to a Maoist form for ten years or so. They tried to re-centralise during the 1980's (trying a 5 year plan etc) but after the Soviet collapse were forced to improvise a patchwork of economic policies. Basically Cuban handling of the economy has been a unmitigated mess, and doesn't bare close relation to the heavy planning of the Soviet model. --Zleitzen 16:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but relatively speaking, it comes closer than just about any country in the world today. At any rate, I'm out of here for now. 172 | Talk 17:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your words 'unmitigated mess' seems polarized. In the last decade, their pharmaceutical industry and their tourism industry, both somewhat successful, have 'mitigated' the economic mess a bit. BruceHallman 17:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh go live off a ration card. 172 | Talk 17:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The planning aspects over the years have been chaotic though, Bruce. With various ill advised experiments and political failures. The sugar industry, for instance, was neglected in part because Castro believed it to be "a tool of imperialism". --Zleitzen 17:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought that it was Che Gevara who was the first to undermine sugar industry on Cuba on purpose, because it symbolised opression and capitalism to him.--RockyMM 17:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the pair of them shared that ideology. --Zleitzen 17:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me to think I am saying that the sugar industry is not degraded, a mess so to speak. I just tried to point out that their economy is not entirely 'unmitigated'. Isn't another recent problem in the agricultural sector the high cost of petroleum and fertilizer? This explains in part the push for organic farming methods, fertilizer is expensive. Also, the private farmers markets are a 'mitigation' of the economic 'mess' or at least a start, both for the ease of the transportation costs and for the 'free market'. Also, the paladoras are a mitigation of the 'mess' too. BruceHallman 17:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair points, Bruce. And as most Latin Americans know by now, politically motivated economic "mess" is by no means exclusive to the policies of leftist governments. --Zleitzen 17:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, I'm not sure your statement about a trend towards the private sector here takes into account recent changes to the Cuban economy. It was mine, and 172's understanding that since the emergence of the Bolivarians, China and the Euro, Castro was "rolling" back some of these changes. That was the narrative that 172 was trying to express and I think he's right here. Your source only refers to figures from 2000, a lot has happened in Cuba since. See this [5]. --Zleitzen 01:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish there was more current data that just 2000, still the trend from 1981 to 2000 is real. Your reference, based on the Miami Herald report, seems credible but 'short on data' and not clear whether they mean that the private sector trend has slowed, stopped or reversed. BruceHallman 13:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at the summary of the report here [6] and it seems that the press report may have slanted the findings. Top marks for eagle-eye Hallman and another factoid to go into my burgeoning Cuban notebook!--Zleitzen 14:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor note of caution

Now that User:172 appears to be on a break, and User:Adam is away with meatspace work, those currently editing should perhaps ask whether they are 'NPOVing' what was here before, or simply reinserting their own POV, which will then be viciously redone by the other parties when they return? Etc Ad Nauseum, when alternatively this could become easily an FA? Are we working together for a better tomorrow or??? Or do we all need to step back & take three deep breaths? Just wondering....Bridesmill 22:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points Bridesmill. The aim should be to reinforce the article to protect it from all sides. --Zleitzen 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Society | Education: Suggestion to clear up wording

The Society|Education section currently notes "All higher education and university education is public and available free of charge. The University of Havana, Cuba's oldest university, was founded in 1721; prior to 1959 there were other official universities including: Universidad de Oriente (founded in 1947) and Universidad Central de Las Villas (founded in 1857); private universities included: Universidad Católica de Santo Tomás de Villanueva (founded in 1946); Universidad Masónica, and the Universidad de la Salle in Nuevo Vedado. In 1961 private schools and universities were nationalized (without reimbursement)." The wording in bold is strange. It seems to imply that after 1959 something happened to all the other official universities. In fact, the only key difference between pre and post-revolution was that the private universities were nationalized. To reflect this fact more clearly, would I suggest the paragraph be re-written "All higher education and university education is public and available free of charge. The University of Havana, Cuba's oldest university, was founded in 1721. Other official universities include Universidad de Oriente (founded in 1947) and Universidad Central de Las Villas (founded in 1857). Private universities, which were nationalized without reimbursement along with private schools in 1961, include Universidad Católica de Santo Tomás de Villanueva (founded in 1946); Universidad Masónica, and the Universidad de la Salle in Nuevo Vedado." Key changes in bold. Any thoughts? Patiwat 07:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. LotLE×talk 07:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion makes sense to me. BruceHallman 13:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Zleitzen 13:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

