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)

One example of The Guardian retracting the wrong use of the images (at the end of the article): https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jul/12/thousands-march-in-cuba-in-rare-mass-protests-amid-economic-crisis

Reuters (also Al Jazeera an others) about the fakes: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/fake-news-muddies-online-waters-during-cuba-protests-2021-07-16/

"'It's becoming increasingly obvious that the #SOSCuba hashtag was Astroturfed' According to whom? And in what information was this statement based on?" One spanish media researcher´s investigation about that: https://twitter.com/JulianMaciasT/status/1414681678539378691 , thousands of false accounts and bots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.184 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 21 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)

@BeŻet: You're right. WP:SPADE is an essay on civility between editors, not about editing itself. Nevertheless, my point still stands. "Authortiarianism"/""authoritarian" is mentioned in the sources, and it's an accurate description of what the sources report as complaints against the government by the protesters, as well as what's denounces by dissident groups. Ajñavidya (talk) 20:14, 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)

Alright Ajñavidya, let's try this again. I've provided a number of sources attesting that "United States military intervention" is a goal of the protests. Protests have been held solely for this cause. The calls have been so prominent that President Biden himself has considered heeding them. Now, as I have said repeatedly, the article makes no distinction between protests physically in Cuba and protests in solidarity internationally, and notes that the protests in the US and specifically in Florida are in fact a major component of the protests worldwide. So I ask again: Will you do as you have said ("If you discuss the change you want to make and reliable sources support your change, I assure you that you that it will be included."), and allow this abundantly sourced information into the article? Or will you continue to remove it for increasingly convoluted and hard-to-justify reasons? As a wise person once said: "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." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

AllegedlyHuman, initially I opposed the introduction of this goal, because I considered that there were not enough sources available to support that claim. However, re-considering the article in its current stage, I now do think that there's plenty of sources to back up "USA humanitarian intervention" in Cuba as goal. I think you can introduce it, but with this important caveat in parenthesis: demanded by some Cuban exiles in United States and Canada. The source for Canada is this: "Cubans Continue Halifax Rallies For Families, Friends Living In Country," Halifax Today. Ajñavidya (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for agreeing to compromise. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:44, 20 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)

We do now have this article on Vice. Would Vice be considered a reliable secondary source for this? https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3dxzg/fcc-investigating-whether-cuban-government-is-jamming-ham-radio --  Denelson83  17:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

According to our perennial sources table, "[t]here is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications" as of 2021. Davide King (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Denelson83:Do you have a link to ARRL actually talking about this? Like Goodposts I was unable to find anything about it on their website, but if you could provide a link I would consider that + the Vice article sufficient for mention in the article. A brief search shows aside from Vice it seems to only be blogs talking about this. BSMRD (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

No. I was only raising a "what if". I am continuing to look for reliable sources on this, and if I find any that I believe fit that description, I will put them here for you to consider. --  Denelson83  19:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Update The FCC is now investigating: link AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

We have already brought up the fact that reliability of Vice Media publications has not obtained a consensus here. --  Denelson83  05:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Vice is plenty reliable. And besides, the relevant info is sourced to an FCC spox. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:45, 21 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)

This has been already heavily discussed. Reputable sources cite "authoritarianism" as a cause of the protests. The actions of the government and what protests complain as a cause of the protests are measures that totally fit in the definition of "authoritarian," even those took as a result of the protests themselves. Reduced liberties is a problem which dates way before covid-19; only in 2019 a Constitutions was approved that recognized some basic rights that were absent in the previous 60 years of one-party rule, and even this 2019 Constitution was lacking in many ways (as is reflected in the article). The protests chant "Down with the dictatorship!" and "No more communism!"; the protests have a heavily political and anti-government nature. Reducing the causes to purely economic ones or covid-related measures is NOT an accurate depiction of the protests and this should be reflected in the infobox per WP:DUE. Ajñavidya (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not see you, too running to add authoritarianism to protests related to capitalist countries; protesters in capitalist Haiti (or is that not true capitalism?) shouted "Down with the dictatorship!" Weird how that is not seen as "Capitalism vs. Freedom"... But we do not put authoritarianism as a cause because it is a loaded label, it is better to be discussed in the body, and is not the main cause, as is the case of Cuba, where the lead section states that "protests against the Cuban government and the ruling Communist Party of Cuba began on 11 July 2021, triggered by the shortage of food and medicine and the government's response to the resurgent COVID-19 pandemic in Cuba." The fact there have been no new protests in the island since 14 July is telling, and after the government lifted limit on food and medicine that can be imported without duties. Perhaps authoritarianism is the cause of some Cubans and most abroad Cubans, those who want to end Communist rule or a U.S. military intervention, but it is not that of many other Cubans, whose main concern is food and medicine, and improve the government. You did say we should not put U.S. military intervention as goal because that is not the goal; well, authoritarianism may be a cause for some Cubans, especially abroad, but not of most Cubans, whose main concern is food and medicine, as we state on the lead. Even if you were right, the sources you provided still fail verification because they may only describe Cuba as authoritarian, which is not in dispute here, but they do not say 'authoritarianism' is a main cause, which is something you have yet to properly respond, and which I believe is already disputed by the fact you hold a double standard for protests in capitalist countries shouting the same things. Davide King (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion. Remember that 2021 Haitian protests is another article, and you must discuss this issue there; if you consider that authoritarianism is a cause of protests in Haiti and have sources which support that claim, I dearly suggest you to make the required changes in that article. The thing that in Cuban protests, the overwhelmingly vast majority of protesters inside of Cuba are chanting anti-authoritarian and anti-government slogans; this is not a protests caused by economic factors alone; it's a series of political issues and economic causes that together triggered the protests, and people in Cuba are complaining of measures took by a government that the sources describe as "authoritarian." This is well backed by sources, there's plentiful of them — I lost the count on how many times I have changed sources for that cause, and I don't understand why it is still considered problematic. Ajñavidya (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is another article, but if we were to follow your loose criteria, authoritarianism should be added there, too, but you only seem to be interested in this; I am against all authoritarian governments, not just one type, and I am against both sideism and double standardism; I am for consistency. I do not think we should follow your loose criteria. In addition, in spite of your claims that "I lost the count on how many times I have changed sources for that cause, and I don't understand why it is still considered problematic", they are problematic because you used Fox News and opinion piece; you even used one piece which was mainly about Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez reaction than Cuban protests causes. As stated by CoryGlee, "the word 'authoritarianism' here is disputed by sources, similar to the dispute [...] mark[ed] on the Bolivian political crisis and Argentina's involvement. Disputed by all reliable sources. Neutrality everywhere, please." The most neutrally-worded sources do not say what you believe.

Either way, "curbs on civil liberties" is enough, and is not something we put on any other COVID-19 related protests but that is what Reuters said; in spite of your claim, it is not clear whether curbs on civil liberties are due to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, which in Cuba were very strict, or something else, because civil rights were actually increased, even if there are still shortcomings and some civil rights in the Constitution are not reflected in real life, but Cuba is hardly the only country to not reflect all the values of the Constitution in real life. This is what Reuters says: "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." No mention of authoritarianism as a cause. You are right that it is "a series of political issues and economic causes that together triggered the protests" but the protests in the island are mainly triggered by economic causes, while abroad protests by political issues. We should not give the same weight to those abroad, who are the ones who may want the end of Communist rule or U.S. military intervention, while most Cubans just want food, medicine, and a better government, whether through reforms or with Diaz-Canel's resignation. Davide King (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Please, do not this when the RfC procedure is in place. Great, now you got us the page blocked again... The onus is on those adding, not on me, that is what the RfC procedure is about, and since there was no consensus to add it in the first place, we should have returned to the status quo ante, with no 'authoritarianism' in the infobox. Just like the onus is on those seeking conviction, not acquittal (positive vs. negative). Either way, you re-added the same Spanish source which is an opinion piece, and Vox make no mention of 'authoritarianism', or it being a cause, other than it being an authoritarian country, which is not what we are arguing about. Davide King (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Davide King:I will quote for you what the a Vox article states: "As experts pointed out, in an authoritarian country, challenging the government comes with very real risks. The economic frustrations and pandemic fatigue are intimately connected with Cuba’s politics." That means that economic causes alone cannot explain the triggering of the protests. Also, this from an ONG, Advocacy for Human Right in Las Americas: "Another major shortcoming has to do with the constitution’s treatment of property law—the division between personal and private property remains unclear. An additional issue is that the constitution does not impose formal limits on the power of the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC), which is again essentially recognized as the country’s most powerful body, with no constitutional obligation to obey principals such as popular sovereignty, constitutional supremacy, and legality." Reuters states: "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," also quoting blogger Yoani Sánchez, a Cuban dissident: "Government critic Yoani Sanchez, who runs news website 14ymedio, was quick to tweet that such concessions would not be enough to appease those who had protested on Sunday. 'We do not want crumbs, we want freedom, and we want it nowwwww," she wrote. "The streets have spoken: we are not afraid.'" Reuters makes clear that this is not just a covid-19 protests. Reuters also states: "In Cuba, a growing number of high-profile artists from salsa band Los Van Van to jazz pianist Chucho Valdés have criticized the authorities’ handling of the unrest, urging them to listen to protesters rather than fight them" and "The government blamed the unrest on U.S.-financed 'counter-revolutionaries' exploiting hardship caused by the decades-old U.S. trade embargo that Washington tightened in the midst of the pandemic, pushing the Cuban economy to the brink"; that is, the Cuban government accused all protesters of being mercenaries paid by the United States — this is clearly and important lack of civil liberties, being accused by authorities of being a "mercenary," with no supporting evidence. Ajñavidya (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have read the article, so no need to use quotes. 'Cuba's politics' does not equate 'authoritarianism', and even though I am open-minded and willing to change, I am still unconvinced they are saying 'authoritarianism', rather than curbs on civil rights, is a main cause. What I am sure about is they believe Cuba is authoritarian, but that is beside the point. Either way, Reuters does not include 'authoritarianism', so it is one source vs. another, and ONGs are not necessarily reliable sources. The opinion a Cuban dissident is their own opinion, and it still does not verify what you want to add. Both 'authoritarian' and 'freedom' are loaded words in this context; what do they mean by freedom; there is just so many, positive liberty, negative liberty, civil rights, a more accountable government, its resignation, or its total overthrow? Is it really a statement by the government a lack of civil liberties? It is simply the government's views, which also included protesters with legitimate frustrations, but you did not quote that. Trump's statements were much worse, but we do not see that as lack of civil liberties. Lack of freedom of assembly and expression, etc., those are legitimate civil rights violations, not the government releasing a statement in a convoluted situation, and which remains your personal opinion; we need reliable sources stating that the Cuban government "accus[ing] all protesters of being mercenaries paid by the United States", which is false ("there are three kinds of protesters: counter-revolutionaries, criminals and those with legitimate frustrations.)", is a lack of civil liberties. Free speech also applies to government ministers. Obviously, you are not going to change your mind, so I do not know what else to tell you, other than other users' views and are welcome. Davide King (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

In response to your comment that "[p]lease, discuss why information backed by sources should be removed", I do not know... maybe because there is literally a RfC about whether to add it or not, not whether to remove it, and that should not be added unless the procedure is completed and there is consensus for it? "Don't make unnecessary edit wars, we can discuss this." I am just reverting back to the status quo, which is what is done in dispute like this and when there is a RfC request in progress. I will be the first to add it back when/if there is consensus for it through the RfC request, but until then it should not be added. Again, the RfC wording is "Should Authoritarianism be listed as a cause of the protests in the infobox?" Not whether to remove it; there was no consensus in the first place, as evidenced by mine, BeŻet, and one IP's revert. You were the only one to keep adding, despite being reverted by at least three users... You are the one who do not seem to discuss and want to get their own way. Let us respect the process. Davide King (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: No, there's plenty of sources that describe the Cuban government as "authoritarian" and the nature of the protests as anti-authoritarian. I have deleted many sources because "authoritarianism" was overkilled and because some sources were considered problematic. The fact that "authoritariansm" is being polemic doesn't mean that it isn't well backed up by the sources. This is why I don't don't understand the polemic nature of it. Ajñavidya (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Davide King: Just like the sources I just have mentioned, I could go on an continue to explain why "authoritarianism and reduced civil liberties" is, in fact, a main cause of the protests. But I think that the problem here lies in something deeper; it's like you want to make it all fit into a capitalism vs. socialsm scheme, and that scheme doesn't work here. Could there be a socialist country which is not authoritarian? Maybe yes. But reality is that Cuba is an authoritarian government and this is supported by various reputable sources, and the authoritarian nature of the government is one of the main causes of protest. Ajñavidya (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe this comment by BSMRD is a good summary of what you are doing and nothing is going to change your mind. For the umpteenth time, Cuba being an authoritarian government = authoritarianism main cause of protests. I am going to quote directly BSMRD's good observation:

This seems to be an issue of WP:SYNTH. From the variety of sources that have been used to justify inclusion we can gather that most RS (including some of the best like Reuters, AP, etc.) say (some variation of) the following: ::::::::*Cuba is an authoritarian government. ::::::::*There have been recent curbs on civil liberties due to the COVID-19 pandemic, after an increase in 2019. ::::::::*These curbs are a part of the reason for protests (alongside other factors enumerated in the infobox). It seems to me that putting authoritarianism as a cause in the infobox is an attempt to combine points 2 and 3 with point 1 to say the protests are against authoritarianism, which is only stated directly by unreliable sources such as Fox News and The Daily Caller, and should be avoided unless/until actually reliable sources say such in their own voice.

