Talk:Cuba/Archive 8

I don't understand what's the fuss about Cuba and Fidel Castro here (every newspaper is talking about). Any decent person with a minimum IQ can understand that Cubans suffer a lot at the hand of the communists. I lived 27 years in a Eastern European communist country and I know exactly what I am talking about. (Gore) -- Bruce's bleatings about "civility" are just a cover for his political agenda, which is to prevent the truth about the Castro dictatorship appearing at Wikipedia. I treat them with the contempt they deserve. My dictionary defines "verify" as "prove, confirm truth of." Wikipedia is about what is (a) true and (b) can be shown to be true. Adam 00:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your use of the verb 'bleating' is an insult. You accuse me of an agenda to 'prevent the truth', which is not my agenda.  I do not have an agenda to prevent your POV from being in Wikipedia.  My agenda is to get the opposing POV into Wikipedia beside your POV for the purpose of neutrality, see WP:NPOV.    BruceHallman 01:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Adam, don't be intimidated by Bruce. You are doing a good job. Personally, I Bruce is kvetching, not bleating - though frankly he does so much of it, it's hard to tell some times. Merecat 03:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you consider attempts to apply Wikipedia and encyclopedic standards kvetching, Merecat, then I query your motives concerning the overall project. These standards are essential, that you consider them kvetching speaks volumes.--Zleitzen 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

When I get time this evening I will do a new edit of both this article and Elections in Cuba, based on the text I proposed (above) as part of the failed attempt at a settlement with the pro-Castro faction (which now seems to consist of Bruce and Michael, with Zleitzen occupying a neutralist position). I think this is a very fair and balanced text. However my offer to delete the description of Cuba's political status in the opening paragraph in exchange for an agreed text is now withdrawn, so that will stay. Adam 03:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've always attempted to retain a neutralist position, Adam. My lack of response to your paragraphs was due in part to unrelated time restraints imposed by tiresome toddlers! Will respond when I've cleared my head of the damn teletubbies and refocused on the matters at hand. --Zleitzen 04:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

But you did respond, Zleitzen. You specifically said that you would not write a "why Cuba is a democracy" section for my text. If you have changed your mind about that, fine. Adam 04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Adam, nobody is going to author a piece stating "why Cuba is a democracy". This isn't a school assignment. I refer to my comments above about Wikipedia guidelines, canonical exposition etc, etc. I have yet to examine your other paragraphs in detail, much of it seems  indesputable, but at a glance I still sense the author behind the words. Therefore I defer to Bruce's structural proposal, and will help ensure that your position is represented within. --Zleitzen 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again you are most obtusely misrepresenting what I asked you to do. I didn't ask you to say why you think Cuba is a democracy (if indeed you do). I asked you to complete the sentence "The Cuban Government and its supporters argue that Cuba is a democracy because..." In other words, to summarise the argument that Cuba is a democracy, as a balancing section to the text saying that by most objective criteria Cuba is a not a democracy. I am perfectly capable of writing it myself, but I was trying to be as accommodating as possible to the pro-Castro faction by asking them to write it themselves rather than have me paraphrase their arguments for them. But if none of you / them are willing or able to do so, I will do it myself. I for one am trying to bring this extremely tiresome process to an end. Adam 04:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Adam, I stated in my paragraph "The distinct nature of grassroots political participation in Cuba etc..." and then wrote this "Some international analysts have also suggested that Cuba’s constitution describes a Direct democracy" which linked to this . Which states this... "This participatory system contained an interesting combination of direct democracy and the use of representation as granted by election" before detailing municipal and grassroots participation.
 * If you deem it necessary I'll clarify, Some people believe Cuba has democratic qualities due to the high degree of mass participation in grassroots descision making.--Zleitzen 13:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From an internal perspective, Cuba is free to call itself a "Democracy", but if measured by the major standards of current Democracies, fails the test: No truly free elections, no freedom of the press, limited due process, no right to dissent, etc. The current Cuban government is a Police State, with a few limited window dressings paraded around to the world media. It's absurd to say otherwise and I fail to see why this is even being argued. Merecat 05:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, though your edit is off. The entry row for "government-type" in country templates refers to formal constitutional arrangements. A "republic" is merely a country that is not a monarchy, constitutional monarchy, principality, etc. 172 | Talk 05:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... that's news to me.
 * Republic says: "In a broad definition a republic is a state or country that is led by people who do not base their political power on any principle beyond the control of the people of that state or country. Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, stress the importance of autonomy and the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic."
 * Whereas, Police State says:
 * "A police state is an authoritarian state which uses the police, especially secret police, to maintain and enforce political power, often through violent or arbitrary means. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism or other harsh means of social control. In a police state the police are not subject to the rule of law and there is no meaningful distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.".
 * The 2nd one sounds more like Cuba to me. Even, so I don't have a dog in the fight at this article and I am happy to yield on this point - even though I do think that my edit was and it correct. Merecat 13:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As much as I know first-hand for that to be true, Merecat, you need to provide citations. I hope I have a moment later to add more. --Mcmachete 17:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, I agree with your characterization of Cuba's political system. Still, notice that in other sourcebooks, such as any encyclopedia or The World Almanac, under the description "government-type" the Cuba and other Communist regimes are either described as "republics" "federal republics" (in the case of the Soviet Union) or "Communist states." It is widely understood that these terms are often fig-leaves in the context of describing a "government-type." At any rate, thanks for your contributions to the talk page. It's a relief to see another well-informed user watching things around here. 172 | Talk 18:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Pending mediation.
Our mediation has been pending since April 28, waiting it appears, for a response from Adam. I point your attention here in case you missed it. BruceHallman 13:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Adam's Government Rewrite
I'd be intrigued to discover why you find Jimmy Carter an important commentator on the Cuban democracy debate. Whilst you find Chavez and Humala (fellow Bolivarians with opposing views) irrelevant? My reading of this would be the reverse. Personally I have little interest in what an ex US president of nearly 30 years has to say on the matter. Whilst Chavez, and to a lesser extent Humala, are presently altering the international political landscape. --Zleitzen 17:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From this perspective, Carter is far from some random US ex-president. From Jimmy Carter:
 * He and members of the center are sometimes involved in the monitoring of the electoral process in support of free and fair elections. This includes acting as election observers, particularly in Latin America and Africa.
 * Given that Carter has been very involved in monitoring elections (including the ones in Chavez's home country), his opinion is obviously very important. --Bletch 18:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And-- sorry to inform you-- more credible than Chavez. 172 | Talk 18:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If we are going to dispute elections and talk about a fair result isnt someone from the US not the best example, we all renember 2000 election and the florida situation. Is that really democratic? nbarnes81 | Talk 13:36, 4 May 2006 (AEST)
 * Erm, I don't think that's really comparable. Maybe if the Republicans hadn't let the Democrats run at all it might have been similar... Ambi 03:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Adam Carr, excellent work once again. Keep up the work. 172 | Talk 18:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Zleitzen weakens his credibility in my eyes by questioning the relevance of Carter's comments, let alone comparing him to Chavez. Since the end of his (very mediocre) presidency, Carter has rehabilitated himself as a democracy watchdog of undoubted integrity and considerable courage. His opinion on such matters is relevant and important. Chavez is a sleazy demagogue and thug who admires Castro only because he too would like to be president-for-life. Adam 23:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Adam, I support you on this page, but Carter is an arrogant blow-hard who mollycoddles tyrants and spews anti-USA tripe. I think he has very low credibility. Of course, Chavez has zero credibility and is even worse than Carter. That said, there are many who do say that Carter is reputable in the election overseeing dept., so his views must be given weight. Merecat 00:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you that Carter is anti-US, but if you are right then that gives his comments even more weight, no? Adam 00:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd disagree as well. One could perhaps charge Carter with being naive. Still, I doubt that any serious presidential biographers question his patriotism and the sincerity of his belief in democracy promotion. I'd say the same about George W. Bush, despite being a party-line Democratic voter. 172 | Talk 06:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I merely question the relevance of Carter, it's as simple as that, Adam. As for his supposed integrity or Chavez's motives, I wouldn't like to speculate here. I just prefer international responses, to move the depiction of Cuba away from being notable only in relation to the US. But I won't kick up a big storm about this, Bletch makes some reasonable points. --Zleitzen 00:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have quoted the opinion of the OAS's human rights body, who are much better qualified to comment than Chavez. Note that I have refrained from quoting anyone in the current US administration, or from Freedom House or the NED, although they have had plenty to say that I could have used. Adam 01:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd go further and point out how absurd it is that we're even having a discussion about whether or not an Chavez is an authority on democracy. Chavez is an ex-putschist, not a credible promoter of democracy-- a fact that should be clear enough without having to double-check NED and Freedom House reports. 172 | Talk 06:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 172, nobody is having a discussion on whether or not Chavez is an "authority on democracy" accept you and Adam. Please read wikipedia guidelines as to what constitutes notable or substantial.--Zleitzen 11:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, can you explain why you see Chavez's opinion of "Cuban democracy" worthy of inclusion on the main Cuba page at all? If we included all opinions equally notable as Chavez's, the size of the article would double. --Bletch 12:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied with Adam's rewrite of the goverment section. I'm also extremly displeased that in opening paragraph of the article Adam insists that there should be a sentence "only country ... that is not democracy" without other point of view. It would be much better, neutrality wise, that that sentence should be deleted. But it is much worse that should it stays there as if it's a fact. If it's disputed, it should not be mentioned. Also, it's highly hypocritical writing something like "by Latin American standards, Batista was a mild dictator". Dictator is a dictator. A mild one ... What's a criteria for this? He killed only few of his opponents opposed to other Latin American dictators? This sentence clearly has no place in encyclopedia article. My opinion that writing things like these is confronting Wikipedia's policies and does not confront with WP:NPOV But after engaging in this discussion for only few days I became tired. Tired of the fact that what ever I say, it wont make a difference, because Adam and 172 and others will proceede to do what ever they like to do, write in this article to their liking and unilateraly. Adam, I understand that you are a historian. You may be a great historian, but that does not make you a great writer of encyclopedia articles.--RockyMM 12:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Tasks remaining
Now that we seem to have fixed up the History, Politics and Human Rights sections, the remaining problems are:
 * The Economy section is too long and needs to be cut in half, with the surplus exported to Economy of Cuba.
 * The Infrastructure section doesn't have much to recommend it and could well be abolished.
 * The "table" in the Health section looks hideous and should be moved to Public health in Cuba.
 * The culture section is if anything now too short, and not very good. Adam 03:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You've been working pretty hard here. If you're running short of time, I can volunteer to fix up at least the economy section, weaving together information from World Bank reports and the CIA Factbook entry (though, to be honest, I hope you do all the work!). The one section on which I wouldn't be to qualified to help is culture. 172 | Talk 06:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to the economy. But (loud whisper) don't mention the CIA! Adam 06:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Opps, that hadn't crossed my mind. Time for a self-criticism, I suppose. 172 | Talk 07:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I just rewrote the economy section. It's not the most inspired writing, but it didn't take much to improve the section. The economy section was particularly bad. (By the way, the old section actually included a link to a Granma article!) 172 | Talk 09:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, economy of Cuba also needs a clean-up. Most of the text there is not unsalvageable. Still, the article (predictably) does in detail extolling Cuba's "world-class biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry" while not mentioning the word "rationing" even once! 172 | Talk 09:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And your present paragraph doesn't mention the US embargo, 172. Your re-write omits that elephant in the room. Nor does your re-write recognise any of this or this  or this  etc, etc. But we're in for the long haul towards NPOV, so we will have plenty of time to discuss the economy section in more detail once more pressing issues are resolved. --Zleitzen 12:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the embargo and its effect on the economy need to be discussed. While revolutionary regimes which claim to reject the world capitalist system can't really complain when that system takes them at their word and excludes them, the loss of Cuba's most natural export market and source of investment (the US) has obviously had a major impact on its economy. But ultimately, of course, Cuba's poverty is Castro's fault, because the embargo, however misguided, is a response to his undemocratic regime. When Castro came to power, Cuba and Puerto Rico had roughly comparable standards of living. Today Puerto Rico is six times wealthier than Cuba per capita in per capita GDP, although I concede that in Cuba the poverty is more evenly distributed. If Castro had never come to power, Cuba would by now not only be a democracy, it would be at least as rich as Puerto Rico and probably richer. (Don't worry, comrades, I'm not going to try to put that in the article.) I'm also struck by 172's assertion that Cuba is a net importer of sugar. What is his source? The FAO doesn't seem to support this. Adam 13:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (1) My omission of the embargo was intentional. Still, if you want to add a few details on the embargo, please go ahead. Since you're the main author of the article, I'll defer to your editorial judgment on how to organize the article. In case you're interested, I'll lay out my reasoning on the omission. First, when I was writing the section and contemplating the choice of adding a few lines on the about the embargo, I realized that by the time the reader would work his or her way down to the "Economy" section, the embargo had already been mentioned about half a dozen times, particularly in the "History" section. Hence, I was interested in avoiding redundancy. Second, while I do not disregard the role of the embargo in cementing Cuba's isolation from the world capitalist system, I think that's a topic belonging under a broader discussion of economic history in the "History" section. My assumption is that a section entitled "Economy" is not necessarily going to offer an economic history. The "Economy" section is supposed to be a discussion of the contemporary Cuban economy, right? (The model I had in mind was something along the lines of a shorter version of the type of write-up one would find in Economist Intelligence Unit country report.) At any rate, if you disagree, I won't make an issue out of it. (2) Regarding the claim that Cuba is a net-importer of sugar, the figure is indeed quite surprising. I found that claim in the Heritage Foundation's most recent report on Cuba. While I'm not much of a fan of Heritage generally, I don't think the factual accuracy of their reports is too much of a question. Still, if you want to remove the claim, go ahead. It's only one possible anecdotal illustration of the deep-seated structural problems in Cuba commonly associated with other past Soviet-style command economies. If you can think of more relevant, please add them. 172 | Talk 16:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive manipulation
Maybe as an archive worker I'm being a bit sensitive but I am finding it a tad disturbing that the archives of this discussion are being manipulated, probably by Adam and his allies. Last time I dropped by I wrote some comments, under the heading 'The Cold War continues...', on Adam's claims to be the standard bearer of the truth round here. The next time I looked a new page had been started, and the last section of the previous page, (now Archive 5) had been broken up by subheadings all of which begin with 'Bruce complains about...'. My contribution and Bletch's response had completely disappeared and the end of the previous section been merged with the contributions that followed, and copied over to form the top of this page. Strategic duplication?

