Talk:Elections in Cuba/Archive 1

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

Elections?

Do they ask people any question there or rather force them to support the leadership? Xx236 11:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't very clear about it. But what happens is that the trade-unions, women's organisations, and other mass organisations like that, draw up a list of candidates which they think should be elected. The process for that part is unclear. There are a few candidates for each electorate, one for each seat to be filled. The voters are then presented with a list of the few candidates for that electorate, with a box next to each one which they either tick if they accept that candidate, or leave blank if they reject that candidate. There is also an "all of the above" box. Any candidates rejected by a majority of the voters are not allowed to take a seat and the mass organisations come up with a list of new replacement candidates which voters get to accept or reject again, this process is repeated until people get a candidate they like.

Carl Kenner 21:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So much work to produce rubbish

Have you any proves that there are any elections in Cuba? That a non-Communist group elected one person on any level against the will of the Communist party? Xx236 13:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Elections are definately held, but the choice is limited, especially in National elections.

The purpose of Cuban NATIONAL elections is to allow the voters to accept or reject candidates put forward by the mass organisations (which support the communist system in Cuba). If candidates are rejected by voters then the mass organisations put forward alternative candidates. The vote to accept or reject each candidate is by secret ballot. So far no candidate has ever been rejected by voters, because most of them get around 80% support.

LOCAL elections are different, and are more like the council elections people in other countries are familiar with. I have no idea whether people that the Cuban Communist party doesn't like have ever been elected to local councils.

Carl Kenner 21:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Carl: but even these alternative candidates have to support the regime. So there is no freedom of choice, there are no free elections, oppositionals do not have access to the national media. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 16:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

neutrality dispute

I am sorry to see the recent edit by Adam Carr, with the comment: "liberating this article from the Communist Party of Wikipedia - verdad o muerte!". Without a doubt, Adam Carr is bring his POV to the article, can we edit it towards the neutral POV please? BruceHallman 18:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Adam Carr the same person as the serial vandalWikipedia is Communism?

Anyway, I'll have a go at fixing up this article later. I may need to do some research first though. Carl Kenner 21:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I could only guess, but his 11:10, 16 April 2006 use of the expression "liberating this article from the Communist Party of Wikipedia - verdad o muerte!" does make one wonder. BruceHallman 23:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have never edited articles to do with communism under any name but my own.
• Which factual statements in my version of the article do you dispute the accuracy of?

Adam 01:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many POV problems with the article, including this uncited sentence: "There has not been a free election in Cuba since 1952." BruceHallman 16:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite an example of a free election in Cuba since 1952? Until you can do, my statement stands. (One-party election run by the Communist Party don't count.) Adam 23:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Adam Carr. Cuba is a single-party state and activists of opposition parties are in prison. Is anyone aware of any oppositional allowed to run for parliament, which is in fact a condition sine quo non for free elections? Does anyone has an example of a free election in Cuba since 1952? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps our difference is on the definition of the word 'free'. Every election in Cuba has been by secret ballot, is that not free? All the candidates are nominated by secret ballots. No candidate is nominated if they receive less than 50% yes vote, and all voters are allowed to vote no secretly in the nomination votes. Voters are perfectly free to not nominate candidates they don't like. What isn't 'free' about that? BruceHallman 02:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Since I am not allowed to engage in "personal abuse" here, <personal attack removed> I can only say that I sincerely hope you never have to live in a country which conducts its elections in such a "free" manner. Adam 03:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I lived in such state and, I have to say that, there is no difference between so-called "communist" and so-called "democratic" states. In liberal democracies you may vote to whatever party you want (if it is legal) under one sole condition - that party must not advocate anything else but liberal democracy. In so-called "communist states" you may vote to whatever candidate non-partisan or member of the legal party under one sole condition - that party must not advocate anything else but socialism. If you may show me the essential difference, I shall comply with your opinion. Your sentence:"One-party election run by the Communist Party don't count." is POV. You may have only one candidate of only one party in any "multiparty democracy" (type of state). I have personally participated in one such election.Brunislav 18:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I live in a liberal democracy, the Netherlands and I voted in elections where a lot of parties that opposed liberal democracy took part and campaigned in elections. BTW, the sentence You may have only one candidate of only one party in any "multiparty democracy" (type of state) is a contradiction in terminis. A country that does only allow one party, is not a multiparty democracy. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

So you claim that:

1. some party, opposed to liberal democracy, may eventually win the elections and after that disband democracy and install, let's say, feudal autocracy. Nice. That led Germany to Nazism in 1933. and Croatia and Czechoslovakia to socialism in 1945./1948.

If a party is strong enough to change the constitution of a country and disband liberal democracy, it is possible. Since I am a democrat, I would demand the possibility for the people to vote a new government in after a reasonable periode (3 to 5 years) and would go strongly in opposition to such a party.

