Talk:2021 Cuban protests/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Fake News
Cuba is under a campaing of fakes news, and the media (even some reliable) 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 reference about a man killed in his house while being arrested is a fake, the video visibly edited, and later was shown as false when the supposed dead man appeared on TV. The only death on the protests was a criminal with a large record of misdeeds, while trying to attack the police and neighbors. The campaigns are being denounced, with their thousands of 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 the main cuban TV news program: 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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: [1] , [2] , [3] . Can see some of the injured recounting the facts: [4] , [5] . 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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'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'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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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 the main cuban TV news program: 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)
- Wikipedia does not contain "truth" or "facts". Wikipedia summarizes what Reliable Sources say about a subject. The original post states "Cuba is under a campaing of fakes news, lots and lots of fakes. And the "media" are repeating without verify anything.". By asserting that the media are [all] repeating something, that is an argument REQUIRING us to also say the same thing, under Wikipedia Policy. If most science text say the moon is made of cheese, Wikipedia will accurately summarize "The moon is made of cheese". We do not debate Truth on Wikipedia. If a flat Earther persistently tries to argue the "truth" or "facts" of the earth, we do not engage those arguments. We can and will block them if they persist. If someone tried to argue the moon is made of rock, the same. We block them if necessary. If you want to argue truth or facts, you have to do it off Wikipedia. We will change what Wikipedia says only after you get the Reliable Sources to correct what they are saying.
Also I'm familiar with Mintpressnews and it's not a Reliable Source, they print Fringe. Youtube is also not Reliable, anyone can post any random nonsense there. I didn't look at cubadebate, but someone above said it is government controlled. That would mean it is only reliable for claims such as "The Cuban government says X". Alsee (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)- that's not "any random anyone" on youtube. It is the main TV news program in the country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.154.178 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- more on the disinformation campaing and the US involmement: [6] , [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.206.184.17 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Davide King: Hi. The addition about Cazadores de Fake News did not solely exclusively on the primary sources included. The inline Twitter reference was merely complementary, and the text cited for the first source is also supported by the tertiary reference included, which reports on the same conclusions. At any rate, I don't think that the content should have been removed only for these reasons per WP:PSTS, particularly when the reliability has not been disputed. I have restored the text having included the tertiary source to support the first sentence. You can consult translated versions of the articles if you have any questions (ADN Cuba, Cazadores de Fake News). Best regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- NoonIcarus, thanks for taking this to the talk page but I suggest you to self-revert because it is still problematic:
- What is the notability and reliability of Cazadores de Fake News?
- Why should we give them the same weight to experts who spoke to the AFP?
- You still cited Twitter, that should not be used.
- The source you are referring to (ADN Cuba) is not a tertiary but a secondary source.
- I have the same question about it. What is the notability and reliability of ADN Cuba? Being independent is a necessary but not a good enough reason to be either notable or reliable to be used in such case.
- Your addition is unnecessary because we already say the same thing. Experts criticized the Cuban government for "attributing an exaggerated importance to Twitter", as people are genuinely "fed up and economically exhausted."
- What is contradicted is that the hastag was completely natural and only coming within the island (according to Cazadores de Fake News); experts who spoke to the AFP noted some discrepancies and acknowledged that there were automated tweets (likely from both sides) and that there has been "an effort from abroad to create uncertainty in the country" but that the government exaggerated this for its own purpose. This is a more nuanced and accurate view than everything being either natural or orchestrated from abroad but more importantly it was reported by a reputable international agency and those were subject-matter experts.
- We need international agencies (AFP, Al Jazeera, the Associated Press, BBC, Reuters, and the like) or newspapers (The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the like) to report that such fact-checking by Cazadores de Fake News is notable and due.
- In this sense, English sources are favoured and easier to verify.
- Please, do not re-add it until you have such sources that establish weight, or there is consensus among users for such addition; as things stand, it still looks undue and should not be re-inserted. Davide King (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Davide King: I'm sorry that I was not able to respond until now. I'll proceed to answer in a broad way, contrary to a point by point or orderly basis; I hope that is alright. Cazadores de Fake News is a fact checking group with over two years of experience now that has been cited multiple times by Spanish speaking reliable sources, from Venezuela to Colombia, Argentina and Spain: Efecto Cocuyo, Maldita.es, Infobae, Colombiacheck, El Pitazo, Noticiero Digital, Transparencia Venezuela. One of their investigations prompted Twitter to suspend a network of 85 troll acounts from the platform. As such, Cazadores de Fake News is both notable and reliable.
