Jump to content

Talk:Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation/Archive 2

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

Should SOA Watch Be Allowed As A Resource?

The following article was e-mailed out to the world from SOA Watch yesterday. Since its about Wikipedia can anyone from the editorial board offer proof of their allegations. They even list the IP address. If you have to sign in or as I've seen in places the IP address appears. Has any on the editorial staff seen corrections made by the particular IP address mentioned below? And is so how much and how many. The accusation made by SOA Watch is that they have been "editing all references to human rights abuses". You on the editorial board, is that correct? ChaplainSvendsen 12:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fort Benning Censors Wikipedia Entry on the SOA/WHINSEC

" A new scanning program has revealed that Wikipedia entries on the School of the Americas, renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (SOA/WHINSEC) have been edited from an IP address from Fort Benning to omit all references to human rights abuses connected to the school. WikiScanner, developed by CalTech graduate student Virgil Griffith, has traced the editorial changes made to the online encyclopedia to Fort Benning computers. The IP address used was 150.226.95.18. Any IP address that begins with 150.226 belongs to Fort Benning. That IP address has the name of doim1-358.benning.army.mil, which is via the Directorate of Information Management at Fort Benning.

The program also revealed that an entry about Fort Benning was altered to delete all mention of SOA Watch. Graduates of the School of the Americas have a documented track record of using the skills they were taught at the SOA/WHINSEC against union organizers, social justice activists, faith leaders and everyone who speaks out for social change and the rights of the poor.

The School of the Americas is also active against human rights groups within our borders. The school has not only monitored civilian groups and individuals who are working for a just U.S. foreign policy and the closure of the SOA/WHINSEC, but they are also using our tax dollars to actively interfere in the political process. Military officials at the SOA/WHINSEC are spreading misinformation to Congress, flooding the media with letters to the editor, and approaching student groups who are planning events on the SOA/WHINSEC to demand access to the campus.

The SOA/WHINSEC is propagating a mindset that is not in line with the role of the military in a democratic society. In this light, it does not come as a surprise that SOA/WHINSEC instructors who taught "democratic sustainment" at the school from 2003-2004 were arrested earlier this month in Colombia for their involvement in one of Colombia's most notorious drug cartels (click here to read more about this case). end of quote

This especially: "The school has not only monitored civilian groups and individuals who are working for a just U.S. foreign policy and the closure of the SOA/WHINSEC, but they are also using our tax dollars to actively interfere in the political process."

Since this is an actual article. (I often told I need to refer to some article if I want to make any reliable statements that can remain editorial changes.) It is reliable enough for actual proof? The problem is the fact that since I'm an active observer of the school he school works an a very meger budget. In truth the school reads what its detractors have to say in order to continue to make changes to eleminate their objections. And the so called interfering with the political process. I guess that's the information they send out talking about what the school is actually doing today as opposed to what SOA Watch is falsely accusing them of doing.

My suggestion is that any use of SOA Watch materials directly coming from their writers be excluded and only the reliable resources they refer to be used. Can you see how their use of language is certianly very far from "neutral"? So can somebody from the editorial staff please comment on this new alligation made by them?ChaplainSvendsen 12:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A more significant issue is that there's widepsread opposition available from a quick google search. Over-reliance on a single source is lame - the entire subsection devoted to SOAW isn't necessarily wrong but care should be taken if they're an actor in this too. Krupo 00:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Chaplain Svendsen asked me to comment on the situation here. I don't want to plunge in too deeply but here are my remarks; I suspect that he won't like most of what I have to say:

