Talk:1954 Guatemalan coup d'état/Archive 3

More on Árbenz's mass murders
"While it is not possible to determine the exact number of these cases, there remains little doubt that the Árbenz government must bear the responsibility for the brutal murders of several hundred opposition leaders as well as for the hundreds of others who were cruelly tortured in an effort to uncover the plans of the opposition". See Ronald M. Schneider, Communism in Guatemala 1944-1954, Praeger, 1958, pg. 311. (Rest assured, Schneider is a leftist arguing for a Latin American "social revolution" and whose harshest criticism of Árbenz is merely that he was an unwitting pawn of the communists, yet it is still clear that the accepted version of history in 1958 was much closer to the reality—confirmed by Guatemala's own 1999 truth commission, at least in Spanish—than the whitewashed narrative propagated to a man by the tiny circle of academic specialists on Guatemala today.) It's one thing to criticize the coup, but quite another to simply erase the unsavory aspects of Árbenz's rule as a noble lie.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've been following this with some interest. I am not too well-versed in the topic - not sure what your own level of expertise is. But a couple of comments are in order. The "truth commission" source simply reports the allegations made in the official party press of the Guatemalan death squads, after their coup succeeded. As for Ronald M Schneider: "Ronald Schneider was born in Minneapolis and attended school in Valley City, North Dakota. He graduated from Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, in 1954 at the head of his class and continued his studies in political science at Princeton University, receiving an MA in 1956 and a PhD in 1958. His first book was Communism in Guatemala: 1944-1954, published at the end of 1959. By that time he was working as a political analyst in the State Department, a learning experience enlivened by a temporary assignment to the Embassy in Rio de Janeiro at the behest of then Ambassador Lincoln Gordon." link. But at least he is a "leftist", whatever the hell that means in bubble of mainstream American politics. One other flaming social-revolutionary was JFK, see Alliance for Progress. You have any more "leftist" sources you want to add?Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't accuse Frederick W. Marks III of being a man of the Left, but his "The CIA and Castillo Armas in Guatemala, 1954: New Clues to An Old Puzzle", Diplomatic History, 1990, 4 (1): pp. 67-86, (while flawed) is among the most comprehensive rejoinders to the far-left mythology (originally revisionist, now orthodox) on the coup available. On Árbenz's penchant for defending the revolution by non-democratic means, Marks tells us:
 * By at least 1952 (and increasing for obvious reasons by 1954), there were reports of "widespread arrests, beatings, water cures, and other forms of torture and intimidation", prompting an association of university students to appeal to the Supreme Court for "injunctions against the interior minister and chief of police"; this, of course, was the same Supreme Court that would soon be purged by the Guatemalan Congress after it ruled that the lack of judicial oversight of Árbenz's land reform was unconstitutional ("appeals could not be made to the judiciary, only to the president himself"). "Historians have gone into detail on Ubico's use of torture to subdue his political opponents prior to the revolution of 1944. But Árbenz's record, which may well have eclipsed that of Ubico in this respect, passes without notice even though there is as much evidence on the one side as there is on the other."
 * Árbenz, who was elected without a secret ballot and whose major opponent, Francisco Arana, was assassinated under mysterious circumstances ("[Arana's] chauffeur escaped an automobile ambush to identify several of the assailants as Árbenz henchmen and the assassins' car as belonging to Mrs. Árbenz"), defeated Fuentes in 1950 "only after the latter's meetings were closed down, ballot boxes were stuffed, and illiterate peasants were marched en masse to the polls to vote on orders." Of course, the now-standard narrative holds that Arana was threatening a coup and that—while Árbenz and Arévalo did arrange the attack that led to his death—they may have only intended to arrest him, not to assassinate him. Similarly, Árbenz won by a large enough margin in 1950 that it is difficult to credit Marks' contention that fraud was decisive, though the existence of fraud is hardly in dispute.
 * In addition, Marks argues that the communist threat to Guatemala and the threat Guatemala's arms buildup (and Árbenz's continuation of Arévalo's "activist" foreign policy, something only hinted at in this article) posed to its neighbors were both very real.
 * On the former, beyond the well-known role of communist Árbenz advisers such as Fortuny (the founder of the Guatemalan communist party) and the effective communist control of the Guatemalan Congress through "crucial committees" and "popular-front techniques" with the Labor party (the Congress famously paid Comrade Stalin a "minute of silence" tribute after his death, though this curiously goes without mention here, as Wikipedia's psychoanalysts look elsewhere to try to understand why Ike and his advisers could have possibly believed Guatemala was in the Soviet camp), "the nation's Federation of Labor was run by a Communist, Victor Manuel Gutierrez, as was the National Orphanage" and the teacher's union (co-founded by Gutierrez and "the Communist Virginia Bravo Letelier" who "fled to East Berlin after the 1954 revolt to engage in Eastern European propaganda"). "Communists or Communist sympathizers soon took over the education ministry, the social security administration, and the agrarian reform program, not to mention the official press and radio."
