Talk:Carlos Castillo Armas

Untitled
Is Colonel Jacobo Arana, killed during the regime of Arévalo, the same person than Francisco Javier Arana? Tazmaniacs 15:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Operation WASHTUB
If the obsolete Czech arms are mentioned then CIA Operation WASHTUB should also be mentioned. Operation_WASHTUB Felipe (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Carlos Castillo Armas Color.jpg

Spanish-language titles

 * – Guatemala 1954: the Ideas of a Counterrevolution


 * – The Appeal of Fear: State and Terror in Guatemala


 * – North American Intervention in Guatemala in 1954: Two Recent Interpretations


 * – this seems to be the English translation, but "patria" translates to "homeland".


 * – Guatemala, a Silenced History

MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 21:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

American Fruit Company
In describing the CIA's involvement in the coup that brought Castillo Armas to power, the article doesn't pause to explain WHY they wanted him. Digging deeper into the article, it appears that they believed he would reverse the nationalisation of the American Fruit Company's land by the former left-wing regime. Hence the CIA were apparently acting as a proxy for the American Fruit Company? The article should say more to clarify this. Peter Bell (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But it says so right in the lead. "Influenced by Cold War fears of communism and the pressure from the United Fruit Company, in 1952 the US government of President Harry Truman authorized Operation PBFORTUNE, a plot to overthrow Arévalo's leftist successor, President Jacobo Árbenz." Brutannica (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Narratively unreliable?
On 11 June 2022, User:Vanamonde93 did [revert] an edit that added as reference Narratively, which appears to be a reliable source, per its About section. Vanamonde, why did you state it is an unreliable source? Thinker78 (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "We’re always on the lookout for fresh new voices. Have a story the world needs to know about? Please consider pitching us here", from the link you provided. That is user-generated content, which is unusable in the Wikipedia. ValarianB (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * New voices may mean with certain standards? Or may mean they want to hear anyone's story which would be analyzed, investigated and in some cases published by the editorial team.--Thinker78 (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We know nothing about the site other than what they present, I looked around but no one really seems to talk about it, other than they pay $200-$300 for submissions. Reliable sources must meet several standards, one of which is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Feel free to bring it up at WP:RSN, but this site has no reputation to speak of, IMO. Also, note that we're taking about the reverting of two different IP users here. One added sophomoric, poorly-written text. The second one, the one in question, added a bare reference to narratively.com to a passage in the article that already had a citation. Honestly, this is much ado about nothing. ValarianB (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Much ado about nothing? Sorry, but I don't agree with you. Because society doesn't pay attention to details quality is overlooked and more importance is given to time than to a good product. Bear in mind that an interplanetary craft was lost because an engineer forgot to make one simple conversion. Attention to detail is of paramount importance, at least in my book and I'm really tired and disappointed in seeing everyday how people just disregard details and doing a good work because they just want to get it over with, presenting shoddy services or products.Thinker78 (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the new reply button! Although I do tend to distrust simple IPs more than registered editors, I don't judge their input just because they added it. Certainly this Narratively source needs to be analyzed more to make a determination regarding its reliability. Thinker78 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For sources that are not a priori reliable (i.e., sources that are not high-quality newspapers, scholarly works, or otherwise published by reputable publishers) the burden of demonstrating reliability is with the editor adding the source, not with those removing it, as this would require proving a negative. Narratively describes itself as a storytelling platform; nothing on its "About Narratively" page suggests it is a reliable sources for historical information. In a field where scholarly works are numerous, I don't see the point in spending much time on this source. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the onus. It is evident that the editor who wants to remove a source needs to check whether it is reliable before removing it. Otherwise, what would be the point of haphazardly removing a source? Certainly there needs to be a valid reason to remove it, and one reason is whether it is a reliable source or not, therefore the editor who wants to remove it needs to check said characteristic before reaching a conclusion that it is better removed. Thinker78 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagreement or not, how it works around here has been sufficiently explained. Also, again, I will point out a very simple fact - the passage in question ALREADY HAS a citation to "Managing the counterrevolution: the United States and Guatemala, 1954–1961" by Stephen M. Streeter. Why this fervent insistence on a second citation? ValarianB (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I already explained it to you sufficiently and you have explained to me as well. It looks like neither you or I will change our minds, but this is about community consensus, not about a few editors. Your revert in the page still stands though. Thanks. Thinker78   (talk)  19:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Why do you assume I did not check the source before removing it? I did; it was not a priori reliable, and therefore I removed it. Beyond that point, asking me to demonstrate unreliability is asking me to prove a negative, and is simply not how this works. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't assume you didn't check, I replied to your statement that "the burden of demonstrating reliability is with the editor adding the source", which is not true when adding citations in the article. The citation is simply added. If someone challenges the reliability of those citations then it is the burden of both editors to demonstrate or disprove reliability. -- Thinker78   (talk)  14:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is getting repetitive, and so I am stepping away from this debate. I will continue to remove that source until I see evidence for its reliability, or we reach a consensus that it is reliable. Such a consensus is likely not going to be forthcoming here; if you care very deeply, you should take it to RSN. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice, best option to step away if you think it's repetitive. Talk to you later. Thinker78   (talk)  03:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)