Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleCarlos Castillo Armas is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 26, 2020.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 15, 2017 Good article nomineeListed
May 12, 2019 WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
November 11, 2019 Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on July 7, 2017, November 4, 2017, July 7, 2019, and July 7, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Untitled

Is Colonel Jacobo Arana, killed during the regime of Arévalo, the same person than Francisco Javier Arana? Tazmaniacs 15:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Operation WASHTUB

If the obsolete Czech arms are mentioned then CIA Operation WASHTUB should also be mentioned. Operation_WASHTUB Felipe ( talk) 00:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl ( talk · contribs) 18:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply


I'll field this one, but I might not be able to get it done particularly quickly. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply


Lede

  • "was the US-backed authoritarian ruler of Guatemala who ruled the country over three years in the mid-1950s." I think that this can be cleaned up a little bit. For instance, why do we only say "in the mid-1950s" rather than giving the explicit dates? And why do we not specify his nationality? This might work better as "was a Guatemalan military officer and political leader. He governed the country between x and y as official title." Then a sentence can be added alluding to U.S. links and such like. At present I feel that there is a bit of a political bias in the general structure of this opening paragraph (emphasising the 'bad stuff'). Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Fair enough. I've made an initial tweak: if you are still unhappy with it, I'd like to wait to sort out due weight in the lead until we have sorted out due weight in the body.
  • I like the tweak, but we still have to specify explicitly what his official position was (in this case President of Guatemala). Also, when the CIA are mentioned in the lede paragraph, we need a little more information, i.e. "the United States' Central Intelligence Agency" etc. In addition, there is no need to state 1954 twice. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • How about: "Having taken power in a coup d'état, he ruled as President of Guatemala from 1954 until his 1957 death. Ideologically right-wing, he was a close ally of the United States, who had assisted his rise to power." Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Tweaked it further, take a look.
  • "A protégé of Francisco Javier Arana, he fought on the side of the rebels in the democratic uprising that began the Guatemalan Revolution, and received a promotion to lieutenant colonel. Until 1949, he served as the director of the military academy. " - How about "A protégé of Francisco Javier Arana, he fought on the side of the rebels in the uprising that began the Guatemalan Revolution. Promoted to lieutenant colonel, he served as the director of the military academy from **** to 1949"? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that the current construction is odd, but it is as it is for two reasons; the date he became director is unknown, and the promotion was a result of his support for the rebels.
  • done
  • It isn't in the current version; will relook when I rework the lead.
  • "Despite initial setbacks, the fact of US support to the rebels made the Guatemalan army reluctant to fight, and on 27 June Árbenz was forced to resign" - this sentence is a little clunky and unclear could it be reformulated? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 19:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Tweaked.
  • Tweaked.
  • In retrospect too much detail for the lead; rephrased.
  • Added full version
  • Added a sentence
  • PD image was unavailable when I wrote this, but has been uploaded since (only a few days ago, actually) and is now in the article.
  • Done
  • I think that we should add a sentence on Castillo Armas' ideology or brought approach to policy; and it would be best if the term "authoritarian" be placed here, if used at all. Also, it is here that we should mention which political party he was affiliated with. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Early life and career

  • 'fraid not. When rewriting this I did a thorough check of all the sources in my possession, which are pretty much all the major sources on this period of Guatemala written in English. The exception is an early 60s source on Castillo Armas, written by an author of children's books, and generally ignored in the literature. If you wish it, I will check my sources again, but I expect nothing to turn up. Outside of the invasion, he is a poorly studied figure.
  • Divided, because of more information, see below.
  • This is partially why I sent this to GAN; I've been working on this topic long enough that I sometimes miss the wood for the trees. Added
  • Likewise added. Let me know if more is needed.
  • I'm not hung up on "dictator", but we do need to accurately convey what was happening; ie popular protests forcing out the authoritarian ruler of 14 years; not an elected leader stepping down after hearing from his constituents. How do we do that concisely without saying "dictator"?
  • It is definitely the term used by the sources. There weren't really any leftists in the army barring Arbenz. There were, on the other hand, several who believed in elected government, basic social services, etc, and as such were categorized as progressives.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done, but introduced him in a more logical place higher up.

Operation PBFORTUNE and CIA ties

  • "the US-backed right-wing authoritarian rulers of " - I'd cut "authoritarian" here and replace "rulers" with "Presidents". It reads too much like the 'bad stuff' is being singled out for emphasis here. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Even if you keep "authoritarian", I definitely think "rulers" should be changed to "President", which is their official titles. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 11:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I hear your concern, but these really are the dominant descriptors of these folks; unlike, for instance, of Castro, or even of Castillo Armas. I've cut the "US-backed." I think the others should stay.
  • Yes. done.
  • Done.
  • Done
  • Tweaked the former; in the latter case, the only source we have in this situation refers to him as a dictator...
  • Agreed that it was confusing. Tweaked.
  • Done

Coup d'état

  • You're right, fixed
  • Done
  • done
  • Cut in three, seemed better topically.
  • Done
  • Gone with Arbenz's, following a previous discussion
  • Strikes me as a very colloquial phrase, or perhaps as corporate speak; maybe it's an engvar thing.
  • Okay. Done.
  • Fixed.
  • "The death of his son in an anti-government uprising in 1950 had turned him against the government." - "government... government". I'd use a synonym in the latter instance. "administration", perhaps. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 21:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Done.
  • Done
  • Done.
  • I've tweaked it a bit but there's not much to be done here. Cullather, who's information is more specific, only says "air attacks were authorized", and describes the single attack that did any damage. Immerman is not specific enough.
  • Done.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Tweaked
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done, but left his first name in, as there's two Dulles's involved.

Presidency and assassination

  • done
  • done
  • It would be good to start a new paragraph with "Elections were held in early October from which all" - this would leave two fairly short paragraphs in the "Election" section, but I think that it will work better. Up to you. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Sure.
  • Tweaked.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done

Decree 900 reversal

  • Removed one.
  • Done
  • "This move by Castillo Armas to reverse Árbenz's agrarian reform project led the US embassy to " - this could certainly benefit from being shortened. "Castillo Armas' reversal of Árbenz's agrarian reforms led the US embassy to"? Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Done
  • Done
  • I think that there could be some rearranging of sentences in this section. For instance, "Ultimately, however, Castillo Armas did not go as far towards restoring the power and privileges of his upper-class and business constituency as they would have liked.[80] A "liberation tax" that he imposed was not popular among the wealthy" would read better right at the very end of the paragraph, IMO. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 20:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Done
  • Yes. done.

Economic Issues

  • Bit complicated, but okay, given it a shot.
  • Done
  • Done

Death and legacy

  • "in the presidential palace in the Guatemalan capital" - bit repetitive to have "in the... in the". And perhaps "Guatemalan capital" could just be "Guatemala City"? (Assuming of course that the latter was the capital at the time...). Midnightblueowl ( talk) 10:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Done
  • Fixed
  • Streeter is vague on that point, I'm afraid. reworded slightly.
  • It was more that he seized total power and became an autocrat, rather than remaining an elected president with many restrictions on his power. Reworded slightly.
  • Niet, I'm afraid...we're probably not going to find anything outside 1950s Guatemalan print media.
  • Well they'd be rather short, and I like to avoid one paragraph sections if at all possible. The legacy could be expanded, but it would be more material on the horrors of the Guatemalan civil war, the number of autocratic regimes that followed Castillo, more meditations on the follies of US foreign policy...all stuff which it seems to me I have already conveyed the gist of. There are fewer specifics on Castillo Armas: he is studied less as a figure in his own right, and more as a player in this drama of coups and counter coups that can be traced back to the 1890s and the entry of the fruit industry.

Further reading

  • There needs to be greater standardisation here. All of the sources need ISBNs and locations of publication, rather than just some of them. Also standardise the use of upper and lower case in the titles of publications. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Working on the isbns. Since it's standardization we're after, I'd rather go with no location information; many of these more recent publications have tended not to give a location beyond the main office of the publisher, which really is not particularly helpful, and often not even that. Vanamonde ( talk) 12:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Sourcing issues

  • Fixed, and removed one unnecessary instance.
  • Fixed.

@ Vanamonde93:; I'm going to go ahead and pass this. The prose is good, the images are appropriately used, and it is appropriately cited to Reliable Sources. There are a few changes that I might suggest, particularly to the lede, but that can come to pass after it has been awarded GA status. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Cheers, MBO. Vanamonde ( talk) 13:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Spanish-language titles

  • Guatemala 1954: Las ideas de la contrarrevolución – Guatemala 1954: the Ideas of a Counterrevolution
  • El recurso del miedo: estado y el terror en Guatemala – The Appeal of Fear: State and Terror in Guatemala
  • La intervención Norteamericana en Guatemala en 1954: Dos interpretaciones recientes – North American Intervention in Guatemala in 1954: Two Recent Interpretations
  • La Patria del Criollo: An Interpretation of Colonial Guatemala – this seems to be the English translation, but "patria" translates to "homeland".
  • Guatemala, la Historia Silenciada – Guatemala, a Silenced History

MX ( ✉ • ✎) 21:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

American Fruit Company

In describing the CIA's involvement in the coup that brought Castillo Armas to power, the article doesn't pause to explain WHY they wanted him. Digging deeper into the article, it appears that they believed he would reverse the nationalisation of the American Fruit Company's land by the former left-wing regime. Hence the CIA were apparently acting as a proxy for the American Fruit Company? The article should say more to clarify this. Peter Bell ( talk) 07:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

But it says so right in the lead. "Influenced by Cold War fears of communism and the pressure from the United Fruit Company, in 1952 the US government of President Harry Truman authorized Operation PBFORTUNE, a plot to overthrow Arévalo's leftist successor, President Jacobo Árbenz." Brutannica ( talk) 17:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Narratively unreliable?

