Talk:Efraín Ríos Montt: Difference between revisions

Talk:Efraín Ríos Montt/Archive 1

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

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

ANTI-COMMUNIST

Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANTI-COMMUNIST

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

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

ANTI-COMMUNIST.

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

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

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

ANTI-COMMUNIST

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANTI-COMMUNIST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANTI-COMMUNIST

frijoles y fusiles

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

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

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

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

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

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