Talk:2021 Cuban protests

Support in the infobox

From what I have seen before, placing parties for "support" in the infobox is typically only used when there is direct material support. For now, the support should be removed from the infobox until something firm happens. Until then, we can appropriately place the reactions of governments in the reactions section.--Simón, el Silbón (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. So far, we only have rhetoric from both sides, but no actual and sustained support. At least, nobody has provided sources to contradict this. "Support" in the infobox must be for only material or political support with actual effects and consequences on the ground. Coltsfan (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I support removing the parties which support the uprising. As of now, it lists the support of Cuba-American lobby, which may be inferred, but given it is not an official lobby group but simply a name that covers many organizations and persons it would be improper to include this in the infobox as no official citation can be made. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: Protest locations in the infobox

I presume it would be inappropriate to include the United States in the location field of the infobox? Image2012 (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I added it at one point, but self-reverted as there have also been protests in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Spain. At some point, it's overkill. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

In this page, Cuban or pro-Cuban cites is removed, but pro-protesters and pro-USA cites are accepted without any control. Is this really that, what you mean, when you talk about Wikipedia neutrality? 146.255.181.155 (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I second this, there have been fake news and fake images circulating and there is no mention in the article. There should be a not on the article for it, so readers are aware of biased opinions exposed in the article.

Can you be more specific? Which sentence do you find inaccurate and why? Cambalachero (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not either of these folks, but notably Western outlets like the Guardian have been using photos from the much larger counter-protests in order to make the anti-Cuban protests appear better-attended. Additionally, it's becoming increasingly obvious that the #SOSCuba hashtag was Astroturfed, starting in Spain before being retweeted by a number of dormant low-follower accounts. Wikipedians often intentionally deprecate any news sites that might offer a counter-balance to US and UK corporate media in politically fraught situations like this, so I'm also wary about the bias on these sorts of pages. 161.11.160.44 (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can start a hashtag, but for it to become viral you need loads and loads of people to use it. And once things get to that level, the original author of the hashtag is just a footnote, if remembered by anyone at all. So let's say that the hashtag was started by a user from Spain, and that some puppet twitter accounts helped it. So what? Would that change anything? Cambalachero (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

You haven't presented any sources of any kind verifying those major claims. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

"Outlets like the Guardian have been using photos from the much larger counter-protests in order to make the anti-Cuban protests appear better-attended". Where did that information came from? Is this a guess?

"It's becoming increasingly obvious that the #SOSCuba hashtag was Astroturfed" According to whom? And in what information was this statement based on?

Yes, we're disproportionately using western sources cuz, well, cuban sources can be trusted to a degree, considering they're State owned, so they can be used but the information must be attributed.

For now, all these accusations about "bias" pretty much comes down to "it's bias just because". "The western media is this and that". Yes, there is a lot of misinformation and propaganda coming from both sides, and we can judge the sources where they stand, but accusing other users of being bias themselves and using such frail arguments, don't make any sense to me. So, don't just go by "ah it's an american/british/western source, so of course is bias". This argument simply won't gonna cut it. Coltsfan (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

About the embargo

The heads of state that want to defend the Cuban government claim that the awful life conditions are only because of the embargo. It is then highly relevant to point a fact about it: the acquisition of foods and medicines is currently allowed. That is not an opinion, but the way things are: check United States embargo against Cuba#Increasing legislation for details. I mentioned it, citing this article (made in the context of those protests), but Bezet removed it, claiming that "source does say that the embargo limits food and medicine purchase"). I suppose the user is not fluent in Spanish and can not understand context, so let me clarify: the first two paragraphs explain what did Diaz Canel say, third and fourth about other heads of state that made similar claims, then the answer of the US, and the factual information about the embargo. And that fact is, regardless of what Canel, Maduro Da Silva, and others say, that Cuba can receive food and medicines since two decades ago. Cambalachero (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

This is misleading though as it is well documented that though there is now a legal process to import medicines from the US, it is incredibly onerous, and it doesn't change the wider impact of restrictions on shipping or use of US dollars by Cuba. Stating that it is possible doesn't fully take into account the impact the embargo is having on the import of medicines in practice and is therefore misleading. There are better sources but here is an Amnesty International report (non-Cuban/ALBA source) from 09 for an example of what I mean: https://www.amnesty.org › a...PDF - it would be less misleading if the claim was caveated with reference to the fact that embargo does still have an impact on their import- which it demonstrably does.

