Talk:Military Units to Aid Production

message: Defenders of Stalinist oppression are active editors here  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.19.250 (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communist apologetics 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101051842/http://plaza.ufl.edu/lillian.guerra/pdfs/lillian-guerra-social-history.pdf to http://plaza.ufl.edu/lillian.guerra/pdfs/lillian-guerra-social-history.pdf
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) 08:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What sources uses the term "concentration camps"? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Labor or concentration camps?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  The end of UMAP's in Cuba 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bibliography for the UMAP's