Reliable sources, not anonymous editor opinion, determine whether topics within the field are relevant to the article subject. Works such as the books by Yaffe and Bolender, amongst many others, examine the broad context of US policy toward Cuba from 1959, and discuss the terror campaign as a closely interlinked aspect of the policy to seek to destroy the country of which the embargo was the most overt strand. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy determines what's in scope for articles, not your two favorite books. Do you have any page numbers or quotes to share? We're not going to rely on your original research, synthesis, and personal POV. What links your text on terrorism to U.S. economic policy regarding Cuba? This belongs on Cuba–United States relations, adding it to this article is a stretch. Lastly, do not remove inline challenges to your text while an active discussion is underway. I'm sure you'll roll back your edit while we discuss further. Peripteros (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
- No "
active discussion [was] underway
" when I removed some inappropriate tags. You write that "Wikipedia policy determines what's in scope
" – right, and the policy is follow the reliable sources. Your tautologies aside, the notion US Cuba policy is siloed and its aspects bear no relation to one another is prima facie absurd. Nevertheless I'll extend the quote that is already in the article at citation 30 from a Yale University Press work, page numbers already in the citation:What have Cuba’s revolutionary people survived? For six decades, the Caribbean island has withstood manifold and unrelenting aggression from the world’s dominant economic and political power: overt and covert military actions; sabotage and terrorism by US authorities and allied exiles; imposition of the blockade to asphyxiate the Cuban economy and its people; obstruction of third parties’ trade with Cuba..
Similarly from a Springer/Palgrave Macmillan book:[1]It was but a few months later that the Eisenhower administration set in motion the institutionalization of siege: economic dislocation to promote starvation, acts of terrorism, isolation, propaganda, and the planning for a military invasion.: 19
the United States responded by implementing the early stages of siege—cutting off Cuban sugar quotas, refusing to sell arms, enabling covert terrorist operations, and moving toward full blockade.: 23
Cambial — foliar❧ 17:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Since you specifically added these sources and the below text, would you submit to a third opinion?
The U.S. began a violent campaign of terrorism and sabotage against civilians and military targets in Cuba in March 1960. The U.S. government massively escalated its terrorism campaign in Cuba from November 1961, known as the Cuban Project.
While not formally binding, these can be helpful in getting fresh perspective and resolution to content disputes like these. I understand that the two sources you picked out mention the U.S. embargo against Cuba but forcing this text within the article and highlighting it in the lead is undue weight and POV-pushing. It looks out of place in the article as much as it does in the lead. Let me know if you would be open to having both of our positions reviewed by another editor. I'll certainly acquiesce if another editor supports your text but as it stands I'm not seeing it as relevant to article topic. Peripteros (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- Editor C.J. Griffin has recently restored this material to the page. They may have a view on this. Given two quoted academic sources (amongst numerous others) consider these topics to be closely related - as both part of the siege - what is the scholarship you're relying on, Peripteros, that suggests there's no relation between the two? Cambial — foliar❧ 20:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- I submitted this for uninvolved third opinion, you shouldn't ping specific editors, especially ones just reverting simple vandalism without regard to the material. As I've mentioned previously, these are two sources you selected and does not appear to be the consensus of broader academic research. These two topics clearly concern the same country but commingling them like this is coatracking two subjects with undue weight. If your text highlighted in green is supported by the third opinion, then I'll be happy to welcome its inclusion. Peripteros (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
- It’s perfectly normal to ping editors who recently made an edit involving the material under discussion. You claim these are the only two sources, but as noted above and cited in the article already, they’re merely a couple of instances of dozens of sources which discuss these two connected parts of the broader US Cuba policy. I note you’ve not responded regards the sources you’re relying on - the good faith assumption here is that you’re simply unfamiliar with the available literature. It’s nice that you found the coatrack essay, but given I’m relying on numerous scholarly sources that frame these as closely connected, and you’re relying on nothing, it’s not a relevant nor interesting opinion piece. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Third opinion
Moritoriko (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
- Viewpoint by (Cambial Yellowing)
- Editor added text below.
- Viewpoint by (Peripteros)
- Recently added content about American-led "violent terrorism and sabotage" against Cuba was added to an article about U.S. economic policy with the country, in an attempt to place undue weight on an off-topic, tangentially-related historical event.