 * On the latter, Trujillo "was especially exercised by Árbenz's policy of harboring guerrilla groups preparing to invade the Dominican Republic", but by 1954 "all four of Guatemala's Central American neighbors—Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica—had petitioned the State Department to put an end to Guatemala's arms buildup." (Typically, all this article has to say about the U.S. naval effort to intercept such weapons is that the U.S. sought to "intimidate" Guatemala.) On a related note, Schneider writes that Guatemala's ambassadors to Panama, Columbia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Honduras were all accused of supporting communist subversion against those countries and declared persona no grata, with Ambassador to Nicaragua Gabino Santizo being accused of involvement in a plot to assassinate Somoza (Schneider, Communism, pp. 297-298). (This article does mention "Arévalo's support of the Caribbean Legion", but justifies it in the same breath by noting that the group sought the overthrow of "U.S. backed dictatorships".)
 * The conventional wisdom holds that Árbenz was forced to resign because the army refused to fight, and that the army refused to fight primarily because of a sophisticated CIA propaganda campaign that greatly exaggerated the strength of Carlos Castillo Armas' Liberation Army, and ultimately due to the specter of an outright U.S. invasion if the revolt was crushed. (Kim Roosevelt, who declined to lead PBSUCCESS despite his success organizing the pro-Shah "coup" in Iran in 1953, subscribed to this view, stating: "We had our will in Guatemala, [but] it wasn't really accomplished by clandestine means." See Wilford, America's Great Game, p. 224, though Wilford allows "there was perhaps a bit of self-boosterism in Kim's unflattering comparisons between AJAX and SUCCESS".) Others argue that Árbenz squandered the army's loyalty with his close ties to the communists and his support for a separate "people's militia". Marks, to the contrary, portrays the Liberation Army as far more formidable than commonly believed, minimizing the importance of the CIA's role and concluding that considerable popular support contributed to Castillo Armas' ability to "defeat government forces on the ground in a brief but extensive series of engagements". Unfortunately, Marks' argument on this front is marred by factual errors; for example, he states that the Liberation Army was equipped with "twenty-two thousand rockets" as well as "pieces of heavy artillery", whereas CIA records demonstrate that in fact "the rebels possessed neither rockets nor artillery."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * TTAAC, you need to do a lot better with the sources if you expect to change anything here. Marks has enough factual inaccuracies (some of which you yourself pointed out) that he is all but useless; the rest of the stuff that you are cherry-picking from Gliejeses makes little sense to add, given that this article only needs brief summary of the administrations of Arevalo and Arbenz. The generalized assessments of the elections as fair, and the reform as helpful, come from Gliejeses and Grandin, probably the most respected central American historians. You want to dismiss them as leftist white-washers, fine, but that is not an argument based on policy, which requires due weight to significant sources; and these are probably the most significant, and the stuff presented here is a good short summary of the sources. The walls of text you've produced are a) from unreliable sources (Marks), or b) details irrelevant to the article (so what if Arbenz joined the communist party after the coup? This article is about the coup. His ties to Fortuny are discussed in the appropriate articles) and c) details too minor to be included here (if we discussed the violence you mentioned, we need to discuss other items given similar weight in sources, such as the 1949 coup attempt, or Arevalo's massive education and healthcare initiatives, etc, etc, which would lead to ridiculous bloat in an already long article). You still fail to provide significant large-scale criticisms of the narrative in the article, constructed from the best known sources on the topic.  Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Rural Responses to the Agrarian Reform Law
When Arbenz's administration passed the Agrarian Reform Law, many of the class and ethnic divisions in rural Guatemalan communities were exacerbated. In rural communities there were vast inequalities between land-owning and landless peasants as well as Indians and Ladinos. While the Indian population was the majority, the Ladino population tended to control most of the farmable land. Conflict, however, occurred within ethnic communities and across class lines as much as it did between ethnicities. Increased ability to organize labor movements, resulting directly from Arévalo and Arbenz policies, exacerbated the conflicts between ethnic and geographic groups as they became more organized and polarized than ever before.

Indian farm operators had an average of 4.5 manzanas, a unit of land similar to a hectare, whereas their Ladino farm operating counterparts averaged 35 manzanas. Within the disadvantaged Indian majority, there was vast inequality between the upper and lower classes. According to a 1950 census, only about 1 percent of Indian farm operators actually controlled 25 percent of all Indian-owned farmland. In Totonicapán province, 5.3 percent of Indian farm operators controlled 32 percent of Indian land. In the Huehuetenango region, 1.3 percent of Indian farm operators owned 26 percent of the Indian land. It is clear that these inequalities would be difficult to fix through agrarian reform, especially when a very small number of Indian lands would have qualified for reappropriation under the Agrarian Reform Law. The Agrarian Reform Law only affected the largest plantations in Guatemala such as those owned by the United Fruit Company. The Law did not address inequalities of a more minor scale.

Some Indian communities opposed agrarian reform not because there was a wealth of farmable land, but because the relative disparity between land ownership within the community was small. In Jutiapa, a community with a large Indian population, the average land ownership was 4.4 manzanas and yet the community resisted revolutionary ideals and groups, they wanted no part of land reform. Part of their hesitance stemmed from a reluctance to trust the national government, which for so long had taken advantage of the lowest classes of Guatemalans. Indian communities feared that the little land they did own would be in danger if reforms were passed.

The more wealthy peasantry seems to have been the most opposed to the Agrarian Reform Law, despite the fact that most of their land would not have fallen under the umbrella of the Law. Wealthier land-owning peasants did not want to see those below them gain land because of Decree 900. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccm38 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ccm38, I have no argument with the information you have here, but first off you need to present a source for this information, and secondly this is more appropriate for the Decree 900 page; it is rather too much detail for this one. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Source: Handy, Jim. Revolution in the Countryside, Rural Conflict and Agrarian Reform in Guatemala 1944-1954. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1994.

