Jump to content

Talk:Politics of Cuba

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.138.129.255 (talk) at 02:04, 22 December 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is a real discredit to Wikipedia. I came here to find out about the Cuban electrola system not to read apile of inaccurate anti cuban propaganda (e.g. Fidel Castro is head of the Armed forces - not true). I won't bother to make corrections I think the page is lost. If you want to read about the system try here [1] Db 12/23/06

Wow! Much correction is needed to convert this article to NPOV. El Jigüe 1/29/06

Indeed! And I shall begin the work. WGee 00:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a real discredit to Wikipedia. I came here to find out about the Cuban electrola system not to read apile of inaccurate anti cuban propaganda (e.g. Fidel Castro is head of the Armed forces - not true). I won't bother to make corrections I think the page is lost. If you want to read about the system try here [2]

It is not correct to refer to the legal system as a "branch" (as in America), because the courts are completely subordinate to the dictator-for-life, Castro. --Uncle Ed 16:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Uncle Ed, "dictator-for-life"? Is that neutral point of view or truth? Perhaps a better way to make your point would be to cite article XIII[3] of their constitution which does not identify a 'Judicial Branch'. BruceHallman 16:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Bruce. I was confusing Calvin (from the comics) and Castro for a moment. I was obliquely referring to Castro's imputed intent to remain in power in Cuba forever. The assertion that he intends to hold power for the rest of his life comes from a U.S. government source (on the page). --Uncle Ed 17:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you can cite the source for that claim as I requested earlier? BruceHallman 13:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about President and Prime Minister for Life? lol

Well, the header for the legal system is just "Judiciary" now in the article, so it's no longer referred to as a "branch", so this dispute is resolved, right? Jack Waugh 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy

Is the entirety of this article in dispute, or only certain sections? It is quite a large article - perhaps the tag at the top should just be put over the sections that are disputed. --DavidShankBone 15:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving material

Noe that I moved the election material the elections page where it should be.Ultramarine 16:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted that you've been moving a lot of things around lately. None of it accompanied by discussion, consensus, consultation in accordance with policy. None of it justified it my view. But it'll all come out in the wash, and I'm not going anywhere in a hurry. Please explain why you are making these changes, some of which set a precedent for nation pages? --Zleitzen 16:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided edit comments for all changes. Regarding detailed information on elections, I though it better to present on the election page which is created for that purpose. However, alternatively we can instead also on this page present the views of the critics.Ultramarine 16:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 'moving' was accompanied by unexplained deletion of material. BruceHallman 17:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What material? Ultramarine 17:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check the edit history of the page, the answer is self evident. BruceHallman 18:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. What exactly are you objecting to? Ultramarine 18:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This diff [[4]] deleted information. BruceHallman 19:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as noted above, I moved it to the election page.Ultramarine 19:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look again, you deleted material and only moved a portion. BruceHallman 20:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What portion was deleted? Ultramarine 20:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critics say

We must have something more substantial than the archetypal weasel words "critics say...", a random quote based on original research and a source slapped onto the page from some website or another which isn't attributed. Clarifying nothing.--Zleitzen 15:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New comment

216.178.51.235 added these comments on 15:03, 1 December 2006, which I am moving here, to be clearer. -- Beardo 23:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally added my discussion to the description page. my thoughts are: (this is NOT part of the summary, but a question: the summary sounds biased as I wonder why it is important to note that the civil constitution forces people to support socialism, when it seems the u.s. forces people to support democracy or be considered a traitor...what about the u.s. treatment of "communist" individuals during the cold war? so the cold war is over, but look at those who disagree with the white house, i.e., Valerie Plames' career ruination? what are the u.s. laws about what constitutes a treason? and how may the civil rights be affected...and, ahem, look at the treatment of muslims/muslim clerics/guantanamo--no TRIALs, no charges, and no habeous corpus for those detained...the u.s. wages a war to "defend democracy" and yet the defense of socialism is any different?! (user: christine g, 12/1/06)m

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Politics_of_Cuba&oldid=95845528"