Looking further I noticed that each of the four archive pages formed since Adam's arrival here had two things in common, Adam had been the last or last but one contributor, and the histories of the pages almost totally erased. Care to tell us how you did it, Adam? Care to tell us how it tallies with your commitment to facts and truth?
 * Here follows the missing bit MichaelW 15:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ==the cold war continues...==

To respond to an earlier bit of empty rhetoric - who cares what Adam thinks? Back after a while away I see nothing much has changed. Those sympathetic to socialist Cuba are dismissed as apologists and/or naive, while those critical are describing 'reality', 'the truth' and saying certain things are'obvious' or 'factual'. Bruce is described (by an unchallenged sockpuppet) as frustrating when he is clearly reacting from a sense of frustration. Adam damns him as a communist, rather than, more generously,patronise him as naive. What qualifies you, Adam, to claim to be writing something 'factual'? All you will do is present the arguments you consider relevant, while ignoring the ones which weaken the POV you are trying to assert. What is factual about that? You have shown over and over that your definition of democracy pertains solely to the method by which governments are chosen and ignores the actual social and economic structures within which those governments work. By keeping the focus of the argument on the definition of democracy as you define it you avoid dealing with issues like the value of a balloted vote as opposed to the raw economic power of private ownership.

How much time do you want to spend trying to convince us that you, and only you, know best? It appears to me that you aren't interested in a solution to this page's problems. No matter what you write, no matter how accurate it is within the limits that you set, the perspectives that look beyond your limits aren't going to fade away, simply because you and your supporters insist that they do so. 172 promised you an edit war when he asked for your assistance. Is that what you are here for? the fight? Your continuing displays of contempt for those who dare disagree with you suggests that this is so and that you see the discussions here strictly in terms of win or lose, rather than a struggle to reach agreement. MichaelW 01:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well guess what, democracy is solely about the process which leaders are chosen, and the ability to openly criticize the government. And by those measures, Cuba's democracy is non existent.  No amount of sugar can make that bitter pill easier to swallow.  Sure, you can go and say that Cuba which is not a democracy is probably a more pleasent place to live than Haiti which is a democracy, but that is no more relevant to the question of democracy than the price of a cigar. --Bletch 01:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please take note of the following
Excuse me, but I would like to point out, to whomever is in charge of this topic, that concerning economy PROSTITUTION and WAGES in real dollars should be mentioned. Prostitution is widespread, and sex-tourism is depended upon by many citizens. A high wage, in CUBA, is 5 dollars. 5 dollars! Now, politically, statements should be made concerning its government, that is a totalitarian regime, a dictatorship, but different from others. It's a different system, but a totalitarian none the less. 12:27, 2 May 2006. (I'm Ippet Iset).

