Talk:Elections in Cuba

Article incomplete

It appears that this is the only or one of the only articles on an existing country's electoral system where the focus with over half of it's content (at time of last visiting it) lies on commentaries & criticisms rather than explaining the system or displaying past election results as is common for other articles on the same topic with usually a smaller or no commentary section at all. If this is merely a lack of people expanding the article to be more consistent with other articles, then the respective hint should be added onto the top of page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C27:6090:44A5:A2ED:A0AB:DDEA (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Non-democratic elections

There is no dispute in RS that these elections are not democratic. It's a violation of NPOV to present this as an actively contested issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I have added additional sources arguing in favour of describing Cuba as democratic, hopefully this will resolve the dispute and prevent further edit warring. 86.8.203.33 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You added one 1999 paper from a low-quality journal that argued that "citizen participation" "may yet provide the vehicle for the further development of a uniquely Cuban model of democracy", and two op-eds published in socialist propaganda outlets. The notion that these elections are democratic are extraordinary and require extraordinary sourcing. There is no dispute in academic RS that the Cuban regime is authoritarian and there are no democratic elections in Cuba. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are you insistent on simply removing sources that present an alternative point of view? I'm happy, in the interests of neutrality, to allow both points of view to stand. Your claim that "the notion that these elections are democratic are extraordinary" shows that you are operating on the assumption that Cuba inherently cannot be democratic. We all have our biases but you are letting your own biases take primacy and trying to justify your attempts to turn this into a blatantly partisan article. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It is clear there is a concerted effort by some users to edit this page without consensus in order to present a partisan agenda. I have tried repeatedly to introduce balance to the article, strongly believing such dissenting sources should not be removed without a clear consensus being reached. Dissenting sources have been dismissed as "kook" sources or propaganda, this is not the job of wikipedia editors to judge. My edits do not remove any sources and only make the article more balance, but it is clear such balance will not be tolerated by other editors as they insist the article must present their own agenda unchallenged. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is no dispute whatsoever in high-quality academic sources that Cuba has an authoritarian political system and that the elections are not democratic. Not only is the Cuban regime authoritarian, but it's a full-fleged authoritarian regime, as the elections aren't sufficiently open to even count as competitive authoritarianism. You have introduced nothing of substance to challenge this, except two op-eds from non-RS, as well as one 1999 article from an obscure journal and a non-peer reviewed book by a non-expert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Given the clear dispute here and lack of consensus, why should the article revert back to your version for the duration of the dispute? Especially as you have made sweeping edits removing sources that you don't like with flimsy accusation that they are "fringe". You were happy to make these edits with no consensus needed, but insist on a consensus and, in your own words, "extraordinary evidence" for claims that go against your own world view. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Because policy is clearly on the side of reliable sources. You really need to provide stronger mainstream sourcing here. 99.152.115.208 (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello. The page is lying. We Are Cuba of University of Yale: It says on page 9 Cuba has participative democracy. Please fix. Thanks.

Sorry, didn't you know any sources that assert Cuba is democratic are inherently unreliable? 82.33.72.42 (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Questionable neutrality

The three sources for Cuba's elections being non-democratic are either published by American universities, or co-written by authors at American universities. Given Cuba is an ideological opponent of the United States, they have a clear and vested interest in discrediting them and therefore American academic publications will be written for this purpose. These are not wholly neutral sources for this matter, this statement should be supported by sources that do not have a vested interest in undermining Cuba, or the article should be reverted to the prior version which correctly framed this statement as the belief of western academics. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Scholars at US universities do not have a "clear and vested interest" in discrediting the authoritarian regime in Cuba. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

They absolutely do, as universities often rely on government funding that may be withheld if they publish dissenting opinions. Furthermore, you claim "no evidence has been presented that these scholars are americans". I never claimed them to be American themselves, I don't know that. One source is published by Cornell University Press, the other two co-written by Chiara Superti (whose affiliation is Columbia University) with one of those also written by Jorge I. Domínguez (Harvard University). This was all easily verifiable by checking the sources yourself. The evidence is *in* the sources. If you can expect people to read the sources to back up your "not democratic" claim, I don't think it's unreasonable I expect you to be able to verify the authors and publishers of the sources. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit dispute over the article lead

Snooganssnoogans is attempting to enforce an article lead that does not accurately reflect the content of the article. Specifically, they are insistent on inlcuding an objective declaration that "elections in Cuba are not democratic". This statement is supported by many sources, but other parts of the article (esp. the "political writers and academics" section) include longstanding sources arguing in favour of Cuba as a grassroots democracy. I have repeatedly attempted to restore balance to the lead to accurately reflect the diversity of opinion on this topic. Snoogans (who only started editing the page in mid July 2021, prior to this the lead was of poor quality but more balanced) has repeatedly removed my edits and adopted an aggressive and confrontational attitude, classifying any material that disputes their position as "fringe nonsense" or similar. They had no consensus with which to make such sweeping edits altering the tone of the article lead in such a partisan way. While I dispute the neutrality of Snoogans' sources, and concede the bias of some of my own, a biased source is not in itself unreliable. You are going to struggle to find truly unbiased sources on Cuba, especially English language sources. Cuba is an ideological enemy of the United States and its allies and thus most English language sources will reflect this ideological view. I think it is also telling that while this dispute is ongoing, Snoogans insists that their version of the article must remain visible. Cuba is simply assumed to be non-democratic, and the onus is on others to prove otherwise.

Nevertheless I think Snoogans has made valuable contributions to the article and introduced new and relevant sources. In my edits, I have endeavoured to not remove content added by Snoogans besides obviously partisan objective statements. In working to make the lead more neutral and reflective of all points of view, I have continued to include Snoogans' sources, even reading them and expanding on their content to outline their primary arguments that Cuba is not democratic, while also elaborating on arguments from my own sources (both new sources, and those longstanding sources that have been present in the article for years) that argue Cuba is democratic.

Snoogans has, unfortunately, not extended the same courtesy to me. They have removed anything new I have tried to add, accused me wrongly of removing their additions, and dismissed all sources that go against their view. I find it particularly telling that they think they can dismiss sources as non-reliable that have been present in the article for years, without any consensus, though make no attempt to remove them elsewhere in the article. They seem fixated on arguing that I have no basis to attribute their sources to "western academics"; these sources being a book published by an American university and papers written or cowritten by authors based in the US or affiliated to American universities. I invite them to explain specifically how these are not examples of western academics.

One final point I will raise is that we must be aware of WP:Systemic bias, specifically the section on users with little free time. Snoogans is a prolific editor, with time to devote effort to dozens of substantive edits each day. I, while having more free time than many, do not have this luxury. I intend to keep up this dispute but I am worried that Snoogans may use their clear abundance of free time to their advantage, knowing that when they introduce new content I am careful to include it in my edits, taking up my time; while they continue to simply undo my edits immediately with no care to what contributions I have made. This cannot be allowed to be how this dispute ends, with one user wearing down the other simply by having the luxury of more time. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)