Jump to content

Talk:Military Units to Aid Production

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shahrozzaman. Peer reviewers: Stevenleicht, Adrumma, Reynard2077.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Communist apologetics

[edit]

Defenders of Stalinist oppression are active editors here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.19.250 (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military Units to Aid Production. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Labor or concentration camps?

[edit]

UMAPs should be classified as concentration camps or labor camps? The majority of people sent there were not criminals of any kind, as they were sent to this military as a measure to isolate them from society and contain them because of who they were and not because of any crime they have committed. Ajñavidya (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Labor camps" is correct. The term applies those imprisoned for political reasons as well as criminal reasons. See also the cited sources in the article. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
UMAPs were created mainly to isolate people because of neither political nor criminal reasons, but by identity reasons, that included homosexuals and religious minorities as well as suspects of dissidence to the Revolutionary government. It's what sources state. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What sources uses the term "concentration camps"? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
UMAPs are described as concentration camps by source 2, source 4 and source 6 (as long as I've reviewd, which doesn't mean that these are the only sources that describe them in this way). Also, they're called "concentration camps" in the book Before Night Falls by Reinaldo Arenas, which is one of the most important sources about the topic. The external link Demystifying las UMAP: The Politics of Sugar, Gender, and Religion in 1960s Cuba argues against the use of the word concentration camps, but this is not a direct source but an academic essay. Ajñavidya (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2 refers to UMAPs as "forced-labor camps" 4 times, and only once as "concentration camps" (which is in quotes while citing a Spanish-language source). The two other sources you mention are in Spanish. Sources 1 and 10 (the most cited source) use "forced labor camps". I think we should stick with the term most used in English-language sources since this is the English Wikipedia (and as per WP:ENGLISH). I would agree with adding "forced" to "labor camp" to match the sources. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a phenomenon that occurred in a Spanish-speaking country and therefore all its direct sources are in Spanish, it'd be an incredible bias that its content to be selection from only sources that are currently in English language, that ought to be an interpretation or a translation of those in Spanish. This decision would be totally unnecessary, would be in detriment of neutrality and it's not enforced by any Wikipedia policy. Ajñavidya (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the other hand, source 2 clearly states that "Historians have generally avoided research into state social-control policies based on forced labor, concentration and isolation of thousands of Cuban citizens at rural locations set up during the 1960s." The classifications of UMAPs as labor camps and concentration camps is not mutually exclusive, since they functioned as both. Ajñavidya (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Including both is unnecessary and unsupported by the English-language sources. As you said, the terms are not mutually exclusive, and so we can use just the one that is commonly used in reliable sources. When choosing wording, we generally go with the English-language sources. I do not know what you mean by "direct sources". Independent reliable sources are what are used. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both terms should be included because one doesn't necessarily have to imply the other, and this is what I've been arguing for. The term "concentration camp" is broader since usually other instances of concentration camps elsewhere also functioned as "labor camps." As I said, English language sources are not primary sources to the topic of the article and the sources in Spanish should have precedence. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not generally rely on primary sources. It does rely on English-language sources for the English Wikipedia. Both terms are unnecessary in the lead sentence, especially when the second sentence explains purpose of the camps very clearly. (Also, if concentration camp is the broader term, then we should use labor camp because it is more specific.) Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The end of UMAP's in Cuba

[edit]

Allot of the consequences of the UMAP's remain unresolved, the reasoning of their creation, their effects on the population and ultimately what lead to their eventual dissolution. I plan to contribute more nuance on the basis of all of those factors and highlight the persistent effects of those camps for the cuban population today. Not to mention I believe many of the sources used in the Wikipedia article were American, which highlighted their bias against Cuba at every turn, in fact there seems to be very little to no Cuban sources on this issue. Which I would also see to correct in an effort to gain more neutral viewpoints. 13:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Shahrozzaman (talk)

Feedback: The article could benefit from some reorganization, keeping the opening description more brief while relocating a lot of the information there into new sections. Incorporating Cuban sources seems like a great way to expand the origins section. I would also mention that the section on third-party testimonies has strong information, but shoudl incorporated or adapted into a section describing UMAP camps. --Reynard2077 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reynard2077 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of the proposed changes above, but I have one specific change that deals with the reorganizations. The heading section should be condensed and the bulk of that information should be added to a new section that details its history. Adrumma (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography for the UMAP's

[edit]

Sources I plan to use- Ocasio, Rafael. "Gays and the Cuban Revolution: The Case of Reinaldo Arenas." Latin American Perspectives 29, no. 2 (2002): 78-98. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3185128.

Feinberg, Leslie. Rainbow Solidarity in Defense of Cuba. New York: World View Forum, 2009.

Leiner, Marvin. “The Paradox of Cubas Revolution.”

Sexual Politics in Cuba, 2019, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429305894-1.

Farber, Samuel. “Cuba in 1968.” Jacobin. April 29, 2018. Encarnación Martín López María.

Homosexuality and Invisibility in Revolutionary Cuba: Reinaldo Arenas and Toms̀ Gutiřrez Alea. Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: Tamesis, 2015. Hamilton, Carrie. Sexual Revolutions in Cuba: Passion, Politics, and Memory. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012.

13:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Shahrozzaman (talk)


Feedback/Peer Review: There are many mistakes in this article. First, there are no images regarding the UMAP and their work. Second, there are many missing citations, including the UMAP and their camps' connection to Christianity. Third, the article does not have a sub-article for the outcome or effects of the UMAP, only the short paragraph of their origin. Overall, this article needs a lot of work. -- Stevenleicht — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenleicht (talk • contribs) 17:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_Units_to_Aid_Production&oldid=1209064942"