Talk:Elections in Cuba

Electoral System

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)

A lot of overwrought discussion about tone, but perhaps you all should spend more time on making sure you actually understand the system and update the article appropriately? Criticalthinker (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Democracy demarcation problem

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, or has only recently become a democracy.

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.

for example, the electoral college gives undue weight to certain peoples votes than others and unfairly biases certain outcomes.

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)

And as I have pointed out Cuba is in the west, the designation is meaningless and confusing. Also most (all?) are not "commentators" they are academics who study politics. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

alright, how would you word it to reflect the fact that some think it's not a democracy but some think it is?

Assuming there are reliable sources to back-up that both positions are published. Bart Terpstra (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Well I would first ask for RS that say it is democratic. Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

What is considered reliable is subjective.

I can go through the work of finding reliable sources, but i would first like to get some consensus that there could be such a thing as a reliable source that asserts Cuba is democratic.

If people are of the opinion that "cuba is democratic" is not an opinion a reliable source would have, i would of course be unable to find a reliable source that reports that opinion. Bart Terpstra (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

If what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source (WP:RS) isn't able to demonstrate that it's considered democratic then that would indicate that we shouldn't add caveats around the nationality of commentators who believe it's not. Instead it's simply that reliable sources are saying they're not a democracy. — Czello ^(music) 13:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

doesn't WP:RS outline that in matters of political bias, an in-line addition of the sources bias may be added?

The fact that the USA foreign policy relies on the argument that "Cuba is not democratic and the USA is democratic" would be sufficient cause for published sources from the USA to have this bias, no?

Would a published source in Cuba that makes the reverse argument with a similar level of due dilligence be considered a reliable source? Bart Terpstra (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That would be the case if we were using US propaganda or government sources for this claim, but we're not; they're largely academic. 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)

Why would something that makes the positive case be disregarded because the institutions in the same country generally don't publish the negative case?

by that same logic, the USA university sources should be removed, as americans generally don't publish the positive case for Cuban democracy and would meet heavy resistance if they tried. Bart Terpstra (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It's odd to suggest that academics, the very people who are considered experts on the subject matter, would deliberately skew the truth. Of course if there are any individual academics who have been discredited then we can deem them unreliable, but in general academic works from nations with free speech or press are going to be considered reliable. Contrast this with Cuba where information is more regularly censored and regulated by the government. Ultimately what's going to come out of Cuba is more likely to be propaganda (unless there are specific sources that could be proven to be reliable). — Czello ^(music) 14:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Academics don't have to go out of their way to skew the truth, it is just a fact that there is such a thing as editorial bias and cultural pressures, etc etc.

For instance, people are less likely to write about or do things in research that does not bring money or prestige, either because they seek money or prestige or because the people above them do not consider them proper research topics or not notable or not the job of an academic.

There is also a negative stigma surrounding political writing and research, which limits the people who would want to do that research.

And i'm pretty sure the U.S. government funds think tanks to write and publish papers that support their foreign policy . Bart Terpstra (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

A lot of this appears to be assumption and opinion. If you can demonstrate there are reasons why the academics we cite shouldn't be considered reliable then great, but otherwise they're sources that are roundly determined to be reliable, as most academia is. Academia, by its definition, is usually the most rigorously peer-reviewed and scrutinised commentary you can find. Putting it on the same level as Cuban state propaganda just doesn't work. — Czello ^(music) 14:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

They are reliable, but biased, like all political commentary is.

It reasons from within it's own political ideology. Bart Terpstra (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's important to be wary of what "propaganda" means in this context.

It is a text meant to convince you of something, it is not actually negative per say.

Any piece of polticial research that argues a case based on facts and observations should be considered, even if it comes from a source with a bias, because per definition, it is. if it was settled or objective, it wouldn't be political.

WP:NPOV argues for cancelling out subjective perspectives by mentioning all notable perspectives. Bart Terpstra (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't any source that would argue Cuba is democratic from western academia would probably say "has democratic traits", as that is the editorial line and the way to stay out of the demarcation problem.

