This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
I was able to find answers to most of my questions, and rewrote the "Electoral system" section of the 2023 Cuban parliamentary election. If someone is able to do it, please use this as a basis for reworking/reorganizing the "National elections" subsection on this article.-- Criticalthinker ( talk) 10:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The set of democratic societies has a demarcation problem, where it's nearly impossible to create an objective standard that includes all countries considered democratic and does not include any non-democratic countries.
for example, it is often argued from outside and from within the U.S.A that it is in fact, not a democracy [1] [2] [3], or has only recently become a democracy [4].
for example, when using a first past the post voting system, a majority of people might not have voted for a candidate, but still be elected [5].
for example, the electoral college gives undue weight to certain peoples votes than others and unfairly biases certain outcomes [6].
therefore, a neutral point of view should not assert a country is or is not democratic, but by whom it is considered democratic, as it is often a case of geo-politics and subjective measures what a population considers a democratic nation or not.
therefore i propose adding " western commentators" to the "not democratic" assertion. Bart Terpstra ( talk) 13:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Would a published source in Cuba that makes the reverse argument with a similar level of due dilligence be considered a reliable source?Probably not, because there isn't a free press in Cuba. Sources that come out of Cuba are going to be more curated by the Cuban government. — Czello ( music) 14:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, can we have one quote from one source (RS, of course) saying that the USA is less democratic than Cuba (and see
wp:v it must explicitly say it)?
Slatersteven (
talk)
Also can people please read wp:rs blogs are not RS, and opinion pieces are not RS. They are only RS if by acknowledged experts and must be attributed, not stated as facts. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I have only just seen this edit. This appears to be WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH, and a personal opinion not adequately reflected in the sources attached. Some sources don't mention Cuba at all, others aren't reliable. — Czello ( music) 10:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the
lede paragraph of
Elections in Cuba be revised as follows?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
04:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Should this be changed to read:Elections in Cuba are not considered democratic because the government does not allow free and fair voting. [7]
Elections in Cuba are not considered liberally democratic, because they do not have free and fair elections. [8] The 2019 constitution of Cuba states the aim to create a democratic unitary Cuban-Marxist one-party socialist republic. [9] [10]:[Government and society]
Please answer Yes in favor of the change or No to oppose the change, followed by a brief statement, in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion is permitted in the Discussion section; that's what it's for.
The lede should either introduce according to whom Cuba is not democratic or be more specific about the ways it is less democratic.
Democracy is a notoriously difficult subject to measure and also actively politicized to push narratives.
It is important to realize there are different, major points of view of what a democracy (a government by the people, for the people) should look like.
The goal of Wikipedia is to offer a neutral point of view, which tries to balance the major perspectives on any given topic.
Unconditionally calling Cuba not a democracy goes against the principle of Wikivoice to present facts as facts and opinions as opinions.
The current government is better described as a heavy compromise between the ideals of Democracy and the reality of the situation it is placed in.
Before you decide, I'd like you to also consider other democracies that are also a heavy compromise between the ideals of democracy and the reality of the situations they were placed in, and if they should then also be counted as democratic or not democratic by your own standard.
We do not engage in wp:or or second-guess RS. If RS say it is undemocratic so do we. If RS do not draw conclusions or inferences, neither do we. We can only say what RS actually say (per wp:v)
wp:NPOV does not mean we have to have WP:FALSEBALANCE.
No, leave it as it is. The sources don't say liberally democratic, they simply say that Cuba is not a democracy. The addition of the Cuban constitution is somewhat irrelevant as it's a primary source - what they themselves say they does not take priority over independent sources. The rationale for "yes" are also faulty: it's not up to us as editors to introduce our own interpretations into the text (that democracy is difficult to define, therefore we must narrow it down for the reader, even though the sources don't say this); that's WP:OR. The rationale for "yes" seem to rely entirely on one user's disagreement with the conclusion of the sources and attempting to correct their definition for them. This is explicitly not what we do. Instead we simply present their conclusion, which is simply that Cuba is not a democracy. — Czello ( music) 07:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
No per Czello. CJ-Moki ( talk) 07:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
No Per above, also saying "I want something" is not the same as saying "I have Something". Slatersteven ( talk) 08:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes There are sources that say Cuba is democratic and the change is very modest because any evidence that Cuba could be considered a government by the people, for the people is thrown into doubt or not considered reliable because it says Cuba can be considered a kind of democracy, a form of begging the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart Terpstra ( talk • contribs)
No as per Czello. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
No, leave it alone. I don't even know what "liberally democratic" means. Furthermore, sources say they are not democratic, so there is no reason to qualify it. Adoring nanny ( talk) 00:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
No. To specify that Cuba's elections are not "liberally" democratic is to suggest that they are some other form of democracy. But the citations aren't saying that: they say that Cuba is not democratic, full stop. Inserting "liberally" in there is just a way to sneakily undermine the sources. If an editor wants to make the case that Cuba actually counts as an illiberal democracy or guided democracy, they can actually make that case rather than just winking at it. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
No as per Czello - this is reading more into things than we need to. SportingFlyer T· C 23:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
No Per Cello and Kawnhr. Toa Nidhiki05 17:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
No ( Summoned by bot) per Czello. BilledMammal ( talk) 21:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Can't believe Wikipedians would not realize writers from liberal democracies would treat that kind of democracy as the default and the ideal. Heck, even label that realization WP:OR. Major misjudgement on my part. Bart Terpstra ( talk) 10:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Can we close this now? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
References
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
I was able to find answers to most of my questions, and rewrote the "Electoral system" section of the 2023 Cuban parliamentary election. If someone is able to do it, please use this as a basis for reworking/reorganizing the "National elections" subsection on this article.-- Criticalthinker ( talk) 10:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The set of democratic societies has a demarcation problem, where it's nearly impossible to create an objective standard that includes all countries considered democratic and does not include any non-democratic countries.
