Talk:ZunZuneo

Screen caps?

Do we have any pictures of what the site actually looked like? edit:current link to zunzeneo directs you to a scary looking warning page.

-G

Ask the Wayback Machine, I do not know how they handle Robots exclusion standards by government-run sites. 78.35.223.147 (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Alan Gross on hunger strike

[1] include? EllenCT (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Drive by tagging

A first time editor of this article has introduced two "undue weight" tags without explanation. Burrobert (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

⏳🙄 Burrobert (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

A month passes .... 🙅‍♀️🤦‍♂️ Burrobert (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I had no way of knowing about this message because you never notified me (or even mentioned, for that matter). The tags should be self-explanatory: compared to a government official or an investigative journalists, the additions don't carry the same weight as the existing statements.

Since you have objected to "drive by tagging", I have gone ahead and solved the tags. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Aren't you opposed to "blank[ing] referenced content from articles, particularly when we're talking about so established sources"?[2]

You placed the tags so it is your responsibility to explain your reasons. Other editors shouldn't need to hold your hand and ask for explanations. Readers also need to know why the tags have been placed on the page. Your usual explanation that "The tags should be self-explanatory" is meaningless and requires other editors to be mind-readers. The other part of your explanation is also meaningless. What does this mean: "compared to a government official or an investigative journalists, the additions don't carry the same weight as the existing statements"? Burrobert (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

And I'm always more than happy to provide explanations, but if I have no way of knowing there has been an issue in the first place don't act surprised or whine if I can't reply.

The section currently states sources such as United States relations director Josefina Vidal of the Cuban Foreign Ministry, investigative journalist Jon Lee Anderson and Americas Quarterly. Opinions such as those from NGO WOLA cannot be compared in weight. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Burrobert and NoonIcarus: NoonIcarus, I see that you tagged without an explanation and then removed the said information. This is similar to your behavior of removing a disputed source, tagging it as "citation needed" and then deleting the material (as previously discussed). Burrobert and I have raised this concern multiple times. In your edit summary, you vaguely state "Solving inline tags", again not providing an explanation. Finally, after Burrobert has asked you for an explanation for over a month, you provide an answer that could have been included in an initial edit summary. This is disruptive.

Now, my intention was to include the information you removed in an appropriate area near comparative sources. As I do not want to edit war (since you removed what I placed), I'd like to ask Burrobert what their opinion is on the information that I included. Is it undue or placed inappropriately?--WMrapids (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids: WP:ICANTHEARYOU: see the reasons why I wasn't able to reply that I have provided above twice now, the last time literally just a few minutes ago.

WP:UNDUE is based on WP:WEIGHT. If we include quality sources in the section, we should continue to provide similar references in the future. WOLA and The Nation are specifically partisan sources, and you can see this summary of the latter at WP:RSP. That was the reason for the tag. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes @WMrapids:, your material fits quite well with a lot of other content that is already in the article. Its placement in the Reactions sections is also fine. The opinions have due weight because there are multiple sources saying the same thing about the ZunZuneo programme. The opinions may have lacked due weight if they had differed from most or all other opinions about the ZunZuneo programme, but that is not the case. ("Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views".) For example:

• The New York Times article “In Cuba, Misadventures in Regime Change” mentions ZunZuneo among other US government programmes and then says: “Instead of stealth efforts to overthrow the government, American policy makers should find ways to empower ordinary Cubans by expanding study-abroad programs, professional exchanges and investment in the new small businesses cropping up around the island”.
• The NPR source “What A Failed Hip-Hop Experiment Can Teach Us About The Future Of U.S.-Cuba Relations". says “Zunzuneo, or 'Cuban Twitter,' was a 2010 project to build a social-media network to facilitate regime change ”.
• John Cheney-Lippold writes that "As everything we do becomes datafied, everything we do becomes controllable", citing ZunZuneo as a "malicious" example of how governments can influence the public .
• Lars Schoultz in his book In Their Own Best Interest: A History of the U.S. Effort to Improve Latin Americans likened the ZunZuneo affair to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.

I would suggest a minor rewrite of Mark Hanson’s opinion. Hanson says that those who support the US embargo also support the ZunZuneo programme because both are “initiatives to destabilize the [Cuban] government”. Perhaps say something like that.

Regarding The Nation as a source, our guide says “There is consensus that The Nation is generally reliable. … Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed”. Since you have attributed the criticism, there is no problem with your edit. Burrobert (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)