Would such a source be sufficient to make the view more balanced in the article? Bart Terpstra (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

And if you can find RS that say it, we must reflect it. So until you produce them I am not going to say sign a blank cheque. I have no idea if you will find any, and as you do not seem to be sure whether you will I will leave it until you either find some or admit you have not. Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

i do feel like i have to clarify i mean western commentators Bart Terpstra (talk) 14:41, 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)

oooooooooh, we had fundamentally different understandings of the sentence.

i meant to convey "less democratic than ideal/what is expected", not "less democratic than cuba". Bart Terpstra (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Then that is what you should have written, and "less democratic than ideal/what is expected" compared to what? And that still needs to pass wp:v, do these sources use those words to just say "not all that democratic"? Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

yes? you did skim them before you dismissed them as not containing the right info, right?

"The U.S. has never truly been a democracy" -NYT

"But it’s hard to claim that the United States, at any point in its history, has been a democracy in the rigorous sense of the word."

-NYT

"There is, of course, a more compelling argument that, facing domestic crisis, America would be arrogant to preach democracy to others and irresponsible to waste its resources doing so. But this misunderstands the history and logic behind democracy promotion. Indeed, there has always been a significant gap between America’s democratic rhetoric and the state of its democracy."

-foreignpolicy.com

I think the facts of the sentence have a good basis with these 2 sources and that the foreign policy article makes the argument that the foreign policy of selectively demanding democracy abroad while failing it at home is hypocritical, so it's not (wp:synth). Bart Terpstra (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is, as they do not say anything about Cuba. So saying "the US is "has never truly been a democracy"" tells us nothing about Cuba. It does not matter if the US is not " a democracy in the rigorous sense of the word.", what matters (for this article) is Cuba? Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The embargo on Cuba is U.S. foreign policy with one of the primary reasons being promoting democracy abroad.

the foreign policy source says this stance is hypocritical for all countries the USA treats this way.

therefore, no explicit mention of Cuba has to be made by the source, as the argument covers the entire set. Bart Terpstra (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

please also note WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH Bart Terpstra (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, as Cuba can still not be democratic, even if the US stance is hypocritical elsewhere. What does any of this tell us about Cuba? Slatersteven (talk)

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)

And this one [[1]], which (ironically) is not that bad, just poorly sourced. I am sure better sourcing then this can be found for accusations of Ameican hypocrisy. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Lede Paragraph

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)

It currently reads:

Elections in Cuba are not considered democratic because the government does not allow free and fair voting.

Should this be changed to read:

Elections in Cuba are not considered liberally democratic, because they do not have free and fair elections. The 2019 constitution of Cuba states the aim to create a democratic unitary Cuban-Marxist one-party socialist republic.^{:[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.

Rationale for Yes (change to lede)

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.

Rationale for No (leave lede as is)

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.

Survey

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)

Discussion

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)

Yes, it is complete WP:OR to assume this, and as was pointed out at DRN misunderstands how WP:RS works. — Czello ^(music) 10:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not at all. There are plenty of sources that show there are multiple kinds of democracy and it's part of regular editorial to see what biases a source might have. Bart Terpstra (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It's WP:OR to assume they meant a specific kind of democracy even though the sources don't say that. There has also still been zero evidences the sources might be biased beyond "they're from a liberal democracy". — Czello ^(music) 10:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It's also WP:OR to assume they meant all kinds of democracy unconditionally, rather than democracy as Americans understand it. Bart Terpstra (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You're again focussing on their nationality, which isn't how Wikipedia works (and, as explained before, even that's not correct - they're not all American). When they say "Cuba is not a democracy" the only way we are permitted to interpret that is "Cuba is not a democracy". Anything else you add onto that is WP:OR. I feel you're fundamentally misinterpreting how Wikipedia operates. — Czello ^(music) 10:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand how language works and don't want to consider the possibility, rather than actually care about the evidence. Bart Terpstra (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You've presented no evidence, that's the problem.

After being told by several editors this isn't how Wikipedia works I can see this is just going in circles. I urge you to read WP:OR in-depth. — Czello ^(music) 11:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That belief is socially constructed, which is to say, self-justifying.

You have to use different arguments then "we think it is this way, therefore it is this way". Bart Terpstra (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTDUMB, we go by what wp:policybsays, and that means we go by what wp:rs say. We do not interpret RS, we do not second guess RS, we just report what they say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, if no interpretation takes place, how is a source determined to be RS? Bart Terpstra (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not the place to teach you basic policy, read wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I have, and it says there is an interpretation aspect. Bart Terpstra (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we close this now? Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be a decisive consensus; I would close it but I'm not sure if I'm able as I'm involved. — Czello ^(music) 18:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.