Talk:Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

SOA Watch

This information is not really about the SOA but rather about its defamers, the so-called "SOA Watch". While one might be remiss to neglect mentioning such connections to the more notorious of its graduates it does little good to focus only upon negative, unproven allegations. Users of Wikipedia would be better served by an entry that actually deals with the SOA, not its detractors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.170.51 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 April 2004

This strikes me as a very interesting statement: "This information is not really about the SOA but rather about its defamers, the so-called "SOA Watch"." Hmmm. Certainly the posted article is "about" the School of the Americas/Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation! And yes, from it, Wiki readers also learn that the School has its "defamers" -- better, critics. From there, readers can easily go to the SOA/WHISC website for their version (understandably self-interested) of reality. Hopefully discerning Wiki-folk will then wonder and be willing to research whether criticisms of the School are indeed "negative, unproven allegations." There are numerous UN Truth Commission and other authoritative reports which can help them make that assessment.

Obviously, it is not rational to assume that anyone with a favorable view towards SOA/WHISC is necessarily more objective than those who criticize it. The reader needs to be willing to scrutinize and interpret the evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.171.35 (talk • contribs) 5 September 2004

I am not totally sure how to use this, but I think I found something that is factually inaccurate in this article, namely that Osama Bin Laden graduated from the school. I looked online and there's no mention of him graduating from the SOA. - Garrett

He most certainly did not, I'm sure that was vandalism. - Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is VERY important to highlight the fact that WHINSEC is NOT the School of the Americas. The SOA was an Army ran tactial school, WHINSEC is a Depatrment of Defense (not army) sponsored institute which brings instructors, military and civilian, to enhance not only Latin American training but US as well.

Oh, sort like Quixtar really isn't Amway? Please sign your posts! Pustelnik (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

campaign finance reform

Why is the article linked to campaign finance reform, hard money, and soft money? -Penta 15:10, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. This might as well be an article on the SOA Watch site and other anti-SOA activist groups. 64.7.89.54 08:12, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed that often with an issue like this, it can be difficult to find someone willing explicitly defend the topic/organization. Having said that, I'll try and organize the material a bit - seems to be the best first step to fixing things up. Krupo 02:55, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

First step was to seperate the criticisms from the history of the institution. More information on SOA/WHISC would probably help now. Alas, I don't know that much about it to do it justice. Some of the wording is probably less inflammatory/partisan now. Krupo 03:00, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Dispute?

Is there still a serious dispute over this article? If not, I'll remove the tag. Shorne 03:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I suggest creating a seperate page for SOA Watch and make a link to it. --Mixcoatl 17:55, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me the article pretty openly violates the NPOV policy, perhaps it should be flagged as a neutrality questionable article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.104.16.114 (talk • contribs)

i agree, there is basically nothing in this article beyond left wing propaganda. Nayt1 09:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)nayt1

I think the article should remain tagged as disputed; I agree the SOA Watch should be mentioned, but equivalent mention should be given either to WHINSEC's responses to the allegations, and/or given to the praise that WHINSEC has drawn from objective parties (yes, such praise does exist). SOA Watch should indeed have their own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 214.13.190.178 (talk • contribs) 8 August 2006.

minor changes

On "Controversy" I deleted the statement " but prospects for its passage are nil." in re of HR 1217. That statement is complete speculation.

Also made and external link to the library of congress to follow the House Resolution. On "Criticisms" changed from "The date for the annual demonstration commemorates the first Latin American massacre linked to the SOA" to "The date for the annual demonstration commemorates a Latin American massacre linked to the SOA". The killing of the Jesuits was not the first Latino American massacre linked to the SOA.

I will try to add some more information at a latter time. Elpucho 11:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes

I've added a new section about the changes between the SOA and the WHISC. My hope is that this will help make the article more neutral and more in line with Wiki standards. Kamikaze Highlander 05:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved the line about the Anti-Flag song to a new section labeled Trivia, as it was majorly out of place in the History section. Nayt1 23:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)nayt1

I agree that it was out of place in the history section, but I firmly believe that we should not have a "trivia" section in the article. A trivia section in the article makes the article seem much more juvenile, and will not promote this article or wikipedia as a whole as a quality information source. The information currently in the article either needs to be removed or incorporated into the rest of the article. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Responses to criticisms

I think this article could still me a bit more NPOV, in that I think that as it stands the article is biased against the school. There are mentions of the massacres and criticisms, but no mention of the responses to the critics or the stated purpose of the school. A previous post states that readers can go to the schools website and get the school's point of view. However, it is my understanding that Wikipedia's purpose is to collect information in one location so that, like any other encyclopedia, the information will be collected in one location.

In addition, I do beleive that the discussion of the protests against the school is worded and structured in such a way that implies that the protesters are heroic and persecuted. This may or may not be true. However, the the dispassionate objective facts should be presented so that the reader can make up his or her own decision. Perhaps a page for "Protest Against the School of the Americas" should be created

--Ericsean 14:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)ericsean

It now seems to me to lean a bit the other way. You get 5 paragraphs in before you detect a whiff of controversy, and 8 paragraphs in before there is any indication what is controversial about the institution. Given that there is no question that quite a few graduates of the school have been major perpetrators of human rights abuses — the controversy is only over the degree to which the school may have encouraged this — that smacks of a whitewash.

By way of contrast, think of all of the articles where the lead indicates what governments consider the group that is the subject of the article to be terrorists, etc. There should be something about the controversy in the lead. - Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree: there needs to be mention of the controversy in the introduction. Possibly a sentence paragraph below the introduction to summarize that there was controversy with the SOA and to summarize the "allegations". Something to show that the article isn't written to white-wash over the subject. Kamikaze Highlander 07:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

At least as of this moment, I think the third paragraph does this adequately. - Jmabel | Talk 00:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ericsean has said that there is "no mention of the responses to the critics or the stated purpose of the school", and that he believes that the article is biased because of that. I have spent some time researching the issue, and I have found virtually no response to the SOA's critics other than the critics are exaggerating it. As somebody else has said on this talk page, there is no controversy over whether the human rights violations were committed by members of the school, just over exactly how much the school had to do with them. The article should reflect this in some way. Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Moved block of information from Changes to History

I moved a big block of information from the Changes section, which deals with changes after the SOA was repealed and replaced, to the history section, since it is historical information. I do feel that it should be rewritten, however, as it is a really big paragraph. Kamikaze Highlander 03:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cut, pending citation

"Please refer to Maria Gaurdado's testimony of how she was tortured in El Salvador by an Anglo Saxon given orders, and how these people were linked to the School of the Americas and the CIA." Please refer to something where no link is provided? Please, if you want this in the article, cite for it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

SOA Current Function

Hello,

I noticed a lack of info on SOA's current role in the Western Hemisphere. On the SOA's web page, a third of the budget is reserved for narcotics control but I do not see any mention of this as a benefit of the school.

Also, would the school benefit America should a (radical Islamist) regime target a Central American country?

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Littlehouse (talk • contribs) 24 November 2006.

Sounds to me like you are asking us to speculate on things being beneficial. If you have citable sources saying these things are beneficial then, of course, those can go in the article.

