Jump to content

Talk:List of political parties in Cuba

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

Parties in Cuba proper v. Parties in exile?

[edit]

Cuba is in a special situation, with a fairly large exile/emigrant population, which in general have much greater chances of being politically active in parties of their own choice than have the inhabitants on the island themselves. At the same time, there are also small opposition parties active on the island itself. As far as I understand, such parties are since 1992 not automatically considered to be illegal, but they work under very restricted circumstances.

It would therefore be of interest to understand the character of the parties on this list. Which of them exist only in Cuba; which are purely exile parties; and which both work in exile and are present in Cuba? E. g., the Christian Democratic Party of Cuba, according to our article and a quick glance at its web-page, was founded in Miami, and has its leaders and its congresses there, too. Does this mean that they are a pure exile party, or do they have (open, or clandestine but somewhere acknowledged) members on Cuba, too? If they have members on Cuba, is there some token or real recognition of this, when they hold their party congresses?

Either, the list could be split up in several; or the information could be made clearly visible at each item on the list. Since I do not know which kinds the parties on the list are, I cannot recommend the one or the other. Also, I do not know if there e. g. is any exile party, which claims to have clandestine activity in Cuba, while at the same time being formally declared illegal there. (If I understand the Cuban laws correctly, forming parties in not in itself prohibited; but have the Cuban government or legal authorities explicitly declared any one of them illegal e. g. for 'counterrevolutionary activities'?)

Similarly, about the historical parties: Are there exile parties who claim to be the same juridical objects as some historical parties, just continuing their activity abroad when it wasn't possible on Cuba itself?

Finally, I miss the Communist party on this page. It definitely should be there, whether in the general list, or in a separate one-item list. (For symmetry, it also would be nice to record whether or not it is openly or secretly active among emigrants; with the usual restriction that secret activities would be noted 'according to this or that source'.) JoergenB (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Communist Party, at least. —Toby Bartels (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of political parties in Cuba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

legality of other parties "since 1992"

[edit]

shall we remove this whole "other parties formally exist and are allowed althought they dont participate in elections" and delete the several hoax political parties articles?

its actually original research with no sources and a hoax, there are no sources whastoever, and the 1992 change in the cuban constitution does not the formal legalisation of parties other than the addition to the constiution that the communist party is "defined as the “organized vanguard of the Cuban nation." and the new 2019 constitution says "The Communist Party of Cuba, as the only party"yes there are exiled parties but they are illegal in cuba


constitution of cuba 1992 https://www.cubanet.org/htdocs/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/cuba from source"Political parties other than the PCC are illegal" 83.185.85.166 (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://walterlippmann.com/draft-cuban-constitution-2018/ from sources The Communist Party of Cuba, as the only party" 83.185.85.166 (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was no reason to create an RfC when there was no prior discussion. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
disussion with who? 83.185.94.11 (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1992

[edit]

This page claims that the communist party is the only legal party, but the Elections in Cuba page claims other parties have been decriminalized since the 1992 constitution. So is this page the accurate one or is it the other? 70.185.41.250 (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i noticed you being confused in here so i compared the article Politics of Cuba to this and fixed the problem by copying the sources (i consider it important for people be aware of context of my edits) and it turned out that it was just a bunch of unsourced, uncorrect and unbased original research there, and i replaced it with reliable sourcing as per WP:RS, also the source of the 1992 constitution does mention any "legalisation in 1992" and also bear in mind the constitution wikisource is tagged as " identified as an English translation where the translator is unknown" which makes it unreliable and should be updated to the new 2019 Constitution Gooduserdude (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources

[edit]

Academic papers are primary sources and are not generally acceptable sourcing. To quote directly from WP:PRIMARYCARE

“However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. ”

Primary sources used to assert claims that in Cuba “opposition is not permitted” and “election in Cuba are neither free, nor Democratic.” Further, these primary sources do not reasonably directly support the claims.

The editor who repeatedly makes these changes should either correctly source their claims or not make them. Cbpoofs (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a profound misreading of Wikipedia's WP:RS guideline, which clearly describes peer-reviewed publications as typically the best sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify how you happened upon this article? Earlier today, a number of block-evading accounts popped up, and you just happen to pop up after they did. How come? Are you affiliated with them? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Academic papers are RS (otherwise say goodbye to all palaeontology articles and geology articles). Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Snoo’s assertion, WP:RS does not unequivocally state peer reviewed publications as the best sourcing. Specifically, consider the following quote: “ Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.” Snoo’s sourcing is in direct contradiction of this guidance, and the guidance of WP:PRIMARYCARE for the following reasons: 1. The sources are primary not secondary. I don’t think anyone here could, in good faith, claim that an original research article is, in fact, a review article. 2. The sources do not verifiably support the claims made Snoo. The standard of WP:PRIMARYCARE is that any educated person could verify that the claim is supported. These sources do not meet that standard. 3. Snoo has decided to remove acceptable sources that contradict their edits. The previous version of this page contained appropriate sourcing that Snoo appears to personally disagree with. Personal disagreement is not an acceptable reason to use poor sourcing. I would encourage Snoo to view the Constitution of Cuba and see that it conflicts with his sources.

