Talk:2021 Cuban protests/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

End of protests

According to several sources now, the protests are now finished. See 1 and 2. Once the article is unlocked, this should be reflected in the infobox. BeŻet (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Who vandalized the infobox? It had previously indicated that that the protests ended on 14 July, which is what reliable sources indicate, but someone vandalized it and changed it to present. Style of thunder (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

There's no indication that the protests have ended. Ajñavidya (talk)

Per wikipedia policy, you would need to cite a reliable source indicating that the protests are ongoing. None of the people making these edits have been able to do so, which is why we describe their behavior as vandalism. Hope this helps.Style of thunder (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Style of thunder please narrow your definition of "vandalism", especially in relation to likely new users. WP:Don't bite the newbies. Vandalism means a deliberate intent to damage. It does not include policy-ignorant or otherwise misguided attempts to help. It is overwhelmingly likely that anyone editing the infobox to a plausible (but-unsourced) value genuinely believed they were helping. Such edits should be politely corrected with an educational explanation. Even willful policy violation is "disruptive" rather than "vandalism", if the person genuinely believes the info is true or beneficial. Alsee (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The protests were forcibly "finished" by the government crackdown. Government-trained forces inflicted real pain on protesters (several were shot and beaten), hundreds were arrested, internet and cell phone service were cut (to prevent photos/videos from reaching the world, and disrupt communications between protesters (very typical of totalitarian governments). See: "Cuba to Prosecute People Detained During Recent Protests". WSJ. July 20, 2021. TocororoWings (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like the USA to me! BeŻet (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF. TocororoWings (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There haven't been protests in weeks, it's ridiculous that these are still listed as ongoing.Zellfire999 (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible solutions and wording for both RfCs

I have written this yesterday, and before this was added, but I agree with S Marshall ("I would see a rough consensus despite well-argued dissent", I can live with that and I really appreciate it, especially because some users acted like our dissident means nothing or is not even worth considering). I agree with the rest of your comment, so I hope this will help.

Preface

Both RfCs should have been worded better, or at least their participants should have considered it, to reflect something other than blank yes or no, like "yes to add the link to authoritarianism but use a very short semi-sentence to better reflect the diversity in sources' wording", "no to use 'authoritarianism' but yes to a context-minded semi-sentence", "yes to mention the embargo but attribute it to the Cuban government as the main cause", "no to mention the embargo unless it is properly attributed to the Cuban government", or "yes to mention sanctions as exacerbating the economic cause", and things like that. Sources can support both, they cannot be used to support only one, as many users have done.

My personal favoured solution would be to either keep the infobox as it is, per this and S Marshall's argument and BSMRD's, and add the embargo per Jr8825 proving the strongest and better arguments in adding both. But I can live with adding 'authoritarianism' with the right solution and wording, which is what this thread will try to find.

Introduction

Jr8825, when you wrote "some solutions", I expected actual solutions. My solution is to add both 'authoritarianism' and the 'embargo' (yes, both); let's be honest, it would be a clear double standard in adding only the former because the "per sources" argument can be used to support addition (I never opposed additions of both, I just prefer semi-sentences with context over one-word labels, no matter how accurate), which may well boil down to the fact that providing context that explain the protests without reducing it to authoritarianism is somehow taking the side of the Cuban government. Justifications such as the embargo not being a real cause (several reliable sources do clearly list it as a cause) do not hold up in light of the fact we are proposing it to be attributed to the Cuban government (as major reliable sources do, which make it due and notable, as much as the same arguments used to add 'authoritarianism'), and because many sources clearly listed sanctions as exacerbating the economy, which is a real cause and provide context, and may only state that of course it is not just that (they also mention inefficiencies and the pandemic) and disagree on how much it exacerbated it. Minority views, as may be at worst in this case, ≠ no mention at all.

I applaude Jr8825 because they are the one who engaged the other side with the most respect and at least they are consistent. But where do we stop, where do we draw the line? Authoritarianism? Embargo? Power outages? Why the former and not the latter, even though Mathglot provided many sources in support of the latter, even as to highlight exactly this point. Because if the RfC closer is going to state that there is consensus to add 'Authoritarianism' per sources, as I expect them to do, I would hope the same would be done for other causes, such as power outages, as the argument in support of 'authoritarianism' would be "per sources", which would apply to other causes, such as power outages. Let's be consistent at least. My proposed solutions are to either not add neither and pretty much leave intact the current infobox, or we add both with the appropriate wording.

Proposed solutions

A proposed wording for the latter would be:

Lack of civil liberties (freedom of assembly and political freedom) (current version)

Authoritarianism (one-party rule and lack of civil liberties), Authoritarianism (one-party rule and lack of political freedom), Authoritarianism (whatever you suggest to add to reflect what reliable sources actually say and provide some context) (addition)

If we are going to add 'authoritarianism', we should also provide the context the same sources give, mentioning the one-party rule and lack of civil liberties such as freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and lack of political freedom. It is not even an actual, full sentence, is short enough, and as far as I know there is no policy against this.

Economic contraction, exacerbated by inefficiencies, the pandemic, and lack of promised reforms (current version)

Economic contraction, exacerbated by inefficiencies, the pandemic, and tighter sanctions (addition)

I am also unsure that given ref (NBC News) actually support what we have now because my reading is not that lack of reforms necessarily exacerbated the crisis but that reforms were promised and did not materialize (also in light of the pandemic, as the government's rule have been described as very strict and were initially praised, even if at the expense of the economy according to NBC News), and thus is more relevant at the government response, or lack thereof, as in this case.

United States embargo against Cuba (main cause according to the government) (addition)

"There are two points RS frequently make about sanctions as a cause of the protests: Most importantly 1) they have contributed to the shortages which are the most direct cause of the protests, although they are not the single most important factor and the extent is disputed. 2), the Cuban government is claiming they are the only real cause, that this is the Cuban government line about the cause is notable because it is shaping the government's oppressive response." —Jr8825

I do not know whether they support my specific wording but that is a good summary of what sources say, and the argument that the embargo is not really a cause does not answer none of those quoted points. Nor does the argument that somehow this is lacking in sourcing, which is untrue, per Jr8825's sourcing, which is better than that of authoritarianism because sources are not ambiguous and state exactly what Jr8825 summarize in above quote. That the protests are not really about the embargo is made irrelevant by the fact sources give enough weight to that to discuss it and that sanctions made things worse, and only the extent is disputed. It also provide context to the actual economic cause, and even as the government has since admitted some of its leaders' faulting, it mantains that as the main cause, and is notable because "it is shaping the government's oppressive response."

"The embargo against Cuba ... is the oldest and most comprehensive US economic sanctions regime against any country in the world. It comprises a complex patchwork of laws and presidential determinations imposed over half a century that Fidel Castro once called 'a tangled ball of yarn.' ... Presidents have tightned or relaxed it to suit their own strategies—some seeking to overthrow or punish the Cuban regime with economic pressure, others seeking to improve relations by resorting to soft power rather than hard. The impact of US sanctions has also varied, at times inflicting serious harm on the Cuban economy and at other times being merely an expensive annoyance. But the embargo has never been effective at achieving its principal purpose: forcing Cuba's revolutionary regime out of power or bending it to Washington's will." —William M. LeoGrande

This was in Winter 2015, four years before the sanctions were tightened, written by an expert on Latin America and published in an academic journal (Social Research), not Cuban propaganda. And do you still think none of this (the embargo, sanctions, as I proposed above) is worth mentioning, in light of sanctions exacerbating the crisis (whether by much or little) and its goal of either "forcing Cuba's revolutionary regime out of power or bending it to Washington's will", the former being advocated by some Cuban exiles and which is relevant in light of proposed military intervention by some abroad Cubans as we state at Goals (so surely this is relevant for context?), even if of course the main causes are other? The embargo is almost as old as the authoritarian regime itself. While the latter was an indirect cause of the protests (the main causes are shortages, the pandemic, and the economy), the former is still worth mentioning for context in light of the aforementioned reasons, just like authoritarianism can be.

Economic contraction, exacerbated by inefficiencies, the pandemic, and lack of promised reforms (current version)

Government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, curbs on civil liberties, and lack of promised reforms (moved)

Moved as we add 'tighter sanctions' per above.

End of authoritarian one-party Communist rule

End of Communist rule (shorten)

If we already mention at Causes 'authoritarianism' and 'one-party rule', this can be shortened.

End

All of this may be made irrelevant by scholarly analysis in the future, which will be the time when we will be able to better summarize the causes and remove those undue or add those more due, but for the time being I see nothing wrong in providing semi-sentences with some context over one-word labels.

