![]() | This page 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. |
I drafted this (albeit wordy) explaination for the problem. But I have a thousand citations from all sides of the argument if need be. I personally believe all this should be settled in the government section and shouldn't even be in the opening paragraph. I don't mean to discredit anyone here, but the democratic features of a society are not written in stone. To disagree with Adam aligns one with the UN and many leading political philosophers, it is certainly not a "flat earth theory".-- Zleitzen 15:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree; this is not about those who don't want the 'not democracy' word being somehow part of a pro-Castro conspiracy or flat-Earth society. This is about the difficulty of defining democracy or what it means - let's just not go there. The pro-Cubans say they are democrats - by the twisted logic of communism as used in the Soviet Onion etc, this was 'sort of' true. You cannot assume that because I don't want 'no-democrat', I (or the many more than two who disagree with you) are somehow implying that this means 'yes-democrat'. I don't want 'no-democrat' because the meaning of the term is fixed only within your understanding of it, and there are many 'democratic' entities in the West which in reality aren't, and others that are technically not democratic eitehr (recall there are still some dependencies in the Western hemisphere - which automatically invalidates your argument, even if they are small & insignificant). Why have a values based argument when this plain isn't necessary? Say Soc Rep in the intro, and have the government discussion in the appropriate section where, as Zleitchen points out, it can be properly expanded upon, explained, and discussed without either misleading or over-simplifying in the intro. Bridesmill 16:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know - I know I have gotten a bit stubborn on WP at times myself, it's easy to do. Adam earlier implied that he was willing to fall on his sword over the 'democratic' bit ( User_talk:172#Cuba). Bridesmill 17:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
What do people feel about Zleitzen's draft? It strikes me as a very good NPOV statement which would allow the debate to move on to more detailed discussion and definition MichaelW 02:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
172, you're not going to be able to use any neoliberal terms (including terms such as "market reforms") here. They are not neutral terms, which is why "market reforms" was amended to "market oriented measures" etc. Feel free to add anything to the article, and much of your economy section was highly informative. But remember that every word will be scutinised for neutrality. And every disputable sentence will be examined in the closest detail. That applies to all editors from all political POV's. -- Zleitzen 21:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Some of them can be verified as I've seen them myself, others I'm not so sure about. I'm only on the third paragraph or so of my basic scanning of the section, neutralising a few terms and adding the occasional line (such as the dollar to Euro move etc). I removed your US comparison, Bruce. I don't feel the US debt (or even the US economy itself) can be easily compared to any other countries. -- Zleitzen 21:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Bruce, I have reservations about the tourism prediction at the end of that paragraph. Do you know when that source was compiled, because I have a hunch things have changed in very recent times due to increased government restrictions.-- Zleitzen 01:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a citation for this: "In the late 1990s Cubans had been receiving hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars annually from Cubans in the U.S. sending cash to the island. Today, these donations are reportedly often confiscated by state security"-- Zleitzen 22:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't find anything specifically mentioning this. Hopefully someone will come up with something.-- Zleitzen 01:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
THISS is still a comuniste state.
I undid a series of edits. [10] First, I don't see what the image of the Che Guevara mural contributes. The photo appears to be recent, yet it appears in a part of the "History" mostly covering the 1960s and 1970s. Second, the information on Chernobyl is irrelevant in the "Health" section. It may be relevant in a section detailing Cuba's relations with the Soviet Union and later Russia and Ukraine. Still, I don't see why Chernobyl is particularly noteworthy here. And the edits to the "Economy" took out material noting the rollback at any attempt to implement market reforms aimed at reducing the severe shortages. 172 | Talk 02:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
What does a mural have to do with the politics of Cuba? Move on. Too brainwashed "communist" or in most recent terms "castroist" because communism in cuba is no where near what the Communist Manifesto stated. This site would be banned in cuba so i guess "democratic/facist" US is still pretty good.
The main issue of the opening of the economy section seems to be the difference between my (Zleitzen) version.