'not a democracy citation'
The present citation for the 'not a democracy' phrase is this CIDH link. That citation does not even include one instance of the use or the word 'democracy' or 'democratic'. For that reason, that citation appears to be not pertinent. BruceHallman 18:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to BruceHallman
I propose a gentlemen's agreement to quickly make things run more smoothly here. I'll agree to abstain forever from editing any Cuba-related articles if BruceHallman does the same. It's a tit-for-tat deal that'll make things easier for all of us (especially the two of us). 172 | Talk 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * With due respect; I renew my commitment to act like a gentlemen, to act civilly and to honor all the Wikipedia policies including WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I trust you are willing to make the same commitment? BruceHallman 21:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. Now, we are both at loggerheads with respect to how those polices apply here. Neither of us are indispensable. It makes sense for both of us to part ways to deescalate things around here. 172 | Talk 21:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then we agree that there is more than one point of view regarding the 'not a democracy' claim. Then we agree that the article should try to represent a neutral point of view on that topic. Then we agree that the 'not a democracy' assertion must meet WP:V with a credible citation.  BruceHallman 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I think your position is very wrong. You think I'm wrong. With both of us gone, the net effect is zero. 172 | Talk 21:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are saying my point of view is wrong. I can appreciate that you believe this.  But, you misunderstand me. I have not announced my point of view.  You do not know my point of view.  I have only sought to include the significant contrary point of view into the article.  The fact that I am seeking to do this does not mean that I endorse that point of view personally.  BruceHallman 22:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you are not saying that I am wrong to ask that the policies neutrality, verifiability and civility be honored. That is all that I am asking.  BruceHallman 22:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We're going in circles. I said I consider your applications or interpretations of those policies consistently wrong. My request should have been easy enough to understand. I'm sure the other editors will get the point. This is my last comment under this heading, unless you show in interest in the detente I was proposing. 172 | Talk 22:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a need for either party to retreat from working out the issues on the page, although an edit war should be unnecessary. At present the "not a democracy" wording alerts readers to the abject failure of this page (as the Miami Herald recognises) and the credibility of those who insist on it's inclusion. So even whilst causing damage to the reputation of Wikipedia, your reverts have served a certain purpose, 172. --Zleitzen 00:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the Miami Herald reporting on our work here? Can we have a link?
 * Why this sudden renewed outbreak of pessimism, comrades? We have made excellent progress over the past two days with very little unpleasantness. Let us forge ahead to achieve new victories in socialist article-construction. Adam 00:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed you are famous now in Miami, Dr Carr!! See top of page.--Zleitzen 00:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How entertaining. Miami is of course full of people who know a lot about the realities of Cuban "democracy." Perhaps some of them will come and help us edit the article. Won't that be fun, comrades? Adam 01:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Judging by the state of the article Adam, I thought that was already the case! The Herald piece is not the only thing that tickled me today, I've just looked at Merecat's Police State citation and it refers to Camp X-Ray! Marvellous! --Zleitzen 01:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

References indeed need to be checked. I googled "human rights + Cuba" and more than half the references I got were about Guantanamo Bay. So much for 11 million Cubans. By the way, what does "El Gran Comepinga" mean? Adam 01:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a derogatory term meaning "The Great Dick-eater." While I whole-heartedly agree, it obviously shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, as it is something Bruce will be all too happy to pronounce as being in violation of wiki NPOV. --Mcmachete 03:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing what Cuba is not results from knowing what Cuba is

 * 1) "Cuba is a totalitarian police state, which relies on repressive methods to maintain control". Merecat 21:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) "A police state is as a police state does" Merecat 21:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) "Cuba a Communist Hellhole, State Department Reveals" Merecat 21:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) "CUBA: A NEW CRACKDOWN ON DISSIDENTS" Merecat 21:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) And this "Moreover, Cuba is a one-party police state filled with political prisons..." from that bastion of rightwing propaganda, Harpers. Merecat 21:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Yes, and that single quote acurately portrays the content and bent of the article in question. Have any of you ever even been to Cuba? I have six times and you are correct, it is   a police state. However, when you use outlandish propaganda like that -except the Harper's- above you only serve to undermine your point. And sorry to break this news to you but the U.S. and most other western "democracies" are actually oligarchies. So just keep patting yourselves on the back!

Cuba on US Terrorist List
Zleitzen, in your zeal to remove my edits, you also removed a needed clarification of Roosevelt as US president, and re-introduced a derogatory term describing Castro. Please explain to me how this addition is not relevant...
 * As stated in its annual Country Reports on Terrorism (released April 2006), the United States lists Cuba as one of six coutries whose governments "have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism".

US-Cuba relations are riddled throughout the history of Cuba section. If this is not the right section, then what is? I am not vandalizing. I'm attempting to present a clear and accurate (and cited!) account. --Mcmachete 05:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry Mcmachete, I intended to just remove the US statement. Some vandal was operating at the same time which interfered with the edit. Your US Report on Terrorism is notable and needs to be recorded, but I feel it says more about the US than Cuba. I'd like to keep this article short and in keeping with other nation articles (see Iran and see my comments to editors on the Iraq page ). Adam points to an excellant solution below.--Zleitzen 11:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think U.S.-Cuba relations merits an article in its own right, with a lead from this article. Adam 05:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Above you identified the Guantanemo/human rights ratio on the English speaking internet. That's the other side of the systemic bias coin. Recent US human rights violations receive huge coverage, whilst (say) Indian human rights violations in Kashmir are barely noted. This seeps through into Wikipedia, and it's why we should tread very carefully in these matters. We should attempt to achieve proportion as best we can at all times. --Zleitzen 12:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, Adam. Merecat 08:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen, I'm glad you agree that there is systemic anti-US and left-wing bias on the internet (these two terms have now become synonymous, of course, thanks to G W Bush). Now all we need is for you to acknowledge that this is also true at Wikipedia. PMA has just been telling me that pro-communist editors (whom I only half-jokingly call the Communist Party of Wikipedia and who have made the prolonged battle at this article necessary), are also active at the articles on Lenin, Stalin and elsewhere. This is going to become a very serious problem for Wikipedia as it becomeas more and more widely read. Sooner or later Wikipedia's rules will need to be changed to prevent this kind of systematic political manipulation - not just by communists of course, but they are are worst offenders at present. Adam 12:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't noticed a radical systemic left or right wing bias on Wikipedia. But there's certainly a United States or Anglo-centric bias on all matters coming from all political directions. Never more so than on this page, which is why I'm involved. Due to the particular relationship between Cuba and the US, I believe that certain contributors are unable to evaluate this article in a NPOV manner. I would have equal concerns that some UK editors would struggle with NPOV relating to Gibralter, Northern Ireland or even Australian sport! And I would also have concerns about Indian editors descriptions of Kashmir, or Chinese editors comments on Tibet for example. In your case Adam, I believe your public dedication to Social Democrat ideals (which is as noble as any other ideology) has clouded your judgement and has lead to your misunderstanding of the basic tenets of wikipedia, you're just too passionately involved. Editing here shouldn't be a crusade of ideologies, it should be about scientific verifiability and NPOV balance. --Zleitzen 13:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Adam, did you see my response regarding the "Economy" section? Let me know if there's anything else I can do if you're interested in easing your workload here. 172 | Talk 13:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

172, I don't regard editing Wikipedia as work, I regard it as fun. In response to Zleitzen: It depends on what you mean by "bias." Of course there is a US bias at Wikipedia in the sense that the majority of its editors are Americans, who are naturally preoccupied with the things that interest Americans, which is why movie stars and computer games have articles larger than those for African presidents. But the demographics of American Wikipedians are overwhelmingly affluent and highly educated, which means that they share the general left-liberal views of that demographic. So of course do I in many respects, but I have been trained in a school of anti-communist social democratic politics (specifically the right wing of the Adam 13:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fortunately for me, I am versed to an equal level in Media analysis and cultural media bias. I've swapped stories with everyone from David Edwards to Nick Cohen in my time, I'm also well versed in the politics of ex-Communist journalists (notably Horowitz, Hitchens and even Julie Burchill). I've heard all the points of view before, many times. And that's exactly what they are, points of view. The problem here is that you are asserting them as pure and simple "truth". As Oscar Wilde once observed "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". Besides, I thought you'd agreed to tame the inner beast and end the incivilty? Have you considered that such outbursts only strengthen the resolve of other editors? --Zleitzen 16:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to point out that personal views should have no weight on this article. We shouldn't be writing the Cuba article from ANY point of view, anti-communist or otherwise.   Myciconia  20:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Adam, you are mistaken to argue: "But the demographics of American Wikipedians are overwhelmingly affluent and highly educated, which means that they share the general left-liberal views of that demographic". Just the opposite is true. See this data from the American National Election Studies Center for Political Studies at the University of Michigan. High income people are 2 1/2 times more likely to self identify as conservative. Also, the highly educated are 5 times more likely to self identify as conservative. You neglected to mention that Wikipedians tend to be male, and males are almost 50% more likely to self identify as conservative. You are right about 'systemic bias' problems in Wikipedia, but you have flipped your version of 'truth' exactly backwards from the data. BruceHallman 20:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Bruce, for what it's worth, computer geeks tend to lean left and the bulk of editors at wikipedia have considerable computer skills. Also, many wikipedians are not as smart as they think they are, so educated or not, a self-indentification test is not relevant. And, the evidence I see is that on political hot-potato articles, left-leaning edditors outnumber right-leaning editors on the wiki 2-1. These are just my direct observations. But certainly, these observations, being 1st hand, have more evidentiary value than the totem-pole speculation you build on the "statistics" you cite about education and wealth. Merecat 21:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed! For someone who was once a commie, Adam sure needs a brush up on class conflict! Capitalists tend to be, well, ...capitalist.  Myciconia  |  Talk  20:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Dot bombed computer geeks are not that affluent, which would explain your observations of a lean to the left. Joking aside, if for no other reason than we 99.9% belong to capitalistic societies, Wikipedians inevitably have a systemic bias against a non-capitalist society. And, we must put hate of Fidel on the shelf and try to objectively edit neutrality in the article. BruceHallman 21:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading through this page and am really amused of the polarizing effect that Castro's whatever-you-call-it government still have among the academic ranks. But as a Cuban and a journalist, I will really appreciate that those editing the Cuba page stick to the facts. First, I don’t think that even Fidel Castro believes that his government is a democracy, especially since he has defined his socialist revolution, quoting Lenin, as a “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”. Secondly, even if you sympathize with his revolution and his politics, you cannot ignore the facts that his government punishes peaceful dissent with jail time, suppresses free speech and free press, and is a one-party autocracy. POVs have no place in a balanced and fair report, which is what a Wikipedia entry should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.33.121 (talk • contribs)
 * See Official view on Cuban democracy. Regarding "dictatorship of the proletartiat" --are you sure he wasn't quoting Marx?  Do you have a source, that is an interesting find.   Myciconia  |  Talk  23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Castro says it here, and he was quoting Marx. But it refers to transitional period of state disintergration, not state oppression as it seems to imply, it's once those annoying Marxist terms that actually means the opposite of what it appears to mean. See Dictatorship of the proletariat--Zleitzen 23:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good morning, comrades. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" means the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, and is seen as a transitional stage on the way to classless, stateless, communist society. In the meantime, as Lenin said, "the state is a stick," and can be used against all enemies of the revolution without restraint. The facade of parliamentary government, modelled on the Stalin Constitution of 1936, is designed to fool the Bruces of this world (and obviously succeeds), but all good Leninists understand that it is a facade for the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, as represented by its vanguard party. Adam 01:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Facades are easy to swallow when on a steady diet of fidel's propagandist rhetoric... --Mcmachete 01:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is interesting how polite and patient everyone is being with Adam, considering how rudely he is treating others (especially Bruce) in response! A little comradery would do this article immense good!  Myciconia  |  Talk  01:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If Bruce is going to spend his time here defending one the world's most disgusting dictatorships through endless obfuscation and delaying tactics, he has to expect a certain amount of political criticism. I get of plenty of it too - the difference is that I don't whinge about it all the time. Adam 03:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Continually belittling and sneering at someone isn't generally regarded as political criticism. Your regular employment of hyperbole, distortion of opposing arguments, and other tactical debating tricks belies your proclaimed commitment to the truth. When are you going to explain your manipulation of the archival record?
 * The facade of parliamentary democracy is is designed to fool the Adams of this world (and obviously succeeds), but all honest capitalists understand that it is a facade for the entrenched dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, as enforced by the unelected state apparatus and the private (i.e. corporate) control of our means of existence. MichaelW 05:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Obfuscation and delaying tactics
Adam accused Bruce of engaging in "obfuscation and delaying tactics". Other editors should bear in mind that it is Adam not Bruce that is holding up the much needed mediation process. See below:

Decision of the Mediation Committee
Pending acceptance. User:Adam Carr stated that he "reserve[s] [his] rights"; I'm concerned about the intended meaning of this phrase, as it suggests to me that the level of agreement necessary to have a productive mediation may not be present. I'd like Adam to clarify his intent before the matter is assigned to a mediator. Essjay (  Talk  •  Connect  ) 16:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Comparative Constitutions 101
Here is an extract from the Soviet Constitution of 1936 (the "Stalin Constitution"). The similarities with the corresponding sections of the Cuban Constitition, particularly Article 141 dealing with candidate selection, will be obvious to all.


 * THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM


 * ARTICLE 134. Members of all Soviets of Working People's Deputies--of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., the Supreme Soviets of the Union Republics, the Soviets of Working People's Deputies of the Territories and Regions, the Supreme Soviets of the Autonomous Republics, and Soviets of Working People's Deputies of Autonomous Regions, area, district, city and rural (station, village, hamlet, kishlak, aul) Soviets of Working People's Deputies--are chosen by the electors on the basis of universal, direct and equal suffrage by secret ballot.


 * ARTICLE 135. Elections of deputies are universal: all citizens of the U.S.S.R. who have reached the age of eighteen, irrespective of race or nationality, religion, educational and residential qualifications, social origin, property status or past activities, have the right to vote in the election of deputies and to be elected, with the exception of insane persons and persons who have been convicted by a court of law and whose sentences include deprivation of electoral rights.


 * ARTICLE 136. Elections of deputies are equal: each citizen has one vote; all citizens participate in elections on an equal footing.


 * ARTICLE 137. Women have the right to elect and be elected on equal terms with men.


 * ARTICLE 138. Citizens serving in the Red Army have the right to elect and be elected on equal terms with all other citizens.


 * ARTICLE 139. Elections of deputies are direct: all Soviets of Working People's Deputies, from rural and city Soviets of Working People's Deputies to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., inclusive, are elected by the citizens by direct vote.


 * ARTICLE 140. Voting at elections of deputies is secret.


 * ARTICLE 141. Candidates for election are nominated according to electoral areas. The right to nominate candidates is secured to public organizations and societies of the working people: Communist Party organizations, trade unions, cooperatives, youth organizations and cultural societies.


 * ARTICLE 142. It is the duty of every deputy to report to his electors on his work and on the work of the Soviet of Working People's Deputies, and he is liable to be recalled at any time in the manner established by law upon decision of a majority of the electors.

