Talk:2021 Cuban protests/Archive 4

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

Note to Closer There is quite a bit of discussion on this topic both above and below this RfC, which may be useful for any closure. BSMRD (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * No for just saying 'authoritarianism' per this source analysis by Mathglot, this reasoning, and due weight not given to all those sources (there are more), including the United States-based Associated Press and The New York Times, which did not find it due enough to explicitily mention it all. Yes by proving a more context-minded sentence (as we already do, and I am open to further changes), which better explain what reliable sources say, such as "Lack of civil liberties (freedom of association and political freedom)", considering not all sources explicitily say 'authoritarianism' but use wording such as 'call for greater freedoms', 'police state', 'repression', 'one-party rule', etc., the latter of which we can add to one of the Goals of ending Communist (authoritarian one-party) rule. [Edited to add] Davide King (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Previous 'vote' was No unless we get reliable sources (the most neutral-worded Associated Press and Reuters in particular) explicitly saying authoritarianism is a cause, rather than just say Cuba is authoritarian or that curbs on civil liberties are a cause, which we already say and are not in dispute. So far, sources used in support for the claim have been either Fox News (not reliable for politics and science), opinion pieces (which may be used in the body, properly attributed, not for a contentious claim in the infobox), and sources describing Cuba as authoritarian, not saying that authoritarianism, rather than curbs on civil liberties due to the government handling of the pandemic, is a cause of the protests. For capitalist protests in Haiti, we do not list authoritarianism, and we should not list it; it is to be discussed and clarified in the body. We should not list it here either, except for the aforementioned caveat. Labels such as authoritarianism are better discussed in the body, which we already do in Background rather than as a label in the infobox. Davide King (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC) [Edit to add] As I have shown in my comment just below here, the overwhelmingly majority of sources mention food shortages, the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic crisis, etc., not 'authoritarianism', as causes. Even the embargo is more warranted, as explained by Goodposts here, because sources may only disagree in seeing the shortages and the pandemic, or lack of promised economic reforms, not 'authoritarianism', as bigger causes, but it is routinely mentioned and discussed as a negative cause which does no good to Cubans, even as they criticize the government for having in the past lay blame only to it, when of course the problem is not just the embargo, without dismissing its negative effects on Cuban people. We should follow what sources say in listing the causes; 'authoritarianism' ain't it. The country being described as 'authoritarian' = 'authoritarianism' as a due cause, alongside shortages, the pandemic, etc. Davide King (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)  [edited to add] Davide King (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC) [edited to add] Davide King (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not want those who are for 'yes' to appear the rational ones just for proving sources, so I am gonna provide some too to show mine and others' arguments against addition are based on Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, such as original research, synthesis, and undue weight, and on an analysis of sources which shows that they do not support what those in favour of 'yes' claim to be.
 * https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210711-thousands-join-rare-anti-government-protests-in-cuba (Agence France-Presse)
 * "Social anger has been driven by long food lines and a critical shortage of medicines since the start of the Covid-19 epidemic, with Cuba under US sanctions."
 * https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/13/man-dies-in-anti-government-protest-in-cuba-interior-ministry (Al Jazeera English)
 * "Protesters took to the streets of the Cuban capital as well as other cities across the country on Sunday to denounce the government of President Miguel Diaz-Canel amid food shortages and a deep economic crisis worsened by the coronavirus pandemic."
 * https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/7/16/cuba-protests-the-economic-woes-helping-drive-discontent (Al Jazeera English)
 * "Cubans have taken to the streets in cities across the country over the last week, in a wave of rare public protests to express their frustration with rising prices, falling wages, the United States embargo and the failings of the island’s long-standing communist government to address its economic challenges."
 * https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/14/cuba-confirms-one-man-dead-during-antigovernment-protests (Associated Press)
 * "Cuban authorities confirmed on Tuesday that one person has died during demonstrations that have shaken the island in recent days by protesting over food shortages, high prices and other grievances against the government."
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-57823130 (BBC News)
 * "However, monitoring of state media websites prior to the protests shows that Cubans had been voicing deep frustration, despair and anger online long before they took to the streets in their thousands to complain about shortages of food and medicines, power and water interruptions and an apparently faltering government response to surging Covid-19 cases."
 * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cuba-protests-anti-government-high-prices-food-shortages/ (CBS News)
 * "Thousands of Cubans marched on Havana's Malecon promenade and elsewhere on the island Sunday to protest food shortages and high prices amid the coronavirus crisis, in one of biggest anti-government demonstrations in memory."
 * "https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/cuba-exploded-protests-goes-us-embargo-pandemic-rcna1399 (NBC News)
 * "Why has Cuba exploded in protests? It goes beyond the U.S. embargo and the pandemic. Analysis: Cuba has been promising economic reforms for years that have not materialized." No mention of 'authoritarianism.'
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/11/world/americas/cuba-crisis-protests.html (The New York Times)
 * "Shouting 'Freedom' and other anti-government slogans, thousands of Cubans took to the streets in cities around the country on Sunday to protest food and medicine shortages, in a remarkable eruption of discontent not seen in nearly 30 years."
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/13/world/americas/cuba-protests-Patria-y-Vida.html (The New York Times)
 * "The protests that erupted on Sunday were spurred by the economic crisis caused by the pandemic, shortages in basic goods and clampdowns on civil liberties [we already mention curbs on civil liberties in the infobox]. Protesters have called for President Miguel Díaz-Canal, who took the reins of Cuba in 2018, to step down."
 * https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cuba-lifts-food-medicine-customs-restrictions-after-protests-2021-07-15/ (Reuters)
 * "Thousands joined a wave of nationwide protests over shortages of basic goods, curbs on civil liberties and the government's handling of a surge in COVID-19 infections on Sunday, in the most significant unrest in decades in the Communist-run country."
 * Even those such as NBC News ("'It's very simple,' said Montes, a Havana resident. 'They are tired of the hardships and want changes for the better.' Cuba has been grappling with acute shortages of food and medicine throughout the pandemic. People make lines for blocks to buy whatever they can find at stores. Inflation and blackouts during the tropical summer heat have aggravated the situation."), which state that the protests go "beyond the U.S. embargo and the pandemic", do not mention 'authoritarianism' or list 'authoritarianism' as a cause but rather that "Cuba has been promising economic reforms for years that have not materialized."
 * And I could go on and on. Many, if not all of those linked sources, do not even mention 'authoritarianism' at all, and do not find it due to list as a cause alongside food and medicine shortages, COVID-19 pandemic, etc. The government, even when it is described as authoritarian, is blamed for its handling of the pandemic and mismanagement, but 'authoritarianism' is not listed as causes of the protests, so we should not list it either. 'Anti-government' or shouting 'Freedom' does not imply that 'authoritarianism' is a cause, only that the government is authoritarian and people are protesting against government mismanagement.
 * It could be said that just because they do not mention 'authoritarianism', it is not precluded, but if those sources do not find it due to list 'authoritarianism' as cause of the protests, I do not see why we should do it either; the other problem is that sources claimed to support the addition only support that the government is authoritarian and at best show a disagreement among sources on whether authoritarianism is a cause, as many sources, perhaps the majority, especially those that use more neutral wording, such as the Associated Press, the BBC, Reuters, etc., either do not mention 'authoritarianism' at all or do not list it alongside the main causes of lack of food and medicine, the COVID-19 pandemic, etc.
 * Lack of food and medicine, and the COVID-19 pandemic, and government's mismanagement are a common feature of sources, meaning that the proposed addition is undue. I reiterate that at best sources only say that the government is authoritarian, not that 'authoritarianism' is a cause of the protest above or equal to the aforementioned cause, much less the main cause. The only source that seem to support the addition is The Independents direct quote of "The protests underway in Havana, Santiago and other Cuban cities have sprung up in response to a new spike in Covid-19 cases, the government's strict authoritarianism, and food and water shortages stemming from a deep economic crisis'."
 * However, the article itself is mainly about Sanders' reaction, and while the perennial sources table lists The Independent as green, it cautions that "[it] is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information" and that "some editors advise caution" for articles published after March 2016, when it become an online-only newspaper. It would be undue to add 'authoritarianism', when most sources do not include 'authoritarianism' as a cause alongside the lack of food and medicine, the COVID-19 pandemic, etc. The "curbs on civil liberties" and the goal of ending Communist rule already makes it clear the country is authoritarian, without engaging in cherry picking, editorializing, original research, and synthesis and original research, as it would be by adding 'authoritarianism' in the infobox as a cause. Davide King (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, only known tabloids such as the banned Daily Mail and anti-communist Fox News are citing authoritarianism as a cause. I almost agree entirely with the comment above. Unless some unbiased sources such as those the user above cited (AP, Reuters, Al Jazeera, Germany's DW, etc.) say it is a cause, it should be added. It is not a motive so far. CoryGlee (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * only known tabloids such as the banned Daily Mail and anti-communist Fox News are citing authoritarianism as a cause <-- this is demonstratably BS:    etc. etc. etc.   Volunteer Marek   05:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The MSNBC source is an op-ed. The TIME source fails verification. The AP news souce quotes Biden. The only source that poses as a new article is the Washington Post one, but apart from the editorial labelling by the Miami-based journalist you just have a quote about "lack of freedoms". BeŻet (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is absurd to reject it simply by playing semantic games. Is there a significant difference between "curbs on civil liberties" and "Authoritarianism"? Cambalachero (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the protests are against the authoritarian government. Anything else is semantic word games.JoeZ451 (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To both and, according to reliable sources there is a difference, and you are not just supposed to say 'yes'; you have to back up the claim with sources, which need to be reliable, neutral, and not opinion pieces. Sources given so far include Fox News (not reliable for politics and science) and opinion pieces, which do not warrant the infobox, which is for uncontroversial claims and summary. Davide King (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And which would be that difference? Cambalachero (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Western governments are not called 'authoritarian' for curbing civil liberties during the COVID-19 pandemic, nor do we have authoritarianism as a cause for Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Because while sources may describe the Cuban government as authoritarian, the protests, at least on the island, were triggered by the shortage of food and medicine and the government's response to the resurgent COVID-19 pandemic in in the country. I also do not see you running over at capitalist Haiti's protests (2021 Haitian protests) to add authoritarianism as cause. Davide King (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The difference,, is that the word "authoritarianism" here is disputed by sources, similar to the dispute you mark on the Bolivian political crisis and Argentina's involvement. Disputed by all reliable sources. Neutrality everywhere, please. --CoryGlee (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No This seems to be an issue of WP:SYNTH. From the variety of sources that have been used to justify inclusion we can gather that most RS (including some of the best like Reuters, AP, etc.) say (some variation of) the following:
 * Cuba is (generally speaking) an authoritarian government.
 * There have been recent curbs on civil liberties due to the COVID-19 pandemic, after an increase in 2019.
 * These curbs are a part of the reason for protests (alongside other factors enumerated in the infobox).
 * It seems to me that putting authoritarianism as a cause in the infobox is an attempt to combine points 2 and 3 with point 1 to say the protests are against authoritarianism, which is only stated directly by unreliable sources such as Fox News and The Daily Caller, and should be avoided unless/until actually reliable sources say such in their own voice. BSMRD (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fox News is a reliable source, see WP:RSP. Also, it's not just Fox News, other sources cite authoritarianism as a main cause of the protests, inclusing CNN, El País, The Independent, The Atlantic, New York Times, and many others. Also, about the WP:SYNTH issue you mention, it's rather the other way around; giving the impression that the reduced civil liberties in Cuba are a result of covid-19 measures is false, since the limited or lack thereof of civil liberties in Cuba is a long-standing problem for the people and one of the many reasons that they approved a Constitution in 2019 which, despite recognizing some liberties, still fall shorts. Ajñavidya (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fox requires in-text attribution for material related to politics (which means it is unsuited for the infobox). The CNN source only uses the word "authoritarian" quoting Biden. El Pais only says "after 62 years of authoritarianism". Independent is paywalled, so unfortunately I can't check. The Atlantic only uses the word "authoritarianism" in reference to the Castro regime in the 80s. The NYT link is too an episode of their podcast (aka an opinion piece), and is the only one which makes any direct link between the cause of the protests and "authoritarianism". None of these sources support putting "Authoritarianism" as a cause in the infobox. This feels like WP:CHERRYPICKING. BSMRD (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 *  "None of these sources support putting 'Authoritarianism' as a cause in the infobox." This is false. This Independent article is not behind a paywall, as anyone can check; but I will quote it for you: "The protests underway in Havana, Santiago and other Cuban cities have sprung up in response to a new spike in Covid-19 cases, the government’s strict authoritarianism, and food and water shortages stemming from a deep economic crisis". Also El País: "After more than 62 years of authoritarianism, totalitarian control and reduction of liberties to zero, the Cuban people has legitimately opted for sedition from the bad government in the name of the common good." How can that phrase be interpreted if not as authoritarianism and reduced civil liberties as a main cause of the protests? Same with the New York Times article (which you dismiss as an "opinion piece" simply because it has a link to a podcast, as it was a proof of it): "The protesters chanted “libertad,” or “freedom” — a clear reference to the country’s authoritarian system — and invoked the president’s name". In fact, not including these sources, which are reliable, because they support the inclusion of "authoritarianism" in the infobox and you don't like that it's actually WP:CHERRYPICKING. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Since have not responded to you, I will try again. All those sources are saying is the government is authoritarian, which no one is disputing; what we are arguing about is whether authoritarianism, rather than curbs on civil liberties, is a main cause. The only source that actually supports authoritarianism in the list is The Independent, which I did use for the lead, so please stop acting like me and other users want to censor or whitewash, when it is literally in the lead; however, while the perennial sources table lists The Independent as green, it cautions that "[it] is considered a reliable source for non-specialist information" and that "some editors advise caution" for articles published after March 2016, when it become an online-only newspaper. Similarly, the Spanish source is an opinion piece, which may be used for the lead or body with attribution, but it cannot be used to support what you want to add. So no, this is not cherry picking, it is showing how it is either synthesis, i.e. the sources say that Cuba is authoritarian, not that authoritarianism is a cause, or the table sources advise caution for The Independent and opinion piece cannot be used to list key facts for the infobox. Sources actually need to be analysed rather than just say "per sources" or that they support adding authoritarianism as cause, when almost all of them, except for The Independent's  direct quote which is not enough to list it in the infobox due to cautions in the perennial sources table, are saying the country is authoritarian. Davide King (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes per:
 * The Independent: "The protests underway in Havana, Santiago and other Cuban cities have sprung up in response to a new spike in Covid-19 cases, the government’s strict authoritarianism, and food and water shortages stemming from a deep economic crisis."
 * The Wall Street Journal: "Beyond serving as a milestone moment for the island nation, the demonstrations in at least 15 cities marked the latest installment in the greatest struggle of our times: the contest between democrats and authoritarians. In recent years, authoritarians often have seemed to hold the upper hand. Yet the Cuban unrest serves to frame the key question: whether authoritarian regimes will prevail in the long term, or are sowing the seeds of their own demise."
 * CBS News: "During the biggest anti-government protests on the island of Cuba in decades, protesters have been chanting words from a hip-hop song released earlier this year, calling for the end to Cuba's decades-long communist and authoritarian regime."
 * 7 News Miami: "Protesters said they are calling for an end to the island nation’s decades-old authoritarian regime."
 * NBC 6 Miami: "Cuba march started at the Jose Marti Memorial at 861 Southwest 13th Avenue in Miami and participants walked to the Little Havana mural...Most were Venezuelans who say they stand with the Cuban people calling for an end to the authoritarian regime."
 * NPR: ..."the embargo is, like, 30% of the problem, and the other 70% is the ineptitude and management of the Cuban government and its authoritarianism." -- Cuban Washington Post columnist Abraham Jiménez Enoa.
 * WPLG Local 10 News: "More than half a century later, Cubans who protested on the island Sunday say they are tired of the authoritarian communist regime and they want political change.
 * Sun Sentinel: "From the conservative right to the progressive left, Florida produced starkly different policy ideas Thursday for helping the Cuban people struggling against their repressive, authoritarian government..."
