Talk:Rigoberta Menchú

message: Where is the information stating that she lied about her family, pretending what happened to others were actually her family? I think that should be added to the page because as of right now, this article is biased. They ended up giving her the prize because what she made up actually happened to others if it was not necessarily true for her.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.221.5 (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Where Is The?

message: I had to find a newspaper article about menchu for school and I think the information on this page is incorrect. they refer to some article of larry rohter, but larry rohter's first article on david stoll's book was published in 1998 (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0617F73F590C768DDDAB0994D0494D81). So how could the book be published in 1999? I will not edit it myself, for maybe there is some good explanation. but if it /is/ a wrong date, then wouldn't more facts in this article be wrong? 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.146.128.86 (talk • contribs). 
:Rohter's articles came out in late 1988 based on pre-publication copies of Stoll's book. Good question though.Notmyrealname 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: is it true that her biography is a hoax?
:See:  Journalism fraud. –Hajor
I think the allegations of fraud are too important to be left on another page, there should be more about it on the main page. My main problem is this sentence "Detractors claim that the book contains many fabrications", the claims are true the book is false, so I have taken out the sentence. I have done a google search and have found nothing about Pres. Clinton supposed apology the only thing I found was this quote "United States . . . support for military forces or intelligence units which engaged in violent and widespread repression . . . was wrong." unless someone can find a link to an actual apology the remarks do not belong on the page.
stevenscollege
:The US support for military regimes in Guatemala which violated human rights has been widely proven, go read ther other articles about Guatemalean history.
that does not prove her autobiography is real, she could be using events that took place in Guatemala and claim that they occured to her.75.23.139.109  —Preceding comment was added at 13:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coment

message: The following letter--from the NY Times--is quoted under the Fair Use provisions of US Law:
To the Editor:
The Nobel committee gave Rigoberta Menchu the peace prize because she supposedly speaks for all the Indians of the American continent (news item, Dec. 18). Nonsense. Ms. Menchu, a Marxist ideologue, not only didn't even speak for most Indians in her own country, as suggested in your Dec. 15 front-page article, she supported the Sandinistas' [genocidal] repression of the Miskito and other Indians of Nicaragua in the early 1980's.
It is no surprise the Nobel committee will not revoke her prize, for much of this was known -- though now in greater detail -- before the prize was awarded. That's because Ms. Menchu fit the committee's political agenda, and it just hoped that no one would ever catch it up in such detail. A touch of justice has prevailed.
WILLIAM RATLIFF
Stanford, Calif., Dec. 18, 1998''
The writer is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Published: 12 - 20 - 1998 , Late Edition - Final , Section 4 , Column 4 , Page 12
NYTimes link
*Peace Prize Winner Admits Discrepancies
( By The Associated Press ) 244 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 12 , Column 1
DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 244 WORDS - A Nobel Peace Prize winner conceded yesterday that she mixed the testimony of other victims of Guatemala's civil war with her own life story in her account, I, Rigoberta ... Scholars have questioned the accuracy of some episodes described in the book, published in 1983... ''
NYTimes link
PainMan 01:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: And I putting it right back Gamaliel.  How dare you appoint yourself censor?? If we aren't free to discuss what we like, what's the point of a discussion page?  It's entierly natural that other topics will be drawn in.  I don't care if you are one these self-important twits who call themselves moderators, or whatever.  PainMan 22:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant material

message: The article explains nothing about how she got to be famous. To be honset the lack of info is baffling, SqueakBox 22:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor article

message: *00:49, 3 December 2005 TDC (rv)
*00:37, 3 December 2005 Ruy Lopez (stalking? Who started the stalking today of who?)
*00:26, 3 December 2005 TDC (rv to 11/23 version of Gamaliel, I would appreciate it if Ruy Lopez stoped stalking me)
*3 December 2005 Ruy Lopez (rv)
*20:14, 2 December 2005 TDC (rv to 11/23 version of Gamaliel, no explanation for large removal of material)
This little revert war is now over and people will kindly come here and resolve their differences by discussing, is it not ? Rama 23:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with a revert war, Its Ruy Lopez's petty way of getting back at me for RV his contributions over at Khmer Rouge, which I might add has been RV's by every other editor (at least a dozen) for over a year. TDC 23:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever, this has to stop. Either there is a genuine question that people want to address, which if of course encouraged as long as it takes place on the talk page first, or it is something else, which will stop one way or another. This is, of course, applicable to everybody. Rama 23:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This material was removed without discussion by Painman, I put it back in because it has been in the article for several months with no objection. Lopez comes by and retaliates by RV'n. TDC 23:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That was unintentional. TDC 23:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  HEM 

