Talk:Jacobo Árbenz

message: === ... ===
The "presidency and coup" section seems to have some POV issues. Jwyrwas (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow!!--68.221.187.53 06:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussions prior to 2014 

message: The "presidency and coup" section seems to have some POV issues. Jwyrwas (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow!!--68.221.187.53 06:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... 

message: Ok Now, my mind is starting to open that the U.S. CIA did something unacceptable to my country, Guatemala, by accusing the former president Jacobo Arbenz of being a communist. This absolutely shocks me because since that U.S.intervention the Guatemalan Cicil War begun.The CIA washed the Guatemalan people's brain by telling them that Arbenz's government was communist. Come on. 
That idea of US. intervention was unacceptable.
That's why Guatemala's economy is still poor because of the United SSTTTates. 
Can we do anithing now. Talk to the sovereignty of the country
I understand you don't want to believe that Jacobo Arbenz was a communist..... being a marxist is an insult by itself.Agrofelipe (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  error 

message: I read this same article a while back and found many unstated facts and inaccurate assertions. However, reading the article now, I can see that either the author has re-written this article or another author has done a better job. I respect this article because it does not emphasize positive or negative aspects of this figure's role in history. There is a bit more objectivity in this article. Although, I do not agree with everything in this article, I have no significant facts that I could use to refute the assertions in this article. So in that journey, I failed but I am not too proud to admit nor too proud to give praise when it is deserving. This article has improved significantly since the last time I viewed it. I only wish other articles in Wikipedia reflect the same manner of writing as this article was written. Thank you for making my use of Wikipedia both enjoyable and enlightening.
=== PRoblems ===
I CAN"T SCROLL DOWN THE PAGE! ANYONE ELSE HAVING THIS PROBLEM? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ToyotaPanasonic (talk • contribs) 14:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  worthy praise 

message: Guatemala had a history of chaos priof to the 1954 coup (the 1944 revolution, for example)...the lead paragraph is a bit biased toward the left.Ryoung122 18:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV issues

message: I had read or seen a television program somewhere that said that the head of the military junta (Castillo) had complained that when Arbenz left, so did his bureaucrats, who were at least reasonably competent. The junta could not thus immediately find government workers competent enough to fill the shoes (or inkpots) of those ousted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opusv5 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! You mean "dissidents" like Trujillo or Castillo Armas? Well, obviously he did not have enough of them killed! Why did he tolerate communists in his government and parliament (obviously not being one), if he was that paranoid? Why did he get ousted by a handfull of crooks paid by UF and CIA - because he had killed all that could have supported him? Sorry, but this sounds like total nonsense! Could you name and cite the source exactly, please?--90.40.255.19 (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Arbenz came into power following a revolution/coup against Ubico. Discussion of Ubico is necessary to provide historical context for Arbenz' rise to power. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree, and a reading of this article and the Ubico article appears to show that the two discussions are not consistent. There appears to be information in this article that is not in that article and it should be moved there. If it is important, you can summarize the information here with a "main article" link.Jarhed (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested in understanding why you don't agree (i.e. how would you discuss how Árbenz came to power without discussing Ubico extensively). Every single source cited here, as well as others I've read, all extensively discuss Ubico's reign when describing how Árbenz came to power. The information in this article is critical to understanding the Guatemalan revolution that brought Arbenz to power -- this is not my personal opinion, but rather that of the sources cited. Regarding the fact that some of this information is not in the Ubico article: that is because the Ubico article is terrible -- poorly referenced and incomplete. I agree that some of the material needs to be copied over there to improve that article; but this is a problem with the Ubico article, not with this one. (And of course, it's important that we're trying to discuss those aspects of Ubico's life that are relevant to Arbenz' life -- so the two articles are not necessarily going to focus on the same things). Now, one problem I do see with the current article is that the later parts of the article (the other sections about Arbenz' presidency, and those about the CIA coup, his later life, etc.) are very poorly developed and need expansion. Compared to these, the historical background will look relatively short (whereas it now looks relatively long); but again, this is a problem with these other sections rather than the historical background section. I also agree with you that there should be hatnotes in the historical background section linking to relevant articles. I'm going to add those now.  -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that makes sense, but the Ubico article does need to be improved so that it is consistent with this one.Jarhed (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd actually be interested in working on that article -- I'll add it to my to do list. Right now, rattlesnakes and ticks are at the top, but I was actually considering doing a Latin American history article next. For now, I'll just go ahead and start copying things over to the Ubico article so that people that feel like improving the article in the mean time will have some sources to work from (I should get around to this some time today). Thanks for your suggestions. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Copy of Ubico info to that article is a good idea. For some reason I looked to see where the capitol of Guatemala was before Guatemala City, and that opened up a can of worms. I am going to try to work on this issue for a while.--Jarhed (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Nice try. Your description of the aftermath is wholly unsupported by sourced content (or, in fact, any content) in the body of the article. It also likely raises serious NPOV issues. No reasonable editor would in good faith describe your addition as a "summary" of any portionof the body of the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No answer in 5 years.--Gabel1960 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbenz Administration

