Talk:Elections in Cuba/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Adding political pov tag

I don’t see how one can read the opening paragraph and not see some political point of view.

I want to note this paragraph of the article. I quote:

Cuba justifies the existence of only one political party by arguing that the PCC "is not a political party in the traditional sense… it is not an electoral party; it does not decide on the formation or composition of the government. It is not only forbidden to nominate candidates but also to be involved in any other stage of the electoral process… The PC's role is one of guidance, supervision and of guarantor of participatory democracy."

This argument that democratic, free and fair elections exist within the governmental context of the PCC is an interesting one to me, and one that I do not think is properly represented outside of this paragraph. I understand that the claim that the elections are not free and fair come with a long list of sources, but such a claim is inherently political and I don’t think it belongs on Wikipedia, at least not worded as definitively. At the very least, the last sentence of the opening paragraph should be cut and/or moved to a political analysis section. 2601:602:9900:7E00:3C26:B0D8:766D:3962 (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem with that quote is that it's giving disproportionate weight to the Cuban government's own description of themselves, which is subject to their propaganda. Ultimately the claim that they're not a democracy is fully supported by numerous academic sources. — Czello 08:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The last sentence in the lead is "Elections in Cuba are not considered democratic because the government does not allow free and fair voting." That's fine per Wikipedia:Fringe theories: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community."

Also, there is no problem with explaining the government's own position as long as the article does not endorse it. One paragraph in the article explaining their position is not excessive weight.

TFD (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, and not government propaganda. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I did a good bit of research into the topic and rewrote the article (especially the lead) to be more accurate a few months back. There is nothing POV about it, it's quoting reliable sources or the factual information on the Cuban elections. Bill Williams 12:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any need for a POV tag. We are following the sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry y’all, doing this on my phone and it’s being weird so I can’t reply to anything. Anyways. Lotta replies over last night. Lotta people saying that that philosophical position is subject to bias, as if any other isn’t equally so. If y’all wanna keep the tag off this page then I guess it’ll be off the page. My hope is that critical people will read the opening paragraph and recognize its subjective framing on their own (again, it feels pretty blatant to me as well as literally everyone I’ve shown it to in real life), and do their own philosophical reckoning with the fundamental question at hand here. Maybe they’ll agree with y’all, maybe not. Just think it’s a little fu- ahem, inappropriate for Wikipedia. But y’all do you I suppose 😐 2601:602:9900:7E00:A913:944B:675A:B050 (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not think anyone has said anything about a philosophical position they have rather pointed out we go by what wp:rs say. If you can't produce RS disputing something you will get no traction, this is not philosophy, it is wp:policy. Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Propagandist sources

I don’t understand how using the Cuban Constitution as a source is propaganda but using Freedom House, a U.S. government funded organization focused on propagating American propaganda isn’t? Leomndb (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Because one is the government, the other is just government funded? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 There is a bucket-load of evidence that Freedom House is a biased source and the second source on "elections in the united states" is from the US government, which shows Wikipedia doesn't care about governmental resources. However, biased sources are allowed on Wikipedia, so it doesn't particularly matter, as long as the article makes the bias clear ("US funded organization freedom house says _____" and "the Cuban constitution says ______ but it is actually authoritarian because _____ source says ______") LilyLawliet (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Illegal party issue

One thing I'm confused on is the fact that this says that all other parties are illegal but other Wikipedia articles say that making other parties was decriminalized in the 1992 constitution

We know other parties exist so "all other parties are illegal" is already false, but we need a consistent narrative here and these articles aren't providing one. LilyLawliet (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The text in this article correctly reflects the source, Freedom House. I think this shows that we should not copy other tertiary sources but use secondary sources. It probably means that non-Communist parties cannot participate in elections or publish their views. TFD (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I found this source while looking for a citation for the paragraphs in the List of political parties in Cuba page, and it says that third parties cannot gather or publicize their existence, but I think its a tertiary source. Should we add it to the article or should we find a different source that goes into more detail on the matter? LilyLawliet (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop citing shitty sources funded by the United States government

stop Thetatertotgod (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop introducing PoV into the article by inserting words like "allegedly", when the source do not say that. See MOS:ALLEGED. — Czello 07:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Then take these sources to wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Which part of this edit is problematic?

1. candidates in Cuban elections do not need to be a member of the Party. I don't think anyone is debating this

2. Western observers do not consider Cuba to be democratic. No source provided uses the words "free and fair", nor is there any specific analysis of what is undemocratic about Cuba, it is simply presupposed. Whether a country is considered democratic is not an indusputable fact, so I've attributed it to Western political observers, which are objectively who is cited in the sources.

3. voters may vote against candidates by nullifying their ballot or leaving it blank This is stated in the provided source, the claim that there is no option to vote against candidates is contradicted in the source.

4. Candidates require 50% approval to be elected and campaigning is prohibited Again, these are facts that aren't really debateable

Slatersteven seems to have reverted my edit solely based on disagreement with 1. From wp:brd: Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting Can you explain how your reversion is consistent with this?

I am reverting because just adding back the one contested line, also means moving the sources you moved from that line. In addition, you substantially altered that line, and then (in essence added back the material in another line, but with POV-pushing changes). Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Slatersteven Why is that not possible to do rather than revert the entire edit? Wikipedia policy is clear about this, and reverting genuine improvements in an article over a disagreement over a single line is the reason an edit war was started. I suggest you make your case for Cuba being undemocratic as incontrovertible fact, as I have above in my choice to attribute it to specific sources. Then we can come to a solution and restore the rest of the uncontroversial edits. Nathan868 (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It is possible, but it is a lot easier for you to just add back the bits I have not objected to than it is for me to try and find where you moved the sources to, move them back, and remove the additional line and rewrite the line you altered. Also read wp:lede. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Slatersteven Please read WP:REVERT, specifically the Before reverting section. Again, please also make your case for Cuba being undemocratic as incontrovertible fact so we can come to consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan868 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

We have RS saying it is. That is what we go by. And read the talk page archive, this has been discussed over and over again, and you are making no new arguments. Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)