- ADN Cuba, it is an independent website that has operated since 2017 and has already been used several times in the English Wikipedia in articles about Cuba, specifically about the COVID-19 pandemic. I haven't found information to suggest that it is unreliable. However, CiberCuba is another source that has reported on the same information, if doubts remain (#SOSCuba: radiografía de una protesta digital impulsada por humanos). As of the Twitter reference, a primary source is not a deprecated one, even less a blacklisted one, so its use should not preclude the inclusion of content, and like I mentioned, it is only used to complement the information rather than its main source. However, I can remove it if you prefer.
- Now, the purpose of the inclusion of the content was both to complement AFP as to contradict Macias' position. The findings of Cazadores does not contradict AFP's overall conlusion: it says that there was participation of bots and spam accounts, but that it did not have an effect on the trend. If the concern is that the information is contradictory, the problem would lie with the text and not its original source. Neither does it say that the hashtag came only from the island (which would be a misrepresentation), only that it was promoted from it. This inclusion is more important knowing that the website was blocked by the Cuban government, something that has not been disputed. Additionally, per WP:GLOBAL, Spanish references should not be given less importance, particularly when the subject of the article naturally is about a Spanish speaking country.
- Having explained the notability and due weight of both the source and the statement, I'm concerned that this exclusion is not sufficiently based on policy. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- NoonIcarus, this was helpful and better. I am very sympathetic to use non-English language sources for non-Anglo Saxon-related articles, as you stated. The major issue is that I still do not see what exactly it add, or what it contradicts from Macias' position to warrant its addition. If this news was picked up by international agencies, I would have no doubt that it is due; as things stand, as a compromise, perhaps it would be better to add as a note after Macias' position (see example), especially if as you say, "the purpose of the inclusion of the content was both to complement AFP as to contradict Macias' position." The section is big enough but the addition is short enough to be good for a clarifying note, although I am still unsure whether they are due, also in light to the fact that Macias is a subject-matter expert and was found due by the AFP to report. But it can stay as a note for the time being. Davide King (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Davide King: Thank you! I'm very glad to hear that! To explain further, and as I gather, Macias questions the spontaneity of the promotion of the hashtag. While I'm not completely happy with the alternative of a note, I can understand the concern with including it along AFP, so it can be included that way for the time being. I've noticed that Macias is also cited in the 15 July subsection, without his counterpart Doug Madory, so another option could be to include Cazadores' report in the respective chronology subsection, 20 July. Best regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- NoonIcarus, I really appreciate that but this was misplaced; it should be put in the previous sentence mentioning Macias, not there, which is backed by The Guardian. I also do not think it is inappropriate because the reverse is true; the Venezuelan fact-checker website, which did not make it international news, is undue (but I am fine with it in a note, unless international sources report it), is undue, not Macias' comments, which have been reported by AFP, who has described Macias as disinformation expert, the opposite of undue, and is also supported by The Guardian, who mention Macias. Macias is mentioned in two of the most reliable international sources, while the Venezuelan fact-checker website is only mentioned in Spanish sources, and mainly in independent sources about Cuba, not mainstream newspapers. The tag is clearly not correct, sorry. Davide King (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Davide King: I placed the tag on different grounds, but you're on point that I haven't properly explained this and I apologize for that. I placed the tag not because of Macias' position, which we have discussed and whose inclusion we agree upon, but rather because in said subsection besides saying that the "campaign was in part the work of the Atlas Network", it goes beyond and says that it has "received funding from ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers" and that it has "been involved in other misinformation campaigns". I'm not sure how much of this is relevant to the article further than the mention that the campaign could have been influenced by the group, and this is the part that I believe is undue, although some context for the Atlas Network is definitely needed. This description is also different from Cazadores' news given that the latter is currently included as a note. I thank you once again for your time. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- That makes more sense but I think it is still, ironically, undue to put the tag. It is relevant in light of the Misinformation section, and The Guardian found it enough relevant to mention it in an article about the protests. You may have been right if the article was not directly discussing the protests, or if it precedes the start of the protests, but it does, and this is why I believe your argument and reasoning for the tag fail, with all due respect. Davide King (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's understandable. In my experience, it is less troublesome to include a description of a person or organization, usually including but not limited to background and financing, specially if there is a linked article to the subject, where the reader can draw their own conclusions. Another way to put it is preventing the risk of poisoning the well; I hope that you likewise understand my rationale and my concerns. Still, I want to thank you one more time for your comprehension. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have changed from concluded to posited, which is a more neutral wording and does not imply that is the sole view. I hope this was a slight improvement, and I thank you too for your kind words and respectful comments. :) Davide King (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Davide King: Hi! Just seeing this, thanks! I have trimmed the description of the Network per the concerns that I had, while leaving the description saying that it is "a free-market consortium of more than 500 organisations". Of course, I likewise wanted to know what you thought about it. Kind regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- NoonIcarus, but are your concerns based in our policies and guidelines? If The Guardian found it due to mention the network's work other Latin American countries for context, we should provide the same context too. I think the full statement, which gives broader context, is better. Also do not use per talk in summary edits because that may imply there has been a discussion and a consensus has been reached but this was not the case. Davide King (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Davide King Hi again; I've been meaning to leave a message for some time now, sorry for not doing it before. Not to beat a dead horse, I just wanted to explain that my edit summary referred to the rationale that I provided in this talk page, and did not mean to imply that there was a consensus; I'm very sorry if that was the impression. While I still disagree with the current text, efforts can be directed towards more proudctive improvements. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- NoonIcarus, but are your concerns based in our policies and guidelines? If The Guardian found it due to mention the network's work other Latin American countries for context, we should provide the same context too. I think the full statement, which gives broader context, is better. Also do not use per talk in summary edits because that may imply there has been a discussion and a consensus has been reached but this was not the case. Davide King (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Davide King: Hi! Just seeing this, thanks! I have trimmed the description of the Network per the concerns that I had, while leaving the description saying that it is "a free-market consortium of more than 500 organisations". Of course, I likewise wanted to know what you thought about it. Kind regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have changed from concluded to posited, which is a more neutral wording and does not imply that is the sole view. I hope this was a slight improvement, and I thank you too for your kind words and respectful comments. :) Davide King (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's understandable. In my experience, it is less troublesome to include a description of a person or organization, usually including but not limited to background and financing, specially if there is a linked article to the subject, where the reader can draw their own conclusions. Another way to put it is preventing the risk of poisoning the well; I hope that you likewise understand my rationale and my concerns. Still, I want to thank you one more time for your comprehension. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- That makes more sense but I think it is still, ironically, undue to put the tag. It is relevant in light of the Misinformation section, and The Guardian found it enough relevant to mention it in an article about the protests. You may have been right if the article was not directly discussing the protests, or if it precedes the start of the protests, but it does, and this is why I believe your argument and reasoning for the tag fail, with all due respect. Davide King (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Davide King: I placed the tag on different grounds, but you're on point that I haven't properly explained this and I apologize for that. I placed the tag not because of Macias' position, which we have discussed and whose inclusion we agree upon, but rather because in said subsection besides saying that the "campaign was in part the work of the Atlas Network", it goes beyond and says that it has "received funding from ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers" and that it has "been involved in other misinformation campaigns". I'm not sure how much of this is relevant to the article further than the mention that the campaign could have been influenced by the group, and this is the part that I believe is undue, although some context for the Atlas Network is definitely needed. This description is also different from Cazadores' news given that the latter is currently included as a note. I thank you once again for your time. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- NoonIcarus, I really appreciate that but this was misplaced; it should be put in the previous sentence mentioning Macias, not there, which is backed by The Guardian. I also do not think it is inappropriate because the reverse is true; the Venezuelan fact-checker website, which did not make it international news, is undue (but I am fine with it in a note, unless international sources report it), is undue, not Macias' comments, which have been reported by AFP, who has described Macias as disinformation expert, the opposite of undue, and is also supported by The Guardian, who mention Macias. Macias is mentioned in two of the most reliable international sources, while the Venezuelan fact-checker website is only mentioned in Spanish sources, and mainly in independent sources about Cuba, not mainstream newspapers. The tag is clearly not correct, sorry. Davide King (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Davide