172's unilateral removal of image

Re: [7], [8], et al.

I believe the image of Che to have encyclopedic relevance due to A) It is a typical example of a very common site in Cuba. B) Che Guevara is a national hero of the Cuban revolution. C) The image is good quality GDFL D) The German wikipedia seems to agree with me. Myciconia 08:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A) If you want a "typical" or "common" site, why not one of more historical and cultural importance that carries zero POV controversy, such as "El Castillo del Morro" or the "Varadero Beach" (both of which any Cuban can identify while that mural is only on display in a section that receives high tourist traffic)? Additionally, that picture is not about the site, but the image of Che (and a relatively obscure one at that - and half my family is from Santa Clara). Unless you meant the word "site" as something seen and not location, to which I point out there are no pictures of graffiti in the New York City wikipedia page. B) Che being a hero is without a doubt pure POV. To many Cubans he was not. C) An image's quality has absolutely NO bearing on its worthiness in an encyclopedic article. D) It doesn't belong in the German Wikipedia article, either.

I'll concede that a picture of an obscure mural of Che might be relevant in the Che article. --Mcmachete 09:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't Che in an article about Cuba be seen as similar to Abraham Lincoln in an article about the USA? Lincoln was not and is still not universally admired in the USA, he was controversial in life, and death, and still Lincoln has become a political icon. BruceHallman 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the Che mural adds a little friendly splash of color to the article, and is moderately "typical" as a scene (and it was placed in the section where Che is discussed). Of course, the somewhat shrill demands of the editor that added it that it is "essential information" and that removal must be due to "personal disgust" doesn't help at all. Likewise, the picture of the José Martí Monument isn't "essential", but does liven up the article slightly. Symmetrically, a picture of the Lincoln Memorial in the US article wouldn't be particularly inappropriate, though also it is hardly required. LotLE×talk 15:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

