Talk:Yoani Sánchez/Archive 2

Who really is Yoani Sanchez?
For those wishing to explore a vision of Yoani Sanchez from leftist intellectuals:

1 - www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=104205

2 - www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2012/01/30/quien-es-yoani-sanchez/

3 - www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2012/02/05/la-traduccion-como-fraude-de-como-se-fabrica-el-mito-de-yoani-sanchez/

4 - http://www.ecured.cu/index.php/Yoani_S%C3%A1nchez  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.156.110 (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved content
Moving this content here for now. It doesn't seem to have a place in the article right now. Possibly, it could be added later.(olive (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

''Communist officials intervened when she planned to attend a cyber-workshop. ''

Reference

BBC challenge to veracity of claims
The BBC article states "No tiene hematomas, marcas o cicatrices a la vista pero afirmó que eso se debe a la habilidad de los captores para golpear, a los que describió como "gente entrenada en la violencia"" or "She has no visible bruises, marks or scars but she said that this is due to the skills of her captors in carrying out beatings. She described them as "people trained in violence"".

Later they ask the question "¿Le dejaron alguna marca en el cuerpo?" - "Are there any marks on your body?" to which she replies "Tengo varias marcas, en las nalgas sobre todo, lamentablemente no puedo mostrarlas. Durante todo el fin de semana tuve inflamado el pómulo y la ceja. Y sobre todo tengo mucho dolor en la zona lumbar. Perdí mucho pelo pero en esta abundante cabellera no se nota." or "I have several marks, on the buttocks mainly, which unfortunately I can't show you. For the whole weekend my eyebrow and cheek bone were swollen. Above all I have a lot of pain in the lumbar region. I lost a lot of hair but with this thick hair it is not noticeable."

One may draw the conclusion that this is not credible but this is not stated in the article, unless I've missed something in another passage (in which case set me straight). They ask questions about puzzling aspects of her account but there is no explicit challenge to the veracity of her account. By all means cite material but don't express an interpretation that, although arguably reasonable, is not drawn in the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. But the article should make it clear that the bbc reporter expected, but didn't find any signs of violence. Also, there's an article by Frei Betto where, if I remember correctly, he more directly challenges her allegations. Would you be ok with mentioning this? This episode was not without controversies, and I believe the article should notice that. --Damiens .rf 18:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, would one of you, with better writing skills than me, incorporate something about the following piece of investigative journalism made by Peruvian newspaper La Republica. They interviews the three doctors that helped Ms. Sánchez moments after the alleged attack:
 * As the title implies, the doctors testimony also cast doubts over Ms. Sánchez story. --Damiens .rf 19:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As the title implies, the doctors testimony also cast doubts over Ms. Sánchez story. --Damiens .rf 19:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding "the article should make it clear that the bbc reporter expected, but didn't find any signs of violence". This may be a reasonable conclusion drawn from them asking the question "Are there any marks on your body?" but, as far as I can see, there is no explicit statement of this in the article. I'm too busy to re-read the article right now and my Spanish isn't bad but isn't fluent so please point out anything relevant I may have missed. Those reading the article can draw their own conclusion perfectly well and it detracts from the credibility of the passage if we misrepresent citations by "clarifying" them without basis. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ...oh, and that La Republica isn't the Peruvian national daily but a Spanish web site. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you be ok with adding the Doctor's interview by La Republica? --Damiens .rf 15:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I'm missing seeing a link on the page but I see only a very short article and no interview. Is there more? The text is:


 * La bloguera cubana denuncia haber sufrido una agresión de la que no tiene evidencias


 * LA REPÚBLICA desmonta las mentiras de Yoani Sánchez: los médicos que la atendieron no encontraron lesiones en su cuerpo


 * El periódico La República quiso conocer la opinión profesional de los tres médicos que la atendieron, cuando acudió acompañada de sus familiares y apoyándose en una muleta, un día después de los supuestos hechos que ella denuncia, al policlínico universitario 19 de Abril, centro de referencia nacional.

or


 * The Cuban blogger claims to have suffered an attack, of which there is no evidence


 * La República dismantles the lies of Yoani Sanchez: the doctors who treated her found no injuries on her body


 * The newspaper La República wanted to know the professional opinion of the three doctors who treated her when she came, accompanied by her family and leaning on a crutch, one day after the alleged deeds which she denounced, to the university clinic on the 19th April, a national reference centre.


 * The rest is a forum for members of the public, thus not a WP:RS.


 * Do you have any information about this La Republica and it's notability or otherwise? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Leading section's tone
The overall tone of the leading section is problematic, because it states almost everything Ms. Sánchez says in her blog as facts. Her blog is obvious a reliable source, and a valid primary source, for mentioning her ideas. But the article should be written in a way that makes it always obvious that what is being said is just Ms. Sáchez account, and not verifiable facts.