In regards to Snoo’s bizarre second reply, I am confused as to what he is implying. It seems that he is implying that I am a sock puppet account although that would be strange given the age and activity of my account. I encourage him to clarify.

Lavalizard101 raises an important point. Original research articles can, at times, be WP:RS. I am not familiar with the paleontology articles however I suspect that when primary research is used it is in support of straightforward, descriptive statements such as the date of discovery of a fossil. Further, I suspect that the majority of sourcing is through secondary sources such as review articles. Cbpoofs (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how you came to edit this article. It seems strange that you just happen to show up here to edit-war and spout gibberish about Wikipedia guidelines and the contents of peer-reviewed publications immediately after a string of block-evading accounts were blocked after engaging in the same behavior. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any actual response to any of my criticisms of your sourcing? I gave explanations on each of my reversions and started this discussion, that is not edit-warring. You, on the other hand, have simply claimed everyone else is a sock-puppet. Your sourcing does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines and you know it.
As to how I came to this article, Cuban politics have been the focus of a great deal of news reporting in the US during the past few weeks. When I noticed that the introductory paragraphs of this article were biased, I first checked the sourcing which I found inadequate. Then I looked at the revision history and found that you made these edits and were reverting any other changes. Can I ask how and why you began editing this article? Cbpoofs (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the paleontology articles ... date of discovery and I supsect that the majority of sourcing is thorough secondary sources such as review articles incorrect assumption: majority of paleo articles are built on the academic sources-there are simply no review articles for most taxa. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also nearly all academic papers meet point 2 in WP:SCHOLARSHIP (a subset of the RS guideline)-The exception is predatory journal articles and fringe journals/authors. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify your position here, are you suggesting in order for a source to qualify as reliable, it must only fulfill 1 criteria in WP:SCHOLARSHIP while directly violating others? If that is the case, then any opinion piece in Nature would qualify as a reliable source. Cbpoofs (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lava, you intentionally edited the out operative clause of my sentence. The requirement is that primary research be used to support straightforward, descriptive statements. It is completely fine to cite original research in that context. Cbpoofs (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The papers in question are not primary per WP definition (they provide "an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event" and "contain... an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources", rather than being "written by people who are directly involved"). Unless there are reliability or due weight concerns, there are no reasons not to use them. Alaexis¿question? 06:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per Alaexis, Lavalizard10 and Snooganssnoogans, these are clearly not primary sources but exactly the sorts of scholarly sources that Wikipedia should be using. A primary source in this case would be the statements of the parties involved. The academic papers are secondary sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also the sources presented meet multiple criteria of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, (I just chose to show one to counter your point about them not being RS when SCHOLARSHIP says they are).Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Free" and "Democratic"

[edit]

The term "free" seems too nebulous. Does it mean monetarily free as in referring to the absence of a poll tax? If so, that interpretation would apply to Cuba. Does it mean free access to the electoral process? If so, I'd expect some argument as to how that's the case. Stated as fact without any elaboration, this claim can only be seen as editorializing.

The term "democratic" is much less nebulous but seems to be misused here. Democracy refers to the decision-making power of the people. This being the case, it seems contradictory to deny that Cuban elections are democratic immediately after noting how they are conducted through referendum.

An argument may be that the freedom and democracy of Cuban elections are limited by the authoritarian involvement of the Communist Party, but this would also be editorializing. The Cuban government is indeed authoritarian in their involvement in elections in that they restrict the pool of candidates to communists, however this standard of authoritarianism does not mesh with the colloquial use of the term.

For example, the United States also limit their candidates but strictly to capitalists. In practice, US citizens are given two options in their elections. Due to party involvement, both of those candidates will be capitalists. Yet the assertion that this system is authoritarian is largely only supported by "radical" leftists, and US elections are widely seen as both free and democratic.

I suggest that the sentence "Elections in Cuba are neither free, nor democratic." be stricken for these reasons, but I'm sure a more nuanced elaboration of these claims would also be an appropriate solution. 71.125.21.24 (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my post. I've signed in and am commenting here to follow the conversation more easily. Huggiewiki (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of political parties in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_political_parties_in_Cuba&oldid=1217420332"