Talk:Jacobo Árbenz

Discussions prior to 2014

...

The "presidency and coup" section seems to have some POV issues. Jwyrwas (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This article mistakenly identifies Kermit Roosevelt as the architect of Ajax. In fact, his son, Kermit Roosevelt Jr., was the CIA operative in question. JustinGiroux 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ehhh... what exactly is the cause of the neutrality dispute here?Thesocialistesq 23:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted a change referring to Arbenz in the intro as a "socialist" as opposed to "reformist" president. He permitted communist and socialist parties to organize, but he was not a member of any of them. 172 14:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All current references found on Google to Arbenz suggest he died either by accident +drowned in his bath+ for example, or simply state that he died in Mexico City.

As a journalist based in Mexico at the time, I interviewed Arbenz in his hospital bed just a few weeks before his death. He was clearly a tired man, and was apparently feeling very lonely following the departure of his wife back to El Salvador. It was not clear if they had separated, although he suggested that they had. When I spoke to her during a visit she made to Swizerland in the mid-1990s, for the launch of a Swiss documentary on Arbenz (whose grandfather came from there), Senora Arbenz was also vague about their relationship at the time of his death. But her memory was by then obviously imparied -- she had suffered a bad stroke and found speaking extremely difficult.

The news of his death, however, came as a surprise to his friends in Mexico City. The Mexican police explanation was that he had apparently slipped into his bath as it was being run and drowned, or boiled alive because he had turned on the hot water and not yet moderated the temperature. He was said to have been alone in the house at the time.

For me, that explanation always left a lot of questions open. His death came at a time when various regimes in Central America were busy eliminating exiled opponents living in Mexico. Although the Mexican administration of President Luis Echeverria at the time professed its support for Latin American "democrats", and provided shelter for the poorer ones in a down-at-heel hotel in the city, the police never solved any of the killings of exiles, and the word among Latin American dissidents in Mexico was that Mexican police were helping killer squads from Guatemala and El Salvador to hunt down their victims. The Mexican police were also, undoubtedly, y doing some eliminating of their own among radical left opponents of the Institutional Revolutionary Party.

In that light, I could never convince myself that Arbenz' death was not in fact murder. I did ask his widow 20 years or so later in Switzerland whether she had any doubts over the official explanation, but her reply was predictably vague. R J Evans Posted Jan 24, 2005

Wow!!--68.221.187.53 06:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello,

I would really like to correspond with the author of this commentary. As an historian, I am very interested in the character and politics of Mr Jacobo Arbenz (whose father was a swiss emigrant and not his grandfather) - and in his destiny, too. My e-mail is thibautkaeser@yahoo.fr

Greeetings and many thanks if this e-mail is read

error

Ok Now, my mind is starting to open that the U.S. CIA did something unacceptable to my country, Guatemala, by accusing the former president Jacobo Arbenz of being a communist. This absolutely shocks me because since that U.S.intervention the Guatemalan Cicil War begun.The CIA washed the Guatemalan people's brain by telling them that Arbenz's government was communist. Come on.

That idea of US. intervention was unacceptable. That's why Guatemala's economy is still poor because of the United SSTTTates. Can we do anithing now. Talk to the sovereignty of the country

I understand you don't want to believe that Jacobo Arbenz was a communist..... being a marxist is an insult by itself.Agrofelipe (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with being a marxist?--What shall i call it? (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

error

Another error in this article is information left out. I have commented on another error pertaining to claims dealing with Arbenz's intentions for receiving weapons from the Soviet Union. However I am stupefyed now at the seemingly blatant neglegence in not stating one side of the story involving Arbenz's land reform prgram. United Fruit undervalued its land preceding Arbenz's land reform to cheat and pay less taxes. Arbenz took United Fruit's land value statements at their claimed value. Which meant United Fruit would not receive fair compensation due to its own deceptive methods. I am flabbergasted that the statement of Arbenz violating international law seems to make a corporation seem angelic when it is axiomatic that a corporation's intentions are to MAKE MONEY. I do not make the statement that all corporations are bad. However I do state that they do what's good for money. The author needs to correct the use of international law in this article. To make it more informative, please list which law so that it may be cited within a paper in the future and provide the other side of the story involving Arbenz's land reform otherwise readers (Your audience) may believe the article is biased because of a prejudiced author. If you need the specific reference to the international law, please let me know by posting a message on this page so that I may use my resources to download you the source and entire information pertaining to the international law aforementioned. It helps to have family that is practicing law familiar to international disputes. Thus I could be of help because of that priveledge. Also re-read that specific law referred to.

