Talk:Dan Mitrione/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mitrione has been denounced as a torturer by everyone from Cuban Agents to the Catholic Church of Brazil to CIA agents, his victims, and even in the case of Uruguay the torturers themselves. This is what we historians call an established fact.

The reason this may be upsetting people more than usual is because it shatters traditional myths held by most americans about their state.

1) see document "torture in brazil" compiled by the arch diocese of sao paolo. 2) primary sources lectures and works by X cia agent don stockwell http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm 3) william blum author of killing hope 4) Author A.J. Langguth, a former New York Times reporter, wrote a book in 1978 titled Hidden Terrors in which mitrione plays a central role.

Any comment that doesn't include a member name is what we readers call anonymous, which is also what most of the claims in the Mitrione article are since they have not been footnoted. Any "established fact" should be specifically referenced within the body of an article. The sort of historian who doesn't know that is long on ideology and short on scholarship. As I stated in the entry's discussion page, I am not disturbed by the accusations made against Mitrione, which I suspect are true. I'm disturbed by the incompetent scholarship of the Wikipedia entry. A list of suggested readings at the end of an article does not constitute proper footnotes for claims made in an article, especially a highly controversial one. Since "There are no negative grades in Wikipedia," it is useless to apply a rating to this rubbish. Like so many articles it stands as a testiment to the failure of Wikipedia as a reference. Nicmart 05:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)