 * Miami Herald:"Protesters in Cuba have chanted for freedom and the end of the authoritarian government." Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment but you forgot to clarify that "the embargo is, like, 30% of the problem, and the other 70% is the ineptitude and management of the Cuban government and its authoritarianism" is Abraham Jiménez Enoa's opinion. "[C]alling for an end to the island nation's decades-old authoritarian regime" is more a support for "End of one-party government" as goal (same thing for the Miami Herald, NBC 6 Miami, and 7 News Miami). The Wall Street Journal, at least its quoted part, is saying Cuba is authoritarian, not that authoritarianism is the main cause of the protests. The Independent's quote is ambiguous, as "government’s strict authoritarianism" may refer, like Reuter's "curb on civil liberties", to the COVID-19 response, since civil rights actually slightly increased, at least until the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Either way, there are just as many sources which do not list authoritarianism as causes, meaning that if there is not an agreement among sources, it is to be discussed in the main body, certainly not to put a loaded label by cherrypicking sources which include authoritarian (used to describe the government, which is not what we are arguing about) or authoritarianism (used to state, without any doubt, that authoritarianism, rather than curbs on civil liberties, is a main cause worthy of infobox inclusion). Davide King (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're moving the goalposts. I don't know what is "ambiguous" about saying that the protests are a response to "the government’s strict authoritarianism." Seems like plain English to me. Likewise, for the protestors "calling for an end to the island nation's decades-old authoritarian regime. " If you prefer, we could state that "the authoritarian government" is a cause of the protests. But this essentially has the same meaning as authoritarianism. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think you are the one who did that by ignoring everything I pointed out, including how the NPR quote is to be attributed to Enoa, who is not notable to have a page and we need more than a journalist's opinion. Context is everything; the "strict authoritarianism" part is put between "sprung up in response to a new spike in Covid-19 cases" and "food and water shortages stemming from a deep economic crisis." Again, "calling for an end to the island nation's decades-old authoritarian regime" is a better describer for the goal, which we already say. Either way, we already mention curbs on civil liberties and end of one-party government, and I do not think the 'authoritarianism' label, which not all reliable sources listed among causes, is necessary for the infobox. I do not understand why that cannot be better discussed and explained in the body. "But this essentially has the same meaning as authoritarianism." This looks like your own personal view, which I respect, but it does not answer my points, nor BSMRD's fair point.
 * Cuba has been authoritarian for 50 years and suddenly there is the biggest anti-government protests because of it. Did you miss the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects, including the slow yet slight progress on economic and civil-political reforms, which have been halted due to the pandemic? Is it not more likely that this stop to progress due the pandemic, lack of food and medicine, and the government's response and handling of it, was the political cause rather than 'authoritarianism'? Certainly, authoritarianism is the main cause of abroad Cubans but they are not the one suffering the lack of food and medicine, which is the main cause in the island; we should not give the same weight to abroad Cubans on this. If there is a political cause, it is the curbs on civil liberties due the pandemic and its effect on promised reforms, not 'authoritarianism', even if you feel like it is the same thing. But for Haiti and other protests, we do not list 'authoritarianism' as cause, even when their government is similarly authoritarian or not a functioning democracy. I like consistency and dislike double standards. Davide King (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes The sources do state that authoritarianism is a cause of the protests. The protesters are shouting "Freedom!", "We're not afraid!" and "Down with the dictatorship"!; the song Patria Y Vida —which was a major ignition cause of the protests— is completely of political and anti-authoritarian content. It's obvious that the protests have a heavy anti-authoritarian motivation; that is, against the authoritarian nature of the Cuban government. Plenty of sources also call the regime "authoritarian" and point this is a cause of the protests; I have removed many of them (as anyone who checks the edit history can confirm) because they were considered "problematic" and were called "cherry-picked," despite being creditable sources. Also, as I have explained in other parts of this talk page, "reduced" or "curbs on civil liberties" along "covid-19 response" is very misleading, because as this Vox article compiles, there have been an increasing dissatisfaction with the lack of rights since before covid-19, and the economic factors that Cuba is experiencing and the government response to covid-19 are combining factors (but not the factors themselves alone). Because of all this, not including "authoritarianism" as one of the main causes of the protests is discarding reliable sources for no reason and a willingly inaccuracy, substituting "authoritarianism" with any other word or phrase would be weasel wording and putting "reduced or curb on civil liberties" along "government's covid-19 response" is plain misleading. Ajñavidya (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for commenting but wow. So "reduced or curb on civil liberties" ("curb on civil liberties" is Reuters' exact wording) and "government's [COVID]-19 response", which is mentioned in virtually all reliable sources about the protests, is "weasel wording" (but apparently 'authoritarianism' without any context is not) and "plain misleading", even with a direct link to Systemic bias? Wow, just wow. Chants alone are not reliable sources for main causes; what do they mean by 'freedom'? Better government? That the current government resigns? An end to the one-party government? An end to Communist party rule through U.S. military intervention?
 * Vox also says: "The Cuban regime has fallen short on implementing necessary economic reforms for years, and some of the reforms they have taken, including a currency reform earlier this year, had the effect of driving up prices of everyday goods, like food, and this when Cubans were already facing shortages and pandemic-related pain. ... Trump-era sanctions have added to the economic woes." There is not a single mention of 'authoritarianism' and the only mention of 'authoritarian' is "the cries of 'patria y vida' from the protesters, and the artists who helped give rise to it, also speak to larger undercurrents of frustration around Cuba’s system. As experts pointed out, in an authoritarian country, challenging the government comes with very real risks. The economic frustrations and pandemic fatigue are intimately connected with Cuba’s politics." They say it is an authoritarian country, and how you infer that "[t]he economic frustrations and pandemic fatigue are intimately connected with Cuba's politics" support the claim of 'authoritarianism' as cause rather than lack of food and medicine, and the government handling of the crisis, which you dismiss as if Cubans just woke up someday and decided they wanted to overthrow the authoritarian government. The lack of economic and political reform is more supported as cause in the same article than 'authoritarianism.' You are just cherrypicking what you like and ignore the context provided by the same source you claim it supports your views.
 * I am also sorry to reiterate that "Down with the dictatorship" was also shouted at capitalist Haiti, and I have yet to see a discussion about adding 'authoritarianism', but more importantly I just realized you are showing that you only want to add what you like. You say reliable sources support 'authoritarianism' as a cause but the same reliable sources also support the U.S. military intervention goal, at least by some abroad Cubans, yet you only want to add the former; if you are consistent, both should be added, or neither should be, because both are controversial and are better addressed in the main body. Davide King (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Many reputable sources cite "authoritarianism" as a cause of the protest. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this in order for you to understand. Protests in Haiti don't have the same background of those of Cuba, and vice versa; you cannot use 2021 Haitian protests article as an excuse to include to include or not include information in this article: see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST which mentions this faulty argument. You keep saying "'Down with the dictatorship' was also shouted at capitalist Haiti," as if this was related to Haiti or as if this inclusion was a matter of ideology, of "capitalism vs. socialism" or something alike, which is not. If you think there's something lacking in the Haitian protests article, I strongly suggest you that go there and fix whatever you consider necessary. "Authoritarianism" is a cause of the protests in Cuba (as per sources) regardless of the political system in Cuba, and taking out the sources that support "authoritarianism," despite being numerous and reliable, is actual cherry-picking. If this was Franco's Spain or Sese Seko's Congo, and the sources supported "authoritarianism," and the context of the protests also supported that, then "authoritarianism" should be included in those respective Wikipedia articles. But I truly think there's a problem here, since you have an intense emotional involvement into NOT including "authoritarianism"; and it seems to be ideology, which is pretty unfortunate. For example, an editor called "fake news" all the reliable sources in the article, and cited the unreliable government-owned media outlet Cubadebate as a proof of that, and you said to him: How can you explain that? It doesn't make any sense. Ajñavidya (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Let us continue here. Davide King (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes per the sources given by User talk:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is a f'ing no brainer. When the protesters are changing "freedom" and "down with dictatorship" they're very obviously protesting authoritarianism and no amount of pretzel twisting logic and excuse making can change that fact.   Volunteer Marek   05:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So are the Haitian and Sudanese protests also against authoritarianism? BeŻet (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, I have no idea, what does that have to do with THIS article?  Volunteer Marek   19:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that, according to the current article, there have not been anti-government protest update since 14 July, which is weird if authoritarianism is the main cause, rather than food and medicine, for which the government conceded by lifting limits on food and medicine that can be imported without duties. If there really has not been a major anti-government protest since then, which is weird since I am pretty sure if there have been more, it would have been added already, but I could be mistaken, while abroad protests continued, it shows that the lack of food and medicine, and the COVID-19 pandemic are the main cause for Cubans in the island, while authoritarianism may be the main cause for abroad Cubans. The fact the government's lifts happened on 15 July and there has been no major reported protest update (again, maybe there have been, but if it was due and worth, it would have been added already) and the last anti-government protest in the island is on 14 July is either telling that authoritarianism is not the main cause or a coincidence. Davide King (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And keep in mind WP:OR as well. An alternative more likely explanation is that the government combined the lifting of the restrictions with a crackdown which suppressed the protests (this is actually a fairly typical response by authoritarian governments).  Volunteer Marek   19:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Original research goes both ways; if you have reliable sources saying that, then please provide a proposed referenced phrasing to be added. Other articles are mentioned because there is a double standard between protests in authoritarian capitalist countries and authoritarian constitutionally socialist states; they are not mentioned just because, there is a perceived double standard and political bias in this. See also the Russian protests, which can be more accurately said to be about authoritarianism, yet neither correctly list 'authoritarianism' but more context-minded sentences. Davide King (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s fallacious to assume that the absence of anti-government protests is a direct result of the government lifting limits on food and medicine (which by the way, the fact that these and many other restrictions were in place evidence the self-imposed “embargo” of the government against its own people; this is an old strategy to worsen the economic situation of the people to later be able to blame the embargo). I agree with  Volunteer Marek    that government crackdown (arrests, shooting against unarmed civilians) suppressed the protests (a typical response by authoritarian governments). This is evidenced by first-hand testimony, photos, and videos coming out of the Island (let’s also recall that the government shut down the internet the first day of protests to prevent this evidence from reaching the world) and also editorial pieces like this one on WSJ:  TocororoWings (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not dispute any of that, stop acting like I am some Cuban government apologist when I despise all forms of authoritarianism and authoritarian governments, but considering this is a contentious article, and whether you like it or not, ideology from both sides play a role, I would prefer international news agencies such as the Associated Press, the BBC, Reuters, and the like over The Wall Street Journal, which "has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health dangers of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos." Other newspapers, such as The Guardian, may be biased in the opposite direct (centre-left leaning), but at least they do not promote pseudoscience. It does not mean The Wall Street Journal is unreliable or cannot be used but I have higher standard for sources, especially for articles like those which are likely to create dispute among sources. If anyone can find the aforementioned news agency saying the same, it should definitely be mentioned, okay? Davide King (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes but only as a direct quote. There are several aforementioned reliable sources to choose from. I support a direct quote only because it is possibly verging on WP:SYNTH and a quote will ensure we are not editorializing. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 06:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd add that a qualifier like "some consider..." or "according to..." could be used for the quote to further ensure that we are not generalizing or synthesizing. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 15:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a fine solution by me, but why not just add it directly to the lead section and properly attribute it, rather than have a weird looking * Authoritarianism (according to some) in the infobox? Davide King (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A proposed wording for the lead section could be that "[a]ccording to ..., protesters were also disaffected by the authoritarian regime. ... Some journalists, such as ..., stated that authoritarianism [or Cuba's authoritarian political system] also triggered or prompered the protests. Some news outlets, such as Reuters and Vox, mentioned curbs on civil liberties due the strict COVID-19 pandemic lockdown rules imposed by the government and the lack of promised economic and political reform thereof [in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and economic crisis]." In my view, this would be much better, and with actual context, than an empty 'authoritarianism' label without any context, which reliable sources actually provide when discussing authoritarianism and the Cuban government behavior. Davide King (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's probably the best solution. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 16:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No as it is classic WP:SYNTH. We already mention in the body of the copy chants that some of the protesters are shouting. We don't do the same for other protests, like:
 * 2021 Haitian protests
 * 2019–2021 Sudanese protests
 * 2021 Russian protests
 * etc.
 * ...even though protesters chant about "dictatorships" abd "freedom". We shouldn't be using labels devised by Western, mostly American, media sources, because there is an inherent bias and cherry-picking done by such media, which is on display when you compare the coverage of those protests. BeŻet (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by Western in this case? Cuba is a Western country by many standards (culturally and geographically). Do you mean Western as in "democratic"? Because if that's the case, press in democratic countries is actually more reliable than that of non-democratic ones. Curiously, when sources aren't from the places that you've mentioned, they are also called «cherry-picked», like this one from Trinidad and Tobago; and when the sources are from «Western countries», there is an «inherent bias» and are called, as well, «cherry-picked». That is to say, that sources are cherry-picked because one reason and it's exact opposite, which is absurd. Also, the sources mentioned are considered reliable by Wikipedia standards: WP:RSP. Your opinion on what you call "Western media" and "inherent bias" should not have any weight on this: WP:VERIFYOR. Ajñavidya (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not and I hope they can respond you but I think Western in that case seems mainly to be used in foreign policy terms, i.e. NATO, because you are right that Cuba is a Western country by many standards. My view is more that many of the sources cited are from Miami, which may have a conflict of interest due the protests in Miami and providing a Cuban dissidents and exiles viewpoint, and others, such as The Wall Street Journal, are notoriously not just anti-Communist but anti-socialist as well. That does not mean they can not be used in the lead, body, or properly attributed, but the infobox is for key facts, and unless the most neutral sources such as the Associated Press and Reuters do not explicitly list 'authoritarianism' alongside the other causes, we should not do it either. This is a contentious issues, especially in light of what is happening and the history of the countries; we should use the most neutral and neutrally-worded sources. So far, none has provided quotes from the Associated Press and Reuters that list authoritarianism as a cause. Is not saying one of the goals is the end of Communist rule enough to show Cubans want political freedom and already saying or implying that the country is authoritarian, without engaging in editorializing? Either way, it is really simple. Provide a direct quote from the Associated Press and Reuters listing 'authoritarianism' as a cause alongside lack of food and medicine, COVID-19 pandemic, etc. and I am on it. Davide King (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that a Trinidad and Tobago newspaper, which is not even notable to have its own Wikipedia page, is not cherry picking and is reliable enough to support listing such a label in the infobox. I repeat, come back with international agencies such as the Associated Press, the BBC ("Cubans had been voicing deep frustration, despair and anger online long before they took to the streets in their thousands to complain about shortages of food and medicines, power and water interruptions and an apparently faltering government response to surging Covid-19 cases."), Reuters, and the like. Davide King (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, based on different reliable sources mentioned above, which are pointing out to authoritarianism as the cause. Idealigic (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes per the reliable sources mentioned by Dr. Swag Lord. Sea Ane (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No I concure with Davide King's "You are also acting like all Cubans want the same thing, when some Cubans who are protesting only care about food and medicine, or only want a better government and resignation of the president, not an end to Communist rule through U.S. military intervention, which is more of a goal of abroad Cubans, who are given too much weight in this case." Ip says (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, the question was "Should Authoritarianism be listed as a cause of the protests in the infobox?". Cambalachero (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Many sources, cited above, clearly state that the protests were motivated partly by economics and partly by anger at the repression. It seems some disagree, but that doesn't matter: we follow what the RS say. Neutralitytalk 02:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. The Cuban government is characterized by most political scientists as an authoritarian regime. Go read the 7 different sources for the lead sentence in Politics of Cuba. The question then becomes whether or not reliable sources have characterized the protests as being caused by Cuba's authoritarianism. The answer is yes. At the very least, the "civil liberties" remark should be split off as a second bullet point to avoid ambiguity on whether the protests are against COVID-19 related restrictions or general restrictions in Cuba. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 05:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes Cuba has been a one-party state for over sixty years, and its civil liberties have already been curtailed even before the pandemic started. It's only natural that demonstrators, who are protesting against the government, oppose authoritarianism as well. Even one of the first references included in the article stated that detractors cite incompetence and a Soviet-style one-party system as one of the causes of the economic crisis, which there is already agreement that is one of the root reasons of the protests. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To those three users above, no one is denying that authoritarianism is not part of the protests or that Cuba is not authoritarian, but whether authoritarianism is on par with the lack of food and medicine, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the government handling of the pandemic. In addition, not all sources include 'authoritarianism' when discussing causes (and the same thing for the embargo); even though this may not exclude it, the fact several generally reliable did not mention 'authoritarianism', it means they did not find it due alongside the economic and pandemic struggles, without denying that of course in an authoritarian system, even when protests are caused in the first place by economic factors, protesters are going to point out the authoritarianism. It is better to provide context in the lead section, as I did, rather than just say 'authoritarianism'; and I would say this even if protesters in capitalist countries were caused by authoritarianism. I just hope you will be consistent and support adding 'authoritarianism' to protests in capitalist countries such as Haiti, Russia, Sudan, etc.