My comment about "personal disgust" was in reference to a prior discussion with 172 on the issue. He feels that allowing the image serves to help Che's "cult of personality." Myciconia 19:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Castro is also mentioned in that section, yet there is no photo of him. I think including a photo of Castro should have priority over an image of the Che mural. Drogo Underburrow 15:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Castro is less often the subject of murals in Cuba than is Che; so the Che image is more of a "scene from an ordinary street". A photo of either person themselves would definitely be off topic for this nation article; but a picture of a statue or mural is more of an architectural feature of the urban landscape. LotLE×talk 16:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A photo of Castro, in the section that mentions him, would definately NOT be off-topic. Castro is the longest ruler of any country, and his impact on Cuba is tremendous; there is no way a photo of him is off-topic. (sorry about forgetting to sign)-- Drogo Underburrow 16:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I just added a picture of the Moncada truck, which might serve as a neutral compromise, on topic to the section, to add color to the article. BruceHallman 16:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Drogo - I don't see a picture of Castro is off-topic. Sorry - but I think that Moncada truck is too irrelevant. The barracks themselves ? If we want Che, it should be the MININT building, his statue, or the Korda photo. What about Camilo ? -- Beardo 16:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A statue of Castro might be OK, but not a regular photograph of the guy himself. I'll bet you dollars-to-donuts that you can't find a single other nation article that has a photo of an individual associated with that nation. They might have indirect representations (like, e.g. the Lincoln Memorial), but not simply a person photo. FWIW, I sort of like the truck; it's quirky, but has a visual appeal. But clearly, no image is required at all. LotLE×talk 16:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooopss... OK, I owe you some dollars, or some donuts (what was the bet exactly :-)), Beardo. A look as far as United States showed personal images of MLK, GWB, and Buzz Aldrin (as well as some various "typical groups" of Americans; but I don't think the latter contradicts me). Nonetheless, in the Cuba case, I think showing a photograph of Castro is way too soap-boxy and pedantic. Actually, if I were editing the US article, I'd want the GWB out too, for the same reasons: "current leaders" is too obvious and trite. LotLE×talk 16:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I said before: If you want a "typical" or "common" site, why not one of more historical and cultural importance that carries zero POV controversy, such as "El Castillo del Morro" or the "Varadero Beach" (both of which any Cuban can identify while that mural is only on display in a section that receives high tourist traffic)? Additionally, that picture is not about the site, but the image of Che (and a relatively obscure one at that - and half my family is from Santa Clara). Unless you meant the word "site" as something seen and not location, to which I point out there are no pictures of graffiti in the New York City wikipedia page. And the difference between Che and Jose Marti is astronomical - Cubans on both sides of the Che controversy highly regard Marti. --Mcmachete 17:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I still see no reason to remove it. Surely the Che mural image gives more to the revolution section than no image at all! And this image not only has historical relevance, but also ties in with modern Cuba. Someone compared him to a US founding father, but how often do peoples organizations paint artistic murals of Lincoln in public spaces? Yes you see revolutionary inspired artwork in tourist areas, bilboards, etc. But it is also very common site at state and community buildings where tourists rarely visit. I never expected this simple snapshot to be controversial! Myciconia 19:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Also, The United States article has pictures in nearly every section--why can we not do the same? We can have Marti, Castro, Che... Myciconia 19:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I object to a big photo of Che in a section entitled "Castro and Communism". Why isn't this a picture of Castro instead? I'm starting to get suspicious. Drogo Underburrow 23:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I changed the name of the section, and added a photo of Castro further down the article. Myciconia 01:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sandy Berger 'non-democracy' quote

The recent edit by user Friday, makes citation quoting Sandy Berger talking of the Clinton administration duplicity of policy towards China versus policy towards Cuba. Sandy Berger quote[9]: "Well, I think that we have very different historical relationships with China and with Cuba. Cuba, we have had an embargo on Cuba for 37 years. It is the only non-democracy in the hemisphere. There has been very little evidence that there's any interest on the part of Mr. Castro in significant liberalization, economic or political. And at this stage of the game, to end that embargo would be to send, I think, just the wrong signal. So in each situation, you have to decide what is the best course topursue with respect to your objectives." (emphasis added) Note, that again the US policy groups economic and political together, a clear implication that the US form of acceptable democracy is 'market oriented democracy' as opposed to the 'socialist democracy' of Cuba. In short, the Clinton administration POV, voiced through Sandy Berger, uses a narrow defintion of 'democracy', that is: 'market oriented democracy'. BruceHallman 15:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Ed Poor put it in first. I thought it was a nice solution. We do not need to spend time arguing about whether Cuba is or is not a "real democracy", by whatever personal standards we have. Are you saying this isn't a good quote to include in the article, or are you just explaining why you disagree with what Berger said? We don't have to agree or disagree- we just report the facts. This is what WP:V and WP:NOR are all about. Friday (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the only reason I put it in: so that instead of it being Adam's opinion, it's now Sandy Berger's opinion (with an exact quote and a web link to boot). The next step is to put in a contrary opinion from someone who asserts either (1) that there are other non-democratic countries around (hint: think Haiti) or (2) that Cuba is, by some definition or other, actually "democratic".

