Talk:Cuba/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Cuba Government Sandbox

Below is a sandbox for the Cuba Government section. All users can play in it and give it their best shot! --Zleitzen 21:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC) User:Zleitzen/Cuba Government Sandbox

What is the point of yet another arena for arguing about whether Cuba is a democracy or not? The matter will be decided here or not at all. Adam 13:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It is an arena where users can participate and discuss the issues free from so called "robust tactics" and counter-productive antagonistic sparring. Because if I don't believe that a user is making a valid contribution, I can happily delete the comments within my rights. It's come to this, I'm afraid, Adam. If you were to agree to adhere to civility policies on this page, my sandbox would be unneccessary. --Zleitzen 15:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, you can debate the matter elsewhere all you like, but any edits to the article itself will be subject to the same process of debate here as all previous edits have been. Adam 00:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Education

In Cuba education is free and mandatory. The current statistic of 96% comes from a biased source, the frist line of this source is a quote: "the choice is between capitalism and chaos". http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/cb/cuba/asce/cuba8/30smith.pdf

The current UN figure is 100% http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/cuba.html Grantplus 01:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Grantplus, I would err on the side of caution with that 100% stat. Although it comes from a firm source it seems open to certain speculation, there is this source [1] which details youth literacy rates (99.8%). As the section is education it may be more appropriate. There is also this rsource here [2] saying that adult literacy rates are 96.9. Take your pick! --Zleitzen 02:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference seems unimportant. No-one disputes that Cuba has near universal literacy. Adam 13:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Various characters who have since been blocked, El Jigue etc, disputed and kept tampering with it when it said 100% - if I recall they were adding provisos etc. We're best off putting the citation least prone to misinterpretation. --Zleitzen 13:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No country has literally 100% literacy. "Near universal literacy" is certainly true. Adam 13:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I've sprotected because I see there's reverting against anons, and a sockpuppet account has just turned up elsewhere who may be heading here. If anyone thinks sprotection is inappropriate, let me know and I'll undo. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What criteria will you be using to decide when to unprotect the article? Adam 09:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What does "sprotect" mean? Adam 00:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect means that anon IPs and new accounts can't edit it, so it stops vandalism and some sockpuppetry. Everyone else can carry on as normal. I'll unprotect if you think there's no problem, so let me know. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I see. I wasn't aware of this innovation. I don't think the problem here has been anon IPs or new accounts. The issue has been a deadlock between two groups of editors. Adam 00:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a minor inconvenience for me, as I now have to log on to my old account to make edits. Although, something can be said for putting everything togeather in the sandbox. Mystork 05:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a democracy?

Regarding Adams recent edit delete "multi-party" qualifying the word "democracy", which suggests that Cuba might be some other kind of democracy. It isn't. Here is a good quote I found by Bob Huish, a graduate student at Queens University. [3]

Myth: Democracy does not exist in Cuba.
Reality: The American system of democracy does not exist in Cuba. Cuba hold elections every four years, whereby every political position is up for renewal – even the presidential title. The system of elections is different from the British, American, or French system, but it is based on a fair method of allowing every person (aged 16 or older) to vote for representatives to represent them in National, Provincial, and Municipal levels of government.
Often the thought of a one party system jades people from seeing how democracy can operate in Cuba. The system is unique from traditional interpretations of Western Democracy, but the freedoms of choice and personal expression do exist. It is a unique system – just as Canadian Government is a unique system from that of the US.
For further reading on Cuban Democracy:
August, Arnold. Democracy in Cuba and the 1997-1998 Elections. La Habana: Jose Marti Editorial Press, 1999.

It is indeed a good quote, illustrating as it does what is either the gross stupidity or the gross dishonesty (possibly both) of Cuba apologists. I suggest Mr Huish go to Havana and try to express overt opposition to the Castro government, or that he get one of his Cuban friends to try to nominate as a "Down with Castro" candidate at the next elections. He will soon learn the truth about Cuban democracy. Adam 01:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think it is your place to dictate what is "stupid" or "dishonest." Mystork 01:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope we can settle down at "not a liberal democracy" As I said in the summary, it leaves less room for never-ending debate, and leaves the people who feel liberal democracy is the only kind happy, as well as the people who think democracy applies to Cuba in a different form. Mystork 05:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Countries are either democracies or they aren't. A democracy is a country in which the people are able to choose their own government from two or more alternatives able to compete freely for their support. Cuba is not a democracy, and that is what the article must say. Adam 05:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I see you fall into the "liberal democracy is the only kind of democracy" crowd! That is okay, but we must recognise there are many who feel otherwise. That is why I suggest "liberal democracy" --it applies to both sides of this pov argument. Mystork 05:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say "liberal democracy is the only kind of democracy." I gave a definition of democracy, and said that Cuba doesn't match that definition. Perhaps you'd like to give an alternative definition and we can debate that. Adam 05:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, this is how Cuba defends their democra...form of government. (: They do not consider it to be liberal democracy: [4] Mystork 06:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked you to give me an alternative definition of democracy. Adam 06:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the link? There is also Athenian democracy, and all those at the right panel of the Democracy article. Mystork 07:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to know your definition of democracy. Since you are insistent that Cuba is a democracy, presumably you know what the word means, and can give a definition of it. Adam 08:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In NO way is Cuba a democracy. How did some grad student (not even a professor, which alone would hardly be a source) become the end-all, be-all source of information on Cuba's electoral process? I can say with absolute first-hand knowledge that ANYONE who expresses any opinion, overt or otherwise, contrary to castro and his regime, will be placed in jail or worse. The average sentence is 20 years and if someone is found organizing a political discussion, it's not surprising for that person to never be heard of again (usually executed by firing squad). Castro is a tyrant, and he simply feigns democracy. If the votes aren't counted, what good is an election? Here's a quote from the U.S. Cuba Democracy Act: "There is no sign that the Castro regime is prepared to make any significant concessions to democracy or to undertake any form of democratic opening. Efforts to suppress dissent through intimidation, imprisonment, and exile have accelerated since the political changes that have occurred in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe." [5] mcmachete 11:50, 26 April 2006 (PST)

