Talk:1954 Guatemalan coup d'état

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Latin America Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Central America, which collaborates on articles related to Central America. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces (nations and regions): South American military history task force United States military history task force

Contents 1 Background section 2 thanks for heads up 3 Extreme Conservative Bias 4 I find it funny.or strange 5 Timeline to be added to the article 6 Role of United Fruit in instigating coup 7 Needed citations 8 "PB" 9 Requested move 10 Source? 11 Role of UFC 12 UFCO 13 Some changes 14 Polity Data Issues 15 NPOV 16 UFC Whitewashing continues 17 Compromise

[edit] Background section

While I, personally, appreciate your addition, I think there are a number of things that need to be addressed. This mainly has to do with not straying the focus of the article too much from being about the overthrow to being about the UFC. Anything brought up and elaborated upon, in that section or in the article in general, should essentially exist only insofar as it serves the focus of the article, which is on the coup. So information on the UFC is certainly relevant because it gives the reader a full perspective on and characterization of the influence of the UFC in Guatemala up to the point of the overthrow, and to talk about its minimal role in instigating it, but any information that goes beyond this general purpose shouldnt really be included -- in view of the focus of the article. Also, given the companys relatively minor role in instigating the coup, the "background" section should really focus more on background information on Guatemalan history that is strictly relevant to understanding the overthrow: this means information about his legalization of the PGT and Communist-like land reform decrees, which there already isnt enough of. Just overall I think most of the information is more suited for the Decree 900 article. Secondly, I really think you should add some of your sources to the references section, and also should individually footnote those quotations and some of the more questionable facts. This is really important to insure verifiability and to make this article more authoritative in general. --Clngre 19:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for heads up

In Re to older version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_PBSUCCESS&oldid=24173410

Thanks for heads up, I am new to Wikipedia.

My source of the information was the book "Inevitable Revolutions", which talks about America's historical role in Central America. I will add footnotes today

welcome! good job with the footnotes. --Clngre 14:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme Conservative Bias

Personally, I believe that your sources have an extreme conservative and anti-communist bias, especially the way it is described that Operation PBSUCCESS was successful and makes claims it was imperitave to the freedom of guatamalens. It goes on to say that the aftermath of a 30 year military oppression, enormous class gap, Genocide of the natives, and brutal tactics of removing guerrilla freedom-fighters with hundereds of thousands of civilian casualties was an error by the CIA of not realizing their candidate was an oppressive military dictator. It also represents the jacobo arbenz administration as a democratic socialism turned communist dictatorship. In truth Jacobo Arbenz was bringing social reform to a country that had been ruled by an oppressive Oligarchy since the Spanish Conquistadors arrived. He made great advances in human rights and should be honored. Your source also makes light of the UFC's hand in the coup. Arbenz needed to make land reforms in order to bring the social classes closer, 2% of the population owned 70% of the land, giving the few large fruit companies labor monopolies. When Arbenz tried to enact a land reform forcing the UFC to sell 178,000 unused acres, the UFC pulled strings in Washington to end "Arbenz's communist tyrranny". A coup was brought about by ending aid to guatemala, training a guatamalen contra army, bombing government buildings, and bribing guatemalen generals to refuse help to Arbenz. Despite the new reign of oppression and mass-murder, the United states continued to aid Guatemala's government an estimated $229 million dollars throughout the 30 year repression with the sole purpose of protecting US from communism close to home. These facts are backed up by reports by amnesty international, numerous reports in Foreign Affairs and a book writtnen about the 1954 Guatemalen coups, Bitter Fruit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.114.229.90 (talk • contribs).

I would disagree with only one of your points. I would not say that UFC had that huge of an impact. It certainly brought about a lot of attention of the matter (besides the fact that many senior members of the Eisenhower administration were connected to the company). The reason I would contest any major impact by UFC was the fact that the Justice Department slapped an anti-trust lawsuit on the company in 1954, the same year as the coup, precisely because of its operations in Guatemala, which is rather ironic. Besides that, I think you're right on. I own the book Bitter Fruit (good read regardless of your veiws on the subject). I think I might make some additions and edits to this article.

Laserbeamcrossfire

[edit] I find it funny.or strange

So Written,As this entire article has pro-UFC POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.94.139.71 (talk • contribs).

True, the person who guards this article feels that United Fruit Company had little part in the CIA intervention. I don't know enough about the subject to argue this. Travb (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline to be added to the article

I have no illusions anyone will do this. I will add it later.

PBSUCCESS Timeline

18 July 1949 Col. Francisco Arana, Guatemalan armed forces chief, assassinated.

15 May 1950 Thomas Corcoran, United Fruit Company lobbyist, meets with Deputy Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs, Thomas Mann, to suggest action to oust Guatemalan President Juan José Arévalo.

3 September 1950 Case officer [ ] assigned to project [ ] arrives in Guatemala City [ ]establishes contact with [ ]a student group.

11 November 1950 Jacobo Arbenz elected president.

15 March 1951 Arbenz inaugurated.

22 August 1951 United Fruit Company warns employees that any increase in labor costs would make its operations in Guatemala uneconomic and force it to withdraw from the country.

15 September 1951 Windstorm flattens United Fruit's principal Guatemalan banana farms at Tiquisate; United Fruit later announces it will not rehabilitate plantation until it has completed study of economics of Guatemalan operation.

26 September 1951 United Fruit suspends 3,742 Tiquisate employees, refuses to comply with order of Inspector General of Labor to reinstate the suspended employees.

30 October 1951 Walter Turnbull, Vice President of United Fruit, gives Arbenz ultimatum. United Fruit will not rehabilitate plantation without assurance of stable labor costs for three years and exemption from unfavorable labor laws or exchange controls.

19 December 1951 United Fruit announces reduction in passenger ship service to Guatemala.

2 January 1952 Labor Court of Appeals rules United Fruit must resume operations at Tiquisate and pay 3,742 employees back wages.

25 March 1952 Mexico City [ ]begins receiving weekly reports from Castillo Armas.

16 June 1952 Case officer [ ] arrives in Guatemala [ ]

17 June 1952 Arbenz enacts Agrarian Reform Law.

10 July 1952. DDP Allen Dulles meets with Mann to solicit State Department approval for plan to overthrow Arbenz.

7 August 1952. Distribution of land under the Agrarian Reform Law begins.

18 August 1952 DCI gives approval for PBFORTUNE.

2 October 1952 Pan American Airways settles three-month-old strike in Guatemala by raising wages 23 percent.

11 December 1952 Guatemalan Communist party opens second party congress with senior Arbenz administration officials in attendance.