For instance, I find problematic passages like:


 * "Sanchez's university education left her with two understandings; first, ..." - These is not a verifiable fact. This is just how she rethinks her life.
 * "Sánchez, disillusioned with her home country, left Cuba for Switzerland in 2002..." - How do we verify that this was her real motivation? The text should make it clear that this is just her current account of the facts.

Would someone here volunteer to modify that, or I should tag the passages to raise attention to readers? --Damiens .rf 19:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The source clearly indicates whose account this is. That 's what the sources are for. So, I don't see an issue with any of text above, and there's no reason to in-line attribute. Attribution would be used if the content was an opinion or contentious. The section is for the most part simply biographical data.  As well,  these self published sources are appropriate per WP:SELFPUB. And Damien, this article was carefully scrutinized by an uninvolved editor and found to be of GA status so please take that into your considerations when looking at this article. Thanks.(olive (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC))


 * We can't state what she says as facts just because we're using proper references. The text should more clearly attribute the account to her. Some of the passages are self-serving. There are interests involved on this story. This lady has built a character that has already granted her more than half a million dollars. Wikipedia should not be part of her agenda. --Damiens .rf 15:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I see you've reverted. I only revert once. There is no basis for your tag or its reversion. You might want to revert it yourself.(olive (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC))


 * Please, address my point above. --Damiens .rf 18:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which point do you mean? I did address your points, but let me know if I've missed something. I can add, we are citing content from a source. They are facts according to the sources. As editors we aren't in the business of deciding whether something is a fact or not but just factual per a source. Sanchez herself is the definitive source for what she thinks of her life, and what her motivations are. That's as accurate as we can get. Whether any of us questions her motivation is anohter story which has no place in an encyclopedia, merely a collecting place for sourced information,  but not for opinions of its editors. I hope that helps.  (olive (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC))
 * If Paul Mccartney states on his blog "I believe my musical talent comes from the fact that I was a trained Martian saxophonist in my previous life", an Wikipedia article about him should state "Paul Mccartney believes his musical talent comes from..." and not "Paul Mccartney is musically gifted due to his previous life experiences[1].".
 * Yes, I'm taking my point to the limit, but that's just to make an understandable analogy. It's not enough that we source it. The text must make it clear that what's being said is someone's account. --Damiens .rf 19:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Your analogy is extreme and in that case possibly an inline citation might be appropriate. When stating the simple aspects of a life, a source is sufficient to inform the reader of where the text came from.(olive (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC))

POV tags
Damien you've tagged content as POV that is sourced and is relatively uncontentious. Why?(olive (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Here's what I've tagged:
 * "The magazine continues to be published today as a forum for free expression from the island"
 * Calling the magazine "a forum for free expression" is marking language. The magazine, like any other, publishes only those things that the editors want to. And it's reading public is almost non-existent in Cuba. There are valid forums for free expression across Cuba, from public squares to universities. The problem is that U.S. and most of Europe media only considers valid free expression opinions against their international political adversaries.
 * "Sánchez participated in the "Debate of the Intellectuals", a discussion among intellectuals and writers on Cuba’s repressive cultural policies..."
 * It's clear to me that this description of the event they called "Debate of the Intellectuals" is unduly self-serving. Also, the description implies the existence of "repressive cultural policies" in Cuba.

olive, would you help me in rewording these passages in a more neutral and factual fasshion? Thanks, --Damiens .rf 15:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I will look at this more closely, but would like more editor input before I agree to change anything. I'll get to this later today or tomorrow.(olive (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC))


 * Olive, per your request to look at sources:


 * If the source you wanted me to check was Penúltimos Días, it's a very long article so I may have missed something. I don't know anything about the publication and this may have a bearing, though there is a biog of the author in English at the foot of the article.


 * I couldn't see a description of Consenso as "a forum for free expression" but it is described as "la revista de reflexión y debate" or "the magazine/journal of reflection and debate".


 * The same source says:


 * "En enero-febrero de 2007 Sánchez participó en la llamada “polémica intelectual”, el primer debate a profundidad entre intelectuales y escritores cubanos sobre las políticas culturales represivas de los años 70 —el llamado “quinquenio gris”— que se desarrolló casi completamente por correo electrónico. Respondiendo al (in)fausto discurso Palabras a los intelectuales pronunciado por Fidel Castro en el año 1961, Reinaldo Escobar, pareja de Sánchez y también un participante en la polémica, la bautizó como “palabras de los intelectuales”"


 * or


 * "In January/February 2007 Sanchez participated in the so-called "intellectual debate", the first in depth debate between Cuban intellectuals and writers on the repressive cultural policies of the seventies - the so-called "five grey years" - which was carried out almost completely by e-mail. Responding to the (in)famous speech Words to the intellectuals made by Fidel Castro in 1961, Reinaldo Escobar, Sanchez' partner also a participant in the debate, christened it Words of the intellectuals". Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you guys be ok with me removing the "forum for free expression" passage and adding "so called" to "intellectual debate" to properly reflect what's on the sources? --Damiens .rf 18:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to be very careful about using "so-called" per WP:WTW.  If the event called itself that, we'd need to follow thier description to start out with.  If there are other reliable sources that also refer to it as an 'intellecutal debate", then we'd need to follow the sources and leave out "so-called".  If the only source available does indeed say "so-called" then perhaps re-writing the entire sentence to reflect that the source says "so-called" would be justified.  Bottom line: Is that what it was actually called or not?    Dreadstar  ☥  18:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But what is really a problem is how the article parrots a description of the event that is completely non-neutral: "a discussion among intellectuals and writers on Cuba’s repressive cultural policies". Could we substitute it for something more factual? --Damiens .rf 19:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to follow the sources and what they say. "What do they say," is my question...  Dreadstar  ☥  19:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * After looking at this closer, I think we can comfortably change it to: 'In January–February 2007, Sánchez participated in the "Debate of the Intellectuals", an event described as a "discussion among intellectuals and writers on Cuba’s repressive cultural policies."'  Dreadstar  ☥  19:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that the phrase "el llamado" is most accurately translated as "the so-called". Whether the intention is "commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named" is another matter but the source says it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What about this, in an effort to not use a direct quote, and per this source . "In January–February 2007, Sánchez participated in an event referred to as the "debate of the intellectuals", described as a "discussion among intellectuals and writers on Cuba’s repressive cultural policies." The source references the content I added to Dreadstar's version of course, not the second quote. (olive (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC))
 * I would only add ".. described by its creators as a "discussion among...", to let it clear who describes it that way (it would be weasel wording other wise: "...described as a...").
 * Also, let's make sure to use capital letters on "Debate of the Intellectuals", to let it clear it's a name, not a description of what it really was. --Damiens .rf 21:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the changes, but have a bit of a problem with "by its creators," I'm not sure we can say that since others have called it that too. Do we have sources for how its detractors and critics described it?  Dreadstar  ☥  22:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can support the changes Damiens is suggesting. Using caps is a grammatical issue. We don't capitalize unless the thing we are naming is a proper name/noun, which 'debate of the intellectuals' is not at least according to the sources we have. The term does seem to be used as a descriptor describing the event rather than a formal name for the event. I could go either way on that though, caps or no caps is fine, I guess. Multiple sources use the term, "debate of the intellectuals" and discuss what it means so we can say, "a discussion among intellectuals..." rather than my too wordy "described as a discussion among intellectuals...", and that solves the weasel wording problem too. "By its creator" is a given, and who those creators are is evidnet from the multiple sources. So I'd see the sentence looking like this:(olive (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

"In January–February 2007, Sánchez participated in an event referred to as the "debate of the intellectuals", a "discussion among intellectuals and writers on Cuba’s repressive cultural policies."
 * Makes sense. It's clearly in quotes, so I think it covers all the neutrality concerns as well as any grammatical and presentation issues. Good compromise.  Dreadstar  ☥  19:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * When I suggested the capitalization, I was under the impression that "Debate of the Intellectuals" was a proper name. I'll have to re-check the references. I fully agree with you that we shouldn't capitalize it unless it has been consistently done by others before.
 * About the phrasing you suggest, I love the "...participated in an event referred to as the "debate of the intellectuals..."", but I do have a problem with the passage "a "discussion among intellectuals and writers on Cuba’s repressive cultural policies."", since, besides the quotation and italization, seems to imitate without thought or understanding the non-neutral characterization of it's participants as "intellectuals".
 * Yes, I do understand that "intellectual" is an inherently non-neutral adjective to assign someone with. And maybe it's the source of all evil here.--Damiens .rf 19:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A very articulate comment... but "Intellectual" is repeatedly sourced. We are simply referencing the sources with out expressing opinion.(olive (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC))
 * It's not news that sources may be non-neutral. It's our duty as editors to avoid parroting their opinions. Many reliable sources will use adjectives as influent politician, hollywood-star or super-model. But still, we, as Wikipedian editors, will stick to the facts. --Damiens .rf 19:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the fact is that reliable sources have referred to the event as a "debate of the intellectuals," describing it as a "discussion among intellectuals and writers on Cuba’s repressive cultural policies." or an "in depth debate between Cuban intellectuals and writers on the repressive cultural policies of the seventies", so we must follow the sources. Do you have any sources that say otherwise?  Dreadstar  ☥  20:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me add that there are no neturality issues with the use of Intellectual in this case, it's not a value judgment, but instead the name or designation of a group of people. Dreadstar  ☥  21:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't have a problem with the name of the event including "Intellectuals". I just object using Wikipedia to call its participants intellectuals. --Damiens .rf 16:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We're using Wikipedia to cite sources that call the participants intellectuals. And that term is used in multiple sources. Our job is to cite the sources, and that's all.(olive (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Again, reliable sources call the participants Intellectuals and Writers. We need to follow that.  Do you have sources that call them something else?  Dreadstar  ☥  18:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My whole point is that we shouldn't repeat inherently non-neutral adjectives from sources. --Damiens .rf 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not, they're actually called Intellectuals and Writers. They're not adjectives, they're nouns.  Dreadstar  ☥  18:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict "Intellectual" isn't an adjective, and it is repeated in multiple sources. Some, maybe all, sources are opinion based. If Wikipedia were a collection of research papers we could argue for or against certain opinions, terms, adjectives. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is by definition a compilation of topics/subjects either, depending on your view point, that are supported by sources or based on sources, and that means we cite content per what's in the source  even if it is "adjectives". We have to get the sense of the source, and that definitely means noting the slant or opinion the source has or takes. There is no suggestion that the source is "right ". Its just a piece of information reported faithfully per the source by the editors.(olive (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC))

Too much trust on her words
Sometimes this article seems to just get the subject's word as truth.

As a simple example taken from the lead, what reliable source is supposed to support a sentence like:


 * "Sánchez, disillusioned with her home country, left Cuba for Switzerland in 2002"

How in the word are we entitle to state the reasons that lead this woman to leave her country?

Yes, I do understand that this is attributed to her blog, but is that enough? Considering the international politics of Cuba (and its influence on Cuban Visa grantings), isn't this excessively-self-serving information to we depend upon? --damiens.rf 03:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The Lead section is a summary of the article, and under the biography section it goes into more detail about why she left including the phrase "In 2002, claiming disillusionment with her home country, Sánchez decided to leave Cuba and emigrated to Switzerland", (emphasis is mine). I'm fine with the lead giving just a short summary of that section without it having to contain unnecessary qualifiers such as "claimed" or "according to Sanchez" or "Sanchez says".  Those just clutter up the lead and add nothing.  Same goes for all the other tags you inappropriately added, all per WP:LEAD including its length.  Dreadstar  ☥  05:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You just admitted the lead contains text that would not be acceptable in the article's text. This article is a shame and I don't have the guts to fight it anymore. Have it your way. --damiens.rf 23:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think the qualifer is needed in the body either. Dreadstar  ☥  00:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Havanna Real
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. There are some very good sources (below) which describe the book so I'll add a paragraph on the book within a few days.(olive (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC))

Bloomsburg Business Week

New York Times

Washington Post

Publisher's Weekly

Library Journal

Obama letter
Shouldn't the article mention that Wikileaks revealed that Obama never wrote that latter, and that it was just a propaganda operation by the U.S. interests in Havana? --damiens.rf 16:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's take a look at the sources? Maybe post a link  here so all editors interested can assess them.(olive (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC))


 * I looked but don't see that Wikileaks has published anything that says Obama didn't write the letter. I'd be grateful if you could post the link here. Thanks.(olive (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC))


 * They leaked the very letter from an officer from Havana's U.S. interests where he penned down much of the Obama's answers. The kind of thing that, if done by Cuba's government, would put Ms. Sánchez supporters as "Look, more lies from the the Castro's bloody dynasty...". But since it was something from the U.S., it's acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damiens.rf (talk • contribs) 12:36, 18 April 2012 UTC


 * I spent a fair amount of time looking for the alleged Wikileaks information you're talking about. Unless you can show editors here the reliable source for your claim such content cannot be added to an article and especially a BLP. (olive (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC))


 * You're either a liar or just plainly incompetent. You just have to search for the only Cuban cable mentioning "Yoani" and ta-da: 09HAVANA527, QUESTIONS FROM YOANI SANCHEZ TO POTUS. --damiens.rf 17:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A quick note since I'm rushing. I'll look at this more in depth later. Thanks. And you might consider being civil.(olive (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC))

What I see on the Wikileaks site is a draft version of answers to Sanchez, an introduction to the answers written by Obama and nothing that says any of it is fake. We'd need a source that says the "letter " was fake and I don't see that. A draft version as far as I can tell simply means something was drafted for the president to look at and use if he thought it was appropriate, but I'm guessing on that too. Its all WP:OR.(olive (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC))
 * The draft is pretty much exactly what was published as being Obama's word.
 * Also, the leaked cable makes it clear she confessed to have never really sent any questions to President Raul Castro, but our article, again just take her lies as facts and states "''The day after she received the unexpected answers from President Obama, Sanchez drafted seven questions for President Castro that she left with the council of state, supreme governing body for Cuba.--damiens.rf 15:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Our article is based on sources. I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. She drafted questions for Castro. She never confessed to any thing and the cable doesn't say that, as far as I can see. Maybe I'm missing something. Could you point out where she says she confessed to something.(olive (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC))