Mcmachete, thank you for your observations. On that note, if you have time, please take a look at my comment under this discussion thread: [6]. I'm getting fed up with dealing with a user who claims that "elections" in Cuba are "democratic." 172 | Talk 19:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
mcmachete, If you don't mind, I will skip over your expressions of opinion because I shouldn't fuel a debate about 'truth'. BruceHallman 20:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Your citation of the 1992 Torricelli Law which was overturned in part by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and strongly criticised under International Law[7] does indeed make several condemning statements reflecting the resolve of the 103rd United States Congress. And, it does proves the point that a majority of that Congress shared your point of view on this topic. I do not see how it proves that your point of view is the only credible point of view.
To defend that the 'not a democracy' POV is the only credible POV actually requires you to research all the alternative POV's on this topic and demonstrate that all of the alternative POV's are not credible. This might be possible but will be hard to do. You don't need to simply prove that your POV exists. BruceHallman 20:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, your POV considers that the only type of 'democracy' is a multi-party democracy. Frankly, I don't need more citations to be convinced that many people hold this POV. Your task is to prove per WP:V that your POV is the only credible POV. This requires you to research each of the alternative POV's and prove that each of the alternative POV's are not credible, and you have not done that. BruceHallman 20:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
And try to be fair when you consider this thought: Should an encyclopedic article really include a statement of what Cuba is not? Wouldn't it be preferable to phrase the article to describe what Cuba is? BruceHallman 20:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
BruceHallman, if you don't mind, I will skip over your general tone of condescension because I shouldn't fuel a debate about 'courtesy.' My point is this: of all types of "democracies," the closest Cuba's government's theoretically fits is an Illiberal Democracy, because after Castro pushed Batista out of the country, free elections originally named him president. However, considering how the elections have since been rendered useless (see: show elections, president for life), the only categorization that fits Cuba's government is a communist dictatorship - an authoritarian government NOT a democracy. I can call myself an apple tree the same as Castro can call himself a legitimately elected president - but saying so doesn't make it so. Castro is a dictator, not a truly elected president or prime minister. The only votes that are counted are votes in his favor, and those who do so, generally do so under duress (do you dispute Castro's human rights violations as well?). Therefore, in Cuba's wiki page, it is correct when it states "Cuba is a socialist republic, in which the Communist Party of Cuba is the sole legal political party, and is the only state in the western hemisphere that is not a democracy." mcmachete 16:46, 27 April 2006 (PST)
Mcmachete, Go away for a while, do your research on the Cuban electoral system and all matters pertaining to the definition of democracy. Grab as much as you can, and return with citations for Bruce. Before that, please read this policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and this policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Follow my advice on the former, and wikipedia's policies on the latter, and we should be able to resolve any issues here. --Zleitzen 00:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to be insulting: "Go away and do some research." I have done my research (beyond even first-hand accounts), and I have no issues. As I previously posted, the way it is stated is fine. But allow me make some citations:
First, let's consider this logically: would a free people continue to elect a president into power when their human rights are contiously violated [8][9][10][11][12], particularly in regards to political freedoms[13][14][15][16]? Cuba has been on the list of UN Country Reports of Human Rights Violators in each year Castro has been in power save for two[17].
Furthermore, Cuba's government is widely recognized as being authoritarian and not democratic. The United States defines Cuba's government as a Totalitarian Communist state [18]. Numerous world leaders of varying backgrounds and affiliations tend to agree. George W. Bush's administration's policy toward Cuba is "designed to encourage a peaceful transition to a democratic government characterized by strong support for human rights and an open market economy" [19]. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton defined Cuba's government as a "communist dictatorship" [20]. Even Ollanta Humala, current Peruvian presidential front-runner, said "obviously, according to our standards, Cuba does not qualify as a democracy" [21]. ---mcmachete 20:44, 27 April 2006 (PST)
Apologies, mcmachete. My response wasn't intended to insult, it literally was a request to find citations, I guess the "go away" does look a bit poor in review! The first set are human rights citations, and are relatively uncontroversial in the context of this dispute. The second set of links are concerned with the contested issue and I really like the Peru citation "obviously, according to our standards, Cuba does not qualify as a democracy", that's a good find. Hold onto that Peruvian citation, because that could come in very handy later. --Zleitzen 04:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

User:My Stork please read citations 4-13 on the top of the Cuba article to understand why Cuba is not a democracy. Please move on to other areas, I am sure you can make a meaningful contribution somewhere.~~Kane 26 April 2006~~

Adam Carr makes a really good point: Cuba does not match the definition of liberal democracy (the common understanding of contemporary democracy) and any alternative definition of democracy. This discussion has been going on way too long. There is no need to qualify the statement in the intro that Cuba is the only country in Latin America that is not a democracy. 172 | Talk 07:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
"A democracy is a country in which the people are able to choose their own government from two or more alternatives able to compete freely for their support"
Without wanting to go over old ground on this yet again: Kane, 172 and Adam are free to find sources that verify the above statement. And others are free to seek alternative definitions (which shouldn't be difficult). --Zleitzen 07:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And I'll ask you the same question I have asked Mystork - what is your definition of a democracy? Adam 08:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In the case of a word like democracy, there is no agreed definition. --Zleitzen 17:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't count on a definition soon. Mystork is on a Wikibreak. [22] 172 | Talk 08:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The argument above has broken down into an argument about truth as it relates to 'my' and 'your' views of democracy. Perhaps if we can regroup and try to use the rules WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV to reach a consensus we will have a chance to make progress? BruceHallman 15:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It is a verifiable, neutral fact that Cuba is not a democracy. This fact has already been explained to you. 172 | Talk 20:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations provided by Adam Carr in support of 'not a democracy' claim

Adam Carr recently provided twelve citations in support of his claim that 'cuba is not a democracy' is the only valid point of view about Cuba. Indeed his POV is a widely held POV, but it is not the only point of view. Also, it is very difficult to prove a negative. That is: to prove what Cuba is not. Of course, the onus is on Adam Carr to provide credible citation in support of his claim that his point of view is the only point of view.