Is it Bruce and Michael's opinion that the USSR under Stalin was also a democracy? Adam 05:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, other than to provoke and offend others. Perhaps you can move this to your talk page, Adam? Myciconia 07:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It has everything to do with the topic at hand, which is whether Cuba is a democracy. Bruce bases his claim that Cuba is a democracy on the formal provisions of the Cuban Constitution - secret ballot, people's assemblies, mass organisations etc etc. I argue that any dictator can write a democratic constitution, but the text must be viewed in the light of the realities of political power in the country in question. The fact that Stalin, one of the most murderous despots in history, who was about to carry out his Great Purges in which millions died, could promulgate a lovely democratic constitution, and have large numbers of 1930s Bruces singing his praises, proves my point. Adam 08:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It proves nothing like your point because you have no understanding of the realities of Cuban society, being only too prepared to trust the version which suits your undifferentiated anticommunism. Here's what I wrote in answer to your earlier question
 * Dunno about Bruce, but my understanding of Stalin's USSR is that his path to power and method of remaining at the top involved the destruction of the democratic part of democratic centralism and the substitution of an officially sanctioned personality cult for any kind of popularly tested government. There is no possible comparison with Castro's dominance of Cuban government,where a personality cult has never been encouraged and the Communist Party has never substituted itself for civil society in the same overpowering way. Despite the assumptions of the Fidel obsessives among us he and the Communist Party are not responsible for many of the initiatives which have helped keep Cuba independent of U.S. hegemony. The support of the ministries and the CP may be necessary for popular initiatives to thrive but the origins and popularity of such are beyond their control.
 * I notice that 172 in his rewrite of the economy section has removed all mention of the organic and urban agriculture/horticulture initiatives which were an essential part of Cuba's response to the loss of Soviet support. This was a prime example of initiatives generated outside of the party/governemnt structure which took off with their support, where non party individuals rose through ther involvement to positions of influence not possible in the type of society Adam and his allies assume Cuba to be. MichaelW 08:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear me, Michael is even worse than Bruce. No personality cult of Fidel? The Communist Party has never substituted itself for civil society? Words fail me in responding to such stupidity, which is probably just as well. This is a country where the entire population is made to sit up all night watching Fidel make five-hour speeches (even Stalin never did that), and in which anyone who doesn't comply is reported to the police by their friendly neighbourhood Committee of the Defence of the Revolution. In some ways Cuba is a more tightly regulated society than the USSR was. In any case, the "personality cult" of Stalin or Fidel is only a minor epiphenomenon of the Communist system. Much more to the point is the party's monopoly of physical coercion, its exemption from legal restraint in the use of that monopoly, its complete colonisation of civil society, and its total control of the media. In all of these Cuba is a typical, classical, Stalinist state. Just because its cultural style is a bit more flamboyant than East Germany's, and its PR more sophisticated than North Korea's, doesn't mean that the substance is not the same. Adam 08:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Misquoting, by omission, is a weak ploy. Is it a problem for you extremists, dealing with qualified statements? Put a baby in a little water, it gets wet, too much water and it gets drowned.
 * My experience of Cuba was that the only media people sat up for was the Brazilian soap operas and the CDRs varied from district to district in their interpretation of their role, from laid back to self righteous. I don't know how you, Adam, can make such emphatic statements when you've never even spent a day on the island. No, that's wrong, I know how you can do it, but it suggests your claims to impartiality are as hollow as bells. The starting point may be the same (as other communist states) but the substance and outcome are very different. MichaelW 12:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I notice that 172 in his rewrite of the economy section has removed all mention of the organic and urban agriculture/horticulture initiatives which were an essential part of Cuba's response to the loss of Soviet support Yeah right. Reverting back to subsistence farming-- that sounds like a great way to deal with shortages of basic means of subsistence (sarcasm). Those "organic and urban agriculture/horticulture initiatives" are only evidence of the degree to which the Cuban economy has been utterly ruined. 172 | Talk 09:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Britain has initiated many subsidised organic and urban agriculture/horticulture initiatives, which are still in mass operation today. There isn't a person in Britain who hasn't worked on one of them, or doesn't know someone who has . They also served a large demand during the second world war, a time of rationing when resources were scarce due to blockades and restricted imports. Sound familiar?--Zleitzen 12:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We in the west rely, for a sizeable portion of our foodstuffs, on the exploitation of foreign agricultural workers paid subsistence wages and poisoned with agrochemicals used with no reference to the standards of health and safety we expect in our own workplaces. Meanwhile the last fifty years has seen the steady growth and influence of organic systems of cultivation which are not a return to subsistence farming but an integration of old knowledge and new science. Cuba became a leader in the field thanks to the quality of its agricultural research and biochemcal industry.
 * The rapid growth of the urban gardening movement in Cuba was a demonstration of the strength of civil society there that Adam says doesn't exist. It wasn't the CP or Fidel urging people on, all it took was a change in the law, releasing land from government control and in months thousands of gardens and hundreds of gardening societies were up and running. I'd do a little research yourself before you employ your powers of sarcasm to such ignorant ends. MichaelW 12:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The growth of the urban gardening movement in Cuba is indisputable Michael, and I have no idea why 172 would wish to enter the frey on this point .--Zleitzen 12:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Adam, I don't know why you keep complaining about my personal beliefs, (1) you don't know my personal beliefs, (2) they are irrelevant. You are the one who incessantly keeps trying to edit in the article the personal belief that Cuba is not a democracy, without citation or consensus. You are the one that repeated deletes my requests for citation of the verifiablity of your belief without providing citation. The burden of proof is on you to prove your point, and despite weeks of trying you have failed. Perhaps you should consider just giving it a rest for a while, we can always come back to the issue later. BruceHallman 13:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. You know what you're up to, Bruce, and I know what you're up to, so do spare us your line of tripe. "Urban gardening movement" - I do like that. The growth of the urban gardening movement in Cuba is indeed indisputable, and what is that a sign of? A country that can't feed itself. Ah the joys of socialism. Wartime Britain had the excuse of having half its shipping sunk by U-boats. Cuba's problem is that it's had to give the whole island over to sugar production to pay its bills (and I acknowledge that problem long predates Castro), but now the sugar market is glutted and it can't produce enough of anything else to pay for its food imports. As I said before, Cuba and Puerto Rico had roughly equivalent economies and standards of living 50 years ago, but now Puerto Rico, thoroughly integrated into the evil capitalist system, has a booming service economy and is six times wealthier than Cuba in terms of per capita GDP. Socialist autarky was proved decades ago to be a miserable failure, and only Castro and Kim Jong-il persist with it. I doubt the members of the politburo have to grow their own veggies. Adam 14:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Deary me, Adam. I won't even begin to examine the flaws in your selective argument, particuarily if they're laced with poor faith. That's unimportant here. Quit goading and sign up to the mediation, and none of this "I reserve my rights" palaver whilst your at it! --Zleitzen 15:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How much of each nation's food are imported in wealthy western countries - the demands of globalisation make that an almost meaningless question. The point illustrated by the development of Cuban food production sinc the collapse of the Soviet Union, is that enough of the population were willing to change their lives to ensure that they fed themselves and their neighbours within the bounds of the existing political system. At the time it was expected by folks like yourselves that the deprivation casued by the loss of Soviet support would bring about the collapse of the Cuban Revolution. Instead the majority of the population tightened their belts, rolled up their sl;eeves and did what was necessary to survive.
 * Per capita GDP is an average which takes no account of the distribution of that wealth. Independent surveys have calculated that the income difference in Cuba is 1 to 5. It has been shown to be the case that relative wealth is more important than absolute wealth in deciding the harmony and contentment within a particular society.
 * Raoul Castro may or may not be an exception as he has championed organic food production from the beginning, and quite likely has his own patch. MichaelW 15:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's an interesting piece about Cuban Community Gardening and the issues we discuss here and a link to a UK group which supports the organic movement in Cuba here. A link here states that "Many Latin American researchers and NGOs in the United States have affirmed that Cuba is leading the movement for an ecological agriculture in the region". Another link here describes how "Cuba has developed the world's most comprehensive modern organic agricultural system".--Zleitzen 18:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Adam, you again and again are fixated on what Cuba is not. Obviously, Cuba's economy is a 'miserable failure' when measured against the premise of a capitalistic yardstick. You are making a false analogy which is a logical fallacy. We should just describe Cuba for what it is, as opposed to what it is not. BruceHallman 15:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Adam: You are absolutely correct in what you are saying about the current Cuban dictatorial-comunist government.  If all the evidence provided up to know by disidents, escapees and exiles is not looked at as being overwhelming factual evidence of the horrors, executions, assasinations and political encarcerations taking place by the Castro "private farm" regime in Cuba for the last 47 years, then those that claim differently simply want to keep blind to the reality and the suffering of the Cuban people.  Also, President Batista is one of the Cuban leaders most unjustifiably calumniated in history by the effective comunits propaganda unleached against him and he has been blamed for a huge amount of unsubstantiated events and untruths.  History is now bringing to surface factual evidence that he was one of the best presidents Cuba ever had.  If he would have really been a dictator, Castro would be dead over 50 years ago. (See http://www.pwhce.org/batista.html and www.cubarepublicana.org)

