Talk:Efraín Ríos Montt/Archive 2

message: The article clearly presents the reasoning of Montt's backers. It states unequivocally, "his supporters regard the former military ruler as a strong leader capable of restoring order to this turbulent nation." The article also makes it clear that his regime was fighting Marxist guerrilla groups that drew their ranks from the peasantry: "The civil war pitted Marxist rebel groups against the army." The article is also linked to articles related to the Cold War and Communism; so we do not need to rehash old Cold War-era bluster here. 172 03:00, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

message: Can this concept be explained? Also this "scorched earth" needs alot more explanation. Sam [Spade] 04:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I will exapand the section on frijoles y fusiles once the distraction posed by the anon vandal is out of the way. 172 06:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: We cannot appease flat earth theorists on this one. The content the anon is removing essential to the biographical entry. 172 06:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I tried that, and 172 rejected my compromise as he did yours. i have requested the page be protected. Sam [Spade] 06:39, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Ambivalenthysteria 06:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: To anonymous vandal, open up a real history book for once. 172 07:02, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I am a trained, professional historian. I did not learn my history from Chomsky. You could afford to stop getting your "history" from FOX News. 172 07:15, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  frijoles y fusiles 

message: There's way too much pride and stubbornness going on here. We're here to make the article better, not offend people. The fantasies about where the other party gets his historical information is particularly bad form.
Okay, what are the points of contention? (I know, 172 and ANTI-COMMIE, you two probably don't like each other; but what are the points of contention in the article itself?)
I can see:
* Do we out-and-out say that SOA did certain things, or do we say it is controversial and is widely suspected to have done these things? NPOV policy is clear, isn't it? We can't say it's fact if it's contested.
* Should we say the CIA quietly backed the coup, or allegedly backed it. Again, the NPOV policy answers the question. We can't state that the CIA backed it, even if its true, so long as it's contested.
* Should we include the legacy sentences?
:Montt has been widely condemned for the murders of many peasants and innocents. Montt's defenders say that Montt was justified in his attacks on leftist groups in Guatemala because of the damage a communist takeover would have done to the country. Throughout Montt's reign, Guatemala's infrastructure was frequently attacked by communist guerrillas. Montt's supporters claim that his repressive tactics were necessary, given these hostile circmstances.
This is good info, and I frankly can't see why 172 reverted it. (It's obviously not vandalism. Reverting is a relatively extreme act, and I don't see that it was warranted here, especially after we discussed in on talk first.) Replacing it with a single sentence isn't fair to Montt's supporters. 172, you're obviously not a Montt supporter, and ANTI-COMMIE is. So why not let a Montt supporter write a paragraph on what Montt supporters think? 
Quadell (talk) 14:15, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
I would agree with all of the above. The personal attacks and ideological diatribes are not going to improve the article, which would seem to be the point of having an article in the first place; they're just going to keep the article in limbo. ffirehorse 15:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The important difference I see is that "Montt supporters" clarifies who is saying what, whereas some of the edits I had to revert stated as general fact things which should have been atributed as opinions of certain individuals. I know its fun to create our own reality, but thats what blogs are for, not the wiki. Sam [Spade] 18:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: If such evidence even exists (or if evidence to the contrary exists), it would likely only be found by digging through primary documents in historical archives. ffirehorse 23:46, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points of contention 

message: As I have stated all along on this discussion board, I am very willing to make a decent compromise on the matter.  
I would have no objection to the reimplementation of the material on the SOTA and the Reagan administrations (supposed) involvement in Montt's coup IF, and only if, said material was not presented as indisputable fact.  I don't think I should have to tell you again, but the largely left-wing theories presented in both paragraphs are widespread but also widely contended.
I am writing to support the ideas of the wiki user who suggested that the paragraph on the SOTA should be amended to say something like "widely suspected of..." or "believed by many to..." prior to the presentation of the disputed accusations against the SOTA.
On the Reagan admin. paragraph: If the words "quietly backed" (which is a definitive statement of one's opinion, in this case 172's,  as fact) were replaced with a more open and unbiased statement like "allegedly backed", then I could have no objection with the rest of the paragraph.
The info on the SOTA and the Reagan bashing are the only two sizable sticking points in the article for me.
The suggested rewrites are not exactly as I would design them myself, but these amendments to the article are a good step towards ending the "Edit War" that has developed. None of us will get out of this with 100% after all.  
[Call this a personal rant if you must, but I believe that A big problem here is that 172 refuses to help work out a compromise with me. He holds an apparent inability to accept any idea on this forum which does not conform with his own personal prejudices. No, he has personally told me that he will not accept any "weasel words" used to balance his controversial viewpoints on the SOTA, etc.  He believes them personally, therefore they are ABSOLUTE fact.
 That's not how it works in an Encyclopedia, though.] 
Although less important to me, I would  also like to see a fairly worded paragraph stating the reason of Montt's still-reasonably-large base of  support, to balance the overall anti-Montt tone of the article.  Even Montt's staunchest critics on this forum must admit that there are reasons to his popularity amongst his supporters (perception that he fought against the Communist threat, etc.), and that these should be listed ALONGSIDE the often valid attacks of his opponents.  After all, an article cannot be balanced if it presents only one side.  
Any good ideas for this proposed paragraph ?
ANTI-COMMUNIST
:How about: 
:Rios Montt's appeal is explained by some observers as a consequence of his espoused populism, along with his hardline approach to regional lawlessness and crime. Others cite his strong roots in the born-again movement. Still others cite Rios Montt as a prime example of a Latin American caudillo, who, despite allegations against him of human rights abuses and genocide, retains fervent support among segments of his country's population. Indeed, according to a 1999 report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the International Center for Human Rights Research, "Today many Guatemalans consider the former general a savior who brought the open conflict with the guerrillas to a close."
:This is just a suggestion. ffirehorse 02:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Decent Compromise.