You are attempting to combine the fact that Cuba is authoritarian with sources saying Cuba is authoritarian, to claim that authoritarianism is the main cause of the proretsts. Please, drop the "Cuba is an authoritarian government", which is not what we are discussing. A government can be authoritarian, and authoritarianism can still not be the main cause of the protests; lack of food and medicine, recession, etc. can still be the main cause in an authoritarian country rather than 'authoritarianism.' I understand your point and what you are saying, do you understand mine? Because I am not so sure, since you keep mention 'authoritarian' when what we are discussing is 'authoritarianism' as a cause. I believe "curbs on civil liberties", which is supported by reliable sources, is enough as the political cause. Davide King (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Fox News is not the only source that mentions that, and I have already erased that source (as many other ones which were considered problematic). I am not saying that "authoritarianism" is the only cause of the protests, I am saying that the sources do say (and I have already quoted them) that economic causes were combined with the general unrest and resentment due to the authoritarian nature of the government. As this Vox article explains, the reduced civil liberties and authoritarian nature of the Cuban government dates way back of the covid-19 in 2020, and hence the anti-government anti-authoritarian messages of songs like Patria Y Vida which practically all the protesters have identified with. Including "reduced/curbs on civil liberties" along covid-19 pandemic response is misleading because of this, and that's something I have explained to you many times.

The sources recognize all this. The article itself reflects this. The only reason to not including it in the infobox seems to be that some editor just don't like. Ajñavidya (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

But the sources you cited are either opinion pieces or do not list as authoritarianism as a cause. Even if they do list it, other sources do not; what all sources list is the lack of medicine and food, and the government handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. When sources disagree among themselves, we do not put a loaded term in the infobox, we discuss it in the body. So far, there is agreement about curbs on civil rights/liberties, not on 'authoritarianism.' While it is true that that "reduced civil liberties and authoritarian nature of the Cuban government dates way back of the [COVID]-19 in 2020", you forgot to mention that they did slightly increased; perhaps the fact they were increasing but then COVID-19 hit, forcing the government to reverse the progress is a better explanation than acting like there was no progress. As you noted, it is not that Cuba became authoritarian, it already was, yet there were no big protests until the 2020s. Could it be that just as there was some progress on economic reform (private property, foreign investment, etc.) and civil rights/liberties (habeas corpus, presumption of innocence, ban on discrimination, etc.), the COVID-19 pandemic alterated this progress and prompted the political cause? Why did it happen only now, when COVID-19 hit, the economy went in recession, and progress was halted? This shows that the lack of promised reforms is more due than 'authoritarianism.' Everything is political, so there is always also a political cause but in this case it is not 'authoritarianism.' It is more of lack of faith in government due the progress being halted and curbs on civil rights, rather than 'authoritarianism', being a better explanation as political cause.

Even if you are right and 'authoritarianism' is a cause, the issue remains that the main causes are lack of food and medicine, the government handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and economy, and the embargo. Authoritarianism is just one of many other causes which could be added but are not due and are better discussed in the body. If 'authoritarianism' is rarely, if ever, mentioned as a cause in the infobox of so many articles, there must be a reason, like not being the main cause or discuss it in the main body. Haitian protesters also chanted against the government but we do not list 'authoritarianism.' Chants alone cannot be used as proof, and are not used by reliable sources who do not list authoritarianism as a cause, even when they say the country itself is authoritarian. "The only reason to not including it in the infobox seems to be that some editor just don't like." Please, assume good faith. I believe others and I gave fair justification for their reasoning behind it. Davide King (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

And of course, in an authoritarian country, lack of civil rights and liberties can still be a cause (I am protesting against lack of food and the recession, those are the causes; yet, I, we the protesters, also point out the lack of rights and liberties because, even though I am not protesting against 'authoritarianism', they are still an issue and make the recession and things in general worse and slow the "getting better" process), without actually being a cause. In this case, lack of food and medicine, and the COVID-19 pandemic response are the main cause, even when/if curbs on civil rights factor in. Either way, I reiterated that is better to be discussed in the body, rather than utilize a loaded label in the infobox, which should be for uncontroversial and basic facts. Davide King (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Davide King:Read my immediate previous reply where I address what you have just said. Ajñavidya (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have protected the page again, open for editing for editors with extended confirmed access, with pending changes activated also. You folk really need to thrash this content dispute out here at the talk page rather than use edit summaries to put forth your view and reasons for changes. I can see a RfC is currently active and that being said, any content which is deemed controversial should not be added to the article until consensus is reached to do so. -- Longhair\^talk 21:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"any content which is deemed controversial should not be added to the article until consensus is reached to do so." ... which, to be fair, is exactly what I tried to do, but the other user added it again, even though there was no consensus in the first place (they have been reverted by at least three different users, including me), and the RfC requests is whether to add it, not remove it. Davide King (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Note that the protection of the article is not my endorsement of the current content, moreso a means to stop the edit warring which is clearly ongoing since page protection was lifted just over an hour ago. -- Longhair\^talk 21:54, 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)

The main cause of the protest is the economy and the limitations created by the pandemic. It started with the many power cuts, caused by failures in two large power plants and another under repair so the generation capacity was low, which causes having to make cuts in some places and prioritize others where there are hospitals, isolation centers or suspects. , sick and quarantined. Another reason is lack of medicines. the pandemic has increased the demand and they are prioritized for the most pressing patients. The country can produce half of the medicines, but it is difficult for it to buy the supplies for it. And the embargo also limits the purchase of medicines and medical equipment on many occasions. Similar is with vaccines. The country has several vaccines under development, and two have already completed phase III (~ 92% efficacy both), and one is approved for emergency use. But the difficulty is having syringes that the embargo limits the possibilities of purchase, as well as the supplies for the production of vaccines. The population is being vaccinated even before completing the vaccine tests, but somewhat slowly, due to a lack of syringes. The pandemic has cut off almost all tourism, an inflow of foreign exchange to the country for imports of food and supplies. Within the economy, some measures they have had to take are unpopular, but mostly conditioned by the embargo, measures in survival mode. And most of those "influencers" have relationships with "NGOs" like the NED and USAID, or are based on US.

Then the historical base for the embargo and all the politics to keep it active and hardened : On April 6, 1960 Lester D. Mallory, Assistant Deputy Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, in a secret memorandum from the State Department stated: “The majority of Cubans support Castro… the only foreseeable way to subtract internal support from him is through the disenchantment and dissatisfaction arising from the economic malaise and material difficulties ... all possible means must be used quickly to weaken the economic life of Cuba ... a line of action that, being as skillful and discreet as possible, achieves the greatest progress in depriving Cuba of money and supplies, in order to reduce its financial resources and real wages, cause hunger, despair and the overthrow of the Government”. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.184 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 20 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)

Hahahaha. Says the person responsible for "constantly deleting" well-sourced content I added to the article. This is grand. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If you discuss the change you want to make and reliable sources support your change, I assure you that you that it will be included. Otherwise, sorry but it just can't be done. Ajñavidya (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have – 10 of them, in fact. Many more exist; Google News search "Cuba military intervention" if you still don't believe me. I'm not saying anything other than that this verifiable and widely reported fact, that many Cuban American protesters support US intervention, should be included (and treated with the proper nuance necessary). I'm calling your bluff here on "assurance that it will be included"; it very clearly is due. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ajñavidya, why your sources for 'authoritarianism' are enough in your view but just as many reliable sources in support of U.S. military intervention, perhaps with the "by (some) abroad Cubans"caveat, are not? The same arguments you used to support the addition of 'authoritarianism' would require that we also add U.S. military intervention; you cannot state that 'authoritarianism' is supported by sources and accuse us, but then reject the same reliable sources for U.S. military intervention. Davide King (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Davide King, you're making a false equivalence here. "USA military intervention" is a claim made by a fraction of the protesters outside of Cuba, and the sources recognize it; even so, I think it can be included with that caveat you mention — but that's another discussion. The point here is that there are many reputable sources that cite "authoritarianism" as a cause for the protests inside and outside of Cuba; and even those other sources that don't use words like "authoritarianism" or "authoritarian" report information that doesn't contradict this fact. No amount of verbal gymnastics will hide this. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, you claim that they "cite 'authoritarianism' as a cause for the protests inside and outside of Cuba" but my reading and understanding (and I am not the only one) is that is not what they are saying; they are saying the country is authoritarian, which is not the same thing. Lack of economic and political reform is more supported than loaded 'authoritarianism.' But you also ignore that this lack has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, as that halted any little progress being made. Why not just keep "curbs on civil liberties" and add lack of political and economic reforms per Vox? It is more accurate and does not use any loaded or weasel term, which is not supported by all sources. Can you respond to my argument that if authoritarianism is not mentioned by other sources, there is a disagreement, and the solution is not putting a term supported only by half (an example)? Davide King (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not notice you did respond to my argument, but that still leave me like... eh. That still does not answer my point. Why are those sources which mention 'authoritarianism' (again, they actually say the country is authoritarian and the political cause is a lack of promised reforms, not authoritarianism) worthy more than those which do not? In cases like this, the solution is to not put a contentious cause which is not listed by just as many other reliable sources, when a real solution would be adding "lack of promised economic and political reforms." Davide King (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I have quoted ad nauseam sources for you that state that authoritarianism is a cause of the protests (inside of Cuba); not a secondary cause but a main one — along with the economic causes already depicted. You just cannot reduce the protests to be caused by economic factors, taking into consideration what songs like Patria Y Vida mean in the context. Various sources enter in detail either on economic factors or political factors, but almost none denies the existence of both. You seem to be in distress if "authoritarianism" is cited as a cause in the infobox, despite being so obvious and despite you being a good researcher (from what I've seen). What could be the cause of this? Ideology maybe? I sincerely don't know. But we have discussed all this elsewhere in the talk page. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

1) Please recall that "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is a form of personal attack. 2) Nothing has been presented so far that verifies your claim that "'USA military intervention' is a claim made by a fraction of the protesters outside of Cuba". In fact, there have been rallies organized specifically to call for intervention, and prominent leaders have echoed the call as well. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not using anybody's affiliations (which I don't know) to discredit their views. In fact, I'm not discrediting anybody's views. The points I'm defending so far are based on sources and on this site's policies. I have only made an appeal to rationality since I perceive some behavior in the edits as irrational, and I think they could be motivated by ideology. That's all. On your request of including "USA intervention," do you have any reputable source referring to this claim being made by protesters INSIDE of Cuba? If so, cite them in the section "United States military intervention," which is where we're discussing that issue. Ajñavidya (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ludicrous. You said another user was in "distress", thrown into an uncharacteristic tizzy by ideology, maybe, I sincerely don't know? then fall back on the "I was only asking questions! I was enforcing the rules!" trope when you are in fact called out for violating them yourself. The policy is clear: "forbidden". As for the point of protesters making this claim in Cuba, I don't know how many times I need to say that's not relevant (I thought I'd said it plenty, but you still don't get the point). The article treats all protests anywhere about this incident under the same banner. If you think it shouldn't, propose a split. That said, I'm still willing to compromise to the point of a footnote or another manner of clarification, but you are selectively excising well-sourced, abundantly reported material from this article, and then wailing in a new talk page section about how people are doing just that. Give me a break and maybe look in the mirror just once. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I only mentioned distress because of his insistence of not listing "authoritarianism" as a cause of the protests, despite being backed by sources. On the inclusion of "USA intervention" as a goal in the infobox, again, you should discuss that issue in this section. Ajñavidya (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hypocrisy, plain as day. You're insisting not listing "United States military intervention" as a goal of the protests, despite being backed by sources. Now, unlike you, I'm not going to call you an ideologue for that, or insinuate it, because I'm going to treat you with respect. But you have to see that you are guilty of the same exact behavior, to a T, that you're complaining about. On your other point: I have raised my concern in that section, I was resoundingly shot down by yourself and other editors, and the conversation above has, evidently, closed. I'm raising my concerns, separately, here, as I saw your initial comment and was aggrieved by the hypocritical nature of it and, now, your subsequent responses. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

And I have explained ad nauseam why they are problematic and do not support it as a main cause. Also remember that ideology goes both ways, and no one is free from it or from bias. I thank you for your compliment about being a good researcher, and I hope you do not see this as something personal, even if I may sound condescending, I am just very passionate when explaining my reasons. I support Cubans and a democratizing process, without having to undergo what Russia did, like selling state-owned property at way below their value, sold out to foreign corporations, or U.S. military intervention. I also think that authoritarianism is not only unethical but in most cases is even counter-productive and freedom of assembly, expression, etc. must be respected for any country to be civil. I just do not think putting a label, even if accurate, is an improvement, when we already use, and can further improve, wording that says the same thing better. Davide King (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hear, hear. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not insisting on anything, I already told you that you must expose your point here. This is not the proper section for disussing that. Ajñavidya (talk) 01:52, 20 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 (NED & USAID), 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)

Even if this was true, if we include Cuban Ministry of Interior we must also include alternative sources, because Cuban government is not a reliable source. Ajñavidya (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Says who? Do we not trust any government now? BeŻet (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The government is involved in the conflict and it is accused of manipulating and censoring information by many sources. I think that absolutely justifies taking any declaration by the government under WP:QUESTIONABLE. Ajñavidya (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This is how Cuba Decide describes itself:

• We have not had free elections for almost 70 years in Cuba. Too many generations have been deprived of their rights.
• It’s time to put an end to a tyranny ...
• we have the right to choose in which system we prefer to live and because we want to change the failed system that the regime has imposed all these years.

Burrobert (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

So far it hasn't been explained into detail why the NGO is obscure and unreliable. It is directed by María Payá Acevedo, daughter of Oswaldo Payá, and it has been quoted by reliable sources such as ABC. At any rate, it is an important reference to balance state numbers. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:11, 21 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)

There's no indication that the protests have ended. Ajñavidya (talk)

The protests were forcibly "finished" by the government crackdown. Government-trained forces inflicted real pain on protesters (several were shot and beaten), hundreds were arrested, internet and cell phone service were cut (to prevent photos/videos from reaching the world, and disrupt communications between protesters (very typical of totalitarian governments). See: "Cuba to Prosecute People Detained During Recent Protests". WSJ. July 20, 2021. TocororoWings (talk) 06:17, 21 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)

RfC on Authoritarianism as a cause of protests

Should Authoritarianism be listed as a cause of the protests in the infobox? BSMRD (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• No, unless we get reliable sources (the most neutral-worded Associated Press and Reuters in particular) explicitly saying authoritarianism is a cause, rather than just say Cuba is authoritarian or that curbs on civil liberties are a cause, which we already say and are not in dispute. So far, sources used in support for the claim have been either Fox News (not reliable for politics and science), opinion pieces (which may be used in the body, properly attributed, not for a contentious claim in the infobox), and sources describing Cuba as authoritarian, not saying that authoritarianism, rather than curbs on civil liberties due to the government handling of the pandemic, is a cause of the protests. For capitalist protests in Haiti, we do not list authoritarianism, and we should not list it; it is to be discussed and clarified in the body. We should not list it here either, except for the aforementioned caveat. Labels such as authoritarianism are better discussed in the body, which we already do in Background rather than as a label in the infobox. Davide King (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

   Comment: I do not want those who are for 'yes' to appear the rational ones just for proving sources, so I am gonna provide some too to show mine and others' arguments against addition are based on Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, such as original research, synthesis, and undue weight, and on an analysis of sources which shows that they do not support what those in favour of 'yes' claim to be.

  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/13/man-dies-in-anti-government-protest-in-cuba-interior-ministry

  "Protesters took to the streets of the Cuban capital as well as other cities across the country on Sunday to denounce the government of President Miguel Diaz-Canel amid food shortages and a deep economic crisis worsened by the coronavirus pandemic."

  https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/7/16/cuba-protests-the-economic-woes-helping-drive-discontent

  "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."

  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-57823130

  "However, monitoring of state media websites prior to the protests shows that Cubans had been voicing deep frustration, despair and anger online long before they took to the streets in their thousands to complain about shortages of food and medicines, power and water interruptions and an apparently faltering government response to surging Covid-19 cases."

  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cuba-protests-anti-government-high-prices-food-shortages/

  "Thousands of Cubans marched on Havana's Malecon promenade and elsewhere on the island Sunday to protest food shortages and high prices amid the coronavirus crisis, in one of biggest anti-government demonstrations in memory."

  https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/14/cuba-confirms-one-man-dead-during-antigovernment-protests

  "Cuban authorities confirmed on Tuesday that one person has died during demonstrations that have shaken the island in recent days by protesting over food shortages, high prices and other grievances against the government."

  https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210711-thousands-join-rare-anti-government-protests-in-cuba

  "Social anger has been driven by long food lines and a critical shortage of medicines since the start of the Covid-19 epidemic, with Cuba under US sanctions."

  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/11/world/americas/cuba-crisis-protests.html

  "Shouting 'Freedom' and other anti-government slogans, thousands of Cubans took to the streets in cities around the country on Sunday to protest food and medicine shortages, in a remarkable eruption of discontent not seen in nearly 30 years."

  https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cuba-lifts-food-medicine-customs-restrictions-after-protests-2021-07-15/

  "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."

  Even those such as NBC News ("'It's very simple,' said Montes, a Havana resident. 'They are tired of the hardships and want changes for the better.' Cuba has been grappling with acute shortages of food and medicine throughout the pandemic. People make lines for blocks to buy whatever they can find at stores. Inflation and blackouts during the tropical summer heat have aggravated the situation."), which state that the protests go "beyond the U.S. embargo and the pandemic", do not mention 'authoritarianism' or list 'authoritarianism' as a cause but rather that "Cuba has been promising economic reforms for years that have not materialized."

  And I could go on and on. Many, if not all of those linked sources, do not even mention 'authoritarianism' at all, and do not find due to list as a cause alongside food and medicine shortages, COVID-19 pandemic, etc. The government, even when it is described as authoritarian, is blamed for its handling of the pandemic and mismanagement, but 'authoritarianism' is not listed as causes of the protests, so we should not list it either. 'Anti-government' or shouting 'Freedom' does not imply that 'authoritarianism' is a cause, only that the government is authoritarian and people are protesting against government mismanagement.

  It could be said that just because they do not mention 'authoritarianism', it is not precluded, but if those sources do not find it due to list 'authoritarianism' as cause of the protests, I do not see why we should do it either; the other problem is that sources claimed to support the addition only support that the government is authoritarian and at best show a disagreement among sources on whether authoritarianism is a cause, as many sources, perhaps the majority, especially those that use more neutral wording, such as the Associated Press, the BBC, Reuters, etc., either do not mention 'authoritarianism' at all or do not list it alongside the main causes of lack of food and medicine, the COVID-19 pandemic, etc.

  Lack of food and medicine, and the COVID-19 pandemic, and government's mismanagement are a common feature of sources, meaning that the proposed addition is undue. I reiterate that at best sources only say that the government is authoritarian, not that 'authoritarianism' is a cause of the protest above or equal to the aforementioned cause, much less the main cause. The only source that seem to support the addition is The Independent's direct quote of "The protests underway in Havana, Santiago and other Cuban cities have sprung up in response to a new spike in Covid-19 cases, the government's strict authoritarianism, and food and water shortages stemming from a deep economic crisis."

  However, the article itself is mainly about Sanders' reaction, and while the perennial sources table lists The Independent as green, it cautions that "[it] is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information" and that "some editors advise caution" for articles published after March 2016, when it become an online-only newspaper. It would be undue to add 'authoritarianism', when most sources do not include 'authoritarianism' as a cause alongside the lack of food and medicine, the COVID-19 pandemic, etc. The "curbs on civil liberties" and the goal of ending Communist rule already makes it clear the country is authoritarian, without engaging in cherry picking, editorializing, original research, and synthesis and original research, as it would be by adding 'authoritarianism' in the infobox as a cause. Davide King (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• No, only known tabloids such as the banned Daily Mail and anti-communist Fox News are citing authoritarianism as a cause. I almost agree entirely with the comment above. Unless some unbiased sources such as those the user above cited (AP, Reuters, Al Jazeera, Germany's DW, etc.) say it is a cause, it should be added. It is not a motive so far. CoryGlee (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

only known tabloids such as the banned Daily Mail and anti-communist Fox News are citing authoritarianism as a cause <-- this is demonstratably BS: [5] [6] [7] [8] etc. etc. etc. Volunteer Marek 05:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: The MSNBC source is an op-ed. The TIME source fails verification. The AP news souce quotes Biden. The only source that poses as a new article is the Washington Post one, but apart from the editorial labelling by the Miami-based journalist you just have a quote about "lack of freedoms". BeŻet (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, it is absurd to reject it simply by playing semantic games. Is there a significant difference between "curbs on civil liberties" and "Authoritarianism"? Cambalachero (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, the protests are against the authoritarian government. Anything else is semantic word games.JoeZ451 (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  To both Cambalachero and JoeZ451, according to reliable sources there is a difference, and you are not just supposed to say 'yes'; you have to back up the claim with sources, which need to be reliable, neutral, and not opinion pieces. Sources given so far include Fox News (not reliable for politics and science) and opinion pieces, which do not warrant the infobox, which is for uncontroversial claims and summary. Davide King (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  And which would be that difference? Cambalachero (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  Western governments are not called 'authoritarian' for curbing civil liberties during the COVID-19 pandemic, nor do we have authoritarianism as a cause for Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Because while sources may describe the Cuban government as authoritarian, the protests, at least on the island, were triggered by the shortage of food and medicine and the government's response to the resurgent COVID-19 pandemic in in the country. I also do not see you running over at capitalist Haiti's protests (2021 Haitian protests) to add authoritarianism as cause. Davide King (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  The difference, Cambalachero, is that the word "authoritarianism" here is disputed by sources, similar to the dispute you mark on the Bolivian political crisis and Argentina's involvement. Disputed by all reliable sources. Neutrality everywhere, please. --CoryGlee (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• No This seems to be an issue of WP:SYNTH. From the variety of sources that have been used to justify inclusion we can gather that most RS (including some of the best like Reuters, AP, etc.) say (some variation of) the following:

• Cuba is (generally speaking) an authoritarian government.
• There have been recent curbs on civil liberties due to the COVID-19 pandemic, after an increase in 2019.
• These curbs are a part of the reason for protests (alongside other factors enumerated in the infobox).