This argument is absurd. The "urban gardening movement" is the Cuban equivalent of the Soviet apartment dwellers who lived off of onions and potatoes grown on thier window-sills-- not because they were interested in "organic farming" (whatever the hell that stupid yuppie cliche means) but because of severe shortages of food in the ration system. The "urban gardening movement," if it is to be mentioned in this article, will only be mentioned to illustrate the fact that many urban dwellers have been forced by the regime, given the near-complete destruction of Cuba's economic infastructure, to resort to subsistence farming for survival. 172 | Talk 04:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are arguing from a position of ignorance and blind prejudice. There is nothing yuppie about organic gardening/farming. It is a global movement based on a sound critique of green revolution methods. These treated the soil as a receptacle for chemicals to feed the crops rather than as a complex organic system the health of which is vital to the long term production of healthy food. Subsistence farming it ain't. A key point here is what I said before - the Habaneros who got the movement going weren't 'forced by the regime' to do anything. Yes, it took the loss of Soviet subsidies and the massive shrinkage of the economy to provoke them into action. But that was the action they took, not to overthrow the rotten corrupt regime (as you would have it) but to do what was necessary to keep things rolling along as near to as they were as possible. Before 1990 no self respecting Habanero would have been found riding a bicycle or growing food. Needs change and suddenly  it's cycle city and a sizeable percentage of the population is growing fruit and veg on the back patch.  What many of you anticommies seem to miss is just how flexible are the Cubans as a people and just how the governemnt matches them in that and therefore stays popular. MichaelW 08:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The whole argument is absurd. There's nothing controversial about any of this. Imports collapsed in the 1990's, therefore Cuba initiated a programme of urban gardening schemes (similar to the successful and long established British urban gardening scheme). Cuba's commitment to organic practices has resulted in the island being a global leader in organic farming. Exports of organic produce and expertise to Europe and Japan have increased steadily. Nothing more really needs to be said on this matter. It must be another cultural thing Michael, I would imagine that many international editors would find the British allotment scheme equally unfathomable! --Zleitzen 12:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? EXCUSE ME? "Before 1990 no self respecting Habanero would have been found riding a bicycle or growing food." You are as delusional as you are misinformed. Well before 1990 were Cubans (or as you call them (us!), "Habaneros" as if they were peppers, or perhaps only Cubans from the city of Havana are worth discussing?) using bicycles and their legs as the primary forms of transportation. And there is a reason why you rarely find stray birds or pets roaming Cuba: Cubans are hungry while Castro relishes in his $900 million. I do agree with you one one point, though: Cubans are resourceful. But your picture of a supportive Cuban government was painted with a brush of lies. And you dare blame someone else as "arguing from a position of ignorance." --Mcmachete 08:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I was referring specifically to urban residents of Havana because that is where the urban food growing started - thanks to the lack of local production in comparison to the size of the population. By the mid nineties the urban ag movement was spreading to other cities and the community educators were running teach the teachers projects as well as their own local classes. But to start with all the activities were in Havana.
 * WRT to cycling - I apologise if my information was incorrect. My main informants were foreigners who had lived in the city for many years and were respectively keen cyclists and gardeners and that was their description of Havana pre 1990. This was backed up by other comments from locals. The mass importation and distribution of Chinese bikes, the construction of cycle lanes, the opening of Cuban bike production plants were all Special Period developments weren't they? I'm sure you are right about bicycles in rural parts but that does not conflict with the point I was making.
 * My experiences of the Cuban government, in the form of workers in the ministries of Agriculture and Basic Industries, is that they were very supportive of community activities, well beyond the necessary bounds of their jobs. No lie unless I am as delusional as you think I am and imagined everything I experienced.
 * With regard to organic ag 172 was "arguing from a position of ignorance." And what has 'blame' got to do with anything?? And that Forbes generated hooha about how much Castro is worth is not based on anything more than blind assumptions. MichaelW 11:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You shrug off Forbes' research (and this is what they do: follow money) but what is your "hooha" based on? The testimonials of foreigners and what YOU saw? You may not what to believe it, but Cuba is a country of apartheid. That wonderful Cuban healthcare? Not for Cubans. The nice hotels, the good supermarkets and stores... for tourists and high-ranking members of the communist party only . I cannot believe you are telling me about what you experienced... --Mcmachete 18:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Research??? To quote -"Others are a little fuzzier. For example, we calculate the net worth of Castro based on a percentage of Cuba's GDP." . And "This year, we have used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies." . The implication is that Castro holds as his own a percentage of the Cuban GDP. That's not research, that's idle and dishonest speculation. Like I said - hooha.
 * Cuba is no more a 'country of apartheid' than any other where having money will buy you things others can't afford. Welcome to the dollar world. If we are trying to assemble an NPOV article it is necessary to look at these kind of issues in their context, noting the upsides and downsides of each policy, the reasons for their introduction and the particular strains they put on the system. Certainly the introduction of tourism and the dollar has divided Cuba along the lines of those with access to dollars and those without. For you, who are only pursuing an anti Castro agenda here, this is another tool to condemn the system. Does this mean you will acknowledge that Cuba was an egalitarian country before it began engaging with the dollar world?
 * Instead of rhetorical amazement, how about refuting what I have said by telling us what you know about the use of the bicycle in Cuba before the 1990s? MichaelW 00:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Cuba is no more a 'country of apartheid' than any other where having money will buy you things others can't afford." Arguing with you is simply proving to be a source of personal pain. This is an insulting statement that is consuming my very last shred of civility. Even if Cubans were lucky enough to receive money from exiled family members, CUBANS CANNOT USE THE QUALITY HEALTH CARE SERVICES, CANNOT STAY AT THE NICE HOTELS, CANNOT SHOP AT THE NICE STORES OR SUPERMARKETS, THERE ARE EVEN SOME PARKS THEY CANNOT ENTER. The situation in Cuba is PURE UNADULTERATED APARTHEID, and if a tourist asks a government official why a Cuban cannot join him for lunch, the official will say it is for the tourist's safety.
 * Pre 1990 (and it has been this way since roughly the early 60's), Cubans have used bicycles as their primary source of transportation. What can I site other than my own memories and the accounts of my family? Do you think a household that makes a handful of money a month can afford anything other than a bicycle? When my cousin soaked a mop in a pressure cooker filled with water, salt and a small ration of government chicken - just to stretch the food out an extra day or two to feed his hungry family - Do you think my cousin would do that and still think about saving for a car, just to keep his "cuban pride" intact?? Or how about a friend who tried to stay at a tourist hotel for his honeymoon - he had collected enough money from relatives for one night - who had been denied stay simply for being Cuban. No Cubans allowed at that hotel... Or explain to me how when my uncle was diagnosed with cancer, he stayed on a stained bed and was denied medicines that are easily accessible in clean, sanitized beds in the "tourist hospitals"? That, sir, is APARTHEID at its truest and cruelest. And it is one thing to not realize it exists, but it is something else to deny its existense after being informed. --Mcmachete 01:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense. "Urban gardening" is nothing more than urban subsistence farming made necessary because of the failure of the ration system. The "organic" part is a code word for the government's failure to provide essential fertilizers, and a propaganda facade meant to co-opt support from the greenies in the rich Northern countries. 172 | Talk 19:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Repeating yourself doesn't add anything to what you have already said, or lead me to believe you know anything about the history or science of organic food production, or urban gardening movements. If the rationing system's weaknesses were alleviated by encouraging people to become backyard gardeners then this can be seen as a positive move or a negative one depending on one's underlying sympathies. All your contempt does here is to expose your POV pushing agenda. As above, IMO if you were really after an NPOV description of this development you would allow room for both perspectives, rather than expending so much effort trying to ensure the dominance of condemnatory views of Cuban society. MichaelW 00:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a Democracy
 - cite needed - CIA world factbook lists Cuba as the only Communist State in the Western Hemisphere. Same factbook lists a range of gov't types - not all 'pure democracies'. The bigger question, however, is what do we mean by democracy? Some places are democratic in name only. The only accurate statement is to say they are the only Communist State. Bridesmill 19:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC) you are full of crap
 * Bridesmill, yes I agree, you are exloring the question of what Cuba is, and I agree with that path. Obviously, there are not many 'pure democracies', if any.  Just a suggestion, perhaps we can find a neutral source?  The CIA has some hostile history with Cuba and some could question that the CIA has a neutral opinion.    For nearly a month now we have been asking for a citation of what Cuba is not, and proving a negative is very difficult.  BruceHallman 20:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba is an authoritarian state under the guise of a democratic republic. Here's the latest mention of Cuba as an "authoritarian state" (ironically by someone named MARX no less). I've provided citations before in these Cuba:Talk pages, and I would be happy to provide them again. Wikipedia should not be used to disseminate Castro's propaganda (or ANY propaganda for that matter), but simply present all facts. It's bad enough that Castro's daily speeches and control of all Cuban media have brainwashed some Cubans who don't know better. That should not happen here. --Mcmachete 21:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article you cite does not even contain the word(s) 'election', 'democracy' and/or 'democratic', so I don't know how it is pertinent to the question. The fact that Cuba has dissidents, or even that Cuba is harsh upon dissidents, and upon paid agents of the US Government, says nothing about whether 'Cuba is not a democracy'. BruceHallman 21:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Bruce, you should try to read more slowly. I said it mentioned Cuba was an "authoritarian state." Clearly, a state cannot be authoritarian AND democratic. (Plus, haven't you gone on and on about stating what cuba is and not what cuba is not?) I also said it was one in a long list of citations pertaining to this discussion. Perhaps next time you will read the article instead of using Ctrl-F? --Mcmachete 22:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So what would count as 'a neutral source'? The only ones I can think of who would call Cuba anything other than a communist state are anything 'but' neutral. Britannica calls it a 'Communist republic', HRW - Communist State. Gov't of Canda calls it s Socialist State. Unfortunately, though I agree that Cuba is an authoritarian state, that is more of an assessment than a statement of fact.Bridesmill 22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a tricky one, Bridesmill. The most neutral sources as far as I'm concerned are the UN and the EU (both bodies containing a large spectrum of political ideologies), which both explicitly refer to Cuba as a Socialist republic (see source embedded in article). If it's good enough for those two bodies, that should be good enough for us. --Zleitzen 23:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