TLDR but seriously read it, even little by little, Jr8825 provided the strongest arguments in both RfCs and is right; both should be added and we should simply discuss how to do that, how to word it, what to change, etc. Any other solution and/or proposed wording is welcome. Davide King (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that, if authoritarianism is added to the causes in the infobox —which is the consensus— along with lack of civil liberties, then the current goal End of authoritarian one-party Communist rule should be shortened to End of one-party Communist rule to avoid redundancy. About your comment:

I applaude Jr8825 because they are the one who engaged the other side with the most respect and at least they are consistent. But where do we stop, where do we draw the line? Authoritarianism? Embargo? Power outages? Why the former and not the latter, even though Mathglot provided many sources in support of the latter, even as to highlight exactly this point.

I already commented that question when Mathglot posed it: [1] [2] [3]. I will try to resume what I commented there (although I think you read me since you replied to me then): in the first place, power outages is cited by most sources to be related to the protests in San Antonio de los Baños, but not other places across Cuba (despite power outages are reported to occur all along the island nation). Power outages could also be considered covered by more general causes, such as the economic causes already mentioned in the infobox, that is, Economic contraction [etc.]. Even so, if enough sources cite power outages as a cause of the protest, I would consider it enough relevant to be included in the infobox; but this seems not to be the case. Now, about the Embargo, it's actually very disputed among sources; some of them citing it as a cause of the protests, but many other sources explicitly contradicting this (see [4]). Finally, about your suggestion to merge Economic contraction, exacerbated by inefficiencies, the pandemic, and lack of promised reforms into Government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, curbs on civil liberties, and lack of promised reforms; I would discard that and leave it as it currently is. Why? Because Economic contraction, exacerbated by inefficiencies, the pandemic, and lack of promised reforms already merges economic causes, including the unavoidable consequences of the pandemic; whereas Government response to the COVID-19 pandemic and curbs on civil liberties covers COVID-19 measures and its non-economic consequences (such as curbs on civil liberties). There's a clear difference between both, and I think that the current wording is quite adequate. Ajñavidya (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. If that is the standard, power outrages can be added because there are just as many sources about it, and perhaps social media 3G opening as well; I may disagree that one is or either are due but if that is the standard, I favour consistency. As for the embargo, I think you made a little confusion; what is mainly disputed is the embargo as a cause, which is why we attribute it to the government. The sanctions addition is due because they are mentioned in their summaries of the protests. The BBC describes it as an contextual factor, even if indirect (Cuba is in the midst of an economic crisis and has been hit hard by US sanctions and Covid). The Guardian includes it alongside shortages and social media ([protests are] supercharged by shortages, social media and sanctions). As for lack of reforms, I am not sure it is about economic causes, and whether given ref actually says that lack of promised reforms exacerbated the economic contraction rather than as a cause in itself, as it says "Why has Cuba exploded in protests? It goes beyond the U.S. embargo and the pandemic." The results of the 2019 constitutional referendum (the promised political, economic, etc. reforms) could not be fully put in practice due to the pandemic, hence why I find it to be more relevant to the government cause, But this is not a big deal and it could go either way. Davide King (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

As I have explained many times already, U.S: Embargo is explicitly disputed between sources. I don't think that including information "according to the government" is useful in the infobox either, since the government is what's being protested against in the first place; so it shouldn't be given undue weight because the government isn't an authority on what motivates the protests (imagine we include what the government says are the causes, we'd need to include things like the protests are being paid by the CIA and so on). By the other hand, power outages are cited as a cause of protest in San Antonio de los Baños specifically, but not in the rest of the country. Ajñavidya (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Gentlemen: I'm going to prevent myself from acting as the closer of this discussion by intervening here. Please do not do this. The preceding two RFCs contain plenty of participation by both of you. After only a couple of weeks of RfCs, adding a 1,500 word proposal to the bottom is incredibly rude.
  The essence of the encyclopaedist's role is to summarize. We present complex and nuanced matters in brief and clear language. Please try to display this skill. In RfCs, one of the greatest courtesies is succinctness.
  Ajñavidya: As of right now you are the only person who is able to distinguish "authoritarianism" from "lack of civil liberties". There is no prospect of your proposal passing unless other independent people show up to agree with you on that point.
  I would request, as a courtesy to the poor closer who is going to have to read all of this and evaluate it, that you desist from proposing alternatives until the two RfCs that have already been started, are closed. This is likely to be several weeks in the future. Thank you.—S Marshall T/C 15:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Cuba Decide

Is the Cuba Decide death count estimate actually WP:DUE? The claim only seems to have been taken up by ABC who, while not strictly unreliable, are certainly a highly biased source in this area. Cuba Decide themselves seem to be a fairly obscure NGO . Every other RS seems to be using the 1 death number. I just wonder if this might be an undue inflation (even if attributed) of the death count. BSMRD (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Cuba Decide is useful as a source because it can contrast the reports by the Ministry of Interior of Cuba, which is a government institution and isn't a reliable source in this conflict; very unreliable specially considering that many sources denounce control of information by the Cuban government. Sources from other NGOs are also welcomed. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Cuba Decide is an obscure, US-funded group (NED & USAID), that presented an "estimate" without going into too much detail. It really isn't WP:DUE in the lead because it isn't a reliable source. BeŻet (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Even if this was true, if we include Cuban Ministry of Interior we must also include alternative sources, because Cuban government is not a reliable source. Ajñavidya (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Says who? Do we not trust any government now? BeŻet (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The government is involved in the conflict and it is accused of manipulating and censoring information by many sources. I think that absolutely justifies taking any declaration by the government under WP:QUESTIONABLE. Ajñavidya (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

then any US declaration on the matter should be taken the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.154.178 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

This is how Cuba Decide describes itself:

• We have not had free elections for almost 70 years in Cuba. Too many generations have been deprived of their rights.
• It’s time to put an end to a tyranny ...
• we have the right to choose in which system we prefer to live and because we want to change the failed system that the regime has imposed all these years.

Burrobert (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

So far it hasn't been explained into detail why the NGO is obscure and unreliable. It is directed by María Payá Acevedo, daughter of Oswaldo Payá, and it has been quoted by reliable sources such as ABC. At any rate, it is an important reference to balance state numbers. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

you can find why in: [5] , by Tracey Eaton, an award-winning journalist and former Fulbright scholar with sources like: [6] . Or look at [7] , or [8] , or [9] , and : [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , and [14] , and on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.154.178 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

also, on the funding of artists and dissident by USAID and NED: [15] by Max Blumenthal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.154.178 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there any better source for "rioting"?

The current source for including rioting as a method of protest is from a news article that shows a photo of a rolled over police patrol, but the riot event is never addressed in the text. Since WP:ORIGINAL doesn't allow to extrapolate conclusions —even when they're "obvious"—, please, whoever knows a better source for "rioting" already in the article, re-cite; or add new ones. Ajñavidya (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I read a few sources mentioning rioting and rock throwing, toppling of cars, so will try to collect them and put them there. BeŻet (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be appreciated. Ajñavidya (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

There are several photos and videos of the violent people throwing stones at the police, overturning vehicles and looting. Some examples: [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.38 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Government held rally in Havana

I have been somewhat involved with this article recently. I recently came across a Reuters article saying that the Cuban government organized a pro-government rally. It appears to have happened on July 17. I am wondering if everyone here thinks this should be added into the article as it seems to be a rather significant event regarding the protests.

Here is a good link to my article. Thank you, --Skim 00:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Reuters is a reliable source. You can add it. Just make sure to write an accurate description of what the news article reports. Ajñavidya (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me some advice before I do this. I'll try to word it in the best way possible. --Skim 00:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

more links you can use [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.38 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Citing for Goals and Causes

A lot of the citations for the goals and causes are taking testimony from Cuban Americans or foreign policy opinions from American politicians. How much weight are we giving to people not actually directly involved in the protests in regard to their goals? The claim that a goal is "End of authoritarian one-party Communist rule" especially seems ridiculously overstated. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It's what the RS say. Plenty of quote selections gathered by editors to show this in the discussion sections of the RfC. Jr8825 • Talk 11:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand there is an ongoing RfC and Wikipedia is about reporting on verifiable blatant propaganda content rather than an elusive concept of truth, I’m just saying beyond whether or not we include these goals or causes it really is best to err on the side of caution of what we report without attribution for an article with significant traffic on a heavily politicized event. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Mainstream left-leaning sources like The Guardian have reported that the protesters want an end to one-party Communist rule. If that's US-centric/capitalist "blatant propaganda", maybe we should be relying on Pravda for a source of Marxist truth? Jr8825 • Talk 19:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This is quite frankly so completely out of touch with what I’m trying to say that I don’t have a proper response for it. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paragon Deku: I apologise if I misunderstood what you were saying, I was responding with your comments about the goal of ending "authoritarian one-party Communist rule" being "ridiculously overstated" and "Wikipedia is about reporting on verifiable blatant propaganda" in mind, but perhaps I read too much into them and was consequently too severe. Sorry if this was the case. I presume your concern is solely about Cuban Americans being given too much weight then? If so, I think this is still addressed by a lot of the sources above, a number of which directly quote Cubans involved in the protests as saying they wanted regime change (both the BBC and The Guardian have articles that come to mind). Jr8825 • Talk 21:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you please link the BBC and The Guardian saying that? They would be better than only The Wall Street Journal, as we currently have. Davide King (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Davide King: sure, the Guardian quote is included in Talk:2021 Cuban protests#Jr sourcing 2, the BBC article is included in the sources I gathered at Talk:2021 Cuban protests#Jr sourcing, but I was quoting it to demonstrate sourcing about the impact of sanctions; the quote on regime change is: "Protesters shouted "freedom" and "down with the dictatorship" in demonstrations across Cuba, including the capital Havana. "We are not afraid. We want change, we do not want any more dictatorship," an unnamed protester in San Antonio told the BBC. Dozens of anti-government protesters were arrested by security forces who were assisted by plain clothes officers, Reuters news agency reports. Images on social media showed what appeared to be security forces detaining, beating and pepper-spraying some of the protesters. Jr8825 • Talk 22:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to add, my understanding from the context is that San Antonio is San Antonio de los Baños, not the Texan city. France24 had a similar story. Jr8825 • Talk 22:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Personally, I always prefer that protesters themselves have their voice, express their goals, etc. but for Wikipedia is a quote like that enough? Like, I do not doubt that protesters feel that way but do we have a direct quote like "The protests, with thousands of people calling for an end to the 62-year-old communist regime, began Sunday" (The Wall Street Journal)? Or is enough that reliable sources quote some protesters or chants? Anyway, CBS News has a direct quote ("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."), so I am going to use this.