Also, simply adding a large quantity of poor citations does not increase his credibility. Here are the twelve most recent citations, and none measure up to the high hurdle of proving a negative assertion:

  • [23] Does not mention the word 'democracy' in the entire article and rather addresses human rights.
  • [24] Primarily an article about the Ukraine. It doesn't mention Cuban democracy, the closest it comes is to claim that Cuba is not 'free'.
  • [25] Again, doesn't mention Cuban democracy, and mostly is a criticism of human rights of a group of countries including Cuba.
  • [26] This article does not even mention the word democracy.
  • [27] Again, a critique of Cuban human rights violations. No mention of a claim that Cuba is not a democracy. The closest it comes are quotes of complaints by dissidents expressing their point of view about a lack of Cuban democracy.
  • [28] Again, an article about Cuban human rights, with no mention of the word 'democracy' at all in the article.
  • [29] Again, an article about Cuban human rights, with no mention of the word 'democracy' at all in the article.
  • [30] A listing of members of an organization titled 'Community of Democracies', all this proves is that Cuba does not belong to that organization.
  • [31]A description of Cuban dissidents described as 'democracy advocates', which hardly is proof that Cuba is not a democracy or that various credible points of view about this issue do not exist.
  • [32] Partisan editorial expressing a point of view well summarized with this quote "...the surest way to bring freedom and democracy to Cuba was to flood the island with tourists". This still does not prove that 'Cuba is not a democracy' or that credible other points of view do not exist.

I recommend that we move the disputed sentence off the main page to a sandbox until we reach consensus, perhaps with the help of a mediator? BruceHallman 13:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No! Cuba is NOT a democracy. This topic has been argued to death, and the outcome is always the same. It is evident that there will always be a few die-hards that argue to the contrary in spite of all evidence, logic, and reason. The simple fact of the matter is that one cannot stand on a corner in Havana and hold a sign that says "Down with Fidel". That is not democracy! Bruce, while you have maintained good manners throughout, I have to say that it seems like you are playing devil's advocate and pushing this absurd debate when there are more constructive things all of us could be doing on Wikipedia.~~Kane 4 26 2006~~

Kane, I certainly agree with you that this has been argued to death! Unfortunately, we should refrain from arguing our opinions of truth, and rather follow WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Somehow you equate freedom of speech with democracy. I don't see, per WP:V, that freedom of speech and democracy are the same thing. I am not "pushing this absurd debate". The thing I am debating is WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and that is not absurd. BruceHallman 18:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is an absurd debate, just like the whole dictator/leader/ruler debate. It's not just about freedom speech, it's about being able to freely and loudly oppose the govenment in power. The fact that they have elections(which many people smarter and more learned than myself call a farce) is not enough to call it a democracy. If it was truly a democracy, Castro would have been voted out of power decades ago! Just think about it. No leader is that good to stay in power legitimately for so long.~~Kane 4 26 2006~~

Is so...Is not...etc., will not bring consensus. Can we try something else? BruceHallman 20:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Bruce, we will not reach "consensus" on this issue, because consensus between diametrically opposed positions is not possible. So far as I can tell, now that Scott and Mystork have been banned, you are alone in arguing that Cuba is a democracy. Since you won't accept a ballot on the matter, there is no alternative to reverting your edits until you cease trying to impose your POV on this article. Adam 00:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, I don't think we're talking about diametrically opposed positions. If the article stated "Cuba is a democracy" I'd be even quicker to revert. Because that would also be inappropriate in the context of wikipedia. There are well-defined guidelines on how to deal with these kinds of issues; please rememeber the NPOV policy, and everything can be resolved.
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. (Btw World Wildlife Fund?!?)--Zleitzen 00:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The POV that "Cuba is a democracy" is not a "significant" one outside the ranks of the Cuban Communist Party and its apologists. I am not opposed to a sentence in the politics section stating that "The Cuban Government and its supporters maintain that Cuba is a democracy" or words to that effect. But the sentence in the opening paragraph must reflect the majority/mainstream view, which is that Cuba is not a democracy. Adam 00:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, Adam. The paragraph I quote doesn't say "The sentence must reflect the majority/mainstream view". It says "It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one"! --Zleitzen 01:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Democacracy has absolutly nothing to do with the ability to vote for different candidates. The word means goverment by the people, when you elect someone you are elcting a represantative to make the decisions for you, so you could actually argue that US does not have a democracy(I wont even talk about the money needed to became a candidate in the US).

The discussion should not be about who is the head of goverment. Is the people of Cuba able to make decisions by themselves, do they have a system that evaluates the positions of the population and makes the decision the majority wants?(US would not pass on this test) Cuba is a form of democracy. However this is only my point of view, stating that Cuba is not a liberal democracy would be the most acurate in an encyclopedia. Chico 21:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on how you define democracy. The Athenians came the closest to a true democracy, the only problem being that only male landowners could vote. In my opinion, a true democracy is where everyone votes directly. Everyone. Of course that's nigh impossible, but still. And one more thing, I don't think something the U.S. government put out is a valid citation, because the U.S. is obviously biased.

