Talk:Efraín Ríos Montt/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New edits

mostly the ladino minority supporting FRG is just not true. There is huge support in provinces like Quietzaltenango amongst the indigenous population; I would say quite the opposite is actually the case. The constitional ban is for all presidents, I thought, and certainly not just for dictators. I think it is Mayans not Mayas in English How certain are we the CIA backed the 1982 coup? Cos if we aren't 100% sure the sentence needs rewording. Changed fear to terror scorched earth time. I wonder who put in the claim that 2600 were killed during the scorched earth time; have changed this to 26, 000 till I can get a reasonable figure. i will be back. --SqueakBox 00:30, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

It sounds to me like Montt was a junior officer who had minimal involvement in the 1954 Castillo Armas-led coup and was only connected to the U.S. through a brief time at the SOA. The Reagan administration may have had kind (anti-Communist myopia/diplomacy) words for him, but they did as well for Videla and we never actively supported them. It seems to me like this was just a plan formulated by Montt to cleanse the guerrillas and he probably acted on his own initiative -- the U.S. didn't try to restore him to power after he was deposed in 1983. J. Parker Stone 02:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll assert again: after extensive research in the appropriate data repositories, I don't believe there's any evidence he participated in the 1954 coup, period -- he was a junior officer assigned to a barracks out of the action. Meanwhile there's been scant attention paid to his 1960s training by the US (not at the SOA, at the special forces school) and at the Italian West Point. Surely that's more relevant, no matter which side you're on. I think the SOA is a complete red herring disrupting this article. But that's just me, apparently. --Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, you're a brave man, taking on Ríos Montt and Fujimori in the same week... Just one comment: my understanding was that the disqualification from seeking the presidency did only apply to those who had come to power through "breaking the constitutional order" -- dictators and golpistas and the like. Take a look at Art 186 of the constitution here. There's a fair dollop of background chisme here, too, if you're in the mood. Enjoy, –Hajor 03:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I dispute that FRG is right wing. I think they see themselves as left-wing, and right-wing is not an adequate description of them. The riots section was chaos. It was chronologically not in order, and there werte 2 separate pieces about it that were saying exactly the same thing. I have repaired this, and generally got everything in the right order, but I fear it needs a lot more work, especially on the development of the FRG, undoubtedly his greatest achievement.--SqueakBox 17:07, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)


The bit about blaming leftist Catholic priests for his election defeat does not fit in with him having lost to a right wing candidate. left it for the moment but any suggestions? --SqueakBox 22:21, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

It actually does. It only fails to make sense if you expect to find the left-right 'specturm' of the rich Western democracies, but Central American politics does not really fit this pattern so easily. 172 12:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I certainly agree with you that Central American and especially Guatemalan politics doesn't fit well into the left-right 'specturm' of the rich Western democracies, and I have removed (a while back) many of what I saw as western assumptions about Rios and Guatemala that were in the article. You haven't explained how this particular statement can be written to make sense as I think we should assume the average reader doesn't really understand CA politics, and especially Guatemalan politics, ie we need to explain ourselves more clearly than would be the case say dealing with US or UK politics, SqueakBox 16:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

For the moment I have left the stuff about the civil war post Montt, but, like Plan de Sánchez massacre#National context it is in the wrong place. I think these (all good) materials need moving to an article on the civil war, and have plans to create such an article, which could incorporate a lot of material that doesn't seem to be anywhere, like the peace accords. It is important to differetiate between Montt and the civil war to avoid POV; he wasn't solely responsible. --SqueakBox 14:33, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Foreign names

What is the wikipolicy on articles with accents and such? Since this is the English wikiversion shouldn't we omit the accents in the title and include them in the text (see: Jorge Rafael Videla)?