  • It seems to me that we need some one "central" article that gives and overview of WHINSEC, its precursor SOA, and their critics. The present-day the name of the institution seems to me to be the best place for this overview. SOA Watch doubtless deserves an article of their own; if we have enough material, I can imagine turning the history of SOA/WHINSEC into an article series, and the renaming/reorganizing would clearly be a natural dividing line between two articles in that series. Still, there has got to be an overview article somewhere.
  • I would strongly recommend that as a somewhat interested party Chaplain Svendsen would do well to focus more on adding information than removing things that he disagrees with, particularly attributable opinions that he disagrees with.
  • On the other hand, if there is material in the article that he thinks is factually false, it would be very helpful to have a list here of what he thinks constitute factual errors. And he should certainly be able to add material from official sources, other normally citable sources sympathetic to WHINSEC or SOA, etc. It would doubtless be very helpful to the article over time to have someone working on it in a scholarly manner who is as passionately dedicated to defending the institution as others are to attacking it.
  • Just like my views (and uncitable knowledge) or anyone else's, Chaplain Svendsen's views only become directly relevant to an encyclopedia article insofar as he (1) speaks for a significant organization, (2) becomes reasonably clearly recognized as an authority, or (3) his views are quoted (as representative) in a generally reliable source, such as a news article. Believe me, I understand how frustrating this can be: there are plenty of topics on which I can speak quite knowledgably, but I'm not considered an acceptable source for Wikipedia.
  • SOA Watch being "left wing" is neither here nor there. Others might equally object to "right wing" or "centrist" sources. Pretty much all sources come from some place on the political spectrum, and Wikipedia does not have a rule specifically favoring some particular political stance. They are a well-known organization; their opinions deserve coverage in the article, probably amounting to an article section of no more than about 400 words as a summary of an SOA Watch main article.
  • Now here's something Chaplain Svendsen will probably be happier to hear. I would say that on factual matters SOA Watch are at best a weak source, because they have an axe to grind. If there is factual material in the article that is citable only to SOA Watch (or similar groups), then at the very least it should be qualified in the text, not just the footnotes, with "according to SOA Watch" (or similar attribution) rather than presented simply as fact in Wikipedia's narrative voice. If SOA Watch appears to have solid citations for a particular factual claim, either someone needs to follow up SOA Watch's citation so that we can directly cite that more primary source or the footnote should be of the form "FOO cited by SOA Watch document BAR".

I hope that at least some of these remarks will be useful. I'm not currently really using a Wikipedia watchlist, so I won't be systematically keeping an eye on this page. If someone wants to ask for clarifications or specifically wants to engage me in discussion on some of this, please "ping" my talk page to call my attention back to this page. - Jmabel | Talk 00:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Smart points, IMHO - regarding your second-last bullet, how does this relate to use of the phrase "Right-wing Death squads."? I wouldn't ask, but noticed that "left-wing" was removed from the comment describing the president of Uruguay... would there be a more appropriate term to use? I propose to just remove the "right-wing" part to be impartial. I'll link directly to the article on Death Squads. Krupo 06:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much all of Jmabel's points.--Jersey Devil 10:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would keep "right-wing death squads" unless a more precise term is available. Assuming that the president of Uruguay you are asking about is the current president, Evo Morales, we do not seem to have an article Bolivarism (the term coined by Hugo Chavez, I believe, for the present wave of American statist leftism), so I'd go for "left-wing populist" (he's not quite an indigenist, so "populist" gets that across without overstating the case). Yes, I think such a characterization is in order, if only to help guide people through the terrain if they don't know much about present-day Latin American politics. - Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia?

Is this relevant? I mean, have the bands specifically link SOA-WHISC to the songs?

If so, an additional comment along those lines would be appropriate, eh? Something as brief as a reference to the song lyrics, if they make it obvious, would of course suffice. Krupo 06:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up ok, so I wandered over to check out the kaospilot lyrics - they actually mention SOA and its new name, so that checks out. And Anti-flag's song goes so far as to cite "Fort Benning, Georgia". I'll leave these notes here in case anyone else wanders over to understand if the SOA the bands cite is the same SOA/WHISC in discussion here. I find the idea of a trivia section a bit weird here, but then, I suppose that's why people in general aren't big fans of trivia sections. Krupo 06:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The custom is to break the trivia section out of it's 'list format' and rewrite the data as prose, included in the body of the article itself. I think you will find that any reference to "School of Assassins" is a reference to the School of the Americas at Fort Benning. 67.49.8.228 09:41, 1 September 2007 (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)

If it is indeed the case that SOA and WHINSEC are two different entities, then why do they share the same article? 67.49.8.228 09:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Additions

I would like to propose the following additions to the aritcle and the approval so it won't be immediately removed after its posted. 1. This information in the section on the protests listing how one gets a access to the schoool and who to call. I would also add information on how many protesters took them up on the offer. The institute is located at Fort Benning, Georgia. Access to Ft. Benning is controlled so a photo ID is required to enter. However visitors are welcome to visit the school any time during the year. Concerned citizens are allowed to talk with faculty and students, sit in on class sessions if being held, and review the instructional materials. Visits can be arranged by calling the Public Affairs Office at:(706) 545-1923 or by e-mail: WHINSEC-PAO@benning.army.mil 2 Would be a list of the classes which are offered at the school along with the number of hours of human rights training are required for each. I havn't added the hourse of HR training in yet. Civil Military Operations, 7 Weeks Resource Mgmt & Log, 6 weeks Human Rights Instructor, 3 Weeks Peace Operations, 7 Weeks Information Operations, 9 weeks Instructor, 2 weeks, 3 days Small-Group Instructor, 1 week Cdt Ldrshp Dev-Infantry, 6 weeks NCO Prof Dev-Eng/Sp, 6 wks, 4 dd Captains Career, 18 weeks Cmd & Gen Staff Off, 49 weeks Joint Operations, 5 weeks Intel Officer, 9 weeks Counterdrug Ops, 12 weeks Medical Assistance, 6 weeks Engineer Ops, 10 weeks Ctr Narco-Terrorism Analyst, 9 wks

