Misplaced Pages

Talk:Guatemalan Revolution

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) at 19:09, 27 September 2015 (→Possible bias/lack of WP:NPOV: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:09, 27 September 2015 by Vanamonde93 (talk | contribs) (→Possible bias/lack of WP:NPOV: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guatemalan Revolution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Good articleGuatemalan Revolution has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 11, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 12, 2014.The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Guatemalan Revolution (celebratory mural pictured), which lasted from 1944 to 1954, included an agrarian reform program that granted land to half a million landless peasants?
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCentral America
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: South America / Cold War
WikiProject iconThis 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
South American military history task force
Taskforce icon
Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Guatemalan Revolution (1944–54) → Guatemalan Revolution – "Guatemalan Revolution" already redirects here, and this is the most well known revolution in Guatemala's history. Charles Essie (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Guatemalan Revolution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Simon Burchell (talk · contribs) 11:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

General comments

  • Wikilinking is a little on the low side; I've dropped in a few, but I'm sure that plenty more relevant links can be added. This won't affect GA pass/fail. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In the lead Approximately 500,000 people benefited from the decree, the majority of them indigenous people who had been dispossessed after the Spanish invasion. needs to be rephrased. The people who had been dispossessed were long dead... I know what you mean but it could do with "whose ancestors had been dispossessed" or somesuch. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that works either, since it gives the impression of immediate family, when we're talking of over 400 years. Perhaps "forbears"? Simon Burchell (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright. I didn't like "ancestors," but "forbears" is good, I've put it in. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Check your accenting of Spanish-language names/words through-out. It is quite inconsistent; I've found both Arbenz and Árbenz, Arevalo and Arévalo (I've changed all instances of both these names to the accented version). Simon Burchell (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reminding me. When I created it in userspace, I used the unaccented uniformly, simply because its a pain to use special characters. I ran through once before, but I've added content since then, and forgot. mea culpa, and thanks for checking, but I'll do another check myself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I've checked this, and I believe I have gotten every instance. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've dropped a couple of journal articles into the Further reading - I'm happy to email them to you if you don't have JSTOR access. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The articles look good, and I do have JSTOR access, so thanks! FYI, the Gleijeses article you used is essentially a chapter of the book I used as a source, I believe. I don't think this is a problem, just thought I should let you know. As I understand it, he published many of the chapters of that book as articles before and after. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Dictatorship of Jorge Ubico

  • I would say in the context peasant is fine, but "peasant farmers" would be better - I wouldn't consider peasant or peasantry to be perjorative when referring to such farmers in Guatemala (and much of Latin America), where many live in very basic conditions. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

June 1944 general strike

Interim presidency of Ponce Vaides

Election of Arévalo

Labor movement

1949 coup attempt

  • As the highest ranking military officer in the October Revolution, Francisco Arana had led the three-man military junta - this contradicts the Interim Presidency of Ponce Vaides section, which says a small group of army officers launched a coup, led by Francisco Javier Arana and Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán, unless I'm misunderstanding something. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I think you might be misunderstanding something; there were two three-person juntas around that time. Ubico resigned end-June, and handed over power to a three-person junta led by Ponce Vaides, who soon persuaded Congress to appoint him interim president. In October, Arana and Arbenz led the coup, and once in power, formed a junta along with Toriello. This second junta was led by Arana, since he was the ranking officer among the rebels. If there is a wording change that would make this clearer, I'm happy to make it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • PAR - you are using the Spanish acronym, referring to a party you have previously only named in English - either give the Spanish and the acronym after the first mention, or replace the acronym. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • All of the sources I've seen use the Spanish acronym; I've never seen RAP. Therefore, I've used a piped link at the first usage to show the Spanish name instead, and I've also inserted the acronym there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • a small fragment of the FPL split from the parent party to support him - is this fragmentation of the FPL, or did this split from another party? If the "fragment" represents a division of the FPL, I would dump "from the parent party" and replace it with "...of the FPL split off to support him" Simon Burchell (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • This was indeed a division of the FPL. They named themselves the FPL Ortodoxo, but they became marginalized very quick, so I didn't want to expand on that in the text. I'd amended it like you suggested. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note Simon, apologies for inserting the 1949 coup section after the review began; I an unsure how I neglected it in the first place. In any case, it is now in place. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem! Simon Burchell (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Election