New edits

And there was me thinking 172 maybe knew something about Guatemalan politics. I feel he has just been reverting the work of monthds of editing to his version, with some very traditional western ideas about Guatemala, and an obsession with condemning Rios Montt, centring the article on western ideas about him. I fel very angry that my edits have just been reverted with no attempt at justification, other than an insinuation that I don't understand Guatemalan politics, and my name stuck on an edit summary. How long have you spent in Guatemala? I do not appreciate 172 just reverting to a very old version of his, as if none of my edits have any importance. I also feel the version I have reverted to is a great deal more neutral and balanced than 172's. my only otherr option would have been to edit sentence by sentence, removing the repetitions that 172 has reput in and which I had already. For instance Some 200,000 Guatemalans were killed during the conflict, making it Latin America's most violent war in modern history. was followed by was among the bloodiest strongmen in Latin American history. in the next sentence. And I had already got rid of these kind of repetitions. The vast tract about his alleged war crimes dominating the opening had also been removed as inappropriate, POV, and American centred (this is an article about a Chapin). I don't like Rios, but I don't let that affect my editing, whereas I feel 172's dislike of Rios dominates the version I have just reverted, and which I had removed over many edits. He also reverted my piece, which I justified on this page, with him claiming that the majority of Rios supporters are Ladinos, but 172 decided to revert this without explanation. Anyone who knows much about Guatemalan politics knows this is simply not true. it is the campesinos who have been a great block of support for Rios Montt. My sources for this are Guatemalan newspapers, and the election results from Nov 2003, with the strongest support in Quetzaltenango and Huehuetenango, the indigenous strongholds. It may be an unpalatable fact but it doesn't make it less real, SqueakBox 17:31, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm impressed that you are able to launch such a devastating attack based solely on one ambiguous wording concerning the Ladinos and a couple of other phrasings that are just matters of style... Even so, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and text will be scuttled around a lot over the course of many revisions, often with mistakes like duplications of text from time to time... Regarding the substantive points, first, I did not originally add the reference to the Ladinos in the intro, and I must have been failing to notice it. So thank you for pointing it out. In my last edit I clarified the wording. Second, you are not telling me anything new about his support among certain sectors of the campesinos. He won this support through old-style patrimonialism and paternalism, which is certainly clear enough in the section on fusiles y frijoles. Thus I reject your charge that I misunderstand the diverse class make-up of his base of support. 172 19:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox, First, I see no mention of your name in the recent page history, only Trey Stone. To what are you referring? Second, if you disagree with his edits, let's go through them one by one. -- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Intro

His version:

José Efraín Ríos Montt (born June 16, 1926 in Huehuetenango, Guatemala) is a former President of Guatemala and former president of the Congress of Guatemala. In 2003, as the candidate of the ruling right-wing Guatemalan Republican Front (FRG), he made a failed attempt to be elected president.

Your version:

José Efraín Ríos Montt (born June 16, 1926 in Huehuetenango, Guatemala) is the former President of Guatemala (1982-83) and former head of the National Congress. In 1989, he founded the Guatemalan Republican Front (FRG) party, and was its candidate in the presidential elections of 2003, but he failed to reach the second round.

Commments

  • I prefer your text but would add his "ruling rightwing". -- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I would prefer not to have right wing. FRG's message is of a left wing ideology: to some extent rob from the rich to give to the poor. While Montt's presidency can be characterised as right wing one, he has right wing links, and is clearly not seen as of the left by the international left, FRG were pure left wing rhetoric. So I think it is best not to label the government either left or right wing. SqueakBox 18:34, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, Montt was somewhat critical of the austerity regime of much of the 1990s, but he was a critic of these neoliberal reforms from the right. By your reasoning, economic nationalists who project a kind of populist tone like Pat Buchanan and Jean-Marie Le Pen would be espousing a "leftwing ideology." 172 19:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


His version:

Ríos Montt is best known for heading a military regime (1982–1983) and presiding over some of the worst atrocities of Guatemala's 36-year civil war, which ended with a peace treaty in 1996. The civil war pitted left-wing rebel groups against the Army, with huge numbers of Mayan campesinos caught in the crossfire. Some 200,000 Guatemalans were killed during the conflict, making it Latin America's most violent war in modern history.
Ríos Montt, popularly known as "the general," remains one of the most controversial figures in Guatemalan history. Regarded by many as a genocidal neo-fascist, the former military ruler is seen by his supporters, mostly the ladino minority, as a strong leader capable of restoring order to this turbulent nation. The Mayan Indian population suffered greatly under his rule. It is not unlikely that his government deliberately targeted Mayans under the pretext of pursuing guerrillas, a modern expression of deep-seated racism against the native population. Guatemala's highest court, which recently had several judges appointed from Ríos Montt's political party, approved his candidacy for president, ostensibly ignoring a constitutional ban against former dictators running for president. Nonetheless, despite widespread intimidation, violence and fraud during the campaign, including the deaths of 30 political opponents, Ríos Montt lost the 2004 presidential election

Your version:

A staunch anti-Communist popularly known as El general, he is one of the most controversial figures in Guatemalan history. Regarded by many as a genocidal neo-fascist and among the bloodiest strongmen in modern Latin American history, he is seen by his supporters as a strong leader committed to democracy and capable of restoring order to the country.

Commments

  • His has much valuable information, but the second half of his second paragraph could use some trimming; I would move the last two sentences, about the 2004 (sic) election, the body of the article. -- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I dispute the bit about the support being from the ladino majority as exactly the opposite of the truth. He had least support in the ladino heartland (Guatemala City) and the most in the campsesino strongholds of Quetzaltenango and Huehuetenango, ironically amongst those who suffered the most from his earlier slaughters. Even his staunchest adversaries such as El Periodico agree with me on this, and indeed partly opposed the FRG because they saw it as essentially anti big business. as a strong leader capable of restoring order to this turbulent nation is fine, maybe someone else had removed that, i thought I had kept it in as clearly it is true. indeed much content should be in there, and was almost certainly not removed by me, though I did edit substantially the version that 172 has now restored, as if my contributions did not exist, SqueakBox 18:34, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Your point concerning the Ladinos is addressed above. 172 20:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Body

His version:

The general's ties with the United States military go back fifty years when he received training by the Pentagon. In 1950 Ríos Montt graduated as a cadet at the School of the Americas in Panama, which at the time educated students in counterinsurgency tactics for the purposes of combatting potential "communist" influence in the region.