You would fight non-democratically (and in that case illegally) against non-democratic regime in order to achieve democracy. Interesting.Brunislav 09:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

One can doubt that Germany, which was an electoral democracy during the Weimar had allready developed into a liberal democracy and I seriously doubt if the elections under Soviet occupation in 1946 and 148 in Czechoslovakia were free and fair elections. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. We can doubt in any elections. We can doubt are some elections demoratic or not. For example, we can doubt in elections in Iraq under American occupation.Brunislav 09:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

2. it is impossible in multiparty democracy that, on some elections only one party nominate it's candidates despite the fact that many other may do that as well.Brunislav 05:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Off course this is possible. Normally it doesn't happen, but sometimes in some constituencies there is only one candidate. I know it happened in Singapore for many of the constituencies, but I have really doubts if Singapore is a liberal democracy, or even a democracy, considering the way the ruling party reacts on criticism by opposition leaders. For the rest I am not aware of multi-party democracies countries where only one party took part in the elections.Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Read few lines above. For example, in 1997. on the local elections in Croatia for the city of Beli Manastir (at the time, under UNTAES = United Nations Transitional Administration for Eastern Slavonia) only two parties participated in elections, HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union, de facto representing free Croatia) and SDSS (Independent Democratic Serbian Party, de facto representing rebels). Voters had no choice but to vote for HDZ-representatives if he lived in free parts of Croatia of for SDSS-representatives if he lived in rebel/occupied parts of Croatia. In many villages, only HSS had it's representatives. And something for mister Adam Carr, excuse me for my bad English.Brunislav 09:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's still a personal attack. Your attempt to get around the rule is obvious, but to flame someone's statement in such a way is unavoidably a comment on the person themselves. — Matt Crypto 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Which opposition candidate was ever allowed to run into elections? Which opposition candidate had ever a chance at elections? Whcih opposition candidate has access to the media in Cuba. The elections in Cuba are as unfree as in every former communist single party state in Europe. Read IPU Parline: Cubans went to the polls on 19 January 2003 to fill 609 seats in the National Assembly of People's Power and 1,199 in the 14 provincial assemblies. All the 609 candidates who ran uncontested for the National Assembly were elected, as well as all 1,199 candidates who also ran unopposed for the provincial assemblies. [1] and according to law, up to 50% of the Deputies must be delegates chosen in each municipality. Parliamentary candidates are otherwise proposed by nominating assemblies which comprise representatives of workers, youth, women, students and farmers as well as members of the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution. The final list of candidates, which corresponds to the number of seats to be filled, is drawn up by the National Candidature Commission taking into account criteria such as candidates' merit, patriotism, ethical values and revolutionary history.[2] (bold by me)Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 05:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I choose to ignore editors that insult me. BruceHallman 15:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wilfried, I think that your questions do not pertain to the issue of trying to define 'free', as obviously there are different definitions of the concept.

