Talk:2021 Cuban protests/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Contentious content, consensus, and compromise

If a piece of content is contentious, it should be temporarily removed from the article while discussions are taking place and until editors reach a consensus. Let’s give equal treatment to opposing views and not make this article a political battleground.

I am seeing that some contentious content remains in the article while discussions are taking place, while other (potentially equally) contentious content is removed while discussions are taking place. All contentious content should be treated equally in fairness to all editors' legitimate concerns. We owe this to the readers and will potentially help prevent misinformation. We should either keep all contentious content in the article or remove them all while discussions are taking place (we can seek consensus on this also).

I propose that we temporarily remove from the article any piece of content that has been deemed contentious or challenged by other editors until consensus is reached.

I also propose that we make a list identifying all content/text deemed to be contentious, so it is easier for everyone to track.

Here is a start (feel free to expand this list):

1. Infobox - Causes: Authoritarianism (excluded, discussions in progress, see section X)
2. Infobox - Causes: United States embargo against Cuba (excluded, discussions in progress, see section Y)
3. Infobox - Method: Rioting (excluded, discussions in progress, see section Z)

TocororoWings (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and ironically that is exactly why I have removed authoritarianism from the infobox. At least the embargo is listed as causes alongside "rising prices, falling wages, ... and the failings of the island's long-standing communist government to address its economic challenges." I have yet to see such a direct quote explicitly mentioning 'authoritarianism', and I am open to other possible wording other than that as we did for the 2011 Russian protests, unless 'authoritarianism' is listed as a cause in a direct quote; we already say "curbs on civil liberties", the exact Reuters' wording. I would also like to remind that I was the one to mention authoritarianism and a Cuban dissident journalist comment in the lead. So much for being indirectly called an areshole at least twice by Ajñavidya. Davide King (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that what TocororoWings is referring to is that a discussed and polemic topic such as the inclusion "authoritarianism" in the infobox is excluded while being discussed, whereas equally polemic points such as the "US embargo against Cuba" and "rioting" are included in the article while they're being discussed in the talk page. May he corrects me if I'm wrong. Ajñavidya (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that there is an ongoing RfC about whether to add 'authoritarianism' (no matter what you say to game the system), whereas the latter only have one discussion each which involve just two users. For 'rioting', a better source needed template may be enough, rather than outright removal, since that is exactly what you asked for, and I wish BeŻet would reply you back to that discussion for the embargo there is only this discussion, to which Goodposts made a fair point. Both are not well attended (we would need more users to declare there is not consensus) and it is an example of false balance to compare 'authoritarianism', for which there is a single source (The Independent, even though it is a passing mention in an article about Sanders' reaction) that include 'authoritarianism' in a direct quote when listing the cause, rather than just saying the country is authoritarian (which would be original research and synthesis to imply it supports the claim 'authoritarianism' is a cause), to the embargo; for the latter, the sources may only disagree on how much the embargo is on par with the shortages, or the COVID-19 pandemic, i.e. some sources, such as one NBC News article, may say the lack of promised economic reforms is a cause just as important as the shortages, or that the embargo is not the main or only cause of the protests as the Cuban government originally claimed (as I stated, whoever reduces the protests to either the embargo or authoritarianism, is 'wrong'; it is more complicated than that and includes a combination of factors), but they do not say the embargo has not had any impact at all or is not a cause for some Cubans. Davide King (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Davide King: Let’s take into account the difference between perennial, long-standing realities (communism, totalitarianism, lack of civil liberties, embargo, and self-imposed embargo) attributed as causes in contrast to recent events that helped trigger the protests (covid, food crisis, deterioration of the health system, price inflation). In my opinion, both sets played a role, recent causes building upon perennial causes exacerbated the situation, making it unbearable and sparking the protests. We must make an effort to reflect all causes and decide whether we want to include perennial factors, recent factors, or both, and of course, properly document each. I think we should include both sets, as you mentioned earlier “whoever reduces the protests to either the embargo or authoritarianism, is 'wrong'; it is more complicated than that and includes a combination of factors”. Let’s give those factors their due weight.

An ongoing RfC does not make a difference, as long as there are ongoing discussions about the topic. Let’s not use the existence or lack of an RfC as an attempt to give undue weight to one point of view vs. another. Let’s not point out (or maintain) artificial differences. Creating an RfC is just a step away; in fact, I have just created an RfC just for this purpose.

Let’s also recall that Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pointing out the number of editors discussing a topic is equally misleading and irrelevant, as long as there are legitimate concerns from at least one editor.

In regards to including the Embargo as a cause. Let’s take into account that the Cuban government is the primary driver for blaming the embargo as a cause of the protests (in my opnion, as a distraction mechanism and to avoid exposing their own flaws) when they are, in fact, the opposing party in the conflict. Attributing a cause (in this case, the Embargo) to your opponent’s actions, when none of your opponents have claimed it as a cause of their actions, is questionable at least, and delegitimizes the "cause". This is something @Ajñavidya: has mentioned before. TocororoWings (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"In my opinion, both sets played a role, recent causes building upon perennial causes exacerbated the situation, making it unbearable and sparking the protests." You said it yourself, that is your opinion, which I respect, but the overwhelmingly majority of sources attribute the protests to shortage and the COVID-19 pandemic. You say that we should "take into account the difference between perennial, long-standing realities (communism, totalitarianism, lack of civil liberties, embargo, and self-imposed embargo) attributed as causes in contrast to recent events that helped trigger the protests", but this is original research and synthesis, and in spite of half a century of authoritarianism, the biggest anti-government protests in years happened after the shortages and the COVID-19 pandemic; in 2019, Cubans protested for more social media access and better government, which the latter improved by providing 3G access, and in 2020, they protested against the killing of an Afro-Cuban by the police.