It seems to me that putting authoritarianism as a cause in the infobox is an attempt to combine points 2 and 3 with point 1 to say the protests are against authoritarianism, which is only stated directly by unreliable sources such as Fox News and The Daily Caller, and should be avoided unless/until actually reliable sources say such in their own voice. BSMRD (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Fox News is a reliable source, see WP:RSP. Also, it's not just Fox News, other sources cite authoritarianism as a main cause of the protests, inclusing CNN, El País, The Independent, The Atlantic, New York Times, and many others. Also, about the WP:SYNTH issue you mention, it's rather the other way around; giving the impression that the reduced civil liberties in Cuba are a result of covid-19 measures is false, since the limited or lack thereof of civil liberties in Cuba is a long-standing problem for the people and one of the many reasons that they approved a Constitution in 2019 which, despite recognizing some liberties, still fall shorts. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Fox requires in-text attribution for material related to politics (which means it is unsuited for the infobox). The CNN source only uses the word "authoritarian" quoting Biden. El Pais only says "after 62 years of authoritarianism". Independent is paywalled, so unfortunately I can't check. The Atlantic only uses the word "authoritarianism" in reference to the Castro regime in the 80s. The NYT link is too an episode of their podcast (aka an opinion piece), and is the only one which makes any direct link between the cause of the protests and "authoritarianism". None of these sources support putting "Authoritarianism" as a cause in the infobox. This feels like WP:CHERRYPICKING. BSMRD (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: "None of these sources support putting 'Authoritarianism' as a cause in the infobox." This is false. This Independent article is not behind a paywall, as anyone can check; but I will quote it for you: "The protests underway in Havana, Santiago and other Cuban cities have sprung up in response to a new spike in Covid-19 cases, the government’s strict authoritarianism, and food and water shortages stemming from a deep economic crisis". Also El País: "After more than 62 years of authoritarianism, totalitarian control and reduction of liberties to zero, the Cuban people has legitimately opted for sedition from the bad government in the name of the common good." How can that phrase be interpreted if not as authoritarianism and reduced civil liberties as a main cause of the protests? Same with the New York Times article (which you dismiss as an "opinion piece" simply because it has a link to a podcast, as it was a proof of it): "The protesters chanted “libertad,” or “freedom” — a clear reference to the country’s authoritarian system — and invoked the president’s name". In fact, not including these sources, which are reliable, because they support the inclusion of "authoritarianism" in the infobox and you don't like that it's actually WP:CHERRYPICKING. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Since BSMRD have not responded to you, I will try again. All those sources are saying is the government is authoritarian, which no one is disputing; what we are arguing about is whether authoritarianism, rather than curbs on civil liberties, is a main cause. The only source that actually supports authoritarianism in the list is The Independent, which I did use for the lead, so please stop acting like me and other users want to censor or whitewash, when it is literally in the lead; however, while the perennial sources table lists The Independent as green, it cautions that "[it] is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information" and that "some editors advise caution" for articles published after March 2016, when it become an online-only newspaper. Similarly, the Spanish source is an opinion piece, which may be used for the lead or body with attribution, but it cannot be used to support what you want to add. So no, this is not cherry picking, it is showing how it is either synthesis, i.e. the sources say that Cuba is authoritarian, not that authoritarianism is a cause, or the table sources advise caution for The Independent and opinion piece cannot be used to list key facts for the infobox. Sources actually need to be analysed rather than just say "per sources" or that they support adding authoritarianism as cause, when almost all of them, except for The Independent's direct quote which is not enough to list it in the infobox due to cautions in the perennial sources table, are saying the country is authoritarian. Davide King (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes per:

• The Independent: "The protests underway in Havana, Santiago and other Cuban cities have sprung up in response to a new spike in Covid-19 cases, the government’s strict authoritarianism, and food and water shortages stemming from a deep economic crisis." [9]
• The Wall Street Journal: "Beyond serving as a milestone moment for the island nation, the demonstrations in at least 15 cities marked the latest installment in the greatest struggle of our times: the contest between democrats and authoritarians. In recent years, authoritarians often have seemed to hold the upper hand. Yet the Cuban unrest serves to frame the key question: whether authoritarian regimes will prevail in the long term, or are sowing the seeds of their own demise." [10]
• CBS News: "During the biggest anti-government protests on the island of Cuba in decades, protesters have been chanting words from a hip-hop song released earlier this year, calling for the end to Cuba's decades-long communist and authoritarian regime."[11]
• 7 News Miami: "Protesters said they are calling for an end to the island nation’s decades-old authoritarian regime."[12]
• NBC 6 Miami: "Cuba march started at the Jose Marti Memorial at 861 Southwest 13th Avenue in Miami and participants walked to the Little Havana mural...Most were Venezuelans who say they stand with the Cuban people calling for an end to the authoritarian regime." [13]
• NPR: ..."the embargo is, like, 30% of the problem, and the other 70% is the ineptitude and management of the Cuban government and its authoritarianism." --Cuban Washington Post columnist Abraham Jiménez Enoa. [14]
• WPLG Local 10 News: "More than half a century later, Cubans who protested on the island Sunday say they are tired of the authoritarian communist regime and they want political change. [15]
• Sun Sentinel: "From the conservative right to the progressive left, Florida produced starkly different policy ideas Thursday for helping the Cuban people struggling against their repressive, authoritarian government..."[16]
• Miami Herald:"Protesters in Cuba have chanted for freedom and the end of the authoritarian government." [17] Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comment but you forgot to clarify that "the embargo is, like, 30% of the problem, and the other 70% is the ineptitude and management of the Cuban government and its authoritarianism" is Abraham Jiménez Enoa's opinion. "[C]alling for an end to the island nation's decades-old authoritarian regime" is more a support for "End of one-party government" as goal (same thing for the Miami Herald, NBC 6 Miami, and 7 News Miami). The Wall Street Journal, at least its quoted part, is saying Cuba is authoritarian, not that authoritarianism is the main cause of the protests. The Independent's quote is ambiguous, as "government’s strict authoritarianism" may refer, like Reuter's "curb on civil liberties", to the COVID-19 response, since civil rights actually slightly increased, at least until the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Either way, there are just as many sources which do not list authoritarianism as causes, meaning that if there is not an agreement among sources, it is to be discussed in the main body, certainly not to put a loaded label by cherrypicking sources which include authoritarian (used to describe the government, which is not what we are arguing about) or authoritarianism (used to state, without any doubt, that authoritarianism, rather than curbs on civil liberties, is a main cause worthy of infobox inclusion). Davide King (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  You're moving the goalposts. I don't know what is "ambiguous" about saying that the protests are a response to "the government’s strict authoritarianism." Seems like plain English to me. Likewise, for the protestors "calling for an end to the island nation's decades-old authoritarian regime. " If you prefer, we could state that "the authoritarian government" is a cause of the protests. But this essentially has the same meaning as authoritarianism. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree, I think you are the one who did that by ignoring everything I pointed out, including how the NPR quote is to be attributed to Enoa, who is not notable to have a page and we need more than a journalist's opinion. Context is everything; the "strict authoritarianism" part is put between "sprung up in response to a new spike in Covid-19 cases" and "food and water shortages stemming from a deep economic crisis." Again, "calling for an end to the island nation's decades-old authoritarian regime" is a better describer for the goal, which we already say. Either way, we already mention curbs on civil liberties and end of one-party government, and I do not think the 'authoritarianism' label, which not all reliable sources listed among causes, is necessary for the infobox. I do not understand why that cannot be better discussed and explained in the body. "But this essentially has the same meaning as authoritarianism." This looks like your own personal view, which I respect, but it does not answer my points, nor BSMRD's fair point.

  Cuba has been authoritarian for 50 years and suddenly there is the biggest anti-government protests because of it. Did you miss the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects, including the slow yet slight progress on economic and civil-political reforms, which have been halted due to the pandemic? Is it not more likely that this stop to progress due the pandemic, lack of food and medicine, and the government's response and handling of it, was the political cause rather than 'authoritarianism'? Certainly, authoritarianism is the main cause of abroad Cubans but they are not the one suffering the lack of food and medicine, which is the main cause in the island; we should not give the same weight to abroad Cubans on this. If there is a political cause, it is the curbs on civil liberties due the pandemic and its effect on promised reforms, not 'authoritarianism', even if you feel like it is the same thing. But for Haiti and other protests, we do not list 'authoritarianism' as cause, even when their government is similarly authoritarian or not a functioning democracy. I like consistency and dislike double standards. Davide King (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes The sources do state that authoritarianism is a cause of the protests. The protesters are shouting "Freedom!", "We're not afraid!" and "Down with the dictatorship"!; the song Patria Y Vida —which was a major ignition cause of the protests— is completely of political and anti-authoritarian content. It's obvious that the protests have a heavy anti-authoritarian motivation; that is, against the authoritarian nature of the Cuban government. Plenty of sources also call the regime "authoritarian" and point this is a cause of the protests; I have removed many of them (as anyone who checks the edit history can confirm) because they were considered "problematic" and were called "cherry-picked," despite being creditable sources. Also, as I have explained in other parts of this talk page, "reduced" or "curbs on civil liberties" along "covid-19 response" is very misleading, because as this Vox article compiles, there have been an increasing dissatisfaction with the lack of rights since before covid-19, and the economic factors that Cuba is experiencing and the government response to covid-19 are combining factors (but not the factors themselves alone). Because of all this, not including "authoritarianism" as one of the main causes of the protests is discarding reliable sources for no reason and a willingly inaccuracy, substituting "authoritarianism" with any other word or phrase would be weasel wording and putting "reduced or curb on civil liberties" along "government's covid-19 response" is plain misleading. Ajñavidya (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry for commenting but wow. So "reduced or curb on civil liberties" ("curb on civil liberties" is Reuters' exact wording) and "government's [COVID]-19 response", which is mentioned in virtually all reliable sources about the protests, is "weasel wording" (but apparently 'authoritarianism' without any context is not) and "plain misleading", even with a direct link to Wikipedia:Systemic bias? Wow, just wow. Chants alone are not reliable sources for main causes; what do they mean by 'freedom'? Better government? That the current government resigns? An end to the one-party government? An end to Communist party rule through U.S. military intervention?

  Vox also says: "The Cuban regime has fallen short on implementing necessary economic reforms for years, and some of the reforms they have taken, including a currency reform earlier this year, had the effect of driving up prices of everyday goods, like food, and this when Cubans were already facing shortages and pandemic-related pain. ... Trump-era sanctions have added to the economic woes." There is not a single mention of 'authoritarianism' and the only mention of 'authoritarian' is "the cries of 'patria y vida' from the protesters, and the artists who helped give rise to it, also speak to larger undercurrents of frustration around Cuba’s system. As experts pointed out, in an authoritarian country, challenging the government comes with very real risks. The economic frustrations and pandemic fatigue are intimately connected with Cuba’s politics." They say it is an authoritarian country, and how you infer that "[t]he economic frustrations and pandemic fatigue are intimately connected with Cuba's politics" support the claim of 'authoritarianism' as cause rather than lack of food and medicine, and the government handling of the crisis, which you dismiss as if Cubans just woke up someday and decided they wanted to overthrow the authoritarian government. The lack of economic and political reform is more supported as cause in the same article than 'authoritarianism.' You are just cherrypicking what you like and ignore the context provided by the same source you claim it supports your views.

  I am also sorry to reiterate that "Down with the dictatorship" was also shouted at capitalist Haiti, and I have yet to see a discussion about adding 'authoritarianism', but more importantly I just realized you are showing that you only want to add what you like. You say reliable sources support 'authoritarianism' as a cause but the same reliable sources also support the U.S. military intervention goal, at least by some abroad Cubans, yet you only want to add the former; if you are consistent, both should be added, or neither should be, because both are controversial and are better addressed in the main body. Davide King (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

   Comment: Many reputable sources cite "authoritarianism" as a cause of the protest. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this in order for you to understand. Protests in Haiti don't have the same background of those of Cuba, and vice versa; you cannot use 2021 Haitian protests article as an excuse to include to include or not include information in this article: see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST which mentions this faulty argument. You keep saying "'Down with the dictatorship' was also shouted at capitalist Haiti," as if this was related to Haiti or as if this inclusion was a matter of ideology, of "capitalism vs. socialism" or something alike, which is not. If you think there's something lacking in the Haitian protests article, I strongly suggest you that go there and fix whatever you consider necessary. "Authoritarianism" is a cause of the protests in Cuba (as per sources) regardless of the political system in Cuba, and taking out the sources that support "authoritarianism," despite being numerous and reliable, is actual cherry-picking. If this was Franco's Spain or Sese Seko's Congo, and the sources supported "authoritarianism," and the context of the protests also supported that, then "authoritarianism" should be included in those respective Wikipedia articles. But I truly think there's a problem here, since you have an intense emotional involvement into NOT including "authoritarianism"; and it seems to be ideology, which is pretty unfortunate. For example, an editor called "fake news" all the reliable sources in the article, and cited the unreliable government-owned media outlet Cubadebate as a proof of that, and you said to him: "you seem to be here for the truth." How can you explain that? It doesn't make any sense. Ajñavidya (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Let us continue here. Davide King (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes per the sources given by User talk:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. This is a f'ing no brainer. When the protesters are changing "freedom" and "down with dictatorship" [18] they're very obviously protesting authoritarianism and no amount of pretzel twisting logic and excuse making can change that fact. Volunteer Marek 05:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

So are the Haitian and Sudanese protests also against authoritarianism? BeŻet (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, I have no idea, what does that have to do with THIS article? Volunteer Marek 19:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that, according to the current article, there have not been anti-government protest update since 14 July, which is weird if authoritarianism is the main cause, rather than food and medicine, for which the government conceded by lifting limits on food and medicine that can be imported without duties. If there really has not been a major anti-government protest since then, which is weird since I am pretty sure if there have been more, it would have been added already, but I could be mistaken, while abroad protests continued, it shows that the lack of food and medicine, and the COVID-19 pandemic are the main cause for Cubans in the island, while authoritarianism may be the main cause for abroad Cubans. The fact the government's lifts happened on 15 July and there has been no major reported protest update (again, maybe there have been, but if it was due and worth, it would have been added already) and the last anti-government protest in the island is on 14 July is either telling that authoritarianism is not the main cause or a coincidence. Davide King (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