Your version:

Ríos Montt entered the Military Academy of Guatemala in 1943 before receiving training by the US Pentagon, graduating as a cadet at the School of the Americas at Fort Gulick in Panama, which at the time educated students in jungle warfare tactics for the purposes of combating perceived communist influence in the region.

Commments

  • "counterinsurgency tactics" is certainly more accurate than "jungle warfare tactics". -- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Trey has also been in here changing a lot. It feels between the 2 of them my edits have been destroyed. i will probably rewrite the whole thing now, SqueakBox 18:36, May 27, 2005 (UTC) The focus on counterinsurgency did not come until JFK. J. Parker Stone 04:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • Please don't take it personally. Sorry, but by mistake I removed a couple of your edits, which is no big deal. It takes seconds to restore content. 172 20:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


His version:

In 1954, the young officer played a minor role in the successful CIA-organized coup against Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, who was widely regarded as a communist in Washington. Arbenz had legalized the Communist Guatemalan Labor Party and was nationalizing lands owned by the United Fruit Company in which U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was personally invested. [1]

Your version:

In 1954, the young officer played a minor role in Operation PBSUCCESS successful CIA-organized coup against left-wing Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, after which Ríos Montt steadily rose through the military ranks.

Commments

  • His version offers some vital information, notably the conception that Arbenz was considered a communist in Washington and the United Fruit matter. Conversial? I don't think so.-- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


His version:

Following the coup, Ríos Montt's rise in the ruling military junta was steady and almost unimpeded. In 1970, under President Carlos Manuel Arana Osorio, he became a general and chief of staff for the Guatemalan army, which suppressed peasant uprisings and served as armed guards for landowning oligarchs.
In 1973, he resigned from his post in the Washington embassy to participate in the March 1974 presidential elections as candidate for the National Opposition Front (FNO). His career suffered a minor setback in that year when his apparent victory in the presidential election was invalidated and the presidency went to Kjell Eugenio Laugerud García. Ríos Montt apparently blamed his defeat on Guatemala's Catholic priests, who had questioned the mistreatment of the Catholic Mayas, and claimed that the priests were leftist agents.

Your version:

In 1970, he became a general and chief of staff for the Guatemalan army in the government of Carlos Manuel Arana Osorio. In 1973, he resigned from his post in the Washington embassy to participate in the March 1974 presidential elections as candidate for the National Opposition Front (FNO), a centre-left grouping. He lost the election to the right-wing Kjell Eugenio Laugerud García by 70,000 votes. He denounced a massive electoral fraud, blaming Catholic priests who had questioned the mistreatment of the Catholic Mayans, and claimed that the priests were leftist agents. It is claimed that he was given a payoff of several hundred thousand dollars along with a post as military attaché in the embassy in Madrid, Spain, where he stayed until 1977.


Commments

  • Is it debable whether the army protected the interests of the landowners? I would merge line that into your text. -- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Why has 172 removed the bit about the stash of money and being in Madrid? The first a common belief, the second a matter of public fact, SqueakBox 18:50, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Already answered this question. That sentence was removed by accident. 172 20:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


His version:

Given Montt's staunch anticommunism and ties to the United States, the Reagan administration continued to support the general and his regime, paying a visit to Guatemala City in December 1982. [2] During a meeting with Ríos Montt on December 4, Reagan declared: "President Rios Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice."1

Your version:

The United States administration of Ronald Reagan resumed military aid to Guatemala, cut off in 1977 by the Carter administration. Given Montt's background, they continued to support the general and his regime, paying a visit to Guatemala City in December 1982. [3] During a meeting with Ríos Montt on December 4, Reagan declared: "President Rios Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice."1

Commments

  • Stylistically prefer 172's version, but I would tweak it slightly and incorporate your comment about the Carter cutoff. -- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I prefer mine but will leave 172's, SqueakBox 19:11, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

    • I'd include the comment about the Carter cutoff too. I did not intend to remove it. 172 20:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

His version:

Reagan later agreed in January 1983 to sell Guatemala millions of dollars worth of helicopter spare parts, a decision that did not require approval from Congress. In turn, Guatemala was eager to resurrect the Central American Defense Council, defunct since 1969, in order to join forces with the right-wing governments of El Salvador and Honduras in retaliations against the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

Your version:

The US agreed in January 1983 to sell Guatemala helicopter spare parts. In turn, Guatemala was eager to resurrect the Central American Defense Council, defunct since 1969, in order to join forces with the right-wing governments of El Salvador and Honduras against the Marxist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