Even sources, such as an NBC News piece, which says the protests goes beyond the pandemic and the embargo, without denying that both are still causes, they do not say 'authoritarianism' is a cause but rather a lack of promised economic reforms which did not materialize. The bottom line is there has been no long-standing, or at all, edit-warring over the embargo in infobox, whereas there has been more than one edit war about adding 'authoritarianism', even as there is an ongoing RfC and Ajñavidya, who tried to game the system by closing the RfC, which is to be done by an uninvolved admin, to falsely claim consensus.

"Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." I just hope you are consistent and do not consider that there is consensus about 'authoritarianism' in the infobox just because so far there a few more 'yay' votes than 'nay.' "Let’s take into account that the Cuban government is the primary driver for blaming the embargo as a cause of the protests (in my opinion, as a distraction mechanism and to avoid exposing their own flaws) when they are, in fact, the opposing party in the conflict."

First of all, while it is true the Cuban government attributed it mainly to the embargo, it also later admitted mistakes by the government and by its leaders. The problem is you are acting like only the government say this, when most sources mention the embargo; Al Jazeera explicitly mentions the embargo as cause ("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.") and most sources only state that the embargo is not the only cause, as the government claims (I actually agree that of course the embargo is not the only cause, much less the main cause, just like authoritarianism is not the only cause, much less the main cause), but they do not deny that the embargo has had negative effects or that it exacerbated them, just like the Trump-era sanctions did.

"Attributing a cause (in this case, the Embargo) to your opponent’s actions, when none of your opponents have claimed it as a cause of their actions, is questionable at least, and delegitimizes the 'cause.'" This looks like you are heavily emotionally invested in the protests, which I can understand and support, but it remains your personal opinion, and I do not see how it "delegitimises the 'cause.'" Wikipedia is not a memorial, and we are not here to either legitimize or delegitimize anything but only to report what reliable sources say and what due weight they attribute to the causes.

In short, 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. There are also more sources that list the embargo as Al Jazeera did, while only The Independent explicitly listed as causes "strict authoritarianism", which, just like Reuters' "curbs on civil liberties" wording, could also be caused the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown (most Western governments could be considered 'authoritarian' during that period, but we do not list 'authoritarianism' as cause for protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, of which this article is part of, and we should not list it here either) because, as noted by Goodposts, civil liberties were actually slightly increasing (there was even a relatively open constitutional referendum and discussion), even if not enough, and the government was more willing to listen to its people, as shown by proving 3G access. Davide King (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I broadly agree with the points made by Davide King. The fact that the Cuban opposition deems their government to be authoritarian is not in dispute. However, very few, if any RS state that that was the underlying reason for the start of the protests. Shortages of food and medicine, however, are very well recognized as initiators of the protest movement. Many sources also directly mention the embargo's role in contributing to said shortage, and hence extend that to be one of the underlying reasons as to why the protests actually started. Besides being mentioned by RS (which I think ought to be the primary qualifier as to whether something should be included or not), there is already very high quality scientific literature that demonstrates the link between the embargo and food and medicine shortages in Cuba. With that said, the embargo is not necessarily what triggered the protests, but it directly contributed to the socioeconomic situation that did. However, blaming the embargo alone for Cuba's crisis would also not be very correct. That same socioeconomic situation is caused by multiple factors, including the aforementioned embargo, but also including foreign policy (close trade ties with other nations that are themselves struggling economically at the moment), Cuba's economic structure and the unprecedented global pandemic. It is worth noting that the 'curbs' some of the sources talked about had to do with coronavirus restrictions, which have a lot more to do with public health policy than with authoritarianism. As to where does Cuba lay in the spectrum of democracy to authoritarianism - this is a matter of much academic debate. Despite this, the recent trends actually show an improvement, not a degradation, of civil liberties. This was already described in the background section with explanations relating to the Cuban Thaw and the island nation's new constitution. For some reason, an editor removed this without discussion. The sources given to support the claim that authoritarianism triggered the protests don't actually do so in my opinion, for example, the two current sources state that ... "...a major new challenge to an authoritarian government..." and "The demonstrations in several cities and towns were some of the biggest displays of anti-government sentiment" do not demonstrate that authoritarianism was the starting point of the demonstrations. The first sources only describes the government as authoritarian, while the second merely states that the protest movement is more significant than other such displays in recent memory. Neither claims that the protests began due to authoritarianism. So even if you consider Cuba's government to be authoritarian, as the opposition does, this does not necessarily mean that authoritarianism caused the protests to begin. Moreover, the recent political reforms are generally regarded as having increased, not decreased civil liberties, as I've already mentioned. This did not change the fundamental power structure on the island, and many opposition groups consider the reforms as nowhere near enough, but it does not bode well for the idea that protests began due to government authoritarianism. Goodposts (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Goodposts, for what it is worth you are also right about the civil rights, at least according the Civil Rights Index, which shows Cuba slightly improved from 10 to 13–14. In addition, Reuters' 'curb' is 'restriction' and The New York Times' 'clamdowns' is the 'inforcement of a restriction', and since neither present a clarifying statement (i.e. a new legislation, for example) and are both mentioned when discussing "shortages of basic goods, curbs on civil liberties and the government's handling of a surge in COVID-19 infections on Sunday, in the most significant unrest in decades in the Communist-run country" and "spurred by the economic crisis caused by the pandemic, shortages in basic goods and clampdowns on civil liberties", respectively, it is fair to assume they are referring to curbs and clampdowns as a result of the pandemic and lockdown, of which the measure have been described as 'strict' and even praised "for having greatly limited the number of Covid-19 infections last year. But the success came at the expense of the economy. Cuba shut its borders for eight months with absolutely no tourism" (per CBC News).