The U.S. definitely does not have a democracy either.

I couldn't figure out how to add something to the suggested settlement, but anyways, I liked Zleitzen's paragraph, and also, wouldn't someone know best if they had lived in Cuba?

Suggested settlement

In line with my suggestion above, here is my proposed settlement.

  • The paragraph in the opening section describing Cuba's form of government is deleted.
  • The infobox describes Cuba as a "republic".
  • The Government and Politics section reads as follows.
Cuba is a socialist republic whose government is controlled by the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC). The PCC leader, Fidel Castro, is both President of the Council of State (President of Cuba) and President of the Council of Ministers (Prime Minister of Cuba). The President of Cuba is chosen by the National Assembly, for a five-year term. There is no limit to the number of terms the President can serve, and Castro has been President since the adoption of the current Constitution in 1976. The Premable of the Constitution names Castro as Cuba's leader.
The Cuban constitution states: "the Communist Party of Cuba... is the superior guiding force of society and the state." No other political parties are permitted. Although the Constitution offers guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly, these are effectively negated by Article 62, which states that "None of the freedoms which are recognized for citizens can be exercised contrary to... the existence and objectives of the socialist state, or contrary to the decision of the Cuban people to build socialism and communism. Violations of this principle can be punished by law." In practice, public opposition to the Communist Party or the communist system is illegal and dissidents are regularly imprisoned.
Cuba's national legislature, the National Assembly of People's Power (Asamblea Nacional de Poder Popular), has 609 members who serve five-year terms. All Cuban citizens aged over sixteen years and who have not been found guilty of a criminal offence can vote. Article 131 of the Constitution says that voting shall be "through free, equal and secret vote." Article 136 says: "In order for deputies or delegates to be considered elected they must get more than half the number of valid votes cast in the electoral districts."
In practice, although the voting process itself is free, the process for nominating candidates for election to the National Assembly is controlled by the PCC and organisations affiliated to or controlled by it. As a result, at the National Assembly elections of January 2003, there was only one candidate in each of the 609 electoral districts. More than 70% of these were members of the PCC, and the remainder were non-party candidates approved by the PCC.
The Cuban government and its supporters maintain that Cuba is a democracy, because voters have the right to reject the single candidate on the ballot paper, and because if 50% of voters do so a new candidate must be nominated. International human rights organisations and organisations which promote democracy and free elections reject this view. They argue that Cuba is not a democracy, because
    • No party other than the PCC is allowed
    • No candidates other than those approved by the PCC can stand for election
    • The mass media are completely controlled by the PCC
    • It is not possible to publicly advocate the rejection of PCC-supported candidates

None of this is referenced at present, but if the general text is acceptable then references can be added. I am happy for those who think that Cuba is a democracy to change the sentence beginning "The Cuban government and its supporters maintain..." so that it better reflects their views (at reasonable length). Indeed I am keen to see their exposition of why Cuba is a democracy. But I will not agree to any watering down of the statements in the 2nd and 4th paragraphs. Adam 05:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Election Process

Some comments on paragraph 4: The election process is managed by the state, not by the party. The relationship between the state and the party is extremely complex. Without meaning to cause offence, Adam, I don't think you've even begun to grasp (or to attempt to grasp) this relationship, so it might be best to avoid wild simplifications like 'effectively controlled by'. It doesn't help anything except to fudge the issue. With regard to there only being one candidate for each post in 2003, does this relate to the part of the national assembly elected from the street level, or from the mass organisation? (You ignore this fundamental part of the elction process). I have never heard this anywhere before, I find it intrigueing if true, although your interpretation of PCC-imposed cadidates is far from the only possible explanation - it could for example be that the community decides democratically who will go forward in a pre-election process (I have been to Cuba several times, and the level of collective community organisation makes this perfectly plausible). If you genuinely want to avoid POV, you should point out that whilst there may have only been one cadidate for each post in 2003, anybody can stand for election from the local level, they are restricted to a single side of A4 paper for their election manifesto, continue to receive the same wage they were on in their job previous to election, and are subject to recall by their electors at any time. All enitrely verifiable. It may also be good to have something on the historical development of the political system in Cuba, as there is a vast difference between the processes and structures of the early revolution and present, taking account of the 'rectification period', etc. -- Tom

I haven't been to Cuba, but I know enough about how Soviet-style systems work (and the Cuban system is a direct descendant of the 1936 Soviet Constitution) to know that however much window-dressing Communist regimes instal to fool gullible visitors (and I recommend Sidney and Beatrice Webb's Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation to you for the best-known example), the Communist Party controls the whole process from beginning to end. I am aware that the National Assembly is "elected" by two different processes, and I have no objection to this being mentioned (although this level of detail probably belongs at Elections in Cuba), so long as the impression is not created that these are genuine elections, because they are not. Both the "street" and the "mass organisations" in a Soviet-style system are controlled by the Party. The Party controls the media, has a monopoly of coercion and controls the courts - no more elaborate explanation is needed for the absence of opposition. I have been to Vietnam and Laos, where I was told exactly the same kind of stuff about how these countries are "real" democracies despite the communist parties' monopoly of power. The same kind of stuff was routinely spouted by the numerous apologists for the Soviet Union, Poland, the DDR, and even Romania and Albania, for decades until they were all made to look very silly in 1990. The same thing will happen to Cuba-apologists when Fidel dies and the regime collapses a few years from now. Adam 11:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Good faith

Overall, your suggested addition is an improvement, though I see a few things that are a tad bit POV and should be adjusted to bring more neutrality. Also, as a demonstration of good faith, I suggest you now remove the disputed clause from the opening paragraph of the article. BruceHallman 13:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear that you welcome collaboration on your paragraphs presented above so I will exercise restraint. BruceHallman 13:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The opening paragraph can be edited when you, Zleitzen and I have agreed on the text to be put in the Politics section.
  • I suggest you list below the changes you wish to make to the draft text I have offered. Adam 13:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
When I made suggestions in the past I was met with name calling and personal threats. When I objected to that incivility I was met with no remorse, but instead more name calling and personal threats. How do I know things will be different now? BruceHallman 15:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The proposed paragraph on goverment and politics is much better than stating something highly debatable like "only country in Western hemisphere that is not democracy". I'm for it! --RockyMM 15:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the infobox should just read "republic." I understand why this term would be used since the President is theoretically elected by a council, and a republic does not require limits on terms (even though Cuba does have term limits). Fidel Castro's Cuba would be considered closer to being an autocracy, much like Mobutu Sese Seko used to claim that Congo's government was a democratic republic even though it was clearly an autocracy (from Wiki's Republic page]]: "Autocrats might try to give themselves a democratic tenure by calling themselves president (or princeps or princeps senatus in the case of Ancient Rome), and the form of government of their country "republic", instead of using a monarchic based terminology"). Per my citations above (13-17), Cuba is rarely recognized as a democracy, and even non-democratic republics are named such because the governments' principals and power are not beyond the control of the people. Therefore, I think there should be some clarification in the infobox, such as: "socialist republic, though widely recognized as oppressing opposing political thought through show elections and imprisonment and thus is considered a socialist dictatorship" (see citations 18-21). Or something to that effect. I think simply declaring Cuba a republic is perhaps irresponsible. -- mcmachete 18:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Partisan citations

With due respect, your 5 partisan citations do not come close to verifying your claim that 'Cuba is rarely recognized as a democracy'. You write falsely 'President is theoretically elected by a council', the president is actually elected by a council. You assert that in republics '...principals and power are not beyond the control of the people'; yet you ignore the fact that Cuba has secret ballots, giving at least a measure of genuine control to the people. Your claim of show elections appears to be original research. BruceHallman 19:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, you arnt exactly showing the reseach behind your claims either... Just because a country calls its elections secret ballot that doesnt make it soGrantplus 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

BruceHallman, I have given you citations and cohesive arguments. It's now your turn. You show me how my citations from world leaders, the UN, the US government, US Congress, the Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, as well as student and independent research are biased. Show me proof that Cuba is democratic and that the ballots are secret. That the citizens are not persecuted for expressing political freedoms. That the citizens have a choice. Show me how the "secret" ballots (you call it a "fact") show the people having, when every election that i remember only had one name on it. And show me this proof without bias, without citations to the Cuban government itself. I know what my family and friends have witnessed and lived through. I know myself. Prove to me how my memories are false. If instead of substatiating YOUR claims, you would rather dismiss mine with no regard to research or reason, then perhaps you might like to swing by the Holocaust Wiki page and tell some survivors how it never happened. --mcmachete 21:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Hold back on the analogies, mcmachete. Invoking Godwin's law or derivatives is not appropriate here and can create extremely bad feeling. Please proceed giving due attention to consensus concerning the content and verifiablity of this article. --Zleitzen 22:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've never heard of Godwin's law. Still, my analogy was simply to point to the audaciousness of the claim of "Your family lived through such human rights violations? I don't believe it simply because the person you claim responsible says he didn't do it." Obviously a frustrating sentiment. --mcmachete 22:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please know that this online Encyclopedia is a place to present the most accurate truths available, not to spread proaganda. Let's please try to be as unbiased as possible. All I am requesting is clarification in the infobox on how there are conflicting reports as to the kind of government Cuba is. Presenting both would serve Wiki better. --mcmachete 21:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:V "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." You are pushing the burden of proof upon the wrong person. Though I am prepared to cite my claims when appropriate. BruceHallman 22:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
We're discussing an overall settlement to which I have provided ample citations to at least require further thought before the resolution is posted. If you are prepared to cite your claims, then what prevents you from doing so? Because it is not appropriate? Saying "your citations are insufficient and biased" without proof is not appropriate. What could be more neutral than when there are conflicting sources to present both with equal weight and without bias? --mcmachete 22:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, do I need to prove myself to BruceHallman? How does this work now? How will this be ultimately settled? Who has final say? --mcmachete 23:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Im all for this settlement. Castros position is clearly one of leader for life. Castro first seized power in 1959. Although he did do this in a spirit of benevolence the fact remains that as long as he lives he will never be removed from office. I disagree with Adam I dont expect the Cuban collapse to be similar to the Soviet collapse. The Soviet Union, there is no evidence of widespread dissent against Castro. There have been no major attempts from the Cuban citizens to overthrow the government, and the only other major attempt was the United States led Bay of Pigs invasion. Castro's Cuba does not try to be a true liberal democracy, instead it is a system that tries to guarentee every Cuban citizen food, health, and education. Prior to 1959 food, health and education were not being offerd to everyone, largely due the American influence that corrupted president Batista at the expense of the Cuban worker. Castro's revolution sought to bring food, health, and education to every Cuban from the workers all the way up; these however came at a large price nationalising industries away from rich american brought Cuban expulsion from economic action access to its (geographically) closest neighbor and from the worlds largest market. Castro also decided to cement his role as leader of the country, instead of bringing free speech and democracy back to the island like he promised he brought propaganda supportig the revolution of 1959. Instead of capitalism and free speech, where everyone is constantly working against each other Castro installed a Socialist regime to make descions that would (theoretically) unite the whole country towards towards a common prosperity. Whether or not he did a good job (or if any man ever can) is up in the air. Some insight to this may be offerd after his death. I think that at the moment Cuba resembles more closely to the former Yugoslavia under the role of Tito than any nation under the Soviet sphere of influence. However its collapse most likely will not be similar to that of Yugoslavia. Cuba views itself as a united Country, unlike Yugoslavia did.

When it comes to this issue i wouldnt trust any source that is pro american foreign policy for obvious reasons.

  • I dont know how much of this is worth anything, but i thought it was worth noting
Responding to mcmachete, and your comments above Grantplus, I recommend using international sources on Cuban matters if possible, which is why I liked the Peruvian citation. We should be thinking in terms of consensus, and structuring the article in such a way that it survives allegations of bias from all sides. So NPOV should have the final say, mcmachete. And that is very acheivable here. This exercise is proving that Cuba is one of the most complex POV issues on wikipedia, with a number of inter-related layered problems arising. Grantplus identified the difficulty with sources. The particular relationship between Cuba and the US, and the relationship between wikipedia and the received wisdom of English speakers creates the conflict that drew me into this article in the first place. But consensus appears to be on the horizon and lessons are being learnt by all. --Zleitzen 23:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to read any more of this endless circular argument. I want Bruce and Zleitzen to tell me which bits of my text they don't like and suggest alternatives. I am sick of this argument, I am ready to deal and I promise to be nice, OK? Adam 00:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, are you satisfied with the below description to represent your final paragraph. I know it's long, but I have a hunch it needs to be;--Zleitzen 01:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The distinct nature of grassroots political participation in Cuba has fostered much international discussion surrounding the nature of modern democracy. In 2000, Cuba sponsored the adopted UN resolution (55/96) which affirmed the recognition that “while all democracies share common features, there is no one universal model of democracy”[33]. Some international analysts have also suggested that Cuba’s constitution describes a Direct democracy[34] or a "centralized democracy". In 2006, the discussion gained additional attention after Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez referred to the Cuban model as a “revolutionary democracy”[35]. Peruvian presidential candidate and fellow Bolivarian leader Ollanta Humala responded, arguing that by Peruvian standards “Cuba does not qualify as a democracy"[36]. Modern Western political theory as advocated by groups including Freedom House, an organisation funded jointly by US Government and private investment budgets, demands more exact requisites to distinguish the criteria of electoral democracy. These include a competitive, multiparty political system, open political campaigning and independent media[37]. Consequently such groups determine that Cuba cannot be considered a modern functioning democracy, and frequently campaign to promote the implementation of these criteria for the island.

I think that is far too wordy and digressive, and I wasn't aware that Hugo Chavez had become an authority on democratic standards. I want a paragraph that begins

The Cuban government and its supporters maintain that Cuba is a democracy, because ...

and then sets out in 100 words why Cuba is a democracy.

Adam 02:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well you won't be getting that from me, Adam. I have little interest in why Cubans and others believe their system is a democracy here. Besides this is only one paragraph in a gateway article. Our job is to present the various points of view, and allow readers to follow the rest up for themselves in the articles and links provided.
"Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in" (NPOV). --Zleitzen 02:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Zleitzen, with your paragraph, I believe we are getting close to presenting something that is fair.
Adam, I understand why you would want to begin the paragraph explaining what the government itself claims. However, those 100 words or so (or perhaps a subsequent paragraph) should also be dedicated to explaining how Cuba is, despite its government's claims, NOT a democracy and in reality an autocracy according to various global enteties, as well as evidenced by reports of human rights violations in regards to political freedoms. Again, it would be irresponsible to omit such clarification since it is tantamount to withholding information.mcmachete 02:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can write that part. I am trying to give the pro-Castro an editors an opportunity to set out their case for Cuba being a democracy. If they can't do so, I will have to try and do it myself. If they don't like what I write, they won't be able to complain that they weren't given the opportunity. Adam 03:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, forgive my weary tone but it won't wash with me, it won't wash with other users, and it won't wash in any dispute process. I'll lay my cards down on the table and state that personally, I am probably more anti-Castro than you. And have spent the last few decades arguing with socialists and Marxist-Leninists who claim solidarity with Cuba (and who are probably relishing your characterisation of me as a "Fidelista" I might add). But as I have done on a number of occasions elsewhere, I have no issues presenting information according to Wikipedia guidelines. What you describe above has no relation to these guidelines. No editors are going to "set out their case for Cuba being a democracy". It has nothing to do with the views of you, me, Bruce or anyone else. We describe the ongoing debate, we don't engage in it. It's that straightforward. --Zleitzen 03:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll add that we can take my albeit wordy paragraph, vs your sentence "Cuba is not a democracy" to neutral observers, to get various third opinions on neutrality and adherence to Wikipedia policies, if you so wish? Or even better, we can contact the editors who wrote the NPOV tutorial style manual and have a long, long, chat about NPOV presentation.--Zleitzen 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to give the readers your opinion, I'm asking you to summarise the views of "The Cuban government and its supporters", as the sentence clearly says. This is indeed describing the existing debate, which is between, on the one had, the Cuban government and its supporters, and, on the other, its critics. I am asking you and Bruce to give a summary of the "Cuba is a democracy" argument. You appear to have declined. I will wait and see what Bruce says. Adam 04:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion: at some point in this debate, Bruce (I think) gave a link to a Cuban government website giving the official view of why Cuba is a democracy. If someone would like to give that link again, we could extract some text from there setting out the official view, thus saving pro-Castro editors the task. Adam 04:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be a canonical exposition of notable statements on the matter. This isn't the place for an X vs Y bipolar debate. All the important information can be gleaned from that paragraph and the links without the need for editors to give summaries of arguments. Show don't tell. As the NPOV guide says, "One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates". In this controversial case, with restricted space, it's best to stick to the raw notable statements without us speculating on their meaning. Also your statement "The Cuban government and its supporters" is misleading. One could believe that Cuba is a democracy of sorts, without supporting it's government or political system. In the same way I believe Japan is a democracy of sorts without supporting it's government or political system. --Zleitzen 05:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand your position. I will wait and see what Bruce says. Adam 05:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam wrote: "The opening section will stay as it is until we get an agreement at Talk". This is not a demonstration of good faith. I am waiting for evidence of good faith negotiating partners. Perhaps we could all agree publicly to honor WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:CON, and WP:CIVIL? Perhaps we can all agree to take the steps necessary to stop the Wikipedia:Edit war? Perhaps a compromise would be to start with a classic 'outline view' of the structure of Government and Politics section? We could agree on the outline first, and then collaborate on the writing of the sections? BruceHallman 15:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal or not? CJK 18:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, I can't say that I'm surprised that your reply is neither a suggested correction nor a proposal to the Cuba text, but rather more argument on the discussion itself. --mcmachete 19:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Zleitzen, I think along with the Chavez and Humala views (since both are leaders who acquired their power controversially), it should be added that the United States considers Cuba a Totalitarian Communist State [38] and... George W. Bush's administration's policy toward Cuba is "designed to encourage a peaceful transition to a democratic government characterized by strong support for human rights and an open market economy" [39], implying that Cuba is not currently a democracy. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton defined Cuba's government as a "communist dictatorship"[40].
I think it is important to have citations that use the words "totalitarian" and "dictatorship" since it helps explain what the "not a democracy" argument is all about (otherwise it is open-ended and readers might ot know if it means a theocracy, an oligarchy, etc.?) --mcmachete 19:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, I favor just going ahead and placing your changes in. As far as I can tell, BruceHallman seems to be more interested in stonewalling the process than actually making useful contributions. --Bletch 19:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal =

It has been falsely suggested that I did not make a proposal. 1) I suggested we all publicly agree to some ground rules of our collaboration, that is WP:RULES, etc.. If we cannot all agree to respect a common set of guidelines, we are doomed. 2) I also suggested that we start by negotiating an agreement on a basic outline of the sections of the article, and then we collaborate on writing the sections. BruceHallman 19:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)



Also, perhaps some people around here can appreciate that the personal attacks and personal threats have poisoned the collaborative atmosphere. We would be best served to take a different tack before we can proceed collaboratively. If I am stonewalling anything, I stonewall incivil behaviour. BruceHallman 19:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Pretty ironic, given that your actions are in violation of WP:POINT; you are serving more to disrupt the discussion than anything else. Adam has made a proposal and explicitly solicited your commentary; instead of providing commentary on his proposal you try to avoid discussing the proposal and try to go on a sidetrack about agreeing to guidelines. BTW - everybody by virtue of being on Wikipedia is implicitly agreeing to follow Wikipedia policy. I suggest, in the interests of keeping on talk page on focus, any comments by User:BruceHallman that are not directly relevant to Cuba itself be ignored. --Bletch 21:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Incivilty matters. Why did you ignore my suggestion that we start by negotiating an agreement on the general outline of the article? Starting with an outline is an elementary writing technique. Why are we skipping that step and instead jumping into arguments about whether certain 'hot button' words must be included or not? My comment was directly relevant to collaboratively writing this section of the article about Government and Politics in Cuba. Regarding your 'implicity agreeing' statement, I have seen plenty of breach of Wikipedia policy, so explictly agreeing now could not hurt, could it? For instance including, can we all agree that we might collaborate better if we take to heart the part of WP:V that says "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth""'. 90% of our disagreement could be avoided if we took that policy to heart. BruceHallman 22:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC) For instance:

  1. Introduction
    1. Goverment Introduction
      1. Goverment Detail Overview
      2. Government Detail Legislature
      3. Government Detail Local
      4. Government Detail Major Official Positions
    2. Government Criticism
    3. Government Criticism counterpoint
    4. Politics Introduction
      1. Politics Detail Overview
      2. Politics Detail Domestic
      3. Politics Detail Foreign policy
      4. Politics Detail Major Official Positions
    5. Politics Criticism
    6. Politics Criticism counterpoint
  2. Overview Wikipedia links
  3. Overview external links
  4. Summary

I also suggest that we can avoid much of our fighting by writing the detail sections first, and save writing of the summary and introductory paragraphs until last. BruceHallman 22:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote that we disregard BruceHallman's proposal, and follow Adam's suggested settlement. --Bletch 22:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Settlement of what and with whom? BruceHallman 23:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, I have two simple questions for you:

  • Do you accept the text I proposed above, or something close to it?
  • Are you willing to contribute to that text with a summary of the point of view that Cuba is a democracy?

If the answers to these questions is yes, we can rapidly proceed to a settlement. I am happy to discuss changes to that text, provided its essential structure and length is maintained. If the answer is no, or more pointless arguments about process, we do not have a settlement and I will proceed unilaterally. Adam 03:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