- Third opinion by Moritoriko
- @Cambial and @Peripteros. To start with I want to say that as far as this issue goes I trace it to the 17. April so there are no other editors involved as far as I care. The March incident was just a normal revert of an unexplained ip removal.
The dispute, as I understand, is over The U.S. government first launched an arms embargo against Cuba in 1958, with their energy and agricultural sectors targeted in 1960. Following the Cuban Revolution, there were nationalizations and a trade war between the two countries. The U.S. began a violent campaign of terrorism and sabotage against civilians and military targets in Cuba in March 1960. In October the Cuban government responded with seizure of American economic assets, including oil refineries. The U.S. retaliated with a total embargo on Cuban trade, with exceptions for food and medicine. The U.S. government massively escalated its terrorism campaign in Cuba from November 1961, known as the Cuban Project.
Specifically the parts that I emphasised. To a bit of my own surprise I come down somewhere in-between keeping and removal as well as having some issues with a different part. Peripteros said that this isn't about the blockade but I'd say that it is relevant enough background info that it can be included to show the context in which the blockade arose. That said, NPOV has some things to say about the word choice. We should remove "violent" and "massively". The later sentence about the blockade tightening sharply is also unneeded as the end date of the thaw says that it froze again. This is what I think a possible paragraph could/should look like trying to strike a balance for including information while also keeping a more even tone:
The U.S. government first launched an arms embargo against Cuba in 1958 during the Cuban Revolution. After the Cuban Revolution the new government nationalized many businesses starting a trade war between the two countries and the U.S. embargo expanded to the energy and agricultural sectors. The U.S. began a campaign of terrorism and sabotage against civilians and military targets in Cuba in March 1960. In October the Cuban government retaliated with seizure of American economic assets, including oil refineries. The U.S. escalated to a total embargo on Cuban trade, with exceptions for food and medicine. The U.S. government began implementing the Cuban Project in an attempt to overthrow Castro in November 1960. Cuba held nuclear missiles for the Soviet Union during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, which resulted in the U.S. fully blockading the island for a short time. The embargo was temporarily loosened during the Cuban thaw from 2015 to 2017.
As you have noted this is a non-binding process that just serves to get an uninvolved editor to put their eyes on a topic but I wanted to thank you for civilly taking part in dispute resolution and I know you both just want the best for what I humbly believe to be one of Humanity's best things. Moritoriko (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
As another editor has already restored this content to the page, this is not a third opinion, but rather a fourth (or fifth) opinion. More eyes are welcome, and I hope Moritoriko can give a view that is grounded in the relevant secondary historical literature, as the content on the page is, rather than simply an editor's personal opinion. As there has already been input from other editors, 3O is not the most appropriate avenue, and I suggest seeking other methods of gathering wider community input. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- You're the only person who added this content, the other editor just restored the text to revert routine vandalism to the article. Like you, I welcome the upcoming third opinion from Moritoriko to this discussion. My objection is policy-based, not a matter of my personal opinion. We may submit a request for comment (RfC) afterward. Peripteros (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
- You claim your objection is "
policy based
". The only policy to which you've referred so far, found in this comment, is part of the NPOV policy. NPOV is summarised as representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
- Which are the reliable sources focused on the relevant topic and period - the initiation of the embargo and the factors that led to it - that suggest this content is not relevant? Numerous scholarly sources indicate it is essential to the topic.
- Absent any reliable sources supporting your fringe point-of-view, rather than being "
policy based
" it remains the case that it is merely your personal opinion, with no connection to the single policy link to which you refer.
- Perhaps if you had some sources that support your POV, the fourth/fifth opinion, and hopefully others, can provide a view grounded in the literature: that is after all how this website is written. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- You've made your position clear – as have I – let's wait for the third opinion process to complete before discussing further. Thank you for agreeing to review your edits with others. Peripteros (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Revised text
Thank you for providing this third opinion, Moritoriko. I support the revised text you outline as a suitable middle ground in line with our core content policies. @Cambial Yellowing: please confirm if you similarly support the revised text and I'll close this discussion out. Thanks again to both of you. Peripteros (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
- I do not. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abloom18. Peer reviewers: Elaineclare, Make2018.