12 December 1952 Workers at United Fruit's Tiquisate plantation file for expropriation of 55,000 acres of United Fruit land.

19 December 1952 Guatemalan Communist party, PGT, legalized.

5 February 1953 Congress impeaches the Supreme Court for "ignorance of the law which shows unfitness and manifest incapacity to administer justice" after the Court issued an injunction against further seizures of land.

25 February 1953 Guatemala confiscates 234,000 acres of United Fruit land.

18 March 1953 NSC 144/1, "United States Objectives and Courses with Respect to Latin America," warns of a "drift in the area toward radical and nationalistic regimes."

29 March 1953 Salamá uprising. Abortive rebellion touches off sup- pression campaign against anti-Communists in Guatemala

12 August 1953 National Security Council authorizes covert action against Guatemala.

11 September 1953 [ ] adviser to King, submits "General Plan of Action" for PBSUCCESS.

October 1953 John Peurifoy, new US Ambassador, arrives in Guatemala City.

9 November 1953 José Manuel Fortuny flies to Prague to negotiate purchase of arms.

16 November 1953 DDP Frank Wisner approves [ ] plan and recommends acceptance by DCI.

9 December 1953 DCI Allen Dulles approves general plan for PBSUCCESS, allocates $3 million for the program.

23 December 1953 CIA's LINCOLN Station opens [ ]

18 January 1954 Alfonso Martinez, head of the Agrarian Department, "flees" to Switzerland. Proceeds to Prague to negotiate arms deal.

[ ] [ ]

25 January 1954 Guatemalan Government begins mass arrests of suspected subversives.

29 January 1954 Guatemalan white paper accuses US of planning invasion. Reveals substantial details of PBSUCCESS.

2 February 1954 Sydney Gruson, New York Times correspondent, expelled from Guatemala by Guatemalan Foreign Minister

Guillermo Toriello. [ ]Wisner, King meet to decide whether to abort PBSUCCESS due to white paper revelations.

19 February 1954 Operation WASHTUB, a plan to plant a phony Soviet arms cache in Nicaragua, begins.

24 February 1954 Guatemala confiscates 173,000 acres of United Fruit land.

1 March 1954 Caracas meeting of the OAS opens.

4 March 1954 Dulles speaks to Caracas meeting.

5 March 1954 Toriello rebuts US charges.

13 March 1954 OAS votes 17 to 1 to condemn Communism in Guatemala. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles briefed on PBSUCCESS.

21 March 1954 Paramilitary training program graduates 37 Guatemalan sabotage trainees.

9 April 1954 Guatemalan Archbishop Mariano Rossell y Arrellana issues a pastoral letter calling for a national crusade against Communism.

10 April 1954 Wisner briefs Assistant Secretary of State Henry Holland on PBSUCCESS. Holland, shocked by security lapses, demands top-level review of project.

15-16 April 1954 Black flights suspended pending top-level review of PBSUCCESS.

17 April 1954 John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles give [ ] the "full green light."

20 April 1954 Paramilitary training program graduates 30 leadership trainees.

[ ] [ ]

1 May 1954 La Voz de la Liberación, Operation SHERWOOD, begins broadcasts.

14 May 1954 Paramilitary training program graduates communications trainees.

15 May 1954 SS Alfhem docks in Puerto Barrios with cargo of Czech weapons.

20 May 1954 Commando raid on trainload of Alfhem weapons. One soldier and one saboteur killed. Further sabotage attempts on 21 and 25 May. All fail. Official Guatemalan radio goes off the air to replace transmitter. not restart broadcasts until mid-June. Nicaragua breaks diplomatic relations with Guatemala.

24 May 1954 US Navy begins Operation HARDROCK BAKER, sea blockade of Guatemala.

29 May 1954 Arbenz rounds up subversives, netting nearly all of Castillo Armas's clandestine apparatus.

31 May 1954 Arbenz offers to meet with Eisenhower to reduce tensions.

4 June 1954 Col. Rodolfo Mendoza of Guatemalan air force defects to El Salvador with private plane.

8 June 1954 Víctor Manuel Gutiérrez, secretary general of the Guatemalan trade union federation, holds a special meeting of farm and labor unions to urge them to mobilize for self-defense.

15 June 1954 Sabotage teams launched. Invasion forces moved to staging areas. Chief of Station [ ] makes cold approach to [ ] prime defection candidate.

17 June 1954 [ ] meets again with [ ]

requests bombing of Guatemala City race track as demonstration of strength.

18 June 1954 At 1700 hours, Arbenz holds mass rally at railroad station. Buzzed by CIA planes. At 2020 hours, Castillo Armas crosses the border.

19 June 1954 At 0150 hours, bridge at Gualán blown up.

20 June 1954 Esquipulas captured. Rebels defeated at Gualán.

21 June 1954 Largest rebel force suffers disastrous defeat at Puerto Barrios.

25 June 1954 Matamoros Fortress bombed. Chiquimula captured. CIA planes strafe troop trains.

27 June 1954 Arbenz capitulates. Castillo Armas attacks Zacapa, is defeated, and falls back to Chiquimula. Agency plane bombs British freighter at San José.

28 June 1954 Díaz, Sணhez, and Monzón form junta at 1145 hours. Refused to negotiate with Castillo. F-47 dropped two bombs at x 530 hours

29 June 1954 Monzón seizes junta, requests negotiations with Castillo Armas. Zacapa garrison arranges cease-fire with Castillo Armas.

30 June 1954 Wisner sends "Shift of Gears" cable, urging officers to withdraw from matters of policy.

1 July 1954 Monzón and Castillo Armas meet in Honduras to mediate differences.

2 July 1954 SHERWOOD ceases broadcasts, begins withdrawal.

4-17 July 1954 CIA documents recovery team, PBHISTORY, collects 150,000 Communist-related documents in Guatemala City.