It is true that the act was amended to allow the de jure export of food and medicines into the country. However, the de facto application and implications of the act's enforcement are proven to have significantly restricted the accessibility of both within Cuba. That's not my claim, it's The Lancet's. The American Association for World Health's report came to the same conclusion. The motivations behind the UN's condemnation of the embargo also feature a concern for the health and nutrition of Cubans, which it deems negatively affected by the embargo. The condemnation has already received the support of the UN general assembly over 29 years in a row, with the only two nations to actively oppose it being Israel and the United States itself. Goodposts (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Communism

I call bullshit, they're protests against communism, people who have family in Cuba are all saying the same thing. "Videos of protesters singing slogans of "Freedom", "Down with communism" and "We are not afraid" were broadcast on social networks" is the truth so why are we not claiming it is about communism vs freedom! † Encyclopædius 20:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia encourages non-bias articles that are supported by reliable sources (See WP:POV & WP:Reliable Sources). If there are sources you would like to cite to that supports what you believe the article should communicate, feel free to share them. In the alternative, you can include this view as a counter-point, again with properly reliable sources. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The 'mainstream media' (by which I'm assuming you mean the English-language sources we use, such as BBC and Reuters) does not have a pro-Cuban bias. To the contrary, some American-based sources, especially conservative ones, if anything, may even have an anti-Cuban govt editorial stance. You've been the block around enough to know that a Wikipedian's claim of "my friends in Cuba are saying X" is not acceptable as a source on Wikipedia. Just as easily as you made that claim, another editor may come along and say the opposite. It is alarming to me, and do correct me if I am wrong here, that you appear to wish to dismiss "mainstream" RS entirely in favour of "I know a guy". As the other editor noted, if you wish to make claims on Wikipedia, you have to back them up with reliable, verifiable and falsifiable sources. Goodposts (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese Communist Party is heavily invested in many of the news sources we call "reliable". I've lost so much respect and belief in the mainstream media in the last few years when it comes to political issues that yes, absolutely, Cuban/Cuban-American people posting videos and testimonies showing that this is a revolt against the communist dictatorship are far more reliable than these corrupted organizations we call "reliable sources". I of course know how our content on here is generated, but I'm sick of seeing content related to politics which I know isn't the truth. Wikipedia should be accurate. † Encyclopædius 21:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Accuracy does not mean aligning with your world-view. CNN posted a photo of protests in the USA (Miami) implying they are in Cuba. The Washington Post stated that Cuba has "only" 15% of the population fully vaccinated, even though that's one of the highest rates in Latin America. If you're looking for bias and manipulation in mainstream media, it's mostly anti-Cuban. BeŻet (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to Cuba, I agree, but a number of them have made it look like the protests are only about food and medicines... The Wall Street Journal at least has "protests grow against communist regime" in the title. This article does mention the goal "End one-party government" and states "Videos of protesters singing slogans of "Freedom", "Down with communism", and "We are not afraid" were broadcast on social networks in addition to protesters demanding vaccines " but most of the article is about food and medicines and the response and seems to step over what is at the heart of the issue, which is freedom and tyranny.† Encyclopædius 22:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Even Jen Psaki is saying that ""Communism is a failed ideology, and we certainly believe that it has failed the people of Cuba. They deserve freedom... I would argue that it was the failed ideology that led to this". † Encyclopædius 12:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I think Psaki's opinions have absolutely no merit or relevance here, and not sure why you're saying that "even" her, when her opinions are completely unsurprising and inline with the American political establishment, and in the past she has purposely completely ignored the USA's long history of horrific interventions in Latin America. Furthermore, the "Communism vs freedom" view is a completely American-centric point of view and way of phrasing things, stemming from the Red Scare and decades of American media propaganda. BeŻet (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on her own opinions not being relevant to the article. Disagreed on this only being an American-centric viewpoint. There's Cuban immigrants and people with family still living in Cuba who are saying the media are lying and it's really a cry for freedom against tyranny. We're not going to get anywhere with this as of course all of our content has to be sourced to "reliable" sources. † Encyclopædius 18:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Cuban immigrants... in America. BSMRD (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I always find it funny (it should not be funny, considering all the victims and repression; at least, I do not make body counts and I consider victims of capitalism, Communism, fascism, etc., while others only consider one or two but not all) that the same standard is never used for capitalism; they do not say "capitalism is a failed ideology [yes, it is also an ideology, the way its policies are justified), and we certainly believe that it has failed the people of Ireland, India, and colonized people. They deserve freedom... I would argue that it was the failed ideology [or economic system] that led to this." Apparently, colonialism, imperialism, fascist and military regimes, etc. were not real capitalism, at least according to one side; the other side sees every government intervention as 'socialism', making the whole world as not real capitalism, but are careful to say it is not socialism either because, well, the West is pretty wealthy and prosperous, so it cannot be attributed to the same policies they would consider 'socialist', and there are many. Also apparently, laissaz-faire capitalism is only one type of capitalism, but communism is really only the Soviet Union et al., even though several communist parties did not establish a one-party dictatorship, and no regard is given to democratic and libertarian variants, which may not be as known mainly because the latter are against electoralism, so state Communists are more well-known, and the former were either briefly part of the post-war consensus building (highest economic growth and lower inequality than the neoliberal era) or part of the democratic opposition.