Insofar as I am being asked to speculate, though: a military approach to narcotics control doesn't sound very beneficial to me. It's things like this that bring us Plan Colombia. - Jmabel | Talk 02:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits by User:ChaplainKent on 12-21-06

I reverted all the parts of the edits that were false or had huge POV issues. I kept all informative and non-biased content. I hope its up to everyone's standards. Eclectek ^{C T} 06:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving the discussion that started on ChaplainKent's Talk page to this talk page so its out in the open. Eclectek ^{C T} 16:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey there! I saw that you made a very sweeping edit to the WHINSEC article. It looks like you put a lot of effort into it. Some parts, however, are not neutral in their point of view. You made it clear that you are affiliated with the WHINSEC. You removed a substantial amount of information about "torture manuals" that is in fact verifiable by Amnesty International as well as other independant organizations. I'm going to put that part back right now and will continue to help improve the article. Eclectek ^{C T} 05:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"Some parts are not neutral" And you think the way this article is written is neutral in its language? I removed the torture manuel material because is just isn't true. You removed the explaination I gave concering the research I made on how that all came about. Why? That information is true and accurate. Over 10 congressional inquiries into the school found no such evidence. Just because Amenisty International has a copy of a manuel doesn't mean that it was ever used for instruction or approved as appropriate by the school. The article states as fact something which is just plain false. You also removed a correction I made on the huamn rights training. The article again states and "only a few" are giving the instruction. In fact its mandatory for all students. And the eight hours is the minimum. So if your there for a three week course out of fifteen days of instrucion you get one of human rights. Longer courses have much longer sections of training. Just why was that removed. Here's the link to document the proof of my statement. [1]

You imply that I'm not objective because of my association with the school. Well that association is not paid and I'm not staff. I'm a social justice advocate from the religious community who was invited to look closely with a critical eye at the school, what it teachers, and what it does. That invitation to become an advisor to the Board Of Visitors came originally in 2002 when I heard all the accusations made against the school and went directly to them myself seeking information to either verify or disprove. They were overjoyed that somebody actually wanted to investigate and seek the truth in the matter rather than just parrot SOA Watch and their very biased rhetoric. As I continue to investigate the school and talk with those trying to close it down here is the conclusion I came to. And this is words coming from the detractors own mouths. "Well, even if all the things your saying are true we still want the school closed because we don't like our governements foreign policy towards the region." There are also a number of those who use the "torture manuel" false accusation to drum up emotions and support all the while knowing that it implies something which simply isn't true. They don't really care that torture was never taught at the school nor that the actual instuction manuels had nothing at all about it in them. Simply disagreeing with foreign policy would get a big yawn from most people and they certainly wouldn't take the time to write legislators or join protest marches. December 23rd 2006

Reverend / Chaplain Kent Svendsen United States Army Reserve —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChaplainKent (talk • contribs) 00:48 24 December 2006.

---

Hello Kent - I'm sorry you aren't happy with my edits and reverts. I'm sure we can work through it and come to some mutual agreement. On Wikipedia, all major viewpoints that have been published in a reputable source are valid and shouldn't be reverted because any user disagrees with them. I want to make sure that's not happening here. We're working on making the article more WP:NPOV because no article is perfect, this one included. Lets address the revets and changes I made one by one.

• The school is frequently accused -> the school is frequently cited: this creates a more NPOV statement.
• "While the SOA was still active over ten congressional investigations took place without any evidence of wrongdoing be uncovered": I've never heard of these investigations. If you can provide citations for this, please re-insert it into the article.
• You claimed in your response that I reverted the fact that human rights training was now mandatory. I did not. As the article stands now, it says that 8 hours are required. It states that in the past, only a few took the classes as they were not required. I reverted the statement that the "quite often the mantadory 8 hours is exceeded" in human rights training. There's no evidence to support this.
• You said "According to a member of the Board of Visitors..." That refers to you and is original research. Original research is not allowed on wikipedia. Find an article to cite.
• I summarized your discussion of the invitation to visit the school to "At the SOAW vigil in November 2006, invitations were given to the public to visit the school." I'd like to see this expanded to something that explains the process of visiting, what visitors see, who they speak with, etc.
• You had speculated that students not electing to take human rights classes in the SOA may be reason that training is mandatory in WHINSEC. Wikipedia is not open to this kind of speculation, so I removed it.
• You completely removed the section on the training manuals that advocated inhumane treatment. These documents are proven to have existed by amnesty international and the washington post. That paragraph was even cited correctly. That kind of reverting cannot be tolerated.
• I changed your sentance from "Each year a number of protestors are arrested for purposely violating the law and forcing their arrest in an attempt to create more anger against the school." to "Each year a number of protestors are arrested and prosecuted for acts of civil disobediance including trespassing onto federal property in an apptempt to create more awareness for the SOAW." This sentance attempts to eliminate bias.
• You wrote "It is now also reported that some college professors give students credit for attending the protest." Provide citations or this cannot stay.

With that said, the current activities of WHINSEC are not accurately depicted in this article. They needed to be added in in a neutral manner and in a way that does not undermind the activist/justice side of the argument. I'd love to see more of the folloing added and cited from reputable places:

• new curriculum of the WHINSEC, courses required
• touring program

Please ask any specific questions about my reverts. I'd be glad to explain and work something out. Eclectek ^{C T} 18:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Huh?

Why on earth suppress the date on which WHISC replaced SOA? Or is something else going on here? Since the only comment here is that I was reverted via pop-ups (a very inappropriate way to handle my edit, I might add, given that it was obviously not vandalism), there is effectively no edit summary, so I cannot guess the editor's intent. - Jmabel | Talk 20:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not giving an edit summary - not a nice/smart thing to do. My fault. On my revert, I didn't "suppress" the date on which SOA became WHINSEC. In fact, its mentioned elsewhere in the article (see "After the legal authorization for the former School of the Americas was repealed in 2001 and the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation was established"). That aside, your edits are only rhetoric, not fact. SOA did in fact close and WHINSEC is not SOA (on paper, at least). I say this as somebody involved with SOAW. The article should reflect the fact that the SOA closed, not that WHINSEC is a continuation of it. Saying that it is a continuation is your analysis. Eclectek ^{C T} 22:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If SOA is not WHISC

If SOA is 'not WHISC', then why does the former redirect to the latter? User:Pedant 18:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please look into this!

I think the recent edit by User:71.244.230.254 should be reverted (see here). I'm not going to do it myself because I've reverted the same edit about a week ago. The statement is self-referential and is original research. In fact, its a first-hand statement. I believe it was added by User:ChaplainKent, a member of the WHINSEC visitors board. He just didn't log in. Somebody please look into this issue. He added the same statement before and I reverted it. Help. Please. Eclectek ^{C T} 04:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I made a few edits that were quite needed. This is the second revert I've made to this material. I know its not good to do, but I asked for assistance at the Village Pump and got no help for over a week. One change I made was changing "according to a member of the board of visitors" to "according to the institution itself." This makes the connection between the board of visitors and the institution more clear and the reference links reflect the institution, not the opinion of a BOV member. The second edit I made was to remove the statement that often the number of hours students take in human rights exceeds the requirement. There are no sources in accord with this statement. Tell me if you disagree please. Eclectek ^{C T} 16:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

another notable student

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles I think he might be notable, I'll try to add him soon if possible 70.100.138.217 14:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable indeed! Eclectek ^{C T} 16:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Added, with citation. - Jmabel | Talk 19:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Graduates"

I saw some IP user recently add on General Augusto Pinochet and Cuban dictator Fugencio Batista as "graduates of the School of the Americas". I removed Pinochet as I know for a fact that he was never graduate of the SOA (and I provided a source from derechos.org) and I removed Batista as I believe he was never a graduate of the SOA (no mention of it on the Batista article). I think that this serves as a bit of warning for people who edit this article. Please do not just add names of Latin American dictators and presume that "they must have been SOA graduates".--Jersey Devil 10:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Pinochet did spent some time in the school of americas, in fact i read in an article that there was even an special mention of it in the own school of americas. Perhaps he did not "graduated" per se, i wouldnt really know about that... (nor did i added that piece of info to the article) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.168.240 (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

I removed Batista, Pinochet and Robert Mugabe. From the SOA watch site " Although Pinochet himself was not an SOA graduate, his influence is clearly held in high esteem. In 1991, visitors could view a note from Pinochet, and a ceremonial sword donated by him, on display in the office of the SOA commandant."

I can find no evidence to suggest Batista was a student, let alone graduate at the School. As to Mugabe, the SOA has never trained Africans.

