Talk:Guillermo Endara

Untitled
Is this external link still valid?

Endara's campaign website (http://www.endarapresidente.com/index.php)

Removed invalid link (14th June 2004)

POV insertion?
An IP editor has made a few edits to this article and others lately accusing me of POV editing, as here. I'm glad to discuss the substance of these edits, but first I wanted to point out the basic principle of accepting good faith. Opening a discussion like that is needlessly inflammatory, and doesn't help to improve the articles. As for the sourced content that the IP is seeking to delete, it was widely agreed in the sources I read that the pictures of the beatings helped shift public opinion in favor of military intervention, as here with a UK newspaper The Indepedent, in Endara's obituary:
 * "What tipped public opinion in the US in favour of intervention had been the bloody beatings handed out to Endara and his two vice- presidents by Noriega's thugs - the so-called Dignity Battalions - after the three men protested against Noriega annulling the election results. The world was shocked to see film footage and photographs of the men being battered by iron bars until their shirts ran red with blood."

It's not POV to summarize our reliable sources. I'm restoring this content for now, but if you have some sources that suggest Endara's beating had no impact on public opinion, or that it shifted world opinion in favor of Noriega, we can work to balance that better. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Another quickly Googled example from the Boston Globe
 * "The attack on Ford and the opposition presidential candidate, Guillermo Endara, filmed by photographers and television crews, has hardened world opinion against the Noriega regime, perhaps more profoundly than any other single event since a political crisis began here two years ago." -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Where to begin? Hardening world opinion against the Noriega regime is not at all the same thing as shifting public opinion in favor of a U.S. military invasion of the country.  The other source clearly states "What tipped public opinion in the US in favour of intervention" - emphasis mine, while your insertion implies that worldwide opinion was shifted in favor of a U.S. military invasion.  184.19.140.198 (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, your framing the only alternatives to support for a U.S. invasion as either "Endara's beating had no impact on public opinion, or that it shifted world opinion in favor of Noriega" hasn't gone unnoticed. What about the obvious reaction of the world community which was that it shifted public opinion against Noriega but world opinion - outside the U.S. - also condemned the U.S. invasion? 184.19.140.198 (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A good place to begin, as suggested above, would be to drop your assumption of bad faith. "It hasn't gone unnoticed"--why do you think I'm trying to pull a fast one? I've been explicit about my sources, and I've invited you to join in with your own. Believe me, I have no strong feelings about the US invasion of Panama, and I appreciate your help in finding the best summary of these sources.
 * Anyway, your rephrasing of that to be more specific about US opinion is good--I agree that it's a more accurate statement. I do still want to mention the impact of the photographs of Endara on world opinion, though, as the source I mentioned above notes. (And that other sources I looked at in creating this article certainly echoed--I can dig them up if you feel additional sources are needed.) What would you say to "hardening world opinion against Noriega and contributing to U.S. popular support for military intervention?" -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "hardening world opinion against Noriega and contributing to U.S. popular support for the military invasion later in the year"? Invasion, not intervention.  Although I'm sure someone could dig out something from a corporate media "reliable source" written after the December invasion stating there was significant support within the U.S. for an invasion of Panama in May 1989, I doubt there is any source written at the time claiming there was any public demand even within the U.S. for an invasion.  Believe me, it's hard to AGF around here or much anywhere else on the 'net anymore.  Are Noam Chomsky or The Nation considered reliable sources, or shall I stick to corporate media and U.S. State Department-funded groups?  184.19.140.198 (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, AGF is a bedrock principle of Wikipedia, and a very necessary one; it helps keep editors focused on improving article quality instead of questioning each other's motives. Honestly, whether in my personal life, I'm a US apologist or critic or George HW Bush writing under a screen name, we're still going to have to review the sources together and find a mutually agreeable and accurate summary. Making accusations of bad faith only slows down that process.
 * As for what sources are reliable, generally academics and fact-checked media are the gold standard. The Nation definitely qualifies in its reporting (though not, like any newspaper, in its opinion pages). Chomsky's work probably qualifies depending on its venue. (A speech he made wouldn't, a book through an academic publisher would). But specifically searching only noted left-wing publications and authors is going to result in a lopsided article. Did Chomsky write something about Endara that's particularly notable here? Obviously, if we're going out to the more partisan US press, we'll want to include The National Review, Dinesh D'Souza, etc. But I'm wary of seeking out sources to prove a given point, rather than taking note of obvious sources and summarizing what they have to say.
 * More than that, though, I worry that we're getting rather far afield by running this down at all. The phrasing "helping to build support within the U.S." doesn't mean that the invasion enjoyed 90% support, or even 50% support; just that the photographs of a bloody Guillermo Ford on the cover of Time increased the level of support. We'd be remiss as editors if we didn't mention this attack in the lead, and its impact on future events. It's one of the most famous things that ever happened to Endara.
 * As for the phrasing, we use the word "invasion" in the next sentence. If you're looking for something more neutral than "military intervention", how about "military action"? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The accurate and NPOV word is "invasion". "Intervention" and "action" are POV, as much as it would be POV to use "imperialist aggression".  184.19.140.198 (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I hear you on "intervention", but how is "military action" POV? Action is about as bland a word as it gets. And we already use the word "invasion"--it's not like the article's trying to avoid it. Khazar2 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, "action" has historically been a U.S. term for what were really wars, as in the Vietnam and Korea "police actions". To me, at least, it seems to be even more of a POV gloss than "intervention".  184.19.140.198 (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, police action would be a gloss, but that's not the phrase here. I don't think the New York Times is necessarily siding with North Korea by using the headline "North Korea Threatens South With Military Action", or with Turkey in the sentence " Turkey’s Parliament on Thursday authorized further military action against Syria as Turkish forces fired a second round of artillery across the border" Nor is the BBC siding with Georgia in the sentence "The conflict began overnight last Thursday, when Russia responded to Georgian military action in South Ossetia".  It's a commonly used phrase for actions that are military, I think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on the above examples, I've changed the phrase to "military action" for now. But I'm also willing to return to "military intervention"--the phrase used by our reliable source, a UK paper--if that's your preference. Glad to discuss further if you like. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)