Talk:Salvadoran Civil War/Archive 1

Archive 1

1979 Coup

I was very surprised to see that there was no discussion of Adolfo Arnoldo Majano or Jaime Abdul Gutierrez, who led the reformist faction that carried out the 1979 coup, and their subsequent conflicts over (which led to Majano's eventual exile). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.137.241 (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Immigration issues with Honduras

This article needs to address the fact that the Soccer War led to an end to Salvadoran illegal immigration to Honduras -- and that this was a key cause to the war. 209.195.164.34 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that one of the major roots of this war is the immigration issue. However, this issue is best left, I believe, in the Soccer War section. The immigration issue becomes an understood staple of the Salvadoran Civil War. May I suggest the following change to the prelude section?

Change :> "The origins of the war lie in the early 1970s. Salvadorean industry and economy was devastated by the Football War with Honduras in 1969."

To :> "The origins of the war are deeply rooted in immigration issues. The resulting tensions violently climax with the Football War in 1969 wreaking devastating havoc throughout El Salvador's economy" Soldier.pitre (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was El Salvador Civil War → Salvadoran Civil War — I don't see any reason for departing from usual naming conventions for this particular war. This article has had its name long enough to have accumulated a lot of links to this location (though many are probably due to Template:Cold War), but the inconvenience of switching links will only grow the longer the move is put off. Groggy Dice T | C 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've switched the Cold War template link to a new article I've started, Central American Crisis, so that's no longer true. The template, by the way, called it the Salvadoran Civil War, and piped to this location. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support as nom. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support it sounds awkward as is. Per American Civil War. Patstuart^talk·edits 01:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Support This is certainly the term I think of it by. But we're supposed to be concerned with what terminology is used by scholars, so I ran a series of searches (Amazon, Yahoo, Google, and Google Scholar). Sparing everyone the maddening details, all I can say is, there don't appear to be more than a tiny number of instances where the exact term "El Salvador Civil War" is used at all. (Actually, the most common term I encountered was "El Salvador's Civil War", with the possessive "s".) Cgingold 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. Bolivian Unicyclist 18:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Support, of course. —Nightstallion (?) 09:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from El Salvador Civil War to Salvadoran Civil War as the result of a move request.

Verdict against the generals

I added that the verdict against the generals in US federal court has been reversed. I'm sorry, but I don't know how to add a proper reference other than just placing the link in parentheses. Someone please fix. Best, WH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.136.211 (talk)

Reformatted -- will still have to look up the author and title info.Lawikitejana 01:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FDR.gif

Image:FDR.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for additional sourcing

In the general outline for Salvadoran Civil War, there is a line with numbers reflecting death tolls. " In total the civil war killed 75,000 people, left 8,000 more missing and a million homeless with another million exiled. " Can we get a source to verify these numbers?? Soldier.pitre (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC) soldier.pitre

---

I added a source (CIA World factbook) for the 75,000 dead - I'm still stabbing away through documentation for verifiable sources with regards to the homeless and exiled statistics. Soldier.pitre (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC) soldier.pitre

According to Latin American historian Greg Grandin, "After twelve years of fighting, fifty to sixty thousand civilian deaths, another twenty to thirty-four thousands military deaths and more than six billion of Washington's dollars it took an unvanquished insurgency to force the kind of democratization that the United States had grudgingly supported as a means to defeat the insurgency in the first place." (Grandin, Greg. Empire's Workshop: Latin america, The United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism, Henry Holt and Company,2006, p.8)

Grandin uses the casualty figures of Mitchell A. Seligson and Vincent McElhinny, ”Low Intensity Warfare, High Intensity Death: The Demographic Impact of the Wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua.Demographic Diversity and Change in the Central American Isthmus, ed. Anne Pebley and Luis Rosero-Bixby, Santa Monica, RAND, 1997, p.66)

