Talk:2021 Cuban protests

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

Undue weight?[edit]

Discussion? Burrobert (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burrobert, see my comments here for why the tag is misplaced and unwarranted. Davide King (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I can't see an explanation of why the tag was added. Burrobert (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See here. Davide King (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that this section seems to inaccurately paraphrase the Guardian which references “Twitter accounts of Atlas Network members” not Atlas Network. Since the #SOSCuba hashtag is clearly debated and not proven fact, I believe further verification is needed to warrant inclusion.Troubadour34 (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status of the protests[edit]

The page continues to describe the protests as "July 11th-present" yet I see no developments in the chronological timeline since August. Is it time to put an end date to the protests, or is the article in need of updating? I am making this observation without much prior knowledge on this subject, it was just something that caught my eye as I was reading the article. StraightOuttaBoston (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point, likely an oversight on the part of editors. I tentatively put the end date as July 28, as that's the furthest "active" phase we list. Going to see if I can find a more definitive source capping the protests. BSMRD (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting of recent changes[edit]

I have reverted the recent edits by @Freeworld97:. Some of the additions may be fine but there are also problems with the changes. As an example, consider this addition: 

"The Cuban government, without evidence, blamed western countries including the United States of being responsible for the protests. This misinformation was used by the government to demonize protesters during the government's crackdown, the Cuban president calling for violence by government supporters against demonstrators and excessive prison sentences for protesters".

The problems are as follows:

  • It has been placed in the "Misinformation" section but the sources don't describe it as misinformation. Reuters only says the Cuban government "provided no evidence to back the accusations".
  • The HRW source does not say "This misinformation was used by the government to demonize protesters during the government's crackdown".
  • The HRW source does not say "the Cuban president call[ed] for violence by government supporters against demonstrators". It does say "President Miguel Díaz-Canel urged government supporters and security forces to respond to the protests with force. “We call on all revolutionaries to go to the streets to defend the revolution,” he said. “The order to fight has been given"." I would suggest we stick closer to what the source says. We also need to move it out of the "Misinformation" section.
  • The HRW source does not say "the Cuban president call[ed] for ... excessive prison sentences for protesters". It does say some protesters were "sentenced to disproportionate prison terms". It does not say the government called for these sentences, so again we need to stick closer to the source. We also need to move it out of the "Misinformation" section.

