Talk:San Isidro Movement

Government response

I removed "The Cuban government has generally refrained from criticising the artists and has requested peaceful dialogue." as numerous sources say the opposite. --- Possibly ☎ 12:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Right-ho. That was from a Guardian article dated 6 December 2020. It was only a few weeks after the protest. Perhaps the government changed its approach later. Anyway, leave it out if it doesn't accurately reflect the government's position. Burrobert (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Why have undue wight tags been added to content on the page? Burrobert (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

They might belong, they might not belong. I have removed them for the moment. Pinging @NoonIcarus: for comment, as they added them. --- Possibly ☎ 22:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, @Possibly:. I have included the tags given that the article deals mostly with Denis Solís' detention and the protests, I'm not sure on how relevant is or how much due weight has the recent information given. It says that a single member, out of a large movement like San Isidro, worked for ADN Cuba, which in turn received a grant by the US, and likewise that some members have been seen with embassy officials. If there was direct funding to the Movement from the USAID it would be understandble, but there currently seems to lack a direct link to merit its inclusion. If these arguments are not sufficient, I believe the tags should remain at least because of the discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the article deals mostly with Denis Solís' detention and the protests": The artile title is "San Isidro Movement"
• "If there was direct funding to the Movement from the USAID it would be understandble": but you also added an undue weight tag to the same information in the ADN Cuba article even though the funding went directly to ADN Cuba.
• "a single member, out of a large movement like San Isidro ...": From the Guardian article : "Little known a few weeks ago, the small group has ignited ...": The New York Times describes it as a "artists’ collective".
• "there currently seems to lack a direct link": the direct links are mentioned in the two sources. In addition there is the statement in the Guardian that "There is clear evidence that some in the San Isidro Movement have ties with the US government".

Burrobert (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with both sides here: It needs to be mentioned, but perhaps very moderately. I'd be OK with one sentence that paraphrases the Guardian's statement that "there is clear evidence that some in the San Isidro Movement have ties with the US government". I wrote the original article and it certainly was never meant to be about Denis Solís alone. It's all about the "movement". --- Possibly ☎ 19:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Right-ho Possibly. Perhaps we can leave you to provide a suitable version. Good luck. Burrobert (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to show any ownership here. I was hoping one of you two will fix it! --- Possibly ☎ 02:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

And I was hoping you would take it out of my hands. It's a stand-off. Can we toss for it? Burrobert (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I have trimmed the sentence and copy edited a little bit, it might be more satisfactory now :) I'm open to hear thoughts on the change. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Thanks. Burrobert (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The articles in the Guardian and New York Times that were cited as evidence of a link to the U.S. government do not actually reveal a strong link, and the link they suggest does not seem relevant to the history of the San Isidro Movement. Devoting two sentences of a four-sentence paragraph to this link gives the link undue weight and does not provide proper context (i.e. the context included in the Guardian and NYT articles). Raveswan (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)