 * Damiens, I don't see anything in your source that shows the letter was a fake, and the source you provide is a Primary Source to boot. Find some reliable secondary sources to back your proposed content.  Dreadstar  ☥   05:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Damiens, you do not own section headings per WP:TPO, your inflammatory section heading will not stand. Prove your point through reliable sources and not edit warring.  Dreadstar  ☥   02:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
Damiens. Everything I added to the section on Sanchez's books is in the sources on those books, and which I downplayed by the way, to make sure I was in the most neutral way, presenting those sources. I do have more to add. I am concerned about your removal of such content. Maybe reread the sources. For example, the five sources I've cited are very positive about the book Hanvana Real, while she as a writer was praised buy a Nobel Laureate. If you have concerns I suggest you discuss here rather than remove RS content.(olive (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC))
 * "...the five sources I've cited are very positive about the book" - That is the problem. --damiens.rf 15:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I took the most notable of the sources with no sense of whether they would be positive or negative. None of the sources I looked at and I looked at more than I cited had negative comments. Until you can bring sources that are reliable and not positive to the books you have no reason to complain about what's here in the article now. They represent the mainstream view on these books. Your intent to remove or disparage the sources based on nothing but opinion is a distinct POV problem which I beginning to concern me. (olive (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC))


 * Headings may be edited by anyone, and should be especially when they  can mislead those who may come to the discussion. We have no sources so far that show anything is fake.(olive (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC))

Tag
Damiens, You tagged this article and yet made zero effort to present Reliable Sources that present any other viewpoint. Nor have I seen any. Unless you or someone else does with in a few days, the tag should be removed (olive (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC))
 * This is not how tagging works and you know that. The tag will stay to warn readers and to encourage editors to do a better research job than the one you did. Stop action as if you own the article. --damiens.rf 16:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Damiens. I am concerned about your incivility, accusations, and POV pushing. Tagging is a legitimate request for content and sources, however you are complaining about the lack of negative sources but have done nothing about it. And you have made your POV obvious. I don't own this article but as an editor I have a responsibility to keep it neutral as best I can. So far you have lobbed complaints and insults but done nothing to correct anything. If you have content based on reliable sources please post them per their weight in the mainstream. (olive (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC))


 * "Cherry picking" implies "ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position", which I don't see. Damiens, please provide some 'negative reviews' to show any NPOV issues. Right now, your tag just looks like a WP:POVPUSH.  Dreadstar  ☥   05:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks
As discussed in the above section, the content proposed by this edit is problematic for several reasons. First, the source is an attack opinion piece and does not meet the threshold of Biographies of living persons policy, and even if it did, it presents WP:UNDUE weight. Since this is a BLP, please discuss this on the talk page instead of trying to revert war it into place. Dreadstar ☥   21:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * An "attack opinion" is your subjective opinion. What it is objectively is an analysis of easily verifiable statements appearing on the wikileaked embassy cable, an analysis by a widely published journalist and professor at a major research institution. The edit may require further editing but not total deletion.--Huysmanii (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing this. I've read the Wikileak embassy cable and it does not seem to say what the added content claims.  The source being used for this content is an obvious opinion piece no matter who wrote it, and it attacks the veracity of Sanchez; and I cannot agree that it is an objective analysis - the source makes a number of subjective statements that seem to speculate beyond the actual facts.  WP:BLP's require very high quality sources, and I'm usure if this source meets that threshold.  Dreadstar  ☥   22:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have major concerns with this source and content as well. Does a leaked document have oversight qualifying it as a RS or is it a primary source? And the content must directly reflect what the source is saying which isn't the case here. Until editors reach agreement on whether this is appropriate BLP content and sourcing, it should be removed.(olive (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC))

My reading of the wikileaks cables coincides with Lamrani's, especially as regards the similarities between draft and final response, and also as regards the very clearly worded comment in said cable indicating that Sanchez never sent President Castro her questions. In any case, you have been unable to provide post-wikileak citable material indicating that Prof. Lamrani's analysis, an analysis published widely in serious international publications, is preponderantly invalid. Therefore I remain unpersuaded by your opposition.--Huysmanii (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well first, there are very reliable sources, including in The Wall Street Journal that back Sanchez's version of events. Secondly, I don't have to provide "post-wikileak citable material", the Burden of proof is with the editor wishing to add the material, which in this case is you.  Do you have any high quality, reliable secondary sources that are not obvious attack-opinion pieces?  Dreadstar  ☥   22:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the leaked cables are not being used as a citable source, a published analysis of said cables is, one published in the French equivalent of the National Review or New Republic. You've provided no postwikileak document contradicting Lamrani's analysis.--Huysmanii (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was, I'm saying that I don't see in there where it says Sanchez didn't send questions to the "council of state, supreme governing body for Cuba". And as I said, I don't need to provide a postwikileak document contradicting Lamrani's 'analysis'.  I'm saying that the so-called analysis is a thinly veiled attack opinion piece that does not meet the WP:RS threshold for inclusion in a WP:BLP...and the piece is full of inaccuracies, e.g. that she can't send twitter via SMS, that's false.  I have concerns about the source you're using; can you find other high-quality, reliable sources that would meet WP:BLP requirements?  If so, please present them here and do not continue edit warring.  Dreadstar  ☥   22:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words cite another source that discusses Sanchez, her interview of President Obama, within the context of her mention in the leaked cables, in a way that contradicts Lamrani's analyses, it could serve as a counterweight to his claims or even make this edit invalid.--Huysmanii (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this twice above, the onus is on you to provide a reliable, high-quality source and I do not believe the one you've presented meets that bar. And, attempts to find contrary sources as you indicate may well violate yet another policy, Original research.  Dreadstar  ☥   22:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I obviously dispute the claim that the source is not high quality, indeed Prof. Lamrani has personally interviewed Sanchez in Havana, in other words he was received by her and is clearly expert in the topic (http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=104205), the onus remains with you to legitimately undo a well sourced good faith edit. He also has many scholarly books on Latin America and has been published by such mainstream American sources as the Huffingtonpost [|Huysmanii] (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I cited concerns with the leaked documents, not Dreadstar.