I did the first step. It took me less than 5 minutes of googling + a copy and paste. Now it's someone else's turn. --Uncle Ed 18:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it adds anything; provides a US political opinion of US approaches & objectives to several problems, rather than Cuba in the context of Cuba. confuses rather than clarifies IMHO, and could be craftily pursued /exploited for several totally opposite POVs. As such, risky business to put in an article such as this (now if there was a Analysis of Cuba/US relations article, it would be a good one, if we could somehow avoid WP:NOR)Bridesmill 15:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A US / Cuba relations article is already in the pipeline, Bridesmill.--Zleitzen 15:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

One comment, taken slightly out of context, by one official in one former US administration, is not a good neutral source for explaining Cuba's form of government. This just amounts to a sort of advocacy of US exceptionalism which has nothing to do with this article: i.e. we don't find quotes from officials of the other 150 countries in the world, each stating whatever their position is about Cuba. I imagine, for example, that some official in the Chavez administration could be found who made some rather different comment; or in de Silva's. LotLE×talk 15:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about putting the quote in the article as a concession to help represent the POV, required for neutrality. I point out that just picking a short phrase out of context of the full interview is misleading. The follow up question in the interview is interesting too, sheding light on the history and inconsistency of the US policy, which raises valid questions as to the credibility of the citation. Basically, Sandy Berger is dodging and weaving to explain the duplicitous US policy: "What are your capabilities, what is your capacity, and what balance of those interests best fits the present situation, and in judgment of the President, what policy best advances America interests in the aggregate. And that -- the decisions been made." (emphasis added) And what are the America interests? One can only conclude: That Cuba should become market oriented. BruceHallman 15:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There may be good reasons to not include it. My main opinion was, if we must have something in there about Cuba being the only Western non-democracy, we absolutely have to attribute that opinion to a specific person. Contrary to what some people have said, IMO it's not an "elementary fact"- it's too open to interpretation. Friday (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I restored the quote, because I didn't see any good reason here on the talk page to delete it. Sorry if I missed any superb reasoning expressed on the history page. Please copy and paste it here, if I missed anything good.

It is quite plainly a matter of dispute whether Cuba is "democratic" or not. Perhaps this dispute should be mentioned in the body of the article. Contributors have argued above that Berger's statement isn't correct, because it's US-centric or uses the wrong definition. Great! Simply supply a quote from a non-US source or one using the right definition.

But don't expect one quote from one source to be neutral. We need a balance of quotes that express opposing points of view. I'd say roughly 75% of Wikipedians think Cuba is "democratic" (or at least has a "good" government). Okay, then it should be easy for them to quote verifiable sources which make this very point. If not, then it's obvious that these contributors are merely pushing their own POV. But I assume good faith, so I say give them a chance to find that quote. Ready, set, google! --Uncle Ed 18:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, I notice you put quotes around the word "democratic". Which signals to me that you appreciate that the meaning of the word varies depending on POV. Please explain how the Sandy Berger quote elucidates when he is using a POV definition, the Clinton definition[10], which best translated as "non-market-oriented-democracy"? BruceHallman 19:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to justify the quote or speculate about why he said what he said. Doing so would be close to original research. Friday (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We do' have to judge the credibility of the quote, and to be conscious of distortions that might arise from quoting out of context, or from ambiguity of the defintion of the word 'democracy'. BruceHallman 19:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really want to do now this but... [11]--Zleitzen 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, not exactly 'flat earth'[12]. BruceHallman 19:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

And here is my guide (again):

The distinct nature of grassroots political participation in Cuba has fostered much international discussion surrounding the nature of modern democracy. In 2000, Cuba sponsored the adopted UN resolution (55/96) which affirmed the recognition that “while all democracies share common features, there is no one universal model of democracy”[13]. Some international analysts have also suggested that Cuba’s constitution describes a Direct democracy[14] or a "centralized democracy". In 2006, the discussion gained additional attention after Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez referred to the Cuban model as a “revolutionary democracy”[15]. Peruvian presidential candidate and fellow Bolivarian leader Ollanta Humala responded, arguing that by Peruvian standards “Cuba does not qualify as a democracy"[16]. Modern Western political theory as advocated by groups including Freedom House, an organisation funded jointly by US Government and private investment budgets, demands more exact requisites to distinguish the criteria of electoral democracy. These include a competitive, multiparty political system, open political campaigning and independent media[17]. Consequently such groups determine that Cuba cannot be considered a modern functioning democracy, and frequently campaign to promote the implementation of these criteria for the island.

