This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Censorship in Cuba article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm taking out the bit about Che wanting to ban Rock Music and Jazz. The only source is a very biased, obscure libertarian blog.
This is a one-side political rant - might first instinct was to delete, but it might be salvagable jimfbleak 13:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that there is too much to keep from this article. It is clearly anti-castrist propaganda. I simply cannot imagine a Cuban burning a cultural item. horzer ( talk) 23:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Absurd. Xx236 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This statement is very interesting. It happens that the same system controls Cuba since 50 years. Try to write about right wing censorship in contemporary Cuba to make the article unbiased. Xx236 14:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
There are alot of untruths in this article; especially about internet usage. I can't be arsed to write alot in the article, but here is a source for anyone willing to put in the time: http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?218
From the article:
Even sources hostile to the Cuba revolution concede that there is no internet censorship in Cuba. CNN admitted as much in an April 11, 2000 article (“Cuba’s internet elite emerges,” CNN.com), writing “granted, the government does not censor, filter or -- it appears -- survey [internet] traffic.”
24.131.225.162 11:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting why Cuban people having free access don't participate in this discussion? A week in Cuban prison would help you. Xx236 12:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect to Jimbo Wales - I hope that he understands the diference between independent and staged. 99% people in the West don't.
Xx236 07:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC) I think that a warning on this page about censorship one of the benefits and one of wikipedias and a weaknesses should be mentioned anyone can edit or censor pages .
I hope that Jimbo Wales distributes a number of Spanish Wikipedia CDs among independent librarians in Cuba. Xx236 07:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"The internet provides Cuba with much-needed access to the world, but it is also a source of poisonous counter-revolutionary propaganda and cultural pollution, and it offers a dangerous potential for corruption. It therefore remains a very controversial medium in Cuba, and for good reason." claimed blythe.org in 2000 [2]
I have removed this insertion because it is an opinion that I believe does not come from a reliable source and hence doesn't meet WP:RS.-- Zleitzen (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the fiber cables story, because it's propaganda. Xx236 07:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The Radio Marti article odesn't conform it's illegal in the USA Xx236 07:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
which can be found in this BBC report. -- Zleitzen (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Though the Marti channels are broadcast to Cuba but their programmes cannot be transmitted in the US under anti-propaganda laws.
Jamming a radiostation is a censorship and obviously in Cuba almost everything is illegal. The Nuremberg Laws were legal in Germany but breaking it was morally O.K.. Xx236 08:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This Wikipedia doesn't inform about any propaganda laws. Xx236 09:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
April 1990 - Cuba begins to jam Radio Marti - what the statement false in 1990? Xx236 09:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that my English is unclear. I wasn't allowed to learn English in a Communist country, which was legal, noone has an inborn right to learn English, but I don't like people who support terror and censorship since that time.
It's irrelevant if it is illegal to broadcast Radio Marti in Cuba, and it is illegal to broadcast Radio Marti in the United States, because we are discussing April 1990. Was it illegal in April 1990? Is jamming of illegal broadcasts a lesser censorship? I used to listen to hated by many Free Europe, finaced by the CIA, and it was the best source of informations in many countries. I didn't care if it was legal or not. Not every law is good for people and people from free and rich countries don't have any idea about the ouside world. Cuba and laws, really. Xx236 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Cuba isn't based on law. A small group of people decide what is legal there. Banning Radio MArti is a censorship for people who want to hear the news. designed to create instability in Cuba - please don't use Communist language toward a victim of Communism, beacause it's uncivil. Xx236 08:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Censorship is a censorship - legal or "illegal". The idea of totalitarian censorship is that a small group of people controls informations and even the language. The idea of totalitarian law is that a small group defines what is legal. Constitutional laws aren't respected. The whole law system is degenerated. Some people believe it's O.K. - Cuba is allegedly a kind of Eden, who cares about informations in Eden? Why to grow the apple tree of knowledge there? It's interesting that only few people move to the Eden, apply for Cuban citizenship and live like Cubans do. Visiting Cuba with a passport and USD or Euro is like visiting a safari park. Try to be an impala. Xx236 11:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW - Auschwitz was partially legal and its commander was finally hanged there. Xx236 09:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The current "Law" section at the moment contains 6 long paragraph length block quotes without the use of any article prose (I thus tagged it). I personally believe that quotes can be beneficial to a wiki article, but 6 in row is even excessive for me. This section needs to either be trimmed heavily to around 2 of the best quotes, or blended into a paragraph. Redthoreau ( talk)RT 05:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The sentence "Copies of publications such as United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been ordered to be burned or otherwise destroyed." should go under the section "Censorship of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Thus, update the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.61.237 ( talk) 02:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This article: http://www.projectcensored.org/articles/story/cuba-supports-press-freedom/ essentially states the exact opposite of everything on here. Cuba has press freedom, like it or not. Jackal Killer ( talk) 05:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