Collective Concious

bull

Once again, a very interesting topic. Stigmatized with bad inaccurate and biased facts on this article. I only hope hat the author or those choosing to use the author's assertions as their own to present as facts will come into my life in the near future so I may rip apart their argument based on the negligent and dishonest facts presented on this page. Once again, my attempts to convince my academic colleagues to use Wikipedia have anded in failure because of mine and thier observations of errors within specific articles such as this. WARNING !!! If you present any material in this article on a paper or state as fact, prepare to receive a rude awakening in the form of a letter grade or embarrassment. I stress this as a result of seeing some others making the same mistakes. REPEAT:: The author of this article does not care for the accuracy of this artocle. Read this article for a quick summary, but do not, repeat do not use this article for a paper or to embarrass yourself with self-proclaimed knowledge. The facts in this article are not disputable. They are wrong and fallacious. I have tried to inform the author and Wikipedia but negligence has been shown in a lack of care. Wikipedia is not concerned with being a credible source of information and I advised any academic enthusiast to please do not make the mistake of using facts in this article and possibly in others for your papers.

Sorry Wikipedia

worthy praise

I read this same article a while back and found many unstated facts and inaccurate assertions. However, reading the article now, I can see that either the author has re-written this article or another author has done a better job. I respect this article because it does not emphasize positive or negative aspects of this figure's role in history. There is a bit more objectivity in this article. Although, I do not agree with everything in this article, I have no significant facts that I could use to refute the assertions in this article. So in that journey, I failed but I am not too proud to admit nor too proud to give praise when it is deserving. This article has improved significantly since the last time I viewed it. I only wish other articles in Wikipedia reflect the same manner of writing as this article was written. Thank you for making my use of Wikipedia both enjoyable and enlightening.

PRoblems

I CAN"T SCROLL DOWN THE PAGE! ANYONE ELSE HAVING THIS PROBLEM? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ToyotaPanasonic (talk • contribs) 14:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC). I can now scroll down the pages, but before I could not.

NPOV issues

Guatemala had a history of chaos priof to the 1954 coup (the 1944 revolution, for example)...the lead paragraph is a bit biased toward the left.Ryoung122 18:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbenz Administration

I had read or seen a television program somewhere that said that the head of the military junta (Castillo) had complained that when Arbenz left, so did his bureaucrats, who were at least reasonably competent. The junta could not thus immediately find government workers competent enough to fill the shoes (or inkpots) of those ousted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opusv5 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

KGB involvement

I found pretty unbelievable that Arbenz didnt received more support of the KGB and the USSR. Are you sure thats correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrofelipe (talk • contribs) 00:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Relevant Ommissions

Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission reveals Arbenz's role in the mass killing of hundreds of dissidents, a rather pertinent fact I would think.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! You mean "dissidents" like Trujillo or Castillo Armas? Well, obviously he did not have enough of them killed! Why did he tolerate communists in his government and parliament (obviously not being one), if he was that paranoid? Why did he get ousted by a handfull of crooks paid by UF and CIA - because he had killed all that could have supported him? Sorry, but this sounds like total nonsense! Could you name and cite the source exactly, please?--90.40.255.19 (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Historical background section

