Talk:Decree 900

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Decree 900 article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Latin America Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Central America, which collaborates on articles related to Central America. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] 18,000 sq. km

18,000 sq. km is not 42% of the nation's land. Guatemala is 108,000 sq. km. Maybe refering to only arable land. --(unsigned by UtherSRG)

Yes, it is only refereing to arable land....sorry--I will need to check the book to make sure... Travb 03:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] oligarchs

The article refers to large landowners at the time the decree was issued as "oligarchs." The article also says that "The law showed that land reform increased productivity." without what I would consider sufficient evidence. I don't think this qualifies as NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.188.62 (talk • contribs)

I welcome a counter, referenced point, disputing these statments. Both your POV and La Feber's have a place in the article. All of the statments are from La Feber, Walter (1993). Inevitable Revolutions The United States in Central America. Travb (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] check the source

I've flagged "The law showed that land reform increased productivity." and "The countrywide union block which ran the program was under non-communist leadership until 1954." as needing citations. The first statement doesn't make literal sense, and seems POV. The second statement is contrary to what the New York Times said contemporaneously, although that paper may have been misled by interested landowners. See NYT 23 Aug 1954 p. 8. I'd also like to see an expansion by someone knowledgeable to follow up on the repeal of this decree by the subsequent regime. Fitzaubrey 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)