The point being is that protests are the results about food and medicines, and wanting the government to be better and more accountable; some protesters, especially outside Cuba, may want to end Communist rule and even have military intervention, but you are acting like that is the sole reason for people to go to protest; there are just as many people who indeed only care about food and medicines, and are not interested in political debates. Communist states, like any other state, should be analyzed in context. One side, mainly anti-communists and non-experts (by experts, I mean Communist studies scholars and historians) blame it all on Communism (some experts do blame it on ideology but not on ideology alone, are not as one-sided, and are still considered part of the anti-communist historiography, which is not necessarily meant as an insult but more as a description) ignoring things like all the countries where it took place, they never had a strong enough democratic tradition, or liberal democracy, and were mainly poor countries who had to undergo the process the West already went under the century prior but it is easier to blame it on Communism. Thankfully, there is also the other side, which is not that of Communist themselves, but rather pretty mainstream leftists and centrists, and more importantly experts who give a more nuanced picture, which is generally more accurate and not reduced to 'Communism bad', and analysis based on facts and the situation surrounding them. Rather than being an American-centric viewpoint, it is an anti-communist one, and anti-communism is not the same as anti-fascism.

I am digressing but you this about blaming it all on communism, so I wanted to write this, and I would like some clarifications about "media lying" and "reliable sources." The Cuban government, which is more understandable, as the state owns it, or is it mainstream media and reliable sources, such as Al Jazeera, the Associated Press, The Guardian, The New York Times, Reuters, The Washington Post, etc., lying? That is what Trump claimed too, and look what happened. Finally, you are acting like Cuba, and it is not the only country, only became authoritarian under Communism. Batista got rid of presumption of innocence in the justice system; the ruling Cuban Communists, which were not Communists until the 1970s, did not overthrow a liberal democracy, like fascists and the military did, and which was first got rid by the military coup, not by Communists; they overthrew another authoritarian regime, whether they are better or worse in comparison is beside the point. Davide King (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Huge Citation Needed for "the CCP is heavily invested in the sources we call reliable". If you wish to challenge the reliability of a source in general, you're free to do this on the RSNB, but do be cautioned that your case will not receive any support on the basis of "I know a guy" or "I saw someone post something online" - you will need to provide concrete facts. If generally accepted reliable sources aren't reporting on what you deem to be 'truth' - perhaps they are all colluding with shady international cabals, or perhaps, and dare I say more likely, that just isn't the truth. As BeZet already stated, Jen Psaki's opinion is of no relevance to this topic in this case. She's an American politician with no connection to these protests, and this is an article on the Cuban protests, not Jen Psaki's political opinions. Neither is her opinion at all shocking or unexpected. Goodposts (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Cuban immigrants in America (because I'm guessing these are the immigrants you are referring to and not Cuban immigrants in UK) still express an American-centric point of view. Like I said, the majority of American media is anti-Cuban and anti-socialist, and I'm just countering your narrative. You are literally parotting what the American liberal media is implying, and American conservative media outright saying. The reason I'm highlighting Americna media, because that seems to be the main source of references in the article, and "communism vs freedom" is a very American phrase. BeŻet (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Well I'm not American myself, I'm British, so I'm in a better place to be able to say it! Who seriously thinks massive crowds of people are protesting about lack of vaccines?† Encyclopædius 13:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether you're American, British, Cuban or Tanzanian. On Wikipedia, you either have RS or you don't. Goodposts (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right, they're not really protesting a lack of vaccines because vaccination in Cuba is actually going pretty well compared to the rest of the region. They are however protesting due to the economical deterioration and demanding that the government does something about it. Are ongoing protests in capitalist Haiti where people shout "Down with the dictatorship!" about "Capitalism vs Freedom"? Are ongoing protests in capitalist South Africa over the imprisonment of a political figure, where the government has sent soldiers to deal with the protests, accompanied by large food shortages, about "Capitalism Vs Freedom"? Are the protests in capitalist Sudan over RSF killing of civilians, over deals with the IMF and calling for the "fall of the regime" about "Capitalism vs Freedom"? Are the farmer protests in capitalist India about "Capitalism vs Freedom"? Are the protests in capitalist Paraguay demandning the resignation of the president about "Capitalism vs Freedom"? Are the protests in capitalist Russia against political repressions about "Capitalism vs Freedom"? Are the protests in Brazil demanding the impeachment of Bolsanaro and the end of repressions against Black Brazilians about "Capitalism vs Freedom"? Are the protests in capitalist Chile over low wages and wealth inequality, demanding the resignation of the president, about "Capitalism vs Freedom"? I could go on, but I think you get the idea... BeŻet (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Authoritarianism