Regarding external and internal refuhees, Human Rights Watch noted in their book "El Salvador's Decade of Terror" that "more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992." (El Salvador’s Decade of Terror, Americas Watch, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991, 107)BernardL (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we modify the introduction of the article to reflect the difference in numbers between Grandin and the CIA World Factbook? Furthermore, I believe that material from Human Rights Watch as well the work of a notable historian should be included in the Further Reading section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldier.pitre (talk • contribs) 14:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "madness-4" :
  • ''[http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_casesA.html ''From madness to hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador'', Part IV. Cases and patterns of violence], Truth Commissions Digital Collection: Reports: El Salvador, United States Institute of Peace. Retrieved [[2008-07-16]].
  • [http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_casesA.html Part Four, Chapter One (A): From Madness to Hope: El Salvador: Truth Commissions: Library and Links: U.S. Institute of Peace<!-- Bot generated title -->]

DumZiBoT (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Equipment

How about someone adds a equipment list for both the Salvadoran government forces and the FMLN guerillas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.172.2 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

SALVADORIANS ARE COOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.196.247 (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Anti-American centric

In addition, this article focuses FAR, FAR too much on the American-centric issues of the Maryknoll nuns, and not enough of events taking place during the actual fighting, the goals/aspirations of various Salvadoran parties (of left and right,) etc. Nearly half the article discusses the killing of the nuns -- a signifcant event, but too much for an article purportedly about the Civil War. 24.3.142.198 15:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Moreover, even the section on U.S. involvement focuses too heavily on a couple of incidents and claims — the 1980 murders, the 1989 murders, the number of U.S. military in the country initially, and the 21st century lawsuits. In discussing the goals of the different parties, it also is necessary to reduce POV, while simultaneously avoiding letting issues be whitewashed. I just reverted one set of edits that tended to apply labels to the left and remove even sourced material that reflected badly on the right, then had to go into the U.S. section and try to neutralize language that was calling the Salvadoran government "repressive" and putting air quotes, as it were, around words like "trainers" that were used at the time to describe the role of U.S. military in the area. So it cuts both ways, and there is considerable need to improve the article.Lawikitejana 01:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a question about anything 'cutting both ways'. The Maryknoll Nuns incident, although a cause celebre for the left in the U.S., really didn't affect the outcome. U.S. policy was certainly unchanged. I agree with the original poster that there needs to be less focus on issues of concern to Americans, and more focus on what was actually happening on the ground, so to speak. 64.72.137.241 21:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The US tax payer spent a good sum of money on El Salvador, therefore a section of the article framing this war from an American perspective does seem logical to me. However, I do believe that there should be some mention of the famous "White Paper". From an american perspective, I would assume that this publication would be highly controversial. In "A Splendid Little War: Drawing the Line in El Salvador", William Leogrande argues that the intent of this paper is to frame El Salvador in an East vs. West contest. Soldier.pitre (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is Anti-American Centric. More than that, article is a pile of crap, and should be started over from scratch. The opening paragraph states that the US supported the Salvadoran government and implies that it did so from start to finish. It then quotes a book (can't verify), the World Factbook (which does not mention US involvement, and therefore should not be used as a reference), and a Time Magazine article from 1981 (i.e. not anywhere near the end). Additionally, the entire "US Involvement" paragraph lacks references until the last four paragraphs. Two heinous war crimes are listed (the Mary Knoll nuns incident and the Jesuit priests incident). This would (incorrectly) lead an uninformed reader to believe that the US was responsible for the incidents. How about a "USSR Involvement" section? --Lacarids (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