message: Menchu is an admitted liar and a Marxian propagandist. She would have been right at home in the Lubyanka before 1991. Even the New York Times published articles about Menchu's fabrications and they still refuse to admit that their man in Moscow in the 30s willingly helped Stalin conceal the murders of more than 20 million people! She admitted her lies in an AP story found in the New York Times archives.*
Removed for inappropriate reason.  Returning it.  It contains material used in the article. I have every right to put it on the Discussion page.  Apparently, the spirit of the First Amendment isn't welcome here.
The equivication in the article is simply unacceptable. Therefore I have edited it to present the factual picture. One has either lied or one has told the truth about a given set of facts. Claiming, as some Communist apologists and supporters of the Moscow-led terrorist campaign against the Guatemalan government do, that "facts" are irrelevant simply reveals the Left's utter contempt for the truth.
The following letter--from the NY Times--is quoted under the Fair Use provisions of US Law:
To the Editor:
The Nobel committee gave Rigoberta Menchu the peace prize because she supposedly speaks for all the Indians of the American continent (news item, Dec. 18). Nonsense. Ms. Menchu, a Marxist ideologue, not only didn't even speak for most Indians in her own country, as suggested in your Dec. 15 front-page article, she supported the Sandinistas' [genocidal] repression of the Miskito and other Indians of Nicaragua in the early 1980's.
It is no surprise the Nobel committee will not revoke her prize, for much of this was known -- though now in greater detail -- before the prize was awarded. That's because Ms. Menchu fit the committee's political agenda, and it just hoped that no one would ever catch it up in such detail. A touch of justice has prevailed.
WILLIAM RATLIFF Stanford, Calif., Dec. 18, 1998
The writer is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Published: 12 - 20 - 1998 , Late Edition - Final , Section 4 , Column 4 , Page 12
NYTimes link
Despite her lies and support of Moscow's attempt to conquer Latin America and other crimes against freedom, the laughable Nobel Committee has not, to my knowledge, revoked the travesty of Menchu's Peace Prize. But the Stockholm committee did award the same prize to the vicious, unrepentant murder Yasser Arafat and another, only slightly more repentent killer of babies, Nelson Mandela.
Compare and contrast the treatment received by Kurt Waldheim, against whom war crimes charges were never brought, let alone admitted, and the treatment given to former and present Communists. Waldheim was savaged for merely belonging to a German military unit accused of war crimes while an admitted murderer like former KGB Gen. Oleg Kalugin and a suporter of mass murder like Rigoberto Menchu are given a free pass. That Socialism, Leftism and Liberalism are the vestibule of Stalinism cannot be seriously disputed by anyone conversant with the history of Marxism-Leninism. Not only are people still being murdered by Communist governments as you read this (2005), but their fellow travelers in the West are still murdering the truth as well.
*Peace Prize Winner Admits Discrepancies
( By The Associated Press ) 244 words Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 12 , Column 1
DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 244 WORDS - A Nobel Peace Prize winner conceded yesterday that she mixed the testimony of other victims of Guatemala's civil war with her own life story in her account, I, Rigoberta ... Scholars have questioned the accuracy of some episodes described in the book, published in 1983...
NYTimes link
PainMan 01:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Returning inappropriately removed material 

message: "It later came to be known that 'I, Rigoberta Menchú' was in fact written by French Marxist Elisabeth Burgos-Debray" -- We should give a definite source for this or remove it. -- 6 january - 200.141.105.210 22:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: source added: if anyone wants more there's plenty more.Infinitelink 06:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Really needs a source