message: I found pretty unbelievable that Arbenz didnt received more support of the KGB and the USSR.
Are you sure thats correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrofelipe (talk • contribs) 00:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  KGB involvement 

message: Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission reveals Arbenz's role in the mass killing of hundreds of dissidents, a rather pertinent fact I would think.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! You mean "dissidents" like Trujillo or Castillo Armas? Well, obviously he did not have enough of them killed! Why did he tolerate communists in his government and parliament (obviously not being one), if he was that paranoid? Why did he get ousted by a handfull of crooks paid by UF and CIA - because he had killed all that could have supported him? Sorry, but this sounds like total nonsense! Could you name and cite the source exactly, please?--90.40.255.19 (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant Ommissions 

message: This section contains way too much information that does not pertain to Guzman. All such information, such as the extensive discussion of Jorge Ubico, should be moved to other articles.--Jarhed (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbenz came into power following a revolution/coup against Ubico. Discussion of Ubico is necessary to provide historical context for Arbenz' rise to power. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree, and a reading of this article and the Ubico article appears to show that the two discussions are not consistent. There appears to be information in this article that is not in that article and it should be moved there. If it is important, you can summarize the information here with a "main article" link.Jarhed (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested in understanding why you don't agree (i.e. how would you discuss how Árbenz came to power without discussing Ubico extensively). Every single source cited here, as well as others I've read, all extensively discuss Ubico's reign when describing how Árbenz came to power. The information in this article is critical to understanding the Guatemalan revolution that brought Arbenz to power -- this is not my personal opinion, but rather that of the sources cited. Regarding the fact that some of this information is not in the Ubico article: that is because the Ubico article is terrible -- poorly referenced and incomplete. I agree that some of the material needs to be copied over there to improve that article; but this is a problem with the Ubico article, not with this one. (And of course, it's important that we're trying to discuss those aspects of Ubico's life that are relevant to Arbenz' life -- so the two articles are not necessarily going to focus on the same things). Now, one problem I do see with the current article is that the later parts of the article (the other sections about Arbenz' presidency, and those about the CIA coup, his later life, etc.) are very poorly developed and need expansion. Compared to these, the historical background will look relatively short (whereas it now looks relatively long); but again, this is a problem with these other sections rather than the historical background section. I also agree with you that there should be hatnotes in the historical background section linking to relevant articles. I'm going to add those now.  -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that makes sense, but the Ubico article does need to be improved so that it is consistent with this one.Jarhed (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd actually be interested in working on that article -- I'll add it to my to do list. Right now, rattlesnakes and ticks are at the top, but I was actually considering doing a Latin American history article next. For now, I'll just go ahead and start copying things over to the Ubico article so that people that feel like improving the article in the mean time will have some sources to work from (I should get around to this some time today). Thanks for your suggestions. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Copy of Ubico info to that article is a good idea. For some reason I looked to see where the capitol of Guatemala was before Guatemala City, and that opened up a can of worms. I am going to try to work on this issue for a while.--Jarhed (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical background section 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 17 September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Juan jose arevalo bermejo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I just reverted the removal of the aftermath of the 1954 coup from the lead, for a very simple reason; as per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article, and the aftermath has significant mention in the article, so it requires mention in the lead. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice try. Your description of the aftermath is wholly unsupported by sourced content (or, in fact, any content) in the body of the article. It also likely raises serious NPOV issues. No reasonable editor would in good faith describe your addition as a "summary" of any portionof the body of the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No answer in 5 years.--Gabel1960 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert, why 

