Ultramarine (talk | contribs) |
Rafaelsfingers (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
::::A quick Google search produced [http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~munck/pdf/Munck_Verkuilen%20CPS%202002.pdf this] excellent article, which lays out several methodological and conceptual problems with the Polity data. Its sources include many other academic critiques.[[User:Notmyrealname|Notmyrealname]] ([[User talk:Notmyrealname|talk]]) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
::::A quick Google search produced [http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~munck/pdf/Munck_Verkuilen%20CPS%202002.pdf this] excellent article, which lays out several methodological and conceptual problems with the Polity data. Its sources include many other academic critiques.[[User:Notmyrealname|Notmyrealname]] ([[User talk:Notmyrealname|talk]]) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::Add this if you want to. Already given link showing its academic significance.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] ([[User talk:Ultramarine|talk]]) 11:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC) |
:::::Add this if you want to. Already given link showing its academic significance.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Rafaelsfingers|Rafaelsfingers]] ([[User talk:Rafaelsfingers|talk]]) 01:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Wow... == |
== Wow... == |
Revision as of 01:05, 13 April 2008
Military history Start‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Central America Unassessed | |||||||
|
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."
US support
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,[1] 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.[2][3]" 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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,[1] 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.[2][3]" 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Degree of democracy is background material.Ultramarine (talk) 08:43, 10 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)
- Just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it belongs in an article. Notmyrealname (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sourced information. If you have more sourced information, then please add it.Ultramarine (talk) 12:31, 9 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)
- 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)
- Add this if you want to. Already given link showing its academic significance.Ultramarine (talk) 11:52, 12 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)
- 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)
Wow...
User:Ultramarine has contributed to this page dramatically! Keep up the good work, Ultramarine! :D
-Guy1423 (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- ^ Casper, Gretchen, and Claudiu Tufis. 2003. “Correlation Versus Interchangeability: the Limited Robustness of Empirical Finding on Democracy Using Highly Correlated Data Sets.” Political Analysis 11: 196-203.
- ^ Polity IV Data Sets
- ^ Polity IV Country Reports 2003:Guatemala