 * An article that may or may not have good oversight, based on leaked documents that also, may or may not have oversight, may or may not be  accurate on multiple levels. That's a concern.  Huysmanii, Wikipedia articles aren't debates.  You must add content that is directly supported by an impeccable,  reliable source, impeccable because this is a BLP. No one has to provide counter arguments or content to prove anything. Just simplify and use content that is R Sourced. If Lamrani 's position is not a singular one and fringe to the mainstream position on this incident, there will be other articles on this topic. Lastly: First, two of three editors question the source you are citing. Second, if this is a mainstream view cite a better source. If you can't find another source its probably not a mainstream view,  but a fringe view and likely doesn't belong anyway, Either way we need a better source, per consensus, or, per mainstream view (olive (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC))

I again obviously disagree, Le Monde Diplomatique is in no way a fringe source and a doctorate from the Sorbonne imposes certain professional, academic standards of scholarly comportment, these two factors alone give sufficient authoritative weight to the source, the fact that he has personally interviewed Sanchez and been published by the Huffington Post of course only add to his authoritative standing.--Huysmanii (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but an obvious opinion piece that attacks the subject of the article does not meet WP:BLP. Please find a sutiable source per WP:BLP, [{WP:V]] and WP:RS; if this is such a significant and widespread point of view, then finding a high-quality suitable resource should present no problem.  Dreadstar  ☥   00:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Put another way: Yoani Sanchez is mentioned in the leaked cables, her interview of Obama is mentioned, her questions for Raul Castro are mentioned. An expert, with a Ph.d in Latin American politics from the Sorbonne, analyzes the cables; his analysis is published in one of the most prestigious left-of-center publications in the world, Le Monde Diplomatique; in addition, said scholar has also personally interviewed Sanchez and dialogued with her in a serious, substantive and respectful manner; he has also been published in at least one mainstream, mass audience US publication; Antony Loewenstein, as well as other writers, have cited him, with the latter describing Lamrani as a "leading writer on US-Cuba relations;" also Salim Lamrani is used as an authoritative source in various other wikipedia articles pertaining to Cuba, including the article Cuba. Conclusion: source is neither fringe nor an attack piece, but a studied analysis of documents that shed light on Sanchez's interactions with the US Havana Interests Section (something clearly of encyclopedic interest) INDEED THE BARE FACT THAT SHE WAS INTERACTING WITH US INTERESTS SECTION IS OF ENCYCLOPEDIC INTEREST.--Huysmanii (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The credentials of the author do not determine whether a source or content is fringe in nature. What is being suggested here is that Lamrani's view on the Sanchez/Obama questions is the only view of that nature as far as I can tell. This means the view is fringe to the main stream published views on this incident. Per WP:Fringe if mentioned at all a fringe view must not be equal in weight to mainstream views. Lamrani is a lecturer at a prestigious university and has published several books. This does give gives him some credibility. So despite the fact that he his writing is clearly an anti US point of view, I think it would be fine with the right source to include a sentence or two on his view while in line attributing the view to him. Any thoughts or comments?(olive (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC))
 * I can agree with that, Olive. I've also been reviewing Lamrani's work and I agree that while he has an anti-US stance and does not seem to represent the mainstream view, with his credentials and publications, we can perhaps add a sentence or two (at most) describing his analysis and opinions.  Why don't we start working on a draft here on the talk page?  Dreadstar  ☥   04:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Draft for Lamrani analysis
I've moved this content here pending the ongoing discussion. Maybe we could look at it together given this is contentious (olive (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC))


 * Draft A

As has been noted by Professor Salim Lamrani of Paris-Sorbonne University, Yoani Sánchez is mentioned in several leaked US embassy cables, including cable 09HAVANA527 (QUESTIONS FROM YOANI SANCHEZ TO POTUS) and 09HAVANA695 (BLOGGER THRILLED WITH POTUS RESPONSE TO HER Q&AS). The cables indicate that Sánchez was in direct and coordinated contact with the United States Interests Section in Havana, and had given personnel of that section not only her questions for President Obama, but the corresponding set of questions for President Raúl Castro as well. Professor Lamrani points out that, according to cable 09HAVANA695, Sánchez did not expect a reply from President Castro because she had not sent him his corresponding set of questions.

