Talk:History of Guatemala

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Resource recommendations: Can anyone recommend outside resources (books, journal articles, newspaper articles, films, etc.) that would provide contrasting POVs on the causes and consequences of La Violencia?

Contents 1 NPOV? 2 Merging content 3 21st Century 4 Citation style 5 El Mirador 6 Do not delete content on Civil War 7 Copyright Violation 8 Proposed merger of "References" and "Further reading" sections

[edit] NPOV?

This article betrays a distinct bias from scholars depending on Richard Hansen's version of events in Mesoamerican history. It needs to be balanced by scholars with equally valid views who work elsewhere in Mesoamerica, such as the in the Southern Maya area. Several of the claims, as well, are not attributable to peer-reviewed publications and, hence, are insupportable at this point.

• What specifically do you feel warrants that label? In what ways is it not neutral and in what do you suggest we do to correct that? --Clngre 18:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I can see why the tag was put on as it just describes things from a left wing POV but getting a more fully accurate picture would take a lot of research. Any takers? SqueakBox 19:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'd gladly take the time and improve it, if I knew how. I wrote that original segment and I can't see where in particular it's in need of balancing. That isn't to say that it doesn't need to be made more neutral, just that I can't see too well from the 'other side' or whatever. --Clngre 01:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess terms like American paranoia, Communist threat, even CIA orchestrated. The whole post operation CIA enquiry also seems like it has been written from an anti American POV, and it is this as the only POV expressed which I imagine is the problem, SqueakBox 01:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I see what you're saying and I'll set aside some time soon to augment it. I guess one of the problems is that there is no real proverbial 'other side' in this. I mean, there is no real pro-PBSUCCESS side, if that paragraph can be characterized as anti-PBSUCCESS. What sides do exist pretty much agree that it was a mess-up to one degree or another (most of the post-overthrow objectives were not met, the suspicion that the Soviet Union was playing a significant role, that underpinned the entire operation, proved to be unfounded, etc), but one 'side' just thinks that it was an unfortunate mess-up done with the best intentions. I get this characterization from the internally written CIA history of the coup, which discusses how it's something of a source of embarrassment within the agency and how a few still talk about it in a "we did what we were obligated to do under the circumstances" kind of way. In any case, I do think that view is important and one that deserves representation so I'll work it in as soon as I have the time. Thanks a lot for your help and advice--Clngre 03:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can label this as a left wing POV. Any real examination of the events lead to the same conclusions. US interests, rather the interests of the United Fruit Company directly caused US interest in Guatemala. Bitter Fruit is an excellent examination of US intervention in Guatemala. I don't understand how the CIA was in any was obligated to do anything in the country. There is no liberal or pro-PBSSUCCESS stance. It was an utter failure.

But there is a pro US's cold war justification camp, whuich I understand is quite strong, and so I don't agree with your assessment, above anon. I am not American so I don't feel able to write expressing that POV, but the lack of it seems obvious to me, and we should strive to include all valid POV's, SqueakBox 17:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok I just made some, maybe too modest, changes to the section that I nevertheless feel are sufficient. But, again, my view of this is limited, so if there is something that can still be improved please let me know. --Clngre 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging content

Joanne Amaral (talk · contribs) has written a series of terribly formatted and horribly named articles, some of which appear to be original research as she draws conclusions about their importance. Please merge the following back into this article, or help to write them in an encyclopedic manner:

• The Guatemalan Revolution: 1944-1954
• Politcs in Post Revolutionary Guatemala
• Guatemala: After the Revolution
• CIA's Role: 'PBSUCCESS'
• The Role of the United States and the CIA
• Guatemalan Indians and Ethnic Conflict
• Disunity in the Guatemalan Church
• Agrarian reform
• Communism and the Guatemalan Revolution
• Juan Jose Arévalo
• University of San Carlos

Thank you. Harro5 01:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

See also separate bibliographies here: Journal Articles and Books and External Links. This is a god-awful mess; this woman has seemingly plagiarised over 50 sources! Harro5 01:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

To me these look like copyvios, I propose to make them into redirects here, SqueakBox 01:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No need to have redirects as no one is likely to search these titles. Maybe just delete all as CSD A8? Harro5 01:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirects have solved the short-term problems, getting an admin to delete them would be great, SqueakBox 01:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirects under CSD R3. If the user comes back, I'd endorse indefinite deletion if she just posts more copyvios. Harro5 01:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Great job, thanks for fixing my mistakes on the 2 articles she just changed and if she comes back I will remove the text and speedy, SqueakBox 01:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