Or at least it is not to be excluded they are the result of the lockdown restrictions, rather than automatically assume there was some new law which further reduced them. The government repression of peaceful protests is an unjustified civil liberties violation which has nothing to do with pandemic restrictions, while curbs and clackdowns on civil liberties prior to the protests seem mainly to be due the pandemic's handling (most Western governments curbed civil liberties), as further repression of civil liberties came after the protests, while previous curbs on civil liberties seem to be mainly the result of the pandemic restriction, which in a country already authoritarian and with few civil liberties is amplificated, as Cuba actually slighted increase, not decrease its civil liberties ranking, according to the aforementioned index, over the last eight years. Therefore, in my view Goodposts are right about what they wrote. Davide King (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ajñavidya:you are correct. It’s only reasonable and fair to the article, editors, and readers that contentious content is removed while legitimate discussions are taking place. This may actually be something we need to seek consensus on, maybe an RfC for this would be beneficial to capture everyone’s legitimate concerns. TocororoWings (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Self-imposed “embargo” of the government against its own people

I think the "self-imposed embargo" of the Cuban government against its own people is being overlooked. The fact that the Cuban government had to temporarily lift limits on the import of food and medicine is evidence of one in many self-imposed restrictions that are still in place to worsen the economic situation of the people to later be able to blame it on the embargo. This is an old tactic. TocororoWings (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It has always been possible to import medicine and food by visitors paying customs duties, even in a certain amount but not at commercial levels. Now what was increased was the limit and without additional charges. The country can produce half of the medicines, the most necessary and used ones, but the economic and financial difficulties, and the additional imposed by the embargo, make it difficult for it to obtain supplies for production, even more so in recent years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.184 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Please, if you have an actual, referenced edit proposal to make, just do it. "Although the embargo does not currently fully explicitly block the acquisition of food and medicines,[62] studies by the American Association for World Health and The Lancet showed that while the Cuban Democracy Act was amended to allow the de jure export of food and medicines into the country, the de facto application and implications of the act's enforcement significantly restricted the accessibility of both within Cuba." This was removed because it did not mention the protests, but just because it allows the de jure export of food and medicine, it does not mean suddenly there is no issue de facto or repercussion anyway; and of course, before anyone falsely misrepresent me, it is not just the embargo (whoever blame everything either on the embargo or government alone is making it too reductive and simplistic, and as we state, the crisis "emerged from a combination of factors", which is more accurate than blaming everything on either the embargo or authoritarianism), but I could find no reliable source discussing a "self-imposed embargo." The only one I could find was this 2017 article by the Washington Examiner. This cannot be used per synthesis because it predates the protests, and perennial sources table states that "[t]here is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled with the appropriate guideline." Davide King (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Here I did add, as it was mentioned in this article by the Associated Press, José Jasan Nieves's comment that the Cuban government "has just shown that it could have allowed the entry of food and medicine without quantity limits or tariffs all along but chose not to do so for more than a year of the pandemic." Davide King (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It's called protectionism. Governments do this in order to favour local industry over foreign imports as a tool to stimulate and develop the local economy. I, personally, don't really support such policies, as they tend to only cause retaliatory measures by foreign nations and end up leaving everyone worse off due to reduced trade. Despite my personal reservations, it's worth noting that protectionist policies are implemented across the world, including by the US, EU, and many other nations and trade blocs. Cuba's economic system is also quite divergent from the commonly accepted methodology of 'economic orthodoxy' and as such may have sovereignty-based reasons to seek to protect it. Developing countries especially may rely on the principles of developmentalism in an attempt to build up domestic industry before reliance on foreign goods reaches a critical level - another legitimate reason to use protectionist policies. Some African countries, for example, banned the donation of free clothes in an attempt to safeguard their domestic textiles and retail clothing industries from bankruptcy. So despite the fact that I would, in general, support the gradual global trend in the reduction and elimination of tariffs and other barriers to trade, I cannot agree that such policies are used exclusively to blame foreign powers for local economic issues, nor do I see for there being objective evidence that this was done in this case. Goodposts (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

As a government, if you genuinely care about the wellbeing of your people, it’s only reasonable that you adopt policies to try to compensate for the “effects of the embargo”. Protectionism, as a protection mechanism, is not an excuse to further exacerbate the pain and suffering of the people. It’s no time for protectionism and Cuba is not the US, and EU. Protectionism would be understandable when you have a flourishing economy to protect, not when your people are hungry. TocororoWings (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I am curious to hear Goodposts' response because they have provided several interesting points and comments throughout this talk page, but even though I can agree that "it's only reasonable that you adopt policies to try to compensate for the 'effects of the embargo'", it is harder to do that when the embargo had cost the Cuban economy $1.1 trillion in the 55 years since its inception, at least according to a 2015 report by Al Jazeera, and even "contributed to the deaths of an unknown number of people who otherwise could have lived." If victims of famines in Communist regimes are counted as fault of the Communist regimes, I do not see why only victims from famines in Communist regimes are counted or small-c communism is blamed for it, but famines in capitalist countries, or caused by capitalist governments, are not to be considered or blamed on capitalism, nor are they an indictment of capitalism, like they are for 'socialism', or whatever they mean by it. If deaths from the famine on the 1990s are on the Cuban government, deaths caused by the embargo are on the United States government. I am neither pro-Cuban or anti-Cuban, anti-American or pro-American (I am for both the American and Cuban people, not governments). I am just consistent. Davide King (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