message: "she published her fictionalized autobiography I, Rigoberta Menchú " -- I changed "fictional" to "fictionalized". This seems more accurate to me, since it contains some fact and some fiction. -- 200.141.105.210 23:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that whether or not we can (or should) call something fiction does not depend on whether or not it was published/"released" as fiction. For example, Carlos Castaneda's accounts of his apprenticeship with shaman Don Juan were "released as" nonfiction, however it is apparently the case that they are wholly (or very nearly wholly) fictitious. - 200.141.105.210 05:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   "fictional" -> "fictionalized" 

message: The current article states that "[Menchú´s] book became a great success when translated into English, giving her a role on the international stage at the time of the ongoing conflict in Guatemala (in comparison to the other Central American countries where civil wars had been peacefully resolved)." (I am adding the emphasis).
That´s not true at all. Take the example of Nicaragua. The civil war ended when the economy of the country was completely destroyed. Can you talk about ending a civil war "peacefully" in those conditions? I would state, that none of the three Central American civil wars of the 80s ended "peacefully". They ended first because of the destruction, and, second, because of the end of the Cold War and the beguining of a monopolar world. The very "peacefully" ending of the Central American conflict comes actually with the US invasion to Panama on December of 1989. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatonuevo (talk • contribs) 
Yes, as any Central American observer will realise there is a bloody war still going on in the region (we see more than 100,000 homicides/decade), mostly fighting over the illegal cocaine money that so many US and Europeans happily contribute to, SqueakBox 17:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PEACEFULLY RESOLVED? 

message: I'd like to see some sources about the concept of the "Testimonio".  Even if Gatonuevo's claims are true, the autobiography was presented as a factual account, not as historical fiction.  Therefore, claiming that it was never meant to be true is tantamount to an apology for falsifying her account.  At any rate, it's POV and needs to go. - Guido del Confuso 09:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testimonio? 

message: Is it just me, or are people trying to put ideaological or personal-bent back-in? It claimed that Stoll said he never meant to discredit Rigoberta, (which his books contradict), and calls lies "discrepencies." Fabrications aren't "discrepencies" they're lies: let's keep accuracy and truth high-up in priority, and P.C. and double-speak down to nil. I'm not interested in wars by ideologues: even if it inconveniences agendas or hurts feelings to be accurate. Infinitelink 06:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Found Distortions

message: I must say, meticulous observation of the facts is always admirable in the writing of history. Nationalism or the birth of a nation is just that, a story. What it stands for is always emphasized rather than historical accuracy. Some people tend to overlook this fact when they observe incidents that are foreign rather than apply this same scrutiny to their own nation's story. Hmmmm.. all people equal, should we honor African-Americans and scrap the really rough draft we call a constitution? Perhaps we should re-write the main impetus of the American Revolution since criminals in some states may be taxed but cannot vote? Here's a better idea :), let's reverse the crime committed against the native indigenous here in North America by giving them back their lands, let's give them justice ! Or can criminal acts become so perpetuated through time that they are irrversible? How about Custard's last stand? No,no,no... let's remember the Alamo or the Maine, at least Pearl Harbor was right, or was it? Hmmm.... Genocide is genocide, no complex terminology nor over-emphasis on tiny facts cant re-direct attention away from such actions. My advice coming from an academic environment is embrace Thucydide's statement that the playing with words is a form of war. Especially when others try to over-emphasize importance to miniscule facts as if trying to discredit the whole episode alltogether. If this argument is correct , then this country's own impetus for a nation warrants questioning. I always have the urge to argue the importance of land in the American Political Tradition :)
130.127.108.223 04:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Menchu controversy and land of the beautiful 

message: Menchu stands for the slain innocent Mayan and peasant population of Guatemala. Though her life story is questionable which no one argues, to rip her story apart under a microscopic lens does warrant care in questioning the motives of that assailant.However, if Menchu cannot represent the Guatemalan people without scrutiny, then the founders of this country were nothing more than rich white racists that womanized because they couldn't keep their di--s in their pants and got the U.S. into too many wars because they couldn't keep alcohol out of their hands. In fact, what has changed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.127.108.223 (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summation 

message: Just posted the talk page guidelines. Please keep discussions focused on how to improve the page, not to discuss your opinions on the content. Notmyrealname 16:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page guidelines