This section contains way too much information that does not pertain to Guzman. All such information, such as the extensive discussion of Jorge Ubico, should be moved to other articles.--Jarhed (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbenz came into power following a revolution/coup against Ubico. Discussion of Ubico is necessary to provide historical context for Arbenz' rise to power. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree, and a reading of this article and the Ubico article appears to show that the two discussions are not consistent. There appears to be information in this article that is not in that article and it should be moved there. If it is important, you can summarize the information here with a "main article" link.Jarhed (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in understanding why you don't agree (i.e. how would you discuss how Árbenz came to power without discussing Ubico extensively). Every single source cited here, as well as others I've read, all extensively discuss Ubico's reign when describing how Árbenz came to power. The information in this article is critical to understanding the Guatemalan revolution that brought Arbenz to power -- this is not my personal opinion, but rather that of the sources cited. Regarding the fact that some of this information is not in the Ubico article: that is because the Ubico article is terrible -- poorly referenced and incomplete. I agree that some of the material needs to be copied over there to improve that article; but this is a problem with the Ubico article, not with this one. (And of course, it's important that we're trying to discuss those aspects of Ubico's life that are relevant to Arbenz' life -- so the two articles are not necessarily going to focus on the same things). Now, one problem I do see with the current article is that the later parts of the article (the other sections about Arbenz' presidency, and those about the CIA coup, his later life, etc.) are very poorly developed and need expansion. Compared to these, the historical background will look relatively short (whereas it now looks relatively long); but again, this is a problem with these other sections rather than the historical background section. I also agree with you that there should be hatnotes in the historical background section linking to relevant articles. I'm going to add those now. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense, but the Ubico article does need to be improved so that it is consistent with this one.Jarhed (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually be interested in working on that article -- I'll add it to my to do list. Right now, rattlesnakes and ticks are at the top, but I was actually considering doing a Latin American history article next. For now, I'll just go ahead and start copying things over to the Ubico article so that people that feel like improving the article in the mean time will have some sources to work from (I should get around to this some time today). Thanks for your suggestions. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Copy of Ubico info to that article is a good idea. For some reason I looked to see where the capitol of Guatemala was before Guatemala City, and that opened up a can of worms. I am going to try to work on this issue for a while.--Jarhed (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Juan jose arevalo bermejo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Juan jose arevalo bermejo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 17 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Footnote #2 is unsubstantiated propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.122.154 (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Footnote #2 is unsubstantiated propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDurden71 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Revert, why

I just reverted the removal of the aftermath of the 1954 coup from the lead, for a very simple reason; as per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article, and the aftermath has significant mention in the article, so it requires mention in the lead. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice try. Your description of the aftermath is wholly unsupported by sourced content (or, in fact, any content) in the body of the article. It also likely raises serious NPOV issues. No reasonable editor would in good faith describe your addition as a "summary" of any portionof the body of the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No answer in 5 years.--Gabel1960 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Árbenz was accused of being a communist mass murderer

Here are a few neglected facts about Árbenz:

• He considered himself a communist and formally joined the communist party in 1957.

Nothing wrong with that, especially in a country that was being controlled by the American imperialism thru the United Fruit Company since 1903.

--Nerdoguate (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• His regime openly praised Stalin, whose passing was "mourned by all progressive men".

Correct: Arbenz was in fact being advised by Jose Manuel Fortuny, who was a communist and a Stalin admirer.

--Nerdoguate (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• The Guatemalan congress purged the country's Supreme Court after his land reform was ruled unconstitutional.

Correct: it was ruled unconstitutional because if affected the major interests of the United Fruit Company, which had been running the country since 1903. Arbenz purged the UFCO agents from the Court.

--Nerdoguate (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Between 108 and 500 opposition figures were killed by his regime, which is particularly significant considering that he was elected without a secret ballot after Arana was mysteriously killed.

Nevertheless, it seems far-left academics know better than Árbenz what his political views were (or are unwilling to let facts and reality "play right into the CIA's hands").TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I really agree with the issue with Arana's killing: In fact, I do have several books written from neo-liberal writers who said that there was a plot to get rid of Arana and pave the way for Arbenz to become president. However, this was not structured by Arbenz, but by the political forces in the country at the time. After Juan Jose Arevalo had a serious accident while riding with a couple of Russian dancers, the ladies died and he was left in pretty bad shape, forcing the Deal of the cliff which guaranteed Arana the nomination of the official part for the next elections. Arana grew overconfident and his power was feared by Arevalo, who asked help to the Defense Minister, Arbenz to take him out of the country. However, Arana resisted his capture and was killed instead.

--Nerdoguate (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jacobo Árbenz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 21:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'll review this one over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Images

• All appropriately licenced.

Stability

• No edit wars, all good.

Sources

• All look to be of encyclopedic quality. I can't read the Spanish sources, but I actually read Gleijeses and Smith years ago and found them to be good and reliable.

Lede

• "...using the military to brutally suppress agrarian laborers..." Couple tweaks here. It's unclear what activity is being suppressed. Were workers demonstrating or demanding fair elections or some other right that the government was denying them? I'd also drop "brutally," which is fairly subjective (even if likely accurate) and substitute something more objective like "violently" or something.