(Two weeks, in requesting country) Joint Operations Battalion/Brigade Staff Operations NCO Professional Development Human-Rights Instructor Peace Operations Instructor Training

This information is referred to in the article but specifics not mentions. What is mentioned in the article is that nothing is said about combat training, interrogation training, etc. It suggests that its being done there but the classes not reported. In repeated questioning of the school they have empahtically denied ever teaching any of those things at the school since WHINSEC was created. The closest thing to it would be their new "Shoot, Don't Shoot" program which used full size video game and equipment to help soldiers and police determine if a suspect they come upon is an innocent unarmed bystander, a criminal or revolutionary willing to put down their weapon and surrender, or a legitimate threat for which deadly force may be needed in self defense. I have personally been to this range and have been given an opportunity along with other BoV members to use the equipment. ChaplainSvendsen 22:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Chaplain, You still do not undestand Wiki Policies, I think. You want to add information on how someone can visit the school. That is 'promotion'. If you look up the Wiki article on Disneyland you are not going to find the phone number for the box office and the special prices they have. You can't 'promote' the school here. Claims you want in the article cant come from WHINSC, except for a few small claims. They can't come from your papers at all. I also feel that you are using unusual descriptions of yourself to make it sound like you are different than you are. Are you not part of a church group that tries to 'cure' homosexuals? Did you not write an article defgending GITMO saying there was no mis-treatment of the prisoners after many found there was almost torture? Lt General Randall Schmidt Report You went on Bill O'Reilly? This is not what most people think when they see 'social activist'. Did you not write this? "According to my studies, all that remains for the liberal left to be able to convert to Islam would be to recognize the Qur'an as the authority for doctrinal teaching." [1] Maybe you should say 'conservative social activist' so people are not confused. •smedleyΔbutler• 03:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I've hit a nerve. Personal attacks on my character using false information? This is a page about WHINSEC so what does all those other item have to do with WHINSEC? But just for the record her is my response. 1. I am not presently a part of any churh group or any other group that tries to "cure" homosexuals. Since your attacking my character here I would ask that you provide some evidence to support your claims. I do have an old article on the web about pastoral care for indiviauls with same sex attractions. I have been studying the subject for well over a decade and my latest writings share the view that only in very rare cases can sexual orientation be changed and then usually because of the resolution of past abuse or abandonment issues. I'm not sure what article about GTMO you might be referring to but I have been interviewed may times about my service in GTMO. Those interviews included this information. 1. As a reporting agent for abuse during my tour there I did not receive any reports of torture of the abuse of detainees. I always qualified that by stating emphatically that I was never allowed into the interrogation rooms and had no knowlege as to what might or might not have happened in those rooms. I only stated facts as concerns my personal knowledge and made no blanket statements as the one you made concerning what happened at the camps. The kind of misleading and non-neutral statements like the ones you made here against me are good examples of the same type of false inferences the WHINSEC article has which are misleading and prejudicial. As concerns my statments concerning the liberal left and Islam. The defining point between Christiainty and Islam is the question of who is Jesus Christ by nature. In Surah 5:116-117 the Koran has Jesus telling Allah that he never said he was God. The New Testament affirms many times that Jesus was in fact God. Many extremely left leaning religious leaders have already proclaimed Jesus as human but not divine. Again context is important. And should I have turned Bill O'Reilly down when asked for an interview. I have never turned down a request for an interview from any source. Now I honestly think that all of this dialogue is innapropriate for this page. However since you posted it here and people may have read it here I think they should be allowed to read my response to it here.ChaplainSvendsen 15:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Chaplain, Please learn to 'indent' so your discussions can be followed, by putting 'colons'. its easy and really helps to follow. You hit no nerve. I make no attacks. I am pointing to your published stances vs how you describe yourself here on Wiki which you make sound (IMO) like you're a leftist 'social activist'. You're no leftist (IMO) so lets not confuse that, okay? I have asked administrator Jersey Devil to 'mediate' the many issues. I hope you will agree. Okay? I will talk to your others points later. I have little time now. Here is the 'cure homosexual' proof. From CNN. "Rev. Kent Svendsen, a Methodist pastor from rural Ashton and a leader in the church's "confessing movement," which believes homosexuals can be converted to heterosexuality. [2] [3]•smedleyΔbutler• 16:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Are only people on the liberal left "social activists" of that type? Have you heard of the new evanlgelical movement which arose within the last decade of "evangelicals with a social consicience"? I am one of them. I never pretended to be a leftist nor claimed it. But I do seek a kingdom in which all swords have been beaten into plow shares and we go to war no more. I looked at the article you referenced which is eight years old. At the time I was part of the Confessing Movement, but the organization has nothing to do with that particular subject. And I don't remember ever reading about the subject in any of their literature. I guess is was poetic liscense on the part of the author becuase of the nature of the subject matter in the article.:::ChaplainSvendsen 05:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source? If it's sourced, everything but the phone number is relevant to the article. --DHeyward 04:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Its on the website, its in a pamphlet concerning the school, its all public information. Here is my issue of fairness. If your going to have a section on demonstrations against the school and list the number attending and other such materials. Its only fair to then share information concerning how the school responded to those protests and attemtps they have made to be open and transparent concerning what the school is doing. I say if my information isn't to be included then the specifics about numbers and other such materials concering the demonstrations should not be included. ChaplainSvendsen 15:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is what you don't understand. The policy 'Original Research'. Unless an outside source wrote about the 'open house' it is not a 'notable' point and you including it in the article is 'original research' and COI. You need to find a news article discussing it. •smedleyΔbutler• 16:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Bmedley, you are incorrect. Material published by the school is notable and reliable when used about the school. It's just like using company websites for information about companies. --DHeyward 17:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That is not correct in every case. They can't decide what is 'notable' enough to include and the Chaplain has a clear loud COI (IMO). I asked Jersey Devil to 'mediate' •smedleyΔbutler• 17:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And BTW, you don't have to answer any of Bmedley's trolling questions. The questions (and answers) are irrelevant to the content of Wikipedia. --DHeyward 04:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It would probably spare us all a lot of headaches if we could cease discussing Christian, Islamic, and, erm, "liberal lefist" theology - none of which have anything to do with the article - on this page.Proabivouac 06:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