Lamrani's thesis of the existence of close collaboration between Yoani Sánchez and U.S. governmental interests is seconded by Professor Umberto Mazzei, Director of the Institute of International Economic Relations in Geneva, who notes that Sánchez was originally hired to write articles for BBG-funded media by Daniel Gabriel, a former CIA agent and media expert, through his company Applied Memetics; Mazzei notes that Sánchez's blogging is an outgrowth of this original collaboration.

Professor NELSON P. VALDÉS, Director of the Cuba-L Project at the University of New Mexico, notes that the bandwidth and administrative costs and logistics associated with the upkeep of a blog, such as Yoanni Sánchez's, that is the recipient of upwards of a million visits a month, makes the existence of such an enterprise in Cuba a miraculous, Fatima-like occurrence, all but necessitating outside aid and financing, such as the kind provided by USAID's Cuba Program to "independent journalists."

Behavior discussion
No further edit warring has been promised, hatting section. Dreadstar ☥   21:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC) sure, what's so contentious? I'm not edit warring these are facts or authoritative comments.--Huysmanii (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Even being right is no excuse for edit warring, and if your recent block hasn't proven it to you and you keep edit warring, then I assure you, you will be blockeed again. I highly recommend that you limit your edits to this talk page and find consensus.  Dreadstar  ☥   20:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

i'm not edit warring these are new additions. take a deep breath and focus on the texts i'm citing.--Huysmanii (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the same thing you were edit warring in when you were blocked; coming right back after your block expired and warring it in again can get you blocked immediately. I haven't reported you again, but if you continue, I will.  Dreadstar  ☥   20:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

you can't report me because i'm not warring, secondly i'm citing a source that mentions that she was mentioned in the leaked cables. this is a fact. also the new analysis by the new mexico u professor. --Huysmanii (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, since you're not going to edit war any further, I'll hat this off-topic discussion on behavior and then we can all discuss the content and sources you and Olive are proposing to add to the article. Dreadstar ☥   21:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

so let's begin...--Huysmanii (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Removed hat when Huysmanii continued to edit war after the above discussion.  Dreadstar  ☥   23:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Draft A discussion
I'm new to this debate, but on an initial look at the above draft, I think that three paragraphs is a bit too much. I'd want to avoid WP:UNDUE weight. I think that the phrasing is better and more encyclopedic in tone than some of the early edits, and there are more sources, though I'd like to see online URLs in the cites so that they can more easily be reviewed. I think that the content can be summarized down to one paragraph that states, in essence WHO has the concern, WHAT the concern is, but eliminates phrases such as "Fatima-like." The basic concern is that the primary author cited has a clear pro-Castro POV that has to be made evident; a review of his works indicates that he writes almost exclusively from a pro-Cuba or pro-Venezuala perspective with a strong anti-US slant. Thus, his works must NOT be analyzed in a WP:SYNTH manner that implies that he is in some way a neutral source. I'd like to see the above draft tightened up a bit more before commenting further. Montanabw (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think three paragraphs are too much, given the very few sources we have, and I'd say one is too much, too, but I'd be happy to compromise on that and would support one strong paragraph. You make some great points on how to approach this content... and thanks so much for joining in the discussion.(olive (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC))


 * I've decided to ask for input on the El Atlas source before looking further at content.(olive (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC))

Draft B
Feel free to edit or redo/ not attached.(olive (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC))

''Salim Lamrani says that according to information leaked to Wiki leaks, Cuban president Raul Castro did not receive questions from Saanchez as Obama had. Lamrani hypothesizes that Sanchez is backed by the US with connections to US diplomats in Cuba, and alleges that the answers to Sanchez's questions were not answered by President Obama  but by a US Mission member in Havana.''

Discussion or changes

I doubt that Lamrani can be considered a reliable and reputable source by Wikipedia standards, especially on matters concerning Yoani Sánchez. She has publicly complained about his editing of the interview she granted him as highly manipulative. According to her, he did not give her a chance to correct or counter his report on her statements. In fact, her well-known reactions are not published or reflected by any of the countless media that published Lamrani's version. He was asked (commentary 1) to publish his audio recordings of the interview to dispel the claims of the interviewee that her statements were quoted out of context or manipulated. He never replied and never made the slightest effort to counter these devestating allegations. For any journalist or academic, manipulating an interview in order to use it against your interviewee constitutes a highly direputable conduct. José Varela, a prominent pro-Castro propagandist exile in Miami, who had earlier conducted a similar interview with Sánchez by phone aimed at using it against her, admitted in his blog (after falling out with his Cuban Interior Ministry sponsors) that his own interview was edited at Cuban State Security in Havana while he was there and that the same was true for Lamrani's interview in which also some questions were extended after the fact in order to make her look ignorant and foolish. After they had been quoted by various prominent anti-Castro voices, Varela later removed these statements from his blog, but apart from the Wayback-Machine-archived page there are more of Varela's insights of how the anti-Yoani workshop was operating quoted here (again only in Spanish). Lamrani took three full months to publish the interview after conducting it with Yoani Sánchez. IMHO for legitimate criticism of Sánchez to be included in her WP article it should exclusively be referenced to reputable sources, not Lamrani or people quoting his dubious and unethical 'investigative journalism'. Hvd69 (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have been concerned about the source for many reasons from the beginning as have several of the other editors posting here. The issue is that the source (publication) is generally considered to be reliable while the source (author) has a clear pro Castro anti US agenda and is probably not reliable for the content as you point out above. It seems to me we have two options, one, to post the content  with rebuttal content, and two, to leave the content (draft above) out altogether. I tend to be hyper conservative on BLPs especially with fringe to the mainstream content so would leave it out, but will wait for other editors to weigh in and will go with the consensus.(olive (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC))