Personal life and political beliefs

  • Something not quite right about the name of this subsection, which looks like a biography subsection sitting uncomfortably in the article. Perhaps rename it as "Background of Jacobo Árbenz" or something. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • he began plotting against the government along with his fellow officers, perhaps rephrase as "he and his fellow officers began plotting..." Simon Burchell (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • When Ubico resigned in 1944, Árbenz witnessed Ponce Vaides intimidate the congress into naming him president. Highly offended by this, Árbenz began plotting against Ponce Vaides, and was one of the military leaders of the coup that toppled him, in addition to being one of the few officers in the revolution who formed and maintained connections to the popular civilian movement - this seems a bit out of place; it should either be moved into the appropriate section earlier in the article, or change the tense to past perfect. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Agrarian reform

That's enough to be getting on with for now. I'll continue tomorrow. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

United Fruit Company

Impact of the revolution

Lobbying efforts

Political motivations

Operation PBFORTUNE

Aftermath

  • and a number of human rights violations, makes it sound like there were only a few, and should be rephrased to give a more accurate idea of the scale (and cited to support this). Simon Burchell (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Closing comments

  • AGF on offline sources. I spotchecked the one online source, and the Google previews of Forster 2001 and Gleijeses 1991/1992 (page numbers appear unchanged between the paperback/hardback editions), which revealed no copyvio concerns. Going forward (and this won't affect GA outcome), it would be good to have a short section near the beginning summarising the country's geography, major cities (Guatemala City and Quetzaltenango), and demographics (Maya concentrated in the highlands, Ladinos in the towns and cities, the Pacific coastal plain and the east), and regional production, since this does have some bearing on how the revolution and following civil war played out. All in all, an interesting and well put-together article. Once my remaining concerns have been addressed, I expect to pass the article fairly rapidly. Well done, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Simon Burchell, thanks for a very helpful, quick, and thorough review. I believe I have addressed every one of the points you raised; let me know if there's anything else, or any of them is incomplete. FWIW, I'm also happy to provide quotes from the offline sources, if there are particular cases you wish to verify. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent revert

This edit is not in accordance with YESPOV, which states that facts should not be presented as opinions. In particular, unless we have sources contradicting a statement, something that is supported by multiple academic sources can be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Also, this article has been through a GA review and a peer review, and so changes should be discussed here at the very least. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible bias/lack of WP:NPOV