As for that France24 source, it says "Public 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." That is why I prefer adding 'authoritarian' to Goals rather than Causes because sources seem to include mainly shortages, the pandemic, the economy, and sanctions as causes and calling for the end to Cuba's authoritarian regime as one of the goals, or at least that is how I interpreted it; it is not that I deny there is a link but that most sources I have read are like that, have a sentence about listing the causes (usually the shortages, pandemic, and economy), and authoritarianism is discussed more as a goal ("demanding the end of the authoritarian regime", "call for an end to the authoritarian Communist regimes", etc.), which is why the protests have not been described as "anti-authoritarian" but as "anti-government."

I just thought about it by reading that source, I read sources as referring to that more as a goal, so I hope this further clarified my reasoning for that. Maybe I am too strict in following sources. Anyway, I would be fine with 'authoritarianism', if we can also add the sources' actual wording, such as one-party rule, lack of civil liberties, etc. Davide King (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It's completely understandable why there's more sources on Cuban protesting abroad than in Cuba; in a country where government has a tight control on information and the press it is totally expectable that people don't have the same means to express their views and opinions as someone outside the country. But even considering that, there's plenty of quotations and reports from the protests in Cuba itself, compiled by many reliable sources — speaking of which, notice that most information showed in the article is from reliable sources, so stating that «"End of authoritarian one-party Communist rule" especially seems ridiculously overstated» is completely out-of-place. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

More information has been appearing on the beginnings and promotion of the protests, starting with the town of San Antonio, even revealed by anti-government websites with external financing, such as "El Estornudo" or "Diario de Cuba". The action of groups on the networks has also been shown, and the use of the #SOScuba hastgag to distort, create fakes and promote proposals. Check this: [25], [26] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.154.178 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Where is this page heading?

Recent additions for 10 August and 17 August seem to have little to do with protests. The first relates to the COVID-19 pandemic and the second to the introduction of a new law. Is this the appropriate article for those items? Burrobert (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

it seems an editor with agenda, even trying to push speculation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.8 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC on United States embargo against Cuba as a cause of the protests

Should "United States embargo against Cuba" be listed as a cause of the protests in the infobox? TocororoWings (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes [edit to add: Yes, even by attributing to the Cuban government as cause or main cause (according to the Cuban government) per this and this in-depth August 2021 (not any news article in the middle of the protests which may suffer from recentism) analysis by Reuters, which mentions the embargo and sanctions.
  
  To quote Jr8825 (brakets are my additions), "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]."
  
  ... the embargo is one of the causes according to sources, and the only disagreement among them is with the government's original claim that everything had to do with the embargo, rather than government mismanagement, or that shortages, the COVID-19 pandemic, government mismanagement, and lack of its promised reforms played a bigger role, not that the embargo did not play a role at all or is not negatively affecting Cubans, just like Trump-era sanctions, alongside government mismanagement, which is not the same thing as 'authoritarianism', exacerbated the crisis. The embargo is almost as long-lasting as the authoritarian regime itself, and independent studies, such as the American Association for World Health (of all countries), The Lancet, and the United Nations, among others, show the negative impact it has had on Cubans; it does not mean at all is the only cause, and no neutral observer would say so, but acting as it has had no impact, including on the protests, is disingenuous. I believe the article's wording of "[t]he economic crises emerged from a combination of factors, including reduced financial support (subsidized fuel) from Cuba's ally Venezuela, the United States embargo against Cuba and United States sanctions (tightened by the Trump administration in 2019), and the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, which hit the industry of tourism in Cuba and led to a decrease in remittances from Cubans abroad", as well as currency reform, sanctions, economic inefficiencies, and a lack of economic reforms, is a pretty accurate and neutral explanation, and reflects reliable sources.
  
  Al Jazeera stated that "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." NBC News, which mentions Trump-era tightening of sanctions, does not say the embargo has no impact, only that "is not solely to blame for Cuba’s woes." It then quotes Pavel Vidal, a former Cuban central bank economist who teaches at Javeriana University in Colombia, as saying: "Reforms in Cuba do not depend on the embargo, and the embargo should be eliminated unilaterally, independently from reforms in Cuba. Both cause problems. ... The U.S. embargo does have a negative impact on the economy, restricting imports and exports and making it riskier for investors to put money into Cuba, Vidal said. But at the same time, Cuba has not heeded the advice of China and Vietnam in adopting economic reforms." The issue is not authoritarianism but lack of economic reforms, and the embargo is still part of the problem.
  
  The sources are there, and "per sources" has been used to justified the addition of 'authoritarianism.' I support the addition of the former but not the latter because 'authoritarianism' is not explicitly listed as cause, only that the government is authoritarian, which makes it an original research and synthesis issue in my view. Therefore, I see no contradiction in supporting one addition and not the other, nor should this be used to attack me, even if you think my reasoning is 'wrong.' I am arguing based on good faith and my own rational analysis and reading of sources, which you are free to disagree with, while respecting me, just like I respect yours, even as we disagree with each other. Always passionate but with respect reciproc. Davide King (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC) [edited to add] Davide King (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per Davide King. If there's sources saying it's a cause, then it deserves inclusion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, because the embargo was clearly mentioned as a both major contributor to the crisis that triggered the protests, and at least partially as a cause for protests (as bolded by the above editors) by many of the RS used in the article. That's my argument from a policy point of view. I also generally agree with that statement from a socioeconomic point of view and have laid out my arguments in favour of this in the above sections of this talk page. Goodposts (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• No The "embargo is the cause of the protest" is a talking point of Díaz-Canel/ the Cuban government. Firstly, sources disagree over the impact of the embargo on the Cuban economy, but that's not what is important right now. The question is whether the embargo caused the current protests. So far, the only source for this is the Al Jazeera article, which is a more or less a biased source. In reference, to the authoritarianism RfC, the OP is correct that they are sources that don't list authoritarianism as the cause of the protests. However, that doesn't mean authoritarianism is not a cause. Are there any sources that disagree authoritarianism is a cause? In other words, are there any sources that state: "authoritarianism is not the cause of the protests"? If the are such sources, then authoritarianism should not be included in the infobox per WP:NPOV and both sides should be presented in the body. There are, however, plenty of sources that state: "the embargo is not the cause of the protests" and practically all sources attribute "the embargo is a cause of the protests" to Díaz-Canel/ the Cuban government. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

   Comment: That is not true. I have provided sources, and many more above about 'authoritarianism', which either list the embargo as a cause, or only disagree with it being the main cause or Cuba's woe as claimed by the government, as showed even by most sources you provided below, not that is not having any effect or is not worth or due to add. So apparently, 'authoritarianism', which is based on the fact it is a 50+ authoritarian regime is enough but a 50+ embargo apparently is not. Just because sources do not disagree with 'authoritarianism' as a cause, it does not mean they support it either, if the many sources which do not list 'authoritarianism' but shortages, the pandemic, the embargo etc., it means 'authoritarianism' is undue. You are also completely wrong about Al Jazeera. According to our perennial source table, "Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Al Jazeera's news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy." The only mention of 'biased' is in reference to the Arabic-language-media, when I provided Al Jazeera English. Also the generally reliable Al Jazeera English, with no mention of 'bias' (the only mention is in regard to Al Jazeera Arabic and in reference to Israel and Palestine), is 'biased' but all the American and Floridian newspapers and news channels (those are the sources used to support 'authoritarianism', apart from The Independent, the only source I find to be supporting 'authoritarianism' as cause), which may have a conflict of interest in light of relations between Cuba and the United States but can still be used in the body (the infobox is for key facts), especially when you just used 'bias' to dismiss the actual non-biased Al Jazeera (if Al Jazeera is biased, and it is not, what to say of American newspapers and Floridian news channels on this particular case?) are not! Davide King (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC) [Edited to add] Davide King (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  You provided some sources that state that the embargo has contributed to the economic hardships in Cuba. That's fine, I agree. But the one and only source that explicitly states that the embargo caused the protests is the Al Jazeera source. In contrast, I have provided multiple sources that refute the idea that the embargo caused the protests, and it's simply a government talking point. Most editors can reasonably assume that a media organization owned by the Qatari government will have some bias--just like most state-owned media. Per WP:GEVAL, we should not be giving so much weight to a minority viewpoint. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  "Most editors can reasonably assume that a media organization owned by the Qatari government will have some bias--just like most state-owned media." Too bad that is not what our perennial sources table say. By the way, not all them "refute the idea that the embargo caused the protests"; several of them just say the government's claim that the embargo alone is the cause of the protests, or that it is overstated in comparison to shortages, the pandemic, or lack of reform, as the NBC News source says, contrary to what Alsee stated below. "Per WP:GEVAL, we should not be giving so much weight to a minority viewpoint."

