Talk:Censorship in Cuba

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, it's got major POV issues.  The proper solution is to fix them (or list it on cleanup)...not to delete and protect it.  Kurt Weber 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I appreciate the support! I would appreciate help with the article as well (hint, hint.) KillerChihuahua?!? 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Absurd.Xx236 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fiber optic cables are not available 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This is a one-side political rant  

message: 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)
replies: text: Editors in Cuba have already edited this page (see), and they edit wikipedia, participating in discussions all the time - to the extent that Jimbo Wales is planning a visit to Cuba to meet Cuban wikipedians . Compared to Haiti or Jamaica, editors in Cuba are fairly well represented on the English wikipedia, one of the most prolific editors on Cuban subjects edits from Havana on a regular basis. And on the Spanish wikipedia they are common. I don't think your comments to the anonymous editor are helpful, productive or accurate.-- Zleitzen(talk) 19:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untruths 

message: "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 
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)
replies: text: The story comes from the International Business Times. Removal of relevant material taken from reliable sources is not advisable, and will not be deemed acceptable here.-- Zleitzen(talk) 07:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable Sources

message: The Radio Marti article odesn't conform it's illegal in the USAXx236 07:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.citizensforethics.org/taxonomy/term/835. See alsoThough the Marti channels are broadcast to Cuba but their programmes cannot be transmitted in the US under anti-propaganda laws.which can be found in this BBC report. -- Zleitzen(talk) 07:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't fully understand what you are writing as your English seems unclear, but just to confirm the point, it is illegal to broadcast Radio Marti in Cuba, and it is illegal to broadcast Radio Marti in the United States. That is because in the United States, even though the U.S. government sponsor the station, Radio Marti is deemed U.S. government sponsored propaganda. Therefore, Cuba are merely complying with laws that exist in virtually every country in the world and jamming the broadcasts of confirmed propaganda from an external enemy government designed to create instability in Cuba itself. That is not the same as censorship within Cuba. Though other wikipedia articles should not be referenced, our article now states that Radio Marti cannot be transmitted in the US under anti-propaganda laws anyway. Using a reliable source - the BBC. Is that clear now?-- Zleitzen(talk) 09:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is illegal to broadcast Radio Marti in the United States. It was illegal in 1987, 1997 and is illegal in 2007. That is because it is considered state propaganda designed to misinform by the U.S. government itself. Journalists who have worked on Radio Marti have been fired from other journalism posts in Florida due to this.  Cuba censors media within Cuba to a high degree. But banning Radio Marti is not considered "censorship". It is an act in accordance with even the most liberal democracies.-- Zleitzen(talk) 15:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is illegal to broadcast Radio Marti in the United States. Why? Because it does not comply with U.S. anti-propaganda laws. So far, virtually all your statements about Cuba have been proven false. You appear to be arguing from some kind of general anti-communist position that has little or nothing to do with Cuba, and have nothing to do with editing a neutral, accurate encyclopedia for readers. If you think that I've been uncivil, take it up with the dispute process, or call an administrator.-- Zleitzen(talk) 11:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed Radio Marti - it is actually illegal to broadcast Radio Marti even in the U.S. due to propaganda laws, let alone Cuba 

message: 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)
thread_title: Law section, over quoted

message: 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)
thread_title:  censorship of the Universal declaration of human rights 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, it doesn't state the exact opposite. Mostly it just avoids talking about it, but even that article acknowledges that there isn't any freedom of press on Cuba, but it does it between the lines. Like for example: "In the context of this external threat, Cuban journalists quietly acknowledge that some self-censorship will undoubtedly occur regarding news stories that could be used by the “enemy” against the Cuban people." That means "If we write what we want, we risk going to jail". You need to realize that this is written by somebody who was the Cuban governments official invitee, and he during his whole time on Cuba never saw or talked to anybody except those who the Cuban government wanted him to see and talk to. But even them acknowledge that there's no press freedom. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they acknowledge that they freely choose to censor themselves. There is indeed freedom of the press in Cuba, and finding hidden meanings between the lines won't change the fact that this is a valid source. You would think that a site specializing in documenting censored news would know whether or not their sources are being censored. Jackal Killer (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not freely choose to censor yourself as a journalist. They choose to censor themselves because they know they risk prison. That's not reading between the lines. The source is not independent or reliable, but that is not important, as it does not actually contradict anything in this article, except in the title. And you probably need to learn that not everything is what it claims to be. I have a very hard time to find any censored news on that site. And the subtitle is "unreported" which is something completely different than "censored". Apparently the great "censored" news is that Obama is a "capitalist tool". --OpenFuture (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire Article US-propaganda 

message: 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)
thread_title: Telesur's Cuban broadcasts not mentioned

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151007025235/http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2002,297.html to http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2002,297.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2002%2C297.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303221407/http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport_gb_md_1.pdf to http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport_gb_md_1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150420202447/http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=35F97388-4384-4DAA-A0EF-D6D398A0A975 to http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=35F97388-4384-4DAA-A0EF-D6D398A0A975
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article is due for an update 

message: 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)
replies: text: BoriquaZurdo Not to be too pedantic, but "Cuba first made it possible to get internet on cellphones two years ago, and now four million people can get online that way. A total of seven million Cubans — about two-thirds of the population — have some kind of access to the web, government data shows." Source is New York Times… And 2/3 = 66%  and … "Ubiquitous" = "present, appearing, or found everywhere"... just sayin' :-) --BoriquaZurdo (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very fair point. --Jmbranum (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of View