Julian Bull

Welcome!

Hi Julian Bull, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Vipz (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

thanks Julian Bull (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

Hello, I'm 331dot. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to E-democracy have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to E-democracy. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at E-democracy, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. Democracy-social-network is built on tried and tested socialist principles that have proven to be very effective, practical and humanistic. It's just trying to use the internet to enhance these things somewhat. It is an experiment, it doesn't hurt to try something new. I wasn't selling anything, I don't work for them and it's not a business. It has no revenue at all. It just seems like a good idea to me. Julian Bull (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not a place to tell the world about good ideas, sorry. This is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic, in a neutral point of view. If you have independent sources that discuss this social network, that would be different, but you are just linking to the network itself. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Cuba. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, your edits on Cuba are just turning it from a neutral version where due weight is given, to a blatantly promotional version where Cuba is spruiked as some sort of utopian community, which it isn't. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

You think the original article is balanced? That's hilarious. If you read through the Central Intelligence agency archives, It is pretty clear that Socialism has brought enormous improvements to the quality of life of Cuban People. The only authoritarian regime trying to control Cuba is the United States Oligarchy. The purpose of the embargo was explicitly to bring about "starvation and impoverishment" to Cuba. Despite this, the Cuban economy is doing amazingly well, considering the circumstances. Communism has brought enormous improvements to the cost of living, reductions in unemployment rates, feminism, improvements to health and education etc. Julian Bull (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Every single point I made is blatantly admitted in the CIA and other US government documents I referenced. Julian Bull (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, just tell me, are you here to build an encyclopedia, or here to tell the truth about the authoritarian oliarchy that is the United States of America? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding improvements, it wasn't exactly hard to do better than Batista, but I digress.

Your edits consist entirely of your interpretation of primary sources, so they are original research, which is not permitted. You also added a copyright violation too. If you can find secondary sources that say the same things you can add them, but you must still present them in due weight, I.e. if the view that Cuba is a socialist utopia and has no issues whatsoever despite the United States best efforts is a minority view amongst scholars, then you must present it as such, and not make it seem to be the majority, or "correct" view. The same applies to Yugoslavia, and all the other articles that you have edited.

The majority view is that Castro's Cuba, whilst it has had relatively few human rights issues (they do exist, but probably not to the extent claimed by the US), has seen noticeable improvements in standard of living and such, a solid reduction in corruption, and is arguably the closest that any country has probably come to an ideal form of socialism, it is not an ideal socialist state, by any measure, and still has significant issues. It just hasn't done so badly that it has had a second revolution, where the people ditched socialism (in the form of Castro's version of communism). This is not actually the "official USA government view", and actually differs substantially from it, namely in the part where the successes of Cuba are actually recognised, rather than flat out dismissed. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I agree with almost everything you're saying here. I also believe it is fair to say that Cuba's economic issues are mostly a result of the US embargo, the purpose of which was explicitly, to bring about starvation, impoverishment and regime change to Cuba. Again, this is something the US government admits blatantly. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499

Their excuse, that Cuba's government is "authoritarian" and "tyrannical" is based on a complete misconception about how their political system works. In actual fact, they have a form of representative democracy. It is true that in their final election procedure there is one candidate for each seat and people can either vote yes or no. If a candidate receives less than 50% of the vote, another candidate stands for election. This rarely happens because their is an earlier election procedure where there are a range of possible candidates. There are public meetings that everyone in the local area can attend. Anyone can submit their resume and their is public discussion about who is the most suitable candidate, who has the best track record of improving the lives of people around them. Money has little influence over the selection, there is no political lobbying like Capitalist countries have. In the capitalist world, almost all polticians are receiving some passive unearned income from rents, dividents or interest on loans and the they are almost all from the top 5% most wealthy members of society. Instead, in Cuba, leader selection is much more genuinely meritocratic. There is actually a reference in the opening paragraph of the Cuba Wikipedia article that claims Cuba's political system is authoritarian, but their is also a clear correlation between number of votes and the quality of a candidate. The article also acknowledges that the communist party has little influence. It's pretty funny that the author is unintentionally acknowledging the genuinely meritocratic nature of the Cuban political system https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13510347.2019.1629420?journalCode=fdem20

Considering the circumstances, Cuba is doing amazingly well, their economy has mostly grown since the revolution, the population are mostly supportive of the government, although with a large decline after the collapse of the Soviet Union and more slow growth since the 1990s.

I don't believe there really is actually that much of my own ideas in the writting I submitted to the Cuba article. If you read the sources, almost all the information and facts are just directly taken from the CIA documents. I'm not interpretting, except perhaps to say that improving the standard of living of the population is a good thing. I don't believe anyone who isn't a psychopath would disagree with that statement. It is not a matter of opinion that Cuba has a highly humanistic economic and political system. You can actually make direct comparisons with Capitalist economies. Most of the major Western Captialist countries have seen steady wage growth stagnation of decline for the last few decades, the cost of living has increased dramatically, rates of unemployment have tripled, union membership rates are way down etc.The political system does not work for the vast majority of the population and tends to increase economic inequality and the exploitation of the population. The Cuban political system doesn't have these problems, or these problems are greatly diminished. This is a threat the Bourgoisie. There are many extremely rich and powerful people in this world who have strong motives for slandering Cuba and this is the main reason the Island has such a bad reputation. The rich people control the media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent Julian Bull (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I also never said this "if the view that Cuba is a socialist utopia and has no issues whatsoever despite the United States best efforts is a minority view amongst scholars, then you must present it as such". I merely gave specific examples of numerous postive things about Cuba that their worst enemy admits, the enormous improvements to the standards of health, education, social equality, reduction in unemployment and cost of living etc. I don't think anyone believes Cuba is Utopia, I'm certainly not saying that. Communism wiped out illiteracy, raised the life expectancy to a level comparable to many first world countries, gave people free university etc..... Julian Bull (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Which specific parts of my writing do you think are original research or my own ideas? Julian Bull (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm just paraphrasing, not giving my own ideas. Julian Bull (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

These are not primary sources, they are secondary sources, the Cia giving their interpretation of data gathered by others, then I paraphrase them. Every criticism you have made of my writing has been a strawman or probably false.

Edit-warring on Cuba

Your recent editing history at Article shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Thenightaway (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)