All the articles reappeared on April 16, 2006. I indefinetely blocked the user, Sidestar (talk · contribs), and am speedy deleting all the articles under CSD G4/A8. Harro5 23:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

After receiving a message from Professor Derek Williams at the University of Toronto explaining the nature of Joanne's edits, I replied both to Professor Martin and to Joanne allowing her to resume editing on Wikipedia under conditions including always replying to messages, using talk pages, and most importantly, not posting any new articles until there is community support on this page. Harro5 22:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 21st Century

This section needs to be exapnded further, compared to the Cold War era Guatemala is irrecognizable in just a short few decades. This fact needs to be highlighted further although there is much work to be done.

I dislike that Alfonso Portillo is portrayed in a positive light. On the last few hours that he enjoyed inmunity from prosecution he loaded up a plane full of cash stolen from the funds of the army and flew off to Mexico. He is a fugitive from justice and now lives in Mexico. These facts are well documented in the Guatemalan press.

His government is considered the most currupt in recent history and a complete failure. Organized crime picked up force during this era and now runs rampant. the administraiton did little or nothing to combat Guatemala's extensive problems; not to mention that it left the governemnt completely flat broke.

A link to people of the time are also needed like Efrain Rios Mont, Rogoberta Menchu, and other significant figures.

if you need resources for the expansion of pages on Guatemala might i point you in the direction of:

http://www.sigloxxi.com/

and especially

www.prensalibre.com

they are both great sources of information, keep extensive archives, are distributed nation-wide, and a harsh on the political class, although they are a little soft on big bisness.

Keep up the good work.

--SvenGodo 07:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation style

The citation style with a number in {curly brackets} isn't working. I don't know which source is supposed to be verifying the statement about 12,000 years ago. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] El Mirador

Removed the following para concerning El Mirador, contains way too many errors to retain without complete rewrite:

The city of El Mirador was the biggest city in ancient America, has the largest pyramid in the world, at 2,800,000 Mt2 of volume (some 200,000 more than the Giza pyramid in Egypt), and was by far the most populated city in the pre-Columbian America. In fact, Mirador was the first politically organized state in America, named the Kan Kingdom in ancient texts. There were 26 cities, some bigger than Tikal, the Jewel of the Classic period, all connected by huge Sacbeob (plural for highways ), or Sacbé (singular), meaning "White road", several km long and up to 40 mts. wide and 2 to 4 mts. above the ground, paved with stucco, that are clearly distinguishable from the air in the most extensive virgin tropical rain forest left in Mesoamerica. Thus, these were kingdoms equal in power and culture to those in Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, etc.

Calling it the biggest/most populous city in the pre-Columbian Americas is false in both aspects, as there are others with larger estimated extent and populations; the pyramid measurements are not so confidently known; it was a long way from being the 1st politically organised state, or momumental centre, in the Americas (for eg some cities of Norte Chico in Sth America pre-date by almost 2000 yrs), or even of the Mesoamerican region, or even of the central/southern lowlands; there are more than 26 Mirador Basin sites known; not all of them are connected by sacbeob (which are not so easy to spot from the air, in any case). The remainder of the pre-Columbian section has its problems, but this para is particularly misleading, and warrants removal. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do not delete content on Civil War

The content on the 36-year civil war is necessary for this article and should not be deleted. It is a good encapsulation of the war. Leaving the following two lines for this entire section is not sufficient:

"The Guatemalan Civil War was fought between 1960 and 1996 between the government and left-wing insurgents. The United States supported the government and Cuba and other Communist states the insurgents. 200,000 people were killed."

Do not delete this again without at least attempting to establish consensus here.Notmyrealname (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Covered in subarticle. That is what they are for.Ultramarine (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you've said that before. That's neither a convincing nor sufficient argument. Not all of the material on the subpage is repeated here. The main page should not be just a few sentences on each significant period with a link to a subpage. The sentences you left were also insufficient. For instance "200,000 people were killed" doesn't tell a reader that 90% or more of the deaths were caused by state actors. To use one of the two sentences to list who "supported" either side (a very incomplete list in any case), perhaps gives undue weight to outside actors. It was not merely a proxy Cold War battlefront. Of course the larger section of text could be improved with editing, but your scorched-earth policy makes it worse.Notmyrealname (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the material is repeated here. Which defeats the purpose of subarticles. I have expanded the summary. If no concrete objection I will restore this version.