  I agree, that is my reasoning for not adding 'authoritarianism' as cause, as many sources either do not mention it all, or do not include 'authoritarianism' along the lines of "public protests to express their frustration with", only The Independent did; and just because they do not explicitily deny 'authoritarianism' as a cause, the fact so many sources do not list it, the way The Independent did, means they are the minority, and 'authoritarianism' is not on part with "shortage of food and medicine" and "government response to the COVID-19 pandemic", which virtually all generally reliable sources say. Hence, we should only list what reliable sources agree, i.e. shortages and the pandemic handling; they disagree about the embargo and authoritarianism, there at the very least neither should be added to th einfobox, and instead it should be clarified and mentioned in the lead section and the body, as we already do.

  It goes both ways. Most editors can reasonably assume that a newspaper or news channel in either the United States or more specifically in Florida will have some bias, and considering the fact U.S. military intervention is one of possible goals, it is not surprising that it is mostly American and Floridian news outlets that insist on 'authoritarianism', so as to justify a regime change or military intervention, as called by Cubans abroad, or dismiss the 'embargo.' It is also false balance to give the same weight to abroad Cubans, the ones who are mainly motivated by authoritarianism, to Cubans, the ones who may even support the goal of "end of Communist rule" (though certainly not through U.S. military intervention) but are mainly motivated by shortages and the economic crisis. Perhaps a short sentence rather than a label, be it the embargo or authoritarianism, convening the same point would be better? Do you have any suggestion? "Lack of civil liberties (freedom of assembly and expression, political freedom, etc.)" as Causes, or "End of authoritarian/one-party Communist rule/regime" as Goals, which is what most source say when discussion authoritarianism, as a goal rather than as a cause in itself. As for the embargo, maybe adding a short sentence about how the embargo, sanctions, and economic inefficiencies exarberated the situation? Anything better than simply adding 'authoritarianism' or any removal of the embargo from the infobox. Is that not possible as a compromise? Davide King (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

   Comment: - Again broadly in agreement with Daivde King in regards to the authoritarianism question, I would like to note that asking for sources that specifically disprove a claim appears to me to be a shifting of the burden of proof. Claims need to be backed up with sources by the editors inserting the content into the page, not the other way around. Goodposts (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• No, not without a better demonstration of sourcing. (I invite anyone to ping me to reconsider my vote, if significant additional sourcing is posted.) Right now the only source I see supporting the claim is the Al Jazeera[27] one. The NBC News[28] one does not support the claim. Just Al Jazeera is not enough, especially given that some of the sources in Extended_content explicitly deny the embargo as a cause. There is certainly sourcing for the body of the article to state the-Cuban-Government-blames-the-US&embargo. However someone would have to show the claim is reasonably prevalent in Reliable Sources, to overcome the contrary sources and for us to assert the claim ourselves in the infobox. Alsee (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Alsee, would you also consider Yes, but making it clear it is the main cause according to the government or that the government is claiming this? As it has been widely reported that the Cuban government has considered the embargo as the main cause, it may be due to add, even if for opposite reasons of those from the 'yay' side and with the aforementioned caveat. Either way, it is due to add, do you agree? Davide King (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  I have just tried to to make an infobox sandobox that could make everyone happy. This was the result. I prefer a bit more words to provide context than the shortest way. Davide King (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes but qualified in a clear manner as the Cuban government's stance, per my rationale and example below. I'm happy to provide sources upon request, but it'd largely be duplication as it's effectively the same bunch of articles I linked in the other RfC (I'd just have to grab different quotes). Jr8825 • Talk 04:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  I've now provided sources and some additional discussion of them to support my point about the weight of sources supporting a qualified mention in the infobox. I made further comments about the relevant policies in the the extended discussion below. Jr8825 • Talk 19:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  To sum up more clearly here, my examination of the sources shows that 1) the majority of RS say sanctions are the Cuban government's explanation for protests and 2) a significant number of high-quality sources (such as FT, Reuters, PA) mention sanctions as one of the factors that caused the economic crisis which led to the protests. For both of these reasons, there's an obvious weight of sourcing to indicate sanctions should be listed per the Cuban government as a direct cause (or as an indirect cause, although I think it's better to attribute it to the government as some sources mention that the claim is disputed). Jr8825 • Talk 12:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• No Only Al-Jazeera seems to report this; and even so, the same article casts doubts on whether this is true or not. Also, there's many other sources contradicting it. The United States' Embargo against Cuba is still an embargo by a single nation (no matter how powerful it is) over another which can yet trade with the rest of the world. As many sources point out, it's very unlikely that the Embargo is responsible for the shattered state of the Cuban economy. Ajñavidya (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• No, "Shortage of food and medicine" is already listed as a cause. The cause of such shortage (either the embargo, the flaws of communism, or the Castro's own incompetence) is secondary, and redundant. Cambalachero (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

   Comment: In light of latest developments of discussion below and sources provided, especially by Jr8825, the real question should not be whether to add or not the embargo, but whether it should just be added or mentioned it is according to the government. Because there is no rational reason based on our policies and guidelines, in this case notability and weight, to support exclusion; the fact so many sources mention that the embargo is the main cause according to the government, it means that it is notable and due for the infobox to add the attribution. The above 'nay' (it is not just Al Jazeera and it does not cast doubt at; it only also says that "Diaz-Canel has blamed the protests on US sanctions, accusing Washington of 'economic asphyxiation'. But he also is acknowledging — notably for the first time — that the Cuban government’s policies have also played a role.") are more based on emotions, such as that we should not even just stating United States embargo against Cuba (according to the Cuban government) because then we would be somehow giving credence to it, when any of this does not matter.

  All that matters is that several sources (1) explicitily mention the embargo as cause, (2) while others disagree, (3) and others only disagree that it is a main cause or that it is exaggerated by the government (without denying its unpopularity or negative effects), (4) and yet more others just state that it is the main cause according to the government. Yet, whether sources adhere to point 1, 2, 3, or 4, they all agree in mentioning that it is the main cause according to the government, hence it is due and notable, and would not be the first time we attribute something like this in the infobox. I am fine with attribution. Davide King (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

  Good for you. You are not replying to my argument here: that the embargo is redundant, as we already cited "Shortage of food and medicine". Yes, I know, you can reference it, but Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion when other reasons come into play (in this case, avoid redundancy). Cambalachero (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  The problem is, your argument can apply equally well apply to 'authoritarianism', when we already say "Lack of civil liberties (freedom of assembly and political freedom)" and "End of authoritarian Communist state and one-party rule." Adding 'authoritarianism' when we already mention 'lack of civil liberties' and 'authoritarian' is redundant, and it also does not reflect sources' diversity in wording.

  Many sources say something along the line of "calling for the end of authoritarian Communist regime", which is more in support of the goal than the cause, and do not say explicitily say 'authoritarianism' (only The Independent does). While it can be inferred they are referring to authoritarianism, there is a reason why Police state, Political repression, One-party state, etc. are all different articles. In short, source saying 'repression' is in support of adding 'repression' as a cause. A source saying 'one-party state' is in support of adding 'one-party state', and so on; it would be original research and synthesis otherwise.

  It also matter where and how it is said. If the source says "shortages and repression sprung up the protests", it is in support of shortages and repression as a cause. If the source is saying "calling for greater freedom" or "calling for the end of authoritarian Communist regime", it is a goal, not a cause.