@Dustyveil: - you keep adding "authoritarianism" as a cause of the protests, even though none of the sources claim such a thing. Please do not add it again unless you find a source that explicitly states that. If articles mention attacks on civil liberties, or reduced civil liberties, mention that. There have been plenty of protests in the Western world against attacks on civil liberties, or reduced civil liberties, like for instance the "Stop The Bill" protests regarding the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to think of a very recent example, but we would never say the protests were caused by authoritarianism - that's ridiculous. Stick to the facts and stick to the sources, don't use your own interpretations. BeŻet (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

"Authoritarianism" is an accurate description of the complains that the overwhelmingly majority of sources report. See WP:SPADE and WP:Vagueness. Ajñavidya (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ajñavidya: ...have you ever read WP:SPADE? It's an essay about communicating on Wikipedia. It's not an essay about using opinionated labels and stating things not covered in sources in actual articles. BeŻet (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Protestor deaths

It seems that reports of the NGO Cuba Decide about protestor deaths, have been given less importance, but it hasn't been explained why. So far only one death has been confirmed by the interior minister, but estimates such as detentions have come from non state sources, including the San Isidro Movement and Amnesty International. To include all points of view persuant to the neutrality policy, these figures should be kept. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It is difficult to ascertain numbers when the reliable sources for these claims under such circumstances are so few. At the moment, both are added with attribution, which appears to be a fair compromise. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that attribution is probably the best way to include it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Cuba Decide is a controversial organization that is a 501(c)(3) organization in the United States. Its credibility may be called into question, considering America's long history of anti-Cuban propaganda, disinformation, covert operations and terrorist attacks. It isn't a significant group though, not even having its own page on Wikipedia. I don't think their "estimates" should be included in the lead, but that information should be included in an attributed form, just like it is now. BeŻet (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

"United States military intervention"

@Ajñavidya: A military intervention by the United States is a demand of the protesters, especially by protesters in the US. There are numerous sources to verify this. This information was removed with the complaint that "it cannot be considered a major outcry" "according to the sources". Nothing in the sources says this is not a major demand, and even if only a minority of protesters want this, the sheer volume of references and the scale of the demand makes it notable. "United States military intervention" should be listed as a goal of the protests. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

References

@AllegedlyHuman: The sources actually state that some protesters do that request, but it's mainly done by abroad protests and the exiles. The over-arching call of the protest inside of Cuba is for ending the current government of Cuba, held by the Cuban Communist Party (PCC), as reported by literally all the reputable sources.

I understand your point, and your sources are correct and can be included in the article; but it is a partial demand and listing a USA intervention as a goal in the infobox is WP:UNDUE. Ajñavidya (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The protests in the US are part of the protests. At least, that is how the article treats them now – if other editors think they should be broken up then that discussion is for elsewhere. This is a major demand, regardless of where it comes from. It may not be the most prominent demand (though I have found more sources for US intervention than the nebulous "end communism" – how, by coup?), but if it is at least a significant minority viewpoint it should be included. It meets that bar by a wide margin. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@AllegedlyHuman: United States intervention is a majority demand, according to who? The protests are focused inside of Cuba; although the protests abroad are from all over around the world. Intervention is asked by (partially) the exiled protesters. The vast majority of the sources, and the most creditable ones, do not indicate that a direct American intervention is being demanded in the Island. Sorry, but we must stick hard to the sources: WP:RSUW. Ajñavidya (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

These are high quality sources, and the US protests are part of the protests as well. You have yet to provide a high quality source (of which there is supposedly a "vast majority") saying "Cubans do not want military intervention" or something similar. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@AllegedlyHuman: I think you're incurring in an inversion of proof here. It's your job to give sources of your claim that a USA humanitarian intervention is a majority demand of the protesters: It is NOT my job to demonstrate that what you're claiming is NOT true.

