Talk:Communist Party of Cuba

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 12 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: KarlosMarquitos, Joao E. Ribeiro.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

untitled[edit]

The official history (badly translated by google) mentions entities under different names that merged. Secretlondon 23:35, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

i'm getting my info from http://search.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=25395&tocid=0&query=fulgencio%20batista&ct=

Morwen 23:34, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Needs more working doing on it - which I will do later Secretlondon 23:35, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Hopefully I've decoded it ok. Seems to fit History of Cuba and Fidel Castro. Morwen 23:44, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

I deleted the phrase claiming a Cuban/Angolan/Soviet victory over South African forces at Cuito Cuanavale. There are far to many conflicting accounts that indicate a tactical victory by SADF forces and the inflicting of hundreds of casualties by the SADF on the Cuban/Angolans. In the interests of fairness I've made the commentary on this neutral. Virgil61 07:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the victory at cuito cuanavale[edit]

The Battle is extremely disputed and an MPLA/Cuban victory is questioned. The Battle started with an advance of Cuban and Angolan forces which were then repelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.18.252.176 (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Largely absent has been the development of a personality cult.[edit]

I'm sorry, I'm not a native speaker so I probably misunderstand. Do you mean "Largery present ...?" Xx236 15:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Machados role[edit]

Machado was a member of the Liberal Party and did not participate along with Mella and others to establish the communist party. Take a look at e.g. http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/machado.htm Jan R 01:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LANCE WROTE

This entire article is incorrect. The Communist Party in Cuba is restricted to 20% of the seats.

I suggest all of those involved witj this article read Dalhousie Professor Isaac Saney's book "Cuba - A Revolution in Motion".


Cuba has a "One Party" non-confrontational democratic government. While Raul is a member of the Communist Party.. his brother Fidel who has consistently been elected President of the Government is not a member of the Communist party.

Read Saney's book and get your head around a form of government similar to a University student council where everyone works together to head forward.

What you have presented here is pretty much a regurgitation of US / CIA propaganda.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meraloma (talk • contribs) date.

Fidel Castro certainly is a member of the Communist party. He is the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba [1]-- Zleitzen(talk) 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Secretary?[edit]

I notice that an IP editor changed the position of party leader and First Secretary from Fidel to Raul Castro. I have reverted this change. I've done some searching around and see no evidence that this transition of office has ever taken place. Raul has succeeded Fidel as president, but I think the top two Communist Party offices remain the same, at least in title, even if Fidel is no longer active in a leadership role. Peter G Werner (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fact tagging[edit]

It's well known that F. Castro, et. al., developed whatever Marxist Leninist theoretical pretensions they may have had or do have after the fact of the Cuban revolution. In fact the Cuban revolution is just the most complete example of a bourgeois national liberation regime with Marxist trappings, basically an ideological skin for a rule by a New Class composed of that section of the Cuban bourgeoisie that the Castro brothers led. It's even much less authentically Marxist than the Soviet Union after Stalin and basically adopted it opportunistically as a foreign graft in reaction to the threat from the US rather than as an expression of an organic native communist or socialist movement. Unlike the DPRK, Republic of Vietnam, etc. where cadres were established decades before the actual revolution, if there were any such in Cuba they were not continuous with the Castro regime. Put fact tags on the statements which assert the opposite. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone actually checked how many of the MP's are formal party members?[edit]

@Nick.mon:, here you added statistics, claiming that 100% of the MP's (delegates to the National Assembly) are members of the Communist party of Cuba. Did you check this with someone who hasn't assumed that it must be so by not understanding the formal system?

I do not in any manner question that the C.P. has an absolute 100% informal control of the assembly. However, formally, any party is barred from participating as a party in the election. Since the C.P. controls the nomination committee which ultimately picked the 612 candidates for the 612 seats in the assembly, it indeed has full control. However, what I want to know is how it choose to exert this control. Did it really decide to pick only party members?

