Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-10 Cuba

Mediation Case: 2006-04-10 Cuba
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: BruceHallman 15:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Cuba, Talk:Cuba
 * Also Human_rights_in_Cuba, Talk:Human_rights_in_Cuba.   BruceHallman 17:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, Elections in Cuba BruceHallman 18:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Who's involved?
 * Many people, see article and talk page. The essence of the problem comes from a failure to respect opposing points of view, and user User:Adam Carr, though he is not alone, refuses to comply with WP:NPOV policy, see his statement on the Talk:Cuba page.
 * After looking at this more, another facaet of the problem is that a few users are trying to edit in and edit out "truth", as they personally believe it to be, as opposed to respecting WP:V. User User:Comandante repeatedly exercises personal editorial policy contrary to Wikipedia policy.


 * What's going on?
 * Ongoing edit war, with layers of dispute, but the top dispute is the definition of the word 'democracy' related to Cuba.
 * Also, a revert war of the issue Government Type. Cycling between Republic and Communist State, perhaps hundreds of times.


 * Four hours later, things might be calming down, a small truce in the revert war may be developing. BruceHallman 19:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Eight hours later, the government type edit war is renewed. BruceHallman 23:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I would like the group's editors to reach concensus to include both (or all) points of view of this subject in the article.
 * I suggest that the Government Type be shown as both types, or not shown in the country box at all and instead being described in a section of the article, with both opinions itemized and explained.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * I am willing to work this out openly and compromise, or concede if I am wrong.

Perhaps.
 * Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?
 * This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
 * what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.



Regarding Comandante
RFC See revision history for record of edit war. See discussion page for lack of discussion or collaboration. 

Regarding Adam Carr

 * "I wrote that Cuba is a one-party state ruled by the Communist Party and its leader Castro, that no other parties are permitted, and that therefore Cuba does not mean any meaninfgul definition of a democracy. I could "verify" these statements with a list of references as long as the Cuban Constitution. Do you really want me to? It seems to me that it is up to those who want to argue the contrary position to do the "verifying." If I write that the earth goes round the sun, a statement these days generally accepted to be true, it is up to those who want to argue that the sun goes round the earth to provide some evidence. Adam 14:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)"

2) Can you agree that their POV should be respected when determining the neutral point of view?            BruceHallman 15:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)''
 * "''Adam, 1) Can you agree that 'communist apologists' have a point of view?

The answers to your questions are (1) yes, (2) no. Adam 15:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

''If you cannot respect opposing points of view, I understand that you are in violation of Wikipedia policy. BruceHallman 15:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)''

''I can live with that. Adam 15:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)''"


 * Also, see | this example of POV editing by Adam Carr.


 * Also, see here where Adam Carr overtly advocates for an 'edit war'. BruceHallman 18:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please report evidence in this section with for misconduct and  for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil. Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Say that most Western political analysts call Cuba "undemocratic" because (1) it suppresses all criticism of the government and (2) never holds national elections. Other reasons Westerners deny that Cuba is a democracy include its suppression of emigration and the lack of a free press.

Balance this by giving any reasons that other analysts (or even political advocates) have for calling Cuba a democracy:
 * (list here)

Note that if you can't tell what my own opinion is, about this matter, then I'm probably writing from the NPOV. --Uncle Ed 14:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, per WP:V' the people that claim that 'Cuba is not a democracy' have the burden to prove. The mediation was not initiated over a dispute of a claim that 'Cuba is a democracy'.  BruceHallman 05:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others
Below is a summary of editing behaviour from the Cuba page and related pages. All are instances I believe are unhelpful in reaching consensus and run counter to the Wikipedia ethos. --Zleitzen 18:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuba page


 * User 147.126.46.146 reverts wholesale with little respect for editors who are contributing researched work unrelated to the edit war. --Zleitzen 15:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * User 205.240.227.15 signs talk page with a different user name, El Jigue. Accuses editors attempting good faith consensus edits of "praising the gods of marxist ideology". User's POV extends to rejecting out of hand other encylopedia descriptions (Britannica etc) trialled as examples in the talk page. Consistently reinserts uncited material. has described fellow editors as "idiots" --Zleitzen 12:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * User Scott Grayban removed an relevant entry from the talk page written by 205.240.227.15 without justification. . When I reinstated it as per wikipolicies Scott Grayban wrote "I guess Zleitzen likes the name calling and rude behaviour by other users".. "I'll pass along to the admin here that your not interested in a good article but a revert war that gets zip done and half if not a quarter good article. Real sad you know. Don't come to us or other admin when you have problems then." --Zleitzen 16:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * User Scott Grayban removed a talk page response from User 172 without legitimate reason. --Zleitzen 18:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * User Adam referred to an other editors queries as "childish political insults" without justification. User Adam writing of others editors "You need to accept that the days of communist rule over this article are over" --Zleitzen 18:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * User Adam deleted out this talk page entry Revision as of 00:48, 16 April 2006 82.23.247.222 entitled 'An honest opinion'
 * without giving any explanation as to his reason for the deletion.

Human rights in Cuba page


 * 172 wrote (of User:BruceHallman) "I say every time he utters pseudo-philosophical bullshit like human rights in Cuba exist in the context of of a socialist society make an edit he finds politically unpalatable. It can be kind of like the logic of a drinking game. --Zleitzen 18:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Discussion
There are, of course, deep rooted and complicated POV issues concerning Cuba and Wikipedia. Given the geographical balance of Wikipedia I have grave concerns whether Cuba can be consistently represented in a NPOV manner, free from systemic bias.I believe that these issues may warrant a Wiki-project in it's own right, such edit wars cannot address the problem sufficently. A proper project / study and page protection needs to be implemented. I would be willing to participate in any moves towards this. --Zleitzen 20:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have recently proposed a straw poll to determine the concensus of the group regarding 'government type'. BruceHallman 01:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Have requested another mediator. --Zleitzen 15:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Much of this dispute revolves around the meanings of words. It is rare for people on opposite sides of the left-right spectrum to agree on the definitions of any of the following political terms:
 * democracy
 * socialism
 * communism (small c)
 * Communism (Big C)
 * Marxism-Leninism
 * There are several dozen other disputed terms, but these are the some of the most often disputed ones.


 * No communication is possible "across the gap" when opposite sides are using different definitions. Was the USSR "totalitarian"? It depends on how you define the term (or "employ that typology", heh).


 * Anyway, NPOV requires tolerance on the part of contributors. They need not "respect" the opposite point of view, but they must tolerate its expression in the article. That is, Communism opponents must tolerate the mention of the fact that Communism supporters are many and vocal, and the fact that these supporters feel that Cuba is the most progressive country in the Western Hemisphere, has the best healthcare system, most vibrant economy (hampered only by the Helms-Burton Act that tightened the embargo), and is a shining example of democracy in action!


 * I suggest a quick review of Writing for the enemy. First state your opponent's argument so clearly and accurately that you'll have him nodding his head, even wondering whether (or hoping that) you've finally seen the light and will come over to his side. As Stephen Covey says, "Seek first to understand, then to be understood." After you've ensured that the opposing POV is in the article, state your side.


 * Just don't fall into the trap of editorializing or original research. Be a dispassionate reporter, digesting and summarizing the views and observations of primary sources.


 * This is an encyclopedia, not a political debate blog. --Uncle Ed 14:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)