What the vast majority of sources indicate is that Cubans are chanting "Down with communism!", "Down with the dictatorship!" and "Díaz-Canel singao!;" which supports that they want a regime change and the resignation of the current president Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez; other goals cannot be included along those two per WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:Proportion. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

If you genuinely believe there’s a majority demand for boots on the ground from native Cubans, that’s just insane. Even if you just want to attribute it to US protestors, that’s hardly due weight and dangerous as hell in an article with this much traffic. Paragon Deku (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The call for US military intervention seems to be mainly, if not entirely, coming from the US itself. It would be quite ludicrous to suggest that Cuban protesters want that, especially given America's horrific track record of interventions in Latin America. It seems to be a very US-centric demand. BeŻet (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The page is based on protests occurring within Cuba itself. Protests outside of Cuba are mentioned in a specific sections, but they are not the focus of the article. Those that expressed support for a military intervention were all either Cuban exile leaders, or Floridian political leaders. Even native Cubans that oppose their own government are extremely unlikely to support starting a literal war in their home country and subjecting it to military occupation (especially given how recent military occupations were conducted and ended..). Moreover, if you are a Cuban that believes his government to be too authoritarian, would you really think foreign military occupation authorities are going to be more democratic? That's not to mention how Cuban history associates foreign interference not with democracy, but with harsh military dictatorship - such as that of Fulgencio Batista. But more than anything - the sources simply don't say it. You've yet to present a single RS that demonstrates ordinary, native Cubans demanding a military intervention by the US (or any other world power). Your sources only state that demand as being made by sectors of (not even the whole) Cuban exile community and a few American politicians. Goodposts (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not relevant at all. The page in its current state is about the international protests regarding this flareup, whether in Cuba or elsewhere. If you think that's strange, you're as welcome as anyone else to suggest splitting out content, a la International protests over the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis or List of George Floyd protests outside the United States. But as the article stands, it should not matter whether these demands are coming from the island of Cuba or outside of it. As such, it is a non sequitur that these demands are being made in the US; yes, that is indeed what these sources say, but those are as a much part of the protests as anywhere else – or else the content should be moved. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

To say that protests occurring outside of Cuba carry the same weight as, and should be treated as equivalent too, protests within Cuba is frankly insane. The idea that anyone can protest related to protests within a country from outside of that country and have their “demands” treated as equally serious is not only idiotic, but dangerous as well. The page is not about international reactions, it is about protests in Cuba, of which protests externally supporting and condemning are a small part. BSMRD (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying they should be "treated as equivalent", and I do not take kindly to being called "insane" and "idiotic". This information, mentioned in the sources above and many more, should be listed in the infobox. I understand it is not the primary goal, and is not the goal of all protesters; however, it is a goal of some of the protesters, and as such should be listed in the infobox, after other more broad goals, and perhaps with a footnote explaining the difference in opinion between protesters by location. That is what I am asking for. This article also makes no distinction between the protests in Cuba and the protests by the Cuban diaspora and their political supporters; in fact, the infobox currently defines the location as "Cuba [and] localized support rallies in the United States, especially Florida". I will say this again: if you or anyone else thinks that information on international protests, of which there have been several, is more appropriate elsewhere, then a discussion on that should be held separately, but at present I do not get how simply saying a demand is localized to protesters in the US refutes that the information given is significant. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Now, I can't speak on behalf of other editors, but it does appear apparent to me that he said that making a certain statement that you had made in the past was insane, not called you as a person insane. The page is about the protests in Cuba, apart from one section, where protests outside of Cuba are covered. Now, you are free to consider that this arrangement is not enough, and that the international protests deserve their own article. If so, you're more than free to create that article. However, trying to shift the focus away from the domestic protests to the international one is neither very helpful from an encyclopaedic point of view, nor backed up by precedent. For example, during the 2019–2020 Iranian protests, some protesters, particularly from exiled monarchist groups, chanted slogans in support of the former Iranian monarchy. Despite this, and due to WP:DUE considerations, "Return of the Shah" is not listed as a protest goal in the infobox. Goodposts (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong in mentioning in one of the sections that Cuban Americans living in the United States have demanded that their country invades Cuba, however this article is about the protests in Cuba, and trust me, nobody wants their country invaded. BeŻet (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Radio jamming

The Cuban government also seems to be jamming the 40-metre amateur radio band, as evidenced in these and several other videos. [1][2][3][4] --  Denelson83  05:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

We need a reliable source mentioning this to verify this information and establish whether it's WP:DUE. BeŻet (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

To establish reliability and DUE considerations, we'd need for this to be reported by high-profile, reputable agencies. Youtube videos by small creators, unfortunately, does not meet that criteria. It's also worth noting that if you check the comments section on some of these videos, you'll see the creators of some of the others - and it appears as though they are merely repeating the claim made by the original video. That video is made by an unknown creator allegedly based in Florida. That is nowhere near the standards of RS. Moreover, YouTube videos in general are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. Goodposts (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Then could the American Radio Relay League be such a reliable source of this kind of information? --  Denelson83  22:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Way better than a YouTube video, but you're still likely to have to find their statement/report being covered by a secondary source (eg. CNN, BBC, Reuters, FT, etc) per PSTS, though if you do then you can combine both. However, I also tried finding information about this topic on the ARRL's website, but couldn't find any. Goodposts (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

“Authoritarianism, reduced civil liberties, and strict COVID-19 restrictions”