To the contrary, developmentalism, as the Wikipedia page on that phenomenon explains, is used most often by poorer developing countries seeking to create national industry. Cuba has a very lively and important homegrown health sector and is likely seeking to protect it. As I've explained, I hold some personal reservations to this protectionist approach, but nevertheless it does have both rationale and precedent among developing nations. Flourishing nations often don't need protectionism, because their goods are already competitive at the home market (and likely abroad), poorer nations (or struggling industries of richer nations) rely on protectionist policies to stay competitive in the face of either superior or cheaper foreign competition. Goodposts (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Ironically, many nations, such as Germany and the United States, which went for free trade for the exact same reasons you stated, have used protectionism, especially to industrialize or during the industrialization process. Similarly, many poorer nations are doing the same, and will likely change in favour of free trade once they have developed enough. Idealistically, "it's only reasonable that you adopt policies to try to compensate for the 'effects of the embargo'", then you go see the nation's actual development and the effects of the embargo, and you understand the reality of the situation, which does not mean it cannot be improved, but keeping the embargo is not improving it either. Davide King (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

In this page, Cuban or pro-Cuban cites is removed, but pro-protesters and pro-USA cites are accepted without any control. Is this really that, what you mean, when you talk about Wikipedia neutrality? 146.255.181.155 (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I second this, there have been fake news and fake images circulating and there is no mention in the article. There should be a not on the article for it, so readers are aware of biased opinions exposed in the article.

Can you be more specific? Which sentence do you find inaccurate and why? Cambalachero (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not either of these folks, but notably Western outlets like the Guardian have been using photos from the much larger counter-protests in order to make the anti-Cuban protests appear better-attended. Additionally, it's becoming increasingly obvious that the #SOSCuba hashtag was Astroturfed, starting in Spain before being retweeted by a number of dormant low-follower accounts. Wikipedians often intentionally deprecate any news sites that might offer a counter-balance to US and UK corporate media in politically fraught situations like this, so I'm also wary about the bias on these sorts of pages. 161.11.160.44 (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can start a hashtag, but for it to become viral you need loads and loads of people to use it. And once things get to that level, the original author of the hashtag is just a footnote, if remembered by anyone at all. So let's say that the hashtag was started by a user from Spain, and that some puppet twitter accounts helped it. So what? Would that change anything? Cambalachero (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

You haven't presented any sources of any kind verifying those major claims. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

"Outlets like the Guardian have been using photos from the much larger counter-protests in order to make the anti-Cuban protests appear better-attended". Where did that information came from? Is this a guess?

"It's becoming increasingly obvious that the #SOSCuba hashtag was Astroturfed" According to whom? And in what information was this statement based on?

Yes, we're disproportionately using western sources cuz, well, cuban sources can be trusted to a degree, considering they're State owned, so they can be used but the information must be attributed.

For now, all these accusations about "bias" pretty much comes down to "it's bias just because". "The western media is this and that". Yes, there is a lot of misinformation and propaganda coming from both sides, and we can judge the sources where they stand, but accusing other users of being bias themselves and using such frail arguments, don't make any sense to me. So, don't just go by "ah it's an american/british/western source, so of course is bias". This argument simply won't gonna cut it. Coltsfan (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

One example of The Guardian retracting the wrong use of the images (at the end of the article): https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jul/12/thousands-march-in-cuba-in-rare-mass-protests-amid-economic-crisis

Reuters (also Al Jazeera an others) about the fakes: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/fake-news-muddies-online-waters-during-cuba-protests-2021-07-16/

"'It's becoming increasingly obvious that the #SOSCuba hashtag was Astroturfed' According to whom? And in what information was this statement based on?" One spanish media researcher´s investigation about that: https://twitter.com/JulianMaciasT/status/1414681678539378691 , thousands of false accounts and bots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.184 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is trying to push the narrative of embargo embargo embargo. The pro Freedom protesters are waiving the American flag, they're not fooled by the idiotic argument that the embargo is to blame. Washington Post contributors want to minimize the failure of Communism. 2600:1700:3870:7D60:8980:6392:2C9:3C8F (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

About the embargo

The heads of state that want to defend the Cuban government claim that the awful life conditions are only because of the embargo. It is then highly relevant to point a fact about it: the acquisition of foods and medicines is currently allowed. That is not an opinion, but the way things are: check United States embargo against Cuba#Increasing legislation for details. I mentioned it, citing this article (made in the context of those protests), but Bezet removed it, claiming that "source does say that the embargo limits food and medicine purchase"). I suppose the user is not fluent in Spanish and can not understand context, so let me clarify: the first two paragraphs explain what did Diaz Canel say, third and fourth about other heads of state that made similar claims, then the answer of the US, and the factual information about the embargo. And that fact is, regardless of what Canel, Maduro Da Silva, and others say, that Cuba can receive food and medicines since two decades ago. Cambalachero (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

This is misleading though as it is well documented that though there is now a legal process to import medicines from the US, it is incredibly onerous, and it doesn't change the wider impact of restrictions on shipping or use of US dollars by Cuba. Stating that it is possible doesn't fully take into account the impact the embargo is having on the import of medicines in practice and is therefore misleading. There are better sources but here is an Amnesty International report (non-Cuban/ALBA source) from 09 for an example of what I mean: https://www.amnesty.org › a...PDF - it would be less misleading if the claim was caveated with reference to the fact that embargo does still have an impact on their import- which it demonstrably does.

It is true that the act was amended to allow the de jure export of food and medicines into the country. However, the de facto application and implications of the act's enforcement are proven to have significantly restricted the accessibility of both within Cuba. That's not my claim, it's The Lancet's. The American Association for World Health's report came to the same conclusion. The motivations behind the UN's condemnation of the embargo also feature a concern for the health and nutrition of Cubans, which it deems negatively affected by the embargo. The condemnation has already received the support of the UN general assembly over 29 years in a row, with the only two nations to actively oppose it being Israel and the United States itself. Goodposts (talk) 14:47, 15 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. I think this should be added in the Reactions section. — 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.

Please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). TocororoWings (talk)

Infobox compromise

Considering two active RfCs are running on this, I'm just making a new section. Is the compromise in this diff ([1]) acceptable? It can be edited as needed but if it is broadly acceptable I will withdraw my RfC and encourage User:TocororoWings to do the same with theirs, and we can finally move on. Pinging users involved in discussion (User:Davide KingUser:CambalacheroUser:AllegedlyHumanUser:AjñavidyaUser:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.dUser:GoodpostsUser:BeŻet) BSMRD (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Davide King: this looks like a job well done to me, and is hopefully 90% of the way towards a version we can find consensus for. I have one objection, which is that the embargo (which I agree should be mentioned, as most sources say that the Cuban government insists it is the main reason for the protests) should be a separate point prefaced by "per Cuban government:", rather your suggestion, which is to qualify it with "(latter is main cause according to Cuba)" after it's mentioned. Jr8825 • Talk 04:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825, thanks so much for your comments, I really appreciate it. Could you please clarify your only issue? I have putted this together ("Economic contraction, exarberated by inefficiencies, the pandemic, sanctions, and the embargo against Cuba [latter is main cause according to Cuba]") because it is all related to economics and I wanted to avoid using more than four " • "; the first part is supported by the body at Background. I thought "latter [the embargo] is main cause according to Cuba" was a good compromise of sources, as it does not dismiss sources which list it as a cause, those which disagree that is the main cause, and those which may mention its unpopularity among Cubans, its negative effects, and/or state it should be lifted but ultimately conclude it is not a cause, and clarify that is the main cause according to the Cuban government, which has also provided others, such as the tightened sanctions by the Trump administration, but the main cause according to the government is the embargo. What would you change? Davide King (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Davide King, I'm headed off and don't have time to respond. I'll come back to this later, but to clarify, I think it needs to be a separate bullet point to allow for clear, separate attribution. Jr8825 • Talk 05:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825, that is fine by me. Davide King (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you are suggesting, BSMRD. I am fully compromised to write an accurate depiction of reality in this article (2021 Cuban protests), specially considering what it means for a lot of people. Why are you making this negotiation on withdrawing an RfC you started, and asking TocororoWings to withdraw theirs? RfC's are useful; it'd say they rather should be kept and continued. Ajñavidya (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that I agree with Ajñavidya about early closure of one or both of the RfCs: this should ideally be dependent on a clear consensus or agreement by participants. See WP:RFCEND. Withdrawing the first RfC because, for example, there's a clear consensus among editors to mention authoritarianism is fair enough – closing it to avoid acknowledging this consensus wouldn't stand. It's possible a solution can be found through discussion elsewhere, especially as both RfCs are rather narrow questions rather than precise proposals, which is why I felt this discussion and Davide King's diff was a step in the right direction. My comment wasn't intended as an endorsement of closing the RfCs. If disagreement continues there's a lot to be said for letting them run their course. Jr8825 • Talk 06:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to clarify to the above editors that I only mentioned withdrawing the RfC only if this compromise was accepted by the community, as it answers both questions and renders the RfCs moot anyways. BSMRD (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with the current infobox ("Lack of civil liberties (freedom of assembly and political freedom) ... End of authoritarian Communist state and one-party rule"), and I believe now we should only discuss whether to add the embargo, by attributing it to the Cuban government as the (main) cause. Davide King (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Davide King: "Authoritarianism" needs to be included in the infobox, ideally along "lack of civil liberties" (which both ARE NOT the same thing, as I once explained in this edit). This inclusion is supported by sources and by RfC consensus. Ajñavidya (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

This would be giving too much weight to sources which may appear to support that, and not enough to those which do not. Just because they do not say "Hey, sources which mention 'authoritarianism', we think 'authoritarianism' is not a cause" is not an excuse to ignore them. The fact the many sources I provided, including the United States-based Associated Press and The New York Times, did not say 'authoritarianism' or 'authoritarian', especially when discussing the protests ("thousands of Cubans took to the streets in cities around the country on Sunday to protest food and medicine shortages, ... The protests that erupted on Sunday were spurred by the economic crisis caused by the pandemic, shortages in basic goods and clampdowns on civil liberties"; no mention of 'authoritarian' or 'authoritarianism', and we need to be careful to also reflect sources' actual wording and avoid any form of editorializing) and why they erupted (rather than just cherry pick any mention of 'authoritarian' when referring to the government or country), means that they did not find it due and cannot be ignored.

Also please stop acting like you have consensus on that RfC. That is determined by the closure, not by you or me. Also why you can use "per sources" to support inclusion but not my "per sources" to support a different wording? Davide King (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: How much weight are we supposed to give to the Cuban government's viewpoints? If we're planning on adding the embargo to the infobox, why shouldn't we add the protests were caused by:

• U.S.-financed "counter-revolutionaries" exploiting economic hardship[2]
• mercenaries hired by the U.S. to destabilize the island. [3]
• the U.S. government and its enemies in the U.S. of using social media tools such as Twitter to send messages organizing the street protests. [4]

Or any other propaganda talking point of the Cuban government? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a fallacious argument and a reductio ad absurdum to falsely imply we are just parroting Cuban government's talking points. Because we are just not going to add to the infobox any Cuban government talking point. The reason the embargo should be added and attributed as the main cause to the government is because, as shown here, and unlike your three given examples, it is mentioned in virtually any source.

To answer your rhetorical question, "How much weight are we supposed to give to the Cuban government's viewpoints?" As much as sources give to it, which is a lot. You keep ignoring that (1) there are some sources, such as Al Jazeera, which list the embargo as a cause, or (2) other sources that only express the view that the embargo is either not the main cause of the protests, or (3) is not a cause at all but it did exacerbate the crisis (as part of tighter sanctions, alongside other commonly cited factors such as inefficiencies, the pandemic, etc.) or is still a problem, and (4) only a few selected, cherry picked ones say it did not have any negative effect.

So why does only point 4 matters and not the previous three points? Davide King (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. All the sources you listed here prove my point. They all state the Cuban government blames the embargo. Other Cuban government talking points are frequently mentioned in sources. I just provided three for convenience's sake. Here are some other ones:

Extended content

. Unprecedented anti-government protests broke out in Cuba on July 11, which the single-party state leadership blames on a Twitter campaign orchestrated by the United States. [5] Díaz-Canel blamed the protests on U.S. efforts to provoke a social uprising by tightening its sanctions and warned that protesters would face a strong response. [6] Mr Díaz-Canel said the protesters were mercenaries hired by the US to destabilise the country, and called for his supporters to go out and defend the revolution [7] Cuba's Foreign Minister, Bruno Rodriguez, blamed social media activists in the U.S. for a campaign that led to Sunday's large anti-government march in Havana and smaller ones across the island. [8] As Cuban officials blamed the US for Sunday’s demonstrations...Rogelio Polanco Fuentes, a top party official who runs its ideology department, denounced the protests as part of a well-funded US-sponsored effort to create “instability and chaos” in Cuba [9] In the appearance that included Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez and the entire Cabinet, the Cubans also blamed “U.S.-financed mercenaries” for staging what they portrayed as a social media ploy, likely out of South Florida [10] Officials have blamed a campaign on social media under the hashtag #SOSCuba calling for humanitarian aid for fueling the protests, saying it was launched by U.S.-backed mercenaries seeking to destabilize the Communist-run country. [11] After the protests, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel blamed much of the unrest on the United States, claiming US-backed mercenaries caused the unrest. [12] The Cuban leader said he believed many of the protesters were sincere but alleged that they had been manipulated by American social media campaigns and “counter-revolutionary mercenaries". [13] Díaz-Canel said the Cuban protests were the result of a U.S. and social media campaign to manipulate people while the island is facing hardship during the pandemic. [14] ...the Cuban strongman claimed in a television address that Khalifa is working with the U.S. government to try to strangle the communist redoubt. [15] The government initially vowed to hold talks, but soon after shut down all dialogue, with Cuban authorities, including Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel, accusing them of being mercenaries paid by the United States. [16] the Cuban government is very good at making itself seem like the victim internationally — the victim of the embargo, the victim of — air quotes — mercenaries in Cuba, the victim of everything to get sympathy that translates into money and aid [17] Diaz-Canel, who had just returned from San Antonio de los Banos, said many protesters were sincere but manipulated by US-orchestrated social media campaigns and “mercenaries” on the ground, and warned that further “provocations” would not be tolerated. [18] Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez blamed U.S.-financed mercenaries. [19] Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel on Monday blamed...social media for weaponizing the economic crisis against the government. [20] The government had only blamed social media and the United States for inciting the protests. [21] Mr Díaz-Canel blames Cuba’s troubles on the embargo imposed by the United States, as the government always does. He has ignored the complaints of the protesters, dismissing them as mercenaries... [22]

So, in short, the other Cuban government talking points are almost as frequently mentioned in sources as the embargo. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I am saying exactly what Jr8825 concisely and perfectly clear explained. But are they really routinely mentioned alongside the embargo? I do not think so. They fail weight, while the embargo does not. Your comment also allegedly underlines that we are adding it just because government talking points somehow must be mentioned, when that is not the case at all. Embargo should be added because the overwhelmingly majority of sources discuss it and gave it weight that no other 'talking point' has been given. You also continue to ignore the fact sources say sanctions did exarberate the crisis; even if not all sources agree on how much they did, or whether they did it, a significant minority (at worst) say they did. That is why I support main cause according to the government in parenthesis. Davide King (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Davide King, Ok fair enough. Can you point me to an article with a comparable example? I've looked at articles like Yellow vests protests, 2021 Haitian protests, 2018–2021 Arab protests, and 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests and none of them seem to include what the government is saying about the causes of the protests. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