12 July 1954 LINCOLN office closed.

1 September 1954 Castillo Armas assumes presidency.

26 July 1957 Castillo Armas assassinated.

Signed:Travb (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Role of United Fruit in instigating coup

This seems to be a fairly contentious issue -- or, at very least, contentious enough that a number of anonymous users have taken to deleting the existing information, which claims that their role in instigating the coup was relatively minimal, despite the popular belief to the otherwise. Before anyone reverts the existing information again, I think it would be a good idea that they provide a rationale for it here first or inconjunction with the revert. I do think their role was relatively minimal, and my main source for this is the internally-written CIA history of the coup (no need for any coverup or polemic with something written for the benefit of trainee agents studying case histories), which is remarkably scathing and negative towards the CIA's action in its own right. --Clngre 03:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally believe that the UFC had a much larger role than some may say, but I do believe that the CIA had a larger role in calling for the coup. I believe such evidence can be found in Kinzer and Schlesinger's book Bitter Fruit. Like you, I have not done extensive study on the coup, so I can't go off anything more than what I've read. I do think the edits need to be explained. --Laserbeamcrossfire 07:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well what does one do in a situation like this? The anonynous user is just obstinately deleting those passages and completely ignoring any discussion on the matter, despite my appeals for that. For the last revert I said to see the talk page before deleting again and I don't know what else to do. I'm hesitant to just revert again because I think he'll return it in kind and it will just go on forever. The only recourse is discussion and he's evidently not open to that.

Regarding United Fruit's role, we absolutely should put up any available evidence of a greater role in the coup, if there is some, and accurately represent the issue -- ie, if it is seriously contentious and there is good arguments for both positions, that should be reflected in the article somehow. As far as I know it, the UFC pushed for it as hard as it could but that the decision was ultimately made on different grounds (vis a vis the Cold War) and not expressly for them, with the idea of their direct and complete responsibility in this just being kind of urban legend. It also dovetails nicely with a narrative that a lot of people want to be true (and which I think is, to be clear) of the wealthy, particularly corporations, being the de facto ruling class in the US, as well as being huge proponents of war (a company has a responsibility to its shareholders to make profit! people will yell. It's not their fault, they're just obeying the law!). --Clngre 12:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the reference and quotes that minimize UFC's role in the overthrow fo two reason's. The first is that your supposed source that proves that overthrow was planned before the arbenze governments reforms were implemented seems rather flimsy. In the source section you cite you say the document proves this, but you are not quoting the document itself, only the preface of the document which sounds to me less like hard evidence and more like state department apologetics. You also fail to realize that although there was some preliminary planning to overthrow the abenze government, it was squashed by Truman before the end of his term. The plan was revived in the eisenhower adminstration due to heavy lobbying by the UFC. The second reason I deleted this information is what I consider to be a bias prevalent on wikipedia. It is not a conservative bias, nor a neo-conservative bias, not even a libertarian bias, but a sort of childish contratian bias. It seems partly Objectivist, and partly a somewhat pathological need to defend free-market capitalism. In your last post you said that those of us who disagree with you have need to want this to be true. You say that you agree with this, but in this case it simply isn't true. You seem like a perfectly reasonable person so at this point I have no reason to doubt you in that statement. However, I am somewhat suspicious when at the beginning of the article you say that the UFC played a relatively minor role, even though later in the article you admit they heavily lobbyed the Eisenhower adminstration to take action. Under no circumstances can this be considered a relatively minor role. Relatively minor role implies "Well they didn't like arbenze, but it is more paranoia about communism than anything else". Even if the source you cited was accurate in the way you protray it(Let's remember that this is a document released by the government, so they may have vested interest in twisting the truth a little bit) you still have to admit that UFC played a rather huge role in convincing goverment officials two go along with the coup. There is a gentlemen a few post's back who has a rather invaliable timeline that show's that UFC was concerned about it's operations in Guatemala well before the document you cited was created. I will say that if you wish to restore the document that you feel proves your thesis I will not make any further attempts to delete, I just ask that you fully read more of it than just the introductory parts of it. I also stress some caution from now in using the term relatively minor to decribe the UFC's role. I thank you for this talk and wish to say I meant no disrespect in my actions and I hope you don't take it personally. -user annoymous 9:30, August 20, 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the timely reply! To be clear, when I said a minor role, I meant specifically in the choice to actually launch the coup, not a minor role in that they weren't involved in some signficant ways, which they absolutely were. If we're looking at the "why" with the coup, why it launched and who is responsible, I don't think it's accurate or sufficient to just put it at the it at the feet of UFC. I think the point is that, while the UFC certainly wanted this and certainly worked hard to get it, the ultimate decision to launch the coup was made on different grounds. To put it in other words: would there still have been a coup if the UFC didn't involve itself? I think the answer is yes and that's kind of what I want to get across in the article, and I have no problem accepting that I failed in clearly communicating that and that the message that ultimately got across was that the UFC is irrelevant in this, which would be totally wrong. I have no intention of absolving the UFC on this, their interests in the coup can't be overlooked, but at the same time I don't think one could best explain that "why" by simply pointing to the UFC -- there are much bigger issues at play there. The prevailing calculus was always with regards to the Cold War, I think, and the idiotic decision to launch the coup, especially the way they did it, was more do to Cold War hysteria than overt maliciousness and greed.

With regards to my source, I don't really accept your characterization of it as suspect or as being an apologetic. The author was an outside expert who was brought in to go through all the CIA's files on the coup and write a narrative history of it, wholly and specifically for internal use. In such a context, there is no need to lie or distort. At the time it was written there was no idea of if or when or how it would ever be published, it was only for trainees and research within the CIA. Moreover, his report was released and published into a book almost by accident -- there was a brief period of post-Cold War openness in the CIA and the censors pretty much let it slip by, and later editions of it actually have some stuff removed. Now, I'm not saying that, therefore, this source is all there is to care about and everything else is inferior to it, I'm just saying theres some information in here that can't be justly ignored.