incivility

Adam, your recent edit to the Cuba article included a revision comment using 'name calling', a type of personal attack incivility[41]. Please try to be civil. I think that your proposed text is POV, and I think that your POV should be represented in the new Government and Politics section. Your new requirement that the 'length is maintained' amounts to a statement that there is no room for more 'length' (necessary to include alternate POV's). Please explain now a neutral POV can be achieved if you are compelled to delete out opposing POV (as you did with your recent edit to the article), and if you allocate only enough length in the Government and Politics section for your own POV? BruceHallman 14:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am willing to contribute edits to the article with a contrary POV to yours. I trust I will not be met again with personal attacks and threats. The last sentence of the first paragraph appears deliberately misleading and POV, as the preamble describes the leaders of the historical revolutions leading to modern Cuba, including Castro. I think the last sentence of the second paragraph should say that a common reason for imprisonment of dissenters is that they collaborate with, or take money from foreign powers interested in overthrowing the incumbent government. The fourth paragraph should describe how the nomination process occurs in open public local town meetings. The fifth paragraph and the bullet points contain heavy POV. The international organizations you describe are largely declared to advocate the overthrow of the incumbent government in Cuba. Campaigning is not allowed for or against the PCC. The mass media is controlled by the government not the PCC. It is possible for individual people to publicly advocate for and against candidates in the nominating town meetings, what is not allowed is to campaign, and what is especially not allowed is to take foreign money from interests opposed to the incumbent government for the purpose of campaigning against the incumbent government. I doubt you can credibly verify the 'the remainder were non-party candidates approved by the PCC' statement. The phrase 'They argue that Cuba is not a democracy' is a falacy because the word 'democracy' has multiple defintions. Indeed, we should address that commonly the criticism of Cuban democracy is often qualified as 'free market democracy' and similar. We should also address that the 'free speech' criticism is often a criticism that there is no tolerance for foreign money funded political campaigns, particularly ironic when the USA as similar laws outlawing foreign money funding of political campaigns.[42] BruceHallman 15:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You are misguided in your assertion that the common reason dissenters are imprisoned is that they collaborate wih foreign interests. That is just flat out wrong, Bruce, and you are simply spouting off Castro's propaganda. I suspect that this is the reason that Adam and others such as myself don't find your contributions helpful or useful. While everyone else is trying to establish a truthful article that our kids can use as a reference tool, you seem intent on pushing the "Cuba as Socialist Utopia" POV. You are doing an excellent job as Castro's spokesperson on Wikipedia, Fidel would be proud. Fortunately, this article is being watched very closely by the defenders of truth, and your little game isn't going to work. To illustrate my point, I'm assuming you are the person that wrote this: "I am no fan of Castro, but I disagree that the neo-con POV should be the only one presented. Let readers draw their own conclusions." (Forgive me if I am mistaken).Since when did freedom become a strictly neo-con POV?~~Kane 30 2006~~

truth

Could I encourage you to not steer this 'talk' page towards never ending arguments about 'truth'? I got my information about dissenters being imprisoned for taking USA money from the Varela Project article here on Wikipedia where the arrests of dissidents was for the crime of taking USA money, not the crime of expressing dissent. By the way, in the USA you also can be prosecuted for the crime of taking campaign money from foreign agents too. BruceHallman 20:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Any sentence that begins as "The Cuban government and its supporters..." is pushing POV. Wikipedia is not about pushing certain POV. You cannot have a paragraph that begins like that and stating that that is neutrality. If there are two points of view it's much better to present a neutral point of view than two points of view. It keeps the content in question more neutral. More like REAL encyclopedia. I like the neutral tone of the Zleitzen's proposed last paragraph. I think that its tone is much better. Still, I think that it does not need quoting from Ollanta Humala and maybe instead it needs a quote from Human Rights Watch or some other more qualified body on democracy.
Futhermore, stating that one has not been to Cuba, and right after that making paralel with Soviet style goverments ... is at least a prejudice and qualifies that person's arguments for doubt. One cannot say if you are describing any European Soviet-style goverment, or the Cuban goverment itself. Wikipedia is about verifable facts. And when we are at making paralels, I think that Cuba is much more better compared to Tito's Yugoslavia than to anything else. Although Yugoslavia was much more economicaly powerfull. And it consisted of several nations. And ... You see, there are just too many differences between Cuba and the rest of the world. Cuban case should be always considered alone, without making any presumptions.--RockyMM 22:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I found the Ollanta Humala quote interesting, because although it counters Chavez, it came from a fellow Bolivarian. It shifts the debate away from a US-Cuba axis and into an international context. I have no idea why Adam finds the paragraph incoherent and/or inconclusive, given that it describes factual events rather than unsourced ponderings, and clearly references web pages where readers can discover more about different viewpoints. --Zleitzen 03:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Democracy

Might it be possible to write the article without using the word 'democracy' at all? BruceHallman 22:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh you'd like that, wouldn't you? Sorry, comrade, no dice. You have rather given yourself away, here, Bruce. These comments show quite clearly that you are a communist, or at least someone who actively supports the Castro dictatorship, not just (as I was previously willing to believe) someone who is naive about the realities of Cuba. That being the case, and since you obviously have no interest in writing an accurate article, it is not possible to conclude a settlement with you to this dispute. And since Zleitzen (for different reasons) isn't willing to co-operate either, my offer is withdrawn. I will now proceed unilaterally. Adam 22:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, don't be too quick to proceed simply becuase Bruce has been so frustrating. I think Zleitzen's ammendment to your proposal, along with my additions regarding various global assesments of Castro's government, would be important inclusions to present a more complete picture. --Mcmachete 23:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen's proposed text was hopelessly wordy and incoherent, and was just a collection of irrelevant opinions (who cares what Hugo Chavez thinks?) rather than a statement of the argument for Cuba being a democracy. Since Zleitzen won't, and Bruce can't, write a factual paragraph on this, I will do it myself, and they will have no grounds for complaint. Adam 23:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Name calling, 'comrade' used mockingly, is incivil, please be civil. Proceeding unilaterally isn't exactly nice either. Your use of the word 'factual' is very much like the concept of personal opinion of 'truth', and I remind you yet again, per WP:V, Wikipedia isn't about 'truth'. BruceHallman 00:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I could say something about the mis-use of our policies to push a POV but i wont Bruce.

Adam has offered a very reasonable settlement - i suggest it might be wise to take it.

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)