And keep in mind WP:OR as well. An alternative more likely explanation is that the government combined the lifting of the restrictions with a crackdown which suppressed the protests (this is actually a fairly typical response by authoritarian governments). Volunteer Marek 19:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Original research goes both ways; if you have reliable sources saying that, then please provide a proposed referenced phrasing to be added. Other articles are mentioned because there is a double standard between protests in authoritarian capitalist countries and authoritarian constitutionally socialist states; they are not mentioned just because, there is a perceived double standard and political bias in this. See also the Russian protests, which can be more accurately said to be about authoritarianism, yet neither correctly list 'authoritarianism' but more context-minded sentences. Davide King (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It’s fallacious to assume that the absence of anti-government protests is a direct result of the government lifting limits on food and medicine (which by the way, the fact that these and many other restrictions were in place evidence the self-imposed “embargo” of the government against its own people; this is an old strategy to worsen the economic situation of the people to later be able to blame the embargo). I agree with Volunteer Marek that government crackdown (arrests, shooting against unarmed civilians) suppressed the protests (a typical response by authoritarian governments). This is evidenced by first-hand testimony, photos, and videos coming out of the Island (let’s also recall that the government shut down the internet the first day of protests to prevent this evidence from reaching the world) and also editorial pieces like this one on WSJ: "Cuba to Prosecute People Detained During Recent Protests". WSJ. July 20, 2021. TocororoWings (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not dispute any of that, stop acting like I am some Cuban government apologist when I despise all forms of authoritarianism and authoritarian governments, but considering this is a contentious article, and whether you like it or not, ideology from both sides play a role, I would prefer international news agencies such as the Associated Press, the BBC, Reuters, and the like over The Wall Street Journal, which "has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health dangers of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos." Other newspapers, such as The Guardian, may be biased in the opposite direct (centre-left leaning), but at least they do not promote pseudoscience. It does not mean The Wall Street Journal is unreliable or cannot be used but I have higher standard for sources, especially for articles like those which are likely to create dispute among sources. If anyone can find the aforementioned news agency saying the same, it should definitely be mentioned, okay? Davide King (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes but only as a direct quote. There are several aforementioned reliable sources to choose from. I support a direct quote only because it is possibly verging on WP:SYNTH and a quote will ensure we are not editorializing. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 06:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'd add that a qualifier like "some consider..." or "according to..." could be used for the quote to further ensure that we are not generalizing or synthesizing. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 15:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  That is a fine solution by me, but why not just add it directly to the lead section and properly attribute it, rather than have a weird looking * Authoritarianism (according to some) in the infobox? Davide King (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  A proposed wording for the lead section could be that "[a]ccording to ..., protesters were also disaffected by the authoritarian regime. ... Some journalists, such as ..., stated that authoritarianism [or Cuba's authoritarian political system] also triggered or prompered the protests. Some news outlets, such as Reuters and Vox, mentioned curbs on civil liberties due the strict COVID-19 pandemic lockdown rules imposed by the government and the lack of promised economic and political reform thereof [in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and economic crisis]." In my view, this would be much better, and with actual context, than an empty 'authoritarianism' label without any context, which reliable sources actually provide when discussing authoritarianism and the Cuban government behavior. Davide King (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  I think that's probably the best solution. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 16:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• No as it is classic WP:SYNTH. We already mention in the body of the copy chants that some of the protesters are shouting. We don't do the same for other protests, like:

• 2021 Haitian protests
• 2019–2021 Sudanese protests
• 2021 Russian protests
• etc.

...even though protesters chant about "dictatorships" abd "freedom". We shouldn't be using labels devised by Western, mostly American, media sources, because there is an inherent bias and cherry-picking done by such media, which is on display when you compare the coverage of those protests. BeŻet (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: What do you mean by Western in this case? Cuba is a Western country by many standards (culturally and geographically). Do you mean Western as in "democratic"? Because if that's the case, press in democratic countries is actually more reliable than that of non-democratic ones. Curiously, when sources aren't from the places that you've mentioned, they are also called «cherry-picked», like this one from Trinidad and Tobago; and when the sources are from «Western countries», there is an «inherent bias» and are called, as well, «cherry-picked». That is to say, that sources are cherry-picked because one reason and it's exact opposite, which is absurd. Also, the sources mentioned are considered reliable by Wikipedia standards: WP:RSP. Your opinion on what you call "Western media" and "inherent bias" should not have any weight on this: WP:VERIFYOR. Ajñavidya (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not BeŻet and I hope they can respond you but I think Western in that case seems mainly to be used in foreign policy terms, i.e. NATO, because you are right that Cuba is a Western country by many standards. My view is more that many of the sources cited are from Miami, which may have a conflict of interest due the protests in Miami and providing a Cuban dissidents and exiles viewpoint, and others, such as The Wall Street Journal, are notoriously not just anti-Communist but anti-socialist as well. That does not mean they can not be used in the lead, body, or properly attributed, but the infobox is for key facts, and unless the most neutral sources such as the Associated Press and Reuters do not explicitly list 'authoritarianism' alongside the other causes, we should not do it either. This is a contentious issues, especially in light of what is happening and the history of the countries; we should use the most neutral and neutrally-worded sources. So far, none has provided quotes from the Associated Press and Reuters that list authoritarianism as a cause. Is not saying one of the goals is the end of Communist rule enough to show Cubans want political freedom and already saying or implying that the country is authoritarian, without engaging in editorializing? Either way, it is really simple. Provide a direct quote from the Associated Press and Reuters listing 'authoritarianism' as a cause alongside lack of food and medicine, COVID-19 pandemic, etc. and I am on it. Davide King (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you really think that a Trinidad and Tobago newspaper, which is not even notable to have its own Wikipedia page, is not cherry picking and is reliable enough to support listing such a label in the infobox. I repeat, come back with international agencies such as the Associated Press, the BBC ("Cubans had been voicing deep frustration, despair and anger online long before they took to the streets in their thousands to complain about shortages of food and medicines, power and water interruptions and an apparently faltering government response to surging Covid-19 cases."), Reuters, and the like. Davide King (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, based on different reliable sources mentioned above, which are pointing out to authoritarianism as the cause. Idealigic (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per the reliable sources mentioned by Dr. Swag Lord. Sea Ane (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• No I concure with Davide King's "You are also acting like all Cubans want the same thing, when some Cubans who are protesting only care about food and medicine, or only want a better government and resignation of the president, not an end to Communist rule through U.S. military intervention, which is more of a goal of abroad Cubans, who are given too much weight in this case." Ip says (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually, the question was "Should Authoritarianism be listed as a cause of the protests in the infobox?". Cambalachero (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. Many sources, cited above, clearly state that the protests were motivated partly by economics and partly by anger at the repression. It seems some disagree, but that doesn't matter: we follow what the RS say. Neutrality^talk 02:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The Cuban government is characterized by most political scientists as an authoritarian regime. Go read the 7 different sources for the lead sentence in Politics of Cuba#Authoritarianism. The question then becomes whether or not reliable sources have characterized the protests as being caused by Cuba's authoritarianism. The answer is yes. At the very least, the "civil liberties" remark should be split off as a second bullet point to avoid ambiguity on whether the protests are against COVID-19 related restrictions or general restrictions in Cuba. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 05:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Cuba has been a one-party state for over sixty years, and its civil liberties have already been curtailed even before the pandemic started. It's only natural that demonstrators, who are protesting against the government, oppose authoritarianism as well. Even one of the first references included in the article stated that detractors cite incompetence and a Soviet-style one-party system as one of the causes of the economic crisis,[19] which there is already agreement that is one of the root reasons of the protests. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

   Comment: To those three users above, no one is denying that authoritarianism is not part of the protests or that Cuba is not authoritarian, but whether authoritarianism is on par with the lack of food and medicine, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the government handling of the pandemic. In addition, not all sources include 'authoritarianism' when discussing causes (and the same thing for the embargo); even though this may not exclude it, the fact several generally reliable did not mention 'authoritarianism', it means they did not find it due alongside the economic and pandemic struggles, without denying that of course in an authoritarian system, even when protests are caused in the first place by economic factors, protesters are going to point out the authoritarianism. It is better to provide context in the lead section, as I did, rather than just say 'authoritarianism'; and I would say this even if protesters in capitalist countries were caused by authoritarianism. I just hope you will be consistent and support adding 'authoritarianism' to protests in capitalist countries such as Haiti, Russia, Sudan, etc.

  I suggest you to look at the fact there have been no new protests in the island since 14 July, which is telling, and right before the government lifted limit on food and medicine that can be imported without duties. Perhaps authoritarianism is the cause of some Cubans and most abroad Cubans, those who want to end Communist rule or a U.S. military intervention, but it is not that of many other Cubans, whose main concern is food and medicine, and improve the government. I would rather wait for the Associated Press and Reuters to explicitly mention 'authoritarianism' when listing the cause of the protests.

  P.S. Note that the quoted "detractors cite incompetence and a Soviet-style one-party system" say "detractors", does not state it as fact, and does not mention 'authoritarianism'; it may sound obvious they are referring to authoritarianism but we should not editorialize sources or infer something they do not explicitly say. We already say one of the goal is the end of Communist (one-party) rule; I think we already make it perfectly clear, without engaging in synthesis or editorializing. Davide King (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

I am opening this section to avoid the RfC to become crowded with responses to comments. I think we all need to calm down.

No one is denying that authoritarianism is playing a role but is it really the, or one of, main cause? We now say the goal is end of "communist dictatorship", and I think we already make it abundantly clear. In an authoritarian country, even when the protests' main cause are due to the pandemic and recession, of course authoritarianism is still a cause but it should not be put on par with the main reason the protests broke out (if the cause was really authoritarianism, why protest only now, after the COVID-19 pandemic, economic problems, and economic-political reform progress halted?) As recently as 2019, "Cubans are using social media to air their grievances — and the government is responding, sometimes" but were not demanding political change and only wanted their government to be more responsive; what changed since then? I think the answer is obvious. All this aside, I just do not think putting a label, even if accurate, is an improvement, when we already use, and can further improve, wording that says the same thing better. So can you please stop accusing ad hominem ("ideology, "amount of pretzel twisting logic and excuse", etc.) against other users and assume good faith? Synthesis is one policy cited.

You are also acting like all Cubans want the same thing, when some Cubans who are protesting only care about food and medicine, or only want a better government and resignation of the president, not an end to Communist rule through U.S. military intervention, which is more of a goal of abroad Cubans, who are given too much weight in this case. In regards to this, of course I did not mean that they were for the actual truth but their own truth. Wikipedia is not about truth (whether truth or one's own 'truth'). Either way, that discussion was helpful in creating a section about misinformation, which was missing for no rational reason.

In light of ad hominem attacks, here I wrote my personal views of the protests and I do not see how anyone but an anti-communist can accuse me of being pro-government. I also do not get leftists who defend anti-American authoritarian countries; one can criticize imperialism, the United States or any other government, without having to be an apologist for authoritarian governments, which is what some leftists end up being, whether they realize it or not. Here, I explained why some sources still do not go beyond "Communism/socialism/the Left vs. capitalism", even as they remain generally reliable and get the facts straight.

I would also like to point out my comment is not No point blank but "unless we get reliable sources (the most neutral-worded Associated Press and Reuters in particular) explicitly saying authoritarianism is a cause, rather than just say Cuba is authoritarian or that curbs on civil liberties are a cause, which we already say and are not in dispute." So far, neither the Associated Press or Reuters support the wording, which is used by some still generally reliable sources but a bit more biased and cherrypicked. It is not like I am dead set on No.

Davide King (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: I didn't use an ad hominem attack against you. I've told it before and I repeat, I don't know what your ideology is. I only politely asked you that consider your actions regarding the edit of this article because I consider unsustainable some of the excuses you were using, and I needed to call on that. You keep insisting over and over that the end of the current communist rule is not a goal by the Cuban protests; that's demonstrably false, since there's plenty of sources that claim otherwise. How the most common chants on the protests, which are "with the dictatorship!" and "Freedom!," should be interpreted then? There is no report on Cubans chanting "We want medicine!", "We want food!"; and even if they were, that wouldn't contradict end of communist rule as a goal. Also, you keep forcing an ideological dichotomy of "Communism/socialism/the Left vs. capitalism" which just doesn't fit here, and I will call on that no matter how many times necessary (WP:SPADE). You want to take Reuters' wording and give it a undue weight on the article, actually cherry-picking out all the other sources that a different wording and which are also considered reliable. Also you say "Either way, that discussion was helpful in creating a section about misinformation, which was missing for no rational reason." Well, the section was created as soon as sources for that were available, just as all the rest of section in the article. That's a pretty rational reason for me. Given that you have compared this article to the 2021 Haitian protests as a reason for not including "authoritarianism" — I would ask: why isn't there a misinformation section in that article as well? I know it's a silly comparison, but I'm just doing it for the sake of the argument. Ajñavidya (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: That's bullcrap, ofcourse it's an ad hominem. "For the sake of the argument"... Ajñavidya you are threading on a narrow perch regarding agenda pushing. Ip says (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: I'm in favor of including a cause which is well-sourced and others want to delete it without a sound argument, and it turns out that I'm the one "on a narrow perch regarding agenda pushing"? Ajñavidya (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You are the one who is using a double standard here. Apparently, the chants are the true reliable sources, and even though all reliable sources clearly list the lack of medicine and food, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the government response, you reduce everything to 'authoritarianism.' Guess what? What matters is what reliable sources say, and they say that even though protesters may have not changed "We want food and medicine", that is the main cause. They also made it clear in interviews: "Today there is no food, no medicine, and people are dying like flies from Covid. ... I could not believe the magnitude. People are tired. It has been aggravated in recent weeks by blackouts. There are blackouts of six hours in a row in the countryside." But yeah, it is all about authoritarianism, even though just in 2019 they protested but did not want to end Communism, they wanted a better government; in 2020, they protested against the killing of an Afro-Cuban by the police; and just after the government lifted limit on food and medicine that can be imported without duties, protests in the island have not been reported since 14 July; only abroad Cubans and exile, those who are not suffering from the lack of food and medicine, are protesting mainly by 'authoritarianism.' You were right in not conflating the few Cubans who wanted U.S. military intervention with those who did not want it; well, we should not conflate Cubans who are mainly moved by authoritarianism with the many more Cubans who are moved mainly by economic conditions. Political freedom is a necessary goal but not enough if/when people are starving. In that case, the main cause is "the shortage of food and medicine and the government's response to the resurgent COVID-19 pandemic in Cuba", as we say in the lead according to virtually all reliable sources.

As I already stated here, the infobox is for key facts and many sources provided are from Miami to reflect the abroad protests viewpoint, or are clearly anti-Communist and anti-socialist, such as The Wall Street Journal. Those sources can be, and are, used for the lead section and the body, but for the infoxbox we need a direct quote from the more neutral Associated Press and Reuters, which have less conflict of interests than other sources, listing 'authoritarianism' as a cause, alongside the COVID-10 pandemic, etc. It is simple, show me a direct quote from the Associated Press and the Reuters saying 'authoritarianism' as cause of the protests and I am on it. If they do not mention that, it means it is not found to be due, and when sources disagree, we explain that in a sentence, not using a label that may be accurate but is not listed as a direct cause by more neutrally-worded sources. Authoritarianism may well be an indirect cause but the direct and main cause is the lack of food and medicine, and the COVID-19 pandemic; we should not give the same weight to the former in the infobox, and I reiterate we already say one of the goals is the end of Communist rule, is that not clear enough the country is authoritarian? I would say the same thing for capitalist countries, and if you want to know by political leanings, I reiterate my support for democratization not just politically but also economically and socially; and that Cuba should not be forced to become an Anglo-Saxon free-market economy. Cuba should definitely be democratize but it is up to Cubans to choose their economic system, whether a more democratic and decentralized planned economy, a democratic socialist/social-democratic mixed economy, a liberal social market economy, or a free-market economy. I am for total democratization of society, not just that convenient to capitalist countries and multinational corporations. Davide King (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: You say: "[...] you reduce everything to 'authoritarianism.' Guess what? What matters is what reliable sources say, and they say that even though protesters may have not changed 'We want food and medicine", that is the main cause."

I am actually not reducing anything, it's quite the oppostie. I don't want to remove shortage of food and medicine as a cause of the protests, because obviously they are, and all were reported by sources; it is you, by the other hand, who wants to reduce everything to economic causes and cut off authoritarianism as a cause, despite it's also well-sourced and should be listed along the other causes.

You say: "[...] we need a direct quote from the more neutral Associated Press and Reuters, which have less conflict of interests than other sources."

What conflict of interests are you referring to? I don't see any conflict or contradiction between sources. Some sources focus on economic causes whereas others do on political causes, but there's no contradiction between them.

You also say: "[...] many sources provided are from Miami to reflect the abroad protests viewpoint, or are clearly anti-Communist and anti-socialist, such as The Wall Street Journal."

That is YOUR opinion, an opinion that I (and I suppose other editors) don't share and don't support. What's more important, Wall Street Journal is considered a reliable source per WP:RSP: That's what matters, not editors' personal opinions on whether Wall Street Journal or any other reliable source's true intentions are. You keep introducing "capitalism," "socialism" and "communism" in this discussion, as if it was a matter of ideology; despite that ideological frame has nothing to do here. To make it clear: Cuba is an authoritarian state regardless of what its political system is. Cuban political system is, in principle, unrelated to its authoritarianism. Cuba could be capitalistic, socialist or fascist or any other ideology and it still would be an authoritarian state if the government took the actions reported by sources.

You say: "Authoritarianism may well be an indirect cause but the direct and main cause is the lack of food and medicine, and the COVID-19 pandemic [...]."

That's not true, since many sources cite authoritarianism as a cause of the protests, and even this is a justified assumption of the chants of the protesters, which are heavily political, not merely "economic."

And then you say: [...] we should not give the same weight to the former in the infobox, and I reiterate we already say one of the goals is the end of Communist rule, is that not clear enough the country is authoritarian?

Do you think so? Do you think that just mentioning that a country has a communist rule implies authoritarianism? Because I'm sure many people don't necessarily make that connection. Again, that's your opinion; an opinion that not everybody shares (WP:ASSERT). And even if that assumption was justified, it would be still not clear or explicit, and quoting authoritarianism in the infobox is necessary. Ajñavidya (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: I am going to keep this as short as possible, or at least I try. I suggest you to refrain, even indirectly, implying that I am an "arsehole." And even though I personally disagree that "communist rule implies authoritarianism", because there are democratic and libertarian communists, and communist parties which participate to the democratic process and do not want a one-party state, that is exactly what most sources say and imply; we also already mention civil liberties and its lack thereof, and Communist rule, which most sources already use to imply the country is authoritarian, therefore 'authoritarianism' is unnecessary (contrary to what you think, "quoting authoritarianism in the infobox is necessary"), unless it is listed as a cause in a direct quote. I told you, give me a direct quote explicitly listing 'authoritarianism' as we do for the embargo ("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 I am on it. If you cannot accept the fact I have a higher standard for reliable sources to be used in highly contentious and disputed articles such as this, I do not know what more to tell you. "The editorial pages of The Journal are typically conservative in their position", and conservatism in the United States those days is far away from centre-right moderatism) and have "promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health dangers of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos." The Wall Street Journal can be used in the body, it should not be used to support the 'authoritarian' label, especially when it does not explicitly list 'authoritarianism' as cause in a direct quote. Higher standards for sources to support addition to the infobox, which should only list key facts on which there is general agreement among sources, should not be dismissed as "irrelevant." Davide King (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:ARSEHOLES is the name of a Wikipedia essay on why personal opinions are irrelevant when editing Wikipedia. I didn't imply you an "arsehole," neither directly nor indirectly. I didn't even call on the name of the essay, I simply directed to it via hypertext. You say: "[...] we also already mention civil liberties and its lack thereof, and Communist rule, which most sources already use to imply the country is authoritarian, therefore 'authoritarianism' is unnecessary. And I'd ask, which sources? And even if some sources did, we must not assume that that connection. We must not assume that because the infobox contains the phrase "communist rule" that people automatically assume that authoritarianism is a cause of the protests; we must make explicit that authoritarianism is a cause, as per sorces (WP:RF). Again, using your own words: "even though I personally disagree that "communist rule implies authoritarianism", because there are democratic and libertarian communists, and communist parties which participate to the democratic process and do not want a one-party state." Likewise, we shouldn't assume most people will assume that because Cuba has a communist one-party government, authoritarianism is a cause of the protests. About your insight on Wall Street Journal, if you're referring to this article, it mentions "authoritarianism" many times. But even although some sources don't mention "authoritarianism" as a cause, some others do, and NOT MENTIONING IT doesn't imply that they're denying authoritarianism as a cause; as I told you in my immediate previous comment, some sources focus more on economic causes and others on political ones, and both kinds must be included in the article, and that means "authoritarianism" as well. Ajñavidya (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be that your main concern is not what sources actually say but that we must make sure 'authoritarianism' is a cause... because... for reasons, even though that is not what sources say, and which should follow a closer look to their own wording. To be clear, I am not opposed to add a further sentence about it in the infobox, I just oppose using labels such as 'authoritarianism' when most sources only say the government is authoritarian, and you continue to engage in original research and synthesis to imply they support 'authoritarianism' in the infobox, rather than 'the country is authoritarian', and 'there is dissatisfaction with the government', which is not the same thing.

"Likewise, we shouldn't assume most people will assume that because Cuba has a communist one-party government, authoritarianism is a cause of the protests." Which is exactly what sources say; they only say the government is authoritarian, that it is a one-party government, they do not state that 'authoritarianism' is a cause, much less the main cause, as you claim they do. So by your own words here, you are actually giving me right. Just because sources say 'authoritarian' or that the government is authoritarian, "we shouldn't assume [...] that because Cuba [is described as authoritarian or as] a communist one-party government, [the source is saying] authoritarianism is a cause of the protests." Just because they may mention 'authoritarian' or 'one-party rule', it should not be automatically assumed that 'authoritarianism' is the cause of the protests, unless it is explicitly listed as The Independent did when mentioning the causes in a direct quote.

I could not read it all but, while it mentions the protests, that article is mainly about authoritarians and democrats, and even then it says that "[t]he Cubans who took to the streets appeared to have some more immediate concerns on their minds. They were protesting a lack of food and a shortage of Covid-19 vaccines." "But their willingness to take their protests to the actual doorstep of Cuba’s Communist Party headquarters showed a deeper dissatisfaction" does not again say 'authoritarianism', nor does 'dissatisfaction with government' necessarily imply 'authoritarianism', but 'dissatisfaction with the government' would be a better wording than 'authoritarian' to add. Yet, you are hell bent on 'authoritarianism' and accept no alternative or different wording, such as a sentence which better reflect the source's own words or simply with context.

"But even although some sources don't mention 'authoritarianism' as a cause, some others do, and NOT MENTIONING IT doesn't imply that they're denying authoritarianism as a cause; as I told you in my immediate previous comment, some sources focus more on economic causes and others on political ones, and both kinds must be included in the article, and that means 'authoritarianism' as well." But we should not give the same weight to minority views, that is the point. Most sources say the protests were caused by lack of food and medicine, the COVID-19 pandemic impact, etc., and all sources at least mention this. If so many sources, as I showed here, do not say 'authoritarianism' when listing the causes of the protests alongside shortages, etc., it means it is not considered due, and we should follow the sources on this and not include it either. Here, I also already explained why "[i]t could be said that just because they do not mention 'authoritarianism', it is not precluded", but this is bordering original research and synthesis again, and if so many sources do not find it due to explicitly mention 'authoritarianism' alongside shortages, COVID-19 pandemic, etc., it means it is not due for the infobox. You cannot cherry pick any mention of 'authoritarian' or 'authoritarianism' from any source, we need the source to actually include 'authoritarianism' in a direct quote, as that from The Independent, when listing the causes. If international news agencies start adding 'authoritarianism', I would be the first to reflect the change in the infobox; until then though, 'authoritarianism' should not be added. The infobox should only be for key facts on which virtually all sources agree; virtually all sources agree on shortages, the COVID-19 pandemic, etc. as causes and mention them; so far, only The Independent explicitly list 'authoritarianism' alongside the former. In the body, we can discuss both majority and minority views, but in the infobox we should only include the majority views, what virtually all sources agree and always mentions, i.e. the shortages, the COVID-19 pandemic, etc. I showed above many sources do not list 'authoritarianism' and in most case make no mention of it. I think the sources are clear and we are just not going to agree on this. An uninvolved third opinion should analyze them and see whether my reasoning and reading of sources is accurate or yours.

This is not going nowhere, so I ask you again that you either provide me a direct quote which says, like The Independent did, "[t]he protests [...] have sprung up in response to a new spike in Covid-19 cases, the government's strict authoritarianism, and food and water shortages stemming from a deep economic crisis", or you accept a compromise of using the same wording from the sources, such as 'government mismanagement' or 'dissatisfaction with the government', rather than 'authoritarian', which only The Independent included in its list of causes. Or do not reply to me. We are just going around in circles and nothing good, no matter how interesting, is coming out from this. Davide King (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not remember whether there are restrictions but Sea Ane have made less than 500 edits. I also hope that whoever admin close this RfC do not take "per sources" at face value but actually examine and analyze themselves on whether they fail or not verification, and whether they are or not synthesis. Davide King (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can comment on any talk page regardless of edit count, unless they have a WP:TBAN. That being said, the fact that @Sea Ane:'s history seems to only (a whopping 11% of their edits are to main space) consist of commenting on RfC's (after a brief ban for implementing copyrighted material that has been lifted for some time) is a bit weird. Not a single policy-based argument is to be found in the multitude of RfC responses, which says to me their opinion isn't worth much. BSMRD (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: For the 2011–2013 Russian protests, which can be more accurately said to be caused by authoritarianism, as there was no recession, there is not a single trace of authoritarianism, and instead it variously list "Fair elections ... Immediate release of all political prisoners ... Registration of opposition parties, the adoption of a democratic law on political parties and elections ... Implementation of the new open and fair elections ... Registration of opposition parties, the adoption of a democratic law on political parties and elections ... Implementation of the new open and fair elections." Same thing for the 2017–2018 Russian protests, which unlike Cuba, and like the previous ones, are mainly about politics and corruption than economics; no mention of 'authoritarianism.' WP:OTHERCONTENT does not, and should not, justify dismissal of this double standard and lack of consistency, which is real and important.

I do not see why the same should not be done here too, and why we need to reduce something to 'authoritarianism', which may be at best an indirect cause, while the direct and main cause is the lack of food and medicine, and the government handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, which included curbs on civil liberties, after a slight increase in the previous years, which resulted in openness and the relatively open 2019 constitutional referendum. Could the fact that Russia is a capitalist country, while Cuba is constitutionally socialist, be the issue here? This can also be seen in the fact that whenever an economic crisis or recession hit a capitalist country, it is the government's fault and no serious blame rests on capitalism, while for any constitutionally socialist country it is also attributed to the "socialist (centrally-planned) economy." I really do not see why protests in others countries, which are really driven by authoritarianism, do not reduce the infobox cause to 'authoritarianism', while only for Cuba there is such an insistence to put it, even though neither the Associated Press nor Reuters list 'authoritarianism' alongside the main causes due to the COVID-10 pandemic. Authoritarianism is also subjective; a capitalist's freedom may well be a worker's authoritarianism and vice versa. I reiterate that the goal of ending Communist rule and text in the body already makes it clear the country is authoritarian. I would rather use 'one-party rule', 'lack of political freedom and of assembly' over 'authoritarianism' but I would wait for a direct quote from the Associated Press, the BBC, and Reuters stating exactly that when listing the main causes.

When sources are generally equally reliable, international news agencies are to be favoured over American and Miami newspapers, due to the involvement in the protests by Cuban exiles there and the United States' relations with Cuba. Just like you would not want the Cuban government's press to be used. Just because the government press is not reliable due to being state-owned or controlled by the government does not mean that Cuban sources who oppose the government are automatically generally reliable. The BBC also says that "monitoring of state media websites prior to the protests shows that Cubans had been voicing deep frustration, despair and anger online long before they took to the streets in their thousands to complain about shortages of food and medicines, power and water interruptions and an apparently faltering government response to surging Covid-19 cases." No 'authoritarianism' or 'one-party rule' mentioned. Are the Associated Press, the BBC, and Reuters in the pockets of the Communists for not mentioning 'authoritarianism' alongside "shortages of food and medicines, power and water interruptions and an apparently faltering government response to surging Covid-19 cases"? Davide King (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That is just completely unrelated to this article. Your personal opinion regarding sources which are considered reliable in Wikipedia is irrelevant. As I suggested you a gazillion times before, if you consider that other articles are lacking, you must make the necessary corrections in those articles; you cannot use the state of other articles to justify edits on this one: WP:WHATABOUT. Ajñavidya (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

As I stated above, wanting higher standards for sources for contentious and debated articles such as this, and in support of additions to the infobox, which should only list key facts on which there is general agreement among sources, including a direct quote mentioning 'authoritarianism' when listing the causes, should not be dismissed as "irrelevant", it should actually be appreciated. Nor should suggestion to follow other articles solution (for the Russian protests, I much prefer stating context-minded sentences like "Registration of opposition parties, the adoption of a democratic law on political parties and elections ... Implementation of the new open and fair elections" rather than reduce it to 'authoritarianism', be dismissed to whataboutism, which is not just a fallacy but "can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair ... that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of the tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy." I am also open to other possible wording, and I would also like to remind you I was the one to mention authoritarianism and a Cuban dissident journalist in the lead section but you are so bent on 'authoritarianism' and no compromise. Davide King (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

There sources are clear on this, authoritarianism is a cause of the protests; and just not a secundary cause, but a main one. There is no disagreement on this in the sources. I don't understand why you keep saying that the sources disagree. Also, I didn't call the sources irrelevant, I called your opinion on the sources irrelevant.

You quote a passage from a Wikipedia article, "Whataboutism," and which is passage on the opinion of "some commentators," as an excuse to not introduce well-sourced edits in this pages because, according to your opinion, other articles should include authoritarianism and they don't; whereas there's a Wikipedia guideline (WP:WAX) explicitly calling to NOT USE this argument. Ajñavidya (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"There sources are clear on this, authoritarianism is a cause of the protests; and just not a secundary [sic] cause, but a main one. There is no disagreement on this in the sources." You keep saying that, I do not think it means what you think. There are many sources which make no mention of authoritarianism and mention the embargo, falling wages, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the government response, without having alongside 'authoritarianism.' This is disagreement, and the truth is most sources only say the government is authoritarian, and just a questionable few explicitly list it as cause (so far, only The Independent, which I added to the lead); the truth is the majority do not mention authoritarianism as a cause, much less the main cause, and yet you want to use the minority to add 'authoritarianism' a key fact in the infobox, even though the majority of sources, especially those most neutral, do not say 'authoritarianism' is a cause but at best that the country is authoritarian or that some protesters want the end of Communist rule.

"[S]o, I didn't call the sources irrelevant, I called your opinion on the sources irrelevant." I call the same on you, and reiterate that you are engaging in original research and synthesis. You really need to actually analyze what I say and what I link you to. What you dismissed as "the opinion of 'some commentators'" is in fact the opinion of qualified academics, professors, and scholars; what you fail to mention is that WP:WAX only list clear example of whataboutism, whereas what I am doing is pointing out "contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/13/man-dies-in-anti-government-protest-in-cuba-interior-ministry

"Protesters took to the streets of the Cuban capital as well as other cities across the country on Sunday to denounce the government of President Miguel Diaz-Canel amid food shortages and a deep economic crisis worsened by the coronavirus pandemic."

https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/14/cuba-confirms-one-man-dead-during-antigovernment-protests

"Cuban authorities confirmed on Tuesday that one person has died during demonstrations that have shaken the island in recent days by protesting over food shortages, high prices and other grievances against the government."

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/7/16/cuba-protests-the-economic-woes-helping-drive-discontent

"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."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cuba-protests-anti-government-high-prices-food-shortages/

"Thousands of Cubans marched on Havana's Malecon promenade and elsewhere on the island Sunday to protest food shortages and high prices amid the coronavirus crisis, in one of biggest anti-government demonstrations in memory."

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cuba-lifts-food-medicine-customs-restrictions-after-protests-2021-07-15/

"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."

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210711-thousands-join-rare-anti-government-protests-in-cuba

"Social anger has been driven by long food lines and a critical shortage of medicines since the start of the Covid-19 epidemic, with Cuba under US sanctions."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/11/world/americas/cuba-crisis-protests.html

"Shouting 'Freedom' and other anti-government slogans, thousands of Cubans took to the streets in cities around the country on Sunday to protest food and medicine shortages, in a remarkable eruption of discontent not seen in nearly 30 years."

But yeah, 'authoritarianism' is the "main" [sic] cause... Davide King (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

What possible interpretation but authoritarianism as a cause of the protests could convey phrases like this: "[...] protesters have been chanting words from a hip-hop song released earlier this year, calling for the end to Cuba's decades-long communist and authoritarian regime [...]", Hip-hop song becomes drumbeat for Cuban protest movement; or "As political protests against the authoritarian communist regime rock the country [...]", Cubans arriving by boat turned back but those crossing southwest border face better odds? NPR directly quotes a Cuban columnist who lives in Havana, which is translated through an interpreter: "I'd say the embargo is, like, 30% of the problem, and the other 70% is the ineptitude and management of the Cuban government and its authoritarianism." And there are more sources. The fact that there are other reliable sources that don't mention "authoritarianism" doesn't mean that they contradict those sources that do it. The listing of authoritarianism as a cause, by various sources, is enough for inclusion (WP:VERIFY). Ajñavidya (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Fake News

Cuba is under a campaing of fakes news, lots and lots of fakes. And the "media" are repeating without verify anything. It is necessary to verify, check and recheck the sources. False images, images form other countries and years, false videos, false deaths, pro-goberment rallies show as anti-goberment ones, injured pro-goberment demostrators by violent "protestors" shown as repression. Campaigns that were already being prepared on the networks, revealed by researchers, with thousands of fake accounts and bots (just an example of one of this investigations: https://twitter.com/JulianMaciasT/status/1414681678539378691). For example, the 85 reference is a fake, the video visibly edited, and later was shown as false when the supposed dead man appeared on TV. The only death was a criminal with a large record of misdeeds, while they tried to attack the police and the neighbors. The campaigns are being denounced, with their thousands of fakes, fake accounts and bots, but social networking services are not taking action. In addition, cyber attacks on official and media websites on the island, mainly from the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.184 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide some reliable sources and a proposed edit, or changes. If there are at least sources that can be used through proper attribution, they can be added to the body, but we need them and a more clear edit suggestion with a proposed word-per-word edit as I did here. Davide King (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories Cambalachero (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You want some sources: lets begin with a media outlet on the island. Just follow and verify all the references given http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2021/07/18/cronica-de-la-infamia-rosario-de-fake-news-contra-cuba/ also this: https://twitter.com/JulianMaciasT/status/1414681678539378691 then this: https://www.mintpressnews.com/documents-point-to-us-hand-in-cuba-protests/277987/ then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q6tgJ_u50g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfOuqM3niiM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qh788Z0v98 then, lots of money for subversion and forced goberment change: http://cubamoneyproject.com/ just follow the references, like this one: https://www.ned.org/region/latin-america-and-caribbean/cuba-2020/ About the cyberattacks: http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2021/07/15/cubadebate-recibe-ataque-cibernetico-originado-fundamentalmente-en-estados-unidos http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2021/07/16/cancilleria-de-cuba-recibe-ataque-cibernetico-en-medio-de-campana-de-descredito-contra-cuba/ Please, include this information on the article as you verify them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.184 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

YouTube, Twitter, and other self-published sources are not reliable and need to be discussed in secondary sources, and at least one is not usable due to deprecation. The others need to attributed, but they also need to be due, i.e. reported in non-primary sources, or at least in more reliable sources. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Either way, it would be helpful if you could provide a sentence to add. We are not going to remove current information but if there are mistakes, if they are due, and either attributed or reported in secondary reliable sources, if there is misinformation, from both sides, a section about it will be created, or a sentence stating "Some analysts such as ... ." If they are going to make it to the Associated Press, Reuters, etc., which use the most neutral wording and are the least biased among mainstream media, we are going to add them. Until then, we can only report what reliable sources; remember, verifiability, not truth. See the perennial sources table for usable sources which are generally reliable and sources which can be used, pending due weight and proper attribution. Davide King (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, using outlets controlled by the Cuban government to "prove" that other sources widely considered as reliable are "fake news" is having some nerve. Very contradictory, to say the least. Ajñavidya (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. We can put the Cuban government's, or any other's, POV only insofar as it is reported, and thus deemed due, in reliable sources, and properly attribute it. We are not going to use any government's website, or the White House's, other than reasons such as providing the full statement; we are still going to use secondary reliable sources to present any POV of the government deemed worthy or due to be mentioned and properly attributed. Davide King (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

What to do then when many of those "verifiable sources" echo the falsehoods? When do they use falsehoods, whether they have verified them or not, and thus amplify them? When are they silent about complaints? When do they manipulate information or silence others? You can check and verify any and all of those I put before, or look for the sources. But you need some sentences, ok, I'll write them, find all verifiable references among the complicit silence. Maybe like this one: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/fake-news-muddies-online-waters-during-cuba-protests-2021-07-16/ or this, further away in geography https://tribune.com.pk/story/2310530/western-media-use-images-of-pro-govt-rally-protest-in-miami-to-illustrate-cuban-unrest. PD: those youtube videos are from the cuban national tv news, kind of reference to the CNN CBS or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.184 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

