Talk:1954 Guatemalan coup d'état

Additions from Jacobsen 2019

NYCJosh May I ask you to be a little more circumspect in your additions? I can see that you have got hold of a new source which may well be useful to this article, but it isn't enough to just add material wherever you can; it needs to be properly integrated into the existing content, and also needs to be relevant. This is a featured article, and has been through intensive peer review; as such, I would strongly encourage you to discuss proposed changes here first. Also, on some of the finer details of the coup, please keep in mind that a source such as Jacobsen, who discusses a very broad topic, may be less precise than the several sources specifically covering this coup. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

NYCJosh, Please make an effort to follow the source formatting used in the rest of the article; it's really not complicated. All you have to do is use {{sfn|Jacobsen|2019|PAGE NUMBER(S)}} Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

UFC vs UFCO

Certainly reliable sources use both acronyms, UFC and UFCO, for the United Fruit Company. But in my opinion it is better to use UFCO, because if you run an online or Wikipedia search for UFC, you get almost only results for the Ultimate Fighting Championship. If you search UFCO in Google or in Wikipedia, you immediately get results for the United Fruit Company. Therefore it seems to be better to use UFCO and not UFC, specially since in many countries including the US, UFC is also the widespread known acronym for the fighting championship. Thinker78 (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Arjuno3:, what's your take? Thinker78 (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. While both could be used, UFCO is the acronym i'd prefer, for the same reasons you put forward. Arjuno (talk 16:58, 5 November 2022 (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) 10:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Development

You supply plenty of important information in describing the context of the coup. Your writing shows a clear line of thinking and displays its historical impact on Guatemala, specifically how the actions of the president and the CIA had immensely negative effects on the lives of Guatemalans.Kcomid (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC) Kcomid (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Bevins material

@ExampleUser777: Nobody here is interested in white-washing anything. You, however, are required to adhere to our guidelines of how articles are written. WP:LEAD requires that material in the leader, or header, of an article be a summary of content already present in the body. It also requires viewpoints be given due weight. At the moment, your additions aren't a summary of anything, and are giving Bevins too much weight. Please add the content to the article body first. It is also your responsibility to gain consensus for your changes. This is a featured article, meaning the previous version has been through considerable peer review and has consensus. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, and your patience in maintaining this page. It is commendable, truly. Bevins' work received widespread praise; he cites many credible sources, many are in the original Wikipedia document, e.g. Grandin. If it helps, I cited Grandin specifically re: the 3,000-5,000 killings of Arbenz supporters, which is important context to include when mentioning Armas' summarized crimes. Relating to your feedback: I reduced the weight of the Bevins quote, I concede it was quite long for a summary section. Though I believe it is important context to show that additionally among US motives was the fear of more Latin American countries becoming independent of the US. We now know this from archival evidence and US government documents, cables, etc. that Bevins and others have diligently sifted through. If you believe it should be omitted, I'm open to discuss that further. ExampleUser777 (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with that motivation being discussed, but again, it needs to be fleshed out in the body of the article, and a brief summary added to the lead. That's the opposite of what we have...your second version is better, but still too wordy in my view. It could also be better integrated with the rest of that section. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Edited the lead to be concise, and include vital context (fear of nationalist movements, and social reform, was present). Leaving the fear of social reforms out of the lead is dishonest. In Bevins' work, they cite a U.S. policy planning document at the time, which outlines fears of social reform throughout Latin America. I could cite that in the Eisenhower Administration section near the end, but citing links gets pretty verbose . . . https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v04/d457 ExampleUser777 (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead is now largely okay, thanks to Nikkimaria's copyediting (I didn't touch it, so please be careful about what you refer to as "dishonest"); however, the content still needs to be in the body of the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Noted, and sorry to say "dishonest." I meant "not the full picture," (not certain of English language word for that). I used Nikkimaria's edit, and added social reforms, that is key historical context. Would it be sufficient to link to the history.state.gov article in the Eisenhower Administration section, with a brief summary? It would be very similar in content and length as the part I included in the lead. ExampleUser777 (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)