Jump to content

Talk:1954 Guatemalan coup d'état/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

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: [1]. 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)

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)

Removed

See talk page History for unsigned potted history/personal testimonial/soapbox removed with this edit. Nothing includable that isn't stated better elsewhere on WP. Thanks for the thought, and remember, other editors, this is how to do delete things. Don't sink stuff without a trace, no matter how bad. Anarchangel (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

what are u NUTZ??? UFCO WAS THE MAJOR PART Are you nuts??? UFCO had THE BIGGEST part...dude FREAKIN THE DULLES had stock in there... and EL PULPO or The Octopus as they were known UFCO had a MONOPOLY in Guatemala and where not paying taxesm, they were givin bribes under the table. So Arbenz made them pay Taxes, he wanted to buy the lands they had that were useless to keep competion out, he gave them government bonds, so The Dulles Bros painted him as a Commi...UFCO WAS the BIGGEST reason of The Kickin out of The DEMOCRATLY ELECTED Government of ARBENZ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.172.5 (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to read your posts when you have so many words written all in caps.Jabberwockgee (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

dude, YOUR NUTS!!! It wuz a DEMOCRATLY elected Government (Big G). Power to the PEEPUL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.109.182 (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

To which I would respond, so what? Other "democratically elected" leaders include Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Achmadinejad and a certain Reichskanzler. Just because a government might be elected, that doesn't mean it's not hostile or even a downright enemy. The fact remains that Arbenz 'expropriated' (i.e. stole) property belonging to Americans; and if not a Communist himself was decidedly chummy with them.Solicitr (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"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?

I concur that the article ought to explain the meaning of the PB bit conclusively. Maikel (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Weapons from Czechoslovakia

There was an arms purchase from Czechoslovakia in 1953, I believe. This was a major part of the "soviet beachhead" propaganda campaign leading up to the coup. After this event, the army saw both western-bloc and eastern-bloc arms sources effectively closed off to them, which may have influenced their decision to throw their lot in with the invading mercenaries. 187.143.10.134 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The usual m.o. in Latin American 'intervention' by the US involves a simple formula regarding arms supply: 1.Deprive a state of the ability to buy arms from the west. 2.Make threats about intervention so that the country feels compelled to arm. 3. When this results in buying arms from the Warsaw pact (because there are no alternatives), use this as 'proof' the nation is in league with the Communist Bloc. More information on this regarding Guatemala (which quite possibly was the first use of this tactic) would be nice to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.136.217 (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

Putting in some balance - as a counter weight to the Marxist agitprop.

The article refuses to mention either the Soviet block arms shipments to Guatemala - or the presense of self confessed Marxists (including the President himself) within the Guatemalian government.

I have tried to put some political balance in (by mentioning the above) without deleting one word of the Marxist agitprop stuff (the claims that it was all about helping the United Fruit company) and so on. However, it appears the left wish to remove any words they do not approve of. As I did not delete any of their words, this is unfair.

By the way "Che" was very hopeful about Marxism in Guatemala under the government overthrown in 1954. Was "Che" a puppet of the United Fruit Company?91.107.240.17 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

civil war needs to be mentioned in "aftermath"

the coup began a 40-year period of civil war (and entirely nondemocratic rule) involving some of history's most brutal counterinsurgency ever that has been since characterized as "genocide" against Mayan indians. this was not mentioned at all in the article until i added a bit to the intro. it needs to be expanded upon in the "aftermath" section or in its own "legacy" section. what i didn't add in the bit of the intro, is that the civil war's counterinsurgency, just like this coup, was fully backed by the US to the tune of millions of dollars in military aid. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The "Threat of a Good Example" (Domino Theory)

The United Fruit Company's interests were secondary. As documented by Gleijeses in "Shattered Hope", page 365 (page not available for viewing- check second hand sources or buy the book), the primary threat to U.S. interests was explained by Charles R. Burrows, the Inter-American Affairs Bureau officer of the U.S. State Department:

"Guatemala has become an increasing threat to the stability of Honduras and El Salvador. Its agrarian reform is a powerful propaganda weapon; its broad social program, of aiding the workers and peasants in a victorious struggle against the upper classes and large foreign enterprises, has a strong appeal to the populations of Central American neighbors, where similar conditions prevail".

That is the internal version of the "domino theory." It's meaning is quite different than what's been presented to the public by Washington and the press. As Noam Chomsky put it:

"There's another version which is used to terrify the population. You know, Ho Chi Minh will get into a canoe and land in Boston and rape your sister and that sort of thing. But there's also a rational version of the Domino Theory which is never questioned in planning documents because it's plausible, rational, and true. That is, successful social and economic development in one area may have a demonstration effect elsewhere, and the rot may spread. Incidentally, it is for this reason that the United States typically demonstrates what looks like such fanatic opposition to constructive developments in marginal countries. In fact, the smaller and less significant the country, the more danagerous it is. If a tiny, nothing-country with no natural resources can begin to extricate itself from the system of misery and oppression that we've helped to impose, then others who have even more resources may be tempted to do likewise."--Horhey420 (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Guatemala was a functioning democracy made it an even more dangerous agent of the plague. In an Atlantic Monthly expose on the motives for the US backed military coup in Chile 9-11, 1973, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Seymour Hersh quotes an aid to National Security Adviser Henry Kssinger saying: "If Latin America ever became unraveled, it would never happen with Castro. Allende (President of Chile) was a living example of democratic social reform in Latin America..Chile scared [Kissinger]".--Horhey420 (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Question for 24.1.181.44

Hello,

What was inaccurate about my edit? Thanks. Bazuz (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Bazuz:

The redistribution of prime arable lands to the PREVIOUS owners, the peasants, was THE primary purpose of Decree 900; your edit "including redistribution of land" is factually inaccurate, because it misrepresents the Guatemalan historical record, implying that land redistribution was a secondary purpose, which was not so. That is the reason I reverted your edit. 24.1.181.44 (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey420

I've just blocked Horhey420 (talk · contribs) for large scale copyright violations, as well as POV pushing. Any material currently in this article which was added by this editor should be checked to see if it's a copyright violation. If in doubt, please remove it. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy

The phrase “a serious personal imputation and political accusation during the Cold War” figures at least three times in the exact same or very similar form. Not just that, but it usually has a second clause following it, which differs in all of these cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.78.205 (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No list of references in film, literature, and television?

Was hoping to find what of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Shepherd_%28film%29 was based on the CIA's factual involvement in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.168.70 (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán.jpg

File:Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán.jpg is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

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) {{{2}}}.

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

I am a hisotry major and have written numers papers on this ARBENZ WASN'T A COMMI I was a history Major in college, I have written papers on this; Arbenz was not a Commi. What happened? UFCO is a better historicall term than “UFC” Ultimate Fighting Championship? It’s UFCO to be historically correct, had lot of land unused to keep competition away, they also monopolized all of the rail roads. That is why they were called the Pulpo or octopus because they had they hands all over Guatemala; also they had a monopoly on all the ports at the time. Under many bad regimes UFCO didn’t pay taxes at all, Guatemala had NO Democracy before Arevalo and Arbenz, Oh did I mentioned I’m of Guatemalan Heritage. Both my dad and Grandpa live through it. I know what I’m talking about. So UFCO was an American Owned company and The Dulles bros had stock in it, so Arevalo brought true democracy to Guatemala and then again in a democratically elected government Arbenz won. So you have democracy going what do you do? Strengthen your economy and whose model was Arevalo Arbenz trying to copy? Good ol’ U.S.A. So why did UFCO hate them? Well in Good ol’ U.S.A. NO MONOPOLIES, but they were ok you can keep that but YOU MUST PAY TAXES…so there starts the problem. UFCO Was not paying taxes, so the Arbenz said you have to much useless land, I’ll buy from you…how much? UFCO Said their worth nothing, so Arbenz said ok “I’ll give you what it’s worth…Nothing” hahahaha but he did give them government bonds. So the Dulles bros didn’t like that and painted him a Commi…dude there were a few Commis in congress at the time in Guatemala and HATED ARBENZ they thought he was trying to imitate the U.S.A so THEY HATED HIM. THE OWN COMMUNIST PARTY HATED ARBENZ. That’s in a nut shell, so The U.S. who was the “defender” of Democracy kick out a democratly elected government… why, so The U.S. would not have competition in its economy. Adding approximate date for bot. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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. Adding approximate date for bot. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why

I just reverted the removal of the aftermath from the lead, for a very simple reason; as per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article, and the aftermath has significant mention in the article, so it requires mention in the lead. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine leave it. I don't mind that much. I just think it is not strictly necessary to the aftermath especially in the lead. A reference to the rule of Castillo such as reversal of nationalization etc would be more due. Regardless its OK now.88.104.212.92 (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Not appropriate. Text in the lede should summarize sourced content in the article body; moreover, even though the source text isn't directly accessible, GBooks search indicates the source doesn't use the term "genocide", and doesn't discuss the Mayan ethnic group on the cited pages. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Source?

What is the source for the Czech arms shipment to Arbenz's reime? Adding approximate date for bot. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent Ref changes

The changes I have made over the past few hours are not intended to purge the article of refs; I am going to attempt to rewrite it so that it does not have vast tracts of unsourced info, but to make that process easier, I am removing refs of poorer quality, or references used just once that do not add anything to the content. If anybody has issues with this, I'm happy to discuss it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27état/Archive_2&oldid=734250623"