'Authoritarian state', like 'democracy' are not binary, black or white qualitites. Cuba is more authoritarian than most other countries. Is Cuba infinitely authoritarian? No. How does being somewhat authoritarian then prove that Cuba is not a democracy? Cuba does have elections with secret ballots and all people have the freedom to vote no on any and all candidates. That seems clearly to be a type of democracy, although I would hear arguments that it is a less than perfect type of democracy. BruceHallman 23:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I've had more productive conversations with fire hydrants... Where did you get the word "somewhat" from? I know it's not mine.


 * A show election or a sham election is an extreme example of electoral fraud where an election that is held purely for show, that is, without any significant political purpose. Show elections are a common event in dictatorial regimes that still feel the need to establish some element of public legitimacy.


 * Ballots in a show election may be in the form of a simple "yes or no" question on the ruler's leadership. A predetermined conclusion is always established by the regime, either through coercion of voters, vote rigging, or just making up an arbitrary number of "votes received". Some dictatorships ensure results by suppressing opposition or maintaining a token opposition that is never allowed to become a viable political force.          --Mcmachete 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What a charming page to visit....don't normally get this kind of comment on WP. Are the gutlessly annonymous peanut gallery comments usually like this here? Having spent a fair bit of time living in a former communist country, I can assure you that the 'name' of 'democracy' is totally sham and the people who live there do not actually believe it. No internationally recognized body calls them a democracy, so why pretend they are. Then again, some of the 'democracies' in the western hemisphere aren't exactly wondrous either (and no I'm not thinking about the US). On the other hand, the 'authoritarian' argument is also a dead end because it is all a matter of degree. They 'are' a socialist republic, they are the only 'socialist republic' in the western hemisphere. My recommendation is to call it 'the only socialist republic in the western hemisphere - and let those who wish to discuss the merits or lack thereof of soc republics do so on that page - IMHO the only way to keep the politics off a page where they don't belong if it wants to stay NPOV. Bridesmill 01:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing some people mean "multi-party state" when they say democracy. I (with some help) have changed the "not a demoracy" bit to "single-party state", which simply describes a fact, without inviting wildly differing interpretations like "democracy" does. I hope this satisfies both sides. Zocky | picture popups 01:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Adam 04:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. The article should state the plain and obvious fact about Cuba, which is that it is not a democracy, and is the only non-democracy in the western hemisphere. "Democracy" is not a mystical concept, it has a well-accepted definition: a country in which the people get to choose their own government through free and contested elections.
 * Secondly, there is no citation that Bruce will ever except as proving that Cuba is not a democracy, because any source which says so is by definition "anti-Cuba" and therefore unacceptable to him. This is just a timewasting game he is playing in the hope that we will all get bored and go away.
 * I agree that as a matter of logic it is impossible to prove a negative. I am willing to change "Cuba is the only country in the western hemisphere which is not a democracy" to Cuba is the only country in the western hemisphere which is a non-democracy", if that would be helpful.


 * "Free and contested elections" - how much voter intimidation, gerrymandering and vote fraud is allowed before you stop calling an election "free"? Guettarda 05:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please go to the article democracy and discuss what the word means and doesn't mean there. Once other editors agree to change that article so that the only valid meaning of the term is "a country in which the people get to choose their own government through free and contested elections", I'm sure everybody will be happy to apply the term as unambigous here. Zocky | picture popups 05:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To Guettarda: That has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. I agree that it is sometimes hard to judge whether an election "free and contested" or not. The recent elections in Haiti and Venezuela are examples. But there is no room for doubt about Cuba. Its "elections" are not free and not contested.
 * To Zocky: The Democracy article defines democracy as "a form of government where the population of a society controls the government." I think this is a rather sloppy definition, but it will do for our present purposes. It is clear that Cuba is not a democracy on this definition. The "population" do not "control the government", which is run by the PCC Politburo. Adam 05:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you implying that there is room for doubt about Haiti and Venezuela? Bart van der Pligt 09:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I said they are cases where it is "hard to judge." My view is that the Haitian elections this year qualified as free elections, despite many shortcomings. The opposition chose to boycott the Venezuelan elections (a mistake in my view), but as far as I know they were fairly conducted despite Chavez's authoritarian tendencies. Adam 12:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So it's hard to judge but there's no room for doubt..? Bart van der Pligt 12:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There is of course some room for doubt in both cases, but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to struggling democracies where this is possible. I have never said that every state in the Americas other than Cuba is a perfect democracy. The U.S. electoral system, to take the most obvious case, has serious deficiencies. There were serious problems in Haiti, but you have to make some allowances for the very weak infrastructure and deep-seated social problems they are trying to overcome. Cuba is the only country in the Americas which has deliberately set out to prevent choice, which is the essence of democracy. Before I started dealing with people like Bruce, Michael and now Carl, I wouldn't have thought anyone other than an out-and-out communist would deispute this. (I note by the way that Bruce has not actually denied being a communist despite my best efforts to provoke him). Adam 13:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Context cannot be ignored. The U.S. refusal to respect Cuban independence, and the economic and ideological war which it has waged on its tiny neighbour for the last 45 years is the backdrop to all these debates. The choice offered to Cuba is to open up its system to the massive influence of its hostile neighbour or be condemned for its lack of democracy. By choosing the latter path it chooses to continue to fight the ideological war rather than accept defeat. That is the choice being offered Cuba the nation. The situation reminds me of schoolyard bullying where you are holding the aggressor at arms length so they can't punch you and they are all the time saying "Come on, play fair, let me go, I'm not going to do anything, you are just afraid of what I might do...". You are condemning Cuba for maintaining a wartime system, by ignoring the reality of that war.
 * The mechanisms that you claim are the essence of democracy do not exist as things in themselves, they are bound up with the other parts of the systems in which they are found. Every democratic mechanism is moulded by the society it inhabits - imagine a capitalist democracy where the use of money was banned from electoral activity. Cuba is not the only country in the Americas which has deliberately set out to prevent choice. The huge sums of money necessary for involvement in U.S. elections limits choice as severely as Cuba's wartime mentality. Here in the UK we have seen our supposed people's party - the Labour Party - steadily contracting round a solidly pro capitalist political elite, casting itself off financially from its popular roots and relying on the support of the massively monied to fund its electoral battles.
 * In terms of electoral mechanics, as you prioritise them, of course you are right, Cuba doesn't fit the frame, but your refusal to accept any qualifiers on your definition of democracy are prolonging this debate and preventing us from examining the issues in finer detail. You are tailoring your definitions to suit your aims. MichaelW 02:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not good enough to say that Cuba is a single-party state. It is possible in theory to have a democracy in which there is only one party, if no-one feels like forming a second party. Singapore comes close to being a one-party democracy, but people are free to form other parties if they want. This is not so in Cuba. What makes Cuba unique in its region is what it is not - it is not a democracy. Adam 05:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Adam: "...despite my best efforts to provoke him". Please stop provoking other editors, it 'poisons the water' making Wikipedia collaboration difficult.  BruceHallman 13:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And Adam, regarding: 'not a democracy'. Your hurdle is high because not only do you have to provide a credible verifiable source, (which you admited above involves proving a negative), but you also need to show that there is no other credible alternative point of view. And, the burden of proof is on the editor.  You have had weeks to do this and have repeatedly failed.  At some point, you should realize that you are not meeting the requirements of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV .  You don't need to take my word, we could ask for the help of a neutral mediator to resolve our differences. BruceHallman 13:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