Just for full disclosure, I should say that I wrote 99% of the article as it is in its current form. People have since ammended little bits here or there, but pretty much everything you see is my writing, so I can answer for it if need be. --Clngre 15:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you mistook my criticism of your primary source. Although I was suspect of the documents intentions, my main criticism was that your conclusion about the document was based on the Introductory parts of the document and not what was actually in the document. In the actual document itself there are several references to the UFC's influence from the very beginning. It seems to me your also not taking into account the fact it was not just the arbenze government that the UFC was worried about. As you show in your otherwise extremely well written article, the UFC had been worried about there operations in Guatemala since the 1944 revolution. Now I am not disputing that there were those in the intelligence community who were genuinely paranoid about a communist takeover and thought that Guatemala was under the influence of the Soviet Union . I am merely suggesting that they were led to believe this by the UFC. I know your going to say "Well how do you know what people were influenced by back then". However, if you look at your own arguement closely you will see that your doing the same thing by assuming that people's fear of communism was more prevalent than there need to satisfy the UFC. I am suggesting that the two are interlated, fear of communism and the pressure from the UFC. You also seem to disregard a key point in this situation in that the adminstration changed in between the years of arbenze coming to power and the actual coup. Whatever plans may have originated to oust arbenze before Eisenhower came to office were squashed by Truman (as you acknowledge in your article). It was only after intense lobbying from the UFC that the plans to overthrow arbenze were rehashed. I was not specifically questioning the accuracy of your article, I was simply saying it proves very little. I never expected to find a document written by some state department offical that said "Well we don't care about communism, were just out to please the UFC". I simply stating that in specific case of Guatemala the fear of communism was exaserbated by the UFC. Again I know your going to accuse me of trying to read the minds of what people thought over 50 years ago, but as i said it seems to me you are doing the same thing. You suggest in your article that the fear of communism was so dominant in peoples thinking that at best the UFC was nothing more than a sidenote. You acknowledged in your last post that UFC did want arbenze ousted and lobbied hard for it. However, in a few post's back you say there direct role in the decision was an urban legend. This seems to be a contadictory line thinking in my mind. If a group was involved in directly lobbying for something that they desperately wanted, you cannot say there direct involvment was an urban legend. At best you must acknowledge that there involvment was at least equal to the fear of communism. You say that you feel the coup would have happened had the UFC not been involved. I disagree, but for the sake arguement let's say I agree with that assesment. Let's then ask the opposite question that if there had been no fear of Soviet influence in this case and there was just the UFC would the coup still have happened. I would say yes. The contention between you and me seems be about which feeling was more prevalent among those who instigated the coup. In the interest of fairness I'll say that specualting about that is mere conjecture and that either viewpoint could be right, but since I gather that neither of us is psychic or able to magically see back into the past, it is a rather moot point. Again as i said before I will not interfere if you wish to reinstate your source, I just ask that you examine it more carefully. I also suggest that you adjust your POV at the begiining of the article to reflect a more neutral point of view. I would just like to say that on the whole I think your article is extremely well written. user:annoymous 12:30, August 20, 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.210.28.135 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Needed citations

Speaking about Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, the article says that

An intellectual, he advocated social and political reforms, unionization, and land reform. For the latter, Arbenz secretly met with members of the Communist Guatemalan Labor Party (known by its Spanish acronym 'PGT') in order to establish an effective land reform program. Such a program was proposed by Arbenz as a means of remedying the extremely unequal land distribution within the country: in 1945, it was estimated that 2% of the country's population controlled 72% of all arable land, but with only 12% of it being utilized.

This statistic about the percent of land being utilized definitely needs a cited source. There is none.

[edit] "PB"

The article mentions that the 'PB' of PBSUCCESS comes from 'Presidential Board'. I have read in at least two other sources that it refers to the two country digraph that the CIA used to indicate 'Guatemala', however I can't find anywhere where this is indicated for sure? Anyone know?

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Source?

What is the source for the Czech arms shipment to Arbenz's reime?

[edit] Role of UFC

I can't believe where going through this again. Why does Wikipedia continually try to whitewash the UFC's role in the coup. Do you guys have some great inabilty to criticize corporate power. The UFC'S involvement didn't start with the 1952 land reform. They had been worried about events in Guatemala since the 1944 revolution. The very document you sight to prove your claims mentions the arbenz governments harrasment of UFC in 1951 before the land reform.

Also, whatever plans were hatched to overthrow arbenz before 1952 were merely academic as the plan wasn't approved until after the land reform.

You also seem to forget a key fact that the administration in America changed betweened 1952 and 1953. Whatever plans may have existed before 1953 were squashed by Truman. It was only after intense lobbying from the UFC on the Eisenhower administration(stacked with former PR men for the UFC) that the coup plan was revived.

I mean for christs sake even Howard Hunt, who was involved in the coup, said he felt the coup was just to satisfy the UFC.

As I've said in previous posts, I'm willing to accept that the fear of communism may been a genuine motivator for some involved in the coup. However, I personally believe that this notion was created by the UFC. Now I don't expect you to take my personal opinion as fact, but to minimize the UFC's role and state there involvement was "Relatively small" is flat out disengenious. You at least acknoweledge that there role was equal to the fear of communism. annoynmous 08:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UFCO

To somewhat echo the editor's sentiments from above, I do not believe the statement in the lead that says UFCO played a minor role in the 1954 coup d'état of Guatemala is satisfactorily sourced. The State Department cannot possibly be considered a neutral source, as it played a big role. In the same fashion, Richard Bissell, who makes the same claim in the NYT article that is referenced, is not a neutral source, as he was working for the CIA during the time of the coup d'état. On the other hand, there are plenty of reputable, reliable sources that give weight to UFCO's involvement in the 1954 coup d'état. I hope someone will fix the article, because I haven't really got the time or desire. Arbenz, of course, was not a communist. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The documentary 'The Century of the Self' suggests that UFC weren't much directly involved in the coup (except some lobbying maybe), but they hired some PR guy who created a front organisation to drum up support from public/government instead, maybe this could be included (if that documentary is considered solid enough) as a possible reason there is so much debate over UFCs role. --81.150.229.68 (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some changes

I've removed the polity series data as not very useful or relevant to the article. What value does it add? It's just one measure of democracy, a particular quantitative model--and disputed one--out of many others. There is no need to promote this one here, esp. not without critics of it. To do so is in effect having WP give it a stamp of endorsement. That is POV. It adds no value to a discussion. I also removed the telegraph piece that makes a false argument, a straw man fallacy by saying the US can not be blamed for all the deaths, which is very is silly: No one does so. It would be relevant to include only if there is a claim that the US is blamed for all the deaths. Upon further examination it is not actually from a close historical examination of Guatemalan history. It is from an op-ed piece specifically directed at the Nobel prize acceptance speech of Harold Pinter. One of Pinter's comments about Ferguson's article, supported by others, was that "Ferguson distorted the whole bloody thing." This op-ed quote has no place in any scholarly article about any subject matter except perhaps about Ferguson and his issues with Pinter, or vise versa, as that is its polemical context, not an historical study, or scholarly paper in anyway. WP has to have better standards than to include straw man fallacies not repeated by any reliable source.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Valid points. I followed this from the dicussion about this from here[1]. Its worth reviewing the discussion. The same pertains to this article I should say?DrGabriela (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires that views of both sides should be presented. The current text lists deaths due to the war and implies that coup was responsible.Ferguson is a respected historian. The given critical source is a dubious op-ed.Ultramarine (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. That deaths were caused by the coup and the US was involved are not a matter of any disagreement. The Ferguson op-ed piece, however argues a point not in contention: that all deaths are not attributable to the US. This would be valid if the claim were made. The problem is that this is not a claim that is made and therefore it does not offer a counter point of view per NPOV requirements. I'm persuaded by the arguments presented by other editors that this is a poor choice of addition to the article. Can you find a better source that does address an argument that is made?DrGabriela (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the deaths and coup/CIA are mentioned in the same paragraph it is implied that the US are responsible. NPOV requires the inclusion of opposing views. Alternatively the civilian death toll could be removed if it is not alleged that the US was responsible for all those deaths.Ultramarine (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me where it says the US is responsible for ALL the deaths? Perhaps I missed it.DrGabriela (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I said that it is implied by listing the numbers. It is not implied, what is the problem with pointing this out? Regarding the Polity, it is a very respectable source used in hundreds/thousands of peer-reviewed articles and what happened with the degree of democracy after the coup is obviously relevant.Ultramarine (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. How is having a role involved imply that all deaths are being blamed? Why not use historians who specialize in Guatemala and cite the actual numbers with what they say are attributable?

If the US is not responsible for all those deaths, then what is the problem with pointing this out explicitly? So there is no misunderstanding?

About the Polity Series, can you provide a reliable source that says that the Polity Data describes something significant about the coup? I would like you to address the various points and arguments raised by editors I provided in the link above. I see the same points applying here. There are several critical opinions about this measure of democracy, and I do not see how assigning a number from it adds anything particularly important.DrGabriela (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Polity data series is one of the most widely used measures in empirical research. That there are some critics of this measure, like all other measures, does not lessen the notability. Again, what happened with the degree of democracy after the coup is obviously relevant? Are you arguing that it is not? Ultramarine (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Degree of democracy according to this particular measurement, out of other possible measurements? The view of democracy is also one of debate. Why is it relevant to put a number on it using this model? I don't understand. I have posted below the questions and arguments so I don't have to repeat them here as they involve the same issue, the coup in Guatemala.DrGabriela (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not decide which view is right. If you have another view regarding the degree of democracy, then please add it so all sides are represented.Ultramarine (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right. That is why I do not think it is right for you to choose one measure of democracy as the winner. More to the point, I do not think this is the right article to list all different measure of democracy (capitalist, socialist, etc). This article is about the coup of 1954 in Guatemala. It is not about a debate of different kinds of measures for democracies that purport to capture it with a single number. You have not explained how this is useful.DrGabriela (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have: "Again, what happened with the degree of democracy after the coup is obviously relevant. Are you arguing that it is not?" I am not saying that Polity is the winner. Feel free to add a contrary sourced view. Ultramarine (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that using one system that is disputed (capuring it in one number) is not relevant, yes. What is relevant is if you cite a political scientists or historian whose work is on Guatemalan history who talks about the point about democracy that you feel is important to mention.DrGabriela (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exclude material for being disputed. See WP:NPOV. Again, add a sourced opposing view regarding the degree of democracy in Guatemala if you disagree. Polity is cited in hundreds or thousands of empirical studies by political scientists so more notable than any single one.Ultramarine (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polity Data Issues

I list the various points that I'd like addressed about this from the link I provided above. I noticed you are placing this in several articles but the same problems exist. This is from an article about the same topic area:

"Schirmer also questions the utility of traditional conceptualizations of civil-military relations and measures of democracy. Going back to the barracks and permitting civilians to occupy the presidential palace is not enough. This case adds credence to the research of J. Patrice McSherry and others who have conceptualized "guardian" and "facade" democracy. After reading this book, one cannot help but cringe at certain quantitative measures of democracy such as POLITY 98, which assigns Guatemala a democracy score of eight out of a possible ten in 1996-1998.3 The Guatemalan Military Project is a must-read for scholars interested in Central America, democratization, civil-military relations, and conflict resolution." It is unclear if Schirmer questions Polity at all. The comment of a book reviewer on the Polity scores after the end of the civil war seem less important for this article, but could possible be included as now.Ultramarine (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph is your original interpretation of the Polity data. What is your criteria for democracy on the Polity scale? In other words what score is the cut off point for democracy. Is it 5? Please provide a reliable source that your original interpretation is valid. To quote James W. Davis in his critique "The Fuzzy Concept of Democracy" -

"But though a large number of scholars use the data generated by the Polity Project’s operational definitions of democracy

and autocracy, they do not agree on the cut-off point for the existence of a “democratic” state. That is, even if they judge ::polities according to their score on the 21 point POLITY index, they disagree as to the proper boundary between democracy and autocracy.

It's not up to you to be "the scholar" who provides an original intepretation of the data. BernardL (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Polity ranks from -10 to 10. I am not talking about any cut off point. Only about the degree of democracy on this scale which can be nonexistant. Not claiming that Guatemala was democratic at any particular time. Have clarified the text to state "ranks the degree of democracy" instead of "see democracy".Ultramarine (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see how the Polity material adds anything useful to the article. Given its controversial and ambiguous ranking system, I agree that it should not be included.Notmyrealname (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it doesnt add anything very useful and promotes with undue weight a particular conception and model of democracy. But if it is to be included it should be with some balancing critical voice, as I've added, and it should be in the section that discusses democracy. I'n not sure why Ultrarmine keeps putting it in the "Origins" section. I'll see if I can fix that.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourced information. If you have more sourced information, then please add it.Ultramarine (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it belongs in an article. Notmyrealname (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No one has given an explanation for why the sources material is incorrect. Except unexplained allegations of POV. Please state some concrete objections or it will be restored.Ultramarine (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well [Kirk Bowman in a review in the Journal of Third World Studies of Jennifer Schirmer book the The Guatemalan Military Project states regarding the Polity Series, "one cannot help but cringe at certain quantitative measures of democracy such as POLITY 98, which assigns Guatemala a democracy score of eight out of a possible ten in 1996-1998."this is one source. But the larger point is really that it doesn't present useful information to the reader. In fact, it distracts the reader from the content of the article. Plotting a country's "democracyness" on a 20 point scale is cute, but not the kind of information that belongs here. This isn't about the inclusion or exclusion of controversial material, but rather about useful v. not-useful. We can't include everything that has ever been published in an article. We must edit for clarity and usefulness. Please don't reinsert unless you can build a consensus here. Notmyrealname (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Degree of democracy is background material.Ultramarine (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the deletion of anything significant here. The Polity ranking is not helpful. You need to do a better job of convincing other editors of its usefulness and relevancy before reinserting it. This doesn't seem to be a POV content issue. Please don't edit war about it. Notmyrealname (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A vague accusation have been made that the degree of democracy is not relevant. Obviously it is. If it is not, then why do we mention the 1954 coup?Ultramarine (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the "degree of democracy" ranking by Polity, included here without any context or meaningful timeframe, does more to confuse the reader than inform them. Saying "democracy was a six under this dictatorship but a 4 under this one," is a meaningless set of numbers. The Polity metrics could be useful in other contexts among a readership that understands their limitations and parameters. The section you are trying to include is gibberish. Not everything can be included in the article. Better to include actual events, like the 1954 coup, than a metric that most people aren't familiar with.Notmyrealname (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Polity scores has been used in hundreds or thousands of peer-reviewed papers so it is a reliable source. Ultramarine (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I never questioned its reliability (speaking of straw man arguments). The text you are trying to include uses a very broad and vague brush that does not add anything useful to the article. It basically says "things got bad after the 1954 coup, and then got either better or worse until the end of the war." It would be more informative to say that Guatemala was ruled continuously by military dictatorships from the 1954 coup through 1986, with the exception of 1966-70 when the civilian president was allowed to sign a pact with the army that limited his power [2]... More would need to be said about the frequency of coups d'etat, auto coups, etc. in the following period, as well as the ongoing culture of attacks against members of civil society.Notmyrealname (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