And your version 172
There's plenty of room for collaborative manoeuvre here. -- Zleitzen 15:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Zleitzen has proposed the following text for the Politics section:
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” [15]. Some international analysts have also suggested that Cuba’s constitution describes a Direct democracy [16] 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” [17]. Peruvian presidential candidate and fellow Bolivarian leader Ollanta Humala responded, arguing that by Peruvian standards “Cuba does not qualify as a democracy" [18]. 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 [19]. 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.
My comments:
You will all be pleased to know that I am off to Europe tomorrow for two weeks, to attend two human rights conferences: one on North Korea (in Norway) and one on China (in Berlin), so I'll be taking a much-needed wikibreak. But (Arnold Schwarzenegger voice) I'LL BE BACK. Adam 13:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
?? I sense folks arguing for the sake of arguing. 'Market oriented measures'??? no need for the newspeak - using that only caters to ideologues. I think the Peru/Ven quote is quite subtle and pertinent - underlining that only folks like chavez consider it to be 'a democracy'. Back to the 'what it is not', can we add that Cuba is not a Monarchy? And it is 'not' the only non-democracy ion the western hemisphere - dependencies aren't democracies either. The 'not' is a total red herring - we are here to describne what is; not what isn't - the second you start decribing what 'isn't' you are inserting judgements and POV - no need to go there - it is perfectly possible to describe Cuba for the whacked system it is by remaining detached and scholarly - be totally objective - if the place has problems, that becomes self-evident. Bridesmill 18:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow; I see now why this page is controversial - not exactly waht I normally use for references.
? Methinkj your POV is showing rather boldly . Bridesmill 20:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I suppose ignoring my last message is the only way to keep your ignorance in tact:
Mcmachete wrote: "...consuming my very last shred of civility". I appreciate and honor such an honest statement. It embodies the essense of the POV dispute that plagues us. There are people that have genuine valid deep all consuming feelings about Cuba that amount to hate, or near hate. That is one POV. Another POV feels that Cuba is, a unique country with a unique social experiment, a remarkable people & history and a unique government, sometimes failed, sometimes a success; but this 'other POV' does not share a consuming hate towards Cuba. How can we resolve the gap between these two POV's? BruceHallman 21:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
I drafted this (albeit wordy) explaination for the problem. But I have a thousand citations from all sides of the argument if need be. I personally believe all this should be settled in the government section and shouldn't even be in the opening paragraph. I don't mean to discredit anyone here, but the democratic features of a society are not written in stone. To disagree with Adam aligns one with the UN and many leading political philosophers, it is certainly not a "flat earth theory".-- Zleitzen 15:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree; this is not about those who don't want the 'not democracy' word being somehow part of a pro-Castro conspiracy or flat-Earth society. This is about the difficulty of defining democracy or what it means - let's just not go there. The pro-Cubans say they are democrats - by the twisted logic of communism as used in the Soviet Onion etc, this was 'sort of' true. You cannot assume that because I don't want 'no-democrat', I (or the many more than two who disagree with you) are somehow implying that this means 'yes-democrat'. I don't want 'no-democrat' because the meaning of the term is fixed only within your understanding of it, and there are many 'democratic' entities in the West which in reality aren't, and others that are technically not democratic eitehr (recall there are still some dependencies in the Western hemisphere - which automatically invalidates your argument, even if they are small & insignificant). Why have a values based argument when this plain isn't necessary? Say Soc Rep in the intro, and have the government discussion in the appropriate section where, as Zleitchen points out, it can be properly expanded upon, explained, and discussed without either misleading or over-simplifying in the intro. Bridesmill 16:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know - I know I have gotten a bit stubborn on WP at times myself, it's easy to do. Adam earlier implied that he was willing to fall on his sword over the 'democratic' bit ( User_talk:172#Cuba). Bridesmill 17:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
What do people feel about Zleitzen's draft? It strikes me as a very good NPOV statement which would allow the debate to move on to more detailed discussion and definition MichaelW 02:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
172, you're not going to be able to use any neoliberal terms (including terms such as "market reforms") here. They are not neutral terms, which is why "market reforms" was amended to "market oriented measures" etc. Feel free to add anything to the article, and much of your economy section was highly informative. But remember that every word will be scutinised for neutrality. And every disputable sentence will be examined in the closest detail. That applies to all editors from all political POV's. -- Zleitzen 21:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Some of them can be verified as I've seen them myself, others I'm not so sure about. I'm only on the third paragraph or so of my basic scanning of the section, neutralising a few terms and adding the occasional line (such as the dollar to Euro move etc). I removed your US comparison, Bruce. I don't feel the US debt (or even the US economy itself) can be easily compared to any other countries. -- Zleitzen 21:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Bruce, I have reservations about the tourism prediction at the end of that paragraph. Do you know when that source was compiled, because I have a hunch things have changed in very recent times due to increased government restrictions.-- Zleitzen 01:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a citation for this: "In the late 1990s Cubans had been receiving hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars annually from Cubans in the U.S. sending cash to the island. Today, these donations are reportedly often confiscated by state security"-- Zleitzen 22:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't find anything specifically mentioning this. Hopefully someone will come up with something.-- Zleitzen 01:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
THISS is still a comuniste state.