Commments

  • His version supplies more information and is preferable. -- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I suspect POV but will leave for now, SqueakBox 19:11, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

    • Look, the U.S. has long been a major actor in Central American politics. The Cold War is over, so there is no reason for you to feel threatened by not sweeping this this reality under the rug. 172 20:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


His version:

Guatemalan campaigners on behalf of Maya survivors of Guatemala's civil war, such as Nobel laureate and Mayan human rights advocate Rigoberta Menchú, were stunned in March 1999 when U.S. President Bill Clinton apologized for the United States support of Ríos Montt's regime. Clinton declared: "For the United States, it is important I state clearly that support for military forces and intelligence units which engaged in violence and widespread repression was wrong and the United States must not repeat that mistake." [4]


Commments

  • I would reword this slightly, but I think it should be included, though its location could be dabated. -- Viajero | Talk 18:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I will revert to 172 except opening paragraph and rewite, SqueakBox 18:36, May 27, 2005 (UTC) Was already here. 172 duplicated. I think it better where I put it for chronological reasons, SqueakBox 19:11, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


I have removed the paragraph that 172 duplicated (please take care when editing, I had moved not removed that paragraph but moved it (for chronlogical purposes), and mostly replace my version of the In 1970....until 1977 paragraph as well as reverting the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph may still cause controversy. please source your claim that FRG support is mostly amongst Ladinos, as I would be interested to see any such claims. Also source the claim that it is a right wing government. Many thanks to Viajero for attempting to mediate, and now we have to wait to see what 172 thinks, SqueakBox 19:07, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I have already responded to both of these points. 172 20:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
According to his user page, 172 doesn't edit here regularly, so we will have to proceed without him. -- Viajero | Talk 19:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Well lets see what Trey does? I will, anyway, keep my eye more closely on this page. Indeed I only checked out what was happening after seeing my name in 172's edit summary on this talk page in my watchlist. I am happy with the current version without agreeing with every last sentence, which is the nature of collaborative editing, never the easiest thing, but very much a aprt of the challenge of being here, SqueakBox 19:22, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Edit war

It appears 172 justt wnats to revert my work without explanation. he only wants to tolerate his version, removing facts and anything that contradicts his POV obsession against Rios Montt. Source his unimpeded rise to power. Source he didn't go to Madrid in 74, etc. use theis page to express your points, don't ignore the hard work being done here, SqueakBox 19:33, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Do you know how to compare versions? I restored the damn reference to Madrid in '74-- hardly anything to get riled up about anyway. 172 19:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Pretty poor excuse for the inaccuracies you are putting. Why not revert to the fantasy that there was an election in 2004, one could argue, but I won't, SqueakBox 20:08, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Opps. Well, I should not have skimmed through the version of the intro that I'd restored so fast and I should increase the size of the text on my browser. Sorry. 172 20:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

(put in before last comment (edit conflict):

Why did you remove the bit about being in Madrid again, then claimedhere that you hadn't. I have put it in again now, yes I know about diffs and lots about wikipedia. can you stop cussing? Can you stop reverting my edits on sight? Why revert to the untruth that the election was in 2004? Why not just accept that I can edit this piece too. it seems I am trying to reach a compromise and you are not, SqueakBox 20:18, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Get a grip man. If I ever removed the bit about Madrid, it was by accident. If I removed it, sorry that that cost you-- I guess 10?-- seconds to restore. If that's the worst fate you suffer today, consider yourself lucky. 172 23:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Madrid twice, 2004 election twice, duplicated text, reverting updated material back to a 2003 version of the Supreme Court decision,the list goes on of your bad edits due to your edit warring, and then you have the audacity to tell me to get a grip. Please apologise for such an aggressive and unfounded srtatement. I don't need this harrassment, SqueakBox 00:00, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
No, I won't. You have been failing to assume good faith consistently, and your overblown responses to a few little mistakes that took seconds to fix are worse than my silly little errors, in terms of poisoning the atmosphere. I still recommend getting a grip. 172 12:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Do not remove the NPOV notice without satisfying me the article is not NPOV. That you see your reverted version as NPOV is totally irrelevant. I have been updating info that ppears to have been written in 2003, but 172 just reverts, obsessed with his own POV and getting his own way. What you call mistakes in editing (eg duplication amongst others) could just be considered sloppy and lazy editing from someone who seems incredibly angry that anyone has dared to change this article in the last few months, and is determined to impose his POV with a series of edit wars, reverting my edits without reason or justification, and completely ignoring Viajero's attempts at mediation or my attempts at compromise. his snide assumptions that I know nothing about either Wikipeida or Guatemala are a veiled personalk attack, SqueakBox 20:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 20:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I responded to all of your substantive points concerning the content, as far as I'm aware. Perhaps I'm overlooking something on this page, as the dialogue is getting a bit confusing to keep track of, but I cannot find a basis for a neutrality dispute. Please clarify what is bothering you. 172 23:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Telling me to get a grip is just more insults. That you kept reverting a lot of my material is what I have the problem with. You removed the Madrid bit twice, you duplicated a paragraph, you twice falsely put about an imaginary 2004 Presidential election while claiming to know all about Guatemalan subtle politics, you reverted my updates back to text that appeared as if 2003 was still with us, are 4 examples of what I consider your hurried and unthought out reversions. With your mass changing of the article, reverting again and again while adopting an intimidating approach have made me put the NPOV sticker on the article until others can get a look at it. You still haven't made any effort to explain your massive changes. Then you have the cheek to tell me to get a grip. Please can you change your attitude into a less aggressive and rude and arrogant one, SqueakBox 23:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Again, this isn't telling me anything new. Yes, however many times this makes it, I admit to making a few careless mistakes. But we all make mistakes, and there's no reason to still be ranting about them after a day. I stumble across errors in work of mine that has been published all the time-- even when there have been other editors; and that's paper, not Wikipedia, so these mistakes cannot be corrected... Now, rants aside, can you please finally explain the specific problems you have with the text as it stands now? 172 12:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