By your definition, I see your point. But is there another valid definition of 'free'? I don't think you addressed my earlier (02:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)) question. For the nominations: If the ballots are secret, and if the voters have the freedom to vote no, or to vote with a spoiled ballot, (these conditions are true) then the body of voters have the freedom to vote a less than 50% approval for the nomination and therefore to not nominate any and all candidates. Of course that is not the same type of 'free' that we have in multiparty electoral systems, but it is another type of 'free'. BruceHallman 15:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did you find that kind of definition of free elections. As you can see the National Candidature Commission finally selects the candidates. People do not have the possibility to vote for other candidates than these candidates who have to support the ruling regime. Sourry, you do not convince me. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 16:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wilfried, Indeed people in Cuba do have the posibility to vote for other candidates, if the nominated candidates do not receive 50%+ vote on the secret ballot another nomination is required. Your requirement that they also be required to vote for 'other candidates' seems irrelevant if they have the right to vote no on any and all nominations. They have the right to vote no, again and again, until an acceptable candiate is nominated. BruceHallman 17:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You write that you are not convinced, but if the ballots are secret and if they have the right to vote no, then they are free to reject any and all nominated candidates. That is elementary logic. BruceHallman 17:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Voters do not have the freedom to choose whom they want, they can only in theory reject persons, which is not a freedom of choice. If I was Cuban liberal democrat, could I support a candidate of the Cuban Liberal Democratic Party? (This party exists, I met representatives in Europe). Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 17:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Your question is premised upon that I accept your limited definition of a specific type of 'free' and is therefore irrelevant to the broader question: Are there 'free' elections in Cuba. If Cubans have the freedom to not elect any and all candidates, that is a genuine and significant type of electoral freedom to voice opposition to the government. Again, we appear to be disputing which definition of 'free' should be used. BruceHallman 17:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether you personally accept that definition of "free elections" is simply not relevant. While Cuba does indeed have free elections by your particular definition, your definition is simply unknown in the English speaking world, and therefore is irrelevant as per Wikipedia policy. And before you quote WP:NPOV, you need to be clear that NPOV is not a mandate to give all views equal value. If so, the article on the Apollo program would give equal weight to the crackpots that think that the event was staged. --Bletch 19:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Electionworld: An up or down vote by secret ballot is a type of choice, Yes or No. Another type of choice is a vote between candidate Red and candidate Blue. Both of these systems are types of electoral choice. And, because ballot is secret, both are free electoral choice. BruceHallman 19:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Bletch, I speak English and I know of this definition of 'free', so it is not unknown in the English speaking world. BruceHallman 19:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Bletch, as part of the earlier Cabal Mediation attempt in Cuba the group of editors was asked to provide citations in support of the POV that Cuba has a form of democracy and we provided several credible citations. You did not question those citations then and there. You should not now ignore those citations and imply that this POV is 'crackpot'. BruceHallman 19:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I was not involved in that debate, but a country that does not give opposition a fair (or any) chance at elections to gain power, does not hold free elections or is a democracy at all. I do not know any other (non-communist) sources that would label the kind of elections as held in Cuba or in the former Warsaw Pact countries as free or free and fair. The fact, BruceHallman, that you know that definition, does not make it a standard or more or less general accepted definition in or outside the English speaking world. At the moment, I tend to agree with Bletch. The cuban elections are not free just because oppositional candidates are not allowed to stand. If the cuban government is convinced that it is supported by the people, let it just do the test and win elections in competition with other forces. It is clear (see IPU again) that all candidates allowed must share the revolutionary values of the government. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me, I do not argue that the Cuban electoral system is perfect, or even close. I am just arguing that on the scale from 'perfectly free' towards 'not at all free', that the Cuban electoral system falls somewhere between the two extremes. The article presently includes the sentence: " There has not been a free election in Cuba since 1952. ", as if 'free' is black or white. I argue that 'free' is on a sliding scale, and that the Cuba electoral system is 'free' by at least one genuine measure. I grant that Cuba might become 'more free' but I don't accept the black or white premise of that 'since 1952' sentence in the article. BruceHallman 20:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right, 'free' is on a sliding scale. Cubas "elections" are probably more free than say, the ones in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where to not vote for Saddam resulted in threats of execution (<SARCASM>well then again, people are always free to choose execution</SARCASM>), but they do not meet any sane definition of "free election". Saying that they do is like saying that the boiling point of Sulfur does not qualify as "hot", just because the boiling point of Iron may be hotter. --Bletch 00:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There we differ. The system can become more perfect, that is not the discussion. The system is not free, since it does not allow oppositional candidates. One could say it is a secret ballot, but that is not enough to make it free. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Full circle. We are arguing about the definition of 'free'. I can cite[3] that the voting 'no' or voting of 'spoiled' ballots in Cuba is considered to be a method for the electorate to express their opposition to the incumbent party. And, this electoral expression is 'free' because it is made by secret ballot. I agree that the system can become more perfect is not the discussion. The discussion is about the statement "There has not been a free election in Cuba since 1952." which is POV. BruceHallman 02:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are arguing about the definition of free. Yes, we do not agree. No, that electoral expression is not 'free', since oppositionals are not allowed to run for office and a campaign against the incumbent party or even a debate about alternatives is not possible. For free elections it is necesary to be able to express views, to have a choice between different political points of views, not only to say yes and know. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree that we don't agree about a definition of 'free elections'. Are there things that we do agree upon? Do we agree that there are various points of view about the question of 'free elections' in Cuba? Including at least: 1) your point of view and 2) the point of view which I have described? BruceHallman 16:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Still not neutral

What in the present text violates the NPOV rule? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I agree - elections under Castro are as much show elections as the "elections" in the old Eastern Bloc - sure you could vote against a Communist (or stooge party) candidate - it's just you would most likely find yourself in prison or dead if you did. PMA 21:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wilfried, thanks for your work on this article, and your patience in arguing with these <personal attack removed>. I will leave this one to you and return to subjects like Khmer art, which I have sadly neglected of late. Adam 23:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

