Talk:Cuba and democracy

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

This article is needed as a spinout (or spinoff) from the Cuba article, to defuse the edit war over whether Cuba is, or is not, a democracy. --Uncle Ed 19:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be deleted, because it could generate an edit war.--HubHikari 19:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't be too much of a problem, HubHikari. Personally, I'm quite happy to write from all sides, have many sources from all sides and have been following this very closely for some time. The issue is very much in the public eye at the moment and needs an article given recent statements from notable figures throughout the Americas.--Zleitzen 21:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Hub, the purpose is to defuse an edit war over Cuba by moving out the most contentious part. See discussion about the best way to do this at Wikipedia:content forking, i.e., the "non-POV fork" kind of "spinoff". --Uncle Ed 21:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stucture[edit]

I'm wondering about the structure, of this article. It would make sense to structure it according to opposing views, one after another. However there is some sense in structuring it chronologically. Since the US democracy act in the 1990's a lot of positions have changed in the last five years. Since the UN ratified the treaty in 2000 on the issue of Cuban democracy, and the rise of the Bolivarians. My personal preference is to have the different positions intertwined over last 40 years or so. However that might not be condusive to group editing. --Zleitzen 22:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some key citeable groups / figures[edit]

"not a democracy"

  1. Clinton / Berger
  2. Freedom House
  3. Human Rights watch / Jimmy Carter
  4. Havel
  5. Rice
  6. US government sources
  7. Humala (with additional "we have democratized poverty" disclaimer)

neutral

  1. UN
  2. Robert Dahl
  3. William I. Robinison
  4. EU

"Some Democratic practices"

  1. Cuban Government
  2. "From Community Power and Grassroots Democracy" study
  3. Miguel A. Faria
  4. Hugo Chavez
  5. Foreign affairs study
  6. Socialism and democracy online
  7. Cuba solidarity group
  8. Pastors for peace

--Zleitzen 22:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

This article should be listed on AfD. This looks more like a paper topic than an encyclopedia article; Wikipedia isn't a paper. The content here belongs in an entry like politics of Cuba. 172 | Talk 02:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the guidelines do state: Provided that all POVs are represented fairly in the new article, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate a controversial aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious.--Zleitzen 03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Article titles must be suggestive of workable encyclopedic entries. Unless this page is moved to an entry like "Cuban democracy movement," I will be listing it on AfD shortly. 172 | Talk 05:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a few days, 172 and see what you think. Maybe the title could change, but I think you're underestimating the notability of the subject. For instance, I read a piece published only yesterday about this very subject. Covering similar ground.--Zleitzen 12:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an academic paper. 172 | Talk 19:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

A big reason that Elections in Cuba should not be merged with Cuba and democracy is that usually the definition of the word 'democracy' used when discussing Cuba is the 'value system' definition, not the 'electoral system' definition. BruceHallman 19:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is itself a dispute. A big part of the problem with democracy in Cuba is the electoral system, for example that there is no choice of candidates to the National Assembly.Ultramarine 19:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Democracy isn't exclusive to a choice of candidates to a national body, Ultramarine. It can mean all sorts of different things at local participation level. You're only looking at the top level. All systems are different, the system I use in the U.K. is very different to a U.S. democracy for instance. Which is why the U.N. recognised that in 2000 and inserted a democracy clause.--Zleitzen 19:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is your view, not the critics. And Wikipedia:NPOV requir3es the inclusion of all, not just some selected from one side.Ultramarine 20:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultramarine wrote: "...there is no choice of candidates..." yet, the fact is that candidates are considered and chosen during the nominiation process. Regardless, the issue of the mechanics of the electoral system is best discussed in Elections in Cuba; which is a distinct topic from Cuba and democracy. BruceHallman 20:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it it your view that fact that there are no choice when voting is not a democratic issue. However, the critics disagree and Wikipedia:NPOV states they should also be represented.Ultramarine 20:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bruce not to merge the articles. Furthermore there is a series Elections in ... series for each country, so please keep the article separate. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then, alternatively this article should be merged with Elections in Cuba or Politics of Cuba.Ultramarine 20:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that a major element in global foreign policy hinges upon the question of 'democracy' in Cuba, this is a major issue deserving an article in Wikipedia. It is distinct from domestic Politics of Cuba because it is a global issue. Elections in Cuba deals more with the mechanics of the elections, not the global policy questions of Cuba and democracy. BruceHallman 20:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose the merger. I'd like to see more discussion in Cuba and democracy over whether Cuba is a democracy or not - based, of course, on (1) what definitions of democracy are being used and (2) who's making this sort of judgment. --Uncle Ed 21:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those two points are the last and probably most notable sections Ed. There's a lot of sourced material to accompany those two points.--Zleitzen 22:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy[edit]

I think it should be agreed that any paragraphs or statements that don't directly refer to "democracy" should be considered redundant. --Zleitzen 23:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really keen on the EU or US statements Ultramarine as they refer to the electoral process, they don't discuss "democracy" and it's application. Your "Human Rights Defenders in Cuba" is relevant and is a good link. --Zleitzen 18:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The electoral process is one of the most critical parts of democracy and its application. If you don't have a democratic electoral process then you don't have democracy. Besides the EU statement doesn't just discuss the mechanics of Cuba's electoral process but makes the more general statement that they feel Cuba should move to a 'pluralist democracy', if that's not discussing "democracy" then I don't know what is. Please leave both the US and EU statements in as they are highly relevant. --Linuxadmin

agreed, the comment above was made pre-changes to the article.--Zleitzen 23:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And additionally, comrades, let's remember that the United States and the European Union are not the only countries with influence in the world! Hauser 10:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cuba_and_democracy&oldid=58742749"