Talk:Tlatelolco massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mexico Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] When will the guilty be brought to Justice?

Is there an ex prez and other officials to blame?Bona Fides 16:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually yes, I'll try to update the article later, just need more news releases and more info. [1] - Luis Echeverria, the former president in being charged with genocide for this situation. If someone else wants to update the article feel free to do it, don't wait for me IAB 5:13 (MT)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.192.30 (talk • contribs)

sugiero que se revelen mas fotos de lo que sucedio y se especifiquen los motivos por los cuales se inicio este movimiento y por supuesto que se de a conocer las personas que estaban implicadas en este hecho sin importar el rango al que pertenecían en aquel entonces y que no se equivoquen al mencionar los hechos y las causas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.66.0.142 (talk • contribs)

Translation by Youssef (not very accurate) I suggest that we/you put more pictures of what happened and that we give the reasons why these mouvement happened and of course give the names of the people that took part whatever were there  ??? status at that time and that we do not make mistakes while describing the event and explaining the reasons. --Youssef 07:33, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'd suggest that this article was broken up and wikified, so that it is easier to read. I concur with the statements above about adding pictures. --Hersch 07:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It seems to be a little biased against the government, with emotionally charged references to children and such. I'm calling this a NPOV dispute. -Smack 07:03, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It is biased against the goverment, while I don't support what happened or the actions taken by the goverment (they could have disbanded the rally with gas or something); I do believe the ones who organized the protests are the people who should be blamed; I mean, taking on the goverment and the army using students as human shields? That was sick. In the end, it was just a failed attempt by the left movement to take over Mexico, the bloodiest one yet. But can you really blame the goverment? They had the olympic games to worry about, they couldn't have riots on the capital city and the leftists weren't stopping. I just wish the cowardly leftist leaders would show up their faces and admit they're guilty of sending misleaded kids against the army.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.202.98.195 (talk • contribs)
I see a slippery slope in your argument. Violence against civilians is hardly justified under any circumstances, and there's broad agreement that the protesters were unarmed. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 08:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it doesn't change the fact that the leftist leaders used unarmed students against the army as human shields (in fact, it makes said leftist leaders look worse), and sometimes force against civilians has to be used to preserve the peace in the country, not to the extent it was used that day, of course; but you have to admit it has to be done sometimes to stop criminals or guerrillas (and they are more likely made of civilians from the country they originate in), as I said on my message, gas or other methods could have been used to disband the protest without actually killing anyone, it didn't happen and blood was spilled, everybody screwed up. However, I still think the leftist movement is the one to blame, what right did they have to use students in that way, didn't they have the guts to show up themselves?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.92.96.227 (talk • contribs)
i'm not sure if anyone needs this clarified for them, but the above post is absolutly absurd. please refrain from interjecting your prejudices into this discussion and focus on the facts at hand. a quick google seach of the events will provide you with the insite you need to have an opinion on the matter, but until you do that i suggest you keep quiet and have some respect for the hundreds who died that day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.184.144.223 (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
I agree to accuse unarmed men of forcing students that supported them to go up against the army is absurd. to say that its ok to kill people for Olympics is sick. next your going to say that the tiananmen square was the fault of the lecturers and that tanks being used against civilians is justified as long as the cameras have gone home? 200.92.96.227 please fuck of and die!Xbehave 18:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
How about instead of criticizing the article you help fix it? It seems to me that there are too many people around here that shout "NPOV" from the sidelines at anything they disagree with or don't understand or don't like; it becomes a tiresome slogan which serves as a substitute for the more difficult tasks of analyzing and editing these texts. -- Viajero 08:31, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I've given it a shot, adding the government's version of events in a new paragraph. I also deleted the two sentences about red paint being sprayed and the helicopter overhead: perhaps more anecdotical and less important than the other stuff we've got there? Oh -- and I'm still looking for the killer external URL to link to. Hajor 03:30, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Does not appear to be NPOV at this point. As suggested by the NPOV policy, the article simply recites what occurs, and lets the reader decide. The presence of children, to respond to your example, is relevant. Seems well balanced to me, though it is surprising there is not a wealth of more material. Tempshill
I'm sorry to be transforming this into a forum, but you're making a really serious mistake in your contributions:

-No students were used as human shields for a Movement; THEY were the movement, they were the ones that made all the fuzz, they were the ones to try to transform the country, DON'T take that glory from their hands! It was the students!