I undid a series of edits. [10] First, I don't see what the image of the Che Guevara mural contributes. The photo appears to be recent, yet it appears in a part of the "History" mostly covering the 1960s and 1970s. Second, the information on Chernobyl is irrelevant in the "Health" section. It may be relevant in a section detailing Cuba's relations with the Soviet Union and later Russia and Ukraine. Still, I don't see why Chernobyl is particularly noteworthy here. And the edits to the "Economy" took out material noting the rollback at any attempt to implement market reforms aimed at reducing the severe shortages. 172 | Talk 02:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
What does a mural have to do with the politics of Cuba? Move on. Too brainwashed "communist" or in most recent terms "castroist" because communism in cuba is no where near what the Communist Manifesto stated. This site would be banned in cuba so i guess "democratic/facist" US is still pretty good.
The main issue of the opening of the economy section seems to be the difference between my (Zleitzen) version.
And your version 172
There's plenty of room for collaborative manoeuvre here. -- Zleitzen 15:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Zleitzen has proposed the following text for the Politics section:
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” [15]. Some international analysts have also suggested that Cuba’s constitution describes a Direct democracy [16] 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” [17]. Peruvian presidential candidate and fellow Bolivarian leader Ollanta Humala responded, arguing that by Peruvian standards “Cuba does not qualify as a democracy" [18]. 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 [19]. 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.
My comments:
You will all be pleased to know that I am off to Europe tomorrow for two weeks, to attend two human rights conferences: one on North Korea (in Norway) and one on China (in Berlin), so I'll be taking a much-needed wikibreak. But (Arnold Schwarzenegger voice) I'LL BE BACK. Adam 13:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
?? I sense folks arguing for the sake of arguing. 'Market oriented measures'??? no need for the newspeak - using that only caters to ideologues. I think the Peru/Ven quote is quite subtle and pertinent - underlining that only folks like chavez consider it to be 'a democracy'. Back to the 'what it is not', can we add that Cuba is not a Monarchy? And it is 'not' the only non-democracy ion the western hemisphere - dependencies aren't democracies either. The 'not' is a total red herring - we are here to describne what is; not what isn't - the second you start decribing what 'isn't' you are inserting judgements and POV - no need to go there - it is perfectly possible to describe Cuba for the whacked system it is by remaining detached and scholarly - be totally objective - if the place has problems, that becomes self-evident. Bridesmill 18:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow; I see now why this page is controversial - not exactly waht I normally use for references.
? Methinkj your POV is showing rather boldly . Bridesmill 20:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I suppose ignoring my last message is the only way to keep your ignorance in tact:
Mcmachete wrote: "...consuming my very last shred of civility". I appreciate and honor such an honest statement. It embodies the essense of the POV dispute that plagues us. There are people that have genuine valid deep all consuming feelings about Cuba that amount to hate, or near hate. That is one POV. Another POV feels that Cuba is, a unique country with a unique social experiment, a remarkable people & history and a unique government, sometimes failed, sometimes a success; but this 'other POV' does not share a consuming hate towards Cuba. How can we resolve the gap between these two POV's? BruceHallman 21:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)