For instance, the first sentence says that Fidel Castro 'has been in power', true, but POV. He has also been 'elected through due process of the Cuban Constitution' per the alternative POV. A neutral wording would fall somewhere in the middle of these two POV's, not at the extreme anti-Castro end. I have similar concerns eleswhere in the article of anti-Castro bias. I am not saying to have a pro-Castro bias, I just hope to see a neutral wording. BruceHallman 14:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why Fidel Castro 'has been in power', which is true is POV. Please argue. I would also say that Tony Blair has been in power in the last years. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 06:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason is that it has an appearance that it mirrors hardline anti-Castro rhetoric. Neutral wording would not mirror the extreme rhetoric, pro or con. BruceHallman 16:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit, including the word 'carious', appears nonencyclopedic and POV, could you please explain your intention? BruceHallman 16:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, I guess you meant various not carious. Still, why describe elections in Cuba against a multi-party model when rather they are actually a form of the direct democracy model? Can we describe the Cuban elections for what they are, as opposed to what they are not? BruceHallman 19:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But in the last text nothing is untrue (carious must be various). I would certainly not agree with the remark that Cuba is a direct democracy, since it only allows supporters of the ruling regime (a word I can use here but won't use in the entry itself. The antry describes the system with reference to IPU, an organisation with as one of its members the Cuban parliament. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote "it only allows supporters of the ruling regime", could you point to a credible citation documenting the mechanism of how this occurs using secret ballots as the vehicle for the nomination process? BruceHallman 20:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It is the consequence of this sentence with ref. According to IPU, the law stipulates that up to 50% of the Deputies must be delegates chosen in each municipality. Parliamentary candidates are otherwise proposed by nominating assemblies which comprise representatives of workers, youth, women, students and farmers as well as members of the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution. The final list of candidates, which corresponds to the number of seats to be filled, is drawn up by the National Candidature Commission taking into account criteria such as candidates' popularity, merit, patriotism, ethical values and revolutionary history.

Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The citation you provided didn't really address my question, would you try again please? BruceHallman 21:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to understand your distinction: 'free and fair'. It seems to me that you hang your hat on the fact that Cuba is not a multi-party democracy but rather a direct democracy, and you seem to have the personal opinion that direct democracy is not 'free'. Yet, in the USA, only candidates of the major parties have a chance and the two major parties have self determined (some might say arbitrary) rules determined by committee for nomination of their candidates. Yet, the USA elections are commonly seen as free and fair; what is the distinction from Cuba? Regardless, please provide citations describing how Cuban nominations by secret ballots are not free. Bear in mind that the Cuban people casting their ballots are totally free to reject any and all nominations presented to them. BruceHallman 21:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Still, Cuba is not a direct democracy, since it does not allow opposition. If the Communist Party of Cuba is convinced that they have the support of the people, why doesn't prove that by allowing opposition at the elections. I can repeat, but in Cuba acording to IPU the National Candidature Commission has the final say. There is no freedom to run in elections. But I am afraid that I won't convince you and you won't convince me. BTW, I am not defending the US electoral system, since personally I prefer a system based on proportional representation allowing small political forces to have parliamentary representation. But the US system is more pluriform than the Cuban electoral system. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, there is no need for you and I to convince each other about our own personal (and different) versions of 'truth'; because Wikipedia is not about 'truth', it is about WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I asked you for a citation and you still have not provided it. BruceHallman 21:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, you write "Cuba is not a direct democracy, since it does not allow opposition". Your word 'opposition' implies push and pull, in other words, multi-party democracy. Please provide citation proving your definition of democracy that it must have multiple parties? Bear in mind that Cubans can cast their secret ballots 'spoiled' or with a no vote, that they do indeed have a right of opposition because they have totally free right to oppose any and all candidates presented to them. Your claim of no right to oppose doesn't make sense. BruceHallman 21:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I provided a citation. Furthermore compare [4], [5], [6]. Look also the refusal to take into debate the Varela Project. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 22:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Your citations describe examples of restrictions of internal political opposition eminating from outside of Cuba, the NDI from Washington DC and the Varela Project which is funded by the USA. Heck, even the United States prohibits political contributions from foreign agents[7]. Your citations do not describe 'no right [of Cubans] to oppose'. BruceHallman 03:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A "direct democracy" is either a system like that of Ancient Athens, in which all the citizens gather in an assembly to debate and vote on the issues of the day, or a system like that in Switzerland, in which many (though not all) matters are put to referendum for the people to decide. Neither of these things takes place in Cuba. In form Cuba is a parliamentary democracy, not a direct democracy - the people elect a legislature, the legislature then chooses an executive head of state. In practice, since the Communist Party controls all stages of the process and no overt opposition to the regime is permitted, Cuba is not a democracy of any description. Adam 00:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "no overt opposition to the regime is permitted" which is obviously not true. The 'regime' permits secret ballots and the secret ballots are used to express opposition. BruceHallman 01:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked:

"You wrote "it only allows supporters of the ruling regime", could you point to a credible citation documenting the mechanism of how this occurs using secret ballots as the vehicle for the nomination process? BruceHallman 20:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)",