• Fair point. What was actually happening here was Ubico using the army to make people perform forced labor, especially dissidents, a process which the sources have referred to as repression. The repression -> suppression is probably my mistake. He also used unpaid labor (essentially slavery, except it wasn't for life) to build public infrastructure, and allowed the security forces great leeway in shooting people suspected of breaking labor laws (which required them to perform said forced labor). You're right that "violent" is better than "brutal". How about "...where he witnessed the violent repression of agrarian laborers..."

• That would be fine.

• "...an experience that profoundly radicalized him." Again, the adverb is a bit POV. "Radicalized" by itself still expresses a fairly profound change, doesn't it?

• True: removed "profoundly".

• "...rebelled against Ubico's repressive policies." It might be more direct to say they rebelled against Ubico.

• Actually this is more complicated. Ubico was ousted in June by a popular protest: Arbenz and the others rebelled against Ubico's successor Ponce Vaides continuing Ubico's policies rather than holding elections as promised. The phrasing might still be sub optimal, perhaps you have some suggestions?

• That may be the best we can do, in that case. Maybe leave it as is.

• Just as a stylistic matter, "poverty-stricken agricultural laborers" sounds like a roundabout way of saying "poor farm workers". I've found that the more common words get the point across better, but certainly reasonable minds may differ.

• In general I would agree with you. Here's my issue in this particular context: I avoid "poor" because it is also frequently used as an expression of sympathy: and I avoided "farm" because actually these were plantations, often very large, which are not referred to as farms by the sources and not the same as most folks' idea of what constitutes a farm.

• OK, it's up to you.

• "Árbenz went into a painful exile..." "Painful" seems out of place here, and the next sentence gets the point across anyway just by telling how his life turned out.

• Point taken: removed "painful."

Military career and marriage

• A lot of the sentences here start with "In 19xx, ..." Some variety would improve the prose.

• Tweaked a couple of uses

October revolution

• "Árbenz was the one to insist that civilians also be included in the coup" might be better as "Árbenz insisted that civilians also be included in the coup"

• Yes, done.

Land reform

• "The value of the land itself was the value that the owners had declared in their tax returns in 1952." Oh, that's clever. But did any of the landowners complain that the valuation was unjust?

• Yes indeed, there were howls of protest. However, Gleijeses also says that the owners routinely grossly undervalued their property. I was trying to avoid excessive detail, and I saw these two pieces of information, which are in a sense "anti-" and "pro-" Decree 900, as sort of counteracting each other: so I left them both out.

• Right, that's what's clever about using tax valuation. The government knew the owners would have undervalued it for tax purposes and just used their own words against them. If you want to leave it as it is, that's fine.

• "In 1953, the reform was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but the democratically elected Congress later impeached four judges associated with the ruling." How had the Supreme Court been chosen? Were they holdovers of the old regime? And is it necessary to say "democratically elected" when describing the Congress since you already stated earlier that the elections were free and fair?

• I've removed the "democratically elected," since you were right about it being redundant. The issue is actually rather muddy, though: there isn't information that I know of about how the supreme court was constituted: but I do know that a) the decisions were split decisions, and b) what was found to be unconstitutional was some obscure provision related to a lack of judicial review, and the law was suspended pending an investigation that a lower court had ordered...all which is rather too complicated for Arbenz bio, methinks.

Relationship with the United Fruit Company

• "Árbenz chose to support a strike" would be better as "Árbenz supported a strike". That brings the focus of the sentence onto the important part, the support, rather than the decision.

• yes, done.

Political motives

• "Several figures in his administration, including Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother and CIA director Allen Dulles had close ties to the United Fruit Company." Needs a citation.

• It's actually the same citation as that at the end of the next sentence, but I've duplicated it just in case.

Operation PBSUCCESS

• In the section above, you write "The United States had refused to sell arms to the Guatemalan government after 1944; in 1951 it began to block weapons purchases by Guatemala from other countries." In this section, you seem to contradict that: "The US stopped selling arms to Guatemala in 1951, and soon after blocked arms purchases from Canada, Germany, and Rhodesia." Whichever one is correct should stay and delete the other--no need to say it twice.

• Huh, totally missed this before, somehow. This is down to a discrepency in the sources, and in general Immerman is to be relied upon over the more popular volume: so I've removed the first instance.

• "18 June 1954" this is a different format than you've used in the article up until now. There are other such dates in this section, as well.

• Applied a script fix.