  You keep saying "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion", but it does guarantee inclusion when sources have shown to provide both notability and weight. And to "avoid redundancy" is not a good enough reason, as it can be equally applied to authoritarianism. Davide King (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  And you would be right... except that the discussion over "authoritarianism" yes or no was held at an earlier point, and it was either that or nothing. At this point we have a line about this as the causes (more detailed, but dealing with the idea), so I would oppose adding "authoritarianism" as a cause. But please note that there are specific threads for that, this one is for the embargo. Please try to stay on-topic. Cambalachero (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  I think they would have benefited from more broadness rather than yes–no; the world ain't only black and white. And this is why I referenced both. You oppose adding that, so why did you vote 'yes'? This should be reworded to afford other possibilities than yes–no. Davide King (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes It should be included considering there is a reliable source that can't be ignored.Sea Ane (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes As per user Jr8825 rationale. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• No because it is contrary to what the sources say. And you most certainly can ignore reliable sources; in fact, WP:PROPORTION requires you to ignore reliable sources when they are in the minority, as they clearly are in this case. WP:Verifiability is not the whole story; WP:DUEWEIGHT must be adhered to. Mathglot (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  That's not what WP:PROPORTION means: it's not OK to ignore the views expressed in reliable, high-quality sources. Weight means that if those sources are expressing a minority view, then that minority view should be given less coverage – not no coverage at all. This is best summed up at WP:RSUW, "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all". The fact that multiple RS mention sanctions as contributing to the shortages (along with a number of more significant factors, such as COVID) indicates that it's not a fringe minority view that sanctions played a role in Cuban government's lack of foreign currency, which led to the economic crisis, which caused discontent to spill onto the streets. That's why sanctions should be listed, but qualified as a less important factor – probably by adding "per the Cuban government", so it's clear that only the government and its allies say it's the direct cause, and so it's not presented in an equal manner to other explanations. Again, I point to the large amount of sourcing I gathered about this, which shows sanctions are widely touched upon in a large proportion of coverage. Jr8825 • Talk 12:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• No and don't even use the word "cause" "Cause" at best is a broad, vague subjective word and in reality a weasel word that lets anybody blame anything of their choice for anything that happens. Also it's not the news in this article. The word that covers what is news here is what is the target of the protestors, that which they are directly complaining about or against.North8000 (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  There's already a distinction between "caused by" and "goals" in the infobox, which addresses the problem you're talking about and allows both to be listed without getting in each other's way. Jr8825 • Talk 12:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The current "caused by" in the info box is basically "things being protested" and so is fine. But again, "caused by" is too open to off topic soapboxing (such as including the embargo) and so per my previous comment, IMO the term "caused by" should not be used.North8000 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

That's an issue with Template:Infobox civil conflict, not this individual page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Parts of info boxes can be bad ideas to include in articles. In this case, if "cause" is limited to what is directly targeted by the protestors it's fine. If it's an entre' to off-topic soaboxing or obscuring the target of the protests, not.North8000 (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• North8000, if I may leave a short-as-possible comment (I have not commented for a while and I plan not to comment after this, unless you decide to directly call me out to respond to what I am raising), I thought you would have supported my proposed current infobox, which is fine; it already says "Lack of civil liberties (freedom of assembly and political freedom)" and "End of authoritarian one-party Communist rule", what does 'authoritarianism' add to that? I thought you would have supported my compromise infobox because labels too are "broad, vague subjective word[s]", including 'authoritarianism.' Are not very short, semi-sentences, as in the current infobox, better than one-word labels, no matter how accurate?

  Similarly, I do not support just saying 'embargo' but to write a short semi-sentence about it, including that according to the government is the main cause and sources disagree on its effects, on how much they exacerbated it, etc. Denying the effects of the embargo and sanctions, which are routinely mentioned in reliable sources as at least exarberating the crisis along other factors, even if they are not a cause, by attributing it to the government as the main cause, something that reliable sources found notable and due to mention in virtually any report (some stated they did exacerbated the crisis, while others say they did not or simply say the government is exaggerating, which is not the same thing as saying they had no effect), by not mentioning it at all (even with the aforementioned caveat and qualification), is disingenuous and one-sided.

  Is not my "very-short semi-sentence with context" proposal better than just adding a label or not mentioning the embargo at all? Like only 50+ years of authoritarianism matter (as they should) but 50+ years of embargo and sanctions did not have any effect at all? If not a cause itself, at least in exacerbating the economic crisis, which is an actual cause for the protests. All I am asking for is consistency and context, such as clarifying what type of freedom is lacking (freedom of association, political freedom) and sanctions (not just them, of course) exacerbating the economic crisis, which is a cause, for both proposed additions. Davide King (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Davide. I was invited by the bot and came here and my answer was to the RFC question. I also added that "cause" in this case is a vague weasel word that opens the door to all kinds of coatracking and soapboxing and that a more specific word be used instead. I really haven't jumped in deeper here to anlyze and comment on other topicds and questions.North8000 (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• No The sources are saying that the protests are caused by, among other things, the economic crisis. The fact that some of them are in turn saying that the embargo is a partial cause of the economic crisis is not a sufficient reason. The sources that say the protests are caused by the embargo are few and far between. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Adoring nanny: this is a fair point, and I agree that the weight of RS does not support the claim that the embargo is a direct cause by itself (they say the Cuban government says this). The reason I think the embargo should be mentioned is that many sources (see my list below) do mention the embargo in their overview summaries of the protests. To take two examples, the BBC describes it as an indirect, contextual factor: "Cuba is in the midst of an economic crisis and has been hit hard by US sanctions and Covid" and The Guardian describes it as a protest multiplier: "[protests are] supercharged by shortages, social media and sanctions". Jr8825 • Talk 23:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• No Maybe a brief mention in the body of the article as long as it's reliably sourced, but not in the infobox per WP:WEIGHT. Some1 (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• No I'm against controverial details in the infobox. It can be discussed in the body. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• No Even if the embargo is attributed as a cause of the economic causes of the protests, the demonstrations started as anti-government, and not against the United States. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• No. Few if any reliable sources directly support this, and it would be misleading. The embargo is one of many factors causing the economic crisis, but (as the high quality RS reflect) it's not the major factor in the economic crisis, nor is it a direct cause of the protests. Neutrality^talk 16:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• No as above; not adequately sourced. — Czello 07:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The fact we include claims only made by cuban Americans and talking heads as causes and goals but ignore the blatant material reason for the protests is laughable. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• No they are not protesting U.S. embargo, they are protesting overall horrble conditions, which their government mostly responsible for. If they were not a communist dictatorship, they would be no embargo in the first place. This seems like attempt to point finger at somebody else for their wrongdoing and it is also not supported by evidence.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

   Comment: This actual, in-depth analysis disagrees. If we are going to mention more indirect causes like lack of civil liberties (which have been mainly attributed to Cuban-Americans, see NBC News), we should also mention the embargo and sanctions as indirect causes, in light of sources repeatedly mentioning. If we are going only to list main and direct causes, they are shortages, COVID-19 pandemic, and economic contraction, period. Any other is indirect or may be undue (power outages, etc.) but we should at least be consistent and not be selective in listing only one indirect cause and ignore the other, even though the latter (embargo and sanctions) has been mentioned and discussed about the protests as either an indirect cause or for providing context for the economic contraction, one of the main causes. Davide King (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Lack of civil liberties not an "indirect" cause because it can stand on its own. On the other hand embargo is an indirect cause because its effects already captured indirectly under "Economic contraction" and "shortages". Also lack of civil liberties is qualitatively different from food shortages and other basic physical needs, so deserve mention in its own right.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. The RfC is talking about the "cause" of the protests. The US blockade is a major cause of economic hardship in Cuba as documented by sources mentioned under "Sources (for inclusion)", which was major factor in the protests. US politicians, US journalists, and the governments of Cuba and Russia have linked the US blockade with the protests as detailed in the sources under "Sources (for inclusion)". Burrobert (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. The historical embargo and the increased sanctions of the Trump era (such as the limitation of remittances [29] [30] [31] , the sanctions on shipping companies and oil insurers to limit the fuel that reached the island [32] [33] [34] [35] , or the inclusion for political reasons in the list of "sponsoring states terrorism" [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] activation of non-active parts of the Helms-Burton law, attacks on the island international medical services and others) have brought the country greater material, economic and financial difficulties, which together with those created by the COVID pandemic are affecting hard everyone in the country. The same power outages that started the protests are created by increased stress in the power plants, and difficulties created by the embargo to import tools and materials for maintenances. Vaccination has not gone as fast as planned due to a lack of syringes, with difficulties in importing them.

Why the sanctions has been removed as a cause of the protest? It said "Economic contraction, exacerbated by >>sanctions<<, inefficiencies, the pandemic, and lack of economic reforms"

Above comments made by 152.207.223.38. Their only contributions to Wikipedia so far are in this RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources (for inclusion)

• "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." Al Jazeera
• "Cuba's import-dependent economy, already under a nearly six-decade U.S. trade embargo, has been squeezed further by sanctions imposed by former U.S. President Donald Trump's administration. The fallout from the coronavirus pandemic has added to the woes. The island's tourism sector, a key source of foreign revenue, has been shuttered for much of the past 18 months. Reuters
• "The Irish Times view on protests in Cuba: the US embargo must end". The Irish Times. 19 July 2021. Retrieved 20 July 2021.
• Rhodes, Christopher (21 July 2021). "The US embargo on Cuba has failed". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 22 July 2021.

One should not merely look at the number of sources, as many of the sources used against inclusion, as I explain below, either just say the Cuban government has blamed it on the embargo, which does not imply that the embargo is not also one of the causes, or simply say the protests goes beyond it or they run deeper than the embargo, which is also not enough to dismiss its effects, which are known. In addition, I am not necessarily for addition of embargo as a cause, but that it should be mentioned along its negative effects and exacerbations alongside sanctions, inefficiencies, and government mismanagement, as we state in the body. In addition, one given source claims the embargo is only negative for the Cuban government and Americans (sic), which is resoundly contradicted by several independent studies and many sources, including those who say the protests goes beyond the embargo or run deeper than that, which I actually agree with. I believe that Al Jazeera is more neutral and reliable than most, if not all, (so far) given sources, which come from American newspapers and Floridian news station, which may have a conflict interest in dismissing the embargo effects (even then, many of given sources actually do not do that, they just say it is not just the embargo), especially in light to the relations between the United States and Cuba, the main protagonist of this article, and the fact one of the goal is United States military intervention. I am not going to cherry pick any source which mention the embargo, and I hope AllegedlyHuman, Goodposts, and others can add more.

Davide King (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Further sourcing

There are two points RS frequently make about sanctions as a cause of the protests: Most importantly 1) they have contributed to the shortages which are the most direct cause of the protests, although they are not the single most important factor and the extent is disputed. 2), the Cuban government is claiming they are the only real cause, that this is the Cuban government line about the cause is notable because it is shaping the government's oppressive response. A non-exhaustive list of the first sources I scoured through:

Further sources

Financial Times: Shortages lie at the heart of the protests. Cuba’s inefficient state-controlled farming sector has never produced enough to feed the 11m population, forcing the authorities to use ever-scarcer hard currency to import staples. [...] Remittances have been restricted since the Trump administration imposed sanctions on the Cuban military-run agency handling payments. In 2020, Cuba’s inflows of foreign exchange fell around a quarter [41] Havana blames US sanctions. ... Cuba is facing its worst economic crisis [since 1991] ... Coronavirus has devastated revenues from tourism, the main export earner, and tighter US sanctions imposed by former president Donald Trump have choked the economy. [42] The Guardian: the protests ... erupted as Cuba faces a severe economic crunch exacerbated by US sanctions and a Covid pandemic that has shattered the island’s tourist industry [43] Cuban officials blamed the US for Sunday’s demonstrations [...] Díaz-Canel ... blamed those problems on US sanctions [44] US sanctions and coronavirus crisis lead to food shortages and high prices, sparking one of the biggest such demonstrations in memory [45] Anti-government protests ... supercharged by shortages, social media and sanctions. [...] Social media, the pandemic, and beefed-up US sanctions combined with a younger generation hungry for higher living standards [46] The Economist Argues forcefully that the embargo has not caused the current protests and is an excuse for [the Cuban government's] own failures, but that this is a view widely held: Like Cuba’s president, Republicans argue that the unrest proves the embargo is working at last. AP (via The Independent) Cuba is going through one of the worst economic crises in its history, a mixture of its own inefficiencies, the blow of the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact from U.S. sanctions. [47] Cuba is suffering its worst crisis in years from a combination of the coronavirus pandemic that has paralyzed its economy, including the vital tourism industry, inefficiencies in the state-run economy and the tightening of U.S. sanctions on the island. [48] Díaz-Canel initially responded by looking for culprits, pointing to U.S. economic sanctions, the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic and a social media campaign by Cuban American groups. But he later acknowledged some responsibility by Cuba’s leaders. [49] Reuters Cuba has been experiencing a worsening economic crisis for two years, which the government blames mainly on U.S. sanctions and the pandemic, while its detractors cite incompetence and a Soviet-style one-party system. A combination of sanctions, inefficiencies and the pandemic has shut down tourism and slowed other foreign revenue flows in a country dependent on them to import the bulk of its food, fuel and inputs for agriculture and manufacturing ... The resulting cash crunch has spawned shortages that have forced Cubans to queue for hours for basic goods throughout the pandemic. [50] White House may ease ban on remittances as part of Cuba review ... Remittances to Cuba are believed to be around $2 billion to $3 billion annually, representing its third biggest source of dollars after the services industry and tourism. [51] The government blamed the unrest on U.S.-financed "counter-revolutionaries" exploiting hardship caused by the decades-old U.S. trade embargo that Washington tightened in the midst of the pandemic, pushing the Cuban economy to the brink. [52] BBC Cuba has blamed the US and its economic sanctions for the protests and Cuba's wider problems. [53] His government blamed the United States, and its economic sanctions, for both the protests and Cuba's wider problems. US sanctions have restricted trade with Cuba since 1962. They were tightened under former US President Donald Trump... [54] Cuba is in the midst of an economic crisis and has been hit hard by US sanctions and Covid. [55] NYT The Cuban government attributes its longstanding economic problems to the American trade embargo, which cuts off its access to financing and imports. [56] Others blamed the American trade embargo for the protests and the deprivation driving them, a stance the Cuban government took on Sunday when the demonstrations erupted ... But some Cuban activists in the United States, including those who oppose the embargo, were quick to challenge that narrative. ... Ramón Saúl Sánchez, president of the Movimiento Democracia advocacy group in Miami ... noted that the embargo does allow Cuba to buy food from the United States, though restrictions on financing present significant barriers to the amount. [57] An important point to make is that mentions of the embargo should be very clear it's the government's stance and disputed, as demonstrated by sources such as the NYT (above) and BBC: [on the government news website Cubadebate] Several readers, like Cuba's government, laid the blame for the crisis on US sanctions, which have contributed to the island's dire economic situation and shortages. Marcia said: "The only help that Cuba needs to ask for is for them [the US] to take away the blockade [sanctions]". But there were many others too who no longer wanted to hear this argument. "I just want to point out that the indiscipline and the lack of responsibility and oversight is not the fault of the blockade or the Yankees. It is ours alone," reader Rafael said. BBC

Jr8825 • Talk 18:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Thanks for this. My understanding is that those sources do indeed support that (1) the embargo/sanctions exacerbated the crisis, alongside other factors, but is not the main cause and it is only disputed how much it exacerbated it; and (2) the Cuban government laid the blame on them, with at least one source noing it has since acknowledged some of its own fault too. Clearly, the solution is not not mentioning it at all.

To note that Reuters says "its detractors cite incompetence and a Soviet-style one-party system", while The New York Times says "some Cuban activists in the United States, including those who oppose the embargo, were quick to challenge that narrative." Either way, my proposed wording would be something like Economic contraction, exacerbated by inefficiencies, the pandemic, and sanctions (which we already say; I would re-add 'sanctions' in light of almost all of your sources including 'sanctions' exacerbating it, alongside other factors) and United States embargo against Cuba (main cause according to the government). All the other sources, at least in direct quotes provided, only say that is the main cause according to the government, and may only disagree on how much it exacerbated the crisis but they generally list 'sanctions', among other factors. Davide King (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Here are some sources which include the US embargo as one of the causes of the protests, which may perhaps have now ended.

• Foxnews: "Some reporters and Democratic candidates running for Congress blamed the United States’ embargo of Cuba as the reason for the recent protests against the communist regime there". It lists the people who have included the US embargo as a factor. The politicians include: Ben Rhodes, Allen Glines, Shahid Buttar, Ro Khanna. "Progressive reporters from outlets like NPR, Al Jazeera, The Nation, and The New Republic echoed Rhodes sentiment that the U.S. is to blame for poor economic conditions in Cuba". These reporters include: Steve Inskeep, Aida Chavez, Saif Khalid, Sana Saeed, Edward Ongweso Jr, Aaron Maté.
• The New Republic: "The exact nature of the Cuban protest movement—its demands, its scale—is still coming into focus, though it seems pitched against a government that allows few political rights and that has overseen an economy battered by sanctions and the Covid-19 pandemic"
• NBC News: "the embargo is not solely to blame for Cuba’s woes".
• al Jazeera: "They will point towards the unprecedented level of protests currently going on in Cuba as evidence that the embargo is working. It’s not. Yes, Cubans are angry at the economic hardships and pandemic suffering happening amongst their population".
• FAIR: "while giving the protests a great deal of coverage, the corporate press across the political spectrum consistently downplayed one of the primary causes of unrest: the increasingly punitive US blockade".
• The Wire and Deutsche Welle: "Diaz-Canel and other top Cuban officials have accused the US of orchestrating the unrest. The Cuban president said Monday that the US is pursuing a “policy of economic suffocation to provoke social unrest in the country".
• South China Morning Post: Quotes the Cuban government view ("Cuba’s government blames hardships on US sanctions that it calculates cost the island US$5.5 billion last year") and the Chinese government view ("Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian on Tuesday said that “as the Cuban side has pointed out, the US embargo is the root cause of Cuba’s shortages of medicine and energy”").