None of your three citations address the fact that Cubans are free to express opposition through the casting of a blank or spoiled ballot for each and every candidate which is nominated. Again, it appears your problem is that Cuba does not have multi-party elections. Where does it say that democracy must be of the multi-party type? BruceHallman 01:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Overt: Open, unconcealed" (Shorter Collins Dictionary). Casting a blank ballot is not overt oppsition. There is no overt opposition permitted in Cuban elections.
• "Democracy: Government by the people or their elected representatives" (ditto)
• "Elect: Choose by vote" (ditto). An election in which people do not have the right to choose their representatives (that is, to choose between alternatives), is not a genuine election, and the resulting political system is not a democracy.
• I do not intend spending the rest of my life debating this point with you, Bruce. Since there appears to be no prospect of agreement on this, I will apply to have the question, both at this article and at Cuba, put to a ballot - an election at which Wikipedians will be asked to choose between your position and mine. They will have the opportunity (denied to the Cuban people) of a free choice between alternatives. The result will be binding on all parties. Do you like that idea? Adam 01:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you do not respond to my request for citation, so don't blame me for dragging this 'debate' out too long. The spoiled ballots are counted in the open and unconcealed. You are critical of the word 'overt' but it is telling that you neglected to address the words 'Cubans are free to express opposition' probably because you would prefer to not acknowledge the reality that Cuban's genuinely express opposition in this way. Your 'ditto' claims are logical shell games. The Cuban democratic system does indeed give the people an alternative: they have the clear and free alternative to vote up or down and to reject any and all candidates. This fact you have not denied. Again, implied in your argument above is your preconception that all democracy should be multi-party democracy. Regarding your suggestion to put it up to a popular vote: wikipedia is not a democracy. I honor all the Wikipedia policies including that one. I trust you do too. BruceHallman 03:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Cuban democratic system does indeed give the people an alternative: they have the clear and free alternative to vote up or down and to reject any and all candidates. Frankly, that's a disgusting lie. There is no shortage of reports stating that families suffer suffer retaliation at work or school or even see their rations reduced if they do not vote for the official candidates. 172 | Talk 07:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

172, your statement "...retaliation...if they do not vote for the official candidates" is not credible and uncited. Explain, please, how your claim could be true with the vote being held by secret ballot? And, again, I do not deny that your point of view is commonly held, or that there are not many 'reports', or even that you are entitled to hold your point of view. Though I deny that it is credible in this instance. I mostly object that your point of view (reflected in the article) is not the only point of view, therefore the article is 'still not neutral'. BruceHallman 14:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute box removal

User PMA and user 172 have unilaterally removed the POV dispute box, with the comment ".."flat earth theory" though it seems wildly illogical that a POV dispute box compares to the 'flat earth theory'. Please explain just what 'theory' is involved in your reasoning about the POV box? BruceHallman 21:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the flat earth theory: The Cuban democratic system does indeed give the people an alternative: they have the clear and free alternative to vote up or down and to reject any and all candidates. Frankly, that claim's too absurd to be dignified with a response. 172 | Talk 21:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please take the time to actually understand the neutrality dispute. Based on what you just wrote, you do not understand. Please actually address the neutrality concern that a multi-party democracy is not the only type of democracy. See, for instance the fourth paragraph which has neutrality problems. Unilateral removal of a POV box is not civil behaviour. BruceHallman 21:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Most editors to this article/talk page consider the entry to be neutral. BruceHallman seems to stand alone. I think the dispuute should be closed. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 22:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

The dominant "systemic bias" at Wikipedia is a bias towards the left, of which Bruce is a prize example. Even most left-inclined Wikipedians, however, will reject his willful denial of obvious facts about the Castro dictatorship. I agree with Wilfried, who knows more about elections than anyone else at Wikipedia, that this debate should now be closed. Adam 04:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion in the link section of an analysis from your own website does tend to cloud the consensus issue somewhat, Adam! I saw a similar barrier when I stumbled into a dispute between devoted Chomskyites and an editor whom I believe may be this bloke (read his comments about wikipedia!), on the Criticisms of Noam Chomsky page. But there are solutions which satisfy all parties, and there appears to be a happy consensus there now[8]. Adam's link and view has every right to be included and explored, but Bruce's points about systemic bias have to be taken into account. Besides, there are more complex issues, where assessing a balance of bias between right and left does not suffice. (I prefer to prescribe the Nolan chart on these matters anyway). I think there needs to be a plain recording of the machinery of the Cuban system. And a seperate section exploring how that particular system relates and compares to other international models. Including Western liberal, Asian and contemporary South American (which are in flux). Having seen the shenanigans of the main Cuba page, these matters have to be addressed in the article, and in a fashion that should be as resistent to attack from all sides as possible. --Zleitzen 15:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't put the link to my website at the article. Since my website has no election stats from Cuba (since Cuba doesn't have contested elections) there isn't much point in having the link.
• I am happy to have the article describe how the Cuban "election" system works, and it in fact does so. I haven't touched that section.
• But an article called Elections in Cuba must prominently make the point that Cuba doesn't in fact have elections in the generally accepted sense of the word "election" - a process by which the people choose their representatives. What happens in Cuba is that the Communist Party and organisations controlled by it select a single candidate, whom the people then approve. In theory they can reject that candidate, but given the Communist Party's complete control of the media and public discourse, no-one is allowed to advocate that. Adam 00:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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