For information about US support for the Salvadoran government, see Bonner, Raymond; Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador (http://books.google.com/books?id=KYR4AAAACAAJ). I may try to pull out my copy and cite accordingly. Gedankenhoren (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what better way is there to correct the ridiculous Anti-American bias of this entry than by citing a book called "Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador"? That is roughly akin to trying to make an entry on Glenn Beck less biased by citing Keith Olbermann. The entire entry is pure nonsense, and most of it is uncited nonsense at that. The dearth of citations is pathetic. A perfect example is the following sentence: "Today many people say that the Salvadorian civil war never would have lasted so long without the support of the United States." Well, if so "many people" are saying it, why are they not being cited? The sentence I quote is a perfect example of an author trying to shield his own biases by mentioning an unnamed "they". This is a trick commonly used by journalists who know they aren't supposed to be injecting their own biases into an article that is supposed to be objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I spent most of 1984 and 1985 in El Salvador. The 'Anti-American Bias' discussed here perhaps could be countered by information on the support received by the FMLN guerrillas. I saw a collection of weapons once that had been captured by the army and identified. Many M-16 rifles were traced by serial number back to Vietnam. These weapons were taken from Vietnam, shipped to the USSR, thence to Cuba and Nicaragua and into El Salvador. I believe there were reports from the US govt on this. I also interviewed teenaged soldiers and others who witnessed the guerrillas fighting... it wasn't pretty. I'll see what I can dig up that can be verified. Jpshaw55 (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Atlacatl Battalion

The wikipedia page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlacatl_Battalion

Mentions that: The Atlacatl Battalion was responsible for some of the most infamous incidents of the Salvadoran Civil War

However this page is not linked to from the main wikipedia Salvadoran Civil War page Bellamywilliam (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)bellamywilliam

Best way to create counterpart to Spanish-Wikipedia article?

While looking through the Spanish edition of Wikipedia, I found this article, "Películas sobre la Guerra Civil de El Salvador" (films about the Salvadoran Civil War). It seems to me that such info could be useful here as well, but I can't decide if it should be a list, a category, a section in the present article, or what. Lawikitejana (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Err, so did the rebels actually do some fighting and killing too?

because you know, after reading the article, I get the impression that it was all about the evil right wing thugs running amok. Were there some left wing rebels involved in all this too, by any chance? What was it that the rebels were doing that may have encourage the counter-insurgency to commit all these atrocities? Watcher (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, far too little is said about the part of the rebel forces. I'll look back through my various books to glean relevant items; I know that several of them say that "la guerrilla" (as it's still called by both sides today) weakened its support somewhat by interrupting government food and weapons supplying through the demolition of bridges and major roads, which obviously interrupted food supplies for their sympathizers as for their opponents. I've also heard plenty of anecdotal evidence that both sides "shanghaied" teens and children — as is common in such conflicts — but anecdotes do not an encyclopedia make.Lawikitejana (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

'Years Held Back' Section

The phrase "Many construction projects of buildings with 100 meters and more where canceled during the war." doesn't make sense to me. What is a building with 100 meters? 75.121.74.147 (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me like either a mangled translation attempt, or the first draft of a sentence by someone whose native language isn't English (note the confusion of "where" and "were"). Most likely the writer was trying to write about delays in construction of tall buildings.Lawikitejana (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Dutch journalists murdered

I added to the 'notable victims' phrase that four Dutch journalists were killed as well, back in 1982, which fueled outrage in the Netherlands over the conflict. I considered those victims of the same importance as the murdered Jesuit priests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezahualcoyotl8219 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Salvador (film)

• Salvador (film) is a 1986 war drama film which tells the story of an American journalist in El Salvador covering the Salvadoran civil war. --46.173.67.210 (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Belligerents

The USSR & Cuba were not involved in the war, please cite & add section or remove from list --71.58.217.47 (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Livingstone Article

According to this Wiki Article, "In [Neil] Livingstone's view, the mass murder is necessary as "nearly all were leftists or relatives of left—wing activists."

This is NOT what Livingstone's hypothesis was. Please read the article, in its entirety: www.jstor.org/stable/20671988. This is what Livingstone really said:

a) there are civil wars, or internal conflicts in many Central American and Southern Cone countries.

b) neither the governments nor the revolutionaries of these countries are respecting human rights.

c) human rights abuses by the revolutionaries are much worse and more frequent than those by the governments.

d) socialist and communist regimes that assumed their position through revolution do not "tone down" their violations of human rights; in fact, he says, they "ramp up" their disrespect for human rights. He cites Cuba, Cambodia, Russia as having far worse human rights records than the worst right wing government in Latin America: "In view of the appalling human rights record of Marxist governments around the globe, it is perhaps easier to understand why the inhabitants of El Salvador, Guatemala, and other nations of Latin America beset by leftist violence feel driven to adopt such extreme measures in self defense. Argentina at its worst, moreover, was far from becoming a monster regime like that of Idi Amin in Uganda or the Macias govern ment in Equatorial Guinea," and "Such excesses must always be condemned by the community of civilized men and women, and American allies that use such practices or permit others to engage in them must be convinced that more effective alternatives exist."