 * I suggest you to look at the fact there have been no new protests in the island since 14 July, which is telling, and right before the government lifted limit on food and medicine that can be imported without duties. Perhaps authoritarianism is the cause of some Cubans and most abroad Cubans, those who want to end Communist rule or a U.S. military intervention, but it is not that of many other Cubans, whose main concern is food and medicine, and improve the government. I would rather wait for the Associated Press and Reuters to explicitly mention 'authoritarianism' when listing the cause of the protests.
 * P.S. Note that the quoted "detractors cite incompetence and a Soviet-style one-party system" say "detractors", does not state it as fact, and does not mention 'authoritarianism'; it may sound obvious they are referring to authoritarianism but we should not editorialize sources or infer something they do not explicitly say. We already say one of the goal is the end of Communist (one-party) rule; I think we already make it perfectly clear, without engaging in synthesis or editorializing. Davide King (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Listed at: WP:WikiProject Cuba, WP:WikiProject Current events, WP:WikiProject Politics. Mathglot (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * An unambiguous Yes. The assertion that it's WP:SYNTH is wrong, as others have said. SYNTH is for cases where there are no sources making a specific point, and editors are using their original thought to draw a conclusion sources do not. The analytical coverage in RS I've read unfailingly draw an explicit link between the authoritarian political climate and the protests, other editors above such as have already gathered a list of sources to show this. Newswire reports by their nature contain very little analysis beyond the basic facts, so it's unsurprising they're more likely to avoid providing an explicit explanation of protests that have multiple causes. That doesn't mean there is no support in RS for authoritarianism being a cause, highly-regarded newspapers have said this, and the decision of news agencies to mention and detail authoritarianism in their reportage of the protests is still a case of them drawing a connection. As a clear weight of RS describe it as a factor, it obviously belongs in the list of causes in the infobox. The relative balance of each factor (whether shortages and economic hardship compounded by US sanctions, economic mismanagement, COVID-19 etc., were more or less important causes that authoritarianism) is irrelevant to the question this RfC is asking.  Jr8825  •  Talk  17:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've provided extra sources supporting my points below. Jr8825  •  Talk  04:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. As I started reading the RFC I was mentally drafting a no vote dinging supporters for failing to provide sources, and explaining that while it may be true, we can't use Original research or WP:Synthesis to make the claim. Then I got to the sources, especially Dr. Swag Lord's list and some of Ajñavidya's. Based on those, I believe the generalized claim that there are more. It does appear to be a running theme in RS coverage, with sufficient sourcing to add "authoritarianism" as one of the several causes listed in the infobox. Alsee (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment In exactly 6 hours from the first response to mine above, there have been 5 Nos and 15 Yeses. I further note that the majority of nos arrived before Swag Lord's key examination of sources. After Swag Lords post 4 yes voters explicitly cited Swag's list and an additional 2 yes votes implicitly cited it as "sources above". I recommend an early SNOW close on this. I invite/request any no votes to collaboratively assent to an early affirmative closure. There's no benefit in extending this process. Alsee (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I do not know about the others for 'nay', but I disagree about "collaboratively assent to an early affirmative closure", unless we can reach a compromise on a different wording, which convene the same thing, i.e. we write an actual sentence, rather than just state 'authoritarianism.' ("dissatisfaction with authoritarian government" at Causes, or "end of authoritarian/one-party Communist regime" at Goals, just to name a few examples). It is also up to the uninvolved admin to actually analyse whether or not it is original research and/or synthesis (especially considering you yourself admitted you thought this, so let us have an admin to see whether they reach the same conclusion or not). In addition, Wikipedia is not a democracy and 'voting' should be based on the strength of arguments. Just because there are more 'yay' than 'nay' "per source", it does not mean they must be taken at face value; they must be throughout analysed to see whether or not they may be original research or synthesis. I am convinced as ever of my reasoning, and it is always easy to say "per source", not so easy to verify whether policies and guidelines, such as original research, synthesis, and due weight, are violated. Feel free to call me 'elitist' for this but our policies and guidelines must be respected, and if given sources are original research, synthesis, or give too much weight to American and Floridian newspapers and news channels, over and largely ignoring the more neutral-minded international agencies, it must be accurately analysed and investigated by an uninvolved admin. There is no hurry either. Davide King (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have to go with the preponderance of sources cited by Dr. Swag Lord and say that this is an important viewpoint that deserves to be in the infobox. Resowithrae (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 *  Maybe , but not proven with the given sources. Sources must be limited to what the article is about, which I interpret to be, the Cuban protests in Cuba, not the Cuban protests in Miami. If the article includes Miami protests (note that the lead is *not clear* about this), then I change my vote to 'yes', because the preponderance of sources about the Cuban protests in Miami *do* mention authoritarianism. With respect to the Cuban protests in Havana and elsewhere on the island, this is less clear, although the south Florida press tends to support that as well. I'm preparing a more detailed analysis and will report back in the Discussion section. Very strongly opposed to any snow close, which does not take into account WP:CHERRYPICKED sources which obviously prove what they set out to prove, rather than sample reliable sources as a whole. This is an issue reported nationally and internationally, not just in Miami-Dade county which has a huge population of Cuban-Americans and Cubans who have escaped Cuba because they believe that Cuba is authoritarian (not to mention Venezuelans who have left Venezuela and believe the same thing about both countries and join forces in protests), and aren't shy about saying so.  If they go to Havana, protest there, and are reported in the independent press, then fine; but if they protest in south Florida, that should be excluded as irrelevant to this article, and therefore, to this Rfc. Details forthcoming. Mathglot (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)  struck, and replaced below, at 07:31, 24 July 2021
 * , thank you for your comment, which raise several important points, and I believe is even better than my own one, more clear and to the point; we also agree on changing our own mind but sources need to be scrutinized and analyzed, and not taken at face value, from both sides. Even as I am more than happy with my proposed compromise, which is reflected in the current infobox, this is one more reason why the RfC process should not be snow closed, and we should let the closer do their job. Davide King (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC) Add: As for the scope of this article, I think it should be about the protests in Cuba; this does not mean we cannot report abroad protests, but the references for them need to be checked, so as to use international and national newspapers (The New York Times, The Washignton Post, and the like) to establish whether they are notable and due; not every protest that we currently list at Abroad protests may be reported by national newspapers, and it needs to be checked. Finally, this does not mean either we should give the same weight to abroad protests in the infobox, especially at Causes, as abroad protesters are not affected by the economic crisis and shortages, and thus their main concerns are political, to the protesters in Cuba. Davide King (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Davide King, I am firmly against any premature closure until the normal Rfc period has run its course, which if I'm not mistaken, is 18 August. I'm sure I appeared too late in the process for anything I say now to have any effect, but I feel it's important to get the data out there and on the record. If for no other reason, than for next time around (if there is a next time), and if not for this specific issue, then for other questions more or less like this one. This will all become clearer when I've presented the results of my analysis, which is ongoing.  This takes time to generate, compile, and to write up, so please be patient. I have no dog in this race and I don't care which way the closer decides, but I will request a review if it takes place before the term runs out. Mathglot (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Striking my previous !Vote, and changing it to No, because the data clearly does not support it. In fact, authoritarian[ism] is not even among the top five reasons reported by reliable sources. Top two are 1. food shortages, and 2. high prices. See more details and full analysis below. Mathglot (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate the work you've done gathering sources, I think your methodology is deeply flawed and because of that, unfortunately quite misleading. You're looking for only the exact term "authoritarianism" and you treat "curbs on civil rights (lack of freedom)" as a separate issue, which is in my view a very artificial line to draw. The sources don't make such distinction, they discuss how they are "anti-government" protests because people are fed up with shortages, and the authoritarian, one-party nature of the regime means they lack political rights and opposition is suppressed. If you read a range in sources in full (instead of looking for precise terms within them) it's pretty clear that the authoritarian political system is considered to be a factor in the clear majority of RS' analyses of the causes. The sources that quote protestors in Cuba provide some further evidence (such as the BBC/Guardian links I shared below). Jr8825  •  Talk  09:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jr8825, if my methodology is flawed, you should point out how, or run your own experiment and provide a different set of results. I think you meant that my interpretation is flawed, though, and not the methodology. You believe that treating "authoritarianism" and "curbs on civil rights" separately is a very artificial line to draw, and that one-party rule means political rights are repressed and that means we can use the word authoritarianism. And yet, the United States (to take one example) has curbs on civil rights, there are endless articles about this, but extremely few of them would say that the United States is authoritarian. So maybe they are not the same thing. The fact is, *you* are saying that "it's pretty clear that the authoritarian political system is considered to be a factor in the clear majority of RS' analyses of the causes", but if you actually read them, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources are not saying that. So the question here is, do we go with what the reliable sources are actually saying, or do we go with what you say they are saying? When there is disagreement among editors about what sources are saying, quoting the sources exactly along with in-text attribution is safe; if you choose to quote a source that uses authoritarian (and there are some that do) then you will be choosing from a source that is among a very small minority of sources that use the term. That would be contrary to WP:DUE.  Mathglot (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I've already pointed out why I think your methodology is flawed – you're categorising the issues that sources discuss in a way which reflects your own editorial judgement (by counting mentions of "police abuse/repression/lack of rights/political freedoms" as separate from direct mentions of "authoritarianism" to suggest only a very small group of sources support the term "authoritarianism", and then creating a large category of sources which don't explicitly the precise terms "authoritarianism/dictatorship" to imply that sources within this larger group cannot be used to support listing "authoritarianism" as a cause). I respect your opinion that "the overwhelming majority of reliable sources are not saying [X]", even though I disagree – my objection is that your methodology not only presents sources, it analyses them in a way I think is inaccurate and presents this as "what the sources say". I provided a set of direct quotes from sources below which I think illustrate and support my view (in addition to quotes gathered by other editors above). Your analysis asserts the importance of points made by sources as you read them but does not provide quotes so other editors can make their own assessments. Comparisons with US civil right restrictions are irrelevant to this discussion, which is about a separate topic. Jr8825  •  Talk  22:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you so much for your time and comment, even as we disagree on the embargo., I will try to keep this as short as possible. I disagree it is flawed and neither I, nor I think Mathglot [as shown by their comment above, with which I agree], actually went on to search for 'authoritarianism.' What we noted though is that the overwhelmingly majority of sources do not say 'authoritarianism' and at best only say 'authoritarian' when describing the country and that their goal is to end the authoritarian regime, which is a source for, and better to add at, Goals than Causes.
 * Finally, you, nor others, are not even taking on the possibility of using a sentence that convene the same point ("Lack of civil liberties (freedom of association and political freedom)", and we may add "one-party rule"). If sources use various wordings, we should reflect this, even if you think it can all be reduced to 'authoritarianism.' I prefer a short, more clarificatory, context-minded sentence, rather than use a label, no matter how accurate. There is a reason we have articles for each of those words. Davide King (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC) [Edited to add] Davide King (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Davide King, that's correct, I went in with an open mind and did not search for authoritarian* or any particular explanation for the reasons for the protest. I simply ran a neutral query, and tallied up all the reasons that were listed in the results, and then annotated the list with tokens to make it easier to see what sources mentioned what reasons. Iirc, three results used authoritarian[ism], about the same number that used power outages; I think they were tied for seventh. Mathglot (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't necessarily think your methodology was flawed. In fact, I think you did a pretty nice job. But Jr885, Alsee, and I are all making the same point: there can be multiple ways to express that authoritarianism is a cause of the problem, without ever having to exactly say the word "authoritarianism". WP:WEIGHT deals with all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources.... Sometimes a "viewpoint" can be a single word like authoritarianism, or it can be expressed in a few sentences. Since authoritarianism is verifiable from some of the sources, we can avoid claims of OR. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes per the sources listed by Dr. Swag Lord. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes per the reliable sources and arguments made by other editors above. Some1 (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes per the sources given by User talk:Dr.Swag Lord, it seems like a valid point to be included on the infobox. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, as others have said it's well sourced. — Czello 07:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes per sources cited above by multiple contributors. Any suggestion to the contrary based on what's in similar articles about protests in other countries is null and void. -The Gnome (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No per BSMRD. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes per the sources and arguments made by the editors above. TheModernApe (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would be helpful if those voting for 'yes' would present new sources, if there have been, and that they research what sources say now (if there has been any change, if more sources are explicitily saying 'authoritarianism', or they do not list it when mentioning the cause, as shown here, rather than just saying "per sources and others above", which is kind of a useless comment, since RfCs are not, and should not be, based on voting or their numbers but on the strength of the arguments based on our policies and guidelines, i.e. on whether there is or not a consensus among sources that authoritarianism is a due cause alongside shortages, the pandemic, and the economic crisis. I was not able to check new sources in the meantime, has there been any change or new sources that could help us? Especially to avoid recentism.
 * In short, are now more sources listing 'authoritarianism' as a cause alongside the other three main causes, or they still do as here, which are mainly about government frustrations and failings rather than point blank 'authoritarianism.' I am actually willing to change my position, but just stating "per sources and arguments made by the editors above" is not going to help me or other undecided users. A recent Reuters article say that "[t]housands took to the streets of the capital Havana and other cities on July 11 to vent anger over widespread shortages of food, medicine and other basic goods, frequent power outages and a lack of civil liberties", which is what we already say, except for power outages. Davide King (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , you keep bringing back these arguments which we have already discussed over and over:   . You have already made your points on this RfC, abundantly. It's time to drop the stick. Ajñavidya (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No/maybe in article body, but not as prominently a classic example of UNDUE only supported by poor sources. The sources given by Davide King, coming from outlets across the globe (Al Jazeera, BBC, NY Times, Reuters), all seem like the kind of secondary sources that should be used for recent events (until such time we have proper WP:SCHOLARSHIP about this). In comparison, the sources by Dr Swag Lord, which mostly seem to be local news from Miami, are not particularly convincing, and the few ones that stand out (WSJ and the Independent) still seem to cite other causes than authoritarianism, suggesting it isn't quite as prominent. This AP News Explainer seems to go in about the same direction, first listing "shortages of food and medicines, as well as repeated electricity outages" [and spending most of its content on this] before saying "But there were also calls for political change [...]". Given that NPOV depends on doing good research and finding the best sources (WP:GOODRESEARCH), and not just trying to cumulate anything and everything one can find of whichever significance and dump them all at once to support one's position. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This piece in The Guardian is also interesting, naming the pandemic as a cause of the events:


 * and comparing the situation in different countries, while also describing this is the result of earlier events:


 * This seems to highlight to me that claiming authoritarianism (barely any mention) as a cause of this (while similar forms of protests have been happening elsewhere, with no authoritarianism involved) would not be accurate, potentially even misleading. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No per RandomCanadian. The sources that describe it as being based on shortages and economic problems are widespread and international; the sources that even mention authoritarianism are heavily WP:BIASED, coming almost entirely from South Florida communities heavy with Cuban expatriates opposed to the Cuban government, plus a handful of US-based conservative-leaning media catering to them (and even the latter tend to be much more cautious about the wording than people are suggesting we should be here.)  More neutral sources simply don't mention it at all.  It can be discussed further down the article as something that that small but intense slice of coverage has focused on, but putting views confined to plainly-biased sources in the infobox as if they are uncontroversial descriptors, and weighing them equal to more mainstream international coverage, is giving that perspective undue weight. --Aquillion (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , re: the sources that even mention authoritarianism are heavily WP:BIASED the selection of sources from Florida may be biased, but the Independent/Guardian/FT/Economist are well-established RS, so it's inaccurate to suggest that only US media says this or that "more neutral sources simply don't mention it at all". Jr8825  •  Talk  10:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No If we look at the sources that only include the word "authoritarianism" and its variants, adding this isn't supported. If we take a broader view of what counts as authoritarianism, then  the current causes (civil liberties) and goals ("End of authoritarian one-party Communist rule") seem to cover those notions.  I don't see enough to add authoritarianism as a cause.  If we removed "Lack of civil liberties" or somehow merged those together (say "Authoritarianism and the resultant lack of civil liberties", though that's really wordy) I'd be okay with it.  Hobit (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Davide King (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't use an ad hominem attack against you. I've told it before and I repeat, I don't know what your ideology is. I only politely asked you that consider your actions regarding the edit of this article because I consider unsustainable some of the excuses you were using, and I needed to call on that. You keep insisting over and over that the end of the current communist rule is not a goal by the Cuban protests; that's demonstrably false, since there's plenty of sources that claim otherwise. How the most common chants on the protests, which are "|Down with the dictatorship!" and "Freedom!," should be interpreted then? There is no report on Cubans chanting "We want medicine!", "We want food!"; and even if they were, that wouldn't contradict end of communist rule as a goal. Also, you keep forcing an ideological dichotomy of "Communism/socialism/the Left vs. capitalism" which just doesn't fit here, and I will call on that no matter how many times necessary (WP:SPADE). You want to take Reuters' wording and give it a undue weight on the article, actually cherry-picking out all the other sources that a different wording and which are also considered reliable. Also you say "Either way, that discussion was helpful in creating a section about misinformation, which was missing for no rational reason." Well, the section was created as soon as sources for that were available, just as all the rest of section in the article. That's a pretty rational reason for me. Given that you have compared this article to the 2021 Haitian protests as  — I would ask: why isn't there a misinformation section in that article as well? I know it's a silly comparison, but I'm just doing it for the sake of the argument. Ajñavidya (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's bullcrap, ofcourse it's an ad hominem. "For the sake of the argument"... Ajñavidya you are threading on a narrow perch regarding agenda pushing. Ip says (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of including a cause which is well-sourced and others want to delete it without a sound argument, and it turns out that I'm the one "on a narrow perch regarding agenda pushing"? Ajñavidya (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the one who is using a double standard here. Apparently, the chants are the true reliable sources, and even though all reliable sources clearly list the lack of medicine and food, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the government response, you reduce everything to 'authoritarianism.' Guess what? What matters is what reliable sources say, and they say that even though protesters may have not changed "We want food and medicine", that is the main cause. They also made it clear in interviews: "Today there is no food, no medicine, and people are dying like flies from Covid. ... I could not believe the magnitude. People are tired. It has been aggravated in recent weeks by blackouts. There are blackouts of six hours in a row in the countryside." But yeah, it is all about authoritarianism, even though just in 2019 they protested but did not want to end Communism, they wanted a better government; in 2020, they protested against the killing of an Afro-Cuban by the police; and just after the government lifted limit on food and medicine that can be imported without duties, protests in the island have not been reported since 14 July; only abroad Cubans and exile, those who are not suffering from the lack of food and medicine, are protesting mainly by 'authoritarianism.' You were right in not conflating the few Cubans who wanted U.S. military intervention with those who did not want it; well, we should not conflate Cubans who are mainly moved by authoritarianism with the many more Cubans who are moved mainly by economic conditions. Political freedom is a necessary goal but not enough if/when people are starving. In that case, the main cause is "the shortage of food and medicine and the government's response to the resurgent COVID-19 pandemic in Cuba", as we say in the lead according to virtually all reliable sources.
 * As I already stated here, the infobox is for key facts and many sources provided are from Miami to reflect the abroad protests viewpoint, or are clearly anti-Communist and anti-socialist, such as The Wall Street Journal. Those sources can be, and are, used for the lead section and the body, but for the infoxbox we need a direct quote from the more neutral Associated Press and Reuters, which have less conflict of interests than other sources, listing 'authoritarianism' as a cause, alongside the COVID-10 pandemic, etc. It is simple, show me a direct quote from the Associated Press and the Reuters saying 'authoritarianism' as cause of the protests and I am on it. If they do not mention that, it means it is not found to be due, and when sources disagree, we explain that in a sentence, not using a label that may be accurate but is not listed as a direct cause by more neutrally-worded sources. Authoritarianism may well be an indirect cause but the direct and main cause is the lack of food and medicine, and the COVID-19 pandemic; we should not give the same weight to the former in the infobox, and I reiterate we already say one of the goals is the end of Communist rule, is that not clear enough the country is authoritarian? I would say the same thing for capitalist countries, and if you want to know by political leanings, I reiterate my support for democratization not just politically but also economically and socially; and that Cuba should not be forced to become an Anglo-Saxon free-market economy. Cuba should definitely be democratize but it is up to Cubans to choose their economic system, whether a more democratic and decentralized planned economy, a democratic socialist/social-democratic mixed economy, a liberal social market economy, or a free-market economy. I am for total democratization of society, not just that convenient to capitalist countries and multinational corporations. Davide King (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You say: "[...] you reduce everything to 'authoritarianism.' Guess what? What matters is what reliable sources say, and they say that even though protesters may have not changed 'We want food and medicine", that is the main cause."
 * I am actually not reducing anything, it's quite the oppostie. I don't want to remove shortage of food and medicine as a cause of the protests, because obviously they are, and all were reported by sources; it is you, by the other hand, who wants to reduce everything to economic causes and cut off authoritarianism as a cause, despite it's also well-sourced and should be listed along the other causes.
 * You say: "[...] we need a direct quote from the more neutral Associated Press and Reuters, which have less conflict of interests than other sources."
 * What conflict of interests are you referring to? I don't see any conflict or contradiction between sources. Some sources focus on economic causes whereas others do on political causes, but there's no contradiction between them.
 * You also say: "[...] many sources provided are from Miami to reflect the abroad protests viewpoint, or are clearly anti-Communist and anti-socialist, such as The Wall Street Journal."
 * That is YOUR opinion, an opinion that I (and I suppose other editors) don't share and don't support. What's more important, Wall Street Journal is considered a reliable source per WP:RSP: That's what matters, not editors' personal opinions on whether Wall Street Journal or any other reliable source's true intentions are. You keep introducing "capitalism," "socialism" and "communism" in this discussion, as if it was a matter of ideology; despite that ideological frame has nothing to do here. To make it clear: Cuba is an authoritarian state regardless of what its political system is. Cuban political system is, in principle, unrelated to its authoritarianism. Cuba could be capitalistic, socialist or fascist or any other ideology and it still would be an authoritarian state if the government took the actions reported by sources.
 * You say: "Authoritarianism may well be an indirect cause but the direct and main cause is the lack of food and medicine, and the COVID-19 pandemic [...]."
 * That's not true, since many sources cite authoritarianism as a cause of the protests, and even this is a justified assumption of the chants of the protesters, which are heavily political, not merely "economic."
 * And then you say: [...] we should not give the same weight to the former in the infobox, and I reiterate we already say one of the goals is the end of Communist rule, is that not clear enough the country is authoritarian?
 * Do you think so? Do you think that just mentioning that a country has a communist rule implies authoritarianism? Because I'm sure many people don't necessarily make that connection. Again, that's your opinion; an opinion that not everybody shares (WP:ASSERT). And even if that assumption was justified, it would be still not clear or explicit, and quoting authoritarianism in the infobox is necessary. Ajñavidya (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am going to keep this as short as possible, or at least I try. I suggest you to refrain, even indirectly, implying that I am an "arsehole." And even though I personally disagree that "communist rule implies authoritarianism", because there are democratic and libertarian communists, and communist parties which participate to the democratic process and do not want a one-party state, that is exactly what most sources say and imply; we also already mention civil liberties and its lack thereof, and Communist rule, which most sources already use to imply the country is authoritarian, therefore 'authoritarianism' is unnecessary (contrary to what you think, "quoting authoritarianism in the infobox is necessary"), unless it is listed as a cause in a direct quote. I told you, give me a direct quote explicitly listing 'authoritarianism' as we do for the embargo ("Cubans have taken to the streets in cities across the country over the last week, in a wave of rare public protests to express their frustration with rising prices, falling wages, the United States embargo and the failings of the island's long-standing communist government to address its economic challenges"), and I am on it. If you cannot accept the fact I have a higher standard for reliable sources to be used in highly contentious and disputed articles such as this, I do not know what more to tell you. "The editorial pages of The Journal are typically conservative in their position", and conservatism in the United States those days is far away from centre-right moderatism) and have "promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health dangers of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos." The Wall Street Journal can be used in the body, it should not be used to support the 'authoritarian' label, especially when it does not explicitly list 'authoritarianism' as cause in a direct quote. Higher standards for sources to support addition to the infobox, which should only list key facts on which there is general agreement among sources, should not be dismissed as "irrelevant." Davide King (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ARSEHOLES is the name of a Wikipedia essay on why personal opinions are irrelevant when editing Wikipedia. I didn't imply you an "arsehole," neither directly nor indirectly. I didn't even call on the name of the essay, I simply directed to it via hypertext. You say: "[...] we also already mention civil liberties and its lack thereof, and Communist rule, which most sources already use to imply the country is authoritarian, therefore 'authoritarianism' is unnecessary. And I'd ask, which sources? And even if some sources did, we must not assume that that connection. We must not assume that because the infobox contains the phrase "communist rule" that people automatically assume that authoritarianism is a cause of the protests; we must make explicit that authoritarianism is a cause, as per sorces (WP:RF). Again, using your own words: "even though I personally disagree that "communist rule implies authoritarianism", because there are democratic and libertarian communists, and communist parties which participate to the democratic process and do not want a one-party state."  Likewise, we shouldn't assume most people will assume that because Cuba has a communist one-party government, authoritarianism is a cause of the protests. About your insight on Wall Street Journal, if you're referring to this article, it mentions "authoritarianism" many times. But even although some sources don't mention "authoritarianism" as a cause, some others do, and NOT MENTIONING IT doesn't imply that they're denying authoritarianism as a cause; as I told you in my immediate previous comment, some sources focus more on economic causes and others on political ones, and both kinds must be included in the article, and that means "authoritarianism" as well. Ajñavidya (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to be that your main concern is not what sources actually say but that we must make sure 'authoritarianism' is a cause... because... for reasons, even though that is not what sources say, and which should follow a closer look to their own wording. To be clear, I am not opposed to add a further sentence about it in the infobox, I just oppose using labels such as 'authoritarianism' when most sources only say the government is authoritarian, and you continue to engage in original research and synthesis to imply they support 'authoritarianism' in the infobox, rather than 'the country is authoritarian', and 'there is dissatisfaction with the government', which is not the same thing.
 * "Likewise, we shouldn't assume most people will assume that because Cuba has a communist one-party government, authoritarianism is a cause of the protests." Which is exactly what sources say; they only say the government is authoritarian, that it is a one-party government, they do not state that 'authoritarianism' is a cause, much less the main cause, as you claim they do. So by your own words here, you are actually giving me right. Just because sources say 'authoritarian' or that the government is authoritarian, "we shouldn't assume [...] that because Cuba [is described as authoritarian or as] a communist one-party government, [the source is saying] authoritarianism is a cause of the protests." Just because they may mention 'authoritarian' or 'one-party rule', it should not be automatically assumed that 'authoritarianism' is the cause of the protests, unless it is explicitly listed as The Independent did when mentioning the causes in a direct quote.
 * I could not read it all but, while it mentions the protests, that article is mainly about authoritarians and democrats, and even then it says that "[t]he Cubans who took to the streets appeared to have some more immediate concerns on their minds. They were protesting a lack of food and a shortage of Covid-19 vaccines." "But their willingness to take their protests to the actual doorstep of Cuba’s Communist Party headquarters showed a deeper dissatisfaction" does not again say 'authoritarianism', nor does 'dissatisfaction with government' necessarily imply 'authoritarianism', but 'dissatisfaction with the government' would be a better wording than 'authoritarian' to add. Yet, you are hell bent on 'authoritarianism' and accept no alternative or different wording, such as a sentence which better reflect the source's own words or simply with context.
 * "But even although some sources don't mention 'authoritarianism' as a cause, some others do, and NOT MENTIONING IT doesn't imply that they're denying authoritarianism as a cause; as I told you in my immediate previous comment, some sources focus more on economic causes and others on political ones, and both kinds must be included in the article, and that means 'authoritarianism' as well." But we should not give the same weight to minority views, that is the point. Most sources say the protests were caused by lack of food and medicine, the COVID-19 pandemic impact, etc., and all sources at least mention this. If so many sources, as I showed here, do not say 'authoritarianism' when listing the causes of the protests alongside shortages, etc., it means it is not considered due, and we should follow the sources on this and not include it either. Here, I also already explained why "[i]t could be said that just because they do not mention 'authoritarianism', it is not precluded", but this is bordering original research and synthesis again, and if so many sources do not find it due to explicitly mention 'authoritarianism' alongside shortages, COVID-19 pandemic, etc., it means it is not due for the infobox. You cannot cherry pick any mention of 'authoritarian' or 'authoritarianism' from any source, we need the source to actually include 'authoritarianism' in a direct quote, as that from The Independent, when listing the causes. If international news agencies start adding 'authoritarianism', I would be the first to reflect the change in the infobox; until then though, 'authoritarianism' should not be added. The infobox should only be for key facts on which virtually all sources agree; virtually all sources agree on shortages, the COVID-19 pandemic, etc. as causes and mention them; so far, only The Independent explicitly list 'authoritarianism' alongside the former. In the body, we can discuss both majority and minority views, but in the infobox we should only include the majority views, what virtually all sources agree and always mentions, i.e. the shortages, the COVID-19 pandemic, etc. I showed above many sources do not list 'authoritarianism' and in most case make no mention of it. I think the sources are clear and we are just not going to agree on this. An uninvolved third opinion should analyze them and see whether my reasoning and reading of sources is accurate or yours.
 * This is not going nowhere, so I ask you again that you either provide me a direct quote which says, like The Independent did, "[t]he protests [...] have sprung up in response to a new spike in Covid-19 cases, the government's strict authoritarianism, and food and water shortages stemming from a deep economic crisis", or you accept a compromise of using the same wording from the sources, such as 'government mismanagement' or 'dissatisfaction with the government', rather than 'authoritarian', which only The Independent included in its list of causes. Or do not reply to me. We are just going around in circles and nothing good, no matter how interesting, is coming out from this. Davide King (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "But even although some sources don't mention 'authoritarianism' as a cause, some others do, and NOT MENTIONING IT doesn't imply that they're denying authoritarianism as a cause; as I told you in my immediate previous comment, some sources focus more on economic causes and others on political ones, and both kinds must be included in the article, and that means 'authoritarianism' as well." But we should not give the same weight to minority views, that is the point. Most sources say the protests were caused by lack of food and medicine, the COVID-19 pandemic impact, etc., and all sources at least mention this. If so many sources, as I showed here, do not say 'authoritarianism' when listing the causes of the protests alongside shortages, etc., it means it is not considered due, and we should follow the sources on this and not include it either. Here, I also already explained why "[i]t could be said that just because they do not mention 'authoritarianism', it is not precluded", but this is bordering original research and synthesis again, and if so many sources do not find it due to explicitly mention 'authoritarianism' alongside shortages, COVID-19 pandemic, etc., it means it is not due for the infobox. You cannot cherry pick any mention of 'authoritarian' or 'authoritarianism' from any source, we need the source to actually include 'authoritarianism' in a direct quote, as that from The Independent, when listing the causes. If international news agencies start adding 'authoritarianism', I would be the first to reflect the change in the infobox; until then though, 'authoritarianism' should not be added. The infobox should only be for key facts on which virtually all sources agree; virtually all sources agree on shortages, the COVID-19 pandemic, etc. as causes and mention them; so far, only The Independent explicitly list 'authoritarianism' alongside the former. In the body, we can discuss both majority and minority views, but in the infobox we should only include the majority views, what virtually all sources agree and always mentions, i.e. the shortages, the COVID-19 pandemic, etc. I showed above many sources do not list 'authoritarianism' and in most case make no mention of it. I think the sources are clear and we are just not going to agree on this. An uninvolved third opinion should analyze them and see whether my reasoning and reading of sources is accurate or yours.
 * This is not going nowhere, so I ask you again that you either provide me a direct quote which says, like The Independent did, "[t]he protests [...] have sprung up in response to a new spike in Covid-19 cases, the government's strict authoritarianism, and food and water shortages stemming from a deep economic crisis", or you accept a compromise of using the same wording from the sources, such as 'government mismanagement' or 'dissatisfaction with the government', rather than 'authoritarian', which only The Independent included in its list of causes. Or do not reply to me. We are just going around in circles and nothing good, no matter how interesting, is coming out from this. Davide King (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not going nowhere, so I ask you again that you either provide me a direct quote which says, like The Independent did, "[t]he protests [...] have sprung up in response to a new spike in Covid-19 cases, the government's strict authoritarianism, and food and water shortages stemming from a deep economic crisis", or you accept a compromise of using the same wording from the sources, such as 'government mismanagement' or 'dissatisfaction with the government', rather than 'authoritarian', which only The Independent included in its list of causes. Or do not reply to me. We are just going around in circles and nothing good, no matter how interesting, is coming out from this. Davide King (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not going nowhere, so I ask you again that you either provide me a direct quote which says, like The Independent did, "[t]he protests [...] have sprung up in response to a new spike in Covid-19 cases, the government's strict authoritarianism, and food and water shortages stemming from a deep economic crisis", or you accept a compromise of using the same wording from the sources, such as 'government mismanagement' or 'dissatisfaction with the government', rather than 'authoritarian', which only The Independent included in its list of causes. Or do not reply to me. We are just going around in circles and nothing good, no matter how interesting, is coming out from this. Davide King (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not remember whether there are restrictions but Sea Ane have made less than 500 edits. I also hope that whoever admin close this RfC do not take "per sources" at face value but actually examine and analyze themselves on whether they fail or not verification, and whether they are or not synthesis. Davide King (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone can comment on any talk page regardless of edit count, unless they have a WP:TBAN. That being said, the fact that 's history seems to only (a whopping 11% of their edits are to main space) consist of commenting on RfC's (after a brief ban for implementing copyrighted material that has been lifted for some time) is a bit weird. Not a single policy-based argument is to be found in the multitude of RfC responses, which says to me their opinion isn't worth much. BSMRD (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

When sources are generally equally reliable, international news agencies are to be favoured over American and Miami newspapers, due to the involvement in the protests by Cuban exiles there and the United States' relations with Cuba. Just like you would not want the Cuban government's press to be used. Just because the government press is not reliable due to being state-owned or controlled by the government does not mean that Cuban sources who oppose the government are automatically generally reliable. The BBC also says that "monitoring of state media websites prior to the protests shows that Cubans had been voicing deep frustration, despair and anger online long before they took to the streets in their thousands to complain about shortages of food and medicines, power and water interruptions and an apparently faltering government response to surging Covid-19 cases." No 'authoritarianism' or 'one-party rule' mentioned. Are the Associated Press, the BBC, and Reuters in the pockets of the Communists for not mentioning 'authoritarianism' alongside "shortages of food and medicines, power and water interruptions and an apparently faltering government response to surging Covid-19 cases"? Davide King (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is just completely unrelated to this article. Your personal opinion regarding sources which are considered reliable in Wikipedia is irrelevant. As I suggested you a gazillion times before, if you consider that other articles are lacking, you must make the necessary corrections in those articles; you cannot use the state of other articles to justify edits on this one: WP:WHATABOUT. Ajñavidya (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, wanting higher standards for sources for contentious and debated articles such as this, and in support of additions to the infobox, which should only list key facts on which there is general agreement among sources, including a direct quote mentioning 'authoritarianism' when listing the causes, should not be dismissed as "irrelevant", it should actually be appreciated. Nor should suggestion to follow other articles solution (for the Russian protests, I much prefer stating context-minded sentences like "Registration of opposition parties, the adoption of a democratic law on political parties and elections ... Implementation of the new open and fair elections" rather than reduce it to 'authoritarianism', be dismissed to whataboutism, which is not just a fallacy but "can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair ... that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of the tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy." I am also open to other possible wording, and I would also like to remind you I was the one to mention authoritarianism and a Cuban dissident journalist in the lead section but you are so bent on 'authoritarianism' and no compromise. Davide King (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There sources are clear on this, authoritarianism is a cause of the protests; and just not a secundary cause, but a main one. There is no disagreement on this in the sources. I don't understand why you keep saying that the sources disagree. Also, I didn't call the sources irrelevant, I called your opinion on the sources irrelevant.
 * You quote a passage from a Wikipedia article, "Whataboutism," and which is passage on the opinion of "some commentators," as an excuse to not introduce well-sourced edits in this pages because, according to your opinion, other articles should include authoritarianism and they don't; whereas there's a Wikipedia guideline (WP:WAX) explicitly calling to NOT USE this argument. Ajñavidya (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "There sources are clear on this, authoritarianism is a cause of the protests; and just not a secundary [sic] cause, but a main one. There is no disagreement on this in the sources." You keep saying that, I do not think it means what you think. There are many sources which make no mention of authoritarianism and mention the embargo, falling wages, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the government response, without having alongside 'authoritarianism.' This is disagreement, and the truth is most sources only say the government is authoritarian, and just a questionable few explicitly list it as cause (so far, only The Independent, which I added to the lead); the truth is the majority do not mention authoritarianism as a cause, much less the main cause, and yet you want to use the minority to add 'authoritarianism' a key fact in the infobox, even though the majority of sources, especially those most neutral, do not say 'authoritarianism' is a cause but at best that the country is authoritarian or that some protesters want the end of Communist rule.
 * "[S]o, I didn't call the sources irrelevant, I called your opinion on the sources irrelevant." I call the same on you, and reiterate that you are engaging in original research and synthesis. You really need to actually analyze what I say and what I link you to. What you dismissed as "the opinion of 'some commentators'" is in fact the opinion of qualified academics, professors, and scholars; what you fail to mention is that WP:WAX only list clear example of whataboutism, whereas what I am doing is pointing out "contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy."
 * https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/13/man-dies-in-anti-government-protest-in-cuba-interior-ministry
 * "Protesters took to the streets of the Cuban capital as well as other cities across the country on Sunday to denounce the government of President Miguel Diaz-Canel amid food shortages and a deep economic crisis worsened by the coronavirus pandemic."
 * https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/14/cuba-confirms-one-man-dead-during-antigovernment-protests
 * "Cuban authorities confirmed on Tuesday that one person has died during demonstrations that have shaken the island in recent days by protesting over food shortages, high prices and other grievances against the government."
 * https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/7/16/cuba-protests-the-economic-woes-helping-drive-discontent
 * "Cubans have taken to the streets in cities across the country over the last week, in a wave of rare public protests to express their frustration with rising prices, falling wages, the United States embargo and the failings of the island’s long-standing communist government to address its economic challenges."
 * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cuba-protests-anti-government-high-prices-food-shortages/
 * "Thousands of Cubans marched on Havana's Malecon promenade and elsewhere on the island Sunday to protest food shortages and high prices amid the coronavirus crisis, in one of biggest anti-government demonstrations in memory."
 * https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cuba-lifts-food-medicine-customs-restrictions-after-protests-2021-07-15/
 * "Thousands joined a wave of nationwide protests over shortages of basic goods, curbs on civil liberties and the government's handling of a surge in COVID-19 infections on Sunday, in the most significant unrest in decades in the Communist-run country."
 * https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210711-thousands-join-rare-anti-government-protests-in-cuba
 * "Social anger has been driven by long food lines and a critical shortage of medicines since the start of the Covid-19 epidemic, with Cuba under US sanctions."
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/11/world/americas/cuba-crisis-protests.html
 * "Shouting 'Freedom' and other anti-government slogans, thousands of Cubans took to the streets in cities around the country on Sunday to protest food and medicine shortages, in a remarkable eruption of discontent not seen in nearly 30 years."
 * But yeah, 'authoritarianism' is the "main" [sic] cause... Davide King (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What possible interpretation but authoritarianism as a cause of the protests could convey phrases like this: "[...] protesters have been chanting words from a hip-hop song released earlier this year, calling for the end to Cuba's decades-long communist and authoritarian regime [...]", Hip-hop song becomes drumbeat for Cuban protest movement; or "As political protests against the authoritarian communist regime rock the country [...]", Cubans arriving by boat turned back but those crossing southwest border face better odds? NPR directly quotes a Cuban columnist who lives in Havana, which is translated through an interpreter: "I'd say the embargo is, like, 30% of the problem, and the other 70% is the ineptitude and management of the Cuban government and its authoritarianism." And there are more sources. The fact that there are other reliable sources that don't mention "authoritarianism" doesn't mean that they contradict those sources that do it. The listing of authoritarianism as a cause, by various sources, is enough for inclusion (WP:VERIFY). Ajñavidya (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We have policies and guidelines, such as no original research and synthesis, for a reason. You say they imply 'authoritarianism' as a cause, while I say they are bordering original research, as the first one supports more the goal of "end of Communist regimes, which is considered authoritarian", rather than 'authoritarianism' itself. The second quote is yet another source describing the government as authoritarian; it is a bit better than the previous one, but it is still too close to original research to imply anything other than "end of Communist rule" rather than 'authoritarianism' as a cause. The article itself starts by saying that "protesters have been chanting words from a hip-hop song released earlier this year, calling for the end to Cuba's decades-long communist and authoritarian regime." This means it supports what we already say as Goals.
 * The third quote, as I already noted, is not from NPR bur is Enoa's opinion, which we already report in the lead, but the infobox is only for key facts, not for opinions, no matter how accurate or true. As I already stated, "[just because [t]he fact that there are other reliable sources that don't mention 'authoritarianism' doesn't mean that they contradict those sources that do it", it is not enough that "[t]he listing of authoritarianism as a cause, by various sources, is enough for inclusion." If most reliable sources do not list 'authoritarianism', alongside the shortages, the COVID-19 pandemic, the embargo (whose only disagreement among sources seems to be that the embargo is not the main cause on par with shortages, lack of reforms, etc., not that the embargo is not a cause at all or is not having a negative impact, and many sources do list it as a cause in a direct quote, as did Al Jazeera), etc., it means they do not find it due, and we must respect the weight given to causes by reliable sources when listing the causes, as I have shown above.
 * All those sources can be used in the body but they cannot be used in the infobox, which is for key facts, which means we must only list the causes which are routinely listed as in provided direct quotes, which are not up for interpretation as yours are, as shown in the many direct quotes I provided and my analysis and reading, which I try my best to keep as more neutral and accurate as possible. Finally, the fact you are a Cuban native may be affecting your editor's ability due to an emotional investment, which is understandable; just like a government supporter is affected by an investment in the opposite direction. I myself support the protests and decry the government's crackdown on fundamental civil liberties, such as freedom of assembly, expression, and peaceful protest, but this does not mean I am going to let this affect my utmost goal of writing the most neutral article possible, without engaging in cherry picking, editorializing, and original research, synthesis, and undue weight violations. Davide King (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

, in regards to your comment here, though I can understand your point, respect your views, and thank you for it, I think you are being a bit disingenuous. They are original research and synthesis because most, if not all, given refs, are only saying the country is 'authoritarian', which does not result in 'authoritarianism' is a cause of protests, especially when most sources make no mention of 'authoritarianism' when listing the cause, as shown by my provided sources. I am also open to compromise and an actual sentence with more context-minded wording, which express the same point, without using the 'authoritarianism' label, but so far no one was willing or kind enough to do that. Also note that most of provided references come from the United States or Florida, which does not make them unreliable or that they cannot be used in the body or in the lead as I myself did, but that for the infobox, which should only list uncontroversial key facts, I would wait for the more neutrally-minded international news agencies, which you dismiss even though they should not be so easily dismissed as you did, explicitly listing 'authoritarianism' in direct quotes. Considering this is a contentious article, and is about foreign policy, and that the United States has a conflict of interest in light of relations between Cuba and the United States, for contentious key facts to add in the infobox I would much rather use the more neutrally-minded international news agencies from neither country, apart from the likes of the Associated Press and Reuters. Davide King (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * none of the sources I read on a daily basis are American (or Floridian, for that matter). I read:


 * The Guardian
 * "demonstrators, who had been protesting against shortages of food and medicine as well as one-party rule"
 * "I’m here because of hunger, because there’s no medicine, because of power cuts – because there’s a lack of everything," said a man in his 40s who didn’t want to give his name for fear of reprisals. "I want a total change: a change of government, multiparty elections, and the end of communism."
 * The Independent (quote about authoritarianism was already pulled out above)
 * FT
 * ...what appeared to be spontaneous demonstrations in multiple towns and cities to protest against shortages of food and medicine and call for greater freedoms.
 * In San Antonio de los Baños to the south of Havana ... crowds shouted: "Down with the dictatorship!"
 * The Economist
 * Repression may work in Cuba ... But something there has snapped. The tacit contract that kept social peace for six decades is broken. Many Cubans used to put up with a police state because it guaranteed their basic needs ... now Cubans are fed up..
 * I'm not being "disingenuous" when I say that almost all of the analyses I've read have at least mentioned discontent with the political system as a factor, even if there seems to be a clear consensus (among the RS I regularly read) that shortages and economic hardship are much more proximate causes. I think your concern about media in the US being particularly keen to highlight authoritarianism as the primary cause might be a valid point, but those are weight issues to raise with particular bits of the article. Undoubtedly authoritarianism is considered to have played a role in causing the protests. Jr8825  •  Talk  04:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see your point and thank you for "I think your concern about media in the US being particularly keen to highlight authoritarianism as the primary cause might be a valid point." I just prefer we use wording such as "Lack of civil liberties (freedom of assembly and political freedom) rather than "authoritarianism" (which can be mentioned when listing the goal of ending the authoritarian Communist regime) because, while the latter may be shorter and to the point, the former is more precise and is also more in line with what sources variously say, as they do not necessarily use 'authoritarianism' (apart from The Independent) but, as shown by your own quotes above, they say 'one-party rule', 'call for greater freedoms', 'police state', 'repression', etc. I suppose 'authoritarianism' is inferred by the sources but we can make it better by reflecting the various wording used, such as adding 'authoritarian' and 'one-party rule' to "end of Communist state", and "lack of civil liberties" from "call of greater freedoms", as I did in my proposed infobox. Davide King (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Davide King, the problem with your preference is that "authoritarianism" is liberally listed among sources (pun not intended) as a clear and direct cause of the protests while "lack of civil liberties" is mentioned in the parts of the texts that analyze the situation or offer viewpoints. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , that still doesn't explain why a one-word label, no matter how accurate, is to be preferred over a very short semi-sentence which provides context and better reflects sources' wording. What one-word labels would you suggest we use for "Shortage of food and medicine", "Government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and curbs on civil liberties", and "Economic contraction, exarberated by inefficiencies, the pandemic, and lack of promised reforms"? "... while 'lack of civil liberties' is mentioned in the parts of the texts that analyze the situation or offer viewpoints", which is exactly what we should be saying. The bottom line is that very few sources literally list 'authoritarianism' as a cause, they speak of "lack of civil liberties" or "curbs on civil liberties", so why not say that? 'Authoritarianism' is also more relevant as an end goal, i.e. end of authoritarian regime, which is what many sources say, i.e. referring to it much more as a goal than as a cause, which is mainly shortages, COVID-19 pandemic, and economic crisis. Either way, we already have "authoritarian" and mention "lack of civil liberties (with examples)" in the infobox, so it is redundant; we already do make it perfectly clear the country is authoritarian. Finally, I suggest you to really look at 's analysis here to see why the "per source" argument is flawed. Davide King (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * re: "why [should] a one-word label, no matter how accurate, [...] be preferred over a very short semi-sentence[?]" → WP:TLDR. Re: "What one-word labels would you suggest we use for "Shortage of food and medicine", "Government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and curbs on civil liberties", and "Economic contraction, exarberated by inefficiencies, the pandemic, and lack of promised reforms"? → "shortages", "government response to COVID-19", "economic crisis". Jr8825  •  Talk  17:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * TLDR is an essay about comments, not about actual policy for articles. Also, not always "short is better." "Context is better" is, well, better. "Shortages" and "economic crisis" doesn't really say or explain anything, and the infobox is currently composed of very short but context-minded semi-sentences. You may have had a point if they were longer and full sentences. And yes, while context is for the body, the infobox should still be more clarifying than what you suggested, while using the less possible words; as long as we can do that, it is to be preferred over one-word labels. Is there any actual policy that explicitly say one-word labels are preferred over what we have now. Davide King (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

, in regards to your comment here (thanks for it, even we came to different conclusions), I am curious about how you were "mentally drafting a no vote dinging supporters for failing to provide sources, and explaining that while it may be true, we can't use Original research or WP:Synthesis to make the claim." The opposite was for me, but when I digged down the sources, all they said was that Cuba was authoritarian and they did not give due weight to 'authoritarianism', which was not mentioned at all when listing the main causes, as shown by many direct quotes I showed above. Also, have you kept in mind the fact that most of provided sources are either from the United States or Florida, which may cause a conflict of interest? To be clear, I reiterate that this does not make them unreliable, and they can be used in the body and the lead, I just do not think they are enough to warrant the 'authoritarian' label in the infobox, and is better to better explain and clarify this in the lead and body.

