Talk:Dan Mitrione

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

---

This article was nominated for deletion on 27/7/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is poorly written and deficiently referenced. Nicmart

I don't think so. --Tilman 13:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The absence of a single reference isn't a clue? The article says, "He is often quoted as having said once: 'The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect,'" but no reference is provided. He is said to have had an "unofficial career of torture expert," but no source confirms that. The article says, "It is assessed that torture was already practiced since the 60s, but Dan Mitrione is reportedly the man who made it routine," but, again, no source. There is no source for anything in this article. Since no assertion is sourced, one can pick at random, but one that particularly sticks out is this about his treatment after capture by guerillas: "They proceeded to interrogate him about his past, without using torture..." Who says they didn't use torture?

Of the roughly 130 words under Personal Life, exactly 8 are actually about his personal life.

This article is severely biased, contains not a single reference, and is little more than a left-wing political screed. It doesn't even have the veneer of factual balance. Two external links are provided, which may or may not have served as the sources for the article. The first link is to an ad for a book which has endorsements by a Who's Who of the extreme left. The second is to the site of a left-wing blogger. One of the See Also links is to a List of United States military history events, as if that informs us in any way about the life of Mitrione.

I don't dispute that Mitrione may have been a torture instructor, but this article does an inadequate job of establishing evidence to support that charge. Nicmart

The article does mention two sources at the end. I looked at one of them, and it does mention Mitrione.

One might make it NPOV by explaining that some experts (e.g. Rumsfeld) think that torture isn't that bad.

This article has been edited and reviewed by about 20 people. But you think it isn't neutral. Maybe it would be better that you send a removal request. --Tilman 10:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You do not dispute, then, the obvious fact that this article has no footnotes. Not a single assertion is documented. After having defended it before, you now say that you have looked at one of the external links and it "does mention Mitrione." This constitutes documentation? You don't say which link, but I presume you mean the blogger's article. It also does not provide sources, so at best this is rumor-mongering, and the accuracy and credibility of the blogger are not established. Your suggestion that the article be made NPOV by quoting (or misquoting) some "experts" who think "torture isn't that bad" is absurd. This is an article about Dan Mitrione, not a debate about the desirability or efficacy or torture. I do not argue that torture is desirable, or that Mitrione may not have trained in torture methods and participated himself in torture; I argue that this article provides nothing like properly footnoted evidence that Mitrione did such things. It is not competently done. There are also other problems, such as the sham Personal Life segment.

That 20 people may have edited and reviewed the article does not make it a good article. It may simply reflect their own biases, or they may not understand or accept the need for proper sourcing for an entry. I think that Dan Mitrione deserves a Wikipedia entry, but that it should be properly written. Two links -- one to an ad for a book and another to a blog without proper sources -- is hardly good scholarship. Is it your contention that footnotes are not required to support the assertions made in the entry? If so, then why are they not?

The only reason that this article might have defenders is that they accept that it is a useful vehicle for criticizing the practices of the U.S. government. I also criticize those practices, but that doesn't mean that I must also condone poor scholarship. One of the Wikipedia Five Pillars requires "authoritative sources whenever possible." If there are no authoritative sources for the claims, charges, and insuations in this article -- and none are provided -- then what is the basis for making them? Nicmart 21:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally, something's happening with the first article I created, almost exactly a year ago! I think all the facts mentionned in the article are still from me too, though originally it had just one section. I'll have to remove to US foreign interventions link too, because originally it had some material concerning Mitrione, but it was removed. Also the link to William Blum's book used to lead directly to his chapter on Uruguay, where you can find most, if not all the quotes in this article. I know that source, and the other one, can be considered biased, but I couldn't find anything else on Mitrione at the time on the net. But after a year I'll try to find better sources. Oh and as for the writing, well english isn't my first language so if you want to improve the vocabulary and grammar, you're welcome. -Red Star (Don't just look at the name, it means nothing)

How reliable are your sources at presenting "established facts"? The Mitrione entry says that he was in the FBI, while you have now added a link to a Broward-Palm Beach New Times article which says, "Daniel A. Mitrione Sr. was never an FBI man; he was a small-town Indiana police chief who helped lead a covert war on leftist groups in Latin America." Either the author of the Mitrione entry falsified his FBI affiliation, erred, or there are conflicting sources, one of which must be wrong. That is exactly why there are supposed to be footnotes for assertions made in articles, not just a bunch of links at the bottom.

[edit] Keep and clean

Given the recent renewal of interest in terrorist groups and/or revolutionaries, I think this article is quite relevant. Not to mention all the implications of Mitrione's importance in Uruguayan history, the Tupamaros, US foreign intervention, the Cold War, torture interrogation tactics... The article needs a more objective focus and definitely requires more supporting evidence of its claims, but Dan Mitrione warrants at least a brief article in Wikipedia. I've had several translation texts from different clients sent to me that mention him, which in my book makes him a fairly important addition to Wikipedia.

Relevance is hardly the point. Any article about an historical figure that has no footnotes is incompetently done, relevant or not. Nicmart 15:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I added a reference to the book by A.J. Langguth which seems to be a good reference citing Mitrione's role in South America. The article might need some improvemente but defenetely cannot be discarded as only "a left-wing political screed" as one of the contributors would like to have it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.85.116 (talk • contribs).

The 'disputed' tag must remain until there is agreement on this page. BlueValour 17:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The tag was removed. Was that done because agreement was reached, or just because someone chose to remove it? Nicmart 05:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know on what basis BlueValour claimed that the "'disputed' tag should have remained until there is agreement," but there has been no agreement and the tab was removed. Is non-removal a Wikipedia rule? If so, why isn't it being enforced in this case? Nicmart 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REMOVE THE NOMINATION FOR DELETION

I think that the dispute refering to neutrality is, at this point, unfounded. The number of sources have been increased. Please, read thoroughly the article and the links, and after that put across your ideas in the discussion.

The new "sources" change nothing: the article is still farcical. There are no specific references for most claims made in the article. The new "sources" are in the category of ideologically biased reading suggestions. No scholar could gain any value from this entry as it doesn't meet even the most rudimentary standard of scholarship. However, it does suit the purpose of leftist ideologues, and that is sufficient to meet Wikipedia standards. How do you reconcile the fact that the entry says that Mitrione was in the FBI, while one of the linked articles says, "Daniel A. Mitrione Sr. was never an FBI man; he was a small-town Indiana police chief who helped lead a covert war on leftist groups in Latin America.." Did you "read thoroughly the article and the links"? Do you understand what footnotes are, and that this article does not have any? Nicmart 05:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, i hadn't read those links before, but still, I think that "killing hope" is a really useful source (a little prosaic perhaps). the "clarin" one is kind of simplified but represents a perfect support for the article (ok it´s in spanish). Perhaps the text hasn't got much information about the guy separated from his latinamerican activities, but it isn't biased, I mean, he really tortured, he really taught how, and this isn't strange in the milieu of the cold war. perhaps not exactly well written (I regret not being able to write in english very well) but not libel stuff.