King: Thank you! I'm very glad to hear that! To explain further, and as I gather, Macias questions the spontaneity of the promotion of the hashtag. While I'm not completely happy with the alternative of a note, I can understand the concern with including it along AFP, so it can be included that way for the time being. I've noticed that Macias is also cited in the 15 July subsection, without his counterpart Doug Madory, so another option could be to include Cazadores' report in the respective chronology subsection, 20 July. Best regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- NoonIcarus, this was helpful and better. I am very sympathetic to use non-English language sources for non-Anglo Saxon-related articles, as you stated. The major issue is that I still do not see what exactly it add, or what it contradicts from Macias' position to warrant its addition. If this news was picked up by international agencies, I would have no doubt that it is due; as things stand, as a compromise, perhaps it would be better to add as a note after Macias' position (see example), especially if as you say, "the purpose of the inclusion of the content was both to complement AFP as to contradict Macias' position." The section is big enough but the addition is short enough to be good for a clarifying note, although I am still unsure whether they are due, also in light to the fact that Macias is a subject-matter expert and was found due by the AFP to report. But it can stay as a note for the time being. Davide King (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Been looking. Found almost none. Also, reading in the article its methodology, the data analyzed are from days 10, 11 and 12. What has been manifested in the media is the origin of the hashtag, the ways used to position it and its initial magnification before the 11th. Of course on the 11th there is an increase without the need for bots.
- ADN Cuba is a (very and negatively) biased source on topics associated with Cuba, with fundind from US Gov by means of USAID ($410710 USD in 2020), through its parent Digital News Association [8] [9] [10] [11], just like CubaNet received $300000 USD (another "independent media" to watch out for). This is just part of the $20m spend annually on "regime change" programmes againts Cuba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.154.178 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- That is not true, the analysis explicitly mentions the origin of the hashtag on 6 June. While you are disputing the independence of the ADN Cuba, you are not disputing its reliability, let alone on this specific instance. Regardless, CiberCuba also reports on the issue, if you're looking for more references. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- CiberCuba is the same. The funds come to them in the same way. There are several like them (just look and will find the documents with their names and amounts), with indirect funding from USGOV, through USAID, NED or the kind of OSF and others, public or not. Thus, they lose all neutrality and validity that they could have on almost any subject on Cuba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.152 (talk • contribs)
- You're still not addressing its reliability specifically. There are plenty of perennial sources (WP:RSP) that have been discussed and receive public funding, including from the NED, and are still considered trustworthy. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- really? Do you really expect reliability from a "media", financed directly or indirectly by a government and other enemies of a country and a government? really? In addition, several times they have been seen participating in disinformation campaigns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.154.178 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- You're still not addressing its reliability specifically. There are plenty of perennial sources (WP:RSP) that have been discussed and receive public funding, including from the NED, and are still considered trustworthy. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- CiberCuba is the same. The funds come to them in the same way. There are several like them (just look and will find the documents with their names and amounts), with indirect funding from USGOV, through USAID, NED or the kind of OSF and others, public or not. Thus, they lose all neutrality and validity that they could have on almost any subject on Cuba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.152 (talk • contribs)
- That is not true, the analysis explicitly mentions the origin of the hashtag on 6 June. While you are disputing the independence of the ADN Cuba, you are not disputing its reliability, let alone on this specific instance. Regardless, CiberCuba also reports on the issue, if you're looking for more references. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Language
Some highly amusing language was used in the recent addition:
- Apparently the word "divulgation" does exist. I don't think it is used very often
- "difamanation" is not in Merriam-Webster
- apparently bad translation by the editor. should said "defamation".
- What is a "Cuban analist"????
- Here it refers to analysts of Cuban origin, outside of the country.
Burrobert (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The source that contains that term is this article by Reuters, stating:What is a "Cuban analist"????
«Cuban analysts compared the measure to the totalitarianism of George Orwell's "1984"»
. "Cuban analysts" is not an obscure term, it means analysts (i.e., journalists, economists, politologists, etc; analyzing the political situation of a given society) who were born in Cuba. Ajñavidya (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)- I believe they were referring to the typos; it is analysts, as you correctly wrote here, not analist, as it was previously written. Similarly, it is defamation, not difamanation. Davide King (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)