Yes, thank you for that. Unfortunately it seems someone added it back sometime after the period that I removed it. Your help is much appreciated.--Jersey Devil 17:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed

I had carefully gone through the article and corrected numerous factual errors and unsourced POV claims. Everything carefully explained in edits summaries. This was reverted without explanation.[2] Please explain, otherwise the sourced and checked version [3] will be restored.Ultramarine 08:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not in source

"The earlier School of the Americas had a controversial history of teaching the techniques of torture since the end of the Second World War,[not in citation given] with many of its graduates claimed to be linked to the worst[not in citation given] human rights crimes perpetrated in the western hemisphere, which were trained at U.S. taxpayer expense" The given source [4] does not state the claims marked.Ultramarine 20:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read again. The source does state these facts. I quote: "UN commissions and research organizations have linked SOA graduates to many of the region's most heinous massacres, assassinations and torturous interrogations over the years...."Giovanni33 20:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not what you stated. Furthermore, the infamous torture manuals were only used during 4 years.

The particular manuals were never actually used for classroom instruction. They were additional reading materials which the school had from a list given to them from another source. They didn't review each and every book on the list and were unaware of the objectionable content until it was brought to their attending. At which time they removed the book from the resource materials and told the students it was inappropriate material. The "torture manuel" question was on of the first questions I asked the school when I began investigating the allegations. Again, nobody seems to ever comment on my repeated statements that after 60,000 students took classes not one could be found would would testify that any kind of torture techniques were ever taught by the school. ChaplainSvendsen 11:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine 20:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the article does not have soures for its claims.Ultramarine 20:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did say that. HOw is stating "the worst human rights violations" different than the souce's statments, "the most heinous massacres, assasinations and torurous..."? If anything, I toned down the rhetoric.Giovanni33 20:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Many of the most" is not the same of "the worst". You ignore that the torture manuals were only used for 4 years. Futhermore, it is not the same school anymore, it has a very different organization and name.Ultramarine 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you feel its a difference, I changed the language to "many of the most." I don't ingnore the other things, we are talking about its status as a controversial entity based on its record of the recent past. The claim of a very different organization, instead of simply a superficial name change and face lift, is a matter of contention, but not a point I've delt with in my edits.Giovanni33 21:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Again you ignore that the torture manuals were only used for 4 years and your source does not mention teaching torture since WWII. That the current organiztion has many differences is sourced later, while your claim that they are essentially the same is not.Ultramarine 21:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't even mention the manuals. Why bring up that point? The manuals are talked about later in the article. Since WW2 is supported by the source. It says: "Since its founding in 1946, the SOA--now located at Fort Benning in Georgia and renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation--has trained more than 60,000 Latin American soldiers in commando and psychological warfare, counterinsurgency techniques..."Giovanni33 22:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Again the article gives no sources. From what I can see in sources, this is very dubious, many were there only a for a few months, taking a course in tank warfare or logistics or something like that, and not in the claimed above subjects. Regardless, there is no mention of torture in your quote.Ultramarine 22:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The source is the article itself. That is what I'm quoting and relying on. The Nation is a reputable publication that we can use to support claims. The claims are clear, and I can find other sources that makes the same claims. Its pretty well established. That is why, as the article mentions, Latin American countries are breaking ties with the school, and there has been a strong movement to abolish the school. The pentagon changing its name, also is noteworthy for its shameful role in supporting state terrorism, i.e. kidnapping families, etc.Giovanni33 22:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a scholarly source or an article that cited sources would be better. Again, the article does no state that they have teached torture since WWII. Nor does it state that these schools are identical, while I have presented sources stating that they are very different, obligatory human rights courses, also teaching civilians, DoD instead of US Army, external review, etc.Ultramarine 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That may or may not be true, but its not relevant since the passage only claims that is has a controversial history, due to....--that is hardly in question by anyone. In fact, its still controversial now, and it may be closed very soon as a result--even if the changes you stay took place, did happen. It doesnt change its controversial history, as a combat training school hated throughout the world.Giovanni33 22:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

While Wikipedia avoids claiming "truth", these changes have verifiable sources. The correct description is "The earlier school of the Americas..." If you want to argue that these schools are identical, that is a separate issue. Again, the article does no state that they have teached torture since WWII.Ultramarine 22:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the part "since WWII," to address your objection. However, let me point out that since we are talking about its PAST actions, saying the "earlier" school is redunant, since by definition its history is earlier. But, the other problem is that its history affects it current status that remains controversial due to that very history, name change or not. If this is in doubt, just take a look at some of the sources latest news, protests, and moves to have the school shut down. So, the changes that occured now, has nothing to do with my edits or its claim: it remains cotroversial given its history of abuse. To stress that is has all changed now, is false, since once thing has not changed (which is the point being made): it continued existence remains the center of a storm of controversy due its its ugly historical record. That is true TODAY. Unless this fact is disputed, talking about other things is off the point.Giovanni33 01:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Restored balancing material deleted by one user

I take a short break and I find the article white washed, with the crtical POV's removed. So, I've restored material that has been removed (by one editor, with no consensus in talk), which in effect white-washes this article. This restored material now restores the proper balance. The difference can be seen here:[5].Giovanni33 03:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Give sources for the claims, as per WP:V.Ultramarine 09:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Restored material is full of sources supporting claims, but I've added more. Blanking sourced material can be considered vandalism.Giovanni33 22:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: is the entire "Demonstrations" section sourced to Gareau?

As for the "Notable graduates" section, www.soaw.org does not look at all to be a reliable source. Blanking this material is therefore appropriate, especially in light of possible BLP concerns.Proabivouac 00:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "Notable graduates" section, it contained names not mentioned even by SOA Watch, like Efraín Ríos Montt. But there is duplicate list under "Human rights abuses" that at least only have names mentioned by SOA Watch. But there is no evidence for these claims. The demonstration section was unsourced, Giovanni33 added some new material with Gareau as a source in his last edits before self-reverting. Unclear if this covers the old material. If so page number would be required.Ultramarine 00:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you claim that the list of notable graduates was not accurate. You cite one name to make your case. Now, even if you are correct that this name was not accurate, it follows that you should correct it by removing the name, not blanking the whole section, listing all of the other names, no? As I responded to your claim that I checked the names and they were accurate. Here are otehr sources (in addition to WP own article on the man) that support its accuracy: McSherry, J. Patrice 1949-The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas (review)Latin American Politics & Society - Volume 48, Number 1, Spring 2006, pp. 189-192;University of Miami[6],[7] I quote, "General Rios Montt's evangelical zeal is linked to the military 'education' he received - like many of his peers in Latin America - from the School of the Americas, run by the US military in Panama."[8],One of the most vicious tyrants in recent Guatemalan history is Jose Efrain Rios Montt. General, dictator, and a former president from 1982-83, Rios Montt was proud of his political philosophy of "beans for the obedient; bullets for the rest". He was also a graduate of the SOA."[9]Guatemalan dictator General Jose Efrain Rios Montt announced that he plans to run for Congress in September, which would provide him with immunity from prosecution on the charges of violating human rights during the country's 36-year civil war. The former dictator, who attended the SOA in the 1950?s for a Special courses, has been charged with genocide, torture, terrorism and illegal detention by the Spanish national court.[10]Not only Rios Montt, but also most of the top echelon of generals in the Guatemalan military under Rios Montt were trained at the U.S. School of the Americas, then concentrated in Panama.As I said, I checked and its accurate.

You have still failed to explain why you blanked notable, topical, and sourced material for all the other sections. The very notable and specific charges of allegations of State Terrorism, are sources, and the specific charges, well referenced, are all blanked--replaced by the short one sentence, 'human right controveries."What disturbs me is that all your blanking has the effect of POV pushing, by whitewashing this article and thus removing the balancing, critical material. This violates NPOV.Giovanni33 02:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the Demonstrations section was already sourced to "the Real News Network," Garuau is only sourced to my additions to that section, with page numbers included. I restored the larger section because it looked like it was sourced and--along with all the other sourced material--was being blanked without any discussion or consensus. I now see that source no longer points to the news article about the protests. However, that major demonstration of 19,000 is well known, and here are several more sources that support it. See: [11][12][www.thomasmertoncenter.org/The_New_People/May%2006.pdf](See page 10).