I asked for discussion BEFORE the deletion of the Berger quote, but Lulu merely placed an edit summary instead:

rv per consensus, undue weight, and NPOV

I think this is misleading, since I didn't see any consensus on this talk page for the reversion. I don't know what Lulu means by "undue weight", and Lulu has apparently overlooked my comments above about how to achieve NPOV by balancing "no it's not democratic" vs. "yes it is too" quotes.

It looks like a case of using reversion to replace discussion. I wish there would be discussion first, instead of an edit war. --Uncle Ed 19:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, there was much discussion of why the democracy issue is not right for the lead. Saying you "asked for discussion before deletion" of something that was already discussed to death (and consensus went against you) is dissimulative. The WP policy on undue weight, BTW, is WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Not everything that is verifiable is therefore significant enough to put everywhere. However, mostly in a gesture to Ed Poor, I restored the most neutral and concise form I could find to the lead (with the different statements in footnote). LotLE×talk 19:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, Ed? There is much discussion about the Sandy Berger citation and the need to have such a statement in the opening section. --Zleitzen 19:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the above came from user:Zleitzen, and it provides a good start. I checked one web link and found an assertion that Cuba has direct democracy on the municipal level. This is progress for the article, in terms of sourcing assertions insteading of yelling at each other in edit summaries and deleting info we personally disagree with. --Uncle Ed 19:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you check the link here [18] it should give an idea of how complex this issue is. I believe any discussion should be in the Government section (which it is). --Zleitzen 19:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Reference format

Let's have an explicit discussion about reference format. I added a footnote section, and a first note for it, and specifically decided to use the {{ref|name}} template rather than the m:Cite.php system. The use of the styles on various articles is subject to quite a bit of contention, not least in the recent RfC against User:Cyde for misuse of his "reference converter" tool. Wikipedia:Footnotes and several other pages have ongoing debates about this. The different systems have different advantages and disadvantages.

My thinking on the matter was that for this specific case, requiring that references be inlined is somewhat disruptive of flow in the editing window. For example, nearly half the lead block now is contained within a <ref> element that is rendered at the bottom of the page by the <references/> tag. Moreover, if this footnote is referenced several times, and expanded later, editors can get confused about which occurrence is first (in fact, the non-first reference was the one that was updated in the initial edit).

On the other hand, I will very happily bow to rough consensus if it is different from my own preference. But rather than get into an edit war over it, let's explicitly come to an agreement about what style to use. FWIW, I think this article could be substantially improved—and perhaps even many future disputes about support for facts staved off—by use of footnoes, whichever technical markup is used to create them. LotLE×talk 16:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Since we are just starting, I converted to the recommended format given on the footnote page. Drogo Underburrow 16:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to this?

Cite.php footnotes are not the only way to make footnotes. Many articles use templates to create footnotes, particularly if they use Harvard references. For a general overview, see Wikipedia:Citing sources.

Let's disucss what's best for this article rather than pretend there is a single "recommended format". LotLE×talk 16:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you follow your own instincts on what would be the clearest format to use, Lulu.--Zleitzen 16:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've actually been very involved in discussion of reference formats and technologies (and even in writing code around this). Recently, I've had an idea about a system that would be sort of best-of-both-worlds. It's not 100% perfect, but I've sort of hoped to try it on a "live" article. The idea is that you can put m:Cite.php reference in a "hidden block" all together, and know where to find them. Unfortunately, until/unless the Wikimedia developers put in some code changes I've suggested, this block needs to live at the top of the article, not at the bottom.

