Talk:Salvadoran Civil War

I have a proposition to make.
As has already been said, it is very overemphasized that the United States supported the Salvadoran Civil War. Additionally, too much emphasis is put on the external political factors which influenced the war, and it digresses. It appears as though much of the page is devoted to describing the US role in supporting the war, as well as blaming the United States for involvement in repression. While the US role is no doubt important and needs to be emphasized, it is overemphasized. I propose that much of the information on the US be deleted and that mention of the US pertain strictly to the military aspects of its support for the counterinsurgency.

The political tensions in the US and commentary on the moral issues which accompanied US support for El Salvador's governments should probably be excised. I propose that "Counter-terror strategy" and "Justifications for US support" be removed completely. They are entirely superfluous and seem to exist for the sole purpose of indicting the US for its role in the war. Additionally, interviews with former death squad members, guerrillas, military personnel, etc. should be excised. This information needs to be preserved somewhere, but NOT here.

As I write this, more than half of the page focuses on either the fine details of US support or digresses and focuses too much on the Cold War context. The actual military aspects of the war and its impact need to be focused on. Project X needs its own article if it doesn't have one; the information does not belong here.

This is much less an article than it is an anti-US propaganda piece.


 * Thank you for your input. My personal issue isn't merely the existence of massive one sided bias. I'm quite used to bias in articles and have given up on trying to maintain perfect neutrality. It is the employment of deliberately and maliciously false and misleading information in key sections of the article discussing external involvement in the war. Many assertions are flatly contradicted by the sourcing provided, others are cherry picked out of context quotes many of which are totally unrelated to the war. In other words, these are in no way honest mistakes made by people trying to sort out the various nuances of the war but rather an attempt to turn the article into a propaganda tract. I can elaborate further if need be. CJK (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Main author of this section (CJK? unclear to me): "the United States supported the Salvadoran Civil War" -- even the use of this phrase is wrong (why would the U.S. want a war?) and a misleading characterization of a criticism; more truthful would be that the U.S. supported the military government in the Salvadoran civil war. And this is absolutely crucial to any understanding of the conflict. The U.S. role was central, as honest students of Latin American and Central American history (and those who paid attention to the U.S. role in South Vietnam) know well. UTC's pro-government bias I called out above. EricClarion (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Length
As per WP:LENGTH, I feel this article needs a substantial pruning job. Without getting into debates about POV, I think everybody can agree it is too long; almost twice the suggested maximum size. I am considering trimming the huge number of details, especially of policies implemented. Comments? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, one of the students I'm working with this semester/quarter has some concerns over the page's length. I think that it's generally OK but could do with a little summarizing here and there, as well as some sources for the claims that need cites. What do you think? I know that you overhauled this back in 2014. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Salvadoran Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140317111453/http://spanish.state.gov/respas/38114.htm to http://spanish.state.gov/respas/38114.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110213214948/http://www.coha.org/Press%20Release%20Archives/1981/81.1.pdf to http://www.coha.org/Press%20Release%20Archives/1981/81.1.pdf
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6BvSC8Irn?url=http://www.markdanner.com/articles/show/the_truth_of_el_mozote to http://www.markdanner.com/articles/show/the_truth_of_el_mozote
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205045538/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37088 to http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37088
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930031531/http://www.greenleft.org.au/1993/95/4265 to http://www.greenleft.org.au/1993/95/4265
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160115205405/https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552494 to http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552494

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Junta1.jpg

Article Evaluation
The article seems very reliable as the information is based off of several peer-reviewed services. In addition the tone of the article is very neutral and straightforward. It is clear that the article was made with caution and to educate the public. The way the article provides context to the war through political and social forces is very crucial to understanding the historical event. Anais Mejia (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)