latest news of some of the school attendees

"A recent criminal investigation into the Colombian Army’s Third Brigade, has prompted the arrest of thirteen high ranking officers accused of providing security and mobilizing troops for Diego Montoya (alias “Don Diego”), the leader of the Norte del Valle Cartel and one of the FBI’s 10 most-wanted criminals.

Two former instructors of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (SOA/WHINSEC) are among the thirteen. Colonel Quijano, a former commander of Colombia’s Special Forces, and Major Mora Daza, taught “peacekeeping operations” and “democratic sustainment” at WHINSEC in 2003-2004.

Over half of the thirteen military officials implicated in the drug cartel protection ring attended the U.S. Army School of the Americas and/or its successor institute, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

Colonel Javier Escobar Matinez, Major Javier Isaza Muñoz, Major William E. Ortegon, General Hernando Perez Molina and retired Major Juan Carlos Agudelo received training at the U.S. Army School of the Americas as part of a U.S. funded assistance program to Colombia in the fight against outlaw paramilitaries and drug cartels. All five are now under arrest for collaborating with the drug cartels they were trained to fight against.

In 2006, Colombian military officers from the Third Brigade ambushed an elite, U.S.-trained anti-drug squad in the Valle town of Jamundí, killing ten policemen. The officer who ordered the attack, Colonel Bayron Carvajal, now under arrest, also attended courses at the School of the Americas. [4] [5] •smedleyΔbutler• 07:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The material about SOA trained individuals should be put in an aritcle concerning SOA. The WHINSEC related individuals if the information proves correct is very damaging. However, the question is this: Did the school know any of these activities when accepting them as students or instructors? Secondly if its decided to list this information can information be listed about the other 5000 plus former students and many instuctors who have made significant drug busts and have used their training at WHINSEC to do some very positive things?ChaplainSvendsen 15:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's some more latest news on former WHINSEC STUDENTS
Nicaragua Navy captured 21 kilos of cocaine, a boat and apprehended two drug dealers of Nicaraguan nationality on 27 Oct 06, during routine patrolling of the Atlantic coast. The Navy lieutenant in charge attended the Counterdrug Operations Course at WHINSEC in 2003.
On 1 Oct 20, in a joint operation with the Nicaraguan Police, members of the Nicaraguan Army Special Forces captured 3,000 kilos of cocaine near Pochomil, Nicaragua. This is the single largest bust of cocaine in the history of counter narcotics operations in Nicaragua. Two Vehicles, 10 AK-47s and one Galil automatic rifle were also captured. Two Majors of the Nicaraguan Army Special Operations Unit (COE), played critical roles in the operation. One of the Majors attended the Counterdrug Operations course at the WHINSEC from Jan-April 2004. The other attended the Counterdrug Operations course at the WHINSEC from July-Oct 2003.
The Nicaraguan Navy captured two kilos of Heroin on 30 Jan 07. In this seizure, the Nicaraguan Navy captured a handmade fishing boat transporting the heroin along with two drug dealers. The Nicaraguan Navy Captain who led this operation attended the Counter Narco-Terrorism Information Analyst Course at the WHINSEC in 05, and also participated in a US Coast Guard regional port security training course in Nicaragua in 2006.
And that's just success stories from one nation. I heard others from other countries also.ChaplainSvendsen 15:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I 'indented' your words for you. I will talk to them later. One point now. What are the names of the graduates above so these claims can be researched? Are the names of the graduates from WHINSEC open to the public? I asked administrator Jersey Devil to 'mediate' the WP issues. I hope you will agree to him. •smedleyΔbutler• 16:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
One quick point now. About 'transparency'. This is from US Congressman Jim McGovern only this year: "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?" [6] [7] Thats not 'transparent' •smedleyΔbutler• 16:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The material came from a powerpoint presentation given to the BoV which did not give their names. The reason for that is a privacy issue for the person to protect them from possible harm. Giving the names of the individuals involved can make them and their families a target for the drug cartels. ChaplainSvendsen 05:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So explain to me. WHINSEC used to release all the names of its graduates and teachers up until 2004 and now the 'more transparent' WHINSEC doesnt? This is one of the 'improvements'? A presentation given to the BOV and not published cant be used for anything on Wikipedia, I hope you know. •smedleyΔbutler• 05:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
My point was this: Over 5000 students have attended the school since its start and a few of them have been accused of wrong doing. None of which was promoted or encouraged by the school. In fact just the opposite is true. My posts were to also show that the school has many success stories in which the training given at the school has resulted in positive results. The name of the section was not about suggested additions but about what former students were doing. Right?ChaplainSvendsen 05:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The more important point is that this and this such as these are irrelevant to the article, because they're partisan sources without any reputation for reliability. We don't need to hear "success stories" either - negative stories aren't negated by some unrelated non-negative fact.Proabivouac 06:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The School of the Americas Watch has a great reputation for reliability and fact checking and has been cited by Congress and many elected officials. It is considered the premier source for info on the school/institute. I am about to start a hearing on this. I will not stand for this smearing of this valuable non-partisan institution to try and keep out 100% true facts about the Schools history of teaching terror. •smedleyΔbutler• 09:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Partisan sources

Just dropping in to observe that www.ifcla.net is no better than SOAW on the RS spectrum. The latest material, supposing it's accurate, should prove sourceable to respected mainstream news outlets. As I see no particular reason to doubt it, I've let the material remain with a fact tag.Proabivouac 06:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I found it in the Columbus Ledger too. •smedleyΔbutler• 06:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a subsection

Its fully sourced and The Chaplain even admitted that this muderous human rights abuser was at the school in 2003 'escorting a group of cadets' (what ever exactly that means). Ongoing_particpation_of_human_rights_abusers •smedleyΔbutler• 06:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally tend to trust LAWeekly's journalism, though they still fall below what we should be aiming for. We probably shouldn't be using elected officials' home pages for findings of fact. Would you have trusted information you'd found on Jesse Helms' or Rick Santorum's pages?Proabivouac 07:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
We can use McGoverns page just fine unless there is 100% rock-solid disproof of one of his claims. He is the premier elected official expert on the school/institute. Isn't Helms dead and Santorum voted out because he was too extreme for his district like for talking about sex with dogs compared to gay marriage? •smedleyΔbutler• 07:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Controversy section unbalanced