message: Here are a few neglected facts about Árbenz:
*He considered himself a communist and formally joined the communist party in 1957.
: Nothing wrong with that, especially in a country that was being controlled by the American imperialism thru the United Fruit Company since 1903.
--Nerdoguate (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct: Arbenz was in fact being advised by Jose Manuel Fortuny, who was a communist and a Stalin admirer.
--Nerdoguate (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Correct: it was ruled unconstitutional because if affected the major interests of the United Fruit Company, which had been running the country since 1903.  Arbenz purged the UFCO agents from the Court.
--Nerdoguate (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

text: I really agree with the issue with Arana's killing: In fact, I do have several books written from neo-liberal writers who said that there was a plot to get rid of Arana and pave the way for Arbenz to become president.  However, this was not structured by Arbenz, but by the political forces in the country at the time.  After Juan Jose Arevalo had a serious accident while riding with a couple of Russian dancers, the ladies died and he was left in pretty bad shape, forcing the Deal of the cliff which guaranteed Arana the nomination of the official part for the next elections. Arana grew overconfident and his power was feared by Arevalo, who asked help to the Defense Minister, Arbenz to take him out of the country.  However, Arana resisted his capture and was killed instead.
--Nerdoguate (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Árbenz was accused of being a communist mass murderer 

message: Since you've taken a look at this already: seems to be a minor disagreement about the use of Arbenz' vs Arbenz's, and though I've been using Arbenz' the whole while, I'm not completely certain this is correct. Vanamonde (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks! When I read it in my head, I say "Arbenzes" every time; so this would suggest that current uses of Arbenz', such as "Arbenz' wife" and "Arbenz' daughters" should be changed to "Arbenz's"; right? Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I would agree with that.  – Corinne (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see you have added the "s" in several places, in  edit. However, in the very first edit in this set, you removed an apostrophe after "Árbenz" (and did not add an "s"). I suppose it is because you felt it did not have to be in the possessive case at all. However, it does, because of the phrase "all of" before the name. It should read: "of all of Árbenz's supporters". You could conceivably use the name as an adjective: "demanding the expulsion of all Árbenz supporters" (notice that there is no "of" before the name), but I think "demanding the expulsion of all of Árbenz's supporters" is a little clearer. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah yer right. Didn't think that one through. Vanamonde (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbenz' vs Arbenz's 