I'm old enough to remember that in the Supreme Soviet there usually were some non-party members. The reason, I believe, had to do with trying to increase the legimacy of the election process, in the eyes of the electorate and of foreigners. (I'm not claiming that this stratagem was very successful.) Have you checked how the Cubans handle this; or did you add the number "612 out of 612" merely by surmise? JoergenB (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I made a mistake, I saw on other pages on Wikipedia, for example here, in which was written that the CPC had the 100% of seats in the Assembly, but maybe it is not correct; I am not sure of this. So it will be great if you find a source where is explained the exact composition of the Cuban Assembly, because probably you have right, and the CPC have not got the 100% of seats in the Parliament. -- Nick.mon (talk) 8:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC
Well, the timing seems to be wrong, for this particular instance; but, let's anyhow pass the question.
@Trust Is All You Need:, when you introduced this claim here, together with a lot of other information about the C.P. parliamentary representation, did you have a source for the claim thatt all Cuban MP's were party members? (If you incidently used the statement in Communist Party of Cuba which @Nick.mon: added the month before, then we're not helped. If you have some independent source, we might be.) JoergenB (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to look a little at official Cuban texts about their MP's. I didn't find much; some links were stale. Here is a brief description of the composition of the 2008 assembly (in Spanish, which I suppose at least you Italians can read). As you can see, there is nothing about party membership there. Fooling around a little from that address, I found lists with names, photos, and brief CV's for `candidates'; I do not know if this was for the 2008 or the 2013 election; and I glanced at the Havanna candidates. A few stated that they had joined the party this or that year. Many others of them didn't mention this, but did mention wotking in party positions at one or another level; which implies membership. A few did not; these persons seemed to be locally employed, coming from the municipality assemblies, and might also add merits like "chairman of the local CDR" (which really is a rather small unit). Such candidates probably belonged to those put up on the lists by the municipality assemblies. The national election nomination committees get such lists from the municipality assemblies on the one hand, and from the "mass organisations" on the other (higher level trade unions, CDR, organisations for women, youth, farmers, et cetera); and the nomination committe is obligued to chhose from these lists in general, and to a certain percentage from municipal assembly delegates in particular. (Since there is some real choice involved for voters at the municipality level, this very very indirectly may introduce a very tiny bit of electorate influence on the parlament.) It is not impossible that some of the latter candidates were not party members; I just note that they didn't include membership or party work in their CV's. That's as far as I got. JoergenB (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JoergenB: I literally copied that info from the Communist Party of Cuba article itself... I tried now, unsuccessfully, to find out on Cuba's parliament own website (but the site is under maintenance)... But yes, you're probably right - I don't believe either that all of the members are PCC members (since Cuba has a very "liberal" electoral system, if comparing to other existing and former communist states)... I'll try and find out. --TIAYN (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you read Spanish? I noted that English web-pages unde Granma were "under construction", while I could find more of the Spanish. The top page for some score of articles with connection to the 2008 election seemed to be this. If you add /1xx.html, where 1xx is a number between 101 and approximately 120, I think that you'll find a bunch of Granma articles about that election. I've not succeeded to find the 2013 election information (yet), though. However, the Spanish parliament webpage, http://www.parlamentocubano.cu, indeed also seems to be "under reconstruction", whence this won't help for the latest (eighth) parliament. JoergenB (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Communist Party of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease the disruptive vandalism[edit]

Fidel admired Jose Marti [2]

That might be true, but "Martism" is still not an ideology of its own, and might in the case of the CPC just be another element of Castroism and thus not something to mention in the article infobox. It is also important that there is so far nothing that suggests that the CPC values the ideals of Jose Marti above those of socialism and communism, particularly Fidel's form of marxist-leninist thought! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No dispute in RS that the party leads an authoritarian state[edit]