If you had made genuine mistakes I would be sympathetic. I think you were reverting my material without even looking at it, and I have no sympathy for that, SqueakBox 16:03, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

No, I did check to see if there was new material. I kept almost all of it, but must have overlooked a couple of those additions by accident. That was nothing personal against you. In fact, I didn't even remember interacting with you before I'd Wikipedia in early March... Now, again, can you please tell me what kinds of problems you have with the current version of the article instead of keeping up with that chip on your shoulders? 172 19:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I note you were up in front of the arbcom for exactly the behaviour I am complaining about. I don't have a chip on my shoulder, that is your imagination. I think the opening is way too long, should not be more than 2 paragraphs at the most. Otherwise I am ironing out any problems now that you have slowed down on the edit warring, but it is too American rather Guatemalan centred and still has an anti Montt POV (not entirely your edits by any means), and they don't help create a more NPOV piece, SqueakBox 19:19, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

What you bring up is irrelevant mud-slinging. Now, again, for third time, what are the specific problems you have with the version as it stands now? Quit trying to make me the issue. 172 19:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


POV

Will you please leave the NPOV template alone. I am not satisfied the conflict has been resolved. You want both your own version and for it to appear to be NPOV, having your cake and eating it. This kind of offensive behaviour is clearly not new with you, and I don't believe an Rfc is out of the question, given your history, if this behaviour continues, SqueakBox 19:31, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

As long as I feel unable to edit freely you are the problem. You revert virtually all my edits without explanation, SqueakBox 19:36, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
I keep on removing the NPOV notice because you ignore me otherwise. You still haven't told me the specific problems you have with the version as it stands right now, even though I have asked you more times than I can even recall. Regarding the Rfc, if you want to waste your time, go ahead. I could care less. I'm not even going to be editing Wikipedia once I'm done dealing with you on this article. Also, a reasonable person who reads our dialogue will have a much different take on things. You have been all over my case for nothing from the beginning, not the other way around. 172 19:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I think the evidence shows you have been attacking me from the start, and behaving in an unreasonable fashion. your professional work excuse is pathetic. we don't get paid here, thus i for one will not put up with the sort of crap that i would while working when i am here. i have told you that i think the article is too anti Montt and too American centred, but more deeply i don't feel free to edit, therefore there is a conflict. Why do you seem incapable of respecting my judgement on this? What exactly do you mean by dealing with me? being so unpleasant that I decide to leave wikipedia? (after all you admit the rules don't apply to you. Are you just trolling? SqueakBox 20:24, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Saying that you feel that the article is too 'anti-Montt' and 'U.S.-centered' does not suffice as an explanation. This tells us about you, but not the article. Your point on 'U.S.-centrism' is hard to justify. The U.S. was a major actor in Guatemalan politics throughout the twentieth century. Montt's career has closely followed his ties with the U.S... I am willing to consider your first point. You will have to explain what kind of omissions that you think you notice, or why you find certain coverage skewed. 172 21:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is the current version of the second half of the intro:

José Efraín Ríos Montt (born 16 June 1926 in Huehuetenango, Guatemala) is a former President of Guatemala and former president of the Congress of Guatemala. In 2003, as the candidate of the ruling Guatemalan Republican Front (FRG), he made a failed attempt to be elected president. Human-rights groups claim that Ríos Montt, a staunch anticommunist who has had ties to the United States for over five decades (via the Pentagon's School of the Americas), the CIA, presidential administrations, and the evangelical religious right), was among the bloodiest strongmen in Latin American history.
Best known outside Guatemala for heading a military regime (1982–1983) which presided over some of the worst atrocities of Guatemala's 36-year civil war, which ended with a peace treaty in 1996. The civil war pitted left-wing rebel groups against the army, with huge numbers of Mayan campesinos caught in the crossfire when not deliberately targeted. Some 200,000 Guatemalans were killed during the conflict, making it Latin America's most violent war in modern history.
Popularly known as "the general," Ríos Montt remains one of the most controversial figures in Guatemalan history. Regarded by his opponents as a genocidal neo-fascist, the former military ruler is seen by his supporters as a strong leader capable of restoring order, justice and equality to this turbulent nation. Some sectors of the indigenous Mayan population suffered greatly under his rule, and it is not unlikely that his government deliberately targeted some of them under the pretext of pursuing guerrillas, a modern expression of racism against the native population. However, many segments of the indigenous population still support Ríos Montt and the FRG, partly explained by his long history of supporting public works projects, offers of free fertilizer in rural areas, and compensation for the Self Defense Civil Patrols (PAC), which were used by the government in their fight against the guerrillas. It has also been pointed out that the Mayans support for Ríos Montt is indicative of the success of the eighties extermination campaaigns, with all the natural opponents of the FRG having been massacred.
Guatemala's highest court, which had had several judges appointed from the FRG, approved his candidacy for president in July 2003, ostensibly ignoring a constitutional ban against former dictators running for president, which had prevented him from standing at earlier Presidential elections, and which he claimed had been written specifically to prevent him from standing. Nonetheless, despite widespread intimidation, violence and fraud during the campaign, including the deaths of 30 political opponents, Ríos Montt lost the 2003 presidential election.

It is a little long for my tastes. On the other hand, there is much useful information here. Here is my attempt consolidate it slightly:

José Efraín Ríos Montt (born June 16, 1926 in Huehuetenango, Guatemala) is a former President of Guatemala and former president of the Congress of Guatemala. In the 2003 presidential elections, he ran an unsuccesful candidate of the ruling Guatemalan Republican Front (FRG), despite a constitutional ban against former dictators running for president,
Popularly known as "the general," Ríos Montt remains one of the most controversial figures in Guatemalan history. Regarded by his opponents as a genocidal neo-fascist, the former military ruler is seen by his supporters as a strong leader capable of restoring order, justice and equality to this turbulent nation. Human-rights groups claim that Ríos Montt, a staunch anticommunist who has had ties to the United States for over five decades (via the Pentagon's School of the Americas), the CIA, presidential administrations, and the evangelical religious right), has been among the bloodiest strongmen in Latin American history.
Ríos Montt is best known outside Guatemala for heading a military regime (1982–1983) which presided over some of the worst atrocities of Guatemala's 36-year civil war, finally ended with a peace treaty in 1996. The civil war pitted left-wing rebel groups against the army, with huge numbers of Mayan campesinos caught in the crossfire when not deliberately targeted. Some 200,000 Guatemalans were killed during the conflict, making it Latin America's most violent war in modern history.
Some sectors of the indigenous Mayan population suffered greatly under his rule, and it is thought that his government deliberately targeted some of them under the pretext of pursuing guerrillas, a modern expression of racism against the native population. However, many segments of the indigenous population still support Ríos Montt and the FRG, partly explained by his long history of supporting public works projects, offers of free fertilizer in rural areas, and compensation for the Self Defense Civil Patrols (PAC), which were used by the government in their fight against the guerrillas.

I have removed these lines:

It has also been pointed out that the Mayans support for Ríos Montt is indicative of the success of the eighties extermination campaaigns, with all the natural opponents of the FRG having been massacred.
Guatemala's highest court, which had had several judges appointed from the FRG, approved his candidacy for president in July 2003, ostensibly ignoring a constitutional ban against former dictators running for president, which had prevented him from standing at earlier Presidential elections, and which he claimed had been written specifically to prevent him from standing. Nonetheless, despite widespread intimidation, violence and fraud during the campaign, including the deaths of 30 political opponents, Ríos Montt lost the 2003 presidential election.

Can these be incorporated in the main body of the text or should they been included in the intro? -- Viajero | Talk 19:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely from a stylistic perspective. Please make the changes that you are proposing. 172 19:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Call me craazy is a personal attack. please withdraw it, or I will be unable to engage in any serious debat about rios with you, Viajero, I am happy with your proposed edits. i do not understand your reticence to have the NPOV tag, this is not an aggressive statement. Even you admit there is a conflict. As an ex admin you know full well that saying you are about to leave is no excuse for the way you behave now, SqueakBox 20:19, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I did not call you "crazy"; my comment referred to other comments... I still fail to see a reason for the NPOV tag. It is apparent that you dislike me. I don't care about that, so in that respect there really isn't a conflict. However, I do care to find out what you dislike about the current version of the article. I assmume that you are currently dissatisfied with it, given your insistence on adding the POV tag. 172 21:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


Why the POV template?

I don't know you, 172, so I wouldn't go so far as to say I dislike you (there is only one editor I dislike at wikipedia). I can also see that you are informed about Guatemala. So these are the main reasons I think the article is POV:

Human-rights groups claim that Ríos Montt, a staunch anticommunist who has had ties to the United States for over five decades (via the Pentagon's School of the Americas), the CIA, presidential administrations, and the evangelical religious right), has been among the bloodiest strongmen in Latin American history. should not be in the second paragraph, or anywhere in the opening: it makes the article American centred and is POV against him: too much anti and not enough pro for NPOV.

This sentence is about Rios Montt and his ties to the U.S., not the U.S... Thinking in terms of 'pro' and 'anti' is a far too simplistic rubric when dealing with history. But even if you insist on it, his support among some sectors of the Guatemalan population is mentioned later in the intro. 172 22:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


Ríos Montt is best known outside Guatemala for heading a military regime (1982–1983) which presided over some of the worst atrocities of Guatemala's 36-year civil war, finally ended with a peace treaty in 1996. The civil war pitted left-wing rebel groups against the army, with huge numbers of Mayan campesinos caught in the crossfire. Some 200,000 Guatemalans were killed during the conflict, making it Latin America's most violent war in modern history.



Some sectors of the indigenous Mayan population suffered greatly under his rule, and it is thought that his government deliberately targeted some of them under the pretext of pursuing guerrillas, a modern expression of racism against the native population. However, many segments of the indigenous population still support Ríos Montt and the FRG, partly explained by his long history of supporting public works projects, offers of free fertilizer in rural areas, and compensation for the Self Defense Civil Patrols (PAC), which were used by the government in their fight against the guerrillas.

suffers from the same problems apart from the American centredness. It should be out of the opening paragraphs, and balanced with some much more positive appraisals of his life. I believe we need a smaller more neutral opening. That is what I had created months ago, after you left, and which you reverted yesterday morning, and which we got into an edit war over yesterday.
The "positive appraisals" are in the intro already. It makes it the are two sides to Rios Montt, the carrot and the stick (or better yet bullets and beans), just like any dictator. 172 22:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not happy with which suppressed peasant uprisings and served as armed guards for landowning oligarchs as it seems very POV, quite speculative, and anyway irrelevant, especially in an article that tends to be POV against him (he may deserve to have a POV article against him, but our responsibility os POV).

The problem with your argument is that the claim is accurate. However, if it makes you feel better, I won't care if you change "landed oligarchs" to (say) "landlords." 172 22:16, 28 May 2005 (UTC).
Well I doubt the Guatemalan army would agree with you. But that something is true is obviously not a good reason to include it, and my problem with this is not the wording, or the truth or otherwise of the statement, it is that it shouldn't be here at all, ie delete it, I say, as inappropriate and POV (just giving one side of the argument), SqueakBox 22:32, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
You will need to provide some credible evidence for claiming that it is untrue to back up your claim. Otherwise, it much stay, as it is important for understanding the nature of the factional divides during the era in which he was in power. 172 22:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I am not disputing the factual accuracy but the relevance of this comment re 1973, 9 yeasrs before he was in power. If we were talking about when he was in power I would agree, and it is because we are talking 9 years earlier that i think it is POV and should be removed, as we have no idea of to what extent he was involved in army abuses at that time, and there is no need to build up the picture of an army he wasn't even in charge of, SqueakBox 22:50, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
It does relate to the period in which he was in power, as it is important for understanding the role of the military, which he would later head, in the civil war and its relationship with other factions in the conflict. Frankly, it would be highly unusual for an article on Guatemalan politics not to bring up the historic concentration of wealth in the hands of a small number of landowning familes and multinational corporations. This is the only place in the article where this is alluded to, as far as I'm aware, so it is particularly important that it stay. 172 23:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
No. I agree that we need to place somewhere about the role of the military in the conflict, ideally by using the events of 82-83, when he was in power, and doing so in a fair manner, and both remembering and mentioning that the FRG are bitterly opposed to the concentration of power in the hands of the oligarchy and multi national corporations, which is why they cannot be compared to the people you alluded to earlier, ie they have real elements of a left wing party. But it shouldn't be mentioned in connection with 73 as until he stood for president in that year we are dealing with an unimportant part of his career. I also think Montt's denial of knowledge of the massacres in 82-83 could go in hte opening if you insist on having such a long one, SqueakBox 23:29, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Your observations concerning the rhetoric of the FRG through the 1990s and in recent years do not refute my point. My point was on the military's role in the conflict, which is a different institutional base from Rio Montt's party. 172 00:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