[edit] Tlatelolco 1521 vs Tlatelolco 1968

I was just by the Matanza de Tlatelolco page in Spanish Wikipedia, and noted the discrepancy in that the English article does not address the significance of the location in terms of the history of the Conquest and of the politics of indigenous peoples in Mexico. Obviously that should be here but I'm not prepped to do a good translation of what's in the Spanish article. Takers?Skookum1 07:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The article in spanish only states that the frase "Matanza de Tlatelolco" can be used to refer to both of the two events. It doesn make any remark about the significance of the location or that of the politics of the indigenous. As far as i know, there is no connection between the two events, and the locations are not the same. The massacre of Tlatelolco in 1521 was perpetrated in an openfield outside the old town of Tlateloco, while the 1968 massacre was perpetrate in a plaza near the ruins of the religious center of the old town. Maybe a desambiguation page or name change can apply to what you are adressing. --Legion fi 19:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death toll

This allegation―:

“The death toll remains controversial: some estimates place the number of deaths in the thousands, but most sources report 200-300 deaths.”

might be innacurate. I’ll quote a couple of Jorge Castañeda’s sentences in Spanish of his article “Los 68 del 68”, published in the Mexican newspaper Reforma on 30 August 2006. Let me know if any of you’d like me to translate them:

"De acuerdo con el informe histórico, en la Plaza de las Tres Culturas murieron ―cabalísticamente― 68 estudiantes y un soldado […]". Y todo uso de la fuerza pública se empezó automáticamente a asimilar al 68, pero al 68 magnificado: al de los 500, no al de los 68. Todo uso de la fuerza se volvió una masacre en potencia […]".

See also this pdf document in English and the threaded discussion in another WP article. ―Cesar Tort 19:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just two things. First the death toll remains unclear. Serious investigations have concluded that at least 200 were killed. Second, Jorge Castañeda, as well as "Reforma" newspaper, is politically right-hand biases. And a third thing, now that i notice it. He is just making a comparison between an alledge death poll with the year that the massacre ocurred. Nothing else --Legion fi 07:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't perhaps important to note and cite both the original goverment death toll (noted but not cited in the discussion) and modern one (which according to the BBC article of Thursday, 12 July 2007, 21:46 GMT 22:46 UK is 25?). Whether or not it is what actually occurred, I think it important to note what the government said occurred, no? --67.168.231.124 01:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historic references

According to documents made public by the Mexican Army and Government in 2000(?), it is absolutely inaccurate to say that the army opened fire against the students. In a video released by the army it can be seen that the firing started, if I recall, at the Monterrey building in Tlatelolco after a flair was fired to the air. It is supposed that the shooting was done by the Olympo special forces group, and that the army actually started repelling the fire protecting the students below. It is never seen that the army actually fired at the students as they were being fired from above, being the first casualty of the firing a military officer. It is my sugestion that you review the contents of this article as, to my eye, it appears completely biased and totally inaccurate.

What you have here is the description made by Elena Poniatowska and other prominent left wing politicians, that in a bid to discredit the PRI started inflating figures of casualties to obtain some kind of support from what at the time was the USSR. And if someone recalls, the incident in Mexico wasn't an isolated event, there were more confrontations like this one going on around the world, especially important is the one that ocurred in France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.5.142 (talk • contribs)

  • Ok, first of all, they Army DID fire first. As you correctly mentioned, the first ones to shoot where snipers belonging to the Olympia Batallion, a special ARMY task force specially made for the Olympics. The flair you mentioned ( as narrated by Oriana Fallaci) was set from a militray helicopter. The thing is, that the soldiers guarding the plaza were not informed about the presence of the Olympia Batallion presence. They did return fire, thinking some students were shooting at them. But it was in fact friendly fire. Although, there has been some suggestions that the Olympia Batallion orders were to open fire against both students and soldiers, to provoke the latter into perpetrating the massacre. But there is no doubt that the army shot first. I must admit that there was an armed wing of students (about ten of them) in charge of protecting the movement leaders, that may have also fired back to the snipers, leading to further confusion.--Legion fi 07:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Having just read this article, I was horrified. However, I noticed there are few sources referenced. This curtailed my response. If the intention for this article is to trigger an emotional response (I have no opinion on how appropriate that goal would be for a wikipedia article) then there needs to be some support to avoid responses like mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.34.187 (talk • contribs)

Yes, this article needs to document references and not just give "further reading." Tagged. Cleduc 05:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US involment?

were the US involved in the incident? who did they support? how close where they involved? im not sure on any of these things but i find it hard to believe that the US wernt messing with a south American country in the late 60s, even if nothing can be confirmed could a mention be put somewhere as to the us position before and during the matter?Xbehave 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, Mexico is a North America country. Not Central American, and surely not South American. Please study some geography. Second of all, YES, there was some US participation in what is known in Mexico as the "Guerra Sucia" (Dirty War). Mexican right-handed paramilitar groups were trained by CIA operatives. It is known that hig ranked Olympia Batallion officers attended the School of America, a CIA operated training center for counter-intelligence operations. Besides from that background, there is not reported direct participation of US operatives in the incident. It is even said that Mexican high officers did not inform US operatives about what was going to happen. --Legion fi 06:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movie

Hi the imdb link is no good. I found this film Mexico 68 but it's not scheduled for release until 2009. Avigon 18:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New information that needs to be added to main page

Insert non-formatted text here

Oriana Fallaci, a famous italian reporter was there and she suddenly noticed how a a helicopter flew very close by. The helicopter was a militar one, and someone inside it threw an incandescent light into the crowd below.

Fallaci immediately knew that it was a militar tactic -she had been in Vietnam months before- to identify the start of a militar plan. Hundreds of troops -who were dressed as civilians and were mixed with the crowd- then revealed their true identity by screaming: Batallon Olimpia!!! (Olympian Batallion) and placing a white handkerchief or glove on their right hands. Without warning, they started shooting to the people in the plaza. The scared civilians ran to the apartments buildings and churches nearby to avoid death, but many of them were found by searching parties.

The neighboors to this day claim that the plaza was covered with blood and empty shoes when everything was over about 11 o'clock that same night. Oriana Fallaci was shot three times, but was saved from death by a man that covered her from more bullets - but the guy died from the shots. International reporters counted over 400 bodies in the plaza, and 200 more on the sorrounding streets. But the next morning everything was clean.

Bodies were picked up by militar vans and blood was cleaned by the city's hygiene department. The government declared oficially only 23 deaths, and set the proper indemnizations to the affected family.

But where all the bodies went???

According to retired soldiers of the Olympian Batallion, at least 500 bodies were taken to the grounds of Militar Camp Number 1 located in Mexico City too. There, they were burned to ashes in big bonfires. Many people were taken into custody, including six thirteen year-old boys who were so viciously raped and tortured that one of them ended up using a wheelchair the rest of his life. The rest of the detainees went either to jail or dissappeared... Those lucky enough to go to jail were questioned and the majority was released.

Despite the civil outrage, the president nothing important happened that fatal evening and happily lighted the torch of the Olympic Games a mere two weeks later.

Almost forty years later there is still very little official information about the event. Only there are reports from the international press and a bunch of books by many activists who were there and some others who investigated it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.242.107 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Voices-of-Tlatelolco.png

Image:Voices-of-Tlatelolco.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)