It's getting ridiculously petty and unbalanced. It needs to be trimmed back to a few major points but bulletizing every fringe groups complaints (or worse representing one fringe groups complaints for mulitple bullets) is undue weight and unbalances the entire article. --DHeyward 08:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I will take this all the way to Arbitration if need be to. The school/institute has a history of training assassins and terrorists for 40 years and spent the last 6 years making a smokescreen while still welcoming mass-murderers like Diaz. There should be 7x as much of the article on their history of their teaching of terror and 1/7 on their 'smokescreen era'. That would be balance. Why did you follow me here? When was your first edit to this article? •smedleyΔbutler• 08:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Question to the regular editors of this article - Where should this information go?
Blaring music is Army's weapon in new offensive against protesters
The Army rolled out a new offensive this year against activities at the School of Americas protest. Call it "Operation Loud Music."
With his voice strained and raspy, protest singer Pete Seeger opened his stage appearance at Saturday's SOA Watch gathering with a rendition of "Where Have All the Flowers Gone."
But it was difficult for the thousands who had gathered along Fort Benning Road to hear the 84-year-old icon of protest movements because of the deafening sound of martial and patriotic music being blasted over high decibel amplifiers less than 100 yards behind the SOA Watch stage." Link
Should it go in the protest section, or somewhere else since it was an action by the Institute, not the protesters? Thanks. •smedleyΔbutler• 09:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

please restore the tag or address why the tag is no appropriate. --DHeyward 22:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced in favor of SOA. Much more background is needed on how SOA graduates are part of maintaining U.S. power. The article makes it seem like "what's wrong with those silly protestors." 67.58.254.68 12:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I've been asked by Bmedley Sutler to help "mediate" a discussion here. I'd be happy to so long as there are no objections. Basically I think we should follow the suggestions made by Jmabel above.--Jersey Devil 11:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

He said that SOA Watch can be used, but its a 'weak source' I don't even agree with that. They are the premier researchers on the school/institue. They have filed FOIAs and and discovered the hundreds of human rights abusers who went to the school. They work with news medias and HROs all over Latin America to track these graduates and see when they commit crimes in their home countries and report them. I agree that we cant say 'WHINSEC is bad' only because SOAW says 'they're bad', but look at what happened yesterday. I added info on a legislative action. No one is going to argue that the SOAW made it up that there was a legislative action. It was first linked to SOAW. Someone removed it. It was then linked to a Catholic HRO. Someone removed it. Thats silly. Are we going to use SOAW as long as we say 'according to SOAW' or similar? What about my feelings above. the 7x and 1/7? If this article is going to be 50% on the last 6 years and all these 'changes' and not the decades before, I wont have much interest. It should be most about the long history of the school and the crime and abuses their students committed, IMHO. If not, I can start a 'Abuses by SOA graduates' article? Thanks. •smedleyΔbutler• 19:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

USGOV editing this article

  • "The School of the Americas (150.226.95.18), renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, is not too pleased with their bio on Wikipedia. Is it something wrong about training officers to torture and kill people all over Latin America, including nuns and priests? No problem! The "Gentlemen and Officers" from Fort Benning re-wrote the entire article. If you did not know better, you would believe that the page describes the International Institute for the Study of Humanitarian Law." Link •smedleyΔbutler• 18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes and those edits were quickly reverted by a reviewing Wikipedian. [8] This is a place to discuss the article at hand, keep that in mind. Good day.--Jersey Devil 23:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats not the point is it? We have 100% proof that they were editting their own article adding PR and 'spin' and now we have a 100% denial from the Chaplain who 100% speaks for the school. He is speaking for the school/institute on Wikipedia and his claim has been proofed 100% false. This was June 24, 2007! Only a few months ago! Not in 2004 or 2004 like many of the other USGOV edits! IMO, WHINSEC and the Chaplain are no longer to be considered 'RS'. Sorry they have been caught in the spider-web of lies. •smedleyΔbutler• 04:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked the school and they emphatically deny having attempted to change the article. If and when they decide to participate they will sign in and give their credentials. ChaplainSvendsen 02:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Proof that the Chaplain and WHINSEC's claims above are 100% false
  • 150.226.95.18 =
  • OrgName: USAISC-Fort Benning
  • OrgID: UFB
  • Address: ATTN: ATZB-IMT
  • City: Fort Benning
  • StateProv: GA
  • PostalCode: 31905-6204
  • Country: US
  • NetRange: 150.226.0.0 - 150.226.255.255
  • NameServer: NS01.ARMY.MIL Link to proof of 150.226.95.18 This is 100% proof!
I've got proof your wrong. Did you notice the address above ATZB-IMT. I looked it up and it has no connection with the school. If the attempt was made from the school it would have come from a ATZL address which is the WHINSEC root address. The person who tried to edit the article works at Ft. Benning in the base Information Department. I assume that their job is to provide correct information about the base and its activities. ChaplainSvendsen 05:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)ChaplainSvendsen 05:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • These edits were June 24 of this year! not ancient history like some of the USGOV PR edits to Wikipedia. How about this edit? 100% self-promotion!
    Latin American Liberators Remembered
    • "The WHINSEC continues this fine tradition in two ways; several additional classrooms and hallways are named for notable figures from the entire hemisphere's common past, and a Gallery of Liberators in the third floor hallway displays scenes or individuals important in each nation's struggle for independence." USMIL edit to WHINSEC #1 and USMIL edit to WHINSEC #2 and USMIL edit to WHINSEC #3.

I rest my case. The same USMIL that brought you the Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch 'faery tales' now brings you the same empty denials about their edits to the WHINSEC article. I ask that we consider the USMIL a non reliable source for this article. Just like the Gov of Iran or North Korea. Their claims are considered questioned. Same with USMIL, IMO. What about my other points above, Chaplain? Why is Col. Francisco del Cid Diaz participate in the killings of 16 civilians who is on a State Dept list of Gross Human Rights abusers 'escorting a group of cadets' instead of teaching a class or graduating in 2003 supposed to make anybody feel better? SOAW only claimed he "attended" WHINSEC in 2003 anyway. WHINSEC is still welcoming killers and has even become worse in that for the first time in decades they no longer release the names of their attendees so SOAW cant track them and they no longer even try and track them themselves! Proof: "a. Metrics. The Board reluctantly acknowledges that WHINSEC cannot and, in the current state of affairs, should not attempt to track the careers of individual former students. 2005 Minutes.DOC Why is that? SOAW can track them, or should I say could track them until 2005 when WHINSEC started hiding all their names, so no one can track them! WHINSEC is hiding and concealing information even more than SOA did! Thank you for reading. •smedleyΔbutler• 04:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A better question is why would you think such a false allegation used to discredit the school's vetting system and attack their credibility is so unimportant? It reveals an attitude on your part that shows you are not able to be neutral when editing the article since your seem willing to use false information to defame and attack the subject of the article. "Make you feel better?" I thought the article was a neutral information piece aimed at educating the public and not a battle ground for emotional attacks and biased ideologies. All I ask for is that the school be described in language which is neutral and not language which is filled with venum and hate filled descriptions. Like you statment above which says "WHINSEC is still welcoming killers". That's you take on it. Here's mine. WHINSEC is taking soldiers, police, and civilian authorities and training them to respect human rights, promote civilain control of the government, and build strong and vital democracies. As hard as the school tries they can never know for sure who might eventually abuse human rights regardless of the training they might get to protect them. What SOA Watch and people like yourself do is watch for any failure on the part of any former student no matter how long ago they went to school or what classes they took so you can cry foul and accuse the school of orchastrating whatever misdeed that happened. But the really important evidence that's needed is evidence we can't see. Namely how many instances of human rights abuse were prevented because of the training received at WHINSEC. But we can never know that because how do you show that? ChaplainSvendsen 06:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

False Material Which Should Be Removed

Ongoing participation of human rights abusers Despite claims of meticulous vetting, there are alleged to be instances of high profile human rights abusers still attending the Institute. Colonel Francisco del Cid Diaz of El Salvador was found responsible for the 1983 Las Hojas massacre, killing 16 civilians and throwing their bodies into a river. In 1992, the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recommended prosecution of Col. Cid Diaz for the murders. His name is on a State Department list of gross human rights abusers. Despite the documented record of his murderous past, Diaz was welcomed back to the Institute in 2003. [7] [8]

In 2006 the Ambassador Sorzano the BoV chairperson at the time asked the state department to investigate this claim. In a letter to Ambassador Sarzano Dated November 30, 2006 Partick Duddy the Deputy Assistant Secretary reported that Colonel Diaz did not attend any classes at the school in 2003. The Colonel did travel to the school escorting new students from his country but that is all. So what is needed to correct this error? Just because some legislator puts it on their website doesn't necessarily make it true. I would like to see the list he was quoting from because that wasn't posted on the website. ChaplainSvendsen 05:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I called McGovern's office asking that the bad infomation be corrected and was referred to the web master who then referred me to the "legislative director" who helped develop the legislation and write the piece with the false information. I left a message explaining the problem. The person does not return my phone calls.ChaplainSvendsen 04:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The important question as concerns the article which provided the false citation is just what list was McGovern reading from? It couldn't have been a list of students from the school. I guess since his office refuses to respond to inquiries we will never know. It seems that nobody has a response or comment so if nobody responds by Monday I will remove the false information from the article.ChaplainSvendsen 04:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

I have marked several unsourced claims. If no sources are given, then they should be removed according to WP:V. A special note on "Through much of their history, SOA and WHISC have been accused of supporting controversial dictatorial regimes and death squads." This is as far as I know incorrect , SOA have been accused of educating some people who have participated in dictatorial regimes and death squads. it also only presents the view one side. As such I propose changing the sentence to "The SOA has been criticzed for the participation in dictatorial regimes and death squads of some of its graduates. Critics argue that the education encouraged such practices and that this continue in the WHISC. This is denied by supporters who argue that especially after the reorganization the education emphasizes democracy and human rights." Objections? Ultramarine (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you deleted most of the history except the following paragraph which though also uncited speaks well of the SOA:
Initially, the School’s mandate was to teach nation-building skills such as bridge-building, well-digging, food preparation, and equipment maintenance and repair. However, after President Truman signed the Rio Treaty, an extension of the Monroe Doctrine, in 1947, along with the leaders of twenty Latin American countries, the U.S. Army became increasingly involved in Latin America. The Rio Treaty provided that “any attack on an American nation will be met by collective sanctions in line with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.”
With regards to the sentence you are discussing above, it again looks as if you are trying to assert your opinion in the article by "critics say" type language. I do agree that some stuff has to go as uncited however large scale removal of content needs to be done with consensus and large number of edits some with removal of uncited material mixed with assertions of opinion (as was that above) makes things more difficult. These matters (the issue of removal of uncited material and changes in the language used in the article) need to be handled separately.--Jersey Devil (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Accodring to WP:V uncited material can be removed if challenged. Do you have any objection to removal of any of the material I marked as such and if so why? Regarding the intro, it currently only presents one side and thus violates NPOV. Exactly what is your objection to my formulation and do you have an alternative suggestion that respects NPOV? I made no other changes except removing uncited material, adding tags marking more material as uncited, moved some material to better sections without changing it, and changing the intro as I had discussed above with no objections.Ultramarine (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I never objected to the removal of uncited material. I would like it if you can just tag any uncited claims (just those of fact) you would like cited now so that I can review it later to see if I can find citations. I've been very busy as of late with school and midterms so I haven't been able to keep up on this article. What I do not like is large scale edits (8 edits this time) in which you mix up legitimate removals of uncited material with assertions of opinion so that when I revert (which I have no choice to since I do not have the time to go through all the edits) you can accuse me of opposing the removal of uncited material. I've seen this tactic used on this article and several others by yourself and do not like it and would appreciate it if you could stop doing it. Thank you.--Jersey Devil (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I will add more tags asking for uncited material. Regarding the uncited paragraph above, I had marked it as unsourced and intended to remove it, but another editor removed this tag (see the history), so I did not remove it. Do you have any objections to the changes to the introduction and if so why?Ultramarine (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we can work together to create an article following Wikipedia policy. Obviously we should follow WP:V. So I suggest that we give it a week to add sources to the now unsourced statements. Then any remaining challenged unsourced statements will be removed according to policy. I will add some sources during the coming days and also expand otherwise with sourced material. Obviously more sourced material can be added anytime, so if some of the removed unsourced material is found to have a source after one week, then it can be added back then.
Again regarding the introduction, my proposal is to make it WP:NPOV as per above. Sources can added for the opposing views, for example SOA watch and the Institute. Alternatively, we can remove the contentious claims from the into completely, move sourced material to body, and simply leave the neutral and very short "The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC or WHINSEC), formerly the School of the Americas (SOA; Spanish: Escuela de las Américas), is a United States Army facility at Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia." Thoughts? The first alternative gives a better intro to the article. So I would prefer this alternative. I will add a proposed sourced text tomorrow to the talk page for discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Sourced text: "The SOA has been criticzed for the participation in human righs violations of some of its graduates. Critics argue that the education encouraged such practices and that this continue in the WHINSEC. This is denied by the WHINSEC who argue that the education now emphasizes democracy and human rights."[9][10]" If no objections I will change the unsourced text in the intro to this sourced.Ultramarine (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation/Archive_2&oldid=1136224269"