Talk:2026 Cuban crisis
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
- Add new text under old text.
- New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.
- Assume good faith
- Be polite and avoid personal attacks
- Be welcoming to newcomers
- Seek dispute resolution if needed
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean , an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. | |
.svg){kind=link}
I see in the current article Mexico, Brazil and Spain have been added to the list of "involved party" who support the Cuban government (in the Infobox).
I know Mexico did send some oil, and Spain and Brazil leaders did some statements against US intervention... but how deep must those statements be in order to be considered an involved party? Is sending humanitarian aid and claiming "sobereignty of a country should be respected" being sided towards the Cuban government?
I don't believe Spain, Brazil or Mexico (and Argentina, on the other side) have a relevant enough role in order to be in the list. Argentinian support to the US is not even referenced. Is it relevant? Are those countries relevant in this conflict? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC) Reply
- No they really aren’t. As far as I’m concerned, the only group that should be in the "supported by" column is the Cuban opposition. Yavneh (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
In the infobox, it says 2000 political prisoners were released by the Cuban government. The source only says 51. Is there a reliable source for the 2000? If yes, it should be added. If not, I propose removing the reference to the 2000 political prisoners from the infobox. Yavneh (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Please use
{{subst:requested move }}. Do not use {{requested move/dated }} directly. 2026 Cuban crisis → 2026 United States fuel blockade on Cuba 2026 United States fuel blockade on Cuba – @Pondering my orb moved it without a consensus, so I'm requesting it in this way. ArionStar (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Support 2026 Cuban crisis, because of simplicity. Cambalachero (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Simplification of an overly verbose title is good, but oversimplification of a specific title is not. There is no policy on this particular matter, but by practice most "crises" articles talk about internal conflicts and discontent. The article covering the current period of internal strife in Cuba seems to be 2024–2026 Cuban protests, while this article seems to cover the US blockade and attempts at regime change, specifically. The move to 2026 Cuban crisis seems to be doing a disservice then, the new title being more vague by alluding to a "crisis" that isn't even the focus/scope of this article. Yue 🌙 (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Similarly, you'd rarely hear someone say "the United States embargo against Cuba" instead of "the embargo on Cuba", "the Cuba embargo", or as the Trump administration prefers, "the Cuba problem", but the more specific title mentions the actors so the reader isn't left saying, "Embargo by whom?" Yue 🌙 (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Simplification of an overly verbose title is good, but oversimplification of a specific title is not. There is no policy on this particular matter, but by practice most "crises" articles talk about internal conflicts and discontent. The article covering the current period of internal strife in Cuba seems to be 2024–2026 Cuban protests, while this article seems to cover the US blockade and attempts at regime change, specifically. The move to 2026 Cuban crisis seems to be doing a disservice then, the new title being more vague by alluding to a "crisis" that isn't even the focus/scope of this article. Yue 🌙 (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Support 2026 Cuban crisis, because of simplicity. Cambalachero (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Support per WP:PRECISE, since "Cuban crisis" could refer to the overall deteriorating state of Cuba, which this article is specifically focused on what the United States is doing. Wasting time is still my passion (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- C-Class Cuba articles
- Unknown-importance Cuba articles
- WikiProject Cuba articles
- C-Class Caribbean articles
- Unknown-importance Caribbean articles
- WikiProject Caribbean articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Unknown-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- Unknown-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class Latin America articles
- Unknown-importance Latin America articles
- Latin America articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Articles created or improved during WikiProject Latin America's 10,000 Challenge
- Requested moves