This part feels incredibly cherrypicked, especially the authoritarianism claim. I don’t know whether or not this deserves weight over the immediate material concerns of food and medicine, unless we’re just rolling in American protests. Paragon Deku (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Most sources we've listed state that the reason for the protests' beginning were the shortages of food/medicine and/or the COVID response. Cuba hasn't implemented any new authoritarian measures recently, and during the past few years has even cautiously relaxed several. It is not in dispute that some of the protesters' demands are political in nature, and that groups within the protest movement see the government as inherently authoritarian and seek its overthrow. With that said, that was not the cause of the protests, and it isn't clear what the proportion is between factions that protest on economic woes alone and those that do so with an explicit anti-government rationale. Opposition to the government and/or it's method of governing is definitely a motivation between some protest factions, but it's not what initiated the protests. Goodposts (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Goodposts, I agree. What do you propose? If it is true that "Cuba hasn't implemented any new authoritarian measures recently, and during the past few years has even cautiously relaxed several", this is something that should be discussed in the Background section, especially the latter part. If you have in mind a sentence to summarize this, with reliable sources, please propose it here, or just do it. I did add your suggestions you stated here about the embargo and the studies, so this could be added too. Davide King (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, the measures I had in mind were around the changes that happened in connection with the Cuban thaw and subsequent 2019 Cuban constitutional referendum. Neither fundamentally changed the structure of Cuban society or its political system, but constitutionally-guaranteed respect for private property is definitely a step toward reform, and moreover the reintroduction of safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention suspended by the pre-revolutionary Batista government mark a significant step in terms of personal freedoms on the island. This piece by WOLA does quite an extensive analysis, for example. In any case, the point was that although Cuba's political system remained largely the same, observers noted that civil liberties had recently increased (even if they consider the amount of reform insufficient), not decreased. Goodposts (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I have mentioned this above as there have been plenty of times "authoritarianism" has been inserted there with sources which do not say so, and now we have two cherrypicked sources about people in Trinidad and Tabago, and Costa Rica, who mention a "dictatorhsip". I would remove it until a good source is found. BeŻet (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

This has been already mentioned in the edits ad nauseam. "Authoritarianism" is a correct and concise description of what the vast majority of sources describe as one of the causes, if not the main cause itself, of the protests. Sources directly using the words "authoritarian" or "authoritarianism" are not cherry-picked; it's like saying that the sources for "shortage of food and medicine" and "USA embargo" in the infobox are being cherry-picked — it doesn't make any sense. They would be cherry-picked only if they contradicted what the rest of the sources state; but again, this is not the case. Ajñavidya (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

...but they don't though. Show me an example sentence from the source which we could discuss. BeŻet (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the question is not whether Cuba is authoritarian or not, but whether authoritarianism is one of the main causes of the protests, and whether you like it or not, the main cause is the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath/handling by the government; whether the latter also awoke people to politics is besides the point because, as stated by Goodposts at "Serious Question", they are a result of the COVID-19 pandemic handling by the government and the lack of medicines and vaccines in the first place, and they did not happen in a vacuum; something serious had to happen for people to protest now after so many years. Reuter mentions curbs on civil liberties, which is not the same thing as authoritarianism (all Western governments curbed civil liberties due to the pandemic), saying: "Thousands joined a wave of nationwide protests over shortages of basic goods, curbs on civil liberties and the government's handling of a surge in COVID-19 infections on Sunday, in the most significant unrest in decades in the Communist-run country." It also does not specify whether curbs are the results of COVID-19 restrictions and the government handling of the pandemic, which have been described as strict, or something else. So I would say "reduced civil liberties" is already covered by "government response to the COVID-19 pandemic." Davide King (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we simply don't have reliable sources that explicitly state that the protests are due to "authoritarianism". "Reduced civil liberties" is what is mentioned. BeŻet (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, just to add for comparison, in the article about 2021 Haitian protests we don't list "authoritarianism" as a cause of the protests even though the protesters are chanting "Down with the dictatorship". BeŻet (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