We need more facts and less propaganda
Despite the United Fruit Company's role in the coup, it is well documented that it was related to Communism. While the arming by Czechoslovakia is mentioned in this article, it is not mentioned were it should be. It was the shot that set off the planning for the coup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:4101:AE6:7DFE:F64E:6E6:EFB (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It was the final trigger, and is mentioned as such, in the appropriate place. It was not very important in the larger scheme of things, as plans for the coup had long been laid. Mentioning it in the lead would be undue. Also, is it you who keeps adding insults in Spanish to the article? If it is, please stop. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't speak Spanish. You claimed I didn't discuss this when you reverted my edit and you are busted for not being neutral.2601:447:4101:AE6:7DFE:F64E:6E6:EFB (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you created an account, so that you would be accountable for your own edits. Regardless, removing a GA template when the article has been through a review process is highly disruptive. "You are busted" is not an argument for the changes you made. You added WP:WEASEL words, and also gave undue weight to an incident which the many books cited in the article mention as a minor influence. You need to obtain WP:CONSENSUS, here, for the changes, before you make them. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The same article I sourced also points out that Arbenz's tensions with Belize was what lead to US arms embargo and the arms sale from Czechoslovakia. I'm hoping people could build on the edit I made and type in more about the conflict with Belize. I wish we could cooperate, but we can't if we're not neutral.2601:447:4101:AE6:7DFE:F64E:6E6:EFB (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You will find that I am more than willing to engage in good faith cooperation, if you don't begin by being disruptive; witness the content sourced to William Blum, added by a new editor. The arms embargo has been thoroughly covered already; the Belize conflict, less so. What you really need to do is to propose additions here, and then discuss them. Please avoid adding weasel words like "described by some" because "described" already implies that. The NPOV tag is not a banner to fly above articles you do not like; it is supposed to be temporary. You need to bring up specific issues here, and when they are resolved, even if that means that no changes have been made, the template needs to be removed. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * IP, I would really appreciate it if you were to bring up your concerns with the article here. Right now you seem content to do nothing so long as the NPOV banner sits on the article, and this is not very helpful, because the banner is not supposed to be permanent. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vanamonde93 and removed the tag. The goal of Wikipedia is to present the consensus of experts, not to attempt to challenge it with original research. The only area where this article may be less than neutral even when compared to the academic specialists is in its treatment of the United Fruit Company. UFC workers were generally better-off than other Guatemalans, and the Eisenhower administration launched an antitrust suit that ultimately crippled the company around the same time that the coup was put into motion, which—along with Truman's support for an aborted coup—calls the importance of the UFC's lobbying efforts into question.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I reviewed this article for GA, and while doing so considered whether the article was neutrally presenting the facts as presented by the sources - I don't know much about the conflict with Belize during this period, but if relevant would certainly be worth including a few lines. As Vanamonde93 says, if there are any concerns about neutrality they should be brought here to the talk page and ironed out point-by-point, rather than slapping a generic NPOV banner on the article; without any supporting arguments this amounts to little. Sources need to be considered carefully, and if necessary, opposing viewpoints presented neutrally without giving undue weight to minority/fringe POV. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your input. The IP hopping vandal has reappeared; if the vandalism continues, I will send the page to RFPP. Simon, I didn't see anything about Belize either, when I researched this article; but I'm going to explore that a little further. TTAAC, I'm happy to discuss wording changes, if necessary. My general impression from the sources I've read is that the US government eventually soured on the UFC, but that was a little later, once the propaganda had already had some effect. Of course, there were plenty of non-UFC related cold-war motivation, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Article is laughably biased
OK, my problem is not that the article is anti-American, after years at Wikipedia that's only to be expected. My problem is that it makes no effort to even mention the U.S. Governments case against Arbenz and co (I.e. His documented ties to the Communists). You can argue that it was just trumped up, but if so why is it not mentioned once in this lengthy article?

For goodness sake, even the official Soviet history admits that the Communist Party played an important role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.174.32 (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If you wish to make claims of bias, it would help if you read the article more thoroughly. The substance of the US case was based on the laws that Arbenz and Arevalo passed, which are covered; but even in addition to that, Arevalo's support for the Caribbean Legion, and Arbenz legalization of the Communist party, are also mentioned. Greater detail is provided in the articles on the sub-topics, as is appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Um, no, the substance of the US case is not mentioned anywhere. Nowhere does the article discuss the issue of Communist influence in Guatemala. I refer to this intelligence estimate as a summary of the US POV, nowhere are these issues mentioned in the article, even for the purposes of refuting them. 65.186.210.25 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Documents from the state government constitute a primary source; due weight, as determined on Wikipedia, are determined by secondary sources. Please demonstrate that a point of view that has received significant coverage in secondary sources has been neglected here; else your suggestions have no substance. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Certainly.

From Encyclopedia Brittanica: ''Lack of leadership from the rank and file allowed Guatemalan communists to organize the labour movement and use it for their own ends. Arévalo was not friendly to their activities, but his nationalistic bent gave them opportunity to establish themselves as his most enthusiastic and reliable supporters...''

From the the Columbia electronic encyclopedia: As Communist influence in the Arbenz government increased, relations with the United States deteriorated.

From the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: The Communist Party of Guatemala (from December 1952, the Guatemalan Labor Party), which was reestablished in 1949, began to play an important role.

The book Operation PBSUCCESS the United States and Guatemala 1952-1954 gives a thorough overview of the USGs concerns.

65.186.210.25 (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Communist Parties played a "role" in France, Spain, Italy, Chile, Greece etc. What exactly does that tell us? That these countries were a military "threat"? That they were "communist-controlled"? If you want to improve the article propose a specific and factual change along the lines of: "Communist party legalized in 1949. Communist Party supported Arbenz in such and such a way etc." That way we'll actually have something to discuss aside from vague concerns about "Anti-Americanism". (may I remind you that en.wikipedia is primarily edited by Americans and is therefore much more sympathetic to the American govt than wikipedias in other languages.)Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a more specific problem here. "Important role," "influence," etc, are all really wishy-washy words, when you get down to it. For a one-paragraph summary of the situation, fine; but the importance is really in the details. The US did not get upset with Arbenz because of any hazy notion of "influence;" it was specific policies, actions, etc. The land expropriation bill was one of the largest factors; it's mentioned in great detail. Likewise the support for the Caribbean Legion; likewise the legalization of the communist party, all of which are mentioned. Gleijeses specifically says that the actual numbers of the communist party in the legislatures were never very large. The party did have an influence in writing Decree 900; this is a fact mentioned in the relevant main article, but not here, and I would be okay with transferring that. If you want more changes, you really need to find more specifics. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that the statement, "en.wikipedia is primarily edited by Americans and is therefore much more sympathetic to the American govt than wikipedias in other languages," is unverified, illogical and completely bonkers. There has been no poll taken of the nationality of the editors on this page, and quite often, the most vociferous critics of American policy are American themselves.Frellthat (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

If you had took a look at the book I cited (which you actually asked for) it would have addressed your issues. The Communist Party was small but it played a vastly disproportionate role--which deeply alarmed the USG. The land reform package was indeed moderate but it was seen as a means to radicalize the peasantry in the interests of Communism, again not because the Communists "controlled" it but given their influence they would exploit it. In any event I have given four citations related to the coup all of which mention Communist influence as a factor (including the Soviets!). That Wikipedia finds no need to mention it is solely due to the transparent agenda of the editors who wrote it.

65.186.210.25 (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I reiterate that it would not be undue to mention the fact that the Guatemalan Congress openly praised Stalin—or that Guatemala's federation of labor, teacher's union, education ministry, and social security administration were all controlled by communists/fellow travelers—or that Árbenz openly supported rebels seeking to overthrow Trujillo in the Dominican Republic—or that Árbenz relied on advice from the founder of the Guatemalan communist party, which he later joined in 1957. My main concern is presenting Guatemala as a functioning democracy, when there are credible reports that Árbenz killed at least 108 to 500 political opponents and tortured hundreds more, the 1950 election was marred by the lack of a secret ballot and significant fraud, and Polity data shows some of the "U.S.-backed right-wing dictatorships" were more democratic than Guatemala under Árbenz (although, by the same token, democracy declined precipitously in the aftermath of the 1954 coup and reached its nadir under Efraín Ríos Mont). Given the amount of coup plotting Árbenz had to deal with, some of the extrajudicial actions carried out by his secret police, led by Jamie Rosenberg and Rogelio Cruz Wer, may have been justified, but that doesn't mean Guatemala was as much a democracy as the U.S. itself—similarly, no-one disputes the necessity of land reform, but the requirement that appeals be made directly to the president and the subsequent purge of the supreme court struck many observers as proof of the regime's totalitarian character. Even the false rumors that Arévalo was assassinated to make way for Árbenz's election do appear to have shaped many American official's perception of events. (But at least Árbenz has more claim to being elected than the "democratic Iranian government" this article accuses the U.S. of overthrowing in 1953—a rather bizarre way to describe the Shah's dismissal of a prime minster he had appointed and had full constitutional authority to remove, considering that Mossadeq ruled as an absolute dictator during the brief period he attempted to usurp power for himself.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have mentioned many of the smaller instances of communist influence/other more negative details. The IP's main contention, that of the "influence" of the communists, has been substantially addressed in several places. TTAAC, the portrayal of the government is based on the many books listed in the sources. You want to take issue with the political bent of the authors? Fine, but do it at RSN; you and I have had too many disagreements over sources for that to be productive. For goodness sake don't post sources like "systemicpeace.org." Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The complaint seems to be that the article is "anti-american" and that Arbenz was a commie fellow-traveler (because the US and the coup plotters said so, except when they didn't). There's no there there. The POV tag should be removed.Guccisamsclub (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * IP, you want to suggest improvements to this article, I'm all ears. But for goodness sake do not add redundant information (the amount of land expropriated is mentioned twice, elsewhere in the article) and use sources that go into this in detail, rather than a one paragraph overview, as the book you added does. If you were to write a two sentence summary or this article. "arbenz provoked the US, who launched a coup to overthrow him and remove the communist influence" would be okay. In a 5000 word article, that is terrible writing. There are tons of details that the "security under scrutiny" book glosses over. Reliability is not our only criterion for sources; please find more detailed ones. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"Worthless military junk"
William Blum is not a very reliable source: Killing Hope also claims that the Shah's Iran had the worst human rights record in the world as of 1976 (I hope I do not need to explain why that is absolutely ludicrous). So, no, when Blum is your only source to dismiss the Czech arms as "worthless military junk," I'm not inclined to believe it (anymore than I am inclined to take the Czech figleaf at face value, when everyone knows Czechoslovakia was regularly employed as a conduit for the Soviets to initiate relationships with ostensibly "neutralist" regimes in the Third World; see Egypt, for example). Anyway, here is the passage in question from Killing Hope: "The weapons, it turned out, were, in the words of the New York Times, 'worthless military junk'. Time magazine pooh-poohed the newspaper's report and cited U.S. military men giving a better appraisal of the weapons. It may be that neither Time nor the military men could conceive that one member of the International Communist Conspiracy could do such a thing to another member." Blum's source is "Time, 19 July 1954, p. 34." Well, here's Time, 19 July 1954; the only article related to Guatemala appears to be Guatemala: Down the Middle, which—I'm sensing a pattern with Blum—doesn't say anything of the sort. (That said, the article is worth reading for a radically different analysis of the facts than you will find here on Wikipedia, for example the bits about how "no anti-Communist blood bath was in prospect" as "Arbenz and his top cronies were mostly safe in embassy asylum and likely to get out of the country scot free," Armas—a veteran of the 1944 revolution—"appointed mostly capable middle-of-the-roaders" to "his new Cabinet," and "Running the risk of uniformed criticism, he deprived the country's illiterates of the vote. Trucking unlettered Indians to the polls and showing them where to put the cross has long been the favorite way of Guatemalan Presidents, including Arbenz and his dictatorial predecessors, of getting into office or staying there. In refusing ballots to citizens who cannot read or write, Castillo Armas freely surrendered a traditional weapon for keeping power.") In reality (per another Time cite, one that checked out), Guatemala spent a reported $10 million on "Two thousand tons of arms and ammunition, more than all Central America has received in the last 30 years," leaving the Guatemalan army better-supplied "than the armies of Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua." Unless someone can substantiate "worthless military junk" in another source, we may be left to conclude that this is just another dubious Blum outburst.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Blum is not very reliable, but he is well known enough that his views deserve mention at the very least. He is certainly not used extensively: he is cited thrice, and in one case he is merely reporting what the NYT said. Vanamonde (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But did the NYT actually say that? Blum doesn't cite the NYT, he cites Time magazine, which supposedly "pooh-poohed the newspaper's report." The issue of Time mentioned by Blum doesn't seem to check out, so either he made a mistake and we need to try another issue, or we should see if if there is a NYT article earlier in July that corroborates at least some of his account. We can't just take Blum's word for it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The New Times said basically the same thing, but Bloom did misquote them. See my edit. In the future, I'd appreciate it if you'd do more of the digging yourself instead of relying on others to meet the challenges you lay down. Really not that hard—took me under 10 minutes, without even a subscription to the Times.Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not likely to take your advice, but thanks for your help. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that snarky reply. But to be fair, Gucci, I did pay the $2.99 to access Time magazine, and I might well have intended to do additional research when I had the chance; after all, it's not like I edited this article based on my comments above. I'm glad finding the relevant excerpt did not require a NYT subscription.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem.Guccisamsclub (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

200,000 deaths is insane propaganda
See Carlos Sabino's debunking of this ludicrous figure.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Laughable bias hardly begins to cover it
'''This article is a joke. It needs a neutrality template slapped on it. And that's what I've done. '''

It needs a drastic rewrite so it only seems slightly anti-American. Yes, the US helped to overthrow these anti-American, Soviet-leaning, or outright Soviet-allied governments. American national interests were and are more important than fetishizing elections in such countries.

Painman


 * If you're going to dispute the neutrality of the article, you need to give specifics; and since it is all sourced to reliable sources you need to either provide other sources, equally reliable, that contradict the ones used, or show that the article does not accurately reflect the sources used. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your tag bombing. You have not raised a single specific issue, on an article that has been through a number of review processes. More importantly, duplicating citations for every sentence is not just unnecessary, it is problematic, per WP:CITEKILL. And you added a whole bunch of commentary not supported by the sources, which goes to show that the citation needed tags were not placed with the best of intentions. Please raise specific issues here, where they should be raised. Vanamonde (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Pain Man, you would need to show that there is current support for a position that is ignored here. The onus is on you to find it, not other editors.  TFD (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Gabel1960's changes
You need to pause and discuss the changes you are making to the lead. Some of them are an improvement, but others are introducing inaccuracies, and still others are ungrammatical. This article has gone through many rounds of peer review; you need to reach consensus here on the talk page before making major changes. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I encourage everyone to reach consensus, but for good or for bad, it is not obligatory here that I know of.--Thinker78 (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am always willing to discuss matters which may be controversial, even without formal obligation, but changes based on facts and generally accepted sources need not be discussed. If you find changes ungrammatical please feel free to improve wording and sentence structure. From my point of view, the whole article still needs some work on its language, and contents. Of course, wikipedia is always work in a team, and I am open for working with everybody who is striving to improve the article. Kind regards, Gabel1960 (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, consensus is mandatory, and when edits are challenged, discussion before reversion is strongly encouraged; see WP:BRD. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Vanamonde93, but you didn't make your case. You cited an explanatory supplement, which is not even a guideline. Please cite a policy, such as WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. I did not know you were referring to reverts. I was referring to editing in general not specifically edits after being reverted. --Thinker78 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That comment is quite unnecessarily condescending. The relevant policy is WP:CONSENSUS. It isn't exactly obscure, and is linked right at the top of WP:BRD. As is WP:Be bold, also relevant here. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Gabel1960, after you are reverted it is obligation to discuss the disputed edits, even if you think it is a fact, because the other person may not think it is a fact, and both your opinions are equally valid. WP:AVOIDEDITWAR states, "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page". Thinker78 (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thinker78, there is no dispute about the necessity to dicuss "after a revert", the question was the need of discussion "before making an edit". There is no rule requiring a permission before making an edit.Gabel1960 (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

"too heavy a use of editorial voice"
I find this an unacceptable reason for replacing facts by a polite allusion which looks like an ironic understatement: The US government did not just "dislike" the social reforms. The main body of the article gives evidence for the intentional exaggeration of the supposed communist threat, the CIA reports to the government prove that the government was informed that there was no serious reason for communist interference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabel1960 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There were two problems with your wording. In addition to editorial voice, which is a problem, your change implied that the US was deliberately exaggerating the extent of communist influence in external discussion of the GR. I don't know if this is intentional, but it's obviously unnecessary. The US was wrong about the extent of communist influence, but with respect to the coup, what is relevant is the picture portrayed within the US government; hence "drew exaggerated conclusions". Vanamonde (Talk) 16:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This does not explain your change back to "dislike". "Draw conclusions" looks like a logical operation, based on facts. Behind exaggeration there is no logic, this is irrational. So it does not fit talking about conclusions. Either you exaggerate or you conclude. It is of central importance that the USA never had any valid cause for their actions and that exaggeration and fear mongering was part of the strategy. Gabel1960 (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I could say the same about "found it unacceptable"; it's a rather pompous phrase, really. Also, "drew conclusions" would indeed be inappropriate, but that's not what we're saying; the article read's "drew exaggerated conclusions". Which is very different. Perhaps I wasn't clear the first time; the problem with that sentence of yours is that what the lead needs to focus on is how the US government perceived communist influence, not how it presented that perception to other entities. Your wording was ambiguous in that respect. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

partly covert CIA operation
"Covert operations aim to secretly fulfill their mission objectives without anyone knowing who sponsored or carried out the operation, or in some cases, without anyone knowing that the operation has even occurred." In the case at hand, air bombings, and a sea blockade are not covert, they are military acts carried out by US armed forces. There might be a better way of phrasing this, of course.Gabel1960 (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabel1960 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm open to rephrasing this, but most of the operation was a false-flag operation, in that the US role was concealed. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As you say "most" of, and this could be used as a basis for rephrasing. "False flag" is only one form of covert operation. If this is the right word, we should use it in the article. Gabel1960 (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll look into that further; but I do feel that as a basic summary, which is what the lead is for, "covert operation" is quite correct. The substance of the operation; the rebels, and the radio station, were covert. That Arbenz and others saw through that cover doesn't make it less covert, necessarily. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

historical and political terms
Revolution is here used in a two-fold sense: the beginning of a new era, and the era itself. The introduction should help differentiate the meaning of the term instead of blurring it. Source for the 1st use of the term: Marc Becker: Twentieth-Century Latin American Revolutions. I find it also necessary to introduce terms as what they are: terms, not as simple names. History is a construct, not reality itself, this should never be forgotten. We use terms within our theoretical construction of history, nothing more. This is why I prefer to say: "is a term denoting" or something similar. Kind regards, Gabel1960 (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A single source is not enough. The preponderance of reliable sources use the term "Guatemalan Revolution" to refer to the entire ten year period. You need to show that your usage is more common than the one currently in the article. Which one you personally think to be correct is irrelevant. Also, this is an encyclopedia article about the phenomenon, not an academic article about the term; we do not need to begin with terms and definitions. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Preponderance of reliable sources" - you are excluding all the Spanish sources, adhering to a few studies in your personal language which do not even give a source for their use of the term. Gabel1960 (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am; because with respect to WP:COMMONNAME, English-language sources are what matter. We can (and do, in this case) use Spanish sources to get a broader set of perspectives on the material; but the name is based on English sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You also need to be more careful with your use of sources. I just checked the Becker source you provide above. Even Becked is clearly using "Guatemalan Revolution" to mean the entire ten-year period. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you read Becker's chapter you will note that he refers to your understanding of the revolution mainly as "spring", he mentions a social revolution in the countryside, and he refers to the October revolution as the 1944 revolution. So my rephrasing of the lead made clear that there are three uses of this "term", clarifying the aspects, instead of reducing it to just one sense as you do, which does not even make sense at all, becuase the political revolution was the one in October, the social one took 1o years and even then did not come to an end, but both are not the same, the one is a shipft of power, the other a restructuring of the society and the economy. Gabel1960 (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is quite incorrect. There are multiple uses of the term "revolution" in this context. There are not multiple uses of the term "Guatemalan Revolution", and none of the sources you have provided support your argument. Further discussion of the terminology, if at all necessary, should be confined to the body of the Guatemalan Revolution article; it certainly does not belong in the lead here. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)