message: Sub-section "Inauguration and Ideology," third paragraph notes that the communist Guatemalan Party of Labor ("PGT") "was legalized during Árbenz's government, while the "Guatemalan Party of Labour" entry, "Second Congress" section," second paragraph, states that the PGT was legalized upon his inaguriation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_%C3%81rbenz#Inauguration_and_ideology, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Party_of_Labour#Second_Congress. But the Árbenz entry also mentions section "Coup d'état," sub-section "Political motives," first paragraph, "Arévalo's ban of the communist party." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_%C3%81rbenz#Political_motives. Thoughts? - HKEY LOCAL MACHINE\Security (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Arevalo banned the communist party; Arbenz legalized it. What is the issue here? Vanamonde (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see. But the way it's written, it implies that that Arevalo banned the communists while under Arbenz, prior to the 1954 coup. To clarify this, I suggest it be rewritten to say "the US and the CIA were predisposed to see the immediately preceding revolutionary government of Arévalo as communist, despite its ban of the communist party." This makes the chronological order clear, while also giving someone who doesn't read the relevant part of the entry a basic understanding of who Arévalo was and what he did. - HKEY LOCAL MACHINE\Security (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, which section are you talking about? Vanamonde (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sub-section "Political motives," first paragraph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_%C3%81rbenz#Political_motives. I should have put that in. - HKEY LOCAL MACHINE\Security (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, okay. I've added a bit of detail. Honestly I still don't quite see the problem, but perhaps that's because I'm too familiar with this material...Vanamonde (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is quite obvious. It makes a difference if you suspect even somebody to be a communist if he bans the communist party, or if you raise the suspicion against somebody who has legalized it. Why didn't you invite the editor to make changes himself/herself? Do you consider yourself to be the person to decide about changes here? Are you "in charge" of this article? "...too familiar with this material..." This tells a lot about a person who admits having read two books "some time ago" and found them quite useful, one of them relying on the other.--Gabel1960 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Árbenz outlawed the communist party that he legalized upon inauguration?  

message: I believe that single paragraph sections can be quite useful. My experience as a reader made me realize that when I am looking for certain information sometimes it is nested under an unrelated heading, which makes me lose time scrolling through the whole article to look line by line for the information. A single paragraph section becomes then valuable, it gives the reader the ability to go to the desired information faster and easier. It is pointless to have unrelated information under the same heading, specially when a new heading can be made without cluttering the article. Therefore I believe the suicide, Cuba, and the death of Arbenz should be restored as different sections. Thinker78 (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And I disagree, if that weren't already obvious. Sections and section headers are a navigational tool to help readers parse a large chunk of prose. It is useful to divide pieces that would otherwise be too long to navigate easily. Dividing things beyond that makes the article harder to read, both by introducing clutter and by disrupting the flow between paragraphs. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Single paragraph sections

message: For some reason when I removed the wikilink using the Visual Editor, the software apparently created all that gibberish.  Thinker78 (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Bug

message: To me it looks like the text mentioning only the father of Arbenz' wife seems to be paternalistic and male oriented, with undue weight towards only one parent, when it should mention the couple or the father and the mother. I didn't find where this is being discussed previously. The edit that mentions the couple should be restored or the information corrected so it is not biased towards one parent if not necessary. Thinker78 (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We have information saying her father was a landowner. Given the nature of Salvadoran society at that time, it is unlikely that her mother was also an owner. Mentioning that isn't a form of bias at all; indeed excluding that would perpetuate gender bias, because it would neglect the way gender was related to property ownership. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In the edit there was a citation that supported my assertion of a high-class couple (Cambranes), where it says, in page 90,  (English: According to Maria Vilanova in her Memories, she was born in El Salvador, on April 17 1915, daughter of a Salvadorian father and a Guatemalan mother. Both belonged to oligarchic families). The source expands on her father but doesn't completely avoid mentioning her mother. Thinker78 (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a complete non-sequitur. I'm not disputing that the couple were wealthy; but the land-ownership is an additional detail that you seem to want to remove for some reason. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am challenging is that the article should indicate she is the daughter of a couple or of a mother and a father, and not say she is daughter of just a father. Thinker78 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that reliable sources don't give us any information about her mother aside from the fact that she was her mother and was married to her father. If you want to add anything about her mother, please find material in reliable sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you are saying there are no reliable sources that give us any info on her mother if I wrote above about a reliable source that states that her mother was Guatemalan and from an oligarchic family. Thinker78 (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Cambranes is a questionable source for anything but the most uncontentious information, as I've already explained above; more importantly, "high-class couple" is not equivalent to "mother from an Oligarchic family." If Cambranes says Arabella's mother was Guatemalan, I'm not opposed to adding that. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Cambranes doesn't say "mother from an oligarchic family", it says "" (English: both belonged to oligarchic families). I wrote "high-class couple" which I think is a good equivalent. Or do you think that oligarchic families are not "high-class"?  Thinker78 (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Just use "wealthy"; "high-class" and "oligarchic" both sound strange in English. I would insert "and a Guatemalan mother from a wealthy family" just before or after the piece about her father. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Couple vs wealthy landowner

