Talk:Guatemalan Civil War

Texts of the peace process

Right now this links to the text provided by c-r.org. The user who originally and anonymously added this link is, I believe, associated with that site. Even so, the link is appropriate, and that site is a repuatable site in my opinion. If you feel that the link is inappropriate, or that a different link to the text would be better, feel free to bring it up here. Thanks. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The quote "If you are with us, we'll feed you, if not, we'll kill you" was falsely attributed to President Montt. From the NYT article-- "Three priests were killed in Quiche in the last three years, and a provincial bishop escaped death when he was warned that a right-wing death squad was waiting for him, according to a Guatemalan church leader. Priests, political leaders and foreign diplomats report that there have been murders in Quiche province. An army officer in Cunen said that the Government's message to the Indians and peasants was simple: If you are with us, we'll feed you, if not, we'll kill you."

Polity Data

Did the US support to the Guatemalan government cease with the Carter administration as suggested in the Guatemala article or did it continue as suggested in Foreign Interventions of the Reagan Administration? Vints 07:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question. The answer is not quite as simple as the one claimed in FIRA. The Carter restrictions on direct military aid to Guatemala remained during the Reagan period. However, Guatemala started receiving aid from such US allies as Israel and Taiwan. Those countries, in turn, saw their aid from the US increase during the same time period. This is the general story, but I'd need to find proper sourcing before including it in an article. The US also gave a lot of "non-lethal" aid to Guatemala (and other nasty regimes) under Reagan, but this was often material that could be used by the Army, or at least had the effect of freeing up government money that they could then spend on the military. On a more direct track, the CIA gave clandestine direct cash payments to the Guatemalan military during at least the late 1980s and through a good deal of Clinton's term. This was technically ended after a series of scandals that erupted when it was revealed that nasty characters on the CIA payroll were directing secret prisons and even assassinating US citizens. Again, need to spend some time collecting sources before this stuff should go in. The National Security Archives and the Truth Commission and REMHI reports have lots of great stuff. Notmyrealname 16:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've restored an accurate and fuller context to the work I cited regarding Democracy and models of measurement such as the polity series. This provides the passage with a better understanding of the criticism.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Schirmer also questions the utility of traditional conceptualizations of civil-military relations and measures of democracy. Going back to the barracks and permitting civilians to occupy the presidential palace is not enough. This case adds credence to the research of J. Patrice McSherry and others who have conceptualized "guardian" and "facade" democracy. After reading this book, one cannot help but cringe at certain quantitative measures of democracy such as POLITY 98, which assigns Guatemala a democracy score of eight out of a possible ten in 1996-1998.3 The Guatemalan Military Project is a must-read for scholars interested in Central America, democratization, civil-military relations, and conflict resolution." It is unclear if Schirmer questions Polity at all. The comment of a book reviewer on the Polity scores after the end of the civil war seem less important for this article, but could possible be included as now.Ultramarine (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed this questionable material.

The Polity data series, a widely used ranking of the degree of democracy,[1] see democracy as abruptly worsening after the 1954 :::coup, improving in the later half of the 60s to be slightly better than before the coup, gradually worsening in the 70s, reaching :::its lowest point during the military dictatorship of Efraín Ríos Montt in 1982-83, improving thereafter and reaching a high level :::after the end of the war.[2][3] Kirk Bowman in a review in the Journal of Third World Studies of Jennifer Schirmer book the The :::Guatemalan Military Project states regarding the Polity Series, "one cannot help but cringe at certain quantitative measures of :::democracy such as POLITY 98, which assigns Guatemala a democracy score of eight out of a possible ten in 1996-1998."[3]

The paragraph is your original interpretation of the Polity data. What is your criteria for democracy on the Polity scale? In other words what score is the cut off point for democracy. Is it 5? Please provide a reliable source that your original interpretation is valid. To quote James W. Davis in his critique "The Fuzzy Concept of Democracy" -

"But though a large number of scholars use the data generated by the Polity Project’s operational definitions of democracy

and autocracy, they do not agree on the cut-off point for the existence of a “democratic” state. That is, even if they judge ::polities according to their score on the 21 point POLITY index, they disagree as to the proper boundary between democracy and autocracy.

It's not up to you to be "the scholar" who provides an original intepretation of the data. BernardL (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Polity ranks from -10 to 10. I am not talking about any cut off point. Only about the degree of democracy on this scale which can be nonexistant. Not claiming that Guatemala was democratic at any particular time. Have clarified the text to state "ranks the degree of democracy" instead of "see democracy".Ultramarine (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I also see that you did a mass deletion of sourced material.[1] Please explain or I will revert.Ultramarine (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see how the Polity material adds anything useful to the article. Given its controversial and ambiguous ranking system, I agree that it should not be included.Notmyrealname (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it doesnt add anything very useful and promotes with undue weight a particular conception and model of democracy. But if it is to be included it should be with some balancing critical voice, as I've added, and it should be in the section that discusses democracy. I'n not sure why Ultrarmine keeps putting it in the "Origins" section. I'll see if I can fix that.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourced information. If you have more sourced information, then please add it.Ultramarine (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it belongs in an article. Notmyrealname (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No one has given an explanation for why the sources material is incorrect. Except unexplained allegations of POV. Please state some concrete objections or it will be restored.Ultramarine (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is no explanation at all for much of the deletions.[2] Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well [Kirk Bowman in a review in the Journal of Third World Studies of Jennifer Schirmer book the The Guatemalan Military Project states regarding the Polity Series, "one cannot help but cringe at certain quantitative measures of democracy such as POLITY 98, which assigns Guatemala a democracy score of eight out of a possible ten in 1996-1998."this is one source. But the larger point is really that it doesn't present useful information to the reader. In fact, it distracts the reader from the content of the article. Plotting a country's "democracyness" on a 20 point scale is cute, but not the kind of information that belongs here. This isn't about the inclusion or exclusion of controversial material, but rather about useful v. not-useful. We can't include everything that has ever been published in an article. We must edit for clarity and usefulness. Please don't reinsert unless you can build a consensus here. Notmyrealname (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bowman's view on Polity is quoted despite only being a book reviewer and talking about a period after the war. You avoided my point. Many of the deletions are not Polity material. Please explain them.Ultramarine (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Moreover, Ultra has ignored my and other editors questions about why he insisted to remove it from the Democracy section and put it in the top Origins section. This moving around of material does not appear to be logical and makes it harder to follow.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Degree of democracy is background material.Ultramarine (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the deletion of anything significant here. The Polity ranking is not helpful. You need to do a better job of convincing other editors of its usefulness and relevancy before reinserting it. This doesn't seem to be a POV content issue. Please don't edit war about it. Notmyrealname (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The only concrete objection to the Polity material is a book reviewer questioning the rankings for two years after the war. Does not justify excluding this material. Book reviewer opinion can be included and have been so. If no more concrete objections are given, then the material will be restored.Ultramarine (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A vague accusation have been made that the degree of democracy is not relevant. Obviously it is. If it is not, then why do we mention the 1954 coup?Ultramarine (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the "degree of democracy" ranking by Polity, included here without any context or meaningful timeframe, does more to confuse the reader than inform them. Saying "democracy was a six under this dictatorship but a 4 under this one," is a meaningless set of numbers. The Polity metrics could be useful in other contexts among a readership that understands their limitations and parameters. The section you are trying to include is gibberish. Not everything can be included in the article. Better to include actual events, like the 1954 coup, than a metric that most people aren't familiar with.Notmyrealname (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Polity scores has been used in hundreds or thousands of peer-reviewed papers so it is a reliable source. I am not saying "democracy was a six under this dictatorship but a 4 under this one," No straw man arguments please. Deleted text: "The Polity data series, a widely used ranking of the degree of democracy, ranks the degree of democracy as abruptly worsening after the 1954 coup, improving in the later half of the 60s to be slightly better than before the coup, gradually worsening in the 70s, reaching its lowest point during the military dictatorship of Efraín Ríos Montt in 1982-83, improving thereafter and reaching a high level after the end of the war." I gave a non-technical description of how the degree of democracy varied during the civil war.Ultramarine (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I never questioned its reliability (speaking of straw man arguments). The text you are trying to include uses a very broad and vague brush that does not add anything useful to the article. It basically says "things got bad after the 1954 coup, and then got either better or worse until the end of the war." It would be more informative to say that Guatemala was ruled continuously by military dictatorships from the 1954 coup through 1986, with the exception of 1966-70 when the civilian president was allowed to sign a pact with the army that limited his power [3]... More would need to be said about the frequency of coups d'etat, auto coups, etc. in the following period, as well as the ongoing culture of attacks against members of civil society.Notmyrealname (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

