Talk:Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] SOA Watch

This information is not really about the SOA but rather about its defamers, the so-called "SOA Watch". While one might be remiss to neglect mentioning such connections to the more notorious of its graduates it does little good to focus only upon negative, unproven allegations. Users of Wikipedia would be better served by an entry that actually deals with the SOA, not its detractors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.170.51 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 April 2004.

This strikes me as a very interesting statement: "This information is not really about the SOA but rather about its defamers, the so-called "SOA Watch"." Hmmm. Certainly the posted article is "about" the School of the Americas/Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation! And yes, from it, Wiki readers also learn that the School has its "defamers" -- better, critics. From there, readers can easily go to the SOA/WHISC website for their version (understandably self-interested) of reality. Hopefully discerning Wiki-folk will then wonder and be willing to research whether criticisms of the School are indeed "negative, unproven allegations." There are numerous UN Truth Commission and other authoritative reports which can help them make that assessment.
Obviously, it is not rational to assume that anyone with a favorable view towards SOA/WHISC is necessarily more objective than those who criticize it. The reader needs to be willing to scrutinize and interpret the evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.224.171.35 (talk • contribs). 5 September 2004
I am not totally sure how to use this, but I think I found something that is factually inaccurate in this article, namely that Osama Bin Laden graduated from the school. I looked online and there's no mention of him graduating from the SOA. - Garrett
He most certainly did not, I'm sure that was vandalism. - Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] campaign finance reform

Why is the article linked to campaign finance reform, hard money, and soft money? -Penta 15:10, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. This might as well be an article on the SOA Watch site and other anti-SOA activist groups. 64.7.89.54 08:12, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've noticed that often with an issue like this, it can be difficult to find someone willing explicitly defend the topic/organization. Having said that, I'll try and organize the material a bit - seems to be the best first step to fixing things up. Krupo 02:55, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
First step was to seperate the criticisms from the history of the institution. More information on SOA/WHISC would probably help now. Alas, I don't know that much about it to do it justice. Some of the wording is probably less inflammatory/partisan now. Krupo 03:00, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute?

Is there still a serious dispute over this article? If not, I'll remove the tag. Shorne 03:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I suggest creating a seperate page for SOA Watch and make a link to it. --Mixcoatl 17:55, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It seems to me the article pretty openly violates the NPOV policy, perhaps it should be flagged as a neutrality questionable article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 153.104.16.114 (talk • contribs).
i agree, there is basically nothing in this article beyond left wing propaganda. Nayt1 09:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)nayt1
I think the article should remain tagged as disputed; I agree the SOA Watch should be mentioned, but equivalent mention should be given either to WHINSEC's responses to the allegations, and/or given to the praise that WHINSEC has drawn from objective parties (yes, such praise does exist). SOA Watch should indeed have their own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 214.13.190.178 (talk • contribs) 8 August 2006.


[edit] minor changes

On "Controversy" I deleted the statement " but prospects for its passage are nil." in re of HR 1217. That statement is complete speculation.

Also made and external link to the library of congress to follow the House Resolution. On "Criticisms" changed from "The date for the annual demonstration commemorates the first Latin American massacre linked to the SOA" to "The date for the annual demonstration commemorates a Latin American massacre linked to the SOA". The killing of the Jesuits was not the first Latino American massacre linked to the SOA.

I will try to add some more information at a latter time. Elpucho 11:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This page is currently SERIOUSLY BIASED towards the school. There is almost no mention of the countless massacres and killings that the school's graduates have committed. There is no mention of the anti-union activity that the students are trained in. And, most of all, there is no mention of teh annual march against the school in which thousands participate every year, and in which dozens commit acts of civil disobedience in protest of the school. I have tagged this articl for disputed neutrality, and it would be great if someone researched the topic a little bit more and changed the article so it represented the reality of the school instead of the official government opinion. If no one else changes it, I'll have to. And soon.TrogdorPolitiks 20:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I fixed some stuff. Still needs a rewrite, not incredibly clear WHY there is so much dispute over the institution, but the facts are there.TrogdorPolitiks 20:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's remain objective. While I agree the article is flawed, what I see above my post here is as slanted as the article it's complaining about. If the facts are there, as you say, cite some references. I challenge you to present them without rhetorical devices like ALL CAPS; without inflammatory exaggerations like "countless massacres"; and without non-sequiturs: the fact that there are annual marches, in which people commit civil disobedience, does not demonstrate wrongdoing on the part of WHISC; it demonstrates that there are annual marches, in which people commit civil disobedience. The fact that numerous murders and some massacres (while clearly horrific and tragic) have occurred, does not prove that WHISC ordered them, nor that the WHISC trained the killers to commit them, any more than the fact that Ted Kaczynski's attendance at Harvard (or the attendance of any number of future white-collar criminals, lawyers, and CEOs) casts ill repute on that institution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ancientgeekphilosopher (talk • contribs) 9 August 2006.