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I removed the source "Photos of Guatemala & Rigoberta Menchu in her electoral campaign". I went to this page hoping to find photos of Menchu, but there are none. Just some nice portraits of Guatemalan citizens. Mvblair 14:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Removed 

message: Guatemalans I have spoken with have told me that Rigoberta Menchu is Q'eqchi (Kekchi) and not Quiche (K'iche'). Anyone know what is correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.156.117 (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this accurate?  

message: Are there enough elements of a hoax in her autobiography to warrant an entry in our List of hoaxes? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not nearly. Members of her family were killed by Guatemalan security forces -- it really happened. Her fabrications are in certain details, such that she actually saw her brother's murder (she did not). But the events in her autobiography, in general, are accurate and her claim as to their having happened is not a hoax as far as I can see. 96.246.39.61 (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Elements of a hoax

message: I wonder if we shouldn't create an article about that book, and only summarize the key findings here? The criticism section, while seemingly neutral and reliably sourced, seems out of proportion for the rest of the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  08:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[I, Rigoberta Menchú]] 

message: Is it just me? The article seems to have been revised so many times by Menchu's supporters and critics that it no longer makes sense. For example: "Since the Guatemalan Civil War ended, Menchú has campaigned to have members of the Guatemalan political and military establishment tried in Spanish courts. In 1999 she filed a complaint before a court in Spain because prosecutions of crimes committed during the civil war are practically impossible in Guatemala." The construction of the text is confusing, however even more concerning is that it is ambiguous. The article contains many ambiguous quips such as this one. In this case, it begs the question, what jurisdiction do Spanish courts have to prosecute Guatemalan war criminals? Is this a result of the 1996 peace accord? Is it a remnant of Spanish colonialism? Is it Menchu's fairytale dream? I realize that she is controversial, but it seems that people are editing to suit their POV, but their edits aren't comprehensive enough...certain parts of the article seem to assume or seem to reference material that is no longer in the article... Is it just me? --160.133.1.228 (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Rigoberta Menchú. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516213721/http://www.nobelwomensinitiative.org/index.php/content/view/7/3/ to http://www.nobelwomensinitiative.org/index.php/content/view/7/3/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Rigoberta Menchú. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080829175739/http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1992/tum-bio.html to http://www.nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1992/tum-bio.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121004093655/http://www.frmt.org/es/ to http://www.frmt.org/es/#
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080829175739/http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1992/tum-bio.html to http://www.nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1992/tum-bio.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050313233920/http://archive.salon.com:80/news/1999/02/12newsa.html to http://archive.salon.com/news/1999/02/12newsa.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101230010435/http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0000074.cfm to http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0000074.cfm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100503012835/http://www.hoover.org:80/hila/announcements/news/92202619.html to http://www.hoover.org/hila/announcements/news/92202619.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi all, I've been reviewing this article and I noticed that the word "Indigenous" isn't capitalized. Is there anything I should consider/be aware of before I go in and capitalize it? See this article for an explanation of terminology used to identify Indigenous peoples, and reasons for capitalization. 
I recognize that this article focuses on terms used in the Canadian context, however it does state that "Indigenous" is an internationally accepted term. I am not suggesting a change in the term this article uses, but merely it's capitalization. 
Teagan999 (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of Indigenous 

message: Hello all, I would like to suggest a few changes to the structure of the article. I particularly found the activism section hard to follow, and somewhat scattered. Please see my proposed sections below: (I apologize for the strange formatting, please focus on the section numbers)
    1. Personal Life
    2. Guatemalan Activism
      
  2.1 Political Involvement
    3. International Activism
    4. Publications
       
   4.1 Controversies about her testimony
   5. Awards and Honors
Any thoughts?Teagan999 (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-Organizing the Article Sections/Headings 

message: The following line has a citation which does not support the statement. 
"She continues to be a spokesperson for human rights, including the current violations occurring in Venezuela."
I've read the interview that is linked and she does not speak out against "the current violations occurring in Venezuela." We should either find a different source (though I doubt one exists given her responses in the cited interview.) I suggest removing the clause referring to Venezuela, since it does not accurately describe Menchú's views. 72.219.70.50 (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading a translation of the source, I agree.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2021