It seems that there is a bias in favour of the revolutionaries and against Jorge Ubico's government on this page, using buzzwords like "brutal", "democracy", etc. You can see my changes for neutrality on the history, but Vanamonde93 keeps reverting it and excused that its good article status is case enough for the status quo. Can we have this article rated again? I am going to put an npov template for the time being.--Sιgε |д･) 21:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Every statement in this article is thoroughly sourced, frequently to multiple sources. No statement is provided in Misplaced Pages's voice if any scholarly source contradicts it. Also, the scholarly sources used are probably the most well known ones English sources about this piece of Guatemalan history. Your statement about bias is clearly based on a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. This article was passed as a GA (in its current form) by User:Simon Burchell, and peer reviewed by User:AustralianRupert, neither of who found any issues with this. I strongly suggest you remove the tag, until you actually find a source contradicting the statements in the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Irrelevant...people make mistakes and standards and perspective caqn change easily and quickly. Even the sweetest fruit is subject to rot. I think it is in the bestinterest of the article and everyone involved to see this article reviewd again;besides the NPOV issue anyway, the layout seems a bit messy in my opinion. :/ No offense --Sιgε |д･) 13:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Not irrelevant. If you wish to demonstrate lack of NPOV, you need to find a reliable source contradicting the narrative presented in the article. Until then, your tagging is purely disruptive and pointy. If you don't provide such sources, the tag will be removed, because it has no basis. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Why are you so reluctant to find a third party here? By this time we could have already this issue solved. Anyhow, this official reference cites the Guatemala Revolution as having been majorly inspired and supported by the Communist Party of Guatemala, and "pro-democracy" and the former regime being "brutal" was in their view. However, the article doesn't mention this and you wouldn't want it anyway. Not to mention Marxism and liberalism are actually enemies, but I digress; this article is biased in favor of the current regime of Guatemala and general outlook of the West; see WP:BIAS.--Sιgε |д･) 19:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not reluctant; I have pinged both reviewers, and obviously the article is open to universal scrutiny. The "official document" you provided does not contradict anything in the article. More importantly, it is a cherry-picked section of a source that the article heavily relies on. You will have to do better. Is there a source which says the Revolution was undemocratic? Or that Ubico was a benign ruler? Until then, your statements carry no weight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
You're relying upon a false dichotomy fallacy. Does explicitly not using peacock words like "brutal" and "democratic" imply benign or undemocratic? The revolution/uprising is exactly what it was. Removing fluff does not deserve a source.--Sιgε |д･) 23:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, no. If you want to removed sourced information, you need a much better reason than calling it fluff. "democratic" is certainly not fluff, it is an entirely factual description. There are many phrases equivalent to "brutal labor practices," but just "labor practices" does not convey the same meaning. Please provide a source. Also, the pings don't seem to have worked, trying again; @Simon Burchell:, @AustralianRupert: Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
G'day, all, sorry for the late reply, I've been away from home for a few days. Regarding the above comments, I guess I see a middle ground option here. I don't agree that a word like "democracy" is a buzzword or is NPOV, although potentially describing something as "democratic" might be subjective (as indeed it might be to say something was "undemocratic"...) Describing something as "brutal" might also be subjective, but equally it can serve a purpose and I wouldn't necessarily say it is not neutral if done appropriately. In this regard, perhaps it would be a compromise solution to attribute such instances (and similar cases) in text. For instance, "being drawn to the working conditions in Guatemala City, which author John Smith has described as "brutal"." Would something like this work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, AustralianRupert! I think that compromise is lovely. I am going to trust Vanamonde93 to make the changes you mentioned, if not I will do them. Thank you for the advice, I will remove the template when the change is made. Nice to see some civil sense here,--Sιgε |д･) 14:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
AustralianRupert, thanks for your suggestions. Attributing descriptions of labor polices I'm (sort of) okay with, partially we are not giving enough specifics for people to judge for themselves. That is not the subject of the article, after all. Calling the Revolution democratic, on the other hand, I'm definitely against attributing, basicaly because of YESPOV; "don't state facts as opinions." There is overwhelming consensus among sources that these ten years were democratic, and so attributing that would only serve to cast aspersions on said sources, and also to make it sound like coatracking. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Funny how you mention coatracking, because that is *exactly* what you're doing; you are claiming the revolution was all well and good and Jorge Ubico was an objectively evil tyrant. This is what the article implies to the reasonable person, This is unfair and I guarantee you that the article would not be written in such a pro-"democracy" way if the revolution was only temporary. "brutal", etc. is unneeded. Every source has *some* bias and it is not our job to extract that, like you implied with my evidence that the revolution was supported by the Communist Party of Guatemala. Make the article less biased. Misplaced Pages alrady suffersenough from systemic bias of "modern" ideals.--Sιgε |д･) 17:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your additions are in complete violation of WP:YESPOV. There are sources which make certain statements about the Ubico government. There are no sources which disagree. In this case, adding phrases like "has been seen" and "seen by some" is not NPOV, but quite the opposite. For the nth time; find a source which presents a view other than the ones in this article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Categories: