# Talk:Guatemalan Revolution

This edit is not in accordance with YESPOV, which states that facts should not be presented as opinions. In particular, unless we have sources contradicting a statement, something that is supported by multiple academic sources can be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Also, this article has been through a GA review and a peer review, and so changes should be discussed here at the very least. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems that there is a bias in favour of the revolutionaries and against Jorge Ubico's government on this page, using buzzwords like "brutal", "democracy", etc. You can see my changes for neutrality on the history, but Vanamonde93 keeps reverting it and excused that its good article status is case enough for the status quo. Can we have this article rated again? I am going to put an npov template for the time being.--Sιgε |д･) 21:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Every statement in this article is thoroughly sourced, frequently to multiple sources. No statement is provided in Wikipedia's voice if any scholarly source contradicts it. Also, the scholarly sources used are probably the most well known ones English sources about this piece of Guatemalan history. Your statement about bias is clearly based on a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. This article was passed as a GA (in its current form) by User:Simon Burchell, and peer reviewed by User:AustralianRupert, neither of who found any issues with this. I strongly suggest you remove the tag, until you actually find a source contradicting the statements in the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Irrelevant...people make mistakes and standards and perspective caqn change easily and quickly. Even the sweetest fruit is subject to rot. I think it is in the bestinterest of the article and everyone involved to see this article reviewd again;besides the NPOV issue anyway, the layout seems a bit messy in my opinion. :/ No offense --Sιgε |д･) 13:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Not irrelevant. If you wish to demonstrate lack of NPOV, you need to find a reliable source contradicting the narrative presented in the article. Until then, your tagging is purely disruptive and pointy. If you don't provide such sources, the tag will be removed, because it has no basis. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Why are you so reluctant to find a third party here? By this time we could have already this issue solved. Anyhow, this official reference cites the Guatemala Revolution as having been majorly inspired and supported by the Communist Party of Guatemala, and "pro-democracy" and the former regime being "brutal" was in their view. However, the article doesn't mention this and you wouldn't want it anyway. Not to mention Marxism and liberalism are actually enemies, but I digress; this article is biased in favor of the current regime of Guatemala and general outlook of the West; see WP:BIAS.--Sιgε |д･) 19:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not reluctant; I have pinged both reviewers, and obviously the article is open to universal scrutiny. The "official document" you provided does not contradict anything in the article. More importantly, it is a cherry-picked section of a source that the article heavily relies on. You will have to do better. Is there a source which says the Revolution was undemocratic? Or that Ubico was a benign ruler? Until then, your statements carry no weight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
You're relying upon a false dichotomy fallacy. Does explicitly not using peacock words like "brutal" and "democratic" imply benign or undemocratic? The revolution/uprising is exactly what it was. Removing fluff does not deserve a source.--Sιgε |д･) 23:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, no. If you want to removed sourced information, you need a much better reason than calling it fluff. "democratic" is certainly not fluff, it is an entirely factual description. There are many phrases equivalent to "brutal labor practices," but just "labor practices" does not convey the same meaning. Please provide a source. Also, the pings don't seem to have worked, trying again; @Simon Burchell:, @AustralianRupert: Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
G'day, all, sorry for the late reply, I've been away from home for a few days. Regarding the above comments, I guess I see a middle ground option here. I don't agree that a word like "democracy" is a buzzword or is NPOV, although potentially describing something as "democratic" might be subjective (as indeed it might be to say something was "undemocratic"...) Describing something as "brutal" might also be subjective, but equally it can serve a purpose and I wouldn't necessarily say it is not neutral if done appropriately. In this regard, perhaps it would be a compromise solution to attribute such instances (and similar cases) in text. For instance, "being drawn to the working conditions in Guatemala City, which author John Smith has described as "brutal"." Would something like this work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, AustralianRupert! I think that compromise is lovely. I am going to trust Vanamonde93 to make the changes you mentioned, if not I will do them. Thank you for the advice, I will remove the template when the change is made. Nice to see some civil sense here,--Sιgε |д･) 14:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
AustralianRupert, thanks for your suggestions. Attributing descriptions of labor polices I'm (sort of) okay with, partially we are not giving enough specifics for people to judge for themselves. That is not the subject of the article, after all. Calling the Revolution democratic, on the other hand, I'm definitely against attributing, basicaly because of YESPOV; "don't state facts as opinions." There is overwhelming consensus among sources that these ten years were democratic, and so attributing that would only serve to cast aspersions on said sources, and also to make it sound like coatracking. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Funny how you mention coatracking, because that is *exactly* what you're doing; you are claiming the revolution was all well and good and Jorge Ubico was an objectively evil tyrant. This is what the article implies to the reasonable person, This is unfair and I guarantee you that the article would not be written in such a pro-"democracy" way if the revolution was only temporary. "brutal", etc. is unneeded. Every source has *some* bias and it is not our job to extract that, like you implied with my evidence that the revolution was supported by the Communist Party of Guatemala. Make the article less biased. Wikipedia alrady suffersenough from systemic bias of "modern" ideals.--Sιgε |д･) 17:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 Your additions are in complete violation of WP:YESPOV. There are sources which make certain statements about the Ubico government. There are no sources which disagree. In this case, adding phrases like "has been seen" and "seen by some" is not NPOV, but quite the opposite. For the nth time; find a source which presents a view other than the ones in this article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Sigehulmus, you really need to self-revert your 4th revert and discuss this first. Getting consensus is not optional, and you definitely do not have it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dank:, thank you for the copy-edit. As the writer of TFA, I would trust your judgement; however, it seems to me that the first part of this edit removes some information. The second part is certainly an improvement. Also, I personally like "Guatemalan Revolution was the period in.....Could you elaborate a little bit? Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
OOps, just saw your note at the peer review. I will make some partial reverts, and let's take it from there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I ended up reverting most of you changes. Here's why; 1) I think the term "guatemalan revolution" can be confusing, as people think of "revolution" as meaning armed struggle. Hence the phrase "period in history...." 2) Personally, I think the info about dispossession is relevant in the lede; if you feel otherwise, we can take it out. 3) I like the greater specificity that your edit brought, but I think it needs to be clear that both HR violations and the genocide were from the military, and your text perhaps leaves that ambiguous. Trying to think of a solution, and currently unable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Vanamonde, I'll be back in the morning. We could use more articles at this level on 20th-century Central American history. Are you planning to take this to WP:FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 04:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Back. Again, is this headed to FAC? If we might have 10M casual readers looking at a short version of the lead for this article on the Main Page, rather than the typical (probably more clued-in) readership for this article, then some of the words will have to get closer to their dictionary definitions (revolution, forebear, etc.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dank, yes, my plan was to take this to FAC as soon as my RL gets a little less busy. "Forbear" I am not so hung up on; synonyms would work, it's the idea that matters. I can see the trouble with "revolution;" but in that case, it's not a word that I inserted, it's the common name for that period in virtually every reliable source, despite that usage being slightly different from common usage. I don't know if it really is a problem; Merriam-wester offers three definitions, the second of which is "a sudden, extreme, or complete change in the way people live, work, etc." Which is what this falls under. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll see this when it gets to FAC. Make whatever edits seem right to you, and I'll have another look then. - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Guatearbenz0870.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Result was keep. Thinker78 (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The first sentence of this page is too wordy and long, which doesn't follows guidance of MOS:FIRST about conciseness. "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." Thinker78 (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)