That articles "causes" are kind of a mess. What does "impunity" mean? BSMRD (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Not the same that Haiti. Almost all sources on Cuban protests cite a disatisfaction with the government, not just from covid-19 measures, but long before them; hence the song Patria Y Vida and the increased growth of dissident movements long before covid-19. Sources describe covid-19 measures as a "spark" or an adding cause to an already-exising dissatisfaction with the PCC's one-party goverment. Reducing the causes of the protests as merely economic would be a misrepresentation. Is that the same thing with Haiti? I don't know; but if sources quote authoritarian and repressive measures as a cause of protests in Haiti, then I think it should be included as a cause in that article. --Ajñavidya (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources don't quote authoritarian and repressive measures as a cause of protests in Cuba. BeŻet (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"The Cuban people are demanding their freedom from an authoritarian regime. I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this protest in a long long time, if, quite frankly, ever," that was said by President of the United States, Joe Biden, according to [this source]. El País states, in Spanish: "After 62 years of authoritarism, totalitarian control and reduction of civil liberties to zero, the Cuban people has legitimally opted for sedition of the government in name of common good." MSN quotes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as supporting protesters against what can be summarized as "authoritarian" actions, and even that article uses the description "authoritarian government." These are reputable sources and cannot be just erased from the article. Ajñavidya (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You're quoting the American president! Come on... We're not describing these protests through the lens of American politicians. BeŻet (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Since there isn't consensus about using "authoritarianism" in the article, could editors kindly stop adding it until a consensus is reached. BeŻet (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

BeŻet, I agree. If there is a problem with "reduced civil liberties", which it should not be, as even though they are still not on par with Western countries, they did slightly increase but have been indeed reduced, also due to the COVID-19 pandemic; again, there is a double standard that all Western countries did that but we do not put it in the infobox (I say this because it is not so clear in my reading of Reuters whether curbs are a result of the pandemic or of something else, which would be different; of course, the fact civil liberties are not on pair with higher-ranked countries may be something, i.e. Western countries had higher rankings of civil liberties, but lower-ranking countries which had to further reduce civil liberties due to the pandemic may be seen different by its citizens). Either way, let us just use the same wording from Reuters, i.e. "curbs on civil liberties" and put it next to COVID-19 response, as that seems to be the context ("Thousands joined a wave of nationwide protests over shortages of basic goods, curbs on civil liberties and the government's handling of a surge in COVID-19 infections on Sunday, in the most significant unrest in decades in the Communist-run country.") Davide King (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Serious Question

Can someone explain to me quickly why the US embargo on Cuba is listed under the causes for the protest when it is not a cause for the protest. None of the protest influencers (if that's a term) have said that one of the reason for the protests is the embargo. In fact, protestors have said the opposite. (that's its not).

I can understand and am aware of the fact that the embargo impacted the Cuban economy which impacted the citizens. if this is in fact the case and that is the reason that the embargo is included under causes then please let me know. However, I believe that other similar causes are not written in other causes of other protest articles. Thanks Idan (username is Zvikorn) (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Leaving aside all else, the Cuban Gov has listed it as the main cause for protests, which should be included. BSMRD (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Cubans have frequently protested in the past against the US embargo, and it is often mentioned by sources when discussing the causes of the protests. BeŻet (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Generally, because food and medicine shortages were the primary initiators of the protest movement. Hence, factors which led to that shortage can in some cases become reasons in of themselves, should they be relevant and significant enough to pass DUE guidelines. This was actually already challenged and resolved after RS were shown to have concurred that the embargo directly, significantly and negatively affected the health and nutrition of ordinary Cubans. Furthermore, the embargo was mentioned as a reason in some of the RS, which means it passes DUE. Goodposts (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

What RS would those be? And yeah that should be removed 100%. Volunteer Marek 16:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The ones listed under the "background" section of the article. I personally consider The Lancet to be the most reputable out of all of them - it is one of the most reputable academic journals in the world. It directly blames the embargo for chronic issues in the supply of foods and medicines. Goodposts (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Cubans have taken to the streets in cities across the country over the last week, in a wave of rare public protests to express their frustration with rising prices, falling wages, the United States embargo and the failings of the island’s long-standing communist government to address its economic challenges. as found here. BeŻet (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The very article of Al Jazeera used as a reference puts it into question. It reports that Diaz-Canel blames the embargo, and later on they explain the embargo and say (in article's voice) "The embargo has also provided the island’s government with ammunition for its claims that its economic woes are the fault of the US". Then it points that Diaz-Canel himself conceded that Cuba's economic policy is also to blame, and then explains many of the self-inflicted problems of the Cuban economic system. Cambalachero (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Cambalachero, my understanding is that there is no contradiction between the first sentence ("Cubans have taken to the streets in cities across the country over the last week, in a wave of rare public protests to express their frustration with rising prices, falling wages, the United States embargo and the failings of the island’s long-standing communist government to address its economic challenges") and the second ("The embargo has also provided the island’s government with ammunition for its claims that its economic woes are the fault of the US.") In short, the embargo can be both a woe for protesters, among other causes, and government ammunition. The only contradiction is the ammunition part, since it was conceded economic policy is also to blame, so it is no longer an ammunition as much as before the admission. Davide King (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The actual cause of the protests is the scarcity of food and medicines. That part is undisputed, and already in the infobox. Now, what caused that scarcity? According to communists, Diaz Canel among them, it's because of the embargo. According to capitalists, Joe Biden among them, it's because Cuba's own economic policies. We can either list both, with their own references, or none of them, and leave it as "shortage of food and medicine". It would be simpler to do the later. Cambalachero (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that many sources don't include the embargo as a cause, and that care should be taken that this does not constitute cherry picking of a single source that mentions it (with a contribution, it should be noted). Additionally, the embargo has also been in place for over sixty years, meaning that even if it is considered an underlying cause, it is not an immediate one, such as the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, it should be removed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