WP:ONUS is policy, and it will not change because of OPs suggestion on an article talk page. ValarianB ( talk) 15:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On 11 June 2022, User:Vanamonde93 did [ revert] an edit that added as reference Narratively [1], which appears to be a reliable source, per its About section [2]. Vanamonde, why did you state it is an unreliable source? Thinker78 ( talk) 19:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply

"We’re always on the lookout for fresh new voices. Have a story the world needs to know about? Please consider pitching us here", from the link you provided. That is user-generated content, which is unusable in the Wikipedia. ValarianB ( talk) 11:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply
New voices may mean with certain standards? Or may mean they want to hear anyone's story which would be analyzed, investigated and in some cases published by the editorial team.-- Thinker78 ( talk) 15:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply
We know nothing about the site other than what they present, I looked around but no one really seems to talk about it, other than they pay $200-$300 for submissions. Reliable sources must meet several standards, one of which is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Feel free to bring it up at WP:RSN, but this site has no reputation to speak of, IMO. Also, note that we're taking about the reverting of two different IP users here. One added sophomoric, poorly-written text. The second one, the one in question, added a bare reference to narratively.com to a passage in the article that already had a citation. Honestly, this is much ado about nothing. ValarianB ( talk) 16:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Much ado about nothing? Sorry, but I don't agree with you. Because society doesn't pay attention to details quality is overlooked and more importance is given to time than to a good product. Bear in mind that an interplanetary craft was lost because an engineer forgot to make one simple conversion. Attention to detail is of paramount importance, at least in my book and I'm really tired and disappointed in seeing everyday how people just disregard details and doing a good work because they just want to get it over with, presenting shoddy services or products. Thinker78 ( talk) 21:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I just noticed the new reply button! Although I do tend to distrust simple IPs more than registered editors, I don't judge their input just because they added it. Certainly this Narratively source needs to be analyzed more to make a determination regarding its reliability. Thinker78 ( talk) 21:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Thinker78: For sources that are not a priori reliable (i.e., sources that are not high-quality newspapers, scholarly works, or otherwise published by reputable publishers) the burden of demonstrating reliability is with the editor adding the source, not with those removing it, as this would require proving a negative. Narratively describes itself as a storytelling platform; nothing on its "About Narratively" page suggests it is a reliable sources for historical information. In a field where scholarly works are numerous, I don't see the point in spending much time on this source. Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I disagree about the onus. It is evident that the editor who wants to remove a source needs to check whether it is reliable before removing it. Otherwise, what would be the point of haphazardly removing a source? Certainly there needs to be a valid reason to remove it, and one reason is whether it is a reliable source or not, therefore the editor who wants to remove it needs to check said characteristic before reaching a conclusion that it is better removed. Thinker78 ( talk) 19:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Disagreement or not, how it works around here has been sufficiently explained. Also, again, I will point out a very simple fact - the passage in question ALREADY HAS a citation to "Managing the counterrevolution: the United States and Guatemala, 1954–1961" by Stephen M. Streeter. Why this fervent insistence on a second citation? ValarianB ( talk) 05:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, I already explained it to you sufficiently and you have explained to me as well. It looks like neither you or I will change our minds, but this is about community consensus, not about a few editors. Your revert in the page still stands though. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Why do you assume I did not check the source before removing it? I did; it was not a priori reliable, and therefore I removed it. Beyond that point, asking me to demonstrate unreliability is asking me to prove a negative, and is simply not how this works. Vanamonde ( Talk) 22:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I didn't assume you didn't check, I replied to your statement that "the burden of demonstrating reliability is with the editor adding the source", which is not true when adding citations in the article. The citation is simply added. If someone challenges the reliability of those citations then it is the burden of both editors to demonstrate or disprove reliability. -- Thinker78 (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
This is getting repetitive, and so I am stepping away from this debate. I will continue to remove that source until I see evidence for its reliability, or we reach a consensus that it is reliable. Such a consensus is likely not going to be forthcoming here; if you care very deeply, you should take it to RSN. Vanamonde ( Talk) 23:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Nice, best option to step away if you think it's repetitive. Talk to you later. Thinker78 (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Carlos_Castillo_Armas&oldid=1193344635"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE