Talk:Efraín Ríos Montt/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The article clearly presents the reasoning of Montt's backers. It states unequivocally, "his supporters regard the former military ruler as a strong leader capable of restoring order to this turbulent nation." The article also makes it clear that his regime was fighting Marxist guerrilla groups that drew their ranks from the peasantry: "The civil war pitted Marxist rebel groups against the army." The article is also linked to articles related to the Cold War and Communism; so we do not need to rehash old Cold War-era bluster here. 172 03:00, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • Sure, one sentence on his supporters. Maybe you haven't noticed that nearly the ENTIRE article surrounding that sentence (several paragraphs worth of disputed accusations, etc.) are drawn directly from anti-Montt sources. No objective observer of this article could claim that it's in any way balanced. And you are correct. This isn't the place to rehash old Cold War bluster. That would, of course, also include any material that can be construed as partisan leftist attacks on anti-communists as well as my right-slanting material.

This article is totally biased and it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards of NPOV. These sentences are simply unjustifiable:

• Human rights groups say Ríos Montt, a staunch anti-communist who has had ties to the United States for over five decades (the Pentagon's School of the Americas, the CIA, presidential administrations, and the religious right)...
• Regarded by many as a genocidal neo-fascist...
• (please add more examples of POV in this article)

ANTI-COMMUNIST

Suggestion

I believe both 172 and Anti-Communist are honestly trying to make this article better and less biased. Let's see if we can come up with a version that we can all find acceptable.

(Anti-Commie, thanks for apologizing. Keep in mind that I'm not a pro-Commie Montt-hater, and I doubt 172 is either. 172, please don't bite the newbies, even if you think their edits are bad.)

1. The fact that Montt graduated from SOA ought to be in there. There also needs to be maybe a sentence describing what it is in a NPOV way. How about this?

In 1950 Ríos Montt graduated as a cadet at the School of the Americas in Panama. This notorious U.S.-funded academy is widely suspected of educating loyal cadets in coup-plotting, political repression, torture, assassination, and strong anticommunist propaganda.

It is notorious, and it is widely suspected of these things. Can we agree on this version?

• • • "Notorious" is a loaded word with an entirely negative connotation. Remove that from your paragraph and the rest is entirely acceptable. It seems to be a decent compromise overall, listing the many accusations against the School of the Americas without presenting them as indisputable fact, like the original form of the paragraph did.

ANTI-COMMUNIST

2. Is there serious doubt that the coup was "quietly backed by the CIA and the Reagan administration"? I'd just as soon leave the line in as is, but if there are some who doubt it, their views ought to be shown. I suppose "allegedly" could be put back in instead of "quietly" if there's any source that doubts the CIA's involvement.

• • • Allegedly is better than quietly, but still, the CIA's involvement (or lack thereof) in the coup is highly disputed by the majority of conservative American studies on Latin America (and denied by the President himself). It is highly NPOV to present that veiled attack on the Reagan administration as a fact.

ANTI-COMMUNIST.

3. It's important to include the views of Montt supporters, and I think anti-Commie's is a good start. But they need to be tidied up and NPOVed. How's this:

Montt has been widely condemned for the murders of many peasants and innocents. Montt's defenders say that Montt was justified in his attacks on leftist groups in Guatemala, because of the damage a communist takeover would have done to the country. Throughout Montt's reign, Guatemala's infrastructure was frequently attacked by communist guerrillas. Montt's supporters claim that his repressive tactics were necessary, given these hostile circmstances.

• • Now THAT is a good rewrite. We should put it in.

ANTI-COMMUNIST

Can we at least agree this is a good starting place, talk about it here, and call off the edit war? Then it can hopefully be unprotected soon. Quadell (talk) 03:10, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. It's better form though, to avoid weasel terms like "allegedly" and "widely suspected" here, as they are unnecessary (although I have seen them used a few times to appease the flat earth theorists out there). Regarding the third point, trimming it down to the following would suffice: "Montt's supporters claim that his repressive tactics were necessary to restore order to the turbulent country and defeat Marxist guerrilla groups." 172 03:37, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, 172, the FULL rewrite is a far better idea. It's not too lengthy at all, not when there are already at least TWO paragraphs longer than this one on Montt's massacres of supposedly innocent Mayans. It's more balanced to go with the full text of the rewrite.

What do you mean by "supposedly innocent Mayans?" Peasants and guerrillas aren't mutually exclusive, you know. We don't need to be assigning "guilt" or "innocence" here. Instead, the article makes it clear that the Mayan peasant population was the core base of support from which the guerrilla groups drew their ranks-- one can think what he/she will about this. This was a nasty civil war; and the article already describes this dispassionately it in a succinct and factual way (barring one or two words like notorious, which can be removed once the article is unprotected). 172 07:00, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think we're making a little progress here, I really do, but you would be best served to remember that words like "allegedly" and "highly suspected" are not "weasel words", as you so derisevly termed them. Rather, they are your best friends in a FACT-BASED Encyclopedia, as they keep articles like this from appearing to slant too far to one side (in your case, left; in my case right). Using words like "alleged" when it comes to Highly disputed allegations like those leveled against the SOTA keeps the claims from being presented as fact (when many decent politicians, military personnel, and intelligence officers continue to deny such claims against the School).

It isn't wrong to state in an Encyclopedia article the ALLEGATIONS that have been widely alleged against the SOTA. It is a pure, blatat bias to list them as Facts.

ANTI-COMMUNIST

Unless I'm wrong, it seems that the main argument here seems to be about the School of the Americas, not about Rios Montt. Could we not agree about the re-written language concerning Rios Montt himself and move the School of the Americas argument to its own entry? Could the POV about the School of the Americas not be removed altogether without any impact on the information about Rios Montt himself?

How about just saying Rios Montt graduated from the school and leave it at that? That is fact; everything else is liable to prolong a POV dispute. Any necessary information about the school could be equally gleaned from reading the main entry on the school itself (although the neutrality of that article is in dispute as well).

I also don't think that "allegedly" and "widely suspected" as used in this instance are necessarily weasel words. ffirehorse 19:39, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, they're weasel words in the sense that it would be better form to list who alleges, or who suspects. But either way is better than stating things as facts, if they are disputed. Also, I thought of just mentioning the school in passing, but I think it would be better to give at least a sentence describing what it is. Otherwise, it just looks like he graduated from a normal college or something. (Even if the SOA doesn't train people in assassination and torture, it's still not a normal school.) I'm delighted that we're all inching toward consensus here, BTW. Quadell (talk) 00:39, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Can there just be a word like controversial (maybe better) in the sentence, so that someone who doesn't know about the school will say "hmm" and click on the link? If not then I agree that the current tone of the sentence needs to be milder, at least. Trey Stone 06:51, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We can get rid of adjectives like "notorious." As for the rest, it is straightforward and factual. 172 06:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • Wait. I thought we came to a fair compromise here, adopting some useful ideas like listing Reagans supposed involvement in the coup as being disputed, or making sure that unproven allegations of wrongdoing by the School of the Americas are not listed as absolute fact. So what hack took it upon themselves to revert the article to its previous state of bias. Somebody (obviously none of us) inserted the same old loaded phrases and absolute leftist bias into the article on these two important subjects; Not the balanced versions we decided on (or any balanced version, for that matter)

I have simply deleted the slanted statements in their entirety (example: everythin after "and at the Shool of the Americas..."). If any of you would like to make the next move and instate the less partisan versions of this text, then I will leave it to you.

Drop me a message here if you would rather I insert the compromised paragraps myself (Im pressed for time now and my keyboard is on the fritz, but even so...)

ANTI-COMMUNIST

frijoles y fusiles

Can this concept be explained? Also this "scorched earth" needs alot more explanation. Sam [Spade] 04:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I will exapand the section on frijoles y fusiles once the distraction posed by the anon vandal is out of the way. 172 06:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

209, why do you remove the entire statement that he graduated at the School of the Americas in 1950? Is that not correct? And 172, why not leave the description of the School out - this will always be disputed by some people. Gzornenplatz 06:36, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

We cannot appease flat earth theorists on this one. The content the anon is removing essential to the biographical entry. 172 06:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I tried that, and 172 rejected my compromise as he did yours. i have requested the page be protected. Sam [Spade] 06:39, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done. Ambivalenthysteria 06:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To:172

Drop The Unproven, Tin-foil, Left-wing Propoganda on the SOTA and Reagan administration, and we are fine.

---Anti-Communist.

To anonymous vandal, open up a real history book for once. 172 07:02, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To political hack 172, stop getting your "history" from Chomsky.

I am a trained, professional historian. I did not learn my history from Chomsky. You could afford to stop getting your "history" from FOX News. 172 07:15, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've just got one thing to say about Montt:

Just and historical necessity, man. "Just and historical necessity." Trey Stone 12:19, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---Anti-Communist

Please! You are so easy. Fox News attacks again?

Well, I guess all that CNN (Communist-News-Network) has really gone to your head.

Anyway, its 2:30AM where I live and Thats it for me.

Fight you Tomorrow, Mr. Socialist.

-Anti-Communist

Please cut out the personal attacks, you two. Ambivalenthysteria 07:12, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Points of contention

There's way too much pride and stubbornness going on here. We're here to make the article better, not offend people. The fantasies about where the other party gets his historical information is particularly bad form.

Okay, what are the points of contention? (I know, 172 and ANTI-COMMIE, you two probably don't like each other; but what are the points of contention in the article itself?)

I can see:

• Do we out-and-out say that SOA did certain things, or do we say it is controversial and is widely suspected to have done these things? NPOV policy is clear, isn't it? We can't say it's fact if it's contested.
• Should we say the CIA quietly backed the coup, or allegedly backed it. Again, the NPOV policy answers the question. We can't state that the CIA backed it, even if its true, so long as it's contested.
• Should we include the legacy sentences?

Montt has been widely condemned for the murders of many peasants and innocents. Montt's defenders say that Montt was justified in his attacks on leftist groups in Guatemala because of the damage a communist takeover would have done to the country. Throughout Montt's reign, Guatemala's infrastructure was frequently attacked by communist guerrillas. Montt's supporters claim that his repressive tactics were necessary, given these hostile circmstances.

This is good info, and I frankly can't see why 172 reverted it. (It's obviously not vandalism. Reverting is a relatively extreme act, and I don't see that it was warranted here, especially after we discussed in on talk first.) Replacing it with a single sentence isn't fair to Montt's supporters. 172, you're obviously not a Montt supporter, and ANTI-COMMIE is. So why not let a Montt supporter write a paragraph on what Montt supporters think?

Quadell (talk) 14:15, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with all of the above. The personal attacks and ideological diatribes are not going to improve the article, which would seem to be the point of having an article in the first place; they're just going to keep the article in limbo. ffirehorse 15:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The important difference I see is that "Montt supporters" clarifies who is saying what, whereas some of the edits I had to revert stated as general fact things which should have been atributed as opinions of certain individuals. I know its fun to create our own reality, but thats what blogs are for, not the wiki. Sam [Spade] 18:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've done a quick google search, and the best I can come up with (unfortunately I could only find anti-SOA opinion articles) was that the Pentagon in 1996 (?) released evidence that manuals used at the SOA from 1982-91 advocated/could be interpreted to advocate shady stuff like torture and kidnappings. Montt graduated from the school in 1950. If someone could give me a link that proves use of material like this throughout the school's entire existence, that'd be great. I just have to mention, though, that while it's probably more than a coincidence that a lot of grads from that school went on to do some pretty awful things, we can't include that sentence as a fact in the article unless (like I said) someone can link to evidence that shows the school/staff _itself_ advocated these practices. Trey Stone 22:25, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If such evidence even exists (or if evidence to the contrary exists), it would likely only be found by digging through primary documents in historical archives. ffirehorse 23:46, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A Decent Compromise.

As I have stated all along on this discussion board, I am very willing to make a decent compromise on the matter.

I would have no objection to the reimplementation of the material on the SOTA and the Reagan administrations (supposed) involvement in Montt's coup IF, and only if, said material was not presented as indisputable fact. I don't think I should have to tell you again, but the largely left-wing theories presented in both paragraphs are widespread but also widely contended.

I am writing to support the ideas of the wiki user who suggested that the paragraph on the SOTA should be amended to say something like "widely suspected of..." or "believed by many to..." prior to the presentation of the disputed accusations against the SOTA.

On the Reagan admin. paragraph: If the words "quietly backed" (which is a definitive statement of one's opinion, in this case 172's, as fact) were replaced with a more open and unbiased statement like "allegedly backed", then I could have no objection with the rest of the paragraph.

The info on the SOTA and the Reagan bashing are the only two sizable sticking points in the article for me. The suggested rewrites are not exactly as I would design them myself, but these amendments to the article are a good step towards ending the "Edit War" that has developed. None of us will get out of this with 100% after all.

[Call this a personal rant if you must, but I believe that A big problem here is that 172 refuses to help work out a compromise with me. He holds an apparent inability to accept any idea on this forum which does not conform with his own personal prejudices. No, he has personally told me that he will not accept any "weasel words" used to balance his controversial viewpoints on the SOTA, etc. He believes them personally, therefore they are ABSOLUTE fact.

That's not how it works in an Encyclopedia, though.] 

Although less important to me, I would also like to see a fairly worded paragraph stating the reason of Montt's still-reasonably-large base of support, to balance the overall anti-Montt tone of the article. Even Montt's staunchest critics on this forum must admit that there are reasons to his popularity amongst his supporters (perception that he fought against the Communist threat, etc.), and that these should be listed ALONGSIDE the often valid attacks of his opponents. After all, an article cannot be balanced if it presents only one side.

Any good ideas for this proposed paragraph ?

ANTI-COMMUNIST

How about:

Rios Montt's appeal is explained by some observers as a consequence of his espoused populism, along with his hardline approach to regional lawlessness and crime. Others cite his strong roots in the born-again movement. Still others cite Rios Montt as a prime example of a Latin American caudillo, who, despite allegations against him of human rights abuses and genocide, retains fervent support among segments of his country's population. Indeed, according to a 1999 report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the International Center for Human Rights Research, "Today many Guatemalans consider the former general a savior who brought the open conflict with the guerrillas to a close."

This is just a suggestion. ffirehorse 02:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • I like it Ffirehorse. I like it indeed. You have my support for that well-balanced paragraph on the reasons for Montt's support.

If we use the amended versions of the SOTA and Reagan "support for coup" paragraphs, AND use your paragraph on Montt's supporters, then I wouldn't object to having the page opened again immediately.

I think we're really cooking with dynamite now, but where the hell is 172 lately? I have a sneaking suspicion that whatever compromise we reach will be reverted to one-sided leftist rhetoric presented as absolute fact soon after the page is unlocked (beginning the edit war anew) until we can get him to put aside his biases and accept a fair compromise on the controversial issues at hand.

ANTI-COMMUNIST.

I think if there's sufficient proof in US government/CIA archives that the Reagan administration supported/provided any kind of aid to Montt that would help him be successful in his coup, then "quietly" is better (it's pretty obvious that something like this would be kept secret if it were true.) "Allegedly" works if there isn't enough proof, otherwise it's not necessary. Trey Stone 21:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • "Allegedly" is a far more acceptable term than the loaded "quietly", as there is hardly UNDISPUTED proof of any such connection between the Reagan Admin. and the Montt coup. Remember that the point of this article is to give a history of Montt that is as untarnished by personal opinion as possible. If you claim to have a source (CIA or otherwise) that connects Montt's coup to Reagan, then that is one side of the story. Just as valid, however, is the denial of any such connection by the President himself. This is an old battle with no clear winner but in one's own opinion: The Secret Document Vs. The Official Version, quote vs. quote, partisan vs. partisan...

I know how this works. Slanted by your willingness to believe in the connection, you will present it as fact. Slanted by my own biases, I will dismiss the claim outright. But neither of these is acceptable in our further attempts at creating as balanced, accurate, and factual an Encyclopedia as possible. That's exactly WHY those allegations should be listed here, and also why they cannot be presented as absolute.

I have stated the reasons why I will not accept "quietly" as an adjective here. I suggest instead "alleged", "claimed", "thought by some..."

The ball is in your court now. Good night to you (at least where I live, that is...)

ANTI-COMMUNIST

Hey dude, calm down. I was just making a comment. I'm pretty far away from being a leftist or a liberal. Trey Stone 03:57, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Didn't say you were a leftie, Trey (and even if you are, you have some common sense and a civil manner about you. You're obviously not a Marxist propogandist like 172 anyway). I was Just telling you why a definitive term like "quietly backed" is unacceptable in this particular passage of this particular article. Have a nice day now.

ANTI-COMMUNIST