Take a look at User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Shoshone National Forest for a semi-live demonstration (it's a non-current version of an actual long and well-referenced article). Or User_talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Hidden refs for a toy example that contains more explanation of what it is doing. This article that's just starting to get footnoted might be a good test case. LotLE×talk 17:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cite.php is the recommended method, lets not pretend that it isn't. However, I also dislike the disruption to the flow of text it entails in edit mode. Therefore, I am willing to consider supporting a change to a different format. -- Drogo Underburrow 17:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no! m:Cite.php is not the recommended method. Please read the actual guideline that I quote above, and don't pretend Wikipedia guidelines say something they don't. m:Cite.php is a nice technology with a number of advantages; but it also has some disadvantages, and policy and guideline are very explicit in allowing editors to decide per-article (there's even a WP:ANI judgement on this issue, discussed at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes and other places). LotLE×talk 17:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cite.php is the preferred method. Go to Wikipedia:Footnotes, and the page is organized around cite.php, and clearly implies its the recommended method. But if that isn't proof enough, here it is stated bluntly: "In-text citations can be made using the Cite.php system (preferred)" quoted from the Cite-sources page. -- Drogo Underburrow 17:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I quote Wikipedia:Footnotes right above. Let me repeat, yet again: Cite.php footnotes are not the only way to make footnotes That's the official guideline. WP:CITE is also helpful, it reads:

If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references. If no agreement can be reached, the citation style used should be that of the first major contributor [...] Editors should not switch from one citation system to another without checking on the talk page that there are no objections.

I don't mind m:Cite.php specifically (I'm implemented it myself in many places that used less formal citations/footnotes), but I am really, really, really annoyed by a number of editors who pretend that it is the preferred method, in blatant disregard for actual guidelines. LotLE×talk 18:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the high profile nature of the disputes surrounding this page (see Miami Herald article at the top of the page which has gone round the world), I believe it is unconstructive at this point to enter a debate about the formatting of footnotes. I urge Drogo to resist contesting this matter and allow Lulu to continue formatting these footnotes. The distinct issues related to this page may (and probably will) warrant a non-generic formatting style. I could be more blunt and to the point about this but I doubt whether Wikipedia civility codes would allow it.--Zleitzen 18:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Can we please move past the false claim that m:Cite.php is somehow mandated, contrary to the stated WP guidelines?! I am not arguing against their use here even (well, maybe very mildly)... but tell me why you want them for this article. What benefit does m:Cite.php style have for this article, in your perception, versus other citation styles we might use? (whether simple {{ref|name}} or {{ref_harvard|...} It's not like it would take a lot of convincing for me to agree... but I just can't take an argument from a non-existent authority as the reason. LotLE×talk 18:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

LotLE, I wish you would stop misquoting me and the applicable pages. Nobody has said Cite.php was mandated; I said it was recommended, or prefered. I completely agree that other ways are acceptable. "Recommended" does not mean "mandatory"; it does not mean other methods are forbidden. Cite.php IS the preferred method, here it is stated bluntly: "In-text citations can be made using the Cite.php system (preferred)" quoted from the Cite-sources page. I'm going to keep repeating this until LotLE stops the nonsense that it isn't recommended, and stops falsely claiming that "recommended" means "mandatory". Zleitzen, do you not read what other people here write? I already said I am willing to consider supporting a change to a different format before you made your post asking me not to contest Lulu's desires concerning formats. I wrote this more than an hour before you made your post, so you can't even claim to have written yours before having had time to read the talk page. What do you want, a blanket a priori statement that I agree to anything he wants? Why should I give that? I am being more than accomodating, before being asked to. Again I repeat, I am willing to consider supporting a different format; which do you want to use, and why? -- Drogo Underburrow 19:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)