How about that to be getting on with. Until these issues get resolved, and basically the opening paragraph issues, I want the template to remain please, SqueakBox 22:00, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Two comments:
  1. "American centredness"? Heh? How is it possible to write about any Central American country in the 20th C without taking into account the signficant influence of the US? You know, our little patio atrás? It would be like writing about Eastern Europe while ignoring the USSR.
  2. "and balanced with some much more positive appraisals of his life". This is the ping-pong approach. Say some good, say some bad. Sorry, completely disagree. Some (many?) politicians have done more bad than good, and it is not for Wikipedia to gloss this over with a contrived sense of "balance".
--Viajero | Talk 22:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
In Guatemala Rios is a controversial figure, so good or bad aren't terms that could be used to describe him in the way they could with Hitler (who gets a notorious whitewash in wikipedia anyway). i think my feeling of American centred comes from this feeling that the outside world tends to see him as a bit of a baddy (American centredness, or whatever you want to call it) whereas in Guatemala he is seen as a much more controversial figure, with many supporters, especially amongst the poor, to whom he appeals with his rob the rich rhetoric (or this was certainly the case when I was last there 18 months ago, SqueakBox 23:29, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Again, the article makes it clear that he has some supports in the indigenous communities, as it should. That said, this observation is absolutely no reason to omit important content concerning his ties to the U.S. 172 00:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I am not suggesting we remove the 3 lower opening paragraphs in the intro, only that we move them and their content to lower down in the article. Certainly we should include the US links, which are well known through his evangelical beliefs.
His ties to the U.S. are essential for understanding the patterns of his career, and the article should not fail to mention them in the intro. Failing to mention U.S. involvement would be tantamount to failing to mention Soviet involvement in (say) the Husak and Kadar articles. 172 09:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we should mention the army role in repression, but in relation to 82/83 not to 73.

No, he was an army officer in for decades before the coup. 172 09:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe we could present his support in Guatemala in a much better light than the grudging way we do so right now placing the positive bits right at the bottom of the opening, and after having made clear what a monster he is considered. I don't consider this fair treatment. This is not my idea of POV, and I had tried to get all this out of the opening before your return, and still believe that lower down is where the last 3 and a half paragraphs of the opening deserve to be, SqueakBox 01:39, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for thinking of leaders as "good" or "bad." The article should report the essential facets of his career, tracing his consolidation and loss of power over time, without making value judgments, avoiding what Viajero just called a "ping pong" approach. However, if you can present important, verifiable data that has been omitted but should not be, as opposed to a vague feeling that the article ought to be more of a whitewash, I will be interested in considering such evidence. 172 09:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I also believe that if instead of reverting in the first place you had rewritten the article I would have a better opinion of you and your good faith. I believe you thought it was all the work of Trey Stone (based on your edit summaries) and so reverted chunks without consideration and with plenty of aggressive attitude, and that is why I have been very unhappy with your behaviour, SqueakBox 01:39, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
That's irrelevant, in the same sense that the personal impression that I have been getting of you has nothing to do with the content of the article. Focus just on the specifics of the article, then there will be no personal tensions. 172 09:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Impossible, I am afraid. You have done here what the arbcom censored you for before, ie edit warring and rudeness. Using your normal tactics you have made the atmosphere here so unpleasant I feel I cannot edit freely, therefore I have no option but to put the NPOV template on the article. Your attitude towards me has also deeply affected this process, so those feelings of yours are highly relevant. Are you really unaware of how much affect your feelings translated into your actions have on others? Why not wait and let things calm down? SqueakBox 16:03, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
You cannot support placing a NPOV template in an article based on your personal dislike of an editor. The NPOV templates refer to articles, not individual editors. In the meantime, I will ignore the brow-beating and focus on the specifics of the article, until a satisfactory version of the article can remain stable, without a flag discrediting it. 172 03:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I have told you I want the NPOV because of the current opening and the inclusion of a very loaded and irrelevant statement in relation to 73. i notice you have stopped edit warring on sight. Maybe because you actually are finally taking the time to read what I write. but by removing the template without satisfying my points all i can assume is that you weant a fight, ie continuing to make editing here as unpleasant as possible. And then you have the cheek to go complaining about me. Why don't you calm down, and replace the NPOV template that I am asking you to replace, SqueakBox 04:44, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
I have made arguments that the points that I have restored in the opening, along with the statement on 1973, are relevant, and you have failed to provide counterarguments dealing with my points, as opposed to attacking me. In addition, Viajero has also come out in favor of restoring those points in the intro; so if you want to look at this matter as a vote, it's not at two to one. That's why the POV template was removed. 172 05:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Which is why I said lets wait a few days. Two against one signifies a dispute. Your version because you are in the majority, my template to flag a dispute and guide readers to the talk page, they can think about the issue and contribute. i cannot understand your opposition to an NPOV template. As I said before, it seems like you want your cake and eat it too, o sea you want your own way, SqueakBox 05:14, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that because I was in a majority, my version should stand without an NPOV tag. (I brought that up as evidence that browbeating me does not detract from the merits of my edits, as they are also supported by a user whose reputation you do not attack (Viajero). Rather, I am saying that my version should stand, without the POV template, if and until you explain your counterarguments to my points and Viajero's. As for waiting for you for a few days, I am willing to do this, but I was ready to consider and respond to your points right away, making the present version the one that has been explained (and thus the one that ought to be posted). 172 06:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Efraín_Ríos_Montt/Archive_7&oldid=56794293"