message: If the nickname is frequently used by reliable sources, there should be no problem corroborating the information. Why include this one? I think it may be more common than the other ones. Also, MOS:NICKNAME (Joseph John Aiuppa example) indicates that one or two nicknames is fine but more maybe should be avoided. Why deleting the nickname then? Thinker78 (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Gabel removed some of the nicknames from the lead; I removed the other for consistency. While I recognize that I added some of them to the lead in the first place, I no longer think any of them ought to be there, because they introduce clutter. The one you added in particular would make more sense in the legacy section. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say adding a nickname introduces clutter, then what do you make of the MOS:NICKNAME guideline? What makes this article not worthy of applying MOS:NICKNAME? Thinker78 (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read through that entire section, you will see that the guideline actually supports my position. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I read through the entire section of MOS:NICKNAME and I don't see how it supports your position. Please quote relevant text. Thinker78 (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The names we are discussing are definitely obscure. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "El Soldado del Pueblo" is not an obscure nickname.https://www.google.com/search?q=%22el+soldado+del+pueblo%22+arbenz&pws=0&gl=us&tbm=bks&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivwNrNhsnhAhVMqlkKHTfSD2oQ_AUIDygA&biw=1366&bih=625&dpr=1Thinker78 (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; please invite outside comment. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

text: I'm part of the "invite[d] outside comment".  I tend to concur with Vanamonde93.  Nicks in the lead should be very common and used as actual nicknames, and we put them there in case people aren't sure that, say Joseph John Aiuppa really is the "Joey Doves" Aiuppa article they're looking for because there might be multiple people named Jo[seph|oe|oey] Aiuppa. If the nick isn't common, then this issue doesn't really arise. If something is common as a description (closer to reality in this case), then it may belong in the lead paragraph (may even help establish notability, if it's something like this), but not bolded in the first sentence as if it's a nickname.  isn't a nickname at all, it's a  laudatory appellation, like referring to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the spiritual leader of the civil rights movement", or William Osler as "the father of modern medicine" (and see our List of people considered father or mother of a scientific field for a zillion more examples, many with competing people vying for the "title"; it's a poor article for an encyclopedia, but a handy list in this case). Another thing to consider is whether the name/phrase is common in English-language sources, which this one is not.  So, I would lean toward including it in the lead paragraph, not lead sentence, as culturally and topically important, but not bolding it as if it's a nickname or alias because a) it's not one, and b) it's not a phrase English-speakers are looking for. I looked at the first 30 bio articles linked from that list, and  of them boldfaced the "father of [whatever]" appellations, and only 13 had one in the lead paragraph at all. Only one or two had it in the (long, and probably better rewritten) lead sentence, and not commingled with the actual name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicknames

message: In the edit, stating that Arbenz was born into a middle-class family contradicts the body of the article ("His family was relatively wealthy and upper-class"), which doesn't say middle-class. Regarding the sources, I could not read the contents of any but one, so I don't know what do they say or what text were they supposed to verify. There should be some verification regarding the aforementioned text, because Cambranes says that the Arbenz constituted a middle-class family (page 28). Thinker78 (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: After reviewing the sources, I have modified this. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the question is why one source says the family was upper class and the other says it was middle class? By the way, which sources says the family was upper class (namely the family created by the president's parents)? Can you quote here? Thinker78 (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really a question for Gabel1960, who added the "high-class" descriptor. The Gleijeses source, which is the more reliable, paints a more complex picture that I will add shortly. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Born into middle/high-class family

message: 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) 10:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion