Jump to content

Talk:School of the Americas Watch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Concerned about the intro statement on SOAW's impact

[edit]

See this statement in the intro:

"Responding to "mounting protests"[where?] spearheaded by SOA Watch,[citation needed] in 2000 the United States Congress renamed the School of the Americas the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), rather than closing the academy. In addition, all students must undergo a minimum of eight hours of class on human rights and the civilian control of the military."

Are we really sure that they changed the name because of "mounting protests" of SOAW? I never heard anything about that, it seemed to me that the School of the Americas eventually had such an odious reputation that a name change was due, much like in the business world (Blackwater->Xe, UFCO->Chiquita, etc). The renaming seemed to be a measure of "distancing ourselves from the past" if you will, on the part of the US. If the article is going to give credit to SOAW for impacting US Congress in their decision, we really should see a citation for that.

Meanwhile, BTW, I removed the Citation Needed tags regarding the alleged human rights violations of SOA grads, and cleared up the wording so that there really isn't a gray area -- clearly certain people graduated from SOA, and clearly some of them have gone on to commit violations of human rights or at least led a regime where abuses were widespread under their leadership. This isn't really debated and if you want citations I can offer a few (Naomi Klein has a very no-nonsense bit she wrote about this during the Iraq War when torture became a "hot topic" in the news -- http://www.thenation.com/article/never-our-amnesiac-torture-debate). As for who exactly we're talking about, it's only a click away to view wikipedia's own page on SOA that lists the graduates, and another click thereafter to see what happened on the watch of some of those graduates.

173.3.41.6 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Support of Notability of SOAW

[edit]

From below, "SOAW and Father Roy Bourgeois [1] began a yearly protest that continues to this day." Thousands of people are involved. Many have gone to jail from activities relating to SOAW. In my opinion, __this__ article is as unnotable as the 2006_Oaxaca_protests, despite absence from the NYT, etc... X14n 07:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for tags

[edit]

I just want to make it clear that I do not dispute the notability of School of the Americas. I'm just worried about the notability of this organisation. Andjam 11:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Support of Article - Notability

[edit]

I understand the concern that attributing notability to an activist organization leads to improper (and non-neutral) advertising for said organization. SOAW and Father Roy Bourgeois [2], however, began a yearly protest that continues to this day. SOAW's ongoing civil disobediance in the face of state-sponsored human rights violations at and by graduates of School_of_the_Americas seems to me to be of obvious notability.

I agree that more, and independent, references are needed.

Merge

[edit]

I propose that presente litany is merged into this (School of the Americas Watch) article. The litany is only used in SOAW events and it will never grow to more than a stub. Maybe a better idea is to create an article specifically about the protest and vigil that happens each year. Tell me what you think! Eclectek C T 17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a seperate article for SOAW events is really warranted, nor do I think it'd really be notable enough to stand on its own. I think merging the Presente litany in is a great idea, though. You're absolutely correct that it's unlikely to ever get past a stub, without introducing trivial material. I say go for it. EvilCouch 04:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The largest annual protest in the nation is indeed notable. They've had 20,000 people. That's a similar number of people (if not more) than attend music festivals. Eclectek C T 06:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what else would you put into that article that isn't covered in the main article? The SOA Watch is almost exclusively about their annual protests. They're not known for anything else. I see no reason for their protests to have their own article. If there's more information to be had about them, it should go into this article. EvilCouch 10:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the following is true: "The tradition of reading names of those killed by politically repressive regimes has a long tradition in Latin America." As the first public acts of protest under repressive regimes. If this is the history and origins then perhaps this should be the main focus of an article related to history in Latin America and/or resistance to repressive regimes. And the use at School of the Americas Watch protests seems to be a side note that might show up in such an article. Then it should not be the lead to such an article. ShazbotzRobo 10:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The merge seems to have taken place, and has now led to problems. There is a German article on the presente litany, which discusses its use in Latin America and has nothing to do with the School of the Americas Watch. The interwiki link for the German article is to this article, and the interwiki link for this article is to an article on the use of the litany in Chile and other countries. This is misleading. ShazbotzRobo's concerns are very legitimate, and do not seem to have been respected by the merging of the articles.--Bhuck (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usefull Sources?

[edit]

Neutrality of Article?

[edit]

I'm concerned that this article doesn't cite any reliable sources, and appears to have been written by a member of SOAW. The article is like a mouthpiece for the organization. It doesn't even approach "encyclopediality." --Lacarids (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article that discusses State-sanction terrorism is going to pretty much require a point of view, however the article covers an organization which was developed to "watch" the terrorist training camp, and the article (which I'm still reading) seems to me to be well aligned with the facts about the organization itself. Damotclese (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on School of the Americas Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
There are twelve entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
  • WP:ELCITE: access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Please note; Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:School_of_the_Americas_Watch&oldid=1205218512"