User talk:Accuracy88

Accuracy88, I do not understand on what basis Noam Chomsky is considered an unreliable source. The fact that he has strong political views does not detract from scholarship.

What Chomsky says about political matters is simply not true, the case of Duarte being a good example. Far from seeing Duarte as an ally, as Chomsky claims, the right-wing death squads in El Salvador saw him as the enemy and were threatening to kill him. Accuracy88 (talk)

Whether it is true or not is not for you to decide. I find a (very) well known scholar who reports certain facts. I've cited his work, he uses other scholars for his own, etc, etc. You cannot decide that he is wrong and throw out this work. If you think it's wrong, find scholarship contradicting him and put it up, I have no objections to that. Don't trash an academic because you disagree with him. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Chomsky is an academic in the field of linguistics. This gives no authority to his political writings. I didn't reject your edit because I disagreed with it, but because the assertions by Chomsky were provably untrue. You used Chomsky as authority for the claim that Duarte was allied to the death squads, but the evidence I've now included shows unambiguously that the death squads saw Duarte as a traitor and wanted to kill him. It's not a question of opinions but of facts. Accuracy88 (talk)

Your "facts" come from a single Wall Street Journal article. If you had actually read the book you are calling "provably untrue" you would have noticed that Clifford Krauss, the author of your "facts" has been referenced and refuted multiple times. And refuted, mind you, with sources from academia, such as Michael McClintock. Find an academic source to refute the one currently in there. If you insist on keeping the Journal article, then put it in additionally, and present it as a contrasting point of view. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

To repeat, Noam Chomsky is an ideological crank who has been refuted over and over again by numerous authors and is not taken seriously by anyone outside the extreme Left. I've read the book you're citing and it's completely worthless, as anyone who knew anything about Central America would be well aware. As for the WSJ report, who cares that Chomsky denounces the author? If a conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones denounces a respected journalist do you automatically side with Alex Jones? I really think there should be rules against people who try to fill Wikipedia with junk from cranks and conspiracy theorists. Accuracy88 (talk)

Accuracy88, you really need to do a fact check. I do not casually reference anything I can find and put it on Wikipedia. Chomsky's books and articles are used in mainstream academia the world over. With respect to Central America, the corrections I made were on the basis of the syllabus material for a Latin American History course at one of the most respected colleges in the USA Carleton College. You might have noticed that a couple of the sources were different authors. Chomsky happened to be the author who presented the facts most cohesively and concisely, hence I used him. The point you seem to be missing is that whatever a person's political views, you cannot change something like "torture happened at the hands of X". You might say it was justified, or that it was seen as necessary at that point. But it happened, and that is a fact. Especially in an area that has been researched so thoroughly in academia. News reports are an entirely different ball game; they do not stand up in the face of academic research, especially when the research points to something happening and the news report just doesn't mention it. Absence of evidence in mainstream media from that era cannot count as evidence of absence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your comments make it clear that you don't actually know much about the history of El Salvador. If you did you would recognize that Chomsky's conspiracy theory about Duarte being in league with the death squads is simply deranged. You've already been confronted with evidence disproving your claims and yet you prefer to place your faith in a crackpot. Chomsky is, as the liberal economist Brad DeLong once put it, a "nut-boy loon" and you're just making yourself look silly by defending his fantasies. Try this to see what academic historians actually think of Chomsky's rubbish. Accuracy88 (talk)

Accuracy88, whatever your views on "crackpots" I presume you are referring to Chomsky, you just removed a couple of other prominent scholars from the pageJose Napoleon Duarte, without providing academic evidence to support your claim. Please desist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.171.215 (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've no objection at all to including citations to Grandin but if you want to convince me you've read him, not just found his book listed on Amazon.com, I'll need to see a page reference and preferably a quotation.

You still haven't responded to the fact that the material you want to insert is incorrect. (1) It is not true that there's no evidence of a link between the guerrillas and the Soviets; (2) it is not true that the CIA forced Congress to cut off aid to EL Salvador and Israel then filled the gap; (3) it is not true that the CIA trained the death squads. Either provide serious, non-crackpot academic substantiation for these claims or desist from making them.

Also please remember to sign in every time you edit. Sometimes you edit as 137.22.171.215, sometimes as Vanamonde93. N.B. the policy on sockpuppetry: WP:Sockpuppetry. Accuracy88 (talk)

You keep referring to facts, while all you have produced as evidence is one WSJ article. Chomsky's book, and the chapter I refer to, has a hundred references, half academic, half from the papers. Likewise Grandin and Joseph, the other source. I'll find the page if you're so insistent. But they agree with Chomsky on all the essential points.

Also, the other edits are not by me. I use a public college computer. I sign my bloody edits. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)