NoonIcarus, it is not just one source; the infobox is supposed to be summarizing, so we do not need three sources for each claim. One is enough, although the second source for economic reforms also support that, but I respect your comment. My compromise is to say "United States embargo against Cuba[2] and the latter's lack of promised economic reforms[3]" Because the embargo is not necessarily an immediate cause, so it should not be listed alone, but it is an underlying cause and it simply cannot be ignored, as it exacerbates it. Davide King (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you likewise for your thoughts. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Cambalachero, I do not disagree; however, independent studies show that the embargo have been causing problems to Cuba and its citizens, which are obviously going to get even worse in the middle of a pandemic, which is confirmed by Al Jazeera, and I repeat my belief that there is no contradiction in the article; whether it is only the embargo or the economic policies is besides the point. The Cuban government may have exaggerated in the past, although they no longer do that, as they admitted it is not just the embargo, but independent studies confirm the embargo effects on the country and its citizens, especially their standard of living; and in my view, this is much better than two hostile governments blaming it all either on the embargo or the economic system alone. Davide King (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there any better source for "rioting"?

The current source for including rioting as a method of protest is from a news article that shows a photo of a rolled over police patrol, but the riot event is never addressed in the text. Since WP:ORIGINAL doesn't allow to extrapolate conclusions —even when they're "obvious"—, please, whoever knows a better source for "rioting" already in the article, re-cite; or add new ones. Ajñavidya (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I read a few sources mentioning rioting and rock throwing, toppling of cars, so will try to collect them and put them there. BeŻet (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be appreciated. Ajñavidya (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Government held rally in Havana

I have been somewhat involved with this article recently. I recently came across a Reuters article saying that the Cuban government organized a pro-government rally. It appears to have happened on July 17. I am wondering if everyone here thinks this should be added into the article as it seems to be a rather significant event regarding the protests.

Here is a good link to my article.

Thank you, --Skim 00:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Reuters is a reliable source. You can add it. Just make sure to write an accurate description of what the news article reports. Ajñavidya (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me some advice before I do this. I'll try to word it in the best way possible. --Skim 00:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

A call to put reality over ideology

I have noticed that there are very polemic points in this article that, despite being well-sourced, are constantly deleted, both sneakily and boldly, or called to be deleted with increasingly absurd excuses. Please, I call all those are sympathizers of the Cuban government or advocates of an USA intervention: this is not a game; given the news and posts on social media, people are having a very difficult time in Cuba. Be all the cold and rational you can, don't let your ideology or your political inclinations lead you to misjudge reality. Stick to the sources; don't try to either sabotage or sneak in bad faith edits, nor try to censor those who are justified; and don't involve in pointless discussions just to win an argument. This is important! Ajñavidya (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Cuba Decide

Is the Cuba Decide death count estimate actually WP:DUE? The claim only seems to have been taken up by ABC who, while not strictly unreliable, are certainly a highly biased source in this area. Cuba Decide themselves seem to be a fairly obscure NGO. Every other RS seems to be using the 1 death number. I just wonder if this might be an undue inflation (even if attributed) of the death count. BSMRD (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Cuba Decide is useful as a source because it can contrast the reports by the Ministry of Interior of Cuba, which is a government institution and isn't a reliable source in this conflict; very unreliable specially considering that many sources denounce control of information by the Cuban government. Sources from other NGOs are also welcomed. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Cuba Decide is an obscure, US-funded group, that presented an "estimate" without going into too much detail. It really isn't WP:DUE in the lead because it isn't a reliable source. BeŻet (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

End of protests

According to several sources now, the protests are now finished. See 1 and 2. Once the article is unlocked, this should be reflected in the infobox. BeŻet (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Who vandalized the infobox? It had previously indicated that that the protests ended on 14 July, which is what reliable sources indicate, but someone vandalized it and changed it to present. Style of thunder (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit request, 18 July 2021

Hi, I was surprised to see that not even extended confirmed users can edit. I request that, per this source, the Holy See reaction through Pope Francis, be included. Kindest regards. --CoryGlee (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Pope Francis called for peace and dialogue in Cuba, stating: "I am also close to the dear people of Cuba in these difficult times." at Others could do it.

Davide King (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)