Talk:2021 Cuban protests/Archive 1

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)

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
- 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)
 * ...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)


 * 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)

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

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)

"United States military intervention"
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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, 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)


 * , 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)
 * ✅ 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. --  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)
 * 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)

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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)

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)