Burrobert (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Sources (against inclusion)

• The government in Havana has charged the United States with fomenting the demonstrations, which erupted largely over economic hardships that the government blames on the embargo, and the protesters say are the result of corruption and strict communist control.[58]
• Cuban Scholar Lillian Guerra: "Well, unlike what the Cuban government would say, it's not the embargo. It has a lot to do with the fact that the state says it has no resources." [59]
• The statement has drawn the ire of academics and organizers who say that while the decades-long embargo should be lifted, the statement both lets the Cuban government off the hook for its own history of systemic racism and ignores the protesters’ demands for change....President Miguel Díaz-Canel has blamed the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba, which was tightened by the Trump administration...“There’s a lot of nuance there that the statement misses,” she continued. “Folks on the ground are fighting for freedom, and they’re not talking about the U.S. embargo. The embargo is widely hated in Cuba, but it’s really not the center so the statement tries to put all the onus on the United States when we have to also pay attention to how the policies in Cuba affect Black folks.” [60]
• Díaz-Canel, Raul Castro’s handpicked successor, also held a news conference Monday in Havana. He blamed it all on the U.S. embargo and its supporters. [61]
• Per Professor of Hispanic Studies Kenya Dworkin y Mendez: "Regardless of her own opinions on the issue, she said, there isn’t a direct relationship between the protests and the U.S. trade embargo, which the Cuban government points to as the cause of its economic woes.“This is not about the embargo,” she said. “The people are asking for the government to step down. They want freedom. They want freedom of expression, they want freedom of speech, they want freedom of association. All the freedoms that we value here, they are denied by their constitution and their government.”[62]
• Indeed, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel is already blaming the protests on the U.S. embargo and a social media campaign against the Cuban government. [63]
• Per history professor Luis Martínez-Fernádez: “Every time something goes wrong, every crisis, the Cuban government and, by the way, the friends of the Cuban government throughout the world, blame it on the U.S embargo. That is nonsense. Cuba could trade with any other country...The current situation has nothing to do with the embargo. The current situation relates to an inept government a failed system, a dictatorship, and a system that does not allow Cubans to express themselves either politically or artistically and also in the economic way.”[64]
• Per history professor Jorge Felipe Gonzalez: While Espino thinks the US embargo on trade with Cuba being lifted could help resolve some of the economic issues, Gonzalez thinks the issues are deeper."Certainly, the embargo has made it harder for Cubans on the street, but the main transformation that needs to happen in Cuba is not about the embargo, it's on the Cuban government," Gonzalez said. [65]
• Per professor of education Gerardo Gonzalez:According to Gonzalez, the embargo—which the United Nations Security Council voted to demand be lifted for the 29th year in a row last month —creates some hardships, but the Cuban economy also has structural issues that discourage productivity. The anger that sparked the protests might not subside until those core concerns are addressed.“Cuba has a long history of blaming the U.S. for a lot of the problems they confront, and they often point to the embargo as the critical barrier to Cuba being able to prosper economically, but the truth is more complicated than that,” he said. [66]
• In an impromptu televised address later in the afternoon, Díaz-Canel blamed the protests on U.S. efforts to tighten the embargo, with the alleged intention to “provoke a social uprising” that would justify a military intervention.[67]
• ...the embargo has made life harder for the Cuban government. But its restrictions mainly hurt Americans. The regime can still buy American food and medicine and trade with the world. The causes of Cuba’s social explosion lie at home. [68]
• Díaz-Canel squarely blamed the U.S. embargo on Cuba for the island’s woes[69]
• Cuba’s communist regime has been able to weather multiple economic and political crises since taking power some 60 years ago by blaming the U.S. embargo on the island. [70]
• “I’m anti-embargo. But it’s not about the embargo right now. That’s not what this fight is about.”...“Policy differences aside, Cuban Americans strongly agree and understand that these protests are not about the embargo or even food shortages. It’s opposition to the regime,” said Giancarlo Sopo, a conservative media strategist. [71]
• But some Cuban Calgarians say the embargo isn't to blame for the island's worst economic crisis since the fall of the Soviet Union. "Cubans know that the reason they're not getting food and medicine is that the government is incompetent, not because of the embargo [72]

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the opinion of two professors by local newspapers, such as Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and ClickOrlando (no Wikipedia page) and that of a conservative media strategist (really...) good enough? Number of sources should not imply they are all generally reliable or good enough, nor should this big list of sources imply that they actually support removal of the embargo, which I support mentioning, even if not as a cause, at least in a note, for its effects, which even you conceded ("You provided some sources that state that the embargo has contributed to the economic hardships in Cuba. That's fine, I agree."). Most of the sources only say the government was blaming everything on the embargo, which I agree is absurd, without necessarily denying the embargo as a cause or at least its negative effects, which I believe should be mentioned, alongside sanctions and inefficiencies, as we state in the body. "[T]he embargo has made life harder for the Cuban government. But its restrictions mainly hurt Americans. The regime can still buy American food and medicine and trade with the world. The causes of Cuba's social explosion lie at home." This is contradicted by independent studies, including by The Lancet, among many other sources which may say the embargo is not the only cause but does not deny its effects; this statement actually looks like fringe, and it is surprising considering it is coming from The Economist, which "most editors can reasonably assume that a newspaper in favour of economic liberalism will have some bias." (semi-cit.) Davide King (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

ClickOrlando is just the domain name for WKMG-TV. Two professors? I count four subject-matter experts quoted. Yes, the Economist is suddenly "fringe." Sources tend to appear fringe when they go against one's POV. The main point of that article was: "The causes of Cuba's social explosion lie at home." In other words, it's not the embargo's fault. Anyway, I won't WP:BLUDGEON this discussion any further. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I just find it weird that they are quoted by news station in Florida, such as WKMG-TV, and not by national newspapers (perhaps they are undue), since it seems so obvious to you that sources dismiss the embargo as a cause, rather than dismiss Cuban government's claim as the only cause. Now you are also being disrespectful and it is insulting by implying that I consider it "fringe when they go against one's POV", when I explained that independent sources clearly showed the embargo negative effects on Cubans, certainly not on Americans or the Cuban government, as that quote says. As far as I am aware, the consensus is that the embargo is negative for Cuba and Cubans, hence claiming that "the embargo has made life harder for the Cuban government ... its restrictions mainly hurt Americans" is fringe, as it "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." Maybe not fringe but a minority view? Certainly that quote surprised me, and not because it goes against my own POV, as you falsely allege, which let me remind you is close to a personal attack, even if you truly think they appear 'fringe' because they go against my POV (they do not).

Even one of your subject-matter experts say "the embargo has made it harder for Cubans on the street [contradicting the quote from The Economist] and that is all that matter to me; "Espino thinks the US embargo on trade with Cuba being lifted could help resolve some of the economic issues, Gonzalez thinks the issues are deeper", which does not imply the embargo is not an issue (it supports my reasoning that the disagreement is that it goes deeper than the embargo, which I also happen to agree with). I am not bent on adding, at all cost, the embargo anyway; what I am concerned about is acting like its not having an impact at all, alongside other causes, such as mismanagement, sanctions, and inefficiences. I do not think most of provided source support the claim the embargo is not an issue, a cause, or does not have any effect or excarberation. Davide King (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I take your subject-matter experts saying "the embargo has made it harder for Cubans on the street ... Espino thinks the US embargo on trade with Cuba being lifted could help resolve some of the economic issues, Gonzalez thinks the issues are deeper" over this weird Economist article which say that the embargo has made it harder for the Cuban government and hurt Americans (sic). From the quote, at least some of your subject-matter experts do not dismiss it outright as an issue but say there are deeper causes, which is why we list first the shortages and the pandemic. I am also not necessarily in favour of adding 'the embargo' as a cause per se, as much as I believe its effects should be mentioned in the infobox, just like the government being authoritarian can also be mentioned and explain why (lack of civil liberties, such as freedom of assembly, political freedom, etc.) without reducing it to 'authoritarianism.' Do you even oppose any of this proposal? Davide King (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we may clarify by adding (main cause according to the government), as many sources found it relevant to point out and due to discuss, as we do for U.S. military intervention, which is not supported by most Cubans protesters but has been called by several relevant American, Floridian, and abroad Cuban people, and is likely due. All the while mentioning its negative effects. From several of your own sources, "'[t]he embargo is widely hated in Cuba ... the US embargo on trade with Cuba being lifted could help resolve some of the economic issues ... the embargo has made it harder for Cubans on the street", and there are more. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, what do you think about those aforementioned possible solutions? Your sources show it may be due adding it to the infobox anyway, even if for the opposite reasons from the 'yay' side. Davide King (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Davide King, do you mean adding that to the infobox? As in, Causes: US Embargo (According to the Cuban government). And then fleshing it out in the body? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much.