So far, only The Independent ✓ for me (non-American and actually explicitily mentioning "strict authoritarianism" as Causes of the protest), while all the others may at best ✓ of "ending Communist rule/one-party rule/whatever" as Goals. I say we should follow the more neutral, yet just as generally reliable (in my view, all things being equal, a more neutral or less biased source is always the best choice) international news agencies, such as Al Jazeera, the BBC, Reuters, and the like, including the United States-based Associated Press. I do not see, nor understand, why American and Floridian newspapers and news channel should hold more weight than the aforementioned renowed international news agencies just because the latter use a more neutral wording, which should never be used as a dismissal or excuse but should actually be considered as a plus.

"It does appear to be a running theme in RS coverage, with sufficient sourcing to add 'authoritarianism' as one of the several causes listed in the infobox." But is there no other wording, such as a more context-minded sentence or adding 'authoritarian' to "the end of Communist regime" at Goals, other than a label such as 'authoritarianism' at Causes? Really no other possibility to convene the same point? Either way, I just hope and wish you, like the others, is going to be consistent and also support listing the embargo and 'authoritarianism' for protests in capitalist countries, such as Haiti, Russia (which does use more neutral and context-minded sentences rather than reduce it to a label such as 'authoritarianism', even though unlike Cuba's, they are mainly political and not economic), Sudan, and the like. Davide King (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Davide King regarding my first impression on the RFC, the initial RFC question and the first several votes appeared to fit a common error of a well-intentioned-but-contentious claim which fails to cite sources. I was mentally preparing to post my usual Policy lecture on sourcing. Then I encountered the list&analysis of sources. As an experienced RFC-closer myself, one of the things I noted was that the early discussion was a 3-3 correction 2-3 !vote, but starting with Swag's post it proceeded 13-2 with most voters citing Swag's evidence. In other words the RFC effectively ended the moment Swag posted evidence.
 * Regarding most ...from the United States or Florida, which may cause a conflict of interest: I didn't pay attention to location of sources, but I will accept your premise for this response. Note Neutral point of view#Bias in sources. We do not exclude sources simply because they have an actual-or-claimed bias or viewpoint. We achieve Neutrality by including all significant views, roughly in proportion to their presence and significance among Reliable sources. The US sources are independent news orgs presenting a reasonably broad and significant collection of views. Yes we need to actively include international views, but not exclude the diverse free-press of a significant portion of the planet.
 * I think it is also helpful to consider two aspects here - one is consideration of a generalized concept and the other is exact terminology. There is a cloud of sources making a related points with a variety of phrasings. That establishes abundant weight for the related concepts they discuss. There are also sufficient sources explicitly saying "authoritarian" to justify our use of that word as a gathering point for closely related concepts. Once the word itself is validated it is able to gather weight from the surrounding cloud. Alsee (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I still believe an uninvolved admin should check and verify the sources to see whether "the first several votes appeared to fit a common error of a well-intentioned-but-contentious claim which fails to cite sources." There is no hurry and you yourself thought that at first, so I do not see why not do a check to verify whether sources fail our own policies and guidelines, such as original research, synthesis, weight, and the like. Priority should be given to policies and guidelines (if somehow sources fail even one of those, the "per source" argument fails), not to close the RfC just because there are more 'yay' than 'nay.' Said this, not all sources explicitily say 'authoritarianism', so I prefer using a different wording to convene the same point but with more context. I am fine with the current infobox, which includes "Lack of civil liberties (freedom of association and political freedom)" and "End of authoritarian Communist state and one-party rule." It better explains the country's lacks and why it is authoritarian.
 * If you are fine with the current infobox, we can close it here and move on. Now the issue is whether to add the embargo, which should be, even if by attributing to the Cuban government, because "if a lot of reliable sources mention something, our article probably should to. Our article shouldn't [necessarely] say the embargo is the cause [or that it is not having any effect], but if multiple RS say the Cuban governement has said it's the cause, we follow them by saying precisely that [even in the infobox]." Davide King (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the location of sources, my argument rest less on 'bias' (I am full aware that 'bias' does not matter much, as long as it does not affect its reliability), which has been used to dismiss Al Jazeera, even though our perennial sources table is clear, and more on a possible foreign policy's conflict of interest in light of the United States', especially Florida's, relations with Cuba, and the fact that a military intervention by the United States has been discussed as one of the goals in reliable sources. I just prefer using international sources from neither country [apart from golden standard, neutrally-worded United States-based Associated Press] for contentious issues in the infobox. American newspapers which are generally reliable can still be used in the lead, in the body, and even in the infobox when sources do not disagree, because they are still generally reliable, while Cuba's can not be, because government control make them unreliable, other than claims attributed by the government itself, for which secondary sources are preferred anyway. I hope this cleared up a bit my point and issue I raised. Thank you for your comment and respectful manner. Davide King (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC) [edited to add] Davide King (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * my comment above, agreeing that your concern about media in the US being particularly keen to highlight authoritarianism as the primary cause might be a valid point was really about potential weight issues with marginalising discussion about the impact of shortages in the article/lead, as most RS say that's the most direct factor. It's not appropriate to treat all US sources with suspicion simply because they American: I really should've said some media, as I was specifically thinking about the list of Floridian radio stations/newspapers that was provided in the discussion above, as I've read analysis saying that they're more likely to be influenced by strong views among the Cuban community in that state. Factual reporting from sources with excellent reputations such as WaPo, NYT & WSJ etc. are still first-rate sources in all places (infobox included) per the consensuses established at WP:RSP. Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't paraphrase my comments elsewhere because I think it changes the meaning slightly, I'd prefer if you just directly quoted me or use your own words – thanks! Jr8825  •  Talk  17:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks again for your comment. I apologize for using your quote, I just thought it was the shortest way to explain and I also tried to avoid that by putting my additions among brackets, but I will keep that in mind. "It's not appropriate to treat all US sources with suspicion simply because they American." I agree, and that is not exactly what I actually think, or what I mean to say. "I really should've said some media, as I was specifically thinking about the list of Floridian radio stations/newspapers that was provided in the discussion above, as I've read analysis saying that they're more likely to be influenced by strong views among the Cuban community in that state." This was what I was mainly referring to, so I apologize if I generalized too much.
 * "Factual reporting from sources with excellent reputations such as WaPo, NYT & WSJ etc. are still first-rate sources in all places (infobox included) per the consensuses established at WP:RSP." I do not disagree. I do believe The New York Times and The Washington Post are more neutral, less biased, and thus more reliable than The Wall Street Journal. The issue is that there is no mention of 'authoritarian', 'authoritarianism', 'one-party rule', 'repression', etc. (unless I missed anything) in this New York Times article, yet it is about the protests and says "[t]he protests that erupted on Sunday were spurred by the economic crisis caused by the pandemic, shortages in basic goods and clampdowns on civil liberties. Protesters have called for President Miguel Díaz-Canal, who took the reins of Cuba in 2018, to step down." No mention of "end of Communism."
 * This Washington Post article is better because it says "Communist Cuba erupted in its largest-scale demonstrations in decades on Sunday as thousands of people chanting 'freedom' and 'yes, we can' took to the streets from Havana to Santiago de Cuba in a major new challenge to an authoritarian government struggling to cope with increasingly severe blackouts, food shortages and a spiking coronavirus outbreak." It does not mention "end of Communism" as claimed by The Wall Street Journal either, other than mentioning some politicians such as Marco Rubio saying that. It also says "[t]he protests underscore the risks the Cuban government took by opening the nation of 11 million more broadly to the Internet in 2019, when the country gained access to 3G mobile telephone service that made it easier to use social media." Which is a better cause, or support it more, than plain 'authoritarianism', that perhaps may be added?
 * The problem is with more local sources in Florida because even national sources such as The New York Times and The Washington Post use more neutral wording and support my compromise solution. I also still take "a major new challenge to an authoritarian government struggling to cope with increasingly severe blackouts, food shortages and a spiking coronavirus outbreak" more literally, without inferring 'authoritarianism' as a cause ("anti-government" or "government disatisfaction" is more accurate than "authoritarianism"), other than the government is authoritarian, and Cuban people want freedom, such as freedom of assembly and political freedom. Davide King (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Add: We should not give neither too much weight to those which use the wording, nor too little weight to those which do not; whether they do not use it for neutrality is irrelevant because they do not find it due as a cause, and just because other sources may support that, or do not explicitily say "Hey, you know that 'authoritarianism' is not really a cause" (I believe the fact they do not find it due to explicitily mention or list it is enough) it does not mean that is enough. If sources do not list or mention at 'authoritarianism', they should not be dismissed just because other sources may or many not support that as a cause, rather than Cuba being authoritarian. The fact it is mainly Floridian radio stations/newspapers are more likely to be influenced by strong views among the Cuban community in that state, and as you can see above in my list of sources, I have provided the United States-based Associated Press and The New York Times, neither of which mention of 'authoritarianism' or anything that could support the exact proposed addition, and I believe it proves the fact not all sources, especially those outside Florida, found it due. Davide King (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Davide King you request an admin a check to verify whether sources fail our own policies and guidelines, such as original research, synthesis You are severely misunderstanding or misrepresenting policy. It is literally impossible for a source to violate WP:OR or WP:SYN. Those policies apply to editors, not sources. Not only are Reliable Sources allowed to engage in WP:OR or WP:SYN, they are expected to engage in research and synthesis and creation of new information as part of their professional work. After 7 years and 33k edits I would think you'd have picked that up by now.
 * Davide, I have been trying to engage your concerns constructively, but you need to recognize that you are clearly pushing the minority view here. You have been WP:Bludgeoning your position both on talk and into the article. In fact the page statistics tool states that you have made 212 edits to this talk page, constituting 41.7% of all edits to this page. That is more than the next four editors combined. Even more, you are responsible for an astounding 48.9% of all text added to the page. That is more than the next seven editors combined. I suggest you leave the infobox-causes issue to other editors before it becomes disruptive. Alsee (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , please continue to assume good faith. While it is true I am not good at summarizing and I may be the one who commented the post, that statistic is misleading, as it also includes many edits in which I fixed typos, copy edited my own comments, fixed indents, and added missed signatures.
 * As for my request, either you did not understand what I was trying to say or I did not explain it clearly. What I meant to see is for an admin to check whose reading of sources is correct, and whether those for 'yay' engaged in cherry picking, original research, synthesis, etc., or whether those for 'nay' are correct in their analysis; i.e. whether editors engaged in those possible violations, not the sources themselves, I thought it was obvious. Basically something like what Mathglot did with their source analysis here. Is this more clear? Davide King (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC) [Edited to add] Davide King (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Davide King I cautioned you about WP:Bludgeoning and your response was to immediately blast a dozen consecutive edits in 55 minutes, creating five new comments to five different people and expanding a 6th. According to page statistics now are now up to 49.1% of all text added to this page. I again advise you to allow other editors to deal with this issue. Alsee (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it. I will try from now on to respond only when I am directly replied to. See here for more context. Davide King (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Well he Davide King speaks for me (perhaps others to)and does it a lot better and thoroughly than I ever could. Besides your Alsee objection, I've haven't seen other editors complaining about the amount of edits. Ip says (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is more about giving other editors space and fostering a productive atmosphere. Conversations like these can often lead to situations where mountains of text discourage newcomers to the discussion from participating and editors feel their points are being slapped down/drowned out. I think 's contributions have been helpful and constructive, but I'm equally grateful that he's agreed to try and reduce his input now that his main points have been made – to avoid repetition I'm also trying to do the same now I've fleshed out my views, except in cases where I think there's definitely something new to add. Jr8825  •  Talk  13:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's look at what the sources say
As Wikipedia editors, we summarize the majority and minority views on a topic in rough proportion to their frequency, and we ignore the views of a tiny minority, even if they are reported in reliable sources. (See WP:DUEWEIGHT).

The data below show the top twenty results for a query designed to elicit representative results in online sources about the reasons for the protests in Cuba, in order to see whether authoritarian[ism] was one of the reasons frequently listed. This is followed by conclusions, and a description of methodology, bias, and other possible approaches. Note that each result is linked, and is annotated with one or more small-cap keywords indicating the reasons for the protests mentioned in the article; for example, keyword means, "This source mentions 'high prices' as one of the reasons for the protests."

The top 20 results for the query are: 1. Reuters – 2. Politico – 3. AP News-a – 4. AP News-b – 5. NPR – (via AP; non-INDEPENDENT) 6. VOA News – (via Reuters) 7. (SERP Top stories insert) 8. HRW –     	(article is about repressive police response) 9. CNN – 10. -- (Page two of search results) 11. El Pais – 12. USA Today-a – 13. USA Today-b – (restricted content; I cannot view this result.) 14. The Guardian – 15. BBC-a – 16. BBC-b – (appears to be a quasi-duplicate, or update, of the article above; images and style are different) 17. NBC News – (via Reuters)      (mostly about Anyelo Troya, hip-hop singer arrested by authorities) 18. NY Times – 19. BuzzFeed –      (mostly images; not much text) 20. Al Jazeera –
 * 7a Politico –  (duplicates #2 above)
 * 7b El Pais –    (article is more about the violent police response, than the protests themselves)
 * 7c NBC News –
 * Footnotes and explanation of small-cap tokens

Conclusion: An unbiased examination of reliable sources reporting on the recent protests in Cuba does not support authoritarianism as one of the top five or six reported reasons for the protests. The actual top reasons include: 'shortages' (of food&mdash;mentioned almost always&mdash;sometimes medicine as well), and 'high prices' is a clear number two. Following those with less frequency, are: 'covid response', 'curbs on civil rights' (lack of freedom, etc.), 'abuse' (police abuse, violent response by government), and 'queues' (long lines). The term authoritarian is used very infrequently as a reason for protests, but sometimes turns up in an article in the context of quoting the observations or comments of a foreign official about the protests.

Methodology: In order to determine what the preponderance of sources say, we need to look at the results of an unbiased query, and then examine some of the results. I chose a query without including the word authoritarian and without excluding it, in order to avoid biasing the results. The range was limited to documents published in the last month. I examined the top twenty results, and tallied up to five 'causes' or 'reasons' for the protests as mentioned in the article, and noted whether authoritarian was in the top five (most articles only mentioned two or three reasons), and also noted whether the term authoritarian or its derivatives is mentioned anywhere in the article, even for other reasons. I read each article completely, and noted all the reasons mentioned, and coded the result in the collapsed data section above using one or more smallcap tokens, to make it easy to see which reasons were mentioned by each result. By following the footnotes on the tokens, one can trace backwards to see which reasons were mentioned most frequently. (The most common token code is, which stands for "the word authoritarian was not given as a reason for the protest"; the most common token code corresponding to a reason for the protest is is , which stands for "shortages" (of food, medicine, or other necessities) and was given in fourteen results as a reason for the protests. The tokens do not include words found in headlines, because headline writers have a different purpose and are not subject to the same peer review, and sometimes include things not mentioned in the body of the article at all.

Query details: I queried Google for protests in havana (unquoted) and limited it to those results appearing within the last month. I neither included the word authoritarian in the query (to avoid WP:CHERRYPICKING) nor excluded it with the minus operator (in order to avoid bias). The goal was, to see how many articles in a broad range of reliable sources included something about authoritarian[ism]. I chose 'in Havana' rather than 'in Cuba', because including Cuba might turn up many results about Miami-Dade protests in the search results that would have to be pruned as false positives after the fact as non-germane to the topic, and pruning could introduce its own bias. There are other approaches; you could try running your own query, but with 'Cuba' instead of 'Havana', like this, to see if you get significantly different results, and write up what you find. Or make up your own query.

About my own bias and involvement in the Cuba article: I don't care which way this Rfc comes out, as long as it upholds Wikipedia principles. I have had previous involvement at the article, removing many dozens of edits by several block-evading sockpuppets, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I don't know or care if those socks had a bias one way, or the other; policy calls for their edits to be removed, and that's what I did, with admins watching over my shoulder and approving (see Archive 22 for a record of this). Other than that, I don't believe I have any substantive edits at the Cuba article.

Regarding the previous list of nine sources provided by User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: the results I present here are in no way in conflict with Swag Lord's edit 1034275402 (tagged 23:03, 18 July) containing the list of nine sources listing authoritarianism in the nine results. While I cannot mind-read them, imho Swag Lord was responding directly to the earlier comment of 03:52, 19 July that "None of these sources support putting 'Authoritarianism' as a cause in the infobox." To the extent that Swag's response was simply to rebut that by showing that *at least some sources* do contain the word Authoritarianism, there's nothing wrong with doing a WP:CHERRYPICKED search in order to prove the point, which is what they did, successfully. I don't think there was any intent there to present those nine sources as a random or representative sample of all reliable sources.

Unfortunately, some editors who came afterward, maybe even most, looked at the nine sources, and perhaps assumed that they were a general, unbiased survey of reliable sources which appear to show that the majority of all sources probably support 'authoritarianism' as a cause of the protests. It's not Swag Lord's fault that others may have misinterpreted their list. The tip-off should've been the presence of five sources out of nine from south Florida, but I don't even think that's the source of the problem. Rather, I think it's an insufficient appreciation of the distinction between WP:Verifiability and WP:DUEWEIGHT; simply finding ten reliable sources that support your view isn't enough, if there are twenty that don't support it; the Infobox is a summary, and we should choose the majority reason (food shortages) and a selection of the minority reasons (a clear #2 is high prices; the rest could be chosen from among: curbs on rights or freedoms, response to covid, police abuses, long queues, and power outages). See WP:PROPORTION.

But that leaves us with numerous WP:!Votes now apparently resting on a false assumption, and apparently no one until now having attempted an unbiased survey of the available sources. That is what sparked me to do this investigation, although I think it's now probably too late to have much of an effect. Mathglot (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your thorough source evaluation--I truly do. But I do hope you are aware of the limitations of a WP:GOOGLETEST. I never meant to represent my sources as a random or representative sample of all reliable sources (I thought that was clear). All I meant to do was show that "authoritarianism" does indeed pass WP:V. The initial rationale for not including authoritarianism was: No unless we get reliable sources (the most neutral-worded Associated Press and Reuters in particular) explicitly saying authoritarianism is a cause, rather than just say Cuba is authoritarian or that curbs on civil liberties are a cause, which we already say and are not in dispute. So far, sources used in support for the claim have been either Fox News (not reliable for politics and science), opinion pieces (which may be used in the body, properly attributed, not for a contentious claim in the infobox)... It was demonstrably untrue that only Fox News and opinions pieces were using authoritarianism as a justification for the protests.
 * In reference to the question of due weight, I think the most articulate response came from : I think it is also helpful to consider two aspects here - one is consideration of a generalized concept and the other is exact terminology. There is a cloud of sources making a related points with a variety of phrasings. That establishes abundant weight for the related concepts they discuss. There are also sufficient sources explicitly saying "authoritarian" to justify our use of that word as a gathering point for closely related concepts. Once the word itself is validated it is able to gather weight from the surrounding cloud. This is a spot-on analysis. Yes, it is correct that many sources do not specifically use the word "authoritarianism." However, numerous sources do keep emphasizing over and over again how it's more than just about the food shortages and lack of vaccines. It's about frustration over the authoritarian, communist regime and a desire for freedom from the regime. (And, by the way, it's important to note that infringements on civil liberties are not synonymous with cries of freedom). For Instance:


 * We need to find a way to summarize those sources in a clear and concise manner. And I think the word authoritarianism is a good way to do that (but I'm open to other suggestions). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, it was clear to me in a way that I fear it was perhaps not to everyone that you never had any intention of claiming that list was representative, and I think I called that out already. As far as googletest, you'd be hard pressed to find an editor more familiar with the ins and outs and weaknesses (and strengths) of search engine queries and internal operations; ask me sometime about hit count comparisons and last-page tests if you want an in-depth tutorial. Back to this topic, however: any bare list is not really helpful unless the query that generated it is exposed; doesn't matter how many entries you add to it. I'm mostly interested in getting the data out there, and I think I've done that; editors more interested in the topic can decide how many reasons they want to include in the infobox, and if authoritarianism makes the cut, great, but I think you'd better count on at least six or seven bullet items in that case, because from what I've seen so far, the actual data doesn't support it at fewer than that. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . "We need to find a way to summarize those sources in a clear and concise manner." That is exactly what I support too; my own 'nay' is based on the fact I oppose only saying 'authoritarianism', which is a too reductive of what sources say; I am not opposed to a different wording convening the same point. I just disagree that "the word authoritarianism is a good way to do that." "I'm open to other suggestions." Well, I did propose my own wording of "Lack of civil liberties (freedom of association and political freedom." "One-party rule" may be added as well. I simply prefer a very short yet context-minded sentence-like wording, which better reflect the various wording used by sources, and does not reduce it to a label, no matter how accurate, for summary sake. Can we take it from here? Davide King (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is, we're dealing with an infobox. We are at liberty to be somewhat reductive and reduce things to a concise label that can be easily wiki-linked: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. The body of the article is where we start adding all the juicy details. Take the Arab Spring, for example. All of the causes are 1-3 words that can be easily linked: Authoritarianism, Monarchy, Unemployment, etc. But the exact causes of the Arab Spring were much more complex than that. Do you understand, Davide? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I do. That quote does not imply that a very short and concise semi-sentence (it is not a full sentence, there are no full stops at the end), as we currently do, is prohibited, just that it needs to be concise and not a full sentence. The Arab Spring is over a decade old, so it is more natural that there is a clear consensus among sources; those protests are not even one month old, and there is nothing wrong in merging various causes (rather than make a long one-word list as in the Arab Spring) to write a semi-sentence. Authoritarianism is also more broad, and can be many things. Davide King (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * After reviewing this RfC once more, I realized that, at this point, arguments for non-inclusion that have been already debunked are now being recycled. The latest example is perhaps the use of a Google search to "prove" that authoritarianism isn't a cause per WP:DUE —which is not how WP:DUE works, since such an statistics exercise of citing all sources on a topic and counting which ones mention X word and which ones don't is NOT a reliable method for verification or relevance (WP:ONLYGOOG)— and also because it counts sources that don't mention authoritarianism (NOAUTH) as if they were contradicting authoritarianism, which is faulty reasoning and which have been discussed already:, , . Ajñavidya (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because sources do not explicitily say "Hey, we do not think 'authoritarianism' is a cause", by the mere fact they do not use the label, or even put shortages, or other factors as bigger causes, it does not mean they should not be counted; it means there is some disagreement among sources, at least on wording, so we should reflect their diverse use of wording without sticking to a single label, no matter how accurate. If they do not use that label, it means they disagree by the mere fact they did not find it due to mention, which is what I mean by that, but I will let (you should have pingem them, since they did not comment for a while, so I do it myself) answer in more detail to your comment, I really hope they do, and I will not interject any further. For the record, I only oppose just listing 'authoritarianism', not saying that the country is authoritarian or that lack of freedom, specifying which ones, are not a cause worth mentioning (I think the current infobox is fine, even without the embargo). I prefer a very short semi-sentence over any label. If you want to reply me back, you can do so on my talk page, especially for useless reverts like this over Oxford commas in lists. Davide King (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because sources do not explicitily say "Hey, we do not think 'authoritarianism' is a cause", by the mere fact they do not use the label, or even put shortages, or other factors as bigger causes, it does not mean they should not be counted; it means there is some disagreement among sources, at least on wording, so we should reflect their diverse use of wording without sticking to a single label, no matter how accurate. If they do not use that label, it means they disagree by the mere fact they did not find it due to mention, which is what I mean by that, but I will let (you should have pingem them, since they did not comment for a while, so I do it myself) answer in more detail to your comment, I really hope they do, and I will not interject any further. For the record, I only oppose just listing 'authoritarianism', not saying that the country is authoritarian or that lack of freedom, specifying which ones, are not a cause worth mentioning (I think the current infobox is fine, even without the embargo). I prefer a very short semi-sentence over any label. If you want to reply me back, you can do so on my talk page, especially for useless reverts like this over Oxford commas in lists. Davide King (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I raised some concerns about this assessment in the above section and felt it would be helpful to link to that thread. Jr8825  •  Talk  23:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for your analysis. You are correct: the neutral Google search does not " 'prove' that authoritarianism isn't a cause"; but then, it never sought to do that. The only thing it does, is prove what sources come up when you execute that particular google search. You can read all of the results yourself, and see what they say, they are all linked. I'm not 100% sure what you meant by"counting which ones mention X word and which ones don't is NOT a reliable method for verification or relevance". First of all, I wasn't seeking to measure verification or relevance, but nevertheless, the sources in the results most certainly do verify the points they make; they are some of the most impeccably reliable sources to be found in news reporting, and to imply they *don't* verify the points they make would be folly. But verification wasn't the point of the search; rather, it was an inquiry into which causes come up most frequently when you poll the top sources on this issue. For such a question, while a Google query might not be a perfect mirror of every possible source, it's a better way of approximating it than most other things that you can come up with; certainly, light-years better and more accurate than a hand-picked list drawn up to prove a point decided on beforehand, which seems to be what most people are relying on in the survey. If you would like to design an implement an investigation that yields more representative results about the state of reliable sources on a topic than a neutrally worded Google query, I'll be most interested to hear it; by all means do. But linking a couple of essays doesn't help get you to better results, and I'd say failing anything better, this type of investigation is, in fact, the best tool we have available, even if it is not perfect.
 * Your claim that this investigation "counts sources that don't mention authoritarianism (NOAUTH) as if they were contradicting authoritarianism, which is faulty reasoning" is mistaken; it does no such thing. You can't possibly contradict authoritarianism in a source unless the source says, "authoritarianism was not one of the causes cited", but of course, nobody would report what didn't happen like that; they only talk about what did happen. Three out of the 20 sources *did* talk about authoritarianism; the results show that. The ones that did not, were all the rest of them: i.e., 20 minus 3, or 17. Those 17 are flagged, because that's what this Rfc is attempting to decide, and nothing else. When you look through the list of reasons actually given by the sources, some reasons were mentioned more than others. More sources named "food shortages" than any other single reason; it was the clear number one, followed by "high prices"; the remainder are listed above.
 * Possibly the Rfc should have been worded slightly differently, including a list of how many reasons they wanted to include in the Infobox, like 3 reasons, or 5, or 10, or whatever. Because you are absolutely right that some  sources definitely mention authoritarianism. I never claimed they didn't; they're just not one of the top five or six, and since the Rfc was about a list in an Infobox, and an Infobox is a summary, I just assumed no one would want more than five reasons; perhaps I was wrong. If the consensus is, that the "top 10 reasons should be in the Infobox" (or even the top 8), then I change my vote from No to Yes, okay? In that case, we also need to add covid, power outages and a couple others. But if five is the limit, then it's No.
 * As far as "understanding how WP:DUE works": I think I've got a pretty solid handle on WP:DUE, but it's maybe not the first thing people encounter around here. Relying solely on WP:V could lead someone to believe in good faith, that a solid list of ten good sources that mention "power outages" in an Rfc, means that power outages should definitely be listed in the Infobox, but that would be insufficient. It's *certainly* true that that ten good sources would WP:VERIFY "power outages" as a reason; there's no question about that. But it wouldn't necessarily mean it was among the most frequently mentioned reasons. Looking at that list of ten results alone, there'd simply be no way to know.  That's where WP:DUE plays a crucial role, when you have to choose a limited number of items to summarize in a certain space, like an infobox field named "reasons".  In this Rfc, if we only list the top five reasons, then "power outages" doesn't make it.  If we list the top ten, then "power outages" does make it; and so does "authoritarianism".
 * That is the kind of question that a Google search, properly designed and executed, can answer. And I think it did answer that question in this case.  You might ask the person who designed the Rfc question how many reasons they wish to include in the Infobox, and decide the Rfc that way.  I mean, think about it: suppose as soon as this Rfc is over, I started a new Rfc, saying that "power outages" should be added to the Infobox as a reason, and listed my ten sources forty-five sources naming "power outages" as a reason for the protests. Would you vote "yes" on that Rfc?  I certainly hope not.  (Don't worry; I won't start the Rfc!) But I hope you see my point: "my" Rfc with its forty-five sources in favor of "power outages" is kind of like what's going on in this Rfc, more or less. That's why WP:DUE is crucial to an Rfc like this, and when it is ignored, you end up with the reason-du-jour, or whatever seems to generate the most heat among a selection of editors attracted to the Rfc, rather than what the sources are actually saying.  And that is a shame. Mathglot (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I wasn't aware that you were the editor who carried out the WP:GOOGLETEST. The least of my motivations here is to discredit someone else's work. My point is, given that very reliable sources do report authoritarianism as a cause for the protests (such as The Independent, NPR, Fox News, Washington Post and CBS News), they should be included — Otherwise, as, not including authoritarianism in the infobox leads to the false impression that the protests are caused by purely economic factors; which doesn't make justice to the fact that they are very politically-charged. I still don't consider that a list of all sources related to an event, and counting how many of those sources mention a keyword, is enough for determining how due an edit is. I believe, by the other hand, that if reliable perennial sources in Wikipedia consistently support an edit, then that edit should be included. But if my opinion is in contradiction with Wikipedia policies, I understand that Wikipedia policies must prevail. Also, you say: "Your claim that this investigation 'counts sources that don't mention authoritarianism (NOAUTH) as if they were contradicting authoritarianism, which is faulty reasoning' is mistaken; it does no such thing. You can't possibly contradict authoritarianism in a source unless the source says, 'authoritarianism was not one of the causes cited', but of course, nobody would report what didn't happen like that; they only talk about what did happen." I differ from that. Consider, for example, the RfC on USA Embargo — take this passage from an NBC article: «Carmen Peláez, a Cuban American filmmaker and Democratic political consultant, said: "I’m anti-embargo. But it’s not about the embargo right now. That’s not what this fight is about"»; or this one from the CBC: «But some Cuban Calgarians say the embargo isn't to blame for the island's worst economic crisis [...] "Cubans know that the reason they're not getting food and medicine is that the government is incompetent, not because of the embargo," said Rodriguez»; or this one from The New York Times: «"There's no food, there's no medicine, there's nothing, and this isn't a product of the American embargo, which I do not support," said Ramón Saúl Sánchez, president of the Movimiento Democracia advocacy group in Miami. He noted that the embargo does allow Cuba to buy food from the United States, though restrictions on financing present significant barriers to the amount». These sources are indeed contradicting that the Embargo is a cause of the protests. In the case of "authoritarianism," the other sources that don't mention that word report on actions by the government that can be synthesized and asserted as "authoritarianism." Therefore, discarding sources that don't directly use the word "authoritarianism" as not supporting it is kind of reductive. I might be wrong, but these are my opinions on this, for now. Ajñavidya (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's really not important who did the investigation and I didn't think you were trying to discredit anyone in particular. The stuff about reporting a negative is interesting, but basically a sideshow. I'm basically trying to get people to address WP:DUE WEIGHT which I see as the crucial missing element here, and the bottom line is, nobody is doing it, even though it holds the key, imho, to resolving this Rfc accurately. WP:V is the necessary condition, the first hurdle, otherwise you are out of the running completely; but WP:DUE sorts the population of verified reliable sources into major, minor and fringe. You could start, if you're willing, by addressing my hypothetical Rfc example above: "Should we add power outages to the list because it has forty-five highly reliable sources", or not?  I would say a strong No because that list of 45 sources is cherrypicked to confirm the Rfc question, and is highly unrepresentative of what the actual sources say in an unbiased search.  What do you say?  Do you see my point? Mathglot (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would also vote for No for including "power outages" as a cause of the protests (in the infobox), but for the next reasons:
 * 1. It is not mentioned by most sources, and not even directly or indirectly by sources considered very reliable
 * 2. It is very specific and concrete phenomenon, stemmed from the bad shape of the Cuban economy, which is a broader cause
 * 3. It is not mentioned by the Cuban protesters or dissidents themselves, inside or outside of Cuba
 * Therefore, it would be clear to me that "power outages" is WP:UNDUE, at least for the infobox (it could be mentioned in the article, of course). But considering power outages and authoritarianism as similar would be a false equivalence because authoritarianism, by the other hand, fits in a different manner the three cirteria given before: 1.) it is mentioned by reliable sources, and by many sources, indirectly and directly; 2.) it's a general long-standing cause and not a concrecete incident or situation and 3.) it is directly referred to by protesters and dissidents both inside and outside of Cuba. Of course, other criteria could be included, but at least these ones can give an idea on why both examples are not equivalent. Same happens with the analogy of authritarianism and U.S. embargo, they are just very different when you go into details. Ajñavidya (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , did you fully read my previous post? I left you a link to forty-five reliable sources that mention "power outages". Of course, that's a completely cherry-picked list, so entirely WP:UNDUE and invalid for the purposes of this Rfc. And while all 45 sources are reliable, nevertheless they cannot be used for determining inclusion in the Infobox; so we agree on that point. That is my whole point: over-relying on WP:Verifiability to the exclusion of WP:DUE WEIGHT considerations can lead one to come up with a possibly invalid conclusion. In my opinion, that is what is going on in this Rfc.
 * Your key phrase above, in my opinion, was this:
 * and you are absolutely right: power outages is not mentioned by most sources; even though it is mentioned by all of the forty-five sources in the query above. That's the key element here: simply compiling a list of 10 sources, or 45 sources, that agree with your point of view, does not prove anything one way or the other about the general case. The only way to determine the answer to the Rfc question accurately, is with unbiased queries that do not cherry-pick the desired result (such as at the top of this section, here), and the results of an unbiased query (just above) show clearly, that just as you say, "power outages" is not one of the top five reasons, and so should not be in the Infobox. And the results also show the exact same thing for "authoritarianism" (or its synonyms), so it shouldn't be there, either. The only way to get authoritarianism into the top five reasons, is by compiling your own, cherry-picked list keeping in mind the answer you want to get at the end of it, or by using a biased query which includes the term you are trying to evaluate. That may satisfy WP:V, but it doesn't satisfy WP:DUE, and that's a fatal error in a case like this. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , power outage is mentioned by most sources as a cause of the protests in San Antonio de los Baños, the first city in where the protests sparkle; and most sources report this is a complain to Miguel-Díaz Canel when he visited the town. It doesn't necessarily imply that this was a cause for the major protests that succeeded across the island nation. Sources that do include power outage as a general cause of the protests (rather than a local one in San Antonio de los Baños) are rather scarce. Nevertheless, as I said before, power outage is a very specific cause that can be integrated into the broader economic causes that are already listed in the infobox. The same isn't true for authoritarianism, which cannot be reduced into other causes because it is a sufficiently general and important cause in itself. In fact, the abuse of power and the behavior displayed by Cuban authorities that other sources mention can be synthesized as authoritarianism, even if those other sources don't use that word. Even so, if power outages was mentioned by a sufficiently large number of sources (including reliable ones), I would vote Yes for inclusion; but this is not the case, as we have both already agreed. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * when you say that
 * that may be right, or it may not; all we can say is, that that's *you*, Ajñavidya, talking; it's not the sources talking. I'm going to disengage now, so that hopefully other editors will respond to the issue of WP:CHERRYPICKING vs. WP:DUEWEIGHT. Thanks for all your comments and replies, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Likewise for you, . I still think that's not my opinion but it's actually covered by WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ASSERT; but regardless, your replies and the work you've done citing the sources have been very insightful. Happy editing! Ajñavidya (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , let's get this straight. You concede that "[it] can be synthesized as authoritarianism" but it's not a synthesis violation because WP:ASSERT says we can state some obvious things as facts? Problem is that we may only state as fact that Cuba is authoritarian, which we already do in the infobox at Goals and isn't what I and others are disputing; what we can't state as fact is that authoritarianism, rather than the wording used by sources, is a cause, hence it can still violate synthesis, and it'd still be preferable to use their actual wording as we do now. Davide King (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We've already discussed this, . The thing is that authoritarianism is mentioned by reliable sources as a cause of the protests, and other sources can be synthesized as well into authoritarianism. However, I agree with you that if we include it as a cause, then the word "authoritarian" should be removed from the goals because it'd be redundant to mention it twice in the infobox. Ajñavidya (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , can you please quote me from WP:SYNTHESIS how "authoritarianism is mentioned by reliable sources as a cause of the protests, and other sources can be synthesized as well into authoritarianism"? What is the part you believe it supports what you are saying? It says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Authoritarianism is not a conclusion explicitily stated, so we should only add the different wording used by sources, such as one-party tule or lack of civil liberties with examples, as we currently do. If source A says "one-party rule" and source B says "call for freedom", we cannot state it as fact that it is "authoritarianism" because, while Cuba may be described as authoritarian as fact, we cannot do the same for it being the cause; and it would be synthesis to imply that both sources support "authoritarianism', rather than "one-party rule" and "call for freedom", respectively. We also need not to confuse what some protesters say and assume it is the same for all protesters; it is not enough that a source quotes a protester saying that, the source itself must explicitily reach that conclusion. I am glad we can agree on that redundancy, and I would also be fine with adding authoritarianism, if we also list some examples mentioned by sources, such as one-party rule, lack of political freedom, and the like to better explain and clarify what sources say and mean by that. Davide King (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTHESIS states: «Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[i] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article». Authoritarianism is mentioned by some sources (it's not a conclusion by editors), and other sources which don't mention authoritarianism cite examples that fall into the definition of authoritarianism. For example, take this Vox article: «But the cries of “patria y vida” from the protesters, and the artists who helped give rise to it, also speak to larger undercurrents of frustration around Cuba’s system. As experts pointed out, in an authoritarian country, challenging the government comes with very real risks. The economic frustrations and pandemic fatigue are intimately connected with Cuba’s politics». Even if the text itself doesn't state "authoritarianism is a cause of the protests," it can be summarized as such, because the phrase "undercurrents of frustration around Cuba’s system" is enough fitting to what other sources have called authoritarianism, even if the wording is different. Take another example, this time one which doesn't even use the words "authoritarianism" or "authoritarian," Axios: «“So much hunger ate away at our fear,” one demonstrator, Wendy Guerra, told the independent Cuban news site 14yMedio» and "Pockets of overt dissidence had been growing even before Raúl Castro, Fidel Castro’s younger brother and his deputy during the revolution [...]", also: «Musicians and San Isidro members [...] were joined [...] to release the song “Patria y Vida” (Homeland and Life), which became an anthem for this week’s protesters. Its lyrics demand “no more lies” and “no more doctrine,” telling those who cling to the revolution that their time is past». Again, phrases like "hunger ate away at our fear," and slogans like "no more lies" and "no more doctrine" have no sense if authoritarianism isn't taken into account as a cause. It's not "join A and B together to imply a conclusion C," which is what WP:SYNTHESIS doesn't allow; but rather joining A to the more concise and already-sourced conclusion B. Ajñavidya (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer to take a more conservative approach and reflect sources' wording, so even though I can see and understand your points, your given quote of larger undercurrents of frustration around Cuba’s system is more certain to provide support for something like Frustration at Cuban politics (with a link to the article about the Cuban political system). Your second quote could just as easily support Anti-communism since it speaks of "no more lies" and "no more doctrine." It is very subjective, which is why I would prefer that majority of sources would actually list authoritarianism as cause when they write things like Cubans have taken to the streets in cities across the country over the last week, in a wave of rare public protests to express their frustration with rising prices, falling wages, the United States embargo and the failings of the island's long-standing communist government to address its economic challenges or that [p]ublic anger has been driven by long food lines, worsening power shortages for several hours a day and a critical shortage of medicines since the start of the Covid-19 epidemic, with Cuba under US sanctions. If 'authoritarianism' was explicitily spelled out, or something along that, in a sentence like The Independent did, there would be no discussion about it; however, I take a more conservative approach and I prefer sources' actual wording over our own reading, when it is either not so obvious or it could be other things too. Both of your quotes can also be interpreted as being more fit for Goals than Causes, which is why I personally prefer 'authoritarian one-party rule' and its advocated end to be listed as Goals rather than Causes (here I explain why I think we should reflect the structure outlined by sources), but unless they agree with mine and Mathglot's source analysis, the RfC is going to close it as consensus and 'authoritarianism' will be added. If we are going to add it, I prefer to have a semi-sentence about it. Davide King (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTHESIS states: «Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here.[i] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article». Authoritarianism is mentioned by some sources (it's not a conclusion by editors), and other sources which don't mention authoritarianism cite examples that fall into the definition of authoritarianism. For example, take this Vox article: «But the cries of “patria y vida” from the protesters, and the artists who helped give rise to it, also speak to larger undercurrents of frustration around Cuba’s system. As experts pointed out, in an authoritarian country, challenging the government comes with very real risks. The economic frustrations and pandemic fatigue are intimately connected with Cuba’s politics». Even if the text itself doesn't state "authoritarianism is a cause of the protests," it can be summarized as such, because the phrase "undercurrents of frustration around Cuba’s system" is enough fitting to what other sources have called authoritarianism, even if the wording is different. Take another example, this time one which doesn't even use the words "authoritarianism" or "authoritarian," Axios: «“So much hunger ate away at our fear,” one demonstrator, Wendy Guerra, told the independent Cuban news site 14yMedio» and "Pockets of overt dissidence had been growing even before Raúl Castro, Fidel Castro’s younger brother and his deputy during the revolution [...]", also: «Musicians and San Isidro members [...] were joined [...] to release the song “Patria y Vida” (Homeland and Life), which became an anthem for this week’s protesters. Its lyrics demand “no more lies” and “no more doctrine,” telling those who cling to the revolution that their time is past». Again, phrases like "hunger ate away at our fear," and slogans like "no more lies" and "no more doctrine" have no sense if authoritarianism isn't taken into account as a cause. It's not "join A and B together to imply a conclusion C," which is what WP:SYNTHESIS doesn't allow; but rather joining A to the more concise and already-sourced conclusion B. Ajñavidya (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer to take a more conservative approach and reflect sources' wording, so even though I can see and understand your points, your given quote of larger undercurrents of frustration around Cuba’s system is more certain to provide support for something like Frustration at Cuban politics (with a link to the article about the Cuban political system). Your second quote could just as easily support Anti-communism since it speaks of "no more lies" and "no more doctrine." It is very subjective, which is why I would prefer that majority of sources would actually list authoritarianism as cause when they write things like Cubans have taken to the streets in cities across the country over the last week, in a wave of rare public protests to express their frustration with rising prices, falling wages, the United States embargo and the failings of the island's long-standing communist government to address its economic challenges or that [p]ublic anger has been driven by long food lines, worsening power shortages for several hours a day and a critical shortage of medicines since the start of the Covid-19 epidemic, with Cuba under US sanctions. If 'authoritarianism' was explicitily spelled out, or something along that, in a sentence like The Independent did, there would be no discussion about it; however, I take a more conservative approach and I prefer sources' actual wording over our own reading, when it is either not so obvious or it could be other things too. Both of your quotes can also be interpreted as being more fit for Goals than Causes, which is why I personally prefer 'authoritarian one-party rule' and its advocated end to be listed as Goals rather than Causes (here I explain why I think we should reflect the structure outlined by sources), but unless they agree with mine and Mathglot's source analysis, the RfC is going to close it as consensus and 'authoritarianism' will be added. If we are going to add it, I prefer to have a semi-sentence about it. Davide King (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that the cherry-picking essay is necessarily relevant here. Perhaps you have specific editors in mind with that accusation, but I for one came to a different conclusion to the one you have about this RfC, and evidenced this with a selection of quotes (other editors have done the same). I didn't "cherry-pick" these in the sense of choosing sources I thought would agree with me, or selecting bits contradicted elsewhere within the same articles: they're simply a small cross-section of what RS said about the issue. Those sources are a reflection of the 4 main RS I read on a daily basis (which I specifically choose because they cover a spectrum of viewpoints), and you're welcome to follow the links and tell me if you think my quotes inaccurately represent the articles say about authoritarianism as a cause. I touched upon this in my original !vote, but the relative balance of factors as described by sources is not the same as DUEWEIGHT – due weight is whether it's a widely held view that authoritarianism was a cause, as demonstrated by frequent mentions in sources (which is where we disagree, as we're reading the same sources and I'm concluding that they support a statement about authoritarianism – again, I refer to my selection of quotes – and you appear to be concluding the opposite because they don't always use the exact term "authoritarianism"). My point is that it can still be appropriate (i.e. necessary per the weight of sourcing) to include authoritarianism in the infobox even if it's almost unanimously described as a lesser factor to something else (e.g. shortages, economic crisis). Jr8825 •  Talk  11:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Consideration

 * If I were coming to this RfC with a view to closing it, then as of right now, I would see a rough consensus (despite well-argued dissent) to use the word "authoritarianism". But I would struggle to understand how best to implement that consensus.  The infobox already gives "lack of civil liberties" as a cause, and if I had my closer hat on, I would be wondering whether the community was telling me to list "authoritarianism" as a separate cause, or whether to replace "lack of civil liberties" with "authoritarianism".  I would very much benefit from the community's view on whether and how it distinguishes between the two.—S Marshall T/C 09:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Greetings, S Marshall. Perhaps the Wikipedia definition, which is well sourced, would be helpful here. I quote the definition, edited for brevity:
 * Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of a strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.
 * Minimally defined, an authoritarian government lacks free and competitive direct elections to legislatures, free and competitive direct or indirect elections for executives, or both. Broadly defined, authoritarian states include countries that lack civil liberties. My emphasis in italics.
 * We can see that the term "authoritarianism" includes and denotes the attribute "lack of civil liberties." -The Gnome (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, considering we already say "End of Authoritarian... rule" in goals and "lack of civil liberties" in causes in the infobox, I think that's plenty of "Authoritarianism", but that's just me. BSMRD (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, "End of Authoritarian..." has been added since this RfC was started. I don't think any outcome will/should mandate two mentions in the infobox. Jr8825  •  Talk  17:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Lack of civil liberties and authoritarianism are related, but are not the same thing. Roughly speaking, authoritarianism is pattern of ruthless behavior by the government and the authorities of a given country; whereas lack of civil liberties is the non-recognition of some fundamental rights by the legal system of that country. Most commonly both come hand-in-hand, but not necessarily. I think that the best implementation of this consensus is to expand the already-cited lack of liberties in the infobox into Authoritarianism and lack of civil liberties (freedom of assembly and political freedom). Ajñavidya (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ajñavidya. Authoritarianism and civil liberties are closely related and should be the same bullet point, something roughly like Authoritarianism and lack of civil liberties. Alsee (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)