Beginning of exile

• "Perhaps the fate of the ousted president would have been different if his country of origin had allowed him in exile: it would also have been the first major political asylum in Latin America character in Switzerland." Not sure what you mean here. Isn't Guatemala his country of origin? Either way, the sentences are speculative and don't add much to the article.
• "However, Árbenz and his family were instead the victims of a CIA-orchestrated and intense defamation campaign that lasted from 1954 to 1960, after the Cuban revolution had triumphed in 1959." When did it begin, 1954 or 1959?
• Honestly, everything from "Perhaps the fate..." to the end of the paragraph has a markedly different tone than the rest of the article. Less precise and less NPOV.

• I do believe a lot of that text is a holdover from before when I rewrote this article. Mea culpa, I have removed the stuff not supported by Garcia Ferreira.

• That's all I have. I'll place this on hold so you'll have time to tend to these. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Coemgenus I've addressed all your points, I do believe: I've implemented all of them except three, which I've responded to above. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Vanamonde93 that all looks fine, so I'm happy to promote. Thanks for your hard work on this fine article about a controversial figure. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks for a thorough and helpful review. Vanamonde (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbenz' vs Arbenz's

@Corinne: Since you've taken a look at this already: seems to be a minor disagreement about the use of Arbenz' vs Arbenz's, and though I've been using Arbenz' the whole while, I'm not completely certain this is correct. Vanamonde (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't find any disagreement. I saw the addition of the apostrophe s several times by the editor with the long IP, but I didn't go further back than that. I believe that editor is right to add the apostrophe s after "Arbenz". If you look at the Wikipedia article on Apostrophe, start reading at Apostrophe#Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound. Read in particular the first sentence of the second paragraph:

Many respected authorities recommend that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe so that the spelling reflects the underlying pronunciation.

I have highlighted the last part so you will see the key consideration. If we say "Arbenz", ("That's Arbenz' house"), then we do not need to add an "s" after the apostrophe. If we say "Arbenses", ("That's Arbenz's house"), then we need to add the "s". It's how a native speaker would naturally say it, and I think you'll agree that a native speaker of English would say "Arbenses" for the possessive, so the "s" should be added after the apostrophe. You might say, but this section is about singular nouns, not names, and you would be right, but keep reading.

Read the paragraph that starts "Although less common".

Then read the section Apostrophe#Nouns ending with silent s, x, or z. This has mostly to do with the English possessive of French names, but in English, with the possessive, the final consonant ends up being pronounced, so we might take some guidance from "pince-nez's".

Finally, we must look at what WP:MOS says. Look at MOS:POSS. In the "Singular nouns" section, we read:

For the possessive of most singular nouns, including proper names and words ending with a double-s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Glass's books, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle).

I've highlighted "Cortez's men" since the name is similar to "Arbenz".

Look particularly at the first two bulleted items in #2, which starts:

Add either 's or just an apostrophe, according to how the possessive is pronounced:

• Add only an apostrophe if the possessive is pronounced the same way as the non-possessive name: Sam Hodges' son, Moses' leadership;
• Add 's if the possessive has an additional /ɪz/ at the end: Jan Hus's life, Morris's works.

This is what I was saying at the beginning. I hope this helps.  – Corinne (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: Many thanks! When I read it in my head, I say "Arbenzes" every time; so this would suggest that current uses of Arbenz', such as "Arbenz' wife" and "Arbenz' daughters" should be changed to "Arbenz's"; right? Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I would agree with that.  – Corinne (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 I see you have added the "s" in several places, in this edit. However, in the very first edit in this set, you removed an apostrophe after "Árbenz" (and did not add an "s"). I suppose it is because you felt it did not have to be in the possessive case at all. However, it does, because of the phrase "all of" before the name. It should read: "of all of Árbenz's supporters". You could conceivably use the name as an adjective: "demanding the expulsion of all Árbenz supporters" (notice that there is no "of" before the name), but I think "demanding the expulsion of all of Árbenz's supporters" is a little clearer. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah yer right. Didn't think that one through. Vanamonde (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 REST IN PEACE CORINNE. WE WILL REMEMBER YOU! Thinker78 (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Árbenz outlawed the communist party that he legalized upon inauguration?

Sub-section "Inauguration and Ideology," third paragraph notes that the communist Guatemalan Party of Labor ("PGT") "was legalized during Árbenz's government, while the "Guatemalan Party of Labour" entry, "Second Congress" section," second paragraph, states that the PGT was legalized upon his inaguriation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_%C3%81rbenz#Inauguration_and_ideology, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_Party_of_Labour#Second_Congress. But the Árbenz entry also mentions section "Coup d'état," sub-section "Political motives," first paragraph, "Arévalo's ban of the communist party." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_%C3%81rbenz#Political_motives. Thoughts? - HKEY LOCAL MACHINE\Security (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Arevalo banned the communist party; Arbenz legalized it. What is the issue here? Vanamonde (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I see. But the way it's written, it implies that that Arevalo banned the communists while under Arbenz, prior to the 1954 coup. To clarify this, I suggest it be rewritten to say "the US and the CIA were predisposed to see the immediately preceding revolutionary government of Arévalo as communist, despite its ban of the communist party." This makes the chronological order clear, while also giving someone who doesn't read the relevant part of the entry a basic understanding of who Arévalo was and what he did. - HKEY LOCAL MACHINE\Security (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, which section are you talking about? Vanamonde (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sub-section "Political motives," first paragraph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_%C3%81rbenz#Political_motives. I should have put that in. - HKEY LOCAL MACHINE\Security (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. I've added a bit of detail. Honestly I still don't quite see the problem, but perhaps that's because I'm too familiar with this material...Vanamonde (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The point is quite obvious. It makes a difference if you suspect even somebody to be a communist if he bans the communist party, or if you raise the suspicion against somebody who has legalized it. Why didn't you invite the editor to make changes himself/herself? Do you consider yourself to be the person to decide about changes here? Are you "in charge" of this article? "...too familiar with this material..." This tells a lot about a person who admits having read two books "some time ago" and found them quite useful, one of them relying on the other.--Gabel1960 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Complete revert of my changes, mainly based on Cambranes and other authors

1. In an article about a democratically elected politician you do not introduce him/her with his military rank or with honorary titles, you refer to it in the main body when necessary, not even General Pinochet's article has this, nor the Pope's article.
2. The family history of Arbenz is documented in J. C. Cambranes: Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán: Por la Patria y la Revolución en Guatemala, 1951-1954. Primera edición, 2011 Comisión Presidencial Coordinadora de la Política del Ejecutivo en materia de Derechos Humanos (COPREDEH). ISBN: 978-9929-8119-3-5. What's wrong with Cambranes?
3. What's wrong for somebody who quotes nicknames in the lead paragraph from a private genalogical site with Vrana, Heather (2017-07-03). This City Belongs to You: A History of Student Activism in Guatemala, 1944-1996. Univ of California Press. ISBN 9780520292222.? Kalinovsky, Artemy M.; Daigle, Craig (2014-06-05). The Routledge Handbook of the Cold War. Routledge. ISBN 9781134700653. Liss, Sheldon B. (1984). Marxist Thought in Latin America. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520050228.
4. Photos should be arranged in a way fitting the text
5. As for the tone: Please be more specific. Kind regards, --Gabel1960 (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• To take your points in order: I'm completely neutral about military ranks in the lead, I don't care what you do about that. Our policies about honorifics are a horrible mess, and it's not a fight I have the stomach for. geni.com is an unreliable source, partly because it includes user-submitted content. We should not be using it in general, and definitely not if it contradicts other sources. Multiple discussions at WP:RSN suggest consensus against it; if you want to use it, you would have to make a very strong case to ignore that consensus, or to open a discussion at WP:RSN and change that consensus. You need to be more specific about why the pictures need to be moved; "a way fitting the text" doesn't help me understand why you changed it. With respect to the other sources; everything currently in the article is sourced, to high-quality sources. If there is disagreement between reliable sources, we need to a) dig further to see which one is correct, b) cover both versions, or c) go with the more reliable source. What we cannot do, and what you attempted to do, was rewrite the piece ignoring the sources already present and relying entirely on the ones you had. If you are unable to see the difference in tone between what you wrote and what was present previously, explaining it is rather difficult; but essentially, an encyclopedia article needs to be a little more dispassionate than an individual scholarly piece or a biography. We need to present Arbenz's views without endorsing them, and without using flowery language. See WP:TONE for further guidance. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply, Vanamonde. You seem to misunderstand me, though, or we might misunderstand each other, lol: I am not in favour of genealogy pages. I removed the nicknames because they are only mentioned on a private geni page, and rejected partly by Cambranes who knew Arbenz personally. As for pictures: A picture of his parents fits his early life paragraph, don't you think? A picture of 1945 should not be next to his infancy etc. There is no rule either, why pictures should always stick to the right side. As to the sources, we have the same guidelines. But which of my changes contradicted "your" sources?