First you accuse me of being too technical, now for being "broad and vague". I can certainly add the exact scores if missing that is what makes the statement "vague". "Guatemala was ruled continuously by military dictatorships from the 1954 coup through 1986, with the exception of 1966-70 when the civilian president was allowed to sign a pact with the army that limited his power" Cannot find this in the given source. Quote please. There were several elections, except under Montt, so an outright dictatorship is false. If you want to add another source and view regarding degree of democracy, then that is fine. Not a reason for excluding polity scores.Ultramarine (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are reasons and those have been stated. Its does not add value but only undue weight to advance only one out of many models of democracy in this article. This article is not about models of democracy. Also, your re-organization makes this article harder to read/follow. You have never explained that. There is a section on democracy yet you want to stick the polity stuff on the "Origins' section. Again, makes it harder to follow. It was better before.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, the degree of democracy is obviously relevant. If it is not, then why do we mention the 1954 coup? If the source is POV or dubious, which is strange considering that it has been used in numerous scholarly articles, then add another sourced POV. Degree of democracy should be in the "background" section. Ultramarine (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For one thing show us a reliable source that says that the Polity Data says something significant about the civil war. I have read several major Guatemalan historians (Susanne Jonas, Greg Grandin, Piero Gleijeses) and while they discuss the subject of democracy in relation to the war, none of them are paying attention to the Polity Data. So far it is only you that is saying the Polity Data is specifically relevant to the discussion of the civil war.BernardL (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Already given sources showing that it is used in numerous academic studies. I will add a link showing its relation to Guatemala.Ultramarine (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not just talk about what kind of governments there were instead of using a metric that most non-academics are familiar with? And people have decided that 1954 was important in Guatemala's history long before Polity came around. This issue seems like a distraction that does not have any support here. Please do not reinsert it without building consensus around it.Notmyrealname (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick Google search produced this excellent article, which lays out several methodological and conceptual problems with the Polity data. Its sources include many other academic critiques.Notmyrealname (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Add this if you want to. Already given link showing its academic significance.Ultramarine (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors. Its better without it. Not relevant to the Civil War. Its clutter.Rafaelsfingers (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, the degree of democracy is obviously relevant. If it is not, then why do we mention the 1954 coup? If the source is POV or dubious, which is strange considering that it has been used in numerous scholarly articles, then add another sourced POV.Ultramarine (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also added their classification of the worst part of the civil war.Ultramarine (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus that the polity series data is relevant to the Guatemalan Civil War. All other editors here who have commented on it, four, agree it doesn't belong. So, I don't know why it keeps being returned to the article. It's one measure of democracy--a disputed one--out of many others. It adds no value to a discussion of the Civil War. I've removed it.

Also, I removed the telegraph piece that makes a false argument, a straw man fallacy by saying the US can not be blamed for all the deaths. But that is silly. No one does so. It would be relevant to include only if there is a claim that the US is blamed for all the deaths.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

About the Ferguson quote from Telegraph- it is not actually from a close historical examination of Guatemalan history. It is from an op-ed piece specifically directed at the Nobel prize acceptance speech of Harold Pinter. One of Pinter's comments about Ferguson's article, supported by others, was that "Ferguson distorted the whole bloody thing." Now Ultramarine thinks this little quip from Ferguson is so important that it should go into several articles where there is neither evidence of commentary by Pinter nor evidence of any source making the claim that the U.S. is culpable of all 200,000 deaths. He has inserted the same quote in this civil war article, in Foreign Policy of the United States, in 1954 Guatemalan Coup D'etat, had formerly inserted it into Allegations of States Terrorism Committed by the United States, and Church Committee and who knows where else. The Polity Data information is inserted in pretty much the same places too!BernardL (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that too. That op-ed quote has no place in any scholarly article about any subject matter except perhaps about Ferguson and his issues with Pinter, or vise versa, as that is its polemical context, not an historical study, or scholarly paper in anyway. WP has to have better standards than to include straw man fallacies not repeated by any reliable source.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued in one place here: [3]

[edit] NPOV

All US supporting sourced material regarding later atrocities removed: [4]. NPOV requires that views from both sides should be included.Ultramarine (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UFC Whitewashing continues

Once again someone is trying to whitewash the UFC's role in the coup. As a previous commentator said there is ample evidence that the UFC was heavily involved in the coup. There involvment did not start with the 1952 land reform. As the document you cite shows they were concerned with arbenze rom the moment he came into office. In fact they had been concerned about there assets in guatemala ever since the 1944 revolution. Just becuase there was a plan before the land reform doesn't mean the UFC wasn't involved. So to call there involvment relatively minor is simply a distortion of the truth. User:annoynmous:annoynmous 01:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete sourced material.Ultramarine (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone do a proper job of actually sourcing this? The link doesn't lead to anything that directly supports the claim. Also, "contrary to popular belief" isn't NPOV. Notmyrealname (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't remove anything, the sources are still there I just removed them from the top of the article and removed the "Relatively Minor" editorializing. annoynmous 07:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You deleted the sourced argument. I have made the text more neutral and added a source. Do not delete a sourced view. Wikipedia does not determine truth. We just report different views on a matter.Ultramarine (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No we report claims that are sources. Nowhere in the article is the word relatively minor written. Also Bissell's quote is irrelevant that despite the fact that he isn't a neutral source his quote is also just factually untrue. To say that the UFC had nothing to do with the coup is just plain false. As the article shows they heavily lobbied the White house to do something about Arbenz. So how Bissell's quote at all relevant.

Also, I'll state once again for the hundredth time, the State Department document you site mentions conflict between the UFC and the Arbenz government from the moment he came into office. Also the plan was only a contingency plan, not a full on serious plan to overthrow the government. The Plan to get rid of Arbenz didn't become serious until after the land reform.

In a sidenote I also find it funny that there's no mention of Edward Bernay's in this article sense he's the one who devised the propaganda campaign for the UFC against Arbenz. annoynmous 04:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultra is, as usual, quite correct here. I see sources from the State dept., NYT, and major publishers being removed. Also, removing a source because you disagree with what the source is saying is against policy. - Merzbow (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you and Ultra are mistaken. Ultra's edits appear to constitute original research and POV pushing. The section immediately preceding the quote from the State Department document says "The landed elite vehemently opposed any measure that would challenge their right to private property and immediately began publishing anti-reform pamphlets in which they complained that Communists had infiltrated the government. Complicating the situation, the United Fruit Company immediately recognized that, given its massive land holdings, it would feel the impact of the agrarian reform more than any other entity in the country. In stark contrast to the country's large landholders, Guatemalan peasants responded exuberantly to the reform. Indeed, for some the land redistribution did not move quickly enough; they resorted to land seizure and the occupation of large plantations." The document does not deny the UFC's undeniable involvement in pushing for the coup. Ultra's edits give a mistaken impression that it does. NPOV doesn't mean that you have to give equal weight to every view (e.g. the moon landing didn't happen, the Illuminati control the world, etc.). You don't need to give equal weight to one newspaper quote versus every reliable academic history of Guatemala.Notmyrealname (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No stating that the UFC has not role at all. Will clarify this further. Also not a newspaper quote but a study using previously classified documents.Ultramarine (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop mass deletion of sourced material and incorrect edit summaries: [5]. The state department is not a fringe source and you completely deleted a sourced view. If you disagree, add sourced material yourself. See NPOV, claimed POV is not an excuse for simply deleting views disagreed with.Ultramarine (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am doing no such thing. I have removed a quote from the State Department that does not support the view you appear to be pushing: "However, the importance of the United Fruit Company in instigating the coup d'etat is disputed." The State Department document does not dispute the importance of the UFC in the coup. Please stop saying that it does. The fringe view from the newspaper quote is Bissell. One newspaper quote by an interested party does not merit equal space under NPOV, but is rather Undue Weight. Putting all that aside, the sections you are repeatedly trying to insert contain massive duplications.Notmyrealname (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Duplication is not a reason for removing every instance of sourced material like you do. You are quoting a a newspaper to support your view so double standard to exclude another newspaper. Again, claiming POV is not an excuse for deletion. See NPOV. Add your own sourced POV if you disagree with a sourced POV.Ultramarine (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fringe view is your opinion. It's a quote in the New York Times. There is absolutely no reason to delete it. There is also absolutely no reason to delete the State dept. material containing the quote "Agrarian reform was not the issue--communism was", this is not necessarily about the UFC, but given that the land redistribution undertaken by Arbenz was especially directed at UFC land, its clearly relevant. - Merzbow (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what newspaper article Ultra thinks I'm citing. The opening paragraph incorrectly states: However, the importance of the United Fruit Company in instigating the coup d'etat is disputed. A U.S. State Department report released in 2003 states " As early as 1951--well before an agrarian reform law could be written, much less passed--the Central Intelligence Agency was already drawing up a contingency plan (code-named PBFORTUNE) to oust Arbenz. In the Agency's view, Arbenz's toleration for known Communists made him at best a "fellow traveler," and at worst a Communist himself. The social unrest that accompanied the passage and implementation of the Agrarian Reform Law supplied critics in Guatemala and Washington with confirmation that a Communist beachhead had been established in the Americas. Agrarian reform was not the issue--communism was." Mr. Arbenz. Richard Bissell, a former Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence, says in an interview that there "is absolutely no reason to believe" the desire to help United Fruit played "any significant role" in reaching the decision. ---- The State department doesn't dispute the role of UFCo. Let's take it out of here, okay? Also, please look at the references section. The formatting is a complete mess.Notmyrealname (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with removing the State dept. quote from the lead, but leaving the "disputed" sentence followed by Bissell, and also leaving the State dept. quote in the "Land redistribution" section, which it clearly is relevant to. - Merzbow (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what the results look like and we can take it from there. I have no interest in edit warring or POV pushing. Just be careful to avoid original research, including drawing interpretations that are not explicit in the items you are citing. That includes debunking "straw man" arguments. Please fix the formatting on reference number five. I can't make heads or tails of it.Notmyrealname (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why Bissell's quote is at all relevant given that it's simply factually untrue, the UFC did have something to do with the coup. So why is a former government officials biased outlook taken as a neutral observation. annoynmous 04:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You cannot remove reliable sources from an article because you, personally, believe them to be untrue. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:V. - Merzbow (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think one way out of this is to have a section devoted to the role of the UFCO in the coup. In this section we provide all the different arguments on all sides. Given that this is a side issue to the topic of the article, it makes more sense to have it here than sprinkled throughout. The section might be called "Debate about the role of the United Fruit Company in the coup." There actually is a serious debate about it. Schleschinger and Kinzer make the classic case for deep involvement in Bitter Fruit. Gleijeses seems to agree that they had some role, but argues that S&K overstate the case. (see the Conclusion to Shattered Hope). Let's all work together to try to improve the quality of the content of this article, not just try to push our own points of view.Notmyrealname (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do we have to accomodate nonsense. Just about everyone agrees that the UFC played a significant role in the coup. Neither Merbow or ultramarine have provided one piece of solid proof to support there claims. The State Department document, as Notmyrealname states, clearly mentions the UFC's anxiety about Arbenze from the moment he came into office. They also falsely claim that the document shows that there was a full-fledged paln to overthrow arbenze before the land reform. It was just a contingency plan and wasn't approved as an active operation until after the land reform as the timeline higher up the talk page shows. Not that it matters anyway sense Truman had banned all covert operations abroad. Both the overthrow of Mossadegh and Arbenze weren't fully implemented until Eisenhower came into office with Dulles as the head of state. Dulles and many other officials in the adminstration were very influenced by the UFC so how can anyone say they didn't paly a significant role.

As for Bissell, a former agency man who was involved in a lot of shady activities, why should anything he says be given credence. it would be like asking Richard Helms, who lied to congress, his opinion on the matter. Even if his opinion was relevant, what about Howard Hunt who said the whole operation was just to satisfy the UFC.

I'm willing to accept that the fear of communism was equal to the influence of the UFC, but I'm not going to accept anyone saying that the UFC didn't paly a major role at all. There is no serious historian or commentator who says the UFC didn't play at least and equal role to the fear of a Soviet Beachead. I think the article as it stands reflect's that and any other adding of comments is just irresponsible editorializing.

Once again I'll also mention that it is odd that Edward Bernay's isn't mentioned in this article sense he basically ran the propoganda campaign for the UFC. annoynmous 23:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the Bissel quote is from a reliable source, and so is the State dept. material. How many times must you be told that you cannot remove material from reliable sources because you personally disagree with them? - Merzbow (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No one ever said the documents were not authentic and I haven't erased them. There is simply nothing in them that supports the notion that the UFC played a minor role in the coup. The document clearily shows that there was significant friction between the UFC and the Arbenze government before the land reform. It is you and Ultramarine who have misrepresented what the document actually says.

As for the Bissell quote, it is irrelevant because it is both baised and factually untrue. I'm sure there are a lot of former government officials willing to offer apologetics for the coup, that doesn't mean we have to treat them seriously.annoynmous 04:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The State dept. documents are now only mentioned in a section called "Land redistribution", and thus there is no requirement that they mentioned the UFC. "baised and factually untrue" - again your opinion. For the zillionth time, you cannot remove sources because you personally disagree with them. The quote appeared in the New York Times, and is from a former CIA official; in other words, extremely relevant. - Merzbow (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Merzbow, you do realize the State Department was heavily involved in the coup d'état, do you not? Historians interested in scholarly pursuits only use such government information with extreme circumspect and regard it to be entirely suspect. Most avoid American government information altogether when dealing with United States-Latin American relations, except to show how the U.S. view their foreign policy. In the same fashion, the guy in the interview was working with the CIA while it subverted the Guatemalan government. Talk about a conflict of interest! These are hardly reliable or neutral sources. UFCO's involvement in the coup is well documented by historians, and to suggest a minimalistic role is nothing short of whitewashing. This issue has been brought up several times, including by myself above. This issue warrants serious and resolute debate if Wikipedia is to be interested in building reliable, accurate, and neutral encyclopedia. My regards. ~ UBeR (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The State department and the NYT are not reliable sources? Is this a joke? Nobody is claiming the State department material be presented as fact, only as the opinion of the State department. But to claim the opinion of the US government is not reliable enough to be reported in an article about a coup allegedly engineered by the U.S.? I've seen you edit and I know you're a lot smarter than this, UBeR. - Merzbow (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it shouldn't be included. Quite to the contrary--it should very much be included. However, these two sources (not the NYT, but rather the guy being interviewed) are not neutral per se when it comes to discussing communism containment in Latin America. They should be included very prominently to show their opinion of their actions, but at the same time there should be academic, peer-reviewed literature (per encyclopedic standards) that may very well refute the claims of the State Department and CIA officials. ~ UBeR (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay once again because I'm getting tired of repeating myself, no one ever said the State Department documents were irrelevant and I never deleted them, I simply said that you and Ultramarine have been giving a false view of what the documents actually say. You have editorialzed a point of view that the documents themselves don't show.

As for Bissell, so what if his quote was in the New York Times, that doesn't make it true. I ask again if they had quoted Richard Helms, a man who lied to congress, would you consider it relevant. Bissell was involved with the coup so why should his quote be seen as relevant. You seem to forget that his quote is simply factually untrue. Even if we were to except the idea that UFC only played a minor role Bissell's quote that they played no role is simply false as the rest of the aricle shows. If you want to quote someone you find someone who is neutral and isn't biased toward one side. You haven't done that, you've quoted a very biased source who was involved with the coup himself. That's kinda like asking a mafia boss whether he think's the mafia actually exists or not. I don't think anyone would regard his denial as credible.

I don't understand this quest by some editors on wikipedia to protect corporate power. It's all this "oh it was just a big mistake" argument. As this article shows the accusation the Guatemala was under the thumb of The Soviet Union was false. I know paranoia can sometimes overwhelm reason, but this is pushing it. It's obvious, at least to me, that they only thought this becasue they were manipulated by the UFC's lobbying. By whitewashing the UFC's role you are simply distorting the truth. annoynmous 11:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

I have edited the Land distibution with what I hope is an adequate compromise. I decided to include the Bissell quote, even though I think it's irrelevant, but I included and interview with Howard Hunt to counterbalance it. The reason the quote is so long is because I don't want anyone accusing me of selectively quoting. As of right now I'm having trouble adding the link to the CNN interview with Hunt. I tried it a few times, but it ended up in the wrong place. I've never been good at adding links. Can someone help me with that. annoynmous 13:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That is fine, although I'd urge you to compress the Hunt quote a bit, it's kind of long. Remember that NPOV doesn't mean that we only add unbiased sources; almost every source has a bias. It just means that we include the opinions of all reputable sources who've written/spoken on the subject, and the reader decides for himself who to believe. - Merzbow (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay great, does anyone know how to properly add the link because you still can't view it. It also isn't below with the other links below. Is there something about this particualr link you have to do to properly link to it

As I said before the quote is long because I didn't want to be excused of selectively quoting. I'll try and find a way to compress it in the future.

As for the issue of sources I undersand that we should include a wide variety of sources and some of them may have a political bias, but I would hope that wikipedia would recognize that there's a conflict of interest in asking a man who was involved in the coup his opinion on the matter. If a scientist who thinks Global warming is a hoax is getting money from Exxonmobil don't you have a right to declare his opinion compromised and even irrelevant?

However, I accept the Bissell quote in the interest of ending this edit war as long the Hunt quote is there to counterbalance it. I think other people should still be encouraged to add material to this section because in my opinion the wealth of scholarly opinion shows that the UFC was heavily involved in the coup. So far the only evidence we have that they played a minor role is a biased quote from someone involved in the coup and the introduction to the review of a contingency plan that didn't become a full fledged paln until after the land reform.

As I said before this article desperately needs a section dealing with Edward Bernays involvment which shows how deeply the UFC was involved in creating the perception that Quatemala was a Soviet Beachead.

One final thing, can we remove the POV tag on the article now that we've reached a compromise.

annoynmous 23:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the link again, should be fine now. It's OK to remove the tag. - Merzbow (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)