There are other problems with the additions, but I will stop there and wait for discussion. Burrobert (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Force is not violence? The government and its supporters used "force". Change the word if you truly believe the meaning is different. The section also includes conspiracy theories agaisnt protesters by the Cuban government and state media in allied Venezuela. As well as citing a "journalist" Ben Norton who was enployed by the grayzone. Which is not credible
Your bias is showing and it is resulting in dangerous misinformation by a government going unchecked Freeworld97 (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously feel strongly about the content on this page. Why not suggest some additions here based on the sources you have used? Regarding the information you removed from the article, it was properly sourced. Burrobert (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other conversations that were had here a year ago. This was covered and is why it is important that it is removed. Context is important. The government claiming misinformation and an external conspiracy is responsible for the protests against it, which was used to justify a violent response, did in fact occur. But that does no mean the claim itself was factual. It is dangerous to cite claims by a government asserting that opposition it violently suppressed, was not legitimate. "Properly sourcing" that an unsubstantiated claim was made by a biased party does not mean that claim is factual.
Also while you are editing the page for proper sourcing, please see the wikipedia page on the grayzone. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone
It details how the website reports misinformation in support of authoritarian governments as well as genocide denial
Ben Norton, who was one of their journalists, was mentioned as a source. He is not credible and his inclusion without being removed is alarming. He also does work for the Nicaraguan government, an ally to the Cuban government. Do you believe unsubstantiated claims made by biased parties such the Cuban government, Venezuelan state media, and operatives for the Nicaraguan government should be reported as fact when it comes to opposition to those governments? Freeworld97 (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not supposed to be a political discussion. Your and my views about Latin America are irrelevant to the article. Specifically, what are the "previous discussion you mentioned above. Please suggest some changes here for discussion before adding them into the page. Burrobert (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your views clearly influenced your edits and your choice to restore misinformation by a biased party as fact.
Government misinformation does not count as misinformation? Is the government directly involved a reliable source when demonizing opposition? Answer these questions instead of posting generic responses. I'm starting to think you are a bot.
Look at the talk about fake news. Due your due diligence and research before editing a paige and restoring misinformation used to justify violence. Read the conversations that came before. You clearly did not. I did and adjusted the section accordingly.
Again, you left a part with a journalist from a fake news organization deemed unreliable by wikipedia. One with ties to the party it is defending.
The Cuban government has blamed "a Twitter campaign orchestrated by the United States". How is this considered a factual statement? Did it prove this claim? This is a political statement. Not one based in facts and two and a half years later no evidence was supplied to support this.
People like you are responsible for an over abundance of misinformation on wikipedia. It is a huge problem when the misinformation you restore is currently being used to justify violence. Freeworld97 (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Misinformation presented as fact in the section about a blockaid and embargo leading to protests, that you keep restoring, went viral on social media. It was deemed as false by fact checkers including Politifact, USA Today and Facebook. Facebook labeled it as false information. Yet you keep restoring it. Do your research before removing factual content and restoring misinformation from biased parties.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/19/facebook-posts/cuba-can-trade-other-countries-heres-some-context/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/15/fact-check-us-cuba-embargo-doesnt-apply-all-countries-companies/7954883002/.
I am presenting facts to support the information I posted and why what I removed does not belong in the section. The fake news talk that was archived today covers this exact topic. Freeworld97 (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your views clearly influenced your edits and your choice to restore misinformation by a biased party as fact. Government misinformation does not count as misinformation? Is the government directly involved a reliable source when demonizing opposition? Answer these questions instead of posting generic responses. I'm starting to think you are a bot.
Look at the talk about fake news. Due your due diligence and research before editing a paige and restoring misinformation used to justify violence. Read the conversations that came before. You clearly did not. I did and adjusted the section accordingly.
Again, you left a part with a journalist from a fake news organization deemed unreliable by wikipedia. One with ties to the party it is defending.
The Cuban government has blamed "a Twitter campaign orchestrated by the United States". How is this considered a factual statement? Did it prove this claim? This is a political statement. Not one based in facts and two and a half years later no evidence was supplied to support this.
People like you are responsible for an over abundance of misinformation on wikipedia. It is a huge problem when the misinformation you restore is currently being used to justify violence. Freeworld97 (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Misinformation presented as fact in the section about a blockaid and embargo leading to protests, that you keep restoring, went viral on social media. It was deemed as false by fact checkers including Politifact, USA Today and Facebook. Facebook labeled it as false information. Yet you keep restoring it. Do your research before removing factual content and restoring misinformation from biased parties.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/19/facebook-posts/cuba-can-trade-other-countries-heres-some-context/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/15/fact-check-us-cuba-embargo-doesnt-apply-all-countries-companies/7954883002/.
I am presenting facts to support the information I posted and why what I removed does not belong in the section. The fake news talk that was archived today covers this exact topic. Freeworld97 (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The referenced content should remain. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
my apologies. I posted two messages to you when I meant to reply to Burrobert Freeworld97 (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Freeworld97: No worries. I have moved my comment so it is placed correctly. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the Misinformation section[edit]

I have added a tag to the Misinformation section. Here is a list of problems with the section:

  • Removal of long-standing sourced text which provides the Cuban governments statements relating to Misinformation. The bulk of the material is sourced to articles in Reuters, Al Jazeera, Yahoo News and The Guardian.[1]
  • “The Cuban government promoted conspiracy theories …”: The Reuters source does not describe the Cuban government’s statement as a conspiracy theory.
  • “This misinformation was used by the government to demonize protesters during the government's crackdown, as justification by the Cuban president for force to be used by government supporters against demonstrators and excessive prison sentences for protesters”.: The HRW source does not mention “misinformation” or the Cuban government’s statement that the US influenced the protest. The source does not say the the Cuban government called or was responsible for the “excessive prison sentences for protesters”.
  • “Some media, activist groups and pro-regime conspiracy websites such as the Grayzone echoed the Cuban government's conspiracy theories … ”: None of the sources mention Grayzone or use the description "conspiracy theory".
  • “Stories were published amplifying the Cuban state media narrative blaming the US, and downplaying support for the opposition in Cuba and the size of the protests”: This is an editorial comment on the FAIR article which is provided as the source.
  • “News organizations such as CNN confirmed the scope of the demonstrations, calling them the "biggest since the revolution”. The source for this is one CNN article where the claim appears in the headline but not the article body. WP:Headlines are not reliable sources.
  • “Thus providing evidence debunking the claim that the protests did not have much support in Cuba and that it was mostly overseas”. That is not a sentence.
  • “The Cuban government suppressed photographers and journalists reporting on the event”: Not mentioned in the France24 source provided.
  • “Limiting pictures and videos of the demonstrations that were being disputed by media sympathetic to the Cuban government”: That is not a sentence. The source used does not mention “media sympathetic to the Cuban government”.

Burrobert (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you creating another talk? Your concerns were addressed in another. Please refer back to it. A talk from a year ago about fake news also explains why you are wrong. And why it is dangerous to keep content in from one party demonizing the weaker party without evidence backing its claims
Accusations by government demonizing opposition without evidence are misinformation and why it was added back.
The Cuban government accused opposition of misinformation without proof. The source only quotes the government, not that claims were verified
Why do you insist on removing actual misinformation spread by the powerful and keep unverified accusations against opposition protesters? Freeworld97 (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This talk section was created to explain why I tagged the section. It explains the problems in the section to readers and editors. You have not addressed any of the points I raised. What is the "talk from a year ago about fake news"? Burrobert (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is more actual context about real issues in the misinformation section and other sections of this page.
The section was previously biased in favor of unsubstantiated claims by the government, a biased party, against opposition. It presented nefarious claims by the this biased party and its supporters, as fact. A person is mentioned as a credible source in the section who at the time was with a media website that wikipedia deems as untrustworthy, and as supporting of authoritarian governments. It also presents government claims about a blockade causing the protests as fact, despite similar claims about it being deemed as "False" by PolitiFact, USA Today and Facebook. This is why using statements from a biased party as fact does not belong in the section. Unless it is being used as an example of misinformation by this biased party (the government in this case).
The reactions section also includes biased acusations by the government against protesters, which according to sources in this wikipedia page, used the same unproven accusations as justification for 30 year long prison sentences and force against protesters. This is why it is dangerous to echo propaganda used to oppress, as factual without any evidence supporting the claims.
Biased Wikipedia users are deleting factual information that contradicts assucations made by one party, and are adding unproven attacks against the other party (the protesters) as fact. Freeworld97 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here for a political discussion. Can you address each of the points I mentioned at the top of the section? Burrobert (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
⏳🙄 Burrobert (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
😴 💤 Burrobert (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Burrobert: I'm dissapointed to see that I'm not the only editor that you mock with emojis. I'll warn you one last time to stop, it's disrespectful and contrary to civility. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how you care about someone using emoticons but not 'Freeworld97'--wow what an unbiased and neutral person--completely and totally refusing to acknowledge any of Burrobert's points that pretty unambiguously point out numerous problems with the aticle. You care about 'civility' a lot more than you seem to care about being honest and actually fulfilling Wikipedia's mission of being fair and accurate Letdown101 (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Freeworld97:, since Burrobert hasn't, in case they want to provide further insight. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now my comment pointing out NoonIcarus's dishonesty got deleted. Just want to reiterate that Icarus is being very dishonest and hypocritical here. Letdown101 (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Cuban_protests&oldid=1213505708"