neutrality dispute

"Since the electoral system does not allow oppositional candidates, these elections cannot be considered free and fair elections, in which voters had a choice of candidates from various political orientation." This sentence from the fourth paragraph is based on the presumtion that all democracy must be multi-party. That definition of democracy is not neutral. Also, I think it is a poor style of editing to describe what Cuba is not. We should rather describe what Cuba is. BruceHallman 13:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please explain the concept why all democracy has to be multi-party? So many around here view that presumption to be 'truth'. BruceHallman 13:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't explain it, because noone here is espousing that view per se. Now if you want an explanation on why democracy inherently requires tolerance of opposition and freedom of speech, you merely need to read the many arguments rehashed over and over that you are either oblivious to, or are choosing to ignore. --Bletch 23:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been explained to you several times, Bruce - you just don't want to know. Democracy doesn't have to be multi-party, but it must be multi-candidate. To "elect" means to choose between alternatives. People must have the ability to choose who will sit in their legislature, or be their president, or whatever. The key word is choice. There must also be the ability to advocate choice. Neither of these things exist in Cuba. Is this point so difficult for you to grasp? Adam 01:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Many arguments rehashed over and over" quoting Bletch. Yes, I could not have said it better. But, 99% of what I have seen are arguments based on your original research. Adam's latest argument, 01:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC), is 100% original research. The obligation is on you, to cite credible verifiable sources to back up your assertion. No original research allowed. The twelve citations provided yesterday were laughably weak. Bear in mind that you are attempting to prove a negative. It is easy to prove Cuba is not your favorite type of ideal democracy, but that is not sufficient. You actually need to prove, with credible citations, that Cuba is not any type of democracy...even a flawed democracy is a type of democracy. [Haiti] I was browsing around Wikipedia today and easily found more than twenty types and variants of democratic governmental systems. You have a tall task to prove that Cuba is not any type of democracy. There are also dozens of citations, many quite credible, stating that Cuba is a type of democracy, so even if you succeed in your task of proving a negative (unlikely), even then, a real and genuine point of view exists, far from being a 'flat earth theory', and cannot fairly be ignored. BruceHallman 04:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You asked: "Could someone please explain the concept why all democracy has to be multi-party?" I explained it to you. Now you want to argue process again. I don't propose going around in endless circles with you on this any longer. I am proposing a settlement to this matter at Talk:Cuba. You can sign up to it or not. Adam 06:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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

I agreed to your 12:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC) settlement offer yesterday. BruceHallman 13:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Conflict resolution

There seems to be a lot discussion that isn't going much of anywhere on this relatively short article. One this is definitely clear: the neutrality is in dispute (meaning that some think the article is NPOV, some think it is POV). I would suggest leaving the tag on the article until the parties agree on a solution - whether it be through conversation or arbitration. uriah923^(talk) 19:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

But is it enough if only one person disputes the neutrality. Many editors argued why the text is correct. Consensus is not the same as neutrality. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 11:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You write 'is it enough if only one person...?': I only see a handful on interested editors here and two who oppose. But the range of POV's at question is not that between this small group of editors. Rather diligent editors are required to identify and represent the full range of conflicting POV's that exist on this subject. This would be true, even if all the editors held just one of those POVs. We are required to research all the POVs that exist, not just our own POV.

You write 'Many editors argued why the text is correct.' What actually occurred mostly is that many editors argued why their personal belief of truth is correct.

You write 'Consensus is not the same as neutrality.' Yes. But our job is to not write an article that reflects the consensus of the systemic bias of the editors. Realistically, we tend to be English speaking, tend to have western political orientation, our world view tends to have been molded somewhat by reading 40+ years of anti-Castro editorial & political content. Probably none of the interested editors here have lived in a socialist society, and probably all live in a capitalistic society. That doesn't mean that a socialist POV doesn't exist.

Please re-read WP:NPOV, and I ask that we all agree to comply. It says, in part: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.".

Face it, can an article that starts with the word "Although..." really be considered neutral?

The article says nothing sympathetic with the contrary POV that Cuba has an alternative form of democracy. The article 'forgets' to mention that elections are held with secret ballots. The article doesn't really say anything about the mechanics of elections in Cuba, that they start at the local levels, for instance. The article says nothing about the issue of election campaigning, and controls on campaign financing. The article fails to mention the controversy about restrictions on allowing external dissidents and opponents of socialist society from campaigning in Cuba. The article fails to mention anything about US foreign policies designed to influence elections in Cuba. The article says nothing about the phenomena of protest voting by voting with spoiled ballots. The article 'forgets' to mention that the elections exist in context of a socialist society and were designed, at least in principle, to be consistent with socialist values. The article now only presents an anti-Castro point of view. BruceHallman 14:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the article is about elections in Cuba, not about elections in any other country. I am not defending the US system. It is clear that Cuba does not allow opposition to campaign. I am not talking about US funded oppositionals, but about the internal opposition, like the Liberal Democratic Party and the Democratic Solidarity Party. As long as the cuban government does not allow any form of opposition, it cannot be considered democratic in any way, not even a form of alternative democracy. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 10:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is declining again into a badly written jumble. I will do a rewrite tomorrow. Adam 11:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did Bruce Hallman vandalize my substantive edits and call it "vandalism"?

Was there one thing I added that was untrue? -- FRCP11 13:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I should have assumed good faith, and I did not, I apologise. When I saw your overt POV writing style, you gave me the impression of the anti-Castro vandals that drop in and vandalize occasionally, and I made a misjudgement. Looking at it again, I see that your edits do not qualify as vandalism.

You ask what did you write that wasn't 'true'. Wikipedia is not about 'truth' it is about verifibility, and none of your assertions were supported by verifiable citations.

Regardless, I encourage the editors around here to discuss the point of view problems to allow this article to be collaboratively edited. For instance, the second sentence implies that elections must have opposition candidates. Could this presumption be cited? Obviously, yes/no elections are possible. BruceHallman 14:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

All of my edits came directly from the verifiable citation I had added (and you had deleted) to the external links.

Free and fair yes/no retention elections are possible, but Cuba does not have such elections. -- FRCP11 17:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent Electionworld edit neutrality

The recent edit by Electionworld [9] (which was quickly reverted by FRCP11) was a genuine good faith attempt to edit a neutrally worded article which I respect. Indeed, with a small edit, (the relocation of the second sentence from the first paragraph to the fourth), I would have agreed to remove the neutrality tag. BruceHallman 14:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything by Electionworld. -- FRCP11 17:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we disagree about the meaning of the word 'revert'. In any case, the recent edits of FRCP11 are heavily POV and not encyclopedic. I have started a sandbox to attempt to collaborate an draft of an article with a neutral POV. BruceHallman 17:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Cuba:neutrality_sandbox

You have an Orwellian definition of "democracy," it wouldn't surprise me if you have an Orwellian definition of "revert," too. Every edit I made is factual, or replaces POV claims with factual claims. Hallman hasn't identified a single thing I have wrong. -- FRCP11 17:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, George Orwell stated that "there is no agreed definition of democracy". Adding that the term had been debased and subverted for political leverage.

Concerning your edits FRCP11, explain the following addition, "Cuba is a totalitarian state controlled by Castro". Please attempt to explain your edit in reference to Wikipedia guidelines and policies on Verifiabilty, NPOV and Systemic bias.--Zleitzen 18:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want "bias", how about falsely characterizing the leftist "systemic bias" movement as a Wikipedia guideline/policy? I'm not playing the imaginary systemic bias game, which is an attempt by leftists to subvert any usefulness of Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article on totalitarianism identifies a dozen or so characteristics of totalitarian governments, and Cuba has all of them; the statement that most of the rest of the world views Cuba to be a totalitarian state is completely accurate.[10],[11],[12],[13] I'm unaware of any neutral source that challenges that characterization; even the far-left Nation magazine calls Cuba totalitarian. -- FRCP11 19:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

These are opinions, FRCP11. And should not be asserted as fact, FRCP11. Please consult Verifiabilty and NPOV guidelines and policies, if you are still unclear about the application of these policies I will be available to explain them in further detail. --Zleitzen 20:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't asserted any opinions as fact, and you haven't identified any opinions I've asserted as fact. I replaced an opinion with a factual statement, as discussed below in my 19:18 comment. -- FRCP11 20:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

FRCP11 wrote: "...replaces POV claims with factual claims." This reveals that you believe your own POV to be 'fact', and other POV's to be 'not fact'. Please re-read about our duty as editors, WP:NPOV. We are required to view our own POV as just one of the possible POV's, then we are required to respect other POV's (even the ones we hate), and then write a neutral article leaving it up to the reader to reach their own conclusion. Your recent edits fail in this regard. Indeed it seems futile to argue 'fact' with you. That is why I have not pointed to specific 'things wrong' in your editing. First, you need to demonstrate that you 'get' the concept of WP:NPOV. BruceHallman 19:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I see personal attacks, but I see no identification of error.