Peer-reviewed academic content on the ways in which the Communist Party of Cuba rules a single-party authoritarian state was removed with the rationale, "while its true (I agree with you), its also WP:POV. Its supporters believe its a force for democratisation..."[3] That's a perfect example of WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't balance peer-reviewed academic studies with the feelings of partisans. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure if we find some peer-reviewed academic content from China and Cuba they would say something else... --Ruling party (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear to me why we should care what imaginary non-RS might say about the topic. We don't say that North Korea is a democracy just because the propaganda outlets in North Korea might say it's a democracy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snooganssnoogans, I agree with you and I've re-added the studies. It is bizarre to me that peer-reviewed studies were removed, and I saw no rationale for it that is consistent with our policies. (The belief of unspecified "supporters" or hypothetical nonexistent other sources doesn't influence, let alone dictate, our content decisions.) Even more bizarre is that the same user re-added content cited to a Lenin article from 1906 (decades before the Communist Party of Cuba was founded). The latter is patently original research. Neutralitytalk 23:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I googled it once @Snooganssnoogans and Neutrality:. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is a peer-reviewed institution which produces a hell of a lot of sciences. https://www.radiorebelde.cu/english/news/scientists-from-cuba-and-china-will-exchange-on-social-sciences-20181015/
As for North Korea I agree with you. The near total control and the inability to accept even a slight difference makes that unsound. But China and Cuba are not North Korea. Chinese and Cubans social scientists can actually travel abroad, and North Koreans cannot.
Here is another one from CASS; http://socialism-center.cass.cn/gwshzyydjgcdfz/201006/t20100603_2404800.shtml ... I can also find articles that discuss the democratic nature of CHinese socialism if you want...
AS I said; do I agree with it? No. But do I think Wikipedia's role is to censure the other point of view? No. --Ruling party (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those sources are reliable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Snooganssnoogans: So scholars that take master's degrees and doctorates are not reliable? How can you decide on that alone? --Ruling party (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not reliable because they are neither editorially independent of the government nor peer-reviewed. And even if they weren't unreliable, they would be undue weight. This is pretty basic stuff. Neutralitytalk 19:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality: I disagree. The government and party does not tell them what to write, if they did the whole point of CASS would be gone... So they don't tell them what to write.
CASS is China's leading science institutes... It even partners and collaborates with Western scientific institutions... --Ruling party (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ruling party, Why do you insist on blanking that the party leads an authoritarian state where individuals are repressed? These are very basic facts backed up by multiple high-quality sources. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored this content. I see three editors here favoring its inclusion. I see one opposing it, with zero reference to the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. Ruling party, if you want to bring this to a formal RfC, be my guest, but you don't get a veto power. Neutralitytalk 17:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on the actual real-world value of the Communist Party of Cuba, but the intro that someone keeps trying to restore is really off-the-charts incompatible with Wikipedia's NPOV, and sounds like Marco Rubio is trying to rant in the intro paragraph, which is not the style we usually try to convey. The red flags are numerous: we bring the "criticisms" section into the first few sentences, we add 15 citations to random news articles to somehow try to hide behind these being Well Cited Criticisms, etc. It is really quite a mess imo. --Delirium (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've not expressed a single reason why the content is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. Your comment even goes so far as to suggest that the presence of a large number of citations is a reason to exclude thee content. "I don't have a strong opinion on the actual real-world value of the Communist Party of Cuba" - That's strange because your sole contribution to this article is to scrub peer-reviewed academic content from the best possible sources for the sole reason that you personally disagree with what those source say. You are the one violating NPOV by discriminately scrubbing all RS content which does not portray this party like supporters of it would like. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "random news articles"; it's peer-reviewed academic publications. For you to try to compare this with a "Marco Rubio rant" or a "National Review blog post" is just bizarre and reprehensible. This is whitewashing, this is denial of the reliable sources, and it is disruptive. Neutralitytalk 15:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with you and Snooganssnoogans. This whitewashing is completely unacceptable and may need admin intervention if it continues. Crossroads -talk- 20:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEAD issues[edit]

The lead of this article is terrible because it:

  1. Does not summarise the article body.
  2. Introduces new information which belongs in the article body.

Editors keep removing the sentence "The party leads a one-party authoritarian regime in Cuba where dissidence and political opposition are prohibited and repressed." because they think the claim or sourcing is biased (everything is biased; the question is do they comply with WP:RS and the answer is they do), but the issue is that it sounds out of place in the lead as the second sentence, and its citations (which are excessive) belong in the article body. Yue🌙 20:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn’t this article semi-protected[edit]

There are so many IP people griefing this. CubanoBoi (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag sources[edit]

https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/cu%7D.html#cpc And https://havanatimes.org/diaries/dimitri/the-forgotten-flag/ CubanoBoi (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Communist_Party_of_Cuba&oldid=1206761840"