 I don't believe it is 'perfectly simple' - it would be if we lived in a perfect black/white pigeonhole world but we don't. Nor does it appear to be only two people objecting. WHy reject a workable edit (and hold an article hostage) based on one word which cannot be proven, and if you are going to revert, why not revert the {fact} tag that your version by definition requires? Item - negative proofs are darn near impossible, and twisting the semantuics to make it appear non-negative is fallacious. Item - by 'some' definitions, Cuba is a democracy ((es, I know, any place that calls itself a democratic republic 'isn't', but....) So why not simply keep the POV out of it and state what it is? Item - by stating that it is the only non-democracy, waht are we trying to say? That somehow that makes it by virtue of it's political choices a worse place than anywhere else in the western hemisphere, including some plces that are technically democracies by your deffinition of the word? Saying it is the only soc rep in the west, and providing the link to the soc rep article does not leave the reader with any doubt as to the nature of the place - WITHOUT having to use difficult to define or WP:V statemwents that are by definition judgmental. Why not do it the easy effective way? Bridesmill 13:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Would it clarify or muddle the discussion to point out as fallacious the assertion that open elections=democracy. That simply isn't true.  Wikipedia disagrees.  Encyclopedia Britannica disagrees.  Webster's disagrees.  Athens, its golden age, when it birthed democracy upon the world had no vote at all.  Citizens took turns at being senators.  That was democracy - representative rule by the people.  On the other hand, there are any number of examples worldwide where  a country DOES have an election but the people do not have representative rule. I don't otherwise have a horse in this race, except that both Bruce and Adam should have to source anything they feel merits inclusion.Juneappal 13:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, I have and will source my edits. The essense of this dispute is that I have asked other editors to source their 'truth', and 'truth' is sometimes hard to source. BruceHallman 16:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not rejected mediation. But any mediated settlement must involve a clear statement that Cuba is a country which does not practise democracy, because that is a true, relevant and important fact about Cuba.Adam 14:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I offered Bruce and co a settlement of this matter several days ago, which involved deleting the sentence in the opening paragraph in exchange for an agreed text in the Politics section. I asked Bruce and Zleitzen to contribute words to this text, but they both (for different reasons) declined, Zleitsen directly and Brucve with his usual devious and dishonest word games. I then added the text unilaterally, so that deal is no longer open.Adam 14:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Bruce's demands for citation is just a tactic. Any source which says "Cuba is not a democracy" will be rejected by Bruce as "anti-Cuban." Will he accept a citation from Freedom House or the National Endowment for Democracy, for example? I in fact provided a citation at one time from the human rights arm of the OAS, but Bruce rejected it. Adam 14:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you are refering to this citation of yours? That citation says nothing about 'democracy' in Cuba.  It describes prosecutions of political dissidents in Cuba, a valid topic for the Cuba article, but not pertinent as a citation of the 'not a democracy'.  BruceHallman 16:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If the requirement is that the opening section must say what Cuba is rather than what it is not, will Bruce accept a statement that Cuba "is a dictatorship"? "is a totalitarian regime"? "is a country which does not practise democracy as usually understood"? "is a country which does not meet the usual standards of democratic government?" I would accept any of those. Will Bruce? Adam 14:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am resonable and, with WP:V citations, would accept that 'dictatorship' is one POV about Cuba, but I also would ask that you be reasonable and accept opposing POV's about the leadership of Cuba. That discussion should be in the Government section, as putting in the intro paragraph seems to be pushing one POV.  BruceHallman 16:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Adam 14:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I will respond to Juneappal shortly. Adam 14:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

'xcuse me? Your first bullet states you will only accept mediation which goes your way, but assert that this means you have not rejected mediation? That, Sir, is a fairly basic logic loop/fallacious argument. I am definitely not 'pro' Cuba, but the 'not a democracy ' line means nothing, and is arguably contested (spuriously, yes, but still contestable). The only Agreed upon def by the international community is Socialist Republic (or words similar); let the merits of this be argued out on the political article rather than the national one. And in terms of what Cuba 'is', it still needs to be WP:V and not WP:OR or POV. Why the insistance on a statement of opinion? WP is NOT an editorial collumn. The eendeavour is to be scholarly, which by definition would include being open to an end result which is at variance with your own hypothesis.Bridesmill 14:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In resonse to Juneappel:

We have had the "what is democracy" debate several times already in the course of this discussion. Indeed this whole argument goes around in a complete circle about once a day, and every time a new person comes along we have to start again. However, I will try one more time:

Democracy means literally "rule by the people." The OED defines it at “Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people, and is exercised either directly by them or by officers elected by them.” Direct democracy is where the citizens gather in one place and vote directly on laws. Indirect or representative democracy is where the people choose representatives to govern in their name. In the modern world, this is the dominant form.

The key word in the above definition is “elect”. The OED defines “elect” as “to pick out, choose: to choose in preference to an alternative.” An element of choice is essential for a genuine election, and thus to a genuine democracy. The people must have the right to choose to vote for candidate A and reject candidate B, and to vote for policy X in preference to policy Y.

In the Soviet system of government, of which Cuba is one of five surviving examples, there is no element of choice, and the system of elections and legislatures is a façade for the reality of absolute rule by the Communist Party. In Cuban elections there is only one candidate for each seat in the legislature, and the voters have no power to elect some other person. There is no right to nominate for election without the approval of the Candidacy Commissions, which consist of representatives of “mass organisations” controlled by the Communist Party. There is also no right to advocate the rejection of the official candidates, or to form a political party to advocate a different system of government. And in any case, the legislature which is "elected" in this manner has no real power, because the Politburo of the Communist Party is the real centre of power.

I have yet to see any of these facts seriously contested here. They are sufficient grounds for stating that “Cuba is not a democracy” within any meaningful or accepted definition of the word. As stated above, I am willing to consider other forms of words, but not to compromise on this essential point. Adam 14:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't believe this is even an issue. Adam, you're trying to persuade us and make a case for your point.  I even agree with what you're saying, but it doesn't matter!  We're not trying to decide on the One True Way to describe and categorize the government of Cuba.  All we need to do is describe the dispute in a verifiable way: So-and-so says Cuba is a whatever, but Person B calls them a something else.  This shouldn't be hard.  Friday (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point, Friday. This is not a situation of two equal views. Just as we don't give the flat earth view equal prominence, we don't give equal time to the out-of-left-field argument that Cuba is actually a democracy, supported by just about no one except the editors advocating it here. Ambi 14:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course they're not equal views. As far as I can see, no reasonable editor is talking about giving equal time to some tinfoil hat who says cuba is full of democracy and puppies.  But, it looks to me like Adam is trying to provide his own original justification his his opinions, to make sure the article reflects his version of the truth.  What is or is not a democracy is not always entirely clear - it frequently depends on who you ask.  As for "the only state in the Western hemisphere which is not a democracy", it's not unreasonable to try to present this as the opinion of a given person or group, rather than presenting it as God's-eye-view Truth.  My main point is that the fanaticism here is unhelpful to the issue at hand. Friday (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be quite happy with the formulation: "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 am going to bed now so I will see tomorrow where we have got to. Adam 15:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable, but it should have citations for both clauses. Juneappal 15:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)