"The Guatemalan Civil War was fought between 1960 and 1996 between the government and left-wing insurgents. A variety of factors contributed: social and economic injustice and racism against the indigenous population, the 1954 coup which reversed reforms, weak civilian control of the military, Marxist ideology advocating violent revolution instead of democratic participation and reforms, the United States support of the government, and Cuban support of the insurgents. The Truth Commission estimates that more than 200,000 people were killed. Most of these indigenous people by state forces who used a "scorched earth" policy."Ultramarine (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The article does not seem overly long. This is one of the most studied and complicated periods of the country's history. I find your summary diminishes rather than improves the article. It seems to me like the problem is that the subarticle should be expanded, rather than cutting the text here on this page. You are proposing a major change here. I urge you to solicit more input. The article will be improved as a result.Notmyrealname (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The material in question is twenty paragraphs duplicating word for word material in the subarticle. Look at all other articles. A subarticle is presented with one or a few paragraphs summarizing the subarticle. They do not repeat word for word most of the material again. Another problem with keeping almost identical material in two articles is that new information must be added in two places. Furthermore, why keep almost the same material in two places? Those reader interested can easily go to the subarticle.Ultramarine (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your point that it is overly long is well taken. However, the approach you have been taking has not been an improvement. I would suggest a nip-and-tuck approach, rather than slash-and-burn. There is a great deal of variety in article organization. It is a well-studied and immensely important period in the country's history, and your attempts so far do not do it justice, even for a summary format. I see no benefit to massive cuts. Please take a slower approach, or build consensus for much more radical changes on this page here, rather than edit war. Notmyrealname (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No concrete reply to my points. I will therefore summarize.Ultramarine (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your summary was completely unsourced, poorly written, and insufficient. Several editors here have objected to your approach to this section. I agree with you in principle that the section should be shortened, however, not nearly to the extent to which you have attempted to do. Why not try cutting out and summarizing specific sections. There is no need to hurry. Your current actions are not helpful, although I appreciate your overall efforts to improve the article.Notmyrealname (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, nothing specific, just general allegations. If you have concrete text you want to add or change, then please state it. Otherwise I will restore my proposal.Ultramarine (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your massive edits to this section have been reverted by several different editors [1] [2] [3]. Your replacement text for this 36-year period have consisted of poorly written and unsourced accounts like this: "The Guatemalan Civil War was fought between 1960 and 1996 between the government and left-wing insurgents. The United States supported the government and Cuba and other Communist states the insurgents. 200,000 people were killed." and: "The Guatemalan Civil War was fought between 1960 and 1996 between the government and left-wing insurgents. A variety of factors contributed: social and economic injustice and racism against the indigenous population, the 1954 coup which reversed reforms, weak civilian control of the military, Marxist ideology advocating violent revolution instead of democratic participation and reforms, the United States support of the government, and Cuban support of the insurgents. The Truth Commission estimates that more than 200,000 people were killed. Most of these indigenous people by state forces who used a "scorched earth" policy." Specifically, this is not a good summary of the war. There are no references (and thus, it is a form of original research). Most of your sentences are ungrammatical. At this point you need to either make smaller edits to the article more slowly, or develop alternate text on the talk page that other editors agree with. You could also solicit the input of other neutral editors through an RFC or such, etc. Wikipedia is based on consensus. Notmyrealname (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a single concrete example of what is wrong. Why mention an earlier version not current anymore? References are in the main article. No need for them in an overview.Ultramarine (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I restored the deleted material. Was there a good reason why its was removed? I kepet Ultra's intro to it but left Notmyrealname's contributions because they seem valid and within consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to repeat most of another article here. See above.Ultramarine (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Violation

Besides the material on the civil war period in this article, much of the other material seems to have been copy and pasted from websites, possibly in violation of copyrights. For example, much of the material in the article appears here: [[4]

Strange that you are making this claim when you know that the material is in the public domain.[5]Ultramarine (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs a link to Álvaro Colóm. Ends abruptly without such a link.Thammer302 (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger of "References" and "Further reading" sections

Any objections to merging these two sections? I don't see a distinction.Notmyrealname (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)