 * I'm of mixed feelings. On one hand, I really have no problem leaving it all out.  However, if it's a beast that won't die, then there may be a good argument for about two or three sentences that summarize Lamrani and others' critiques but then also add the rebuttal that points out the things Hvd69 has noted above.  I could support consensus in either direction, and an NPOV position can be supported either way (tell it all or tell none of it).   Montanabw (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's try not to confound legitimate critique on the one side with hate speech and character assassination on the other. WP should not (in the name of openness) fall in the trap of actually helping to spread the latter. Lamrani clearly is'nt in the critique business. Hvd69 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I also know that, to make an analogy, we can't deny things like holocaust denial by denying that denial exists. It's the "is this the beast that will not die, so we might as well address it" determination.   I guess my question is whether the article is enhanced by explaining who criticizes her, and what has been done in response.  I'm thinking something along the lines of "person BLP has been attacked by persons X, Y and Z, who claim [assorted bad things].  However, persons X, Y, and Z, have been [debunked, disputed, discredited or whatever] by A, B, and C."


 * I wonder if this discussion boils down to fringe content. Attacks on Sanchez outside of pro Castro supporters seems minimal. and in fact I haven't seen any other RSs on the Obama- questions situation that does attack her. This means Lamrani is the only attack on this issue? Given his reputation maybe we have to ask ourselves why does this single, heavily-biased author have any word time in an encyclopedia article?  Not sure what the answer is. I'll look through some other sources.(olive (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC))
 * I think you nailed that it's a WP:FRINGE issue, the question is how fringe? Is it more NPOV to include it or not?  Montanabw (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we definitely want to follow WP:NPOV where it says we need to represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". I'm not sure how significant Lamrani's POV is, I'd be more comfortable if we had high-quality secondary sources independent of Sanchez and Lamrani that talk about Lamrani's views in a neutral way.  I'm not really finding any like that.  Perhaps we should take the question of how much, if any, of Lamrani's comments we should include in this article, to the WP:NPOV/N noticeboard - provide them a few sample sources and see what other uninvolved editors think.  Dreadstar  ☥   23:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think a Notice Board is a next good stop. we're playing on a neutrality line and content could fall on either side of that line. I haven't seen any high quality sources independent of either Lamrani or Sanchez either that would be a clear indication of what we should do so I agree, maybe we need more eyes on this.(olive (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC))

Funding discussion
So were also discussing the source that discusses the mystery of her blog funding sources?--Huysmanii (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

More to Sanchez?
I shall have to return to this discussion later, but there is clearly more to blogger Yoanni Sanchez than is indicated in the article so far, especially as regards her funding sources, her interactions with US officials, and her general ability to keep and administrate a blog in a harsh internet environment such as Cuba's, these are questions deserving mention in the article, especially since transparency in journalistic funding and neutrality is considered a sine qua non of the profession.--Huysmanii (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to present sources that are more than just the propaganda mouthpieces for the Castro government.  Montanabw (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Obama lifted donation limitations on Cubans, anyone can send money to Cubans (dissidents or otherwise). I don't have a link handy. In any event, the Cuban bloggers very likely get direct donations to recharge their phones, probably from Cuban exiles primarily, if there was evidence of CIA or USAID donations I think she'd risk going to jail. Regardless the entire "Blogging Blind" section of this article is a disgrace to Wikipedia standards. 76.0.239.61 (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Yoani Sánchez. 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/20090322154828/http://www.kaosenlared.net/noticia/entrevista-manuel-david-orrio-rosario-agente-miguel-seguridad-estado-c to http://www.kaosenlared.net/noticia/entrevista-manuel-david-orrio-rosario-agente-miguel-seguridad-estado-c
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gatopardo.com/numero-97/cronicas-y-reportajes/los-10-personajes-de-2008.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120116082802/http://www.freemedia.at/awards/world-press-freedom-heroes to http://www.freemedia.at/awards/world-press-freedom-heroes/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/03/157710.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702194227/http://libweb.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/aids/llosa/ to http://www.fp-es.org/los-10-intelectuales-iberoamericanos-mas-influyentes-2012

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) 16:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)