God, what an incredibly badly-written article. (Quote boxes should be banned by default, I think, and only permitted when consensus in favour is demonstrated by an RFC!!) Anyway, I came here to note that the tragic irony of Telesur's Cuban broadcasts isn't mentioned here: see Telesur#teleSUR.27s_broadcasts_in_Cuba. -- Rd232 talk 17:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Check out WP:NOTRELIABLE "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include, but are not limited to, websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion." Committee to Protect Journalists falls under that definition. Not least because it is promotional in nature - they say that about themselves. So Im removing the work sourced by Committee to Protect Journalists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcst1 ( talk • contribs) 08:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Have removed : Miniskirts and artists such as Beatles were banned as examples of "decadent capitalist culture". [1] the link is broken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcst1 ( talk • contribs) 08:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
This link doesnt work : [1] - removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcst1 ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The reference to the regime ordering copies of the UN declaration on human rights to be burned is not supported by reference to any order from the Cuban Governement only to second hand unreliable accounts. WND and http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y00/mar00/10e12.htm are NOT reliable sources. Lets see the actual edict from the Cuban Government . Wikipedia is not a soapbox to repeat or endorse unverified claims by bloggers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcst1 ( talk • contribs) 09:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Jeff You don't think it's a requirement that some copy of an edict from the authority that actually issues edicts(in this case to to burn books) is found. There's hardly any difference between that position and 'it's not a requirement for the edict to exist'
Only the Cuban Government (or an arm of the Cuban Government) can issue an order or edict or law. Other people saying this or that law exists may or may not be true. And that isn't good enough, I'm sure you'd agree. But why not go to the source? If there is such a law or Order passed by the Cuban Government (at whatever level, doesnt have to National ) then I'd be very interested to see it. But an account by a blogger or pressure group that is promotional in nature (yes that would include friends of Cuban libraries) falls outside WP:RS . It's just an anecdote that attributes some order as coming from the Cuban Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmcst1 ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Or to put it more succinctly if you cannot find it, its reasonable to assume it doesn't exist. And if after having looked without finding it we still report that the Cuban Government issued such an Order that would be dishonest of us. Hmcst1 ( talk) 18:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Neither of the supporting citations for the story about burying or burning Universal Declaration of Human Rights stand up. The first http://listserv.oclc.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9912&L=publib&D=1&F=P&P=17100 is a link to an email list, the second http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y00/mar00/10e12.htm is a broken link to CubaNet Hmcst1 ( talk) 20:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
There may be no order or edict or law, but that does not mean that the books and pamphlets weren't destroyed. Quite right. But the article is about Censorship in Cuba and you are placing this incident in that context. We don't know who destroyed the shipment, nor their motives, and there is no evidence that any legal stricture at any level compelled it to occur. Hmcst1 ( talk) 16:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, in the absence of any response I'm going to remove the story about the UNDHR pamphlets being destroyed in three days . Hmcst1 ( talk) 19:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I've asked WP:RSN the opinion there is that a listserv cant be used as a reliable source ' people submit all kinds of crap to them.', it is being cited here http://listserv.oclc.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9912&L=publib&D=1&F=P&P=17100 , they suggest you might be able to click through and find something better, but as it stands the claim about burying UNDHR docs is not supported reliably. Hmcst1 ( talk) 09:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Censorship in Cuba. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Censorship in Cuba. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Any article about sensitive political issues inherently reflects a snapshot in time of dynamic processes. This article needs to have updated sources and updated content; a lot has changed in Cuba with regard to access to mobile phones, media (including digital media, DVDs, computers, etc), and the internet since it was first written. From recent personal experience I can verify that mobile phone ownership among Cuban citizens is no longer rare (it is basically routine for anyone who has access to hard currency), and internet access is no longer highly regulated for citizens although it remains expensive (and therefore not accessible to everyone). Aloysiussnuffleupagus ( talk) 16:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
This article needs a rewrite from a neutral point of view.
One major issue is that the article fails to clarify what is past Cuban government policy and the present (i.e. access to the internet and cell phones is nearly ubiquitious in Cuba today). Jmbranum ( talk) 15:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)