My edits comport with WP:NPOV.

For example, the original text said "Cuba is a parliamentary democracy." This is POV at best, and false at worst, because reasonable people would contend that a parliamentary democracy has features, such as the ability to petition the government and challenge the leadership in regularly scheduled free and fair elections, that Cuba does not have. Rather than delete the false claim to reflect my POV that Cuba is not a parliamentary democracy, I corrected it to the NPOV version "Cuba calls itself a parliamentary democracy," which, if anything, gives far too much credence to Cuban propaganda. -- FRCP11 19:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

Right now, we have what appears to be a spiteful POV tag. I say "spiteful" because, despite repeated invitations, the person who placed the tag has failed to identify what fails NPOV in the current version. I am removing the tag until such a demonstration is made. -- FRCP11 19:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, the POV tag was up for exactly two hours before you removed it, and you did not make 'repeated invitations'. There are numerous specific POV problems, most are a reflection of your apparent 'hate' towards Fidel Castro. The first sentence contains enough justification for the 'POV' tag. The article is about 'elections in Cuba' and the first sentence should reflect that with neutral wording. Instead it describes Fidel Castro in POV terms, 'calls itself' is judgementsl, similar, the use of the word 'totalitarian state' even it true, is out of place in the first sentence of an article about elections.. There are other POV problems, but again, I say that it appears futile to collaborate with you because of what seems to be a 'boiling hate of Fidel'. I am reinstating the POV tag, and I await a collaboration partner that can respect my POV, even while disagreeing with my POV. By the way, I respect your POV. BruceHallman 21:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of conclusory assertions and a lot of ad hominems there, but no argument for (the most part) why anything that's in the article is POV.

The one particular reason given -- " even it true, is out of place in the first sentence of an article about elections" -- is incorrect. Whether a society permits freedom of political thought is perhaps the most important fact in determining whether elections in that society are legitimate or sham. Omitting the fact that Cuba is totalitarian, and that the next two rulers have already been appointed for life, would distort the article and make it inaccurate. It's the most important fact about elections in Cuba, and thus belongs in the first sentence.

How did I describe Fidel Castro in POV terms? Everything I said about Castro is verifiable and correct.

Fidel Castro, who is chief of state, head of government, First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba ("PCC"), and commander in chief of the armed forces. In March 2003, Castro announced his intention to remain in power for life. Succession after Castro's death has already been determined by Castro to fall to his brother Raul Castro.

Not a single POV thing in there. There are seven facts about Castro, and each of them is true, neutrally objective, and relevant to the inquiry.

I thus invite others to remove the POV tag. You haven't justified it, you've just repeatedly asserted it in conclusory (and insulting) statements without argument. If you really respected my POV, you'd engage the conversation, and explain the reason why you persist in claiming the article is POV. I note that your proposed "neutral" sandbox edit makes absolutely no effort to encompass the facts I've added to the discussion. You seem to want a sanitized version that comports with Communist propaganda and omits the unpleasant truths of the situation. In contrast, my NPOV edit includes every argument the Communists have made in support of their claims. You distort "NPOV" the same way you distort "democracy" and "revert", and I don't see why Wikipedia editors should have any respect for your assertion that the article is POV when you've said nothing that supports that assertion. -- FRCP11 23:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologise if I insulted you, I did not intend to do so. I also object to the unilateral revert of the POV tag without addressing the neutrality problems in the article. Would you agree to mediation to resolve our dispute? BruceHallman 00:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear what the neutrality problems of the article are. You identified exactly one single argument why you felt NPOV was violated, My goal is an NPOV article. I see no evidence that I've left out or deleted the Communist POV. I explained why the presence of the perspective that Cuba was a totalitarian state needed to be included in the first paragraph, and I've heard no refutation or even any engagement. I asked why you thought the sentence on Castro was POV, and which of the seven contentions in there was controversial, and got no response other than the repetition of the conclusory assertion that it's POV. I see posturing, but I see very little reasoning. I'd like to assume good faith, but your refusal to address what I say makes it me think that your real objection is that the article includes all POVs, and not just the sanitized Orwellian Communist one where war is peace, freedom is slavery, and lifetime dictatorship with succession by blood relatives where opponents are jailed and the parliament has no power is parliamentary democracy. -- FRCP11 02:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I seperated in the article the description and the critique. I agree Cuba is a totalitarian state, a dictatorship, but that should be in the critique. The description should be as neutral as possible. So if somebody would write that Cuba holds free and secret elections, that should not be in the description but in a (positive) critique. I think the article is now as neutral as possible. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)