Talk:United States embargo against Cuba

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abloom18. Peer reviewers: Elaineclare, Make2018.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Economic Impacts of the U.S. Embargo on Cuba
The Economic Impacts of the U.S. embargo on Cuba are the monetary long-term and short-term outcomes that the embargo has had on both countries in relation to trade, industry, and the creation of wealth. The U.S. sanctions on Cuba and their economic impacts can be traced since the beginning of the embargo's implementation up until present time.[1]

According to the United States Chamber of Commerce, the embargo is currently costing the United States economy $1.2 billion per year. The Cuba Policy Foundation (CPF) estimates the current cost of the embargo to be valued at $4.84 billion per year for the United States while costing Cuba $685 million per year.[2] As of today, Cuba is estimated to have lost over $28.6 billion in trade according to Cuba's Institute of Economic Research.[3] The U.S. International Trade Commission estimated that U.S. exporters lose $1.2 billion annually because of the inability to access Cuban markets.[4] Abloom18 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good use of links to reputable sources to show where you're finding this economic data. Katherine.Holt (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just added a section of the Economic impacts of the Embargo. Still a work in progress. Let me know what you think! Abloom18 (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

So far it looks good! I think that some wording can be moved around. It really does add to the page and the information is interesting and important in understanding the full impact of the embargo. Make2018 (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)make2018

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States embargo against 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/20130228222444/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR25/007/2009/en/51469f8b-73f8-47a2-a5bd-f839adf50488/amr250072009eng.pdf to https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR25/007/2009/en/51469f8b-73f8-47a2-a5bd-f839adf50488/amr250072009eng.pdf

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) 08:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Economist consensus deleted without discussion. Revert
I reverted the deletion of this paragraph. The paragraph concerns a poll amongst economists and is thus a reliable source. It has been deleted for not providing a reliable source. Don't engage in edit wars but provide reasons why this paragraph should be deleted or kept.

In 2012, an economic panel of experts from the Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, were asked whether they agree or disagree that "Cuba's low per-capita income growth — 1.2 percent per year since 1960 —has more to do with Cuba's own economic policies than with the U.S. embargo on trade and tourism." The poll found that 49% of economic experts "strongly agree" with the statement, another 49% "agree", 1% were "uncertain", and 0% "disagree" or "strongly disagree" with the statement. Mikeschaerer (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not the author who deleted this source, but following review of it, I also recommend we remove it. This appears to have been a mail-out type poll that we should not rely on for a subject where we have many more robust sources available.
 * For example, here is the logic of one of the “polled” economists who said “agree”: “Seems likely, but I know nothing concrete about the Cuban economy.”
 * These sorts of gut reactions are not encyclopedically meaningful. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What other robust sources clarify the question whether internal economic policies or the embargo is to blame for the stagnation of economic growth in Cuba?
 * Also the economist you pointed out seems to be the only one which is on the fence. Most are likely or decisive about their judgment, when qualifying. As long as there is no other evidence available I would favor keeping this passage. Mikeschaerer (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yaffe's recent book is good on this. And we have some sources already in the article on the financial impact of the embargo.
 * My point is not that the economist was equivocal, but that an economist's admitted "know[ing] nothing concrete about the Cuban economy" was not an obstacle to participating. Even sillier as this is one of the "Agree" that internal policies are the cause responses. This is not encyclopedic. What was the basis for which economists were canvassed, if it could include ones not familiar with the Cuban economy? JArthur1984 (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose you mean "We are Cuba" by Yaffe. Can you point to passages which clarify to what extent internal policies or the embargo are responsible for the stagnation of economic growth in Cuba? Re your second concern. Why should concrete knowledge about the economy prevent an economist from making an assessment of said economy? Most economists favor free markets and no trade restrictions thus his assessment could just reflect what has been demonstrated to work for the majority of countries. Why should it be different with Cuba? Re canvassed: I couldn't find information regarding the selection criteria and I did not receive an answer regarding the methodology. On the other hand most economists are from reputable institutions. --Mikeschaerer (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the text. No, I've lent mine out so cannot cite recommend passages.
 * A lack of concrete knowledge should usually prevent someone from opining on a topic. Regardless, it ought to be clear that a lack of concrete knowledge suggests the weakness of the source from an encyclopedic standpoint and an issue of undue weight in the way it is used in this article.
 * Some of your other comments are not correct, but also not particularly germane to the editing question.
 * I'll be deleting the challenged material now. Per WP:ONUS, the burden falls on the proponent to build consensus for inclusion. It is a shame that you and I were the only participants in this discussion, although an IP address had deleted this previously stating that it was not sufficiently reliable. My issue is more one of undue undue weight given the weakness of the source.
 * Think this over and, if you continue to feel it should be included, we can ask for a WP:3O to obtain another view. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see this link for a copy of the book by Yaffee. https://valleysunderground.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/helen-yaffe-we-are-cuba_-how-a-revolutionary-people-have-survived-in-a-post-soviet-world-2019-yale-university-press-libgen.lc_.pdf
 * First of all it is one economist and not the whole source. You're basically arguing that since one economist dared to give an opinion on the subject although not being an expert on Cuba the whole poll is worthless. This reasoning is flawed. Second you mention that my comments are not correct but you do not explain how. If you read your comments earlier that "What was the basis for which economists were canvassed," was exactly what I tried to elucidate by contacting the authors. How can this be incorrect. The fact that these economist are from reputable institutions is also not irrelevant. If you believe it is, explain why. Lastly, Yaffe is not an economist, but an economic historian. To summarize you have a poll of actual economists vs. an expert opinion of an economic historian. In the hierarchy of evidence the latter is (far) below the former. Thanks for the suggestion to include a third opinion, which is what I will do. --Mikeschaerer (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s good. I like 3O as a way to solve disagreements about content. It’s a non-binding process but I am happy to accept the result. We have had the kind of collegial and evidence based discussion that would simply benefit from a third perspective.
 * I only mean to say the claim that most economists favor “free markets” would not be correct, at least as the term “free markets” is often used. Of course nearly all economists would favor some sort of role for markets and most would favor a major role for markets. I didn’t want to get to far into a disagreement about matters that don’t affect the edit in question however. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time and for helping us avoid deadlock on this issue. JArthur1984 (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

No source for Kennedy presidency, paragraph 4
There is no proof for an expansion of the embargo on September 7. In the Library of Congress, no newspaper ever mentions it (refer to Nome Nugget and Washington Evening Star). Neither of the attached documents has anything about an embargo on 7 September either. I've never edited a Wikipedia article before so I'm only bringing it up on the talk page as I'm not sure how to edit the article itself. Sources I checked (no mention of 7 September embargo in either): https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/888b1a6acc282f122ec52b60c61bce99/Cuban-Missile-Crisis-1962-1.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1962-pt15/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1962-pt15-3-1.pdf Zachary64 (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)