As I stated, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth; we live in a capitalist world, so sources, even those generally reliable, are going to reflect that bias. I believe that if any of that is true, it is gonna come out through investigative journalism and published in mainstream media. When that happens, unless you provide an example of a referenced sentence, we will reflect it. Until then, they are not due, but there are many other online encyclopedias where this article may be written with less restrictive policies, such as original research, synthesis, etc. I think that would be more suitable for you, as you seem to be here for the truth, while Wikipedia is about verifibiality. Nevertheless, I hope you can understand how Wikipedia works and contribute here. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Davide King (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I think reputable sources go beyond "capitalism vs. socialism," since they have a reputation of being loyal to the facts. Besides, Cuban government sources are simply not considered reliable because they're directly involved in the conflict. Ajñavidya (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, after all the damage has been done... I love wikipedia, from its very first years, and had contributed sometimes. but feel really bad when it reflects plains falsehoods just because some biased "verifiable sources", or even worst, plainly payed-to-lie "sources" (some of this ends on "reputable" media, sooo.... ok, is "verifiable"). That's what hurts me. PD: Ajñavidya, you can see those references, and find inside every one the real references you may need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.184 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Cubadebate is not a reliable source. Sources that a) are owned by a government, b) that government is involved in control and suppression of information and c) that government is a side in the ongoing conflict, are not trustable by any degree or measure. To make a case of this is a lost cause. And it's not just a Wikipedia thing, any serious mean of information that want to be loyal to the facts just cannot take seriously what you are suggesting. Ajñavidya (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Aaah! but it can be taken as direct or indirect sources ¨media¨ such as Cibercuba and others similar (more than known where their funds come from), as seen in the article (reference 85)? Even The Guardian had to retract, for using mislabeled images — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.184 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you please link to this? If The Guardian retracted something, it should be pointed out. Davide King (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jul/12/thousands-march-in-cuba-in-rare-mass-protests-amid-economic-crisis (the amendment at the end of the article), and there are other examples that I have seen these past days, I remeber the spanish web MuyComputer, the two images posted in one article are pro-gob, but they talk about the anti-gob, a mistake? can be understood with so many falsely attributed images to inflate the "news". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.184 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"Fake news muddies online waters during Cuba protests" and "Fake news proliferating online during Cuba protests" should be added then. Per Reuters, "[p]osts shared thousands of times in recent days were mislabeled as Cuban protests. Some included photos that showed a large crowd during Cuba's 2018 May Day march or a protest in Egypt in 2011." Per Al Jazeera, "[f]alse news reports have spread fast following unprecedented protests in Cuba. Among them: former President Raul Castro had fled to ally Venezuela, protesters had kidnapped a provincial Communist Party chief and Caracas was sending in troops. The Cuban government said they were spread by counter-revolutionaries, while critics of the government said they may have come from the authorities themselves. Neither provided evidence for their claims and the Reuters news agency was unable to ascertain the origins of the stories. ... The proliferation of manufactured or misleading videos and content on social media has become a common feature of social protests around the world in recent years, including in Chile, Bolivia, the United States and France." Why this is not added yet? It is definitely worth to add. Davide King (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I still assume good faith but you are correct on this. The government's POV can only be used if mentioned in secondary reliable sources and properly attributed. Davide King (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Go tell it to some of them, such as The Wall Street Journal, making it all about "Communist vs. freedom" but never "capitalism vs. freedom." The Anglo-Saxon world certainly does not go beyond that, especially in the United States, the only country to not have a major socialist party or never having a socialist party in government, while in Europe 'socialism', or at least its moderate version, is mainstream. No source is truly unbiased, and they are reliable sources because they still get the facts straight; this does not mean they are not analysed through capitalist and middle-class liberalism lens. The press should be independent of both government and corporations. Western press still get the facts straight, so it is reliable, even if biased in favour of capitalism; the Associated Press and Reuters are the least biased, while The New York Times and The Washington Post are generally reliable but lean more capitalist, which is why there is a double standard in blaming it all on Communism, or socialism, or as an indictment of 'the Left', but when a capitalist country does it, it is just a bad apple and not an indictment on capitalism. For the Right, it may be done for fascism, and it is right because that is what the ideology was all about (there are no 'democratic' or 'libertarian' fascists, at least not serious ones) but never for capitalism, liberalism, etc.

Mainstream media sometimes does not pick up some worthy news by investigative and independent journalist press, which would be worthy in people's mind, and there is not much we can do about it in real life or here. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, so the press leanings are not a problem, as long as they are generally reliable and get their fact straight. What I am saying is that I disagree with your claim that "reputable sources go beyond 'capitalism vs. socialism,'" but I agree that they still get their facts straight and are generally reliable for it, which is all that matters here on Wikipedia. Government-controlled or held press, without any form of independency like the BBC, is unreliable and cannot be used directly. I am still curious about a proposed referenced sentence by the IP but I do not think it is going to be added. If it was true and was reported in reliable sources, it would have been added already, since those are strong claims. Davide King (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It's an interesting article, but adds little new information. Social networks have always been fertile ground for fake news, especially for high-profile news topics. That's the very reason why we don't consider them reliable sources. If one of those fake news gets particularly noteworthy it may deserve inclusion (see Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Coverage in Wikipedia). If a news article is specifically debunked, we should re-evaluate it. If the source of such fake news is actually exposed (but not by mere politician's rhetoric, and Reuters specifically pointed that has not happened here), we may point so. But so far, there's nothing new under the sun. Cambalachero (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure to what exactly you are replying to because I actually agree with what you just wrote and that is an accurate description of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Davide King (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It was replying to your proposal to use the Reuters article "Fake news muddies online waters during Cuba protests", just a pair of posts above. Cambalachero (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

What is your problem with using that article or this section? "[B]ut adds little new information. Social networks have always been fertile ground for fake news, especially for high-profile news topics." That seems to be just your personal view. "That's the very reason why we don't consider them reliable sources." We are not using them, we are using Al Jazeera and Reuters, which are generally reliable sources. It was deemed relevant and due by both news agencies to report, so I do not see why it is not due for Wikipedia, or how the wording used in the section is not neutral. Davide King (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability is necessary, but not always enough, to merit inclusion. As I said (and the article and the section say themselves), this happens frequently with those kinds of events, which means it's a bit trivial. There's nothing tangible to talk about here. Cambalachero (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Some of the stories were amplified by Cubans abroad and fake news, such as that Castro had fled to Cuba's ally Venezuela, protesters had kidnapped a provincial Communist Party of Cuba chief, and Caracas was sending in troops, are trivial and not relevant? I think we owe our readers context, and yes, also eventual retraction, as did The Guardian. Certainly, as stated by Al Jazeera, this is a common feature of those kind of events, but I do not see how this alone warrants deletion of the whole section. Davide King (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

or false killed people, etc

Davide King, somes here clearly have an agenda. Tries to press for the "authoritarian cause" and to dismiss the economic ones caused by the embargo and pandemic, tries to dismiss the embargo and its damage to the population, tries to dismiss the campaign of fakes and disinformation, tries to dismiss government sources but accepts that of groups and media even if their publications have been shown false or are controlled by US against the island. Clear bias. --also, besides the injured police, there were several counter-protest participants injured by violent protesters-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.184 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

then it would be necessary to dismiss all the similar sections that may exist in all similar articles about protests in the entire wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.184 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

If you have international news agencies, such as Al Jazeera, the Associated Press, the BBC, Reuters, and the like, stating that there were injuries for counter-protesters too, please provide them. Davide King (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

they do not report it, as unfortunately they sometimes do. but you can look for the links to the news. They are the wounded by the violent, those to which some of these news agencies refer: https://www.dw.com/en/cuba-confirms-death-of-man-at-anti-government-protests/a-58257097 , https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/13/man-dies-in-anti-government-protest-in-cuba-interior-ministry , https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/14/cuba-confirms-one-man-dead-during-antigovernment-protests . Can see some of the injured recounting the facts: http://www.cubadebate.cu/especiales/2021/07/13/nadie-podra-arrebatarnos-la-tranquILIDAD-las-historias-que-deja-el-odio-y-la-violencia-pagada/ , http://www.cubadebate.cu/especiales/2021/07/21/mercy-golpeada-el-11-de-julio-miempo-defendia-la-revolucion/ . Can the Casualties section be expanded with proper attribution? Or is too biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.184 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Pending reviews

It would be useful if those reviewing the pending edits would be quicker, instead of letting pending reviews pile up up to seven (as of now) reviews to be checked. It seems arbitrarily unfair to users who contribute in good faith and no one is taking the time to either approve or disapprove the edits. IMHO. CoryGlee (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is edited far too frequently for WP:PC. Why isn't this WP:SEMI? BSMRD (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Contentious content, consensus, and compromise

If a piece of content is contentious, it should be temporarily removed from the article while discussions are taking place and until editors reach a consensus. Let’s give equal treatment to opposing views and not make this article a political battleground.

I am seeing that some contentious content remains in the article while discussions are taking place, while other (potentially equally) contentious content is removed while discussions are taking place. All contentious content should be treated equally in fairness to all editors' legitimate concerns. We owe this to the readers and will potentially help prevent misinformation. We should either keep all contentious content in the article or remove them all while discussions are taking place (we can seek consensus on this also).

I propose that we temporarily remove from the article any piece of content that has been deemed contentious or challenged by other editors until consensus is reached.

I also propose that we make a list identifying all content/text deemed to be contentious, so it is easier for everyone to track.

Here is a start (feel free to expand this list):

1. Infobox - Causes: Authoritarianism (excluded, discussions in progress, see section X)
2. Infobox - Causes: United States embargo against Cuba (excluded, discussions in progress, see section Y)
3. Infobox - Method: Rioting (excluded, discussions in progress, see section Z)

TocororoWings (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and ironically that is exactly why I have removed authoritarianism from the infobox. At least the embargo is listed as causes alongside "rising prices, falling wages, ... and the failings of the island's long-standing communist government to address its economic challenges." I have yet to see such a direct quote explicitly mentioning 'authoritarianism', and I am open to other possible wording other than that as we did for the 2011 Russian protests, unless 'authoritarianism' is listed as a cause in a direct quote; we already say "curbs on civil liberties", the exact Reuters' wording. I would also like to remind that I was the one to mention authoritarianism and a Cuban dissident journalist comment in the lead. So much for being indirectly called an areshole at least twice by Ajñavidya. Davide King (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that what TocororoWings is referring to is that a discussed and polemic topic such as the inclusion "authoritarianism" in the infobox is excluded while being discussed, whereas equally polemic points such as the "US embargo against Cuba" and "rioting" are included in the article while they're being discussed in the talk page. May he corrects me if I'm wrong. Ajñavidya (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Self-imposed “embargo” of the government against its own people

I think the "self-imposed embargo" of the Cuban government against its own people is being overlooked. The fact that the Cuban government had to temporarily lift limits on the import of food and medicine is evidence of one in many self-imposed restrictions that are still in place to worsen the economic situation of the people to later be able to blame it on the embargo. This is an old tactic. TocororoWings (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It has always been possible to import medicine and food by visitors paying customs duties, even in a certain amount but not at commercial levels. Now what was increased was the limit and without additional charges. The country can produce half of the medicines, the most necessary and used ones, but the economic and financial difficulties, and the additional imposed by the embargo, make it difficult for it to obtain supplies for production, even more so in recent years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.184 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Please, if you have an actual, referenced edit proposal to make, just do it. "Although the embargo does not currently fully explicitly block the acquisition of food and medicines,[62] studies by the American Association for World Health and The Lancet showed that while the Cuban Democracy Act was amended to allow the de jure export of food and medicines into the country, the de facto application and implications of the act's enforcement significantly restricted the accessibility of both within Cuba." This was removed because it did not mention the protests, but just because it allows the de jure export of food and medicine, it does not mean suddenly there is no issue de facto or repercussion anyway; and of course, before anyone falsely misrepresent me, it is not just the embargo (whoever blame everything either on the embargo or government alone is making it too reductive and simplistic, and as we state, the crisis "emerged from a combination of factors", which is more accurate than blaming everything on either the embargo or authoritarianism), but I could find no reliable source discussing a "self-imposed embargo." The only one I could find was this 2017 article by the Washington Examiner. This cannot be used per synthesis because it predates the protests, and perennial sources table states that "[t]here is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled with the appropriate guideline." Davide King (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Here I did add, as it was mentioned in this article by the Associated Press, José Jasan Nieves's comment that the Cuban government "has just shown that it could have allowed the entry of food and medicine without quantity limits or tariffs all along but chose not to do so for more than a year of the pandemic." Davide King (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)