So now other articles matter? I am not arguing for adding all government views, I am for adding one view which is virtually mentioned in any article about protests (due and notability), whereas your provided examples do not meet weight. Another reason is that, unlike your other examples, the embargo is relevant, as most sources concede that sanctions (alongside shortages, pandemic, inefficiencies, government mismanagement, etc., and mainly argued about which exacerbated it more). Only a minority of sources may say it had no impact at all in exacerbating the crisis (I am open to a possible wording to highlight this) and even Enoa, whom you used to support 'authoritarianism', say "the embargo is, like, 30% of the problem, and the other 70% is the ineptitude and management of the Cuban government and its authoritarianism." 30% is still significant enough to warrant addition, with the caveat. I am open to other possible wording. If the aforementioned article do not list that, I have to assume it is because it is not find due (according to sources), and it is irrelevant on whether to add Sanctions and embargo against Cuba (former is disputed, latter is main cause according to the government), which is found due by sources. Davide King (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No other articles don't really matter. I just wanted some inspiration for the exact wording. I think you may be right that the embargo is significant enough for the infobox, but we still have to unequivocally attribute it to the Communist Party. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

At long last, you did acknowledge me. I don't get why you say that when proposed wording by me here included proper attribution to the Cuban government. Davide King (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Should there be a new article section dedicated to "Cuban Government Response"?

Should we add a new section to the article solely dedicated to the "Cuban Government Response"? This section would be the central place to include all information about how the government responded and managed the protests (claims, statements, tv appearances, internet shutdowns, arrests, repression, lifting import restrictions, government-organized rallies, etc.). TocororoWings (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on there TocororoWings. We've already got two RfCs on this page and I expect Redrose64 will be along any minute to tell us off if we open a third, particularly as the WP:RFCBEFORE steps haven't been carried out. RfCs are slow, formal processes designed to attract input from editors who wouldn't normally visit a page – there are already plenty of eyes here (500+ views on this talk page yesterday). You're better off just starting a normal discussion. I've taken the liberty of renaming this section and removing the RfC template, so that conversation can take place here. With a suggestion such as this though, my advice would be to simply go ahead and make the change yourself – if you gather some sources together a "Government response" section is unlikely to be controversial. Jr8825 • Talk 06:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: Thanks for the feedback. I'll start putting that section together. TocororoWings (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No, at least for now. Since the protests are ongoing, I think it's better the current approach on listing the days and the events related to each day rather than dedicating a sole section to the government behavior and response, which will be definitely appropiate in the aftermatch stage once the events have ended. Ajñavidya (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

"Ongoing"? I've seen none since June 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.154.178 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ajñavidya: Even if that is the case, the new section will not imply the protests are not ongoing; it will only serve as the central repository to capture this information. I will include the response of the Cuban government (past, present, and future). It is assumed that this article is documenting an ongoing/current event. Agree? TocororoWings (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

TocororoWings, maybe; but I think the article is not adequate for that, yet. Maybe the other editors have a better argument. Ajñavidya (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@TocororoWings: I think it's fine. There are clearly sufficient reliable sources to write at least a paragraph or two about it. WP:BE BOLD is one of Wikipedia's core principles, so you can just start a section like that, and see what happens. The worst that could happen is that it would get reverted, or modified, but that's part of the normal development process around here. I say, go for it. Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that an RfC would be necessary for such a change, unless other editors disagree and I don't see why they would. As long as the content is well-sourced and presented, I don't see a reason why it shouldn't have its own heading. The question here is the execution. Goodposts (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Protestor deaths

It seems that reports of the NGO Cuba Decide about protestor deaths, have been given less importance, but it hasn't been explained why. So far only one death has been confirmed by the interior minister, but estimates such as detentions have come from non state sources, including the San Isidro Movement and Amnesty International. To include all points of view persuant to the neutrality policy, these figures should be kept. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It is difficult to ascertain numbers when the reliable sources for these claims under such circumstances are so few. At the moment, both are added with attribution, which appears to be a fair compromise. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that attribution is probably the best way to include it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Cuba Decide is a controversial organization that is a 501(c)(3) organization in the United States. Its credibility may be called into question, considering America's long history of anti-Cuban propaganda, disinformation, covert operations and terrorist attacks. It isn't a significant group though, not even having its own page on Wikipedia. I don't think their "estimates" should be included in the lead, but that information should be included in an attributed form, just like it is now. BeŻet (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

maybe someone can make the wikipedia entry for this "ngo". putting enough research on the subject several topics of interest will appear that clarify points discussed here

Serious Question

Can someone explain to me quickly why the US embargo on Cuba is listed under the causes for the protest when it is not a cause for the protest. None of the protest influencers (if that's a term) have said that one of the reason for the protests is the embargo. In fact, protestors have said the opposite. (that's its not).

