Giovanni33 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
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.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 00:57, 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.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] ([[User talk:Ultramarine|talk]]) 01:16, 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.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Giovanni33|Giovanni33]] ([[User talk:Giovanni33|talk]]) 02:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Removal of disputed tags == |
== Removal of disputed tags == |
Revision as of 02:22, 24 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."
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,[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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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. [[5]] 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)
- 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. [[5]] BernardL (talk) 01:52, 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)
- 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)
- Six paragraphs, properly cited, is not a copyright violation.Notmyrealname (talk) 20:22, 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)
- 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)
- It was really the hieght of hypocrisy for you to place a "copypaste" sign on the HRW while ignoring the fact that the material you personally moved here [[8]], 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)
All US supporting material removed
See [9]. 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: [10].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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Here is an interesting source. I will summarize the arguments into one paragraph and add it to the article: [10].Ultramarine (talk) 22:37, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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". [11] 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)
- ^ 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