Maybe Causes: ... United States embargo against Cuba (main cause according to the Cuban government), finding a way to summarize what sources have said, such as which [according to (some) analysts) should be lifted ... has had negative effects [or is unpopular with Cubans or disliked by Cubans] ... exacerbated the crisis, alongside sanctions, mismanagement, and inefficiencies [both of which have been mentioned] ... but is not the only cause [it goes beyond it, the crisis is deeper than that ...] If something along this lines could also be condensed to provide a context-minded yet concise sentence, it would be perfect, but otherwise, yes, United States embargo against Cuba ([main cause] according to the Cuban government) is fine by me.

Same thing for authoritarianism. Maybe mentioning 'authoritarianism' at Goals, as in Goals: ... End of authoritarian [one-party] Communist rule ... Political freedom ... Civil liberties [or just the first while moving the latter at Causes while providing a similar context-minded yet concise sentence at Causes, such as Causes: ... Lack of civil liberties ... such as freedom of assembly, of peaceful protest ... lack of political freedom ... [perhaps merge this in the cause mentioning "curbs on civil liberties", or either above or under] Davide King (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be severe overkill to add which [according to (some) analysts) should be lifted..etc into the infobox. Those are the kinds of details that we would need to flesh out in the body. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, so feel free to propose more concise wording. I have tried to word it differently, and this was the result. Davide King (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

We had this before in the article, see this revision [73].BSMRD (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

This will not work, adding the Embargo (with some attribution) as a cause just because the government (who is, in fact, the opposing party in the conflict and historically uses the embargo as an excuse) claims it as a cause, doesn’t make it a cause. Let’s not confuse this with including military intervention as a goal; clarifying that intervention was requested by a subset of the protesters, does not change the fact that military intervention was a goal. TocororoWings (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@TocororoWings: The argument for listing the embargo as a cause with attribution to the Cuban government isn't justified just because it's the government's official stance, it's justified on the basis that multiple RS have reported that the Cuban government says it's the cause. It's the multiple mentions in sources that establishes notability. Jr8825 • Talk 04:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: that's fallacious reasoning. That still doesn't make it a cause. The verifiable fact is that the Cuban government claims it as a cause (as many sources support), not that it is a cause in itself. TocororoWings (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I and other users who look to have appreciated my effort to compromise seem to disagree. You state that "just because the government ... claims it as a cause, doesn’t make it a cause" but reliable sources routinely mention the government claims, so it is due to add either way. For what it is worth, this would also not be the first time (according to ...) is used in an infobox. I have seen it used in other protests or conflict and/or war-related articles, and as noted by BSMRD that is how it was first added. Your claim that "(who is, in fact, the opposing party in the conflict and historically uses the embargo as an excuse)", while I can agree it is true, it does not stop some reliable sources, such as Al Jazeera, to list it as cause, and even sources which may not consider it as a cause still say "[t]he embargo is widely hated in Cuba ... the US embargo on trade with Cuba being lifted could help resolve some of the economic issues ... the embargo has made it harder for Cubans on the street." Reliable sources come before our own opinions, and even if they may disagree it is a cause, they found it relevant and due enough to mention that the government's view (several of them also used neutral wording is saying this, and even while stating the protests are not against the embargo, they discuss it negative effects, which is what we should do too.

Jr8825 just explained it better and in short ways, which I do not consider fallacious (it is the exact same thing I reasoned; we wrote the response at the same time). By the way, I have added "Lack of civil liberties (freedom of assembly and political freedom" and "Authoritarian", and I believe to have been more than willing to compromise. The same cannot be said of you or Ajñavidya, which is a shame. Davide King (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, cause is cause, and RS do not support this claim. They do support, however, the fact that the government claimed it as a cause, which is a completely different proposition. I have no problem in creating a new section solely dedicated to the "Cuban Government Response", and include their claims in there, and cite all sources that support it. That section would also be the right place to include all information about how the government responded and managed the protests (arrests, repression, lifting import restrictions, government-organized rallies, etc.). What do you think? TocororoWings (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@TocororoWings: It's how Wikipedia works: if a lot of reliable sources mention something, our article probably should to. Our article shouldn't say the embargo is the cause, but if multiple RS say the Cuban governement has said it's the cause, we follow them by saying precisely that. Additionally, a lot of reliable sources have described, in the context of the current unrest, sanctions as a factor (but not the most important factor) that has worsened the state of the Cuban economy. So they're saying it's something that needs to be acknowledged to have a full, nuanced understanding about the cause of the protests. In a moment I'm going to list some more sources above, since nobody else has done so, and expand my !vote in the RfC about this. In the meantime, I recommend taking a look at WP:VNT and Wikipedia:Core content policies#History, you might find them interesting (and a little counter-intuitive, perhaps). Jr8825 • Talk 15:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: this is an rfc about including embargo as cause in the infobox, and nothing that you mentioned justifies it. “E caused P” is a different proposition than “G says [E caused P]”. As I mentioned before, I have no problem in discussing and adding the government claims to the article; they should be included, but they should be included where they belong. I will be creating a section solely dedicated to the Response of the Cuban Government, we can add their claims there. Additionally, the Cuban government doesn’t dictate the content of this article; and no, we should not necessarily “follow them” (as you mentioned).TocororoWings (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is WP:WEIGHT. At the risk of repeating myself, this is not about "the Cuban government [dictating] the content of this article". I argue that a reasonable weight of reliable sources mention the embargo in their discussion of the causes, primarily as the cause cited by the government, which is why it should be clearly marked as the government's stance, but also as a contributory factor to the shortages. Provided it's not given undue prominence (by, for example, mentioning the sanctions above causes widely considered as more important), it's appropriate to list it as a cause. Jr8825 • Talk 16:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: We're not questioning the weight of “G says [E caused P]” but the verifiability of “E caused P”. Agree? TocororoWings (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I actually disagree. WP:V is not about verifying the true cause, it's about verifying that the content we include comes from reliable sources. The issue is WP:WEIGHT, because that's the policy which governs how we decide whether something is notable enough to mention in an article's content. I think the view that the embargo was a cause is not the view of a tiny minority and deserves to be included. As I mentioned, I'm going to back my view up shortly by providing some quotes from sources that will hopefully help other editors make their own judgements about the weight of the embargo claim. Jr8825 • Talk 16:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

"But some Cuban Calgarians say the embargo isn't to blame for the island's worst economic crisis since the fall of the Soviet Union. 'Cubans know that the reason they're not getting food and medicine is that the government is incompetent, not because of the embargo.'" Notes it say "some" and they are abroad Cubans. In addition, several sources do not reduce it to "the government is incompetent" but explain the cause and what it actually did wrong, such as currency reform, which limited Cuban pesos exchange for United States dollars because the government needed the reform package to finance imports, led to soaring inflation. Davide King (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that a group of editors here are on a mission to push the embargo into the infobox one way or another (no assumptions): “- ok, it cannot be listed as a direct cause, let's try now with an attribution, ... no, ok, let’s try to work around it and include it as an indirect cause then... ” Is it only me noticing this? TocororoWings (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF. BSMRD (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

That why I explicitly said "no assumptions". TocororoWings (talk)

Saying "no assumptions" followed by immediately making assumptions doesn't cancel it out. Just because editors have a different opinion to yours does not mean they are conspiring to a certain end. BSMRD (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

"I said the magic words, so now you have to disregard everything else I said! ...except in the event you agreed with it." To answer the totally hypothetical scenario you totally did not pose as being real... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. If there's sources for something, don't act surprised people want it included. And if there's argument on the talk page, with passion on both sides, good, that's the way it's supposed to work, and hopefully leads to consensus and due weight in the article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@BSMRD: @AllegedlyHuman: thanks for the feedback! TocororoWings (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I am so biased and bounded my ideology [sarcasm] that I just added crackdown at Resulted in per BBC and Reuters... Davide King (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Full page ad on the New York Times: https://www.letcubalive.com/ny-times-ad/ signed by 400+ politicians, intellectuals, scientists, clergy, artists, activists & ex-heads of state calling on Presidente Biden to immediately lift Trump's 243 sanctions on Cuba and the whole embargo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.154.178 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reference has been made but the sentence does not say what the open letter is about ("immediately lift Trump's 243 sanctions on Cuba and the whole embargo"). it is not known what the signatories demand unless the reference is read

Statement by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. on Continuing Crackdown in Cuba: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/22/statement-by-president-joseph-r-biden-jr-on-continuing-crackdown-in-cuba/ condemning the "mass detentions and sham trials that are unjustly sentencing to prison those who dared to speak out in an effort to intimidate and threaten the Cuban people into silence.", holding the Cuban regime accountable, and expressing support for the Cuban people. TocororoWings (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)