I can understand and am aware of the fact that the embargo impacted the Cuban economy which impacted the citizens. if this is in fact the case and that is the reason that the embargo is included under causes then please let me know. However, I believe that other similar causes are not written in other causes of other protest articles. Thanks Idan (username is Zvikorn) (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Leaving aside all else, the Cuban Gov has listed it as the main cause for protests, which should be included. BSMRD (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Cubans have frequently protested in the past against the US embargo, and it is often mentioned by sources when discussing the causes of the protests. BeŻet (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Generally, because food and medicine shortages were the primary initiators of the protest movement. Hence, factors which led to that shortage can in some cases become reasons in of themselves, should they be relevant and significant enough to pass DUE guidelines. This was actually already challenged and resolved after RS were shown to have concurred that the embargo directly, significantly and negatively affected the health and nutrition of ordinary Cubans. Furthermore, the embargo was mentioned as a reason in some of the RS, which means it passes DUE. Goodposts (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

What RS would those be? And yeah that should be removed 100%. Volunteer Marek 16:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The ones listed under the "background" section of the article. I personally consider The Lancet to be the most reputable out of all of them - it is one of the most reputable academic journals in the world. It directly blames the embargo for chronic issues in the supply of foods and medicines. Goodposts (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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. as found here. BeŻet (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The very article of Al Jazeera used as a reference puts it into question. It reports that Diaz-Canel blames the embargo, and later on they explain the embargo and say (in article's voice) "The embargo has also provided the island’s government with ammunition for its claims that its economic woes are the fault of the US". Then it points that Diaz-Canel himself conceded that Cuba's economic policy is also to blame, and then explains many of the self-inflicted problems of the Cuban economic system. Cambalachero (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Cambalachero, my understanding is that there is no contradiction between the first sentence ("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") and the second ("The embargo has also provided the island’s government with ammunition for its claims that its economic woes are the fault of the US.") In short, the embargo can be both a woe for protesters, among other causes, and government ammunition. The only contradiction is the ammunition part, since it was conceded economic policy is also to blame, so it is no longer an ammunition as much as before the admission. Davide King (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The actual cause of the protests is the scarcity of food and medicines. That part is undisputed, and already in the infobox. Now, what caused that scarcity? According to communists, Diaz Canel among them, it's because of the embargo. According to capitalists, Joe Biden among them, it's because Cuba's own economic policies. We can either list both, with their own references, or none of them, and leave it as "shortage of food and medicine". It would be simpler to do the later. Cambalachero (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that many sources don't include the embargo as a cause, and that care should be taken that this does not constitute cherry picking of a single source that mentions it (with a contribution, it should be noted). Additionally, the embargo has also been in place for over sixty years, meaning that even if it is considered an underlying cause, it is not an immediate one, such as the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, it should be removed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

NoonIcarus, it is not just one source; the infobox is supposed to be summarizing, so we do not need three sources for each claim. One is enough, although the second source for economic reforms also support that, but I respect your comment. My compromise is to say "United States embargo against Cuba[2] and the latter's lack of promised economic reforms[3]" Because the embargo is not necessarily an immediate cause, so it should not be listed alone, but it is an underlying cause and it simply cannot be ignored, as it exacerbates it. Davide King (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you likewise for your thoughts. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Cambalachero, I do not disagree; however, independent studies show that the embargo have been causing problems to Cuba and its citizens, which are obviously going to get even worse in the middle of a pandemic, which is confirmed by Al Jazeera, and I repeat my belief that there is no contradiction in the article; whether it is only the embargo or the economic policies is besides the point. The Cuban government may have exaggerated in the past, although they no longer do that, as they admitted it is not just the embargo, but independent studies confirm the embargo effects on the country and its citizens, especially their standard of living; and in my view, this is much better than two hostile governments blaming it all either on the embargo or the economic system alone. Davide King (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The main cause of the protest is the economy and the limitations created by the pandemic and the embargo. It started with the many electric blackouts, caused by failures in two large power plants and another under repair so the generation capacity was low, which causes having to make cuts in some places and prioritize others where there are hospitals, isolation centers or covid19 suspects, sick and quarantined. Another reason is lack of medicines. the pandemic has increased the demand and they are prioritized for the most pressing patients. The country can produce half of the medicines, but it is difficult for it to buy the supplies for it. And the embargo also limits the purchase of medicines and medical equipment on many occasions. Similar is with vaccines. The country has several vaccines under development, and two have already completed phase III (~ 92% efficacy both), and one is approved for emergency use. But the difficulty is having syringes that the embargo limits the possibilities of purchase, as well as the supplies for the production of vaccines. The population is being vaccinated even before completing the vaccine tests, but somewhat slowly, due to a lack of syringes. The pandemic has cut off almost all tourism, an inflow of foreign exchange to the country for imports of food and supplies. Within the economy, some measures they have had to take are unpopular, but mostly conditioned by the embargo, measures in "survival mode". And most of those "influencers" have relationships with "NGOs" like the NED and USAID, or are based on US.

Then the historical base for the embargo and all the politics to keep it active and hardened : On April 6, 1960 Lester D. Mallory, Assistant Deputy Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, in a secret memorandum from the State Department stated: “The majority of Cubans support Castro… the only foreseeable way to subtract internal support from him is through the disenchantment and dissatisfaction arising from the economic malaise and material difficulties ... all possible means must be used quickly to weaken the economic life of Cuba ... a line of action that, being as skillful and discreet as possible, achieves the greatest progress in depriving Cuba of money and supplies, in order to reduce its financial resources and real wages, cause hunger, despair and the overthrow of the Government”. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v06/d499 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.184 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Mysterious deaths of top military ranks

I'm not sure if including this information: [23] [24] [25]. I'm aware that WP:CRYSTALBALL bans highly speculative news pieces for not having enciclopedic use, but they seem connected to the protests. Ajñavidya (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Absolute speculation, retired and elderly people, lost to COVID, age or disease. In the midst of a rise in infections and deaths from covid, well-known personalities of the country, journalists, athletes, artists, have died. An outstanding example, the two top baseball managers (national sport), the previous one and the current one (well, not anymore), two well-known people on the island, died in the same week only a few days apart. Was there any speculation about it in the media? Nop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.223.68 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)