for example, it is often argued from outside and from within the U.S.A that it is in fact, not a democracy [1] [2] [3], or has only recently become a democracy [4].
for example, when using a first past the post voting system, a majority of people might not have voted for a candidate, but still be elected [5].
for example, the electoral college gives undue weight to certain peoples votes than others and unfairly biases certain outcomes [6].
therefore, a neutral point of view should not assert a country is or is not democratic, but by whom it is considered democratic, as it is often a case of geo-politics and subjective measures what a population considers a democratic nation or not.
therefore i propose adding " western commentators" to the "not democratic" assertion. Bart Terpstra ( talk) 13:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Would a published source in Cuba that makes the reverse argument with a similar level of due dilligence be considered a reliable source?Probably not, because there isn't a free press in Cuba. Sources that come out of Cuba are going to be more curated by the Cuban government. — Czello ( music) 14:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, can we have one quote from one source (RS, of course) saying that the USA is less democratic than Cuba (and see
wp:v it must explicitly say it)?
Slatersteven (
talk)
Also can people please read wp:rs blogs are not RS, and opinion pieces are not RS. They are only RS if by acknowledged experts and must be attributed, not stated as facts. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I have only just seen this edit. This appears to be WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH, and a personal opinion not adequately reflected in the sources attached. Some sources don't mention Cuba at all, others aren't reliable. — Czello ( music) 10:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the
lede paragraph of
Elections in Cuba be revised as follows?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
04:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Should this be changed to read:Elections in Cuba are not considered democratic because the government does not allow free and fair voting. [7]
Elections in Cuba are not considered liberally democratic, because they do not have free and fair elections. [8] The 2019 constitution of Cuba states the aim to create a democratic unitary Cuban-Marxist one-party socialist republic. [9] [10]:[Government and society]
Please answer Yes in favor of the change or No to oppose the change, followed by a brief statement, in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion is permitted in the Discussion section; that's what it's for.
The lede should either introduce according to whom Cuba is not democratic or be more specific about the ways it is less democratic.
Democracy is a notoriously difficult subject to measure and also actively politicized to push narratives.
It is important to realize there are different, major points of view of what a democracy (a government by the people, for the people) should look like.
The goal of Wikipedia is to offer a neutral point of view, which tries to balance the major perspectives on any given topic.
Unconditionally calling Cuba not a democracy goes against the principle of Wikivoice to present facts as facts and opinions as opinions.
The current government is better described as a heavy compromise between the ideals of Democracy and the reality of the situation it is placed in.
Before you decide, I'd like you to also consider other democracies that are also a heavy compromise between the ideals of democracy and the reality of the situations they were placed in, and if they should then also be counted as democratic or not democratic by your own standard.
We do not engage in wp:or or second-guess RS. If RS say it is undemocratic so do we. If RS do not draw conclusions or inferences, neither do we. We can only say what RS actually say (per wp:v)
wp:NPOV does not mean we have to have WP:FALSEBALANCE.
No, leave it as it is. The sources don't say liberally democratic, they simply say that Cuba is not a democracy. The addition of the Cuban constitution is somewhat irrelevant as it's a primary source - what they themselves say they does not take priority over independent sources. The rationale for "yes" are also faulty: it's not up to us as editors to introduce our own interpretations into the text (that democracy is difficult to define, therefore we must narrow it down for the reader, even though the sources don't say this); that's WP:OR. The rationale for "yes" seem to rely entirely on one user's disagreement with the conclusion of the sources and attempting to correct their definition for them. This is explicitly not what we do. Instead we simply present their conclusion, which is simply that Cuba is not a democracy. — Czello ( music) 07:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
No per Czello. CJ-Moki ( talk) 07:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
No Per above, also saying "I want something" is not the same as saying "I have Something". Slatersteven ( talk) 08:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes There are sources that say Cuba is democratic and the change is very modest because any evidence that Cuba could be considered a government by the people, for the people is thrown into doubt or not considered reliable because it says Cuba can be considered a kind of democracy, a form of begging the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart Terpstra ( talk • contribs)
No as per Czello. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
No, leave it alone. I don't even know what "liberally democratic" means. Furthermore, sources say they are not democratic, so there is no reason to qualify it. Adoring nanny ( talk) 00:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
No. To specify that Cuba's elections are not "liberally" democratic is to suggest that they are some other form of democracy. But the citations aren't saying that: they say that Cuba is not democratic, full stop. Inserting "liberally" in there is just a way to sneakily undermine the sources. If an editor wants to make the case that Cuba actually counts as an illiberal democracy or guided democracy, they can actually make that case rather than just winking at it. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
No as per Czello - this is reading more into things than we need to. SportingFlyer T· C 23:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
No Per Cello and Kawnhr. Toa Nidhiki05 17:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
No ( Summoned by bot) per Czello. BilledMammal ( talk) 21:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Can't believe Wikipedians would not realize writers from liberal democracies would treat that kind of democracy as the default and the ideal. Heck, even label that realization WP:OR. Major misjudgement on my part. Bart Terpstra ( talk) 10:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Can we close this now? Slatersteven ( talk) 10:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
References