First you accuse me of being too technical, now for being "broad and vague". I can certainly add the exact scores if missing that is what makes the statement "vague". "Guatemala was ruled continuously by military dictatorships from the 1954 coup through 1986, with the exception of 1966-70 when the civilian president was allowed to sign a pact with the army that limited his power" Cannot find this in the given source. Quote please. There were several elections, except under Montt, so an outright dictatorship is false. If you want to add another source and view regarding degree of democracy, then that is fine. Not a reason for excluding polity scores.Ultramarine (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are reasons and those have been stated. Its does not add value but only undue weight to advance only one out of many models of democracy in this article. This article is not about models of democracy. Also, your re-organization makes this article harder to read/follow. You have never explained that. There is a section on democracy yet you want to stick the polity stuff on the "Origins' section. Again, makes it harder to follow. It was better before.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, the degree of democracy is obviously relevant. If it is not, then why do we mention the 1954 coup? If the source is POV or dubious, which is strange considering that it has been used in numerous scholarly articles, then add another sourced POV. Degree of democracy should be in the "background" section. Ultramarine (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For one thing show us a reliable source that says that the Polity Data says something significant about the civil war. I have read several major Guatemalan historians (Susanne Jonas, Greg Grandin, Piero Gleijeses) and while they discuss the subject of democracy in relation to the war, none of them are paying attention to the Polity Data. So far it is only you that is saying the Polity Data is specifically relevant to the discussion of the civil war.BernardL (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Already given sources showing that it is used in numerous academic studies. I will add a link showing its relation to Guatemala.Ultramarine (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not just talk about what kind of governments there were instead of using a metric that most non-academics are familiar with? And people have decided that 1954 was important in Guatemala's history long before Polity came around. This issue seems like a distraction that does not have any support here. Please do not reinsert it without building consensus around it.Notmyrealname (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick Google search produced this excellent article, which lays out several methodological and conceptual problems with the Polity data. Its sources include many other academic critiques.Notmyrealname (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Add this if you want to. Already given link showing its academic significance.Ultramarine (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors. Its better without it. Not relevant to the Civil War. Its clutter.Rafaelsfingers (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, the degree of democracy is obviously relevant. If it is not, then why do we mention the 1954 coup? If the source is POV or dubious, which is strange considering that it has been used in numerous scholarly articles, then add another sourced POV.Ultramarine (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also added their classification of the worst part of the civil war.Ultramarine (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus that the polity series data is relevant to the Guatemalan Civil War. All other editors here who have commented on it, four, agree it doesn't belong. So, I don't know why it keeps being returned to the article. It's one measure of democracy--a disputed one--out of many others. It adds no value to a discussion of the Civil War. I've removed it.

Also, I removed the telegraph piece that makes a false argument, a straw man fallacy by saying the US can not be blamed for all the deaths. But that is silly. No one does so. It would be relevant to include only if there is a claim that the US is blamed for all the deaths.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

About the Ferguson quote from Telegraph- it is not actually from a close historical examination of Guatemalan history. It is from an op-ed piece specifically directed at the Nobel prize acceptance speech of Harold Pinter. One of Pinter's comments about Ferguson's article, supported by others, was that "Ferguson distorted the whole bloody thing." Now Ultramarine thinks this little quip from Ferguson is so important that it should go into several articles where there is neither evidence of commentary by Pinter nor evidence of any source making the claim that the U.S. is culpable of all 200,000 deaths. He has inserted the same quote in this civil war article, in Foreign Policy of the United States, in 1954 Guatemalan Coup D'etat, had formerly inserted it into Allegations of States Terrorism Committed by the United States, and Church Committee and who knows where else. The Polity Data information is inserted in pretty much the same places too!BernardL (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that too. That op-ed quote has no place in any scholarly article about any subject matter except perhaps about Ferguson and his issues with Pinter, or vise versa, as that is its polemical context, not an historical study, or scholarly paper in anyway. WP has to have better standards than to include straw man fallacies not repeated by any reliable source.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Polity Series appears to still be in the article...I agree it it is of tenuous relevancy.DrGabriela (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Polity. Please see WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not decide which view is right. If you have another view regarding the degree of democracy, then please add it so all sides are represented. The Polity data series is one of the most widely used measures so it is notable. Obivously the degree of democracy at the time is relevant.Ultramarine (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right. That is why I do not think it is right for you to choose one measure of democracy as the winner. More to the point, I do not think this is the right article to list all different measure of democracy (capitalist, socialist, etc). This article is about the coup of 1954 in Guatemala. It is not about a debate of different kinds of measures for democracies that purport to capture it with a single number. You have not explained how this is useful or needed to this article. You say its obvious but it is not obvious to anyone else, it seems.DrGabriela (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have: "Obivously the degree of democracy at the time is relevant" I am not saying that Polity is the winner. Feel free to add a contrary sourced view.Ultramarine (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are repeating yourself, yet, other editors have already answered that point and refuted it: This article is not about measures of democracy. There could be a whole section--a whole article--on the subject of various measures of gauging the degree of democracy within different standards and each with their critics. What does this have to do with this articles subject? Very little! Simply report there was a coup, and a dictatorship was established, etc. How cares about what different models posit as particular degrees? Its off topic here, and its POV pushing to keep inserting this in several articles. Consensus is pretty clear on this point as well. When consensus is so clearly against you, it should mean that you give up and drop the matter, not keep arguing and arguing until people just get exhausted. That is WP:TE, and its not allowed. Your points have been heard, "asked and answered!" Now we need to move on.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No this is not the article to discuss measures of democracy in detail. But obviously the degree of democracy during this time period is relevant. If you want to add an opposing view, then do so.Ultramarine (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Similar shenanigans are occurring on the History of Guatemala article if interested editors care to look. Notmyrealname (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reply to my point?Ultramarine (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All the editors who have responded to you have given reasons. You have so far convinced no one. You are mistakenly claiming that this is a POV issue, when the consensus is that it is a matter of editorial judgment. If you really feel passionate about this, I suggest that you open an RFC. But seriously, leave the poor dead horse alone.Notmyrealname (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've raised this edit warring problem by Ultramarine, here.[4] If it continues, RfC may be filed next. This can not go on forever. Its WP:TE. Giovanni33 (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just discuss the factual issues please. The reason given for removing this seems to be you dislike the views presented. Not good enough. NPOV requires the views from all sides.Ultramarine (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As you well know, Wikipedia operates by consensus. It is quite obvious that you do not have consensus for including this material - indeed you appear to be the only person arguing for it. I read through the entire thread, and I don't at all think the arguments against your position amount to "Idontlikeit." Folks are saying, rightfully so I think, that it makes no sense to include a random "democracy metric" (or whatever we want to call it) at this point. I don't even necessarily disagree with the Polity evaluation (it's a decent rough approximation) but why use this method of evaluation and not another? You created the article on the Polity data series and obviously think it's useful. Almost all of the Wikipedia references to the concept appear to be articles which you work on, so this does not seem to be something regularly cited in our encyclopedia. I don't even know how widely cited it is in the larger literature. Regardless of all that, rather than making extremely vague and general statements about the "level of democracy" based on one set of poli sci data, the best thing to do would be to expand the article so we discuss each of the regimes in detail using a variety of sources.

Again, you don't have consensus for this right now. When a number of editors clearly object to a suggestion of yours, there is usually little to be gained by continually pressing the issue and saying the arguments against your view are "not good enough." There's a lot of other stuff to work on with respect to this article. Perhaps you can leave this issue to the side for awhile? If the article grows to the point where there is a full-blown discussion of Guatemala's "democracy level" over the course of the conflict, then I'm sure there would be a place for the material you want to add.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NOT. WP is not a democracy. If some editor on the flat earth article have a straw poll and all vote for a flat earth being true and that this should be stated, then still does not mean that the most important polices of WP:V, WP, NPOV, and WP:OR can be ignored. Claimed POV is not a reason for deletion. Please read NPOV. "why use this method of evaluation and not another?" Feel free to add another view. That is how NPOV works. Obviously the degree of democracy during this time period is relevant. Otherwise, why discuss the coup? Polity is used in hundreds or thousands peer-reviewed articles so notable. The source also mentions the war and makes further comments such labeling the later part ethnic warfare. Furthermore, may it be that the opposition to including this material is simply that it shows that coup did not bring down democracy for the whole of the civil war since at one time during the civil war the degree of democracy was higher than before the coup? If so, then remember that NPOV means that all views should be presented, not only those critical of the US.Ultramarine (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it does operate by consensus as I said (that's a core policy in fact). You are the only one arguing for this change, and around five editors are arguing against you and offering substantive rationales for their views. Thus, there is no consensus to add it. Incidentally, if the source you want to use (and I don't know where it is, the link that was in an old version of the article is a dead link) seriously argues that there was more democracy at any point during the civil war than under the Arbenz administration than I would call the whole thing into question. That's a laughable argument in my view, for a variety of reasons, but I don't know if the source actually says that.