Thanks your comments about the notable graduates section. So the reason why it's blanked then is NOT (as UltraMarine alleges) because it didn't have a source, but because there is a quetion about the reliablity of that source, and BLP concerns. This is diferent, and was never mentioned. However, I disagree that the source is not reliable. School of the Americas Watch is a notable and reliable organization whose reports are factual. But, if it would be more acceptable, I can find other sources to add in addition to this one. As far s BLP concerns, I don't see the problem, since all its doing is listing notable graduates of the school, linking to WP's article on each of these individuals. How is stating a well documented fact that they graduated from the SOA's problematic under BLP?

Also, if these two sections were the only problems, why was everything else being blanked, despite the fact that the rest was well sourced? I take it, that you agree that doing so is not appropriate, esp. without any consensus or discussion about removing all this sourced material? Thanks again for your impute here.Giovanni33 01:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gotten to the rest of it, but started with the most obvious problems. You are certainly correct that well-sourced, topical and neutrally-presented material should not be blanked.

SOAW is a partisan advocacy group, not a mainstream or scholarly source. BLP is applicable due to the controversy surrounding the school. Where this is indeed well-documented, there should be no problem including this information, so I think your idea of finding other (hopefully less partisan) sources should solve the problem.

In the "Controversies" section, Frederick Gareau seems to me a perfectly acceptable scholarly source. The introduction of a house bill is also sourced [13]. This information should not have been removed.

"As a cosmetic gesture…" sounds correct to me, although probably unnecessary. Merely stating that the name was changed is enough, as we're not saying anything else has changed along with it. The fact that the name was changed is visible in the cited bill, and isn't in dispute; I cannot see why this should have been removed.

The part about the "mysterious disappearance" and discovery of torture manuals should definitely be sourced. The first contains a vague allegation of wrongdoing, while the latter is a specific and very serious charge. I don't doubt it, but my lack of doubt isn't enough. However, further down is this from Amnesty International,[14] which might contain some of this information, and is certainly a usable source, with attribution.

If we proceed stepwise in evaluating the disputed material, and restoring it where appropriate, there shouldn't be any problems. Some of the problem may just be the lack of careful citation where the sources are presented elsewhere in the article (e.g. the Amnesty Report.)Proabivouac 01:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here may be found some sources we might wish to comb through for news coverage.[15] While SOAW itself cannot be considered reliable, many of the sources to which they link are acceptable.Proabivouac 02:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered feedback. I will follow your advice, and hope this will end the problem here with the inappropriate blanking.Giovanni33 02:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The demonstrations section was unsourced except for one passage which had a citation to a program by "Independent World Television" that does not seem to exist anymore. The "Notable Graudates" section had errors according to the given source and there was already another duplicate list in the article. The introduction to "Controversy" section had unsourced claims or had material that duplicated that in other sections already.Ultramarine 07:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is to be an introduction to the controversy (or any other) section, it will inevitably duplicate material.

A better approach is to get rid of the "controversy" subsections and compress the material into a few paragraphs.Proabivouac 08:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If there was a problem with the source, instead of deleting the entire paragraph, a better approach was to find a better source--not delete valid information. As I showed above, finding several good sources to verify the information was easily done. Now that I have provided serveral valid sources above, I take it you will restore the section? Likewise with the notable graduates box, adding in any of the additional sources I provided above which shows the list is accurate. Since these are living people, its best to pick more than one source.Giovanni33 19:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Exactly what is sourced and should be added back?Ultramarine 19:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See above. I provided sources for everything you took out. Pick which sources are good for you and use that to restore the information. Thanks.Giovanni33 01:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am still unsure what part of the Demonsrations section is sourced. Add back what you state is sourced. Exactly what standard should we use for including someone as Graduate? Ultramarine 09:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, see above, and choose which source you think is best, with the corresponding statements regarding these notable demonstrations. As far as graduates, the standard is notablity. For instance, if they have WP articles about each graduate--whch the list you deleted did have. I say restore that list, and choose among any of the various sources above I provided for citation.Giovanni33 22:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The differences between our version is this [16] + sources above.

Sourced regarding demonstrations is the last paragraph by Gareu and the 19,000 demonstation as per above.

Regarding graduates, you give sources above stating that Montt was a graduate. SOA watch does not list him despite claiming to have a complete database with all graduates. This seems to cast doubt about SOA watch in general (or the other sources). There is also a source claiming that Posada is a "Cuban exile" graduate of the school, not mentioned by SOA Watch, and not one of the usual allegations surroundig him. I propose we have one list with graduats and clearly states the source for each allegations. Like "SOA watch states that.... were graduates. X and Y states that Montt was a graduate." And so on. Thoughts?Ultramarine 12:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that about the sources above, and he one from Gareu that I added with his own comments about the demonstrations. But, why havn't you added any of this material back to the article, then? I supplied many sources above. Your very quick to delete but very slow to restore. Regarding the graduates section, I think using serveral sources are needed, because these are living people. The SOA source is fine, but not alone. It needs additional sources, as I've provided above. Together they support all the listed graduates as I had orginally restored.Giovanni33 21:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I can only see that you have added multiple sources for Montt. Are there more sources for anyone else? Added material on demonstrations.Ultramarine 23:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the sources list multiple graduates. Since you were having trouble restoring this information, I have done it. The section should be restored, which is what I did, and added multiple references.Giovanni33 05:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

I have removed the trivia section as unencyclopedic and useless.[17] If there was any worthwhile information there, I encourage its restoration to an appropriate location in the body of the article.Proabivouac 08:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Two articles

As stated in the "Changes" section, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation is very different from the School of the Americas. The Institute itself denies that it is the same organization as the School of Americas. So I think we should create a separate article for the School of the Americas.Ultramarine 08:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Although the official position is they are two seperate entities there are numerous arguments to support the critique that the only difference is the name. Since much, if not all, has remained the same I have no objection to discussing them both in one article. However, I am not principally opposed to two articles. Just not my first choice as it seems a bit overly cautious.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please give these sourced "numerous arguments".Ultramarine 09:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, apologies if you've already answered this question, but what are your sources?Proabivouac 09:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am citing for example the Institute itself. It in turns refers to sources like US Congress legislation.[18][19][20][21][22][23]Ultramarine 09:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a need for two article. The fact that the name has been changed, and that this article adopts its current name, suffices, for that recognition. There may have been other changes, but it can not earase its history, its previous name, or the fact that many see the chanages as onlyl only superficial to its overall nature. Any article about the WHISC (SOA), will necessessarily touch on these topics, so there is no reason to make two articles.Giovanni33 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please proved sources for your claims that the differences are superficial.Ultramarine 09:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As per above the article should be split into one called "School of the Americas" and one with the current title.Ultramarine 12:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As per above, no it shouldn't. The history of this organization, including its changes, and name change, are all valid parts of this article. Why do you think there are anual protests held at the WHISC, to close it down? A change in name and adding soem courses, etc. in response to massive protests, does not earase its past. Do not blank sources, again, please.Giovanni33 05:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please give sources for claims that they essentially not different, I have given sources for the opposite view.Ultramarine 05:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Month Long Revert War Ends Now

I have reverted this article back to the June 3rd, 2007 version. As you can see from the page history of this article there has been a revert war going on in this article for more than a month. I don't think that I have ever seen such a willful disregard for WP:CONSENSUS ever on this project. The revert warring ends now, all issues with regards to the article are to be discussed here and not forced upon the article without discussion. Of the two parties involved in this dispute, namely User:Giovanni33 and User:Ultramarine, I will say that if either of you instigate another revert war beyond this point you will get a month long block. Good day.--Jersey Devil 07:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The prior version had been stable for some time now. You deleted much sourced information and replaced with unsourced. Your reverted version may also be seen as a BLP problem since it names several persons as graduates without source, claims more carefully discussed in the version that had been stable for several days.Ultramarine 10:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Jersey Devil, as you are now involved in this content dispute, you should not be threatening to block anyone. I don't dispute that something should be done, but this isn't the way to do it.Proabivouac 11:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Jersey Devil, do you have any concrete arguments for your 2 months old version? Is there any objection by anyone involved to restoring the last version which had removed unsourced material and added sourced material from both sides? Ultramarine 00:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

i will try and mediate peace between the warring factions, and 'referee', like the Guatemala peace accord. Bmedley Sutler 04:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of the things destroyed by the revert:

