Talk:Plan de Sánchez massacre

I question whether the national context bit should be here; it looks more appropriate for the Ríos Montt article. What do others think? --SqueakBox 02:13, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it is definitely necessary to understand the national context in order to understand the massacre and its signficance.


 * I'd be reluctant to trim it, too, at least not until SqueakBox gets round to writing the Guatemalan Civil War article (which he will, one day, I'm sure). And maybe not even then: it's only one screenful on an article that's eight-screensful long, and (as anon said) you have to understand the national context. Perhaps what it could use is some tweaking to the wording to make it less about Ríos Montt the man and more about the Ríos Montt administration -- depersonalize it somewhat -- even though carrying the can for everything that happens is part-and-parcel of being an autocratic dictactor.


 * What the article could really use is some photos, if anyone's ever down that way. –Hajor 02:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One issue I see, which has apparently escaped notice is where Gen. Rios Montt is referred to as the "President". Since he wasn't elected to office, but assumed power as the result of a coup, which is well documented in various locations, calling him "President" seems almost to be a weasel word. While he assumed the title, he lacked the electoral mandate, and in fact, voided the 1965 Constitution. His only legal title under the Constitution when he assumed power was "General".174.70.120.166 (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)