Talk:Censorship in Cuba

Rock and Jazz
I'm taking out the bit about Che wanting to ban Rock Music and Jazz. The only source is a very biased, obscure libertarian blog.

POV
This is a one-side political rant - might first instinct was to delete, but it might be salvagable jimfbleak 13:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's got major POV issues. The proper solution is to fix them (or list it on cleanup)...not to delete and protect it.  Kurt Weber 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the support! I would appreciate help with the article as well (hint, hint.) KillerChihuahua?!? 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that there is too much to keep from this article. It is clearly anti-castrist propaganda. I simply cannot imagine a Cuban burning a cultural item. horzer (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

fiber optic cables are not available
Absurd.Xx236 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a one-side political rant
This statement is very interesting. It happens that the same system controls Cuba since 50 years. Try to write about right wing censorship in contemporary Cuba to make the article unbiased. Xx236 14:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Untruths
There are alot of untruths in this article; especially about internet usage. I can't be arsed to write alot in the article, but here is a source for anyone willing to put in the time: http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?218

From the article:

Even sources hostile to the Cuba revolution concede that there is no internet censorship in Cuba. CNN admitted as much in an April 11, 2000 article (“Cuba’s internet elite emerges,” CNN.com), writing “granted, the government does not censor, filter or -- it appears -- survey [internet] traffic.”

24.131.225.162 11:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting why Cuban people having free access don't participate in this discussion? A week in Cuban prison would help you.Xx236 12:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Editors in Cuba have already edited this page (see), and they edit wikipedia, participating in discussions all the time - to the extent that Jimbo Wales is planning a visit to Cuba to meet Cuban wikipedians . Compared to Haiti or Jamaica, editors in Cuba are fairly well represented on the English wikipedia, one of the most prolific editors on Cuban subjects edits from Havana on a regular basis. And on the Spanish wikipedia they are common. I don't think your comments to the anonymous editor are helpful, productive or accurate.-- Z leitzen (talk)  19:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to Jimbo Wales - I hope that he understands the diference between independent and staged. 99% people in the West don't.

Xx236 07:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC) I think that a warning on this page about censorship one of the benefits and one of wikipedias and a weaknesses should be mentioned anyone can edit or censor pages.

I hope that Jimbo Wales distributes a number of Spanish Wikipedia CDs among independent librarians in Cuba.Xx236 07:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
"The internet provides Cuba with much-needed access to the world, but it is also a source of poisonous counter-revolutionary propaganda and cultural pollution, and it offers a dangerous potential for corruption. It therefore remains a very controversial medium in Cuba, and for good reason." claimed blythe.org in 2000

I have removed this insertion because it is an opinion that I believe does not come from a reliable source and hence doesn't meet WP:RS.-- Z leitzen (talk)  19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the fiber cables story, because it's propaganda.Xx236 07:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The story comes from the International Business Times. Removal of relevant material taken from reliable sources is not advisable, and will not be deemed acceptable here.-- Z leitzen (talk)  07:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

removed Radio Marti - it is actually illegal to broadcast Radio Marti even in the U.S. due to propaganda laws, let alone Cuba
The Radio Marti article odesn't conform it's illegal in the USAXx236 07:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.citizensforethics.org/taxonomy/term/835. See also"Though the Marti channels are broadcast to Cuba but their programmes cannot be transmitted in the US under anti-propaganda laws."which can be found in this BBC report. -- Z leitzen (talk)  07:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Jamming a radiostation is a censorship and obviously in Cuba almost everything is illegal. The Nuremberg Laws were legal in Germany but breaking it was morally O.K..Xx236 08:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This Wikipedia doesn't inform about any propaganda laws.Xx236 09:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

April 1990 - Cuba begins to jam Radio Marti - what the statement false in 1990?Xx236 09:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't fully understand what you are writing as your English seems unclear, but just to confirm the point, it is illegal to broadcast Radio Marti in Cuba, and it is illegal to broadcast Radio Marti in the United States. That is because in the United States, even though the U.S. government sponsor the station, Radio Marti is deemed U.S. government sponsored propaganda. Therefore, Cuba are merely complying with laws that exist in virtually every country in the world and jamming the broadcasts of confirmed propaganda from an external enemy government designed to create instability in Cuba itself. That is not the same as censorship within Cuba. Though other wikipedia articles should not be referenced, our article now states that Radio Marti cannot be transmitted in the US under anti-propaganda laws anyway. Using a reliable source - the BBC. Is that clear now?-- Z leitzen (talk)  09:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my English is unclear. I wasn't allowed to learn English in a Communist country, which was legal, noone has an inborn right to learn English, but I don't like people who support terror and censorship since that time.

It's irrelevant if it is illegal to broadcast Radio Marti in Cuba, and it is illegal to broadcast Radio Marti in the United States, because we are discussing April 1990. Was it illegal in April 1990? Is jamming of illegal broadcasts a lesser censorship? I used to listen to hated by many Free Europe, finaced by the CIA, and it was the best source of informations in many countries. I didn't care if it was legal or not. Not every law is good for people and people from free and rich countries don't have any idea about the ouside world. Cuba and laws, really. Xx236 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is illegal to broadcast Radio Marti in the United States. It was illegal in 1987, 1997 and is illegal in 2007. That is because it is considered state propaganda designed to misinform by the U.S. government itself. Journalists who have worked on Radio Marti have been fired from other journalism posts in Florida due to this. Cuba censors media within Cuba to a high degree. But banning Radio Marti is not considered "censorship". It is an act in accordance with even the most liberal democracies.-- Z leitzen  (talk)  15:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cuba isn't based on law. A small group of people decide what is legal there. Banning Radio MArti is a censorship for people who want to hear the news. designed to create instability in Cuba - please don't use Communist language toward a victim of Communism, beacause it's uncivil. Xx236 08:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is illegal to broadcast Radio Marti in the United States. Why? Because it does not comply with U.S. anti-propaganda laws. So far, virtually all your statements about Cuba have been proven false. You appear to be arguing from some kind of general anti-communist position that has little or nothing to do with Cuba, and have nothing to do with editing a neutral, accurate encyclopedia for readers. If you think that I've been uncivil, take it up with the dispute process, or call an administrator.-- Z leitzen (talk)  11:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Censorship is a censorship - legal or "illegal". The idea of totalitarian censorship is that a small group of people controls informations and even the language. The idea of totalitarian law is that a small group defines what is legal. Constitutional laws aren't respected. The whole law system is degenerated. Some people believe it's O.K. - Cuba is allegedly a kind of Eden, who cares about informations in Eden? Why to grow the apple tree of knowledge there? It's interesting that only few people move to the Eden, apply for Cuban citizenship and live like Cubans do. Visiting Cuba with a passport and USD or Euro is like visiting a safari park. Try to be an impala.Xx236 11:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW - Auschwitz was partially legal and its commander was finally hanged there. Xx236 09:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Law section, over quoted
The current "Law" section at the moment contains 6 long paragraph length block quotes without the use of any article prose (I thus tagged it). I personally believe that quotes can be beneficial to a wiki article, but 6 in row is even excessive for me. This section needs to either be trimmed heavily to around 2 of the best quotes, or blended into a paragraph. Red thoreau (talk)RT 05:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

censorship of the Universal declaration of human rights
The sentence "Copies of publications such as United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been ordered to be burned or otherwise destroyed." should go under the section "Censorship of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Thus, update the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.61.237 (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Entire Article US-propaganda
This article: http://www.projectcensored.org/articles/story/cuba-supports-press-freedom/ essentially states the exact opposite of everything on here. Cuba has press freedom, like it or not. Jackal Killer (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't state the exact opposite. Mostly it just avoids talking about it, but even that article acknowledges that there isn't any freedom of press on Cuba, but it does it between the lines. Like for example: "In the context of this external threat, Cuban journalists quietly acknowledge that some self-censorship will undoubtedly occur regarding news stories that could be used by the “enemy” against the Cuban people." That means "If we write what we want, we risk going to jail". You need to realize that this is written by somebody who was the Cuban governments official invitee, and he during his whole time on Cuba never saw or talked to anybody except those who the Cuban government wanted him to see and talk to. But even them acknowledge that there's no press freedom. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they acknowledge that they freely choose to censor themselves. There is indeed freedom of the press in Cuba, and finding hidden meanings between the lines won't change the fact that this is a valid source. You would think that a site specializing in documenting censored news would know whether or not their sources are being censored. Jackal Killer (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not freely choose to censor yourself as a journalist. They choose to censor themselves because they know they risk prison. That's not reading between the lines. The source is not independent or reliable, but that is not important, as it does not actually contradict anything in this article, except in the title. And you probably need to learn that not everything is what it claims to be. I have a very hard time to find any censored news on that site. And the subtitle is "unreported" which is something completely different than "censored". Apparently the great "censored" news is that Obama is a "capitalist tool". --OpenFuture (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Telesur's Cuban broadcasts not mentioned
God, what an incredibly badly-written article. (Quote boxes should be banned by default, I think, and only permitted when consensus in favour is demonstrated by an RFC!!) Anyway, I came here to note that the tragic irony of Telesur's Cuban broadcasts isn't mentioned here: see Telesur. --Rd232 talk 17:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
Check out WP:NOTRELIABLE "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include, but are not limited to, websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion." Committee to Protect Journalists falls under that definition. Not least because it is promotional in nature - they say that about themselves. So Im removing the work sourced by Committee to Protect Journalists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcst1 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There were two items related to the CPJ that were deleted, the first as "removing opinion" and the second as "cpj unreliable source":
 * The Committee to Protect Journalists ranks Cuba as the world's fourth worst place for bloggers, stating that "only government officials and people with links to the Communist Party have Web access" and "only pro-government bloggers can post their material on domestic sites that can be easily accessed".
 * Cuba was named one of the ten most censored countries in the world by the Committee to Protect Journalists.


 * Three other references that use CPJ as a source remain.


 * The first item seems OK to me. The CPJ is being used as a source for its ranking of Cuba "as the world's fourth worst place for bloggers". The second item is similar. Again the CPJ is being used as a source for its ranking of Cuba as "one of the ten most censored countries in the world". Identifying reliable sources allows this: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". Both items seem to be appropriately qualified. It seems reasonable to me to include the "opinion" of an organization such as the CPJ in the context of an article on censorship in a particular country. It would probably be good to rewrite the CPJ content a bit to bring the two items together.


 * I won't rewrite and restore this content for a few days to give others a chance to comment. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ I reworded these two items a bit and restored them to a different section of the article (not the lead) together with an additional reference. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Have removed : Miniskirts and artists such as Beatles were banned as examples of "decadent capitalist culture". the link is broken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcst1 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ I found a valid URL for this ref and so restored the associated text. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This link doesnt work : - removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcst1 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a good URL for this: http://www.friendsofcubanlibraries.org/Recent%20News%202.htm#Library%20books%20burned%20by%20court%20order --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The reference to the regime ordering copies of the UN declaration on human rights to be burned is not supported by reference to any order from the Cuban Governement only to second hand unreliable accounts. WND and http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y00/mar00/10e12.htm are NOT reliable sources. Lets see the actual edict from the Cuban Government. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to repeat or endorse unverified claims by bloggers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcst1 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what makes WND or CubaNet/CubaNews unreliable. They don't appear to be blogs. I'm going to rewrite and restore the deleted content about book burning and the UN declaration on Human Rights using what are hopefully better refs. If we can find a copy of the "order from the Cuban Governement" that would be fine with me, but I don't think it can be a requirement. It would after all be a primary source and primary sources are somewhat discouraged and certainly not required within Wikipedia when good secondary sources are available. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ I finished rewriting and restoring the previously deleted text. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jeff You don't think it's a requirement that some copy of an edict from the authority that actually issues edicts(in this case to to burn books) is found. There's hardly any difference between that position and 'it's not a requirement for the edict to exist' Only the Cuban Government (or an arm of the Cuban Government) can issue an order or edict or law. Other people saying this or that law exists may or may not be true. And that isn't good enough, I'm sure you'd agree. But why not go to the source? If there is such a law or Order passed by the Cuban Government (at whatever level, doesnt have to National ) then I'd be very interested to see it. But an account by a blogger or pressure group that is promotional in nature (yes that would include friends of Cuban libraries) falls outside WP:RS. It's just an anecdote that attributes some order as coming from the Cuban Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcst1 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Or to put it more succinctly if you cannot find it, its reasonable to assume it doesn't exist. And if after having looked without finding it we still report that the Cuban Government issued such an Order that would be dishonest of us. Hmcst1 (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. I am hoping that other editors will add their thoughts here.


 * Note that this section of the article has been rewritten to more closely follow the sources and it no longer includes the statement "The regime has ordered copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights burned or otherwise destroyed." There really isn't anything in this section of the article that talks about an order or edict or law related to this incident. There may be no order or edict or law, but that does not mean that the books and pamphlets weren't destroyed or that the inclusion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights pamphlets in the shipment wasn't the motivation for the destruction of the books. The focus of this item is now more on the burning of the books and less about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither of the supporting citations for the story about burying or burning Universal Declaration of Human Rights stand up. The first http://listserv.oclc.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9912&L=publib&D=1&F=P&P=17100  is a link to an email list, the second http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y00/mar00/10e12.htm  is a broken link to CubaNet Hmcst1 (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I found a good URL to replace the broken one mentioned above. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

There may be no order or edict or law, but that does not mean that the books and pamphlets weren't destroyed. Quite right. But the article is about Censorship in Cuba and you are placing this incident in that context. We don't know who destroyed the shipment, nor their motives, and there is no evidence that any legal stricture at any level compelled it to occur. Hmcst1 (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The second reference does say who destroyed the shipment: "Under the direction of the Cerro municipal government, known as Poder Popular ("People's Power"), city workers carried out orders to burn some of the library books, while others were buried under the agency's parking lot ..." and "the incoming shipment of Spanish books was confiscated at the port of Havana while being inspected by the Ministry of the Interior. Two State Security officers in civilian clothes, commanded by a Major Sanchez, hauled the books to the municipal warehouse in Cerro, where they were soon destroyed."

Well, in the absence of any response I'm going to remove the story about the UNDHR pamphlets being destroyed in three days. Hmcst1 (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think the paragraph in question should be deleted. It is sourced. I think you should wait to get some explicit support for deletion from other editors and we reach a consensus here about what should be done before you take drastic action on your own. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I've asked WP:RSN the opinion there is that a listserv cant be used as a reliable source ' people submit all kinds of crap to them.', it is being cited here http://listserv.oclc.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9912&L=publib&D=1&F=P&P=17100, they suggest you might be able to click through and find something better, but as it stands the claim about burying UNDHR docs is not supported reliably. Hmcst1 (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Censorship in Cuba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151007025235/http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2002,297.html to http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2002,297.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Censorship in Cuba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2002%2C297.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303221407/http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport_gb_md_1.pdf to http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport_gb_md_1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150420202447/http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=35F97388-4384-4DAA-A0EF-D6D398A0A975 to http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=35F97388-4384-4DAA-A0EF-D6D398A0A975

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is due for an update
Any article about sensitive political issues inherently reflects a snapshot in time of dynamic processes. This article needs to have updated sources and updated content; a lot has changed in Cuba with regard to access to mobile phones, media (including digital media, DVDs, computers, etc), and the internet since it was first written. From recent personal experience I can verify that mobile phone ownership among Cuban citizens is no longer rare (it is basically routine for anyone who has access to hard currency), and internet access is no longer highly regulated for citizens although it remains expensive (and therefore not accessible to everyone). Aloysiussnuffleupagus (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutral point of View
This article needs a rewrite from a neutral point of view.

One major issue is that the article fails to clarify what is past Cuban government policy and the present (i.e. access to the internet and cell phones is nearly ubiquitious in Cuba today). Jmbranum (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * BoriquaZurdo Not to be too pedantic, but "Cuba first made it possible to get internet on cellphones two years ago, and now four million people can get online that way. A total of seven million Cubans — about two-thirds of the population — have some kind of access to the web, government data shows." Source is New York Times… And 2/3 = 66% and … "Ubiquitous" = "present, appearing, or found everywhere"... just sayin' :-) --BoriquaZurdo (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Very fair point. --Jmbranum (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)