• Sources regading graduates of the school
• The sourced epansion of the "Changes" section
• The removal of the unsourced claims in the history section
• Clarification that the school and institute are not the same
• The school did not support dictarorships or death squads, some of the graduates have participated in this.Ultramarine 07:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just come to a consensus and return the data. JD is not taking a position here other than come to a consensus instead of edit warring. Do that and you can change the article to fix these problems. 1 revert to a pre-edit war version is not "becoming involved in a content dispute". Until(1 == 2) 14:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So do anyone oppose correcting the above points and if so why? Ultramarine 17:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please supply a link to the 2 month old version you think is good, and I'll tell you. The SOA and the Institue are the substantially the same, just renamed to fend off criticism and the stigma of disgrace, like Arthur Anderson. Bmedley Sutler 18:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

See this verion: [24] Please give a source for your claim that they are substantially the same. As noted in the linked version there are many differences between the School and the Institute and they and legislation passed by Congress view them as different organizations.Ultramarine 18:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How about 9750 sources? Link "In 2000 the Pentagon engaged in a smoke-screen attempt to give the SOA a face-lift by changing its name to the Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) as part of a "reform" program. But as the late GOP Sen. Paul Coverdale of Georgia (where SOA/WHINSEC is located) said at the time, the changes to the school were "basically cosmetic." Link The campaign of denial and disinformation targeting many, many articles on Wikipedia even faintly criticising the USA or the Bush administration has to stop. It is almost unbelievable! It's like Wikipedia has joined World Net Daily and Newsmax as a 'third wheel' on the wobbly tricycle of lies and spin. The Department of Defense was caught 'reverting' and vandalizing the Waterbaording article. Link How many more editors haven't been caught yet? I will be nominating this article and several others for 'mediation'. Bmedley Sutler 20:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the waterboarding article, keep the discussion on topic please. Your Google web search combining several different terms is certainly not evidence for anything, you would need a specific list if claiming a certain number. But you have presented views that they are essentially the same, although no reason for why this should be considering the many changes. I have presented sourced opposing ones regarding the many changes and that Congress and the organiztions view themselves as different. Both views should be included in the article. Objections? Ultramarine 20:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That version claiming the SOA was 'closed' is total 'spin'. There was just a House vote to close down the 'new and improved' SOA. It barely lost, 203 to 214. 23 Republicans even voted to close the 'School of Assassins and Torturers'. If it was so much better, it wouldn't be opposed so strongly. Go ahead and edit. I'm going to ask for 'mediation'. Too many 'spooks' here for my taste.. Bmedley Sutler 20:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As per NPOV, the view of all sides should be included. I take the above as no objection to restoring the "Changes section" Lets go on to another point. The school did not support dictarorships or death squads, some of the graduates have participated in this. The distinction should be made clear. Objections? Ultramarine 21:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have an objection. Your claim is a pov claim. Its ok to include that if its sourced, as a pov, of the schools defenders. But its far from an establised fact. If the school keeps producing, consistently, the worse war criminals, human rights violators, and agents of state terrorism, then its not hard to see that the school is involved in this, as the schools products are its students. The students are only putting into practice what they learned at the school, i.e. how to tourture people.Giovanni33 01:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The school only taught some alleged torture techniques for four years in certain courses for intelligence personel. That did not make the school support death squads and dictatorships.Ultramarine 02:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what one means by "support." They are an important cog in the machine. Anyway, its not for us to determine truth, or state POV as fact. We just cite sources with appropriate NPOV attributative language in the correct porportion to the various sources, and present both POV's accordingly. But, just because the school wants to distance itself from its past, is no reason to give them undue weight. We can simply note it, and note the other side.Giovanni33 02:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly who is accusing them of supporting death squads and dictatorships? Exactly how did they do that?Ultramarine 02:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Try a google search to see for yourself, yes?[25]

Exactly how, I would not know, as I didn't attend the school. But exactly how is besides the point. They are clearly linked to death squads, and that fact is notable. Just as is the CIA support of death squads.[http://www.serendipity.li/cia/death_squads.htm]Giovanni33 02:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please give a source making these claims. A Google search lists numerous things not related. Your online conspiracy site is not a reliable source.Ultramarine 02:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliablity is another question. My point is to see that the two are widely connected, and its a perspective that is widely held. So, if you state there is no connection, that too, is a point of view, and argument that has two sides.Giovanni33 04:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Continued below.Ultramarine 06:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to restoring the prior sourced version regarding who are graduates?Ultramarine 03:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to that, but its pretty much the same as the original, except just better sourced (since you kept blanking the whole section). I'm sure the admin who restored the original was concerned with the major changes against consensus (a concern I also shared), but he won't opposed adding in the version of the graduates (which is basically the same, but better sourced).Giovanni33 04:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what the major changes against consensus? I have created a sandbox version for convenience: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox2 See we can discuss and change it before making changes to the article itself.Ultramarine 06:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to all your major blanking of the article, done unilaterally, with no discussion on talk. When I tried to restor it, we edit warred over it. Remember? Finally when the admin Proabivouac got involved and said that your blanking of sourced material was not appropriate, you compromised and I added back the information with more sources.Giovanni33 08:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac did not approve any of our two versions and did not voice an objection to the last stable version.Ultramarine 08:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added a section regarding the controversial relationship between SOA and WHISEC. Are there anything else objectionable in this version? Ultramarine 06:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversial relationship? Its the same school, that has been changing with the needs of the time, through different phases. But same owners, same bosses, same objectives--serving US policies. This was true when it was in Panama, and its certainly been true up until now, same building, same place, same function as a military combat training school. Its valid to talk about its changes, its history, but not to talk about it as if they are two different schools.Giovanni33 07:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your POV is that they are the same, another POV also exists. Both should be included as per NPOV. Is there anything you wish to be changed?Ultramarine 08:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember, undue weight. Do you have multiple, different and relible sources that actually claim they are different schools all together, as opposed to simpy some changes within the same school? If so it may warrent a small section on the issue. Otherwise, a sentence at most with the claim.Giovanni33 08:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The US Congress and the Institute are certainly enough for a view. There is only a small section and a single sentence in User:Ultramarine/Sandbox2.Ultramarine 08:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm maybe barely enough--both are US govt. institutions (and one is the school itself). The claim can be made according to those sources--exactly what the sources actually say, but no need for its own section; its just one sentence.Giovanni33 08:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So how about moving both sentences in that section to the changes section?Ultramarine 08:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Before I agree, I want to see what your sources say, exactly. Can you quote the part that supports the claim you want to report on?Giovanni33 00:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You can find them here online: [26][27][28][29][30][31]Ultramarine 09:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