Tone: you still do not specify, why? I am on your side as to being dispassionate, but this should not mean that important details about A's life are left out. Especially the childhood is far more important than the present text shows. Flowery language: I might have overlooked thos, but why do you cout out the whole sentence then?Gabel1960 (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

If Cambranes knew Arbenz personally, it means he is no longer an independent source. As such, we have to give him less weight than independent scholars. Also, a government commission publication is also less reliable than scholarly sources. The points of disagreement are obvious; if our sources said the same thing, why did you have to make any changes at all? I'm a little tired of repeating myself at this point; if there's any specific point in the article you wish to change, please present the sources supporting that change here on the talk page. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

About tone; again, if you cannot see it, it's difficult to point out; but here are some examples. "she introduced him to the upper levels of the cultural and political life" flowery language. What precisely does "upper levels" mean? " yet it is disputed if it" WP:WEASEL problems. Who disputes this? If it is a family friend writing in his own publication, that isn't worth too much. Other problems include the following: If Cambranes "tells the story somewhat differently", why is he being used as a source for that statement anyway? You changed "Afterwards, Jacobo began reading more works by Marx, Lenin, and Stalin" to "Later, Jacobo began reading more works mainly by Marx, less those of Lenin, or Stalin", but the source actually says "with them, Arbenz read Marx, Lenin, and Stalin"; in other words, your wording was original research, which is prohibited. I could go on, but really, all of this just goes to show that you need to raise specific objections on the talk page and cite specific sources to support your changes. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Single paragraph sections

I believe that single paragraph sections can be quite useful. My experience as a reader made me realize that when I am looking for certain information sometimes it is nested under an unrelated heading, which makes me lose time scrolling through the whole article to look line by line for the information. A single paragraph section becomes then valuable, it gives the reader the ability to go to the desired information faster and easier. It is pointless to have unrelated information under the same heading, specially when a new heading can be made without cluttering the article. Therefore I believe the suicide, Cuba, and the death of Arbenz should be restored as different sections. Thinker78 (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

And I disagree, if that weren't already obvious. Sections and section headers are a navigational tool to help readers parse a large chunk of prose. It is useful to divide pieces that would otherwise be too long to navigate easily. Dividing things beyond that makes the article harder to read, both by introducing clutter and by disrupting the flow between paragraphs. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Bug

For some reason when I removed the wikilink using the Visual Editor, the software apparently created all that gibberish. Thinker78 (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Couple vs wealthy landowner

To me it looks like the text mentioning only the father of Arbenz' wife seems to be paternalistic and male oriented, with undue weight towards only one parent, when it should mention the couple or the father and the mother. I didn't find where this is being discussed previously. The edit that mentions the couple should be restored or the information corrected so it is not biased towards one parent if not necessary. Thinker78 (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

We have information saying her father was a landowner. Given the nature of Salvadoran society at that time, it is unlikely that her mother was also an owner. Mentioning that isn't a form of bias at all; indeed excluding that would perpetuate gender bias, because it would neglect the way gender was related to property ownership. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

In the edit there was a citation that supported my assertion of a high-class couple (Cambranes), where it says, in page 90, Spanish: "Según relata María Vilanova en sus Memorias, nació en El Salvador, el 17 de abril de 1915, siendo hija de padre salvadoreño y madre guatemalteca. Ambos pertenecían a familias de la oligarquía" (English: According to Maria Vilanova in her Memories, she was born in El Salvador, on April 17 1915, daughter of a Salvadorian father and a Guatemalan mother. Both belonged to oligarchic families). The source expands on her father but doesn't completely avoid mentioning her mother. Thinker78 (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Edited 03:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a complete non-sequitur. I'm not disputing that the couple were wealthy; but the land-ownership is an additional detail that you seem to want to remove for some reason. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)r

What I am challenging is that the article should indicate she is the daughter of a couple or of a mother and a father, and not say she is daughter of just a father. Thinker78 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The point is that reliable sources don't give us any information about her mother aside from the fact that she was her mother and was married to her father. If you want to add anything about her mother, please find material in reliable sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you are saying there are no reliable sources that give us any info on her mother if I wrote above about a reliable source that states that her mother was Guatemalan and from an oligarchic family. Thinker78 (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Cambranes is a questionable source for anything but the most uncontentious information, as I've already explained above; more importantly, "high-class couple" is not equivalent to "mother from an Oligarchic family." If Cambranes says Arabella's mother was Guatemalan, I'm not opposed to adding that. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Cambranes doesn't say "mother from an oligarchic family", it says "Spanish: Ambos pertenecían a familias de la oligarquía" (English: both belonged to oligarchic families). I wrote "high-class couple" which I think is a good equivalent. Or do you think that oligarchic families are not "high-class"? Thinker78 (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Just use "wealthy"; "high-class" and "oligarchic" both sound strange in English. I would insert "and a Guatemalan mother from a wealthy family" just before or after the piece about her father. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Nicknames

If the nickname is frequently used by reliable sources, there should be no problem corroborating the information. Why include this one? I think it may be more common than the other ones. Also, MOS:NICKNAME (Joseph John Aiuppa example) indicates that one or two nicknames is fine but more maybe should be avoided. Why deleting the nickname then? Thinker78 (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Gabel removed some of the nicknames from the lead; I removed the other for consistency. While I recognize that I added some of them to the lead in the first place, I no longer think any of them ought to be there, because they introduce clutter. The one you added in particular would make more sense in the legacy section. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If you say adding a nickname introduces clutter, then what do you make of the MOS:NICKNAME guideline? What makes this article not worthy of applying MOS:NICKNAME? Thinker78 (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

If you read through that entire section, you will see that the guideline actually supports my position. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I read through the entire section of MOS:NICKNAME and I don't see how it supports your position. Please quote relevant text. Thinker78 (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"Boldface is not needed for obscure ones or a long list, and those that are not well known to our readers may not need to be in the lead at all." The names we are discussing are definitely obscure. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"El Soldado del Pueblo" is not an obscure nickname.Thinker78 (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree; please invite outside comment. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm part of the "invite[d] outside comment". I tend to concur with Vanamonde93. Nicks in the lead should be very common and used as actual nicknames, and we put them there in case people aren't sure that, say Joseph John Aiuppa really is the "Joey Doves" Aiuppa article they're looking for because there might be multiple people named Jo[seph|oe|oey] Aiuppa. If the nick isn't common, then this issue doesn't really arise. If something is common as a description (closer to reality in this case), then it may belong in the lead paragraph (may even help establish notability, if it's something like this), but not bolded in the first sentence as if it's a nickname. El Soldado del Pueblo isn't a nickname at all, it's a post hoc laudatory appellation, like referring to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the spiritual leader of the civil rights movement", or William Osler as "the father of modern medicine" (and see our List of people considered father or mother of a scientific field for a zillion more examples, many with competing people vying for the "title"; it's a poor article for an encyclopedia, but a handy list in this case). Another thing to consider is whether the name/phrase is common in English-language sources, which this one is not. So, I would lean toward including it in the lead paragraph, not lead sentence, as culturally and topically important, but not bolding it as if it's a nickname or alias because a) it's not one, and b) it's not a phrase English-speakers are looking for. I looked at the first 30 bio articles linked from that list, and zero of them boldfaced the "father of [whatever]" appellations, and only 13 had one in the lead paragraph at all. Only one or two had it in the (long, and probably better rewritten) lead sentence, and not commingled with the actual name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Born into middle/high-class family

In the edit, stating that Arbenz was born into a middle-class family contradicts the body of the article ("His family was relatively wealthy and upper-class"), which doesn't say middle-class. Regarding the sources, I could not read the contents of any but one, so I don't know what do they say or what text were they supposed to verify. There should be some verification regarding the aforementioned text, because Cambranes says that the Arbenz constituted a middle-class family (page 28). Thinker78 (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing the sources, I have modified this. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Now the question is why one source says the family was upper class and the other says it was middle class? By the way, which sources says the family was upper class (namely the family created by the president's parents)? Can you quote here? Thinker78 (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That's really a question for Gabel1960, who added the "high-class" descriptor. The Gleijeses source, which is the more reliable, paints a more complex picture that I will add shortly. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Guatearbenz0870.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)