I don't think it's fruitful (particularly for those editors opposed to Ultramarine's suggestion) to continue discussing this issue on this thread right now. I know Ultramarine will reply here and continue pressing his argument, but I will forego any reply as I think we've discussed this enough to conclude that the general agreement at this point is to not include the material in question. I think it's time for all of us to drop the stick here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus if not a core policy like those I cited for the reasons I gave. You may find the straw poll attempt regarding "Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center" interesting.[5]. "if the source you want to use (and I don't know where it is, the link that was in an old version of the article is a dead link) seriously argues that there was more democracy at any point during the civil war than under the Arbenz administration than I would call the whole thing into question. That's a laughable argument in my view, for a variety of reasons," Fine. Feel free to add an opposing view claiming that as per NPOV. Opposing a source without even looking at it seems strange. Here is one http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/Guatemala2006.pdf You can register for free to get whole data set.Ultramarine (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow...

User:Ultramarine has contributed to this page dramatically! Keep up the good work, Ultramarine! :D

-Guy1423 (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

See below. It was a copy and paste, apparent copy right vio...:) But, this will be fixed, and the article is being dramatically improved.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourced material added

I added the sourced information from the US terrorism article that was removed on the basis that it was too long for the article and needed to be placed in a daughter article, i.e. the Guatamalan Civil War. However, for some reason, that material never was actually moved (and there is still discussion what should still remain in that article). But in the meanwhile since it was all taken out, this place seems to be the best home for it, for now.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gio. But don't you think it's needs quite a lot of selection, sorting and restructuring? I think we should stick with a largely chronological approach. As for the rest of the article, much of that which was moved by Ultramarine (ie: much that appears in the resumption of democracy section) is an apparent violation of copyright. It is unreferenced and is apparently originally taken from here. [[6]] BernardL (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right. I was being BOLD but was just about to post another message that this needs exactly some good sorting, and restructuring to make a coherent flow of points within the article. If you could take a stab at it in the article, I know the results would be a great improvement.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done. I like how you restructured it. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also the material added by Ultramarine does appear to be a copy and paste copy right violation. And, you are right it is unreferenced. This should make it easier to get rid of any redundancy in favor of the referenced material, and then adding a source to that material that was taking from that cite, which is deemed valuable here.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation, material moved to talk

Much of the unreferenced material that was copy and pasted here some time ago by user:Ultramarine is a possible copyright violation. Wikipedia policy obliges us to remove the material until the issue is settled. I have removed the following:

On 8 August 1983, Ríos Montt was deposed by his own Minister of Defense, General Óscar Humberto Mejía Victores, who succeeded him as de facto president. Mejía justified his coup, saying that "religious fanatics" were abusing their positions in the government and also because of "official corruption". Seven people were killed in the coup, although Ríos Montt survived to found a political party (the Guatemalan Republican Front) and to be elected President of Congress in 1995 and 2000.

Awareness in the United States of the conflict in Guatemala, and its ethnic dimension, increased with the 1983 publication of the "testimonial" account I, Rigoberta Menchú, An Indian Woman in Guatemala; the author was later awarded the 1992 Nobel Peace Prize for her work in favor of broader social justice. In 1998 a book by U.S. anthropologist David Stoll challenged some of the details in Menchú's book, creating an international controversy.

General Mejía allowed a managed return to democracy in Guatemala, starting with a 1 July 1984 election for a Constituent Assembly to draft a democratic constitution. On 30 May 1985, after nine months of debate, the Constituent Assembly finished drafting a new constitution, which took effect immediately. Vinicio Cerezo, a civilian politician and the presidential candidate of the Guatemalan Christian Democracy, won the first election held under the new constitution with almost 70% of the vote, and took office on 14 January 1986. It took, however, another 10 years of conflict, before there was an end to the violence.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/guatemala.htm

This material appears to have been copied from another wiki article, but it must necessarily fall under suspicion because this website with the same material has a copyright on it: http://www.geocities.com/spanland/historia_de_guatemala.htm. I only removed a portion of the suspected material: can someone please clear this up?BernardL (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: what is the original source of this unreferenced material? Is it this? [[7]]BernardL (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably this: [8] I did not add it. Will paraphrase.Ultramarine (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is all a very big problem- both for this page and the history of Guatemala page. There are apparently about 11 more paragraphs, following the sourced paragraph I submitted about Susanne Jonas comments on democracy, that require prompt paraphrasing but even after all that there is a copyright issue because so much from one source is being paraphrased.BernardL (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe some paragraphs can be shortened and summarized.Ultramarine (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also no need/copyright violation to have six paragraphs from one particular HWR report from one period of the war. Must be shortened.Ultramarine (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation, they are covered by creative commons (see this). They did original reporting close to the time of the incidents. If they have good stuff out there, I don't see a problem with including it. Six paragraphs is probably excessive, however, but you have cut them all out without a summary (saying that they published a report is not a summary).Notmyrealname (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Creative Common material is not public domain and the same rules applies in WP as per copyrighted material.Ultramarine (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Six paragraphs, properly cited, is not a copyright violation.Notmyrealname (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The CC material is not allowed for commercial use which is incompatible with WP material. See WP:C. One short paragraph is not a copyright violation, a few are borderline, and six is definitely a violaton.Ultramarine (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It was really the height of hypocrisy for you to place a "copypaste" sign on the HRW while ignoring the fact that the material you personally moved here [[9]], which is much greater in size than the editable HRW material is in violation of copyright. It cannot be all paraphrased. This page cannot be largely a platform for a paraphrased globalsecurity,org article. Most of it needs to be deleted. BernardL (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As noted on WP:ANI the material in the public domain since the globalsecurity article have copied a state department document.Ultramarine (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. government is used as source here for approximately 900 words, a weighting far greater than any other source in the article. The U.S. government was an involved party, and yet their word is taken as the foundation for large parts of this article. Can anyone seriously who deny that this is a significant ethical issue?BernardL (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All US supporting material removed

See [10]. Violates NPOV to only present views from one side. The article now only have US critical material. Niall Ferguson is a respected professor of history. The Intelligence Oversight Board report expresses the official US view.Ultramarine (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a qualitative difference between someone writing in a newspaper op-ed and writing in a scholarly publication or book. Find some quotes from him from a book to include. The IOB report contains a great deal of useful information. Your summary of its contents did not accurately reflect its contents and was also not properly referenced.Notmyrealname (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Ferguson is a professor of history we could cite a blog he had written. See WP:V. Exactly what is incorrect with the description of the IOB report? Feel free to add more from it. Remember that NPOV prohibits deleting material simply because it is claimed to be POV.Ultramarine (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. How is his blog verifiable? It doesn't carry the same weight as a properly edited and sourced book or article. Please cite your claims properly rather than just linking to a several hundred page report.Notmyrealname (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:V: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Not that this is self-published material. Newspapers have some oversight and even some legal responsiblity for what they publish. If I name the relevent sections, then you have no further objection to IOB report and you do not oppose reinserting it?Ultramarine (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the circumstances certainly do matter. There are plenty of reputable sources on the topic, so there's really no need to bring in a polemical op-ed. If he's an expert on Guatemala, find something academic he's written. If he hasn't published anything on Guatemala, than it would argue against including his op-ed. In terms of the IOB report, it is a great resource. If your references to it adhere to the text and include page numbers, I'm sure they will withstand scrutiny here.Notmyrealname (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is an interesting source. I will summarize the arguments into one paragraph and add it to the article: [11].Ultramarine (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

An unsourced "e-note". Please find proper sources that support your view. It shouldn't be hard.Notmyrealname (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Radu has published on Latin America and guerrilla groups. Please state the exact policy prohibiting citing him.Ultramarine (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Then use an article or book that he has published on the topic, not a self-described "e-note" with no sources.Notmyrealname (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, no policy against citing an expert. State the exact policy you are citing.Ultramarine (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I restored Ferguson. He's a Harvard professor. If he had written this on the back of a Chinese fortune cookie with a toothpick, it would still count as a reliable source. - Merzbow (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Has he published anything on Guatemala? If so, let's use that instead. Noam Chomsky taught at MIT. Do we want to start using every op-ed he's ever published?Notmyrealname (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

He specifically discusses Guatemala in the op-ed. If want to look for something else he's published that talks about Guatemala, we can add that also. - Merzbow (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky has no education or academic degree in history or political science.Ultramarine (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

People can talk about whatever they want in an op-ed. It doesn't make them an expert on the topic. We haven't been including opinion pieces in this article. I don't think it's advisable to start now.Notmyrealname (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, are you really sure that you want to argue that WP should remove all of Chomsky's op-eds and self-published articles from his website?Ultramarine (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the Chomsky material in for example the US state terrorism article seems to be such material.Ultramarine (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the sources in Politics of Noam Chomsky are again op-eds or interviews.Ultramarine (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume that this last comment was a joke. Consider the context. Chomsky's op-eds are an accurate reflection of his politics. This is a discussion page about the Guatemalan Civil War. Please keep the comments focused on the topic at hand.Notmyrealname (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add the Ferguson quote back. As has been mentioned, its problematic, not because of where it was published but because of the context and being a logical fallacy (straw man--since no one makes that claim!) To cite a refuting claim against a claim that does not exist makes no sense to place in an article. The fact is that the context that its an op-ed piece in the popular press specifically directed at the Nobel prize acceptance speech of Harold Pinter. It is NOT an historical study of Guatemala, which is the kind of academic quality this article should be citing--not a fallacious polemic against Pinter. It certainly is not so important that it should go into several articles where there is neither evidence of commentary by Pinter nor evidence of any source making the claim that the U.S. is culpable of all 200,000 deaths. Since there is no consensus for this material I will remove it, unless some valid arguments are made, or consensus changes. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? You do not have one for removing it. No claim is made regarding Pinter. Are you arguing that all the op-eds and interviews not being historical studies by Chomsky should be removed in US state terrorism article? Otherwise there seem to be a double standard. You have not responded regarding the other sources.Ultramarine (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus above. All other editors, over 5. Merzbow just joined in and has not engaged/addressed the arguments presented that makes this not suitable here. Its not where it was published, that is only one element. That no claim is made regarding Pinter is the entire point why its not suitable here, as it was an attack on Pinter and, according to sources, a 'great distortion." This op ed piece is not accurate, creates a straw man (who ever claims that the US is to be blamed for ALL the deaths?). Nonsense! This is not an historical look at Guatemala, it's not scholarly or relevant here (unless you have a claim that is cited here attributing ALL deaths to the US?). If you can't answer yes, then there is no relevancy for this rubbish.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please cite the policy for excluding Merzbow from the issues discussed? "the United States initiated a nearly four-decade-long cycle of terror and repression that led to the death of 200,000 Guatemalans." So the US argued to be responsible by this source. Again, no double standards regarding op-ed, if you continue with this I will take it up on the US state terrorism article. Source for "great distortion"?Ultramarine (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That source says the U.S. initiated it, not that it was solely responsible for all of it. The 1954 Coup is commonly described as a kind of original sin.BernardL (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is at least implied. Especially if you are serious with your original sin comparison. If it is not, then you should no problem with removing the 200,000 part since this is already mentioned elsewhere?Ultramarine (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

These are perhaps the weakest arguments I've ever seen to exclude the analysis of a Harvard professor. The section clearly contains the accusation the US was partly or wholly responsible for 200k deaths, right at the beginning. Ferguson's analysis directly addresses this point. It's irrelevant it was published in an op-ed. It's irrelevant the article was nominally in response to Pinter. Do we have to go through the totally pointless exercise of taking this to the Reliable Sources noticeboard? - Merzbow (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing "clear" about your or Ultramarine's interpretations. At least you could admit that the Rabe quote is subject to differing interpretations. It's a non sequitir to suggest that saying the U.S. initiated the conditions that led to the genocide necessarily means that they are totally culpable. Moreover, regardless of whether he is a Harvard prof or not, Ferguson is not offering a careful "analysis" of the generalization about critics you are attributing to him. His analysis pertains primarily to the words of Pinter, and even so it is not a careful analysis.You are trying to brand all critics as having totalist view of U.S. responsibility. It's always easier to beat on a straw man.BernardL (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I see neither how "the United States initiated a nearly four-decade-long cycle of terror and repression that led to the death of 200,000 Guatemalans" excludes a totalist interpretation, nor how Ferguson's analysis requires it. You are artificially narrowing the interpretations of both with, apparently, the sole goal of excluding the opposing view. - Merzbow (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

But the view is absurd and meaningless as it argues against a non-existent view. Straw man fallacies are not good, even if they are made by a Harvard Bussiess school professor. Now, if we have anyone anywhere making the claim that all deaths are to be blamed on the US, then this would have a place. Otherwise, its pure rubbish, an insult to the very notion of an "opposing view." If we want a good opposing view, lets fine one from a historian who knows what they are talking about in this case of Guatemala, who is making a careful historical analysis, say from someone who specializes in Guatemalan History? What a novel concept! Polemical attacks in the popular press made against others with sweeping brushes that use straw man fallacies are utterly useless except to degrade the scholarly content of the article. No serious encyclopedia deciding on how to best report a scholarly account of the Guatemalan Civil War would even consider using this op ed piece from the Telegraph. Call me a snob but its true.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, the article states "the United States initiated a nearly four-decade-long cycle of terror and repression that led to the death of 200,000 Guatemalans." Clearly states that the US is responsible by initiating something which led to a consequence. Regarding op-eds, again, are you arguing that Chomsky's op-eds and interviews should be removed from the many articles citing them?Ultramarine (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the US is responsible for initiating. Dispute that? Fine, then quote a good source that disputes it, or engages with that argument. The straw man cherry picked out of that op ed piece does not. Straw man fallacies have no place in WP as substitutes for real opposing views on a subject matter. We do have some standards here, you know!Giovanni33 (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you agree that the text in fact states that the US is responsible by initiating something which led to 200,000 deaths, then the issue is solved. The US is accused. Professor Ferguson replies to this. Since you continue to object to op-eds I take it that you have no objection to removing Chomsky's from the US state terrorism article? Ultramarine (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33, I know you're smarter than this. You know what policy states - despite the fact you disagree with the argument a source is making, that doesn't affect its reliability or eligibility for inclusion. I think the argument that US is responsible for these deaths is equally ludicrous (and I can't say what I really think about Chomsky and his ilk without getting banned for BLP), but I'm not removing the accusation nor gutting all of the articles around "Allegations..." - which I might add are full of op-eds, cites to web pages from advocacy groups and so on. In this whole bunch I'd submit a Harvard professor is in fact the most reliable source of all. - Merzbow (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I coming here from an AN/I report on a separate issue mentioned above. Actually, this article is rather well sourced with academic experts on Guatemala. This is a historical topic with which I have some familiarity, and Piero Gleijeses, Susanne Jonas, J. Patrice McSherry, Stephen Rabe, and Greg Grandin (the last probably the person who knows the absolute most about these issues) are all among the top scholars on the post-war history of Guatemala. Ferguson is at Harvard, yes, but his work is largely related to European economic history. I don't believe he has ever written anything significant about Latin America, much less Guatemala. I doubt he's ever done primary source research on this topic, unlike the other scholars listed above. If this article was poorly sourced, perhaps an argument could be made to include an op-ed from a scholar who has never researched these issues. Since the sourcing is good I don't see why we should include it. Ferguson's op-ed has one paragraph on Guatemala and he makes a completely irrelevant claim there. Of course not all of the deaths can be blamed on the US (not even all of them can be blamed on the Guatemalan government) but no one is saying otherwise. The whole reason, as admitted above, to stick this in was to counter the Rabe quote about a "four-decade-long cycle of terror..." I think Ultramarine actually has a good solution here. In this edit he simply cut out the phrase "that led to the death of 200,000 Guatemalans." We mention the death toll elsewhere in the article and I don't think we need to mention it twice. If removing the reference to 200,000 eliminates the need to use what really is a crappy source (history is an extremely segmented field - one can be a genius when it comes to talking about the House of Rothschild and know little or nothing about Central America during the Cold War) then why don't we compromise with that?

I'd also point out in general that it will be hard to find sources that argue, as Ferguson kinda does, that the US should not be much blamed for what happened during the Guatemalan Civil War. Obviously it's not as though it's all the fault of the US, but the preponderance of the evidence shows significant American involvement (weapons, training, cash assistance, diplomatic protection, etc.) over the course of several decades. I think it's possible that that is actually the "orthodox" position in the scholarly literature. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would say that the US have some responsibility up to Jimmy Carter in the later part of the 70s. Through the coup and military support. A period not including the most severe human rights violations. But Carter stopped the support. Reagan may have allowed Guatemala to buy spare parts again during the 80s but military aid was not restored. Certainly after Reagan the US cannot be blamed for the human rights violations.Ultramarine (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not according to the Intelligence Oversight Board --

Unclear what you mean from the long report. Quote or explanation please. "US policy objectives in Guatemala from l984 to the present--the period we reviewed--included supporting the transition to and strengthening of civilian democratic government, furthering human rights and the rule of law, supporting economic growth, combating illegal narcotics trafficking, combating the communist insurgency, and advancing the current peace process between the government and the guerrillas." Does not seem to support your claim.Ultramarine (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"There have been public allegations that CIA funds were increased to compensate for the cut-off of almost all overt military aid to Guatemala in 1990. We did not find this to have been the case. CIA funding levels to the security services dropped consistently from about $3.5 million in FY 1989 to about $1 million in 1995." This is from the "CIA funding levels" section of the Executive Summary. Obviously, there was US military aid legally went to Guatemala through 1990. The CIA admitted to giving millions of dollars through 1995, even after such aid had been officially cut off (as a result of ongoing gross human rights violations).Notmyrealname (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See below. Some aid between 1985 to 1990 to a civilian government. Not to Montt during the worst atrocities.Ultramarine (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ferguson is a Harvard professor. That's great. That doesn't make him a scholar on Guatemala. This was not a scholarly article (and only mentioned Guatemala as an aside). Would you include a citation of a Harvard biologist's op-ed comment about nuclear weapons, even though they are both scientists? I hope not. Being a Harvard professor doesn't make you a reliable source for things outside your area of immediate expertise. If you can find something else that he's published on Guatemala, I could see your point. But he's making a claim that no other Guatemala scholar agrees with in a newspaper editorial. Including this here appears to be WP:UNDUE. Seriously, this article is filled with high quality sourcing. If some better sources can be found representing this viewppoint, by all means include them.Notmyrealname (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"he's making a claim that no other Guatemala scholar agrees with" You are arguing that everyone thinks that the US was responsible for all the deaths?Ultramarine (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than arguing this to death, can we just agree to leave out both the Ferguson cite and the somewhat gratuitous reference to 200,000 deaths that prompted its inclusion in the first place? That seems to solve the problem. Can we agree to that?

To Ultra's comment above, the Carter administration did indeed take a much different tack with respect to Guatemala. Interestingly though, Guatemala actually refused military aid in fiscal years 1978 and 1979 because they were offended by a State Department human rights report from 1977 which was critical (the Carter admin had no problem with that though). The Carter policy with respect to Central America changed dramatically after the Sandinistas came to power in 1979, though I don't know much about how that played out in Guatemala. The Reagan admin did lift the prohibition on military aid and provided it. Reagan was also extremely complementary of Rios Montt. Remember, this is not the US State Terrorism article. If we are going to write a thorough article about the Guatemalan Civil War we will need to do so with reference to the attitude of the United States and indeed to other nations in the Americas. Even diplomatic support for Guatemala, which Reagan clearly provided, is relevant to this article in a way it would not be to the Allegations of US State Terrorism one.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Reagan admin did lift the prohibition on military aid and provided it." Source please since I have an opposing source. Not counting allowing buying spare parts again.Ultramarine (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The IOB reports states "After a civilian government under President Cerezo was elected in 1985, overt non-lethal US military aid to Guatemala resumed. In December 1990, however, largely as a result of the killing of US citizen Michael DeVine by members of the Guatemalan army, the Bush administration suspended almost all overt military aid." So some aid during 1985-1990 to civilian government. Montt and the worst atrocities was before this.Ultramarine (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we're talking about the same thing. There are many categories for "military aid" from the US Gov, and prior to Reagan the Congress prevented the US from even selling military supplies to Guatemela. It was this prohibition which Reagan lifted while Rios Montt was in power and resulted in the sale of millions in military supplies including a bunch of spare parts for aircraft (it's not a reliable source - I think what is said there is accurate though I would not use it in the article - but this fact is mentioned here). Congress actually fought Reagan over these issues. I don't have any good books on Reagan and Guatemala handy, however if I was ever going to work on this article I would get some. Suffice it to say that the Reagan admin sold military supplies to Guatemala (which was a change) and coupled this with rhetoric that strongly approved of Rios Montt. I believe there other more indirect ways of providing aid (US aid to foreign countries is a labyrinthine process) during that time but would need to do more research on that. Anyhow I'm just pointing all of this out, not arguing for anything specific to be included at this time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cerezo didn't take office until 1986, I believe. Many massacres and atrocities, including the murder by the Guatemalan army of US citizens, occurred after Rios Montt. The war (the focus of this article) lasted until 1996. Why should we limit it to the Montt and Lucas periods? Military aid did indeed continue, including direct CIA cash transfers (see the IOB report, cited previously). Troops were trained at the School of the Americas. Why omit millions of dollars in aid for spare parts? This was money the military didn't have to spend, so they had more money available for "lethal" purchases. This is a distinction without a difference.Notmyrealname (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no aid for spare parts. They were simply allowed to buy spare parts which Carter had stopped. There were many human rights violations also after Montt but they peaked during his regime.Ultramarine (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The IOB report covers the period after 1984. Is there something more regarding CIA involement that should be included from this source?Ultramarine (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added your important point regarding CIA funding.Ultramarine (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So it appears the new standard of sourcing for this article is professors who have previously written about this country, writing in books or papers. How does "Human Rights Watch" fit into this category? What are the academic qualifications of the anonymous authors writing their reports? - Merzbow (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't really my argument. I don't think we should use op-eds from professors who don't have particular knowledge on the topic (or, for that matter, op-eds from professors who do). This is not to say that every published source has to come from academe. There are all kinds of groups (like Human Rights Watch) which have expertise in these areas (and they are cited all the time - the US State Department even cites HRW when it suits them). Reports from the Historical Clarification Commission, the UN, and even the US government are all fair game as sources for this article. My only point was that it's silly to quote an op-ed from a scholar who does not study this field when we are quoting a throwaway sentence from his piece that really adds nothing to our article. I really don't see why that's so controversial. There's all kinds of great sources for this topic, why use a crappy one that isn't even making a particularly relevant point?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as the "200k" accusation is removed, I won't restore the Ferguson response. But that's n argument from the direction of relevancy. HRW is a pressure group with a specific advocacy agenda - I mean, they are called "Human Rights Watch". Why do quotes from a pressure group belong in a history article? The kind of microscopic dissection from you and others of the qualifications of tenured professors offering opposing opinions on this topic, combined with statements of broad acceptance of sources as "fair game" when questioned about anti-US sources like HRW, is a big problem here. - Merzbow (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. If we can quote HRW we can certainly also include the Polity view on the degree of democracy during this period. Cited by hundreds or thousands of peer-reviewed studies so should pass all tests. There seem to a bias against sources not criticizing the US.Ultramarine (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Polity discussion is up above Ultra - please don't bring it into a new thread. I have no bias against sources not criticizing the US, however even framing the issue that way is revealing. Right now the biggest problem with this article is that most of the people here are importing a conflict from the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. This article is about Guatemala. The US needs to be heavily discussed here, of course, but the current article does not do justice to this major period in Guatemalan history. Just to take a step back, compare what we have here with our article on the American Civil War. Something more in line with that should be our goal here, but if we considered the first three section heads for this article in terms of the US Civil War it would probably translate into 1) Slavery 2) Bull Run 3) Ulysses S. Grant. This is my main beef with the article. I do know a bit about this subject and am willing to do some work to improve the article. I hope we can all leave the conflict with the "other article" over at the other article - this is a totally different topic. The culpability of the US in certain situations is a relatively small issue. For example we aren't discussing the civil war in relation to the indigenous groups in Guatemala, or how workers responded to state violence, among any number of subjects. I really don't know about these "domestic" sort of issues (the research I've done has been about US involvement during the 1950s and early 1960s, and I've forgotten most of it), but they should form a significant portion of the article.

And to Merzbow, HRW is a "pressure group" to an extent but the fact is that their reports are widely, widely respected (I'm not being facetious when I say the US government, even the Bush administration, cites them). Certainly there are better sources, but a detailed, footnoted report on Guatemala by their experts on that country is about a million times better than a random line from Ferguson in an op-ed. I really don't think that's a double standard, and again I'm surprised that this is that controversial. I'm just calling for more high quality sources. It is a fact that a significant portion of high quality sources will condemn much of what the US did in Guatemala. That's the mainstream scholarly view. Of course sources arguing against that view can and should be included, but it might take a bit of effort to track those down. If Ultramarine won't or can't do it I'll even try to pick up one of Michael Radu's books (mentioned below) at some point, even though I don't think much of his views on this or any other subject.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I will certainly continue to point out what seem to be a double standard. One example being the Polity material. Polity is at least as respected as HRW and does not have any of the many charges of bias that surround HRW. I find it strange that you speak about having a more general article but do not want to include one of the most aspects of all, the degree of democracy. Strange that all sources opposed happen to be more positive to the US.Ultramarine (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your last sentence was not helpful, just as it would not be helpful for me to turn that same statement around and apply it to you. The main thrust of my previous comment is that the focus of the article, and of our discussion, should be less on the U.S. I also specifically said I would look for a better version (a book) of a "more positive to the US" source that you seem to like (Radu). I (and multiple other editors) explained above specific objections to including the Polity material which had nothing to do with the United States at all (the source you want to use is about Guatemalan democracy, not about US support for Guatemala). The best thing any of us can do at this point is find more good sources for inclusion in this article. Googling "Guatemalan Civil War" is not the way to do that. We should all get a couple of books from the library so we have something substantive to debate about. Again, I'm completely uninterested in rehashing the staid debates from the "Allegations" article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I intend to take the Polity issue to another forum. Could you please list your objections so I can restate them?Ultramarine (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My objections (and those of several others) are already expressed above. If you bring up the issue at another forum then post a note about that in the appropriate section above and others can comment there if they so choose. I'm sorry you feel it's necessary to devote some much time to such a small issue when every other editor who has commented on it disagrees with you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"And to Merzbow, HRW is a "pressure group" to an extent but the fact is that their reports are widely, widely respected..." Nobody becomes a tenured professor without their reports being "widely, widely respected" as well. You admit they are a pressure group, like "Jihad Watch". All these sources have pluses and minuses, none are perfect. For their to be peace on these articles, we cannot apply higher standards to one set of sources than to another, and I can't see any other explanation for what else is being done here when professors are attacked and social advocacy groups are excused. If you do want to raise the bar for sourcing, then we'll dump both the professors AND HRW. - Merzbow (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Human rights violations are central to any respectable narrative of the war, and the works of human rights watch in their reports on Guatemala clearly are among the most authoritative, and have been vindicated over time. Excuse me but it is gross oversimplification to monolithically characterize human rights watch activities in Guatemala as just advocacy. They sent investigative mission and engaged in documentation. Moreover leading historians on Guatemalan have regularly used their documents as source material. For examples we already know fron the article that Piero Gleijeses refers to the HRW reports as important evidence: "excesses were committed by the guerrillas, but the voluminous evidence from Amnesty International, Americas Watch, and other human rights organizations, as well as from observers, is conclusive: the immense majority of the killings were committed by the Guatemalan army.” [3]. Another Guatemalan specialist Susanne Jonas writes: "International human rights organizations, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States, Amnesty International, and Americas Watch, as well as the International Verification Commission set up to monitor compliance with the Central American Peace Accords after 1987 (see below), and even a few public figures within Guatemala, documented the continuation of systematic human rights violations, indeed a "serious deterioration" of the situation after 1987. There were more political assassinations in 1987 than in 1985, before Cerezo took office (Inforpress Centroamericana [IC] 1/21/ 88). The trend accelerated during 1988 and 1989, especially following several right-wing coup attempts, with a documented increase in death squad activities and crimes committed by official security forces (see 1988-1989 reports by Americas Watch and Amnesty International). The U.S.-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs named Guatemala once again as the worst human rights violator in Latin America for 1989 and a year later for 1990. In the fall of 1989, right-wing/official violence escalated sharply, prompting fears of a "return to the early 1980s." (Susanne Jonas, The Battle for Guatemala: Rebels, Death Squads, and U.S. Power (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991) 163.) On the other hand there is yet there no evidence that Mr. Ferguson did specific documentation and analysis of Guatemala's civil war and whether it receives the peer respect that the work of Human Rights Watch has in this area. BernardL (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(reply basically to Merzbow, ec with Bernard) I'm open to a discussion about the HRW material, mainly because I'm not sure how important it is, i.e. that we can't find other sources which make similar arguments. HRW is not, however, anything remotely like Jihad Watch. When I referred to it as a "pressure group" I meant simply that it releases reports which are partially designed to apply pressure on governments to follow international law with respect to human rights. They don't have an obvious political agenda beyond that, and are criticized by both the right and the left (the latter has been enormously critical of HRW's reports on Venezuela and Chavez, for example, which have generally been quite negative). We seem to use them pretty heavily here at Wikipedia given the number of articles linked to Human Rights Watch. As a general rule I think HRW is a reliable source, though as I said if we can find better sources then I see no need to keep it. If one of their reports contains valuable information not found elsewhere then I would argue for its retention (Bernard makes some good points with respect to that issue).

There is though, I think, a clear difference between this and using the Ferguson quote. I think you are mischaracterizing my view (and I might not be explaining it well enough) when you say that "professors are attacked and social advocacy groups are excused." All I have said about a professor is that Niall Ferguson is not an expert on Latin American history, and thus a brief comment he makes about Guatemala in a newspaper op-ed is not worthy of inclusion. Honestly, is this really such a far fetched position? History as a discipline is incredibly subdivided as I'm sure you are aware. People are specialists in a certain era, country or region (or region of a country), and within a certain sub-discipline (political, cultural, social, or gender history, for example). Ferguson is at Harvard and is well regarded by many, yes, but no one in the field of Latin American history would care what he says about post-war Guatemala. Likewise Ferguson would never care what Greg Grandin, cited in this article, would say about the economic history of Hamburg in the early 1900s, and rightfully so. This article should largely be sourced with material from historians and political scientists, but it needs to be from scholars who actually study this region of the world and the era in question. If someone tries to bring in an Eric Foner comment about Guatemala (a widely respected historian, of the left, who never writes on Latin America) I would reject it with as much alacrity.

I don't have an agenda here other than good sourcing, and hope you can extend me some good faith in that respect, even if you disagree somewhat with the argument I'm making. We can debate about the HRW issue (I'd like a better source but don't think we have to delete what's there, just as below I say I'd like a better source than Radu but am not deleting that passage since he at least has some knowledge of the region), but in my view there's really no question that Ferguson's op-ed comment is not worthy of inclusion. I don't want to debate this to death, I'm more interested in getting some books (which I'll probably try to do next week) and adding material which details the effect of the conflict on Guatemala itself.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Another item I meant to mention was this link [[12]] reporting on Greg Grandin's work for the Truth Commission. The report indicates that Grandin was part of the commissions's historical team and they utilized HRW materials as source documents- "He helped acquire hundreds of documents and analyzed them with the aid of some of the country's intellectuals. The materials included declassified U.S. government documents generated by the CIA and the U.S. State Department, reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, as well as photographs and newspaper clippings." I think HRW's work on Guatemala is sufficiently supported as a high quality source. BernardL (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of disputed tags

Notmyrealname removed an disputed tag without explanation in the "US involvement section". Also made a misleading edit summary "Left in "unbalanced" tag". [13] Please explain your removal of the tag while there is an ongoing dispute and your misleading edit summary.Ultramarine (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Editing error. Had meant to keep the tag in.Notmyrealname (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Radu (mis)quote

The article currently quotes an email (an "e-update") from Michael Radu saying "Political scientist Michael Radu writes that before 1977 the US only provided a very small amount of military aid. $2 million per year. After 1977 military aid was stopped and Guatemala was even denied the right to buy parts for American military equipment previously provided or sold. When Romeo Lucas Garcia and Efrain Rios Montt broke the Communist insurgency and killed the largest number of people during the Civil War they did so without US military aid. The CIA was aware of the human rights violations but since aid was nonexistant the US had no leverage within the Guatemalan military.[18]" This summary is wrong as well as being ungrammatical. Radu cites no sources for these claims. "broke the insurgency" is not something that Radu says, nor is it accurate (Montt was overthrown in 1982, the war ended in 1996). Radu gives a specific time frame for the $2 million aid (an average over a long period of time not correlated with periods of abuse in Guatemala). The summary does not. Other aid was provided, as I have noted above with the citation from the Intelligence Oversight Board. This summary should be deleted or fixed.Notmyrealname (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The insurgency lost a large part of its strength during Montt's regime. Wording can be changed.Ultramarine (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Some fixes. That there was some military aid during the 1985-1990 period already mentioned in the IOB paragraph.Ultramarine (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Eventually we'll want to remove that Radu source and replace it with something much better. Online "e-notes" that only tangentially refer to the issue at hand (most of Radu's piece is an ideological attack on the Clinton administration's approach to Latin America) should not be included in an article like this. There's a ton of stuff published on this topic (for example do a Worldcat subject heading search on Guatemala History 1945-1985) and marginal comments from marginal scholars should ultimately be excluded. As it stands the article devotes shockingly little attention to the actual civil war and to the complex effects decades of internal conflict had on Guatemalan society and its people (most embarrassingly, the article literally skips the period from 1968-1982 as though nothing happened then). Rather than battle over marginal sources like something Michael Radu tossed online once, we would probably all be better served by heading to the library and picking up a couple of books that actually cover the conflict in detail. I'll be sure to do that myself.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Radu has published on Latin America and guerrilla groups. Source not worse than the sources used to quote Chomsky in the US state terrorism or the Politics of Noam Choamsky articles.Ultramarine (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Chomsky sources you are referring to, but if we're talking about something written by Chomsky where he complains about the current Bush presidency and then casually mentions some facts about Guatemala in the 1980s, then yes we should not include that. I think you can agree with my main point above though: there are much better sources out there and it would behoove us to take a look at them. If you like Radu, you might start by looking at one of his books (assuming any of them relate specifically to Guatemala).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Politics of Noam Chomsky article, for example, mostly cites op-eds or interviews. Same with the US state terrorism article. Not worse than the Radu article. An academic book would be preferable but does not exclude this source.Ultramarine (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If we ever have a Politics of Michael Radu article, I would have no problem with you using the source in question. You're comparing apples to oranges here. I don't want Chomsky op-eds in this article either (whereas Chomsky op-eds in an article about his own views make complete sense). This article is about a period in Guatemala's history - not the political views of a notable figure or specific complaints about American foreign policy (the two articles to which you allude). If and when the section of the article where the Radu passage appears is sourced further with relevant books, articles, reports, etc., then, yes, the Radu piece should be removed. Again, it's largely a complaint about the Clinton administration. 90% of the article has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's not footnoted, which is to say he cites no sources to prove his claims. Obviously it's not a good source, and obviously we should be looking for better ones.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Should not have a different standard for different articles. Chomsky's op-eds and interviews are in the US state terrorism article. Do you support removing them? Otherwise there seem to be a double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This kind of argument is really not productive. The place to take up Chomsky references are on the Chomsky pages. We have set the bar high for this article, which is the concern of this talk page. Are there other op-eds cited here?Notmyrealname (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to talk about this anymore, and I don't want to talk about another article or about Noam Chomsky. I'm not going to take the Radu thing out now, but if and when the article is sourced even more fully I would argue for its removal. Again, I recommend you get a hold of one of Radu's books and see if it is helpful. I will try to do the same. I'm going to leave it there for now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

US aid to Guatemala

We obviously need more precise information on this page detailing various US aid (covert and overt, material and logistical) for the entire civil war. I don't know of a single source that has this all, so we are going to have to pull it together from various places.

For instance, it is currently asserted on this page that there was no US military aid to Guatemala under Rios Montt. However, this source claims that "In the United States, the switch to Ríos Montt allowed Ronald Reagan’s administration to lobby for a restoration of military aid to Guatemala (cut off by the U.S. Congress in 1977) and an expansion of U.S. intervention throughout the Caribbean Basin. The State Department had previously been reluctant to criticize the Lucas García government. After the March 1982 coup it changed direction and condemned the ousted leader as a terror against his own people, while portraying the Ríos Montt regime as a significant improvement for human rights in Guatemala. In December 1982, President Reagan described Rios Montt as "a man of great personal integrity and commitment" who is "totally dedicated to democracy" (Schirmer 1998: 33). In resuming military aid to Guatemala, Reagan made it clear that the General could fight the war against his internal opposition as he wished, without regard to human rights considerations and without fear of losing his U.S. funding (Department of State Country Reports 1983; Americas Watch 1985b: 7-8)." (source)Notmyrealname (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That is denied by the IOR. Proably speaks about the sale of spare parts again.Ultramarine (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In the end I think the issue of US aid and US involvement should be discussed throughout the article, not merely in a section at the end. There might be one or two books from which we can get most of this information, but I'm not sure (I think the source you cite is too vague for our purposes - we need sources that discuss specific US aid packages, arms sales, prohibitions on arms sales, etc.). As I've said though I think we are far too focused on the US here. We need to be more attentive to the impact of the civil war on Guatemalan society.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

New addition by Ultramarine

That last addition was quite sloppy and contains several problems. You quote Louis S. Segesvary as though that person wrote the piece in question when they in fact did not (which is why in the middle of a supposed quote from that person we suddenly see "Segesvary also writes"). The actual author is Virginia Polk. You should cite this source in an inline citation so readers can see you are quoting something from 1985. I assumed this was published by the Heritage Foundation? It's hard to tell, but then again that's to be expected in a source which states at the outset "Archived document, may contain errors." Half of the passage you quote criticizes one AI briefing from 1983 which I don't believe we use in the article. I'm not sure why a sentence from 1985 criticizing a report from 1983 is relevant in this article when we don't even cite the latter report. What would be relevant is the U.N. "Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala" from 1984 referenced in your source. The report itself is what we would really want, not a secondary source's characterization of it which seems misleading on the face (it says the UN report found that one incident was fabricated, but says nothing about what the rest of the report says). Also pretty much the whole paragraph is a quotation - you might try putting some of it in your own words since it does not read very well.

In general this is not a very good source, and I again recommend you get some books from the library instead of googling and finding inaccurate transcripts of reports from 1985 (by some unknown person) that make the kind of claims you are looking for. At the very least, clean it up so you cite it properly and don't quote the wrong person. I've ordered some books, downloaded some articles, and will probably start working on improving this article with good sources some time next week. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The article uses an 1984 HRW report in several places without mentioning the age. Should be corrected. Thanks for pointing out the problem with author. As stated the Amensty report is mentioned as an example of frequent misreporting regarding the human rights situation.Ultramarine (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to with respect to HRW but I see reference to "A series of reports in the early 1980’s" in the article text. If there really was "frequent misreporting" then we probably would not have ended up with 200,000 deaths and a conclusion from the Historical Clarification Commission that over 90% of the deaths came at the hands of the state. If you want to cherry pick reports from the mid-1980s that defend the Guatemalan government knock yourself out. Of course the commission set up to investigate the issue and just about every scholar who has examined it disagrees with the source you cite. I'm planning on largely rewriting this at which point your sources, and quite possibly the HRW sources, will not be needed. I'm not going to bother will small fixes until then.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The commission itself has been criticized. Will add something on this soon. Please discuss your proposal in a Sandbox before making major changes.Ultramarine (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll obviously discuss it here when the time comes, and possible work on stuff in a sandbox as well. Of course the commission has been criticized (what hasn't?) but if you're seriously questioning the idea that 200,000 people died or that the government was responsible for the vast majority of those deaths then you are going to need some damn good sources.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ultra-I hope you start taking your own advice about discussing significant changes in a sandbox or on the talk page before adding them. Your overall style if unnecessarily pugalistic.Notmyrealname (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ludicrous. If you are going to cite transcripts of tendentious obscure reports from rightwing American political pressure groups, are you also going to cite obscure transcripts of tendentious reports from, say, leftwing Latin American political pressure groups? Of course not. Some "policy analyst" citing a US consular official with a manifestly obvious interest in denialism (ie, he should probably be in the dock at the Hague, and he probably knows it) claims that Amnesty didn't do enough research (even though everything they said was subsequently confirmed in the 1990s) and that some unspecified rumoured massacre (he doesn't say which one) didn't happen, and that he never saw any bayonets, so thus nobody was bayoneted, and thus presumably nobody was killed. This is like citing Fred Leuchter on a page about the Holocaust. (Hey, that also was about fighting Communists, right?) 64.231.61.126 (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

IOB report on support for death squads

See this edit: [14]. That is not what the IOB report states: "Funding issues The funds the CIA provided to the Guatemalan liaison services were vital to the D-2 and Archivos. This funding was seen as necessary to make these services more capable partners with the station, particularly in pursuing anti-communist and counternarcotics objectives. The CIA, with the knowledge of ambassadors and other State Department and National Security Council officials, as well as the Congress, continued this aid after the termination of overt military assistance in l990. There have been public allegations that CIA funds were increased to compensate for the cutoff of military aid in 1990. We did not find this to have been the case. Overall CIA funding levels to the Guatemalan services dropped consistently from about $3.5 million in FY 1989 to about l million in l995."

Please quote what statement in the report support your change.Ultramarine (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The close liaison relationship the CIA maintained with the Guatemalan security services helped to counter the communist insurgency in Guatemala and to combat the flow of illegal narcotics through Guatemala to the United States. For example, cooperation between the Guatemalans, the CIA, and the Drug Enforcement Administration resulted in the seizure of forty-eight metric tons of cocaine from 1990 through 1993 as it was being shipped through Guatemala to the United States by Colombian drug cartels. After these seizures, the amount of narcotics transiting Guatemala appears to have dropped dramatically. The CIA's liaison relationship with the Guatemalan services also benefited US interests by enlisting the assistance of Guatemala's primary intelligence and security service--the army's directorate of intelligence (D-2)--in areas such as reversing the "auto-coup" of 1993 and protecting US citizens at risk, including the 1994 rescue of a kidnapped American girl. Because the D-2 was widely considered to be the elite within the Guatemalan military and government, the station also often requested and received administrative and logistical assistance from the D-2 on behalf of the embassy.

The human rights records of the Guatemalan security services--the D-2 and the Department of Presidential Security (known informally as "Archivos," after one of its predecessor organizations)--were generally known to have been reprehensible by all who were familiar with Guatemala. US policy-makers knew of both the CIA's liaison with them and the services' unsavory reputations. The CIA endeavored to improve the behavior of the Guatemalan services through frequent and close contact and by stressing the importance of human rights -- insisting, for example, that Guatemalan military intelligence training include human rights instruction. The station officers assigned to Guatemala and the CIA headquarters officials whom we interviewed believe that the CIA's contact with the Guatemalan services helped improve attitudes towards human rights. Several indices of human rights observance indeed reflected improvement--whether or not this was due to CIA efforts--but egregious violations continued, and some of the station's closest contacts in the security services remained a part of the problem.

No statement that the CIA funded deaths squads. No doubt you can find other sources making this claim but it is incorrect to state that this is what the IOB report found.Ultramarine (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The report states that the CIA funded the D-2 and the Archivos. It is widely accepted that the D-2 and the Archivos directed death squad activities, and is referenced in the quote you cited above. The edit states "The funds the CIA provided to the Guatemalan liaison services were vital to the D-2 and Archivos, {this part is Ultramarine's text} the military intelligence agencies that directed death squad activities.{this part is my text}" What part about these statements is not correct? I do not claim here that the "CIA funded death squads." This is your interpretation. I state that the IOB affirms that the CIA funded agencies that directed death squad activity. The IOB report came about in part because of revelations that the CIA had several war criminals on its payroll.Notmyrealname (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That is still not what this source says. No mention of death squads. Add another source alleging this if you want to. Why did you remove that aid levels were dropping? Why did you change the statement regarding the 1993 coup when report states that "the CIA's liaison relationship with the Guatemalan services also benefited US interests by enlisting the assistance of Guatemala's primary intelligence and security service--the army's directorate of intelligence (D-2)--in areas such as reversing the "auto-coup" of 1993""In the face of strong protests by Guatemalan citizens and the international community (including the United States) and--most importantly--in the face of the Guatemalan army's refusal to support him, President Serrano's Fujimori-style "auto-coup" failed."Ultramarine (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is an undisputed fact that the D-2 and the Archivos directed death squad activity. The IOB report states "he human rights records of the Guatemalan security services--the D-2 and the Department of Presidential Security (known informally as "Archivos," after one of its predecessor organizations)--were generally known to have been reprehensible by all who were familiar with Guatemala. US policy-makers knew of both the CIA's liaison with them and the services' unsavory reputations." My addition was a point of clarification to readers unfamiliar with these agencies. Please explain how this is unverified. It is only unverified if you can provide any reputable source that claims that these agencies were NOT directing the death squads. I rephrased the statement to clarify that CIA gave millions of dollars of direct aid to these agencies after the White House had ended overt aid because of gross human rights violations (including the beheading of an American citizen by the army). I'm really not sure what your point is.Notmyrealname (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Deaths squads" is still not what the source says. "Reprehensible" and "unsavory practices" is not a synonym. You cannot just add material not in the given source. Again, add another source with your allegations regarding death squads. Why did you remove that aid levels were dropping? Why did you change the statement regarding the 1993 coup when report states that "the CIA's liaison relationship with the Guatemalan services also benefited US interests by enlisting the assistance of Guatemala's primary intelligence and security service--the army's directorate of intelligence (D-2)--in areas such as reversing the "auto-coup" of 1993""In the face of strong protests by Guatemalan citizens and the international community (including the United States) and--most importantly--in the face of the Guatemalan army's refusal to support him, President Serrano's Fujimori-style "auto-coup" failed."Ultramarine (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have provided a source, the court judgment of the Inter American Court on Human Rights, that the Guatemalan government was a party to. The Guatemalan government doesn't even dispute that these agencies were directing death squad activities. I made an appropriate and accurate edit. Please stop pushing your POV. The statement you cite above does not support your edit that the CIA "helped stop" the auto coup. Looking at it more closely, it doesn't say anything specific at all regarding this. Please keep your edits in line with the text.Notmyrealname (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You make it look like that is what the IOB report states. Please give proper attributions so one can see who is making what claims. The CIA by enlisting the aid of D-2 helped reverse the coup. That is what the IOB reports states. Why did you remove that aid levels were dropping? Ultramarine (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You have now removed all references to the 1993 coup. Clearly not NPOV. Any concrete objection to adding this quote "the CIA's liaison relationship with the Guatemalan services also benefited US interests by enlisting the assistance of Guatemala's primary intelligence and security service--the army's directorate of intelligence (D-2)--in areas such as reversing the "auto-coup" of 1993""In the face of strong protests by Guatemalan citizens and the international community (including the United States) and--most importantly--in the face of the Guatemalan army's refusal to support him, President Serrano's Fujimori-style "auto-coup" failed."Ultramarine (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(we seem to be having edit conflicts here) As per your suggestion, I have included the a source for the description about the D-2 directing death squad activities. This is nowhere disputed by the IOB report. The citation makes it clear who is making that claim. The report only lists the level of covert aid given at the start and end. It is not known what the levels were in the middle. You can include the precise amounts listed if you prefer, but don't make a claim that you can't support. Read the text of the IOB report more carefully. They do not say that the CIA support "helped stop" or "helped reverse" the auto-coup. They say that the CIA "enlisted" the D-2 to oppose the auto-coup. They do not state that this was decisive, and in fact they state that there was "strong protests by Guatemalan citizens and the international community." You are making a claim that is not supported by the IOB text.Notmyrealname (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do object. The claim that the CIA support helped stop the auto-coup is a vague one, and very marginal to the report. You are giving it undue weight.Notmyrealname (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You text is misleading by implying statement to the report not made. Please attribute death squads allegations to who made them in another paragraph. The report clearly states that aid levels were dropping. We can quote the exact text if you prefer "Overall CIA funding levels to the Guatemalan services dropped consistently from about $3.5 million in FY 1989 to about l million in l995.". Obviously we should present an NPOV version. Not one only with US critical arguments. The CIA and US support for stopping the coup is mentioned in several places. The exact quotes I gave above can be cited to avoid any claims of citing the report falsely.Ultramarine (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You added "for instance by encouraging the D-2 not to support the attempted auto-coup by president Jorge Serrano Elias in 1993". That is an incorrect description. The report stated "reversed", not "not to support".Ultramarine (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have put in text that more accurately reflects the contents of the IOB report about this "The report claims that at the later stages of this conflict the CIA tried to lessen the human rights violations, for instance by encouraging the D-2 not to support the attempted auto-coup by president Jorge Serrano Elias in 1993". The report states that funding dropped from $3.5 millin in 1989 to "about" $1 million in 1995. It does not say what the levels were in the middle. It is accurate to say that they gave millions of dollars in aid after overt funding was halted due to ongoing gross violations of human rights, including the beheading of an American citizen by the Guatemalan Army.Notmyrealname (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Your text regarding the coup is incorrect. The report stated "reversed", not "not to support". Any objection to quoting the exact text regarding this instead to avoid problems? I have not made any claim regarding aid levels in the middle. Any objection to quoting the exact text regarding this instead to avoid problems? "Overall CIA funding levels to the Guatemalan services dropped consistently from about $3.5 million in FY 1989 to about l million in l995." Your statement regarding death squads is misleading by implying statement to the report not made. Please attribute death squads allegations to those who made them in another paragraph. Best would be a paragraph about the role of the military intelligence organization in the human rights section.Ultramarine (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we could say the following -- The authors of the IOB report claim that ""the CIA's liaison relationship with the Guatemalan services also benefited US interests by enlisting the assistance of Guatemala's primary intelligence and security service--the army's directorate of intelligence (D-2)--in areas such as reversing the "auto-coup" of 1993"" However, I think my current rendering gives the reader a more useful understanding of the content than quoting an isolated sentence. In any case, it must be followed with a brief description of the undisputed role of the D-2 and the Archivos at the time of the funding. I would encourage other editors to chime in with their opinions. The same goes for the funding quote. Since no information is given about funding levels during FY 1990 through FY 1994, it is impossible to know exactly what the authors of the report mean. If we do include the quote, it needs to include the context that this aid occurred after the Bush Sr. administration had cut off overt funding due to the continued high levels of human rights violations, including the Guatemalan army's beheading of Michael DeVine. I still think we need to have a section collecting all the various reports about all US funding to Guatemala during the period of the war, as well as support and training. Again, it's important for other editors to be involved in this process.Notmyrealname (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

To resolve this I have changed the text to direct quotes. Moved the statements about the D-2 and Archivos human rights vioalations to the appropriate section for Guatemalan human rights violations. If you have more sourced information to add, then please do so.