All that is from the same source, army.mil, and you are not quoting the text to support your claims. Please quote the exact text and use at least two different sources that state exactly the claim you are making.Giovanni33 19:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The institute states in its FAQ "Congress withdrew the Secretary of the Army’s authority to operate USARSA in the FY01 National Defense Act thereby forcing the school to close at the end of 2000""The U. S. Army School of the Americas (USARSA), activated during July 1963, fulfilled its Cold War-era mission and was closed during 2000. Congress recognized the need for a Department of Defense institute that would teach democratic principles to nations throughout the hemisphere. Just as the region has evolved, our approaches to helping defense ministries and militaries in the hemisphere to meet new challenges have changed as well. One school closed because it had fulfilled its mission; WHINSEC opened to meet new and changing needs." Its history section starts with the year 2001. Congress voted on this material[32] which creates a new institution and have no mention of SOA.Ultramarine 20:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the schools name change is consisent with its desire to distance itself from its notorious record, and proclaim its a new school. A short mention that the school clams this on its FAQ is fine as long as we present the voice of those that say its just spin, and cosmetic. It could go under the section of "changes."Giovanni33 00:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How about this: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox2Ultramarine 13:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look and work on this after you address the imporant issue about the Japan secton on the other article, which I feel you are just playing games about. When you are serious there, and work to address your issues properly, I can then work with you here to solve these. This is a question of priority for me, but its also a question of taking you seriously and not wasting my time.Giovanni33 21:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Other articles are not relevant for this one. If there are no explained objections, then the proposed version should be restored. A refusal to talk regarding the issues does not follow standard wikipedia dispute resolution. As such, it will be interpreted as accepting the proposal of the other party.Ultramarine 22:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it it will be interpreted that way.Giovanni33 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You are arguing that you do not have to follow the standard Wikipedia dispute resolution but instead have a permanent veto on articles?Ultramarine 02:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm trying to resolve disputes with you but it appears you are just playing games. If you act serious and do work to resolve the issues that you are currently going around in cirlces on, and prestending not to understand, then we can settle this one. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste more time with you. I don't think I need to spell out what those are. Editors have to act according to certain standards or else I prefr to deal with other editors who do abide by such standards. if you change and work without playing games (as I believe you currently are doing), then I'll be happy to work with you here to find an acceptable compromise with what you want to include.Giovanni33 02:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, other articles are not relevenat for the issues here. Follow the standard Wikipedis dispute resolution and discuss the issudes.Ultramarine 02:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at that version, and the only think that I object to, for now (looking at it breifly), is that part where you state there is two schools, which you do by saying the relationship between the two is controversial. This you can't say since it implies as a matter of fact that there are two schools. To fix this simply state that according to....they maintain its a new school, etc., and then present the other POV on the question.Giovanni33 04:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence stating controversial. OK? Ultramarine 08:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That is fixed. The intro is missing the transition, "formally called the SOA...etc" It just jumps into "The SOA has a controversial history..." etc. There needs to be some statement to the effect of the change to account for the new name.Giovanni33 19:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That they are the same is what is disputed, we do not decide the truth in the intro.Ultramarine 19:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you can't give undue weight to the dispute. It should be stated that the schools name was changed to..... And then it can explain that the new school has changed, etc. and considers itself to be different from the previous named schoool--and then state that others claim this is only cosmetic, etc. Otherwise, its confusing because we start out with one name and then start talking about the SOA. Unless the reader knows the history arleady, it can be confusing. So some mention about the name change to the new name is needed to address this point.Giovanni33 06:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

On the Intro- Your wording just referring to The Nation magazine is bad. It reads like only The Nation magazine made these charges so that they aren't so important. There are dozens of institutions and 200+ elected leaders who oppose the SOA and its fake new name school too. Many of these leaders like Joseph Kennedy Jr have speeched about torture, executions and more horrors taught at the school. This sections need to be totally re-written, and the history of teaching torture and exectution going back to as long as 1963 with Project X must be in the lead first section. What it teaches in 2006 is nothing as important as what it taught for 40 years. IMHO. Bmedley Sutler 21:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have sources, then we can certainly expand the history section with what happened in 1960s. But the discussion is regarding the what happened in 2001. Pleae state an alternative text here for the intro.Ultramarine 09:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am discussing the intro paragrapgh. Bmedley Sutler 17:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So am I. As per WP:NPOV, the views of both sides should be included, including that the Institute considers itself a different organizaitons from the School.Ultramarine 17:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The article says that. All your objections have been met. Bmedley Sutler 21:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, they have not. The Institute's own view that it is a different organization from the School in not mentioned.Ultramarine 23:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few hundred results to search through

There are probably statements of supporting and opposing.

HOUSE SOA

SENATE SOA

HOUSE WHINSEC

SENATE WHINSEC

I stand with Giovani33 to make this article truthful and 'NPOV'. Bmedley Sutler 03:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why should we search through it? Report if you find anything.Ultramarine 03:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrections

Unless there are concrete objections I will shortly change to this version: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox2. Please state any concrete objections here.Ultramarine 09:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I object to the whole thing and the way you do business. Each edit needs to be discussed. You do not 'own' this article and writing a version by yourself shows that you maybe want to act like you do. Each edit and every change will be discussed. OKay? Do you agreee? If not I will file for a 'mediation' of the whole article. Bmedley Sutler 21:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I made several small changes like moving the history from oldest to newest and other little things (nothing big) and added some more sources. I am willing to discuss all of them. Bmedley Sutler 00:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets start with changes section. Any objection to the sourced material there? Ultramarine 23:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, It's all from WHINSC and there are no critcisms. Find 'outside' sources. Bmedley Sutler 20:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

From June 2007

"Even more disturbing is how the WHINSEC responded to criticism.

It chose to build a fortress around itself, to make sure that no one in the public – no human rights organization, no foreign policy analyst – would be able to review the names of WHINSEC’s graduates and instructors.

For the first time in the history of WHINSEC – including the 40-year history of its infamous predecessor, the School of the Americas – Freedom of Information Act requests are being denied. I have in my hands the school’s response regarding 2005 graduates – every single name is blacked out.

Look at it – 18 pages – completely redacted.

Is this anyone’s idea of transparency? Of open relations with human rights and other policy organizations?"

Congressman Jim McGovern [33] Yes they are so much better now. Not. Bmedley Sutler 00:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

---

"The School of the Americas has been associated with human rights abuses, with many of its students linked to Latin American coups and vicious death squads. In 1989, graduates from the school killed 6 Jesuit priests, a housekeeper, and her daughter in El Salvador .

“Today, a new name has not changed the school’s old patterns of abuse and conflict, as WHINSEC continues admitting and graduating known human rights abusers. Colonel Francisco del Cid Diaz, for example, commanded a unit responsible for a notorious massacre of indigenous people in El Salvador in 1983, then attended the Institute on our own soil, as recently as 2003. And there are others just like him; it is clear that WHINSEC continually fails, not only to fully investigate the prior history of its students but also to track their activity after graduation.

“And that is why nations like Costa Rica , Argentina , and Uruguay have terminated their relationship with the Institute. It is clear, neither those nations nor this one have anything to gain by supporting an institution with such a marred history."

Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn) Bmedley Sutler 05:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments such as "Yes they are so much better now. Not." are completely unhelpful to the discussion. This is a talkpage to discuss changes to the article not a political forum. Any further commentaries like that will be removed in conjunction with WP:SOAP.--Jersey Devil 20:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sayings like that are not allowed? I never knew. Some others talk worse all the time. Bmedley Sutler 00:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

He is just grasping at straws, its a means of applying pressure for passive aggressive behavior. Try not to get sarcastic, but no one will remove a comment like that, as the only time you are allowed to move them are WP:SOAP rants, not 4 words in 2 paragraphs, or cases of NPA, which that clearly was not. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ultramarine

Dear Ultramarine, please link all the claims in the Changes section. Thank you. I will post a link how one of the classes they highlight about is 8 hours total out of many weeks of training. Bmedley Sutler 20:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

HERE: "d) Curriculum.— (1) The curriculum of the Institute shall include mandatory instruction for each student, for at least 8 hours, on human rights, the rule of law, due process, civilian control of the military, and the role of the military in a democratic society." Link Bmedley Sutler 20:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There are links here: [34]. By the way, any objection to including this more correct and full description? Ultramarine 23:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I objected to all of it! We have an intro part now, suggest changes to that one. Your claim of 1987 to 1991 when many more years taught torture and many more manuals were used, and just using 'The Nation magazine' I've objected to many times. Suggest each change you want starting at the top. Bmedley Sutler 00:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley your source above is just plain wrong. Why doesn't anyone bother to check the school itself to get correct information on what they are either doing or not doing. [35] Each student gets 8 a minimum of 8 hrs of human rights training. Period. That's even if they are only there for two weeks! Many other classes have much greater sessions on the subject. ChaplainSvendsen 22:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WHINSEC claims vs The Truth

"Before coming to WHINSEC each student is “vetted” by his/her nation. Students are first screened by their own government and then screened by the U. S. embassy in that country. If there is any hint of wrongdoing in the student’s past, the student is not permitted into the United States to attend WHINSEC.[8]"

"In 2002, Bolivian Captain Filiman Rodriguez took a 49-week officer-training course at WHINSEC. But in 1999, he'd been found responsible for the kidnapping and torture of Waldo Albarracin, then director of the Popular Assembly for Human Rights, by a commission of the Bolivian Chamber of Deputies. In 2003, Salvadoran Colonel Francisco del Cid Diaz was a student at WHINSEC. But the colonel commanded a unit that shot 16 residents from the Los Hojas cooperative of the Asociacion Nacional de Indigenas and threw their bodies into the river in 1983. In 1992, the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recommended prosecution of Col. Cid Diaz for the murders. WHINSEC is not a 'reliable source'. Link You must find other sources. We know that the US Military lied about Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch. They are lying above. We have the proof. Find truthful sources. They should be 'outside' sources too. Bmedley Sutler 00:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well all I can say is that your source is wrong in more ways thanone. In a letter to SOA Watch sent to them this last winter from WHINSEC they stated this about Colonel Francisco del Cid Diaz: "Colonel Francisco Del Cid of El Salvador has not participted in any programs subject to the provisions of the Leahy ammendment. We found that, while he did escort a group of cadets to WHINSEC in 2003, he was not enrolled in any courses." In other words your source is just plain wrong and they didn't bother to ask the school. Again, why is it that so many people get their information from other sources which have not accurately checked the facts. As Concerns Captian Filmann (I have Urzagaste and not Rodriguez so perhaps they got his name wrong also) WHINSEC states that "the charges were dismissed by the Bolivian constitutional tribunal as being without legal basis, and an improper accusation." Was that mentioned in the article? Does an accusation alone make the person guilty and somehow prove that the school (which by the way does not do the vetting process, the Departement of Defense does it) is at fault. Are you saying that anyone accused, even if cleared by the courts, should not be allowed to become a student at the school?

I can say that the vetting system is tightening even further with potential students being refused seats even if they belong to a unit which has been accused of human rights violations, even if none have been made against them. So just how reliable does that make your sources considering these facts? ChaplainSvendsen 22:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WHINSEC is reliable as a primary source. ("WHINSEC says..." type sources). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

soaw.org - reliable source?

From Soaw.org's about page:

“ SOA Watch is an independent organization that seeks to close the US Army School of the Americas ”

From our guidelines on reliable sources:

“ Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution. ”

SOA Watch is a protest organization and I think the first quote firmly establishes that they are unabashedly bias.

From our policy on verifiability:

“ Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ”

soaw.org is not third-party published (it's a self-published) and there is no indication that there is any kind of fact-checked process (as exists for newspapers or scientific journals) being employed.

From our policy on verifiability:

“ Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. ”

I think the above makes it clear that this section applies to SOA Watch.

It would be a very good idea to start finding reliable sources to support the sections in the article that now have citations to SOA watch. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. SOAW is a 'RS'. •smedleyΔbutler• 17:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate on your statement... This is a discussion and not a vote. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

From: Chaplain Kent Svendsen BOV Member WHINSEC SOA Watch is not a reliable source. Not only are they not reliable but they are guilty of being quite disengenuous. In 2006 at the June meeting of the BOV in Washington DC a represenative from SOA Watch stood and expressed his concerns about the school and especially about potential human rights abusers gaining seats at the school. I presonally offered to be a liason between the board of SOAW so they could forward any information they had on any individuals. Over the next year I e-mailed them dozens of times, made phone calls to them, was put on hold, told everyone was in a meeting, called back, was told eveyone had left. And for almost an entire year never had so much as a response from them. Not one name, not one individual. They would not even confirm the six names of those whom they claim were the latest. Somebody, not from SOA Watch but from a denominational source whom I also met at that meeting with the SOA Watch rep contacted finally contacted me. Of the names given none were found guilty of any misconduct and four of them were accused of money fraud. Not exactly torture and an abuse of military power do you think?

I'm sorry if I was not aware of the process of editing the site. I was just so outraged that it seemed to be nothing more than a clone of the SOA Watch site along with its misinformation and false accusations. As soon as I can figure out how to start my own subject line I'll address other issues. The biggest of which is the fact that the site has little to do with just exactly what WHINSEC is doing and everything to do with what the authors believe that SOA did in its history. While it may be appropriate to make the suggestion that perhaps the two have many things in common as schools, i.e. the subjects they teach, the make up of their student body, etc. Its quite another thing to make all kinds of false and misleading accusations against SOA watch and then paint WHINSEC with the same brush. Here are my credentials so you can consider my reliability and knowledge of the subject.

I am a 26 year military veteran as well as an ordained minister and social justice advocate. (I serve on my conference board of Church and Society as well as pastoring in a local church setting.) I have served in Central America as well as having served in South East Asia, Eastern Europe, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where I served as a chaplain to the dentention center there. I am very knowledgable as concerns our foreign policy and its history in Central and South America. I am in fact leading a group to Central America at the beginning of next year. One of our focuses will be to interview former WHINSEC students to ask what they were trained in and how it is being applied. Much of the attempted changes I tried to make on the website were resourced from my direct experience serving on the BOV of WHINSEC.

I have been studying and looking closely at WHINSEC since just after its creation. I had read materials such as are presented on SOA Watch and personally approached the school asking them to respond to the accusations. In resonse I was invited to come to the school, interview students and instructors, examing the cirriculum, and given advisor status because of my military experience and social justice work within the church. They didn't know who I was, they were just glad that somebody actually wanted to come and see for themselves rather than accepting the word of stangers making accusations. I was appointed by the DOD last year as an official board member. All during the last five years plus I have been investigation the school and raising questions concerning every accusation with has every come across the table.

8/24/07 Chaplain/Reverend Kent Svendsen ChaplainSvendsen 20:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaplainSvendsen (talk • contribs) 15:31, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Being new working with the editing of the page I'm still learning. I'll do the research. My statements on the vetting system come directly from a document provided to the oversight committee concerning the vetting system and the vetting policy of the school. Would that be allowable as an article and postable evidence? Does an article have to be a published article? Oh and by the way, just because an accusation is printed in an article doesn't mean that its true! Are you telling me that any biased news source that is willing to print something as fact is automatically assigned the position of making those written statements absolute truths? The vetting system by the way is not applied by the school but by the Department Of Defense. In response to the criticisms above that the standard is not being applied. The vetting system I spoke of was presented and implemented in 2006 and arn't all the people you mentions before this vetting system was created and implememted. So are you telling me your claiming them failing in their vetting system because they didn't apply a standard before it was even created? ChaplainSvendsen 12:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted to the article as of 29 August 2007. I'm an astronomer, and I recently found this article in hopes of reading a brief factual history on the School of the Americas. I was unaware of the change in operations of the SOA to WHINSEC. My first reaction was to agree with User:Pedant who proposed that the School of the Americas deserves its own page, with simply a link to a separate WHINSEC page. I'm not sure if this is the correct step to take, but clearly the strong Conflict of Interest (COI) edits by Kent Svendsen (BOV Member WHINSEC) and members of SOA Watch should not be tolerated according to the wikipedia's guidelines: see [36] For those of you who are wikipedia administrators or long-term contributers, I ask whether certain editors of this article need to be posted on the wikipedia COI Noticeboard? Astro-jeff 08:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted again. You can not post comments on articles (as you did with the contact info) that is for the discussion page.--Jersey Devil 18:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WHINSEC AND FOREIGN POLICY

From Chaplain Kent Svendsen BOV member of WHINSEC

The place at which WHINSEC finds itself today is the result of many years of foreign policy change. During the Carter administration the focus was on non-intervention and human rights. During Reagan it was "anybody who is against communism is our friend". Over the years our government and the military has been very arrogant in giving orders to our neighbors to the south without regard to or repsect to their cultural and political development.

But communism has fallen and is no longer a threat. Revolutionary uprisings in the south which in the past were viewed and painted with the same brush: "Communism" are no longer seen as such. Our foreign policy is no longer suffering from "commuphobia" in which any despot is better then a communist uprising. This past view was reflected in the training and leadership development of the past. This past view is that which many (especially SOA Watch and others like them) still hold. They wanted SOA closed. Its closed. WHINSEC is not SOA as concerns foreign policies of the past and has never been such. But its opponents cannot see that and will not recognize that. That's why they still have the name SOA Watch.

I don't speak much about SOA because I have no first hand information concerning them. But I'll speak a lot concerning WHINSEC and what they are doing.

Our present foreign policy is of course first and foremost a policy of acting in the best interests of our nation. That will always be the foundation upon which the foreign policy is built. But consider the evolution of that policy in its full expression. For instance, we gave Panama back the canal to their sovereign control and removed Noreiga the despot. This as opposed to the past mistake of allowing Somosa to stay in power in Nicaraga instead of removing him and giving that country the opportunity of using revolution for social reform. Our new policy does show more respect for the individualism of the nations to our south. With communism no longer being a threat (with the exception of the fear that if WHINSEC is closed the Cubans and Chinese will be the new teachers in the region.) democracy and human rights protections are the new genre. The WHINSEC of today places as top priority training in human rights protections and has even had Amnesty International made comments that its instruction should be made mandatory as part of all DOD training. And in fact when I last traveled to Panama earlier this year everyone in our battalion had to complete human rights training before traveling south. The second priority is democracy education and the submission of all military forces to civilian authority. The next level is professional development. You want to stop human rights violations then develop a policy of human rights protections, train the people in those protections, hold them accountable, and the first reaction will be to protect instead of abuse, to question rather than go in guns a blazing. That is what WHINSEC presently stands for: It teaches professionalism with an emphasis on human rights protections and the development of democratic principles.

What would be nice to see on the site would be its training of human rights and the training of trainers to return to their countries to teach human rights across those nations. Their anti drug and anti terrorism training designed to protect innocent civilians and protect civil rights at the same time. Their "shoot, don't shoot" program designed to reduce incidents of innocent people getting shot when police and military actions are being taken. Or the command and general staff course designed to teach the students to lead through organizational development and democratic principles rather than fear and intimidation.

What I would like to see on the site is a report about the school opening its doors to any protestor or intersted party to go to the school and ask any questions they want about what the school is doing. Those of you reading this can go to the school and check out for yourselves what the school is doing. There is so much more that I think should be on the website.ChaplainSvendsen 20:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Chaplain Kent Svendsen 8/24/07

It is our responsibility here on Wikipedia to present things in an encyclopedic matter. This means that we should not give undue weight to certain determined "positive aspects" of any organizations because one feels not doing so would put U.S. foreign policy in a bad light. The fact of the matter is that the WHINSEC is clearly and widely regarded as a successor organization of the SOA. First, much of the accusations against SOA are unproven. Secondly, just because someone was a student there for a class doesn't make SOA the controller or architect of their destiny, Third, Both schools teach people from the same countries, but much of the rest is very different.ChaplainSvendsen 00:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC) The only sources ever used to dispute this are claims directly from the military which are by its very nature an inherent conflict of interest. So the unproven claims which are nothing more than accusations are facts but the school's investigation and reporting on those claims are not. If you going to make claims that where's the evidence? ChaplainSvendsen 00:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC) And while, it most certainly may not be your intention, removal of all information of the SOA from this article and a reframing of it in a way as to claim it is an organization completely different from the SOA would seem to editors to be an attempt to disguise the negative aspects of past U.S. foreign policy. I like your quote of "past foreign policy". And it would be great if the article stated it in those terms and reported on our present foreign policy and it very positive affect on the school and the students who are attending there. At present the article implies that WHINSEC is doing exactly the same activities as SOA did and that they are acting under the same foreign policy. That's my point exactly. The article you have entitled WHINSEC actually has very little to do with WHINSEC. It's and article about SOA and a very unneutral one with hostile and bigoted use of language in its descriptions.ChaplainSvendsen 00:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC) I respectfully ask you to refrain from attempting to change the article back to a form in which the SOA history is minimized without discussion on this talk page. Thank you for your compliance.--Jersey Devil 21:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What your doing is in violation of your own guidelines of the information being neutral and unbiased. Starting the article with the SOA school emblem is certianly evidence of this. I removed that emblem and replaced it with the WHINSEC emblem because that is what should be there. I would also ask that for accuracy those who attended classes at the school not be referred to as graduates. WHINSEC does not graduate anybody. Here is the specific bias that I reference. A soldier attends a two week logistics course on how to manage materials and supplies. Twenty years later he turns into a despot and a human rights abuses abuser and he's then listed as a graduate of the school. Now tell me, is that unbiased if all that is mentioned is the accusations of abuse and thenlisting him as a graduate of the school without stating when he was there, what course work he took, and when that course work was completed?

Would something like this be allowed as printable. "However, with over 60,000 students having attended the former School Of The Amerias not one has ever testified to being taught torture techniques." Are statements like that acceptible with the stipulation that if SOA Watch or anyone else can come up with somebody to go on the record that could be referenced? The problem we have here a principle of propoganda which says that if something is said often enough and enough people of knowledge and authority believe it to be truth and reports of it are put into writing without challenge then it become "truth" whether it is true or not. "No torture techinques were ever taught at the former School Of The Americas." Your saying that statement is not true and that it is proven. Proven how? Because somebody has a page of a book which found its way into the school reference library? And you then connect the dots to prove that somehow our government is directly responsible for all the independenly made decisions made in Central And South America by anyone who even walked through the doors of a school taught by our military. Then your continue connecting the dots to claim that all that proof of wrongdoing needs to be superimposed upon a different school with a different charter with a different purpose. If in fact you want to be unbiased and neutral and you truly believe people are smart enough to do the research you would allow an article about WHINSEC and what is does be posted with reference to the accusations made concerning its possible connection with SOA and referencing them to the SOA aritcle which has plenty of information on the subject. ChaplainSvendsen 12:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are continuing to revert to the previous version. In order to avoid an edit war you might want to consider starting a request for comment on the issue. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 14:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

NEW AND IMPROVED POST It will take me some time to negotiate and learn the system for doing all of that. If you or somebody else who already knows the complicated system for editing and negoiating on the site would want to do it I would be grateful. I'm working on an entire website entry for WHINSEC which I hope your board would consider. I don't want to be banned from editing so I have edited my last entry here to reflect a more reconcilling attitude. I do plan to delete material that I believe is not neutral. I find much of the article to be very hostile and defaming of the school. This issue is about something much bigger and more important then just somebody posting something on a web page. Were talking about our national security and the impact a research tool such as Wikipedia has on the information people use to determine their personal stand on the issue, which impacts on the legislators who they serve, which in turn can determine some real world issues and actions. There is an ongoing battle raging attempting to close the school and the vote spread between it staying open and it closing is not that many votes. It it be the will of the people to close down a school which in my very educated and informed opinion is a powerful source for promoting human rights protections, protecting ourselves from future terroist attacks, stemming the flood of illeagal drugs into our country, promoting and developing democracies in Central and South America the so be it. But at least let's base our decisions on truth and honesty in reporting the facts. Not on a continual mantra of false propoganda designed to bias the reader into thinking its truth in reporting. In my opinion that is what I believe is presently in the article. By allowing left wing radical elements like SOA Watch to control the content of the entry with its bigotry and prejudice towards the school Wikipedia is only hurting Wikipedia's reputation. And if your editorial board believes what SOA Watch is selling then I would invite you to take a close look at another viewpoint. ChaplainSvendsen 23:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)ChaplainSvendsen 15:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

By allowing right wing radical elements like members of the SOA/WHINSEC BOV to control the content of the entry with their bigotry and prejudice towards the people of the Latin America in particular is only hurting Wikipedia's reputation. Mac.nca 16:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)