I would say it is POV in this manner: Most people who know about the School of the Americas/Western Hemispher INstitute for SEcurity Cooperation know about it because of the attrocities committed by graduates and the high number of future dictators it graduated and not what the institution says of itself. There is no reason to give the institution's POV of itself at 50% of all content. This type of thinking gives government a de facto veto on all such content. And that's just speaking of a US centric POV. Move beyond the US and the SOA/WHINSEC's POV of itself would be a much, much smaller minority. Unless of course US POV are the only views that matter. I don't think that is what wikipedia is about. LobotRobot 21 December 2006

[edit] Changes

I've added a new section about the changes between the SOA and the WHISC. My hope is that this will help make the article more neutral and more in line with Wiki standards. Kamikaze Highlander 05:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved the line about the Anti-Flag song to a new section labeled Trivia, as it was majorly out of place in the History section. Nayt1 23:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)nayt1

I agree that it was out of place in the history section, but I firmly believe that we should not have a "trivia" section in the article. A trivia section in the article makes the article seem much more juvenile, and will not promote this article or wikipedia as a whole as a quality information source. The information currently in the article either needs to be removed or incorporated into the rest of the article. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs

[edit] Responses to criticisms

I think this article could still me a bit more NPOV, in that I think that as it stands the article is biased against the school. There are mentions of the massacres and criticisms, but no mention of the responses to the critics or the stated purpose of the school. A previous post states that readers can go to the schools website and get the school's point of view. However, it is my understanding that Wikipedia's purpose is to collect information in one location so that, like any other encyclopedia, the information will be collected in one location.

In addition, I do beleive that the discussion of the protests against the school is worded and structured in such a way that implies that the protesters are heroic and persecuted. This may or may not be true. However, the the dispassionate objective facts should be presented so that the reader can make up his or her own decision. Perhaps a page for "Protest Against the School of the Americas" should be created

--Ericsean 14:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)ericsean

It now seems to me to lean a bit the other way. You get 5 paragraphs in before you detect a whiff of controversy, and 8 paragraphs in before there is any indication what is controversial about the institution. Given that there is no question that quite a few graduates of the school have been major perpetrators of human rights abuses — the controversy is only over the degree to which the school may have encouraged this — that smacks of a whitewash.
By way of contrast, think of all of the articles where the lead indicates what governments consider the group that is the subject of the article to be terrorists, etc. There should be something about the controversy in the lead. - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree: there needs to be mention of the controversy in the introduction. Possibly a sentence paragraph below the introduction to summarize that there was controversy with the SOA and to summarize the "allegations". Something to show that the article isn't written to white-wash over the subject. Kamikaze Highlander 07:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
At least as of this moment, I think the third paragraph does this adequately. - Jmabel | Talk 00:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Ericsean has said that there is "no mention of the responses to the critics or the stated purpose of the school", and that he believes that the article is biased because of that. I have spent some time researching the issue, and I have found virtually no response to the SOA's critics other than the critics are exaggerating it. As somebody else has said on this talk page, there is no controversy over whether the human rights violations were committed by members of the school, just over exactly how much the school had to do with them. The article should reflect this in some way. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs


[edit] Moved block of information from Changes to History

I moved a big block of information from the Changes section, which deals with changes after the SOA was repealed and replaced, to the history section, since it is historical information. I do feel that it should be rewritten, however, as it is a really big paragraph. Kamikaze Highlander 03:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut, pending citation

"Please refer to Maria Gaurdado's testimony of how she was tortured in El Salvador by an Anglo Saxon given orders, and how these people were linked to the School of the Americas and the CIA." Please refer to something where no link is provided? Please, if you want this in the article, cite for it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SOA Current Function

Hello,

I noticed a lack of info on SOA's current role in the Western Hemisphere. On the SOA's web page, a third of the budget is reserved for narcotics control but I do not see any mention of this as a benefit of the school.

Also, would the school benefit America should a (radical Islamist) regime target a Central American country?

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Littlehouse (talk • contribs) 24 November 2006.

Sounds to me like you are asking us to speculate on things being beneficial. If you have citable sources saying these things are beneficial then, of course, those can go in the article.
Insofar as I am being asked to speculate, though: a military approach to narcotics control doesn't sound very beneficial to me. It's things like this that bring us Plan Colombia. - Jmabel | Talk 02:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by User:ChaplainKent on 12-21-06

I reverted all the parts of the edits that were false or had huge POV issues. I kept all informative and non-biased content. I hope its up to everyone's standards. Eclectek C T 06:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving the discussion that started on ChaplainKent's Talk page to this talk page so its out in the open. Eclectek C T 16:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey there! I saw that you made a very sweeping edit to the WHINSEC article. It looks like you put a lot of effort into it. Some parts, however, are not neutral in their point of view. You made it clear that you are affiliated with the WHINSEC. You removed a substantial amount of information about "torture manuals" that is in fact verifiable by Amnesty International as well as other independant organizations. I'm going to put that part back right now and will continue to help improve the article. Eclectek C T 05:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


"Some parts are not neutral" And you think the way this article is written is neutral in its language? I removed the torture manuel material because is just isn't true. You removed the explaination I gave concering the research I made on how that all came about. Why? That information is true and accurate. Over 10 congressional inquiries into the school found no such evidence. Just because Amenisty International has a copy of a manuel doesn't mean that it was ever used for instruction or approved as appropriate by the school. The article states as fact something which is just plain false. You also removed a correction I made on the huamn rights training. The article again states and "only a few" are giving the instruction. In fact its mandatory for all students. And the eight hours is the minimum. So if your there for a three week course out of fifteen days of instrucion you get one of human rights. Longer courses have much longer sections of training. Just why was that removed. Here's the link to document the proof of my statement. [1]

You imply that I'm not objective because of my association with the school. Well that association is not paid and I'm not staff. I'm a social justice advocate from the religious community who was invited to look closely with a critical eye at the school, what it teachers, and what it does. That invitation to become an advisor to the Board Of Visitors came originally in 2002 when I heard all the accusations made against the school and went directly to them myself seeking information to either verify or disprove. They were overjoyed that somebody actually wanted to investigate and seek the truth in the matter rather than just parrot SOA Watch and their very biased rhetoric. As I continue to investigate the school and talk with those trying to close it down here is the conclusion I came to. And this is words coming from the detractors own mouths. "Well, even if all the things your saying are true we still want the school closed because we don't like our governements foreign policy towards the region." There are also a number of those who use the "torture manuel" false accusation to drum up emotions and support all the while knowing that it implies something which simply isn't true. They don't really care that torture was never taught at the school nor that the actual instuction manuels had nothing at all about it in them. Simply disagreeing with foreign policy would get a big yawn from most people and they certainly wouldn't take the time to write legislators or join protest marches. December 23rd 2006

Reverend / Chaplain Kent Svendsen United States Army Reserve —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChaplainKent (talk • contribs) 00:48 24 December 2006.

Hello Kent - I'm sorry you aren't happy with my edits and reverts. I'm sure we can work through it and come to some mutual agreement. On Wikipedia, all major viewpoints that have been published in a reputable source are valid and shouldn't be reverted because any user disagrees with them. I want to make sure that's not happening here. We're working on making the article more WP:NPOV because no article is perfect, this one included. Lets address the revets and changes I made one by one.
  • The school is frequently accused -> the school is frequently cited: this creates a more NPOV statement.
  • "While the SOA was still active over ten congressional investigations took place without any evidence of wrongdoing be uncovered": I've never heard of these investigations. If you can provide citations for this, please re-insert it into the article.
  • You claimed in your response that I reverted the fact that human rights training was now mandatory. I did not. As the article stands now, it says that 8 hours are required. It states that in the past, only a few took the classes as they were not required. I reverted the statement that the "quite often the mantadory 8 hours is exceeded" in human rights training. There's no evidence to support this.
  • You said "According to a member of the Board of Visitors..." That refers to you and is original research. Original research is not allowed on wikipedia. Find an article to cite.
  • I summarized your discussion of the invitation to visit the school to "At the SOAW vigil in November 2006, invitations were given to the public to visit the school." I'd like to see this expanded to something that explains the process of visiting, what visitors see, who they speak with, etc.
  • You had speculated that students not electing to take human rights classes in the SOA may be reason that training is mandatory in WHINSEC. Wikipedia is not open to this kind of speculation, so I removed it.
  • You completely removed the section on the training manuals that advocated inhumane treatment. These documents are proven to have existed by amnesty international and the washington post. That paragraph was even cited correctly. That kind of reverting cannot be tolerated.
  • I changed your sentance from "Each year a number of protestors are arrested for purposely violating the law and forcing their arrest in an attempt to create more anger against the school." to "Each year a number of protestors are arrested and prosecuted for acts of civil disobediance including trespassing onto federal property in an apptempt to create more awareness for the SOAW." This sentance attempts to eliminate bias.
  • You wrote "It is now also reported that some college professors give students credit for attending the protest." Provide citations or this cannot stay.

With that said, the current activities of WHINSEC are not accurately depicted in this article. They needed to be added in in a neutral manner and in a way that does not undermind the activist/justice side of the argument. I'd love to see more of the folloing added and cited from reputable places:

  • new curriculum of the WHINSEC, courses required
  • touring program

Please ask any specific questions about my reverts. I'd be glad to explain and work something out. Eclectek C T 18:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Why on earth suppress the date on which WHISC replaced SOA? Or is something else going on here? Since the only comment here is that I was reverted via pop-ups (a very inappropriate way to handle my edit, I might add, given that it was obviously not vandalism), there is effectively no edit summary, so I cannot guess the editor's intent. - Jmabel | Talk 20:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not giving an edit summary - not a nice/smart thing to do. My fault. On my revert, I didn't "suppress" the date on which SOA became WHINSEC. In fact, its mentioned elsewhere in the article (see "After the legal authorization for the former School of the Americas was repealed in 2001 and the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation was established"). That aside, your edits are only rhetoric, not fact. SOA did in fact close and WHINSEC is not SOA (on paper, at least). I say this as somebody involved with SOAW. The article should reflect the fact that the SOA closed, not that WHINSEC is a continuation of it. Saying that it is a continuation is your analysis. Eclectek C T 22:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please look into this!

I think the recent edit by User:71.244.230.254 should be reverted (see here). I'm not going to do it myself because I've reverted the same edit about a week ago. The statement is self-referential and is original research. In fact, its a first-hand statement. I believe it was added by User:ChaplainKent, a member of the WHINSEC visitors board. He just didn't log in. Somebody please look into this issue. He added the same statement before and I reverted it. Help. Please. Eclectek C T 04:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes

I made a few edits that were quite needed. This is the second revert I've made to this material. I know its not good to do, but I asked for assistance at the Village Pump and got no help for over a week. One change I made was changing "according to a member of the board of visitors" to "according to the institution itself." This makes the connection between the board of visitors and the institution more clear and the reference links reflect the institution, not the opinion of a BOV member. The second edit I made was to remove the statement that often the number of hours students take in human rights exceeds the requirement. There are no sources in accord with this statement. Tell me if you disagree please. Eclectek C T 16:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] another notable student

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles I think he might be notable, I'll try to add him soon if possible 70.100.138.217 14:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable indeed! Eclectek C T 16:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Added, with citation. - Jmabel | Talk 19:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/e/s/Talk%7EWestern_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation_2142.html"