e) Carter made a mistake by reducing or stopping aid to Latin American countries. The human rights situation worsened in areas where US stopped aid.

f) His conclusion is that "Reason dictates, however, that if the United States can help nations beset by internal violence find better and more effective ways to solve their problems, they will not need to resort to such stomach-turning prac tices. Revolting acts of human savagary will still occur, as they do in every conflict, and anyone who does not realize and accept this fact is either naive or hopelessly idealistic, or both. Only by providing such governments with adequate arms, training, and supplies to conduct modern counterterrorist and counterinsurgency operations can we prevail on them to moderate practices such as torture and to control ex tremist and paramilitary vigilante groups that arise to defend the state."

I will change the article so that it reflects the truth. Other editors should also fix other parts of the article. Way too much emphasis is placed on the US involvement. The fact is that the country lacked socially, economically, and politically. They lacked before the US was involved, and they lacked after the US left. This was the real cause of the conflict. Why doesn't the article reflect this basic truth? --Lacarids (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, would anyone be opposed to deleting the blurb about the Livingstone article (in the US involvement section)? The "US Involvement" is nearly one half of the article. Another third of the article is a timeline. All sections seem to focus more on the US than on the issue itself. Readers that are unfamiliar with the subject are led to believe that the US played a bigger role than it really did. One way of "cutting the fat" would be to cut the Livingstone bit. Thoughts? Does the article benefit by quoting Livingstone? --Lacarids (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleting the reference. The author was originally misquoted. Once I fixed it to accurately reflect what the author said, the subject matter no longer contributed to the section or the article. --Lacarids (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You deleted your Livingstone article immediately after I added more information that made Livingstone look even worse for his stated rationale for US backing of death squads. It's in the record. And I did not misquote him. It's on p. 241 of "Death Squad," Journal of World Affairs 4, no. 3 (1986). He was specifically referring to Argentine death squad killings but his points are general.

And as for your assertion that the US role is being overstated: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-938047.html

The Washington Post: 12 Years of Tortured Truth on El Salvador US. Declarations During War Undercut by UN Commission Report

The U.S. was deeply involved in running the war, from intelligence gathering to strategy planning to training of everyone from officers to foot soldiers. By 1982, U.S. military advisers were assigned to each of the six Salvadoran brigades, as well as each of 10 smaller detachments. The U.S. put tens of millions of dollars into developing the ultra-modern national intelligence directorate to coordinate intelligence gathering and dissemination. U.S. military and CIA officials participated in almost every important meeting. Most brigades had a U.S. intelligence officer assigned to them, as well as a U.S. liaison officer. U.S. advisers regularly doled out small amounts of money, usually less than $1,000 at a time, for intelligence work.

--Horhey420 (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you are referring to Neil Livingstone’s “Death Squads,” World Affairs, 146:3 (Winter, 1983-1984), pp. 239-248. www.jstor.org/stable/20671988. The date is different, but the page numbers that you mention line up.

This is the part to which you are referring:

“Death squads have become an issue in Central America today not, as their opponents would have us believe, because they alienate the general population and erode popular support for American-backed regimes, but just the opposite. In reality, death squads are an extremely effective tool, however odious, in combatting terrorism and revolutionary challenges. The death squads in El Salvador have made such a dent in support for the left that the revolutionary high command has launched a desperate campaign in the United States to influence the U.S. Congress to demand that the Magana government, as a condition for further U.S. aid, suppress death squad activities. Through clever propaganda and manipulation of the media, Salvadoran leftists and their supporters have already succeeded in denying the El Salvador government sufficient aid to win a military victory. Now they hope to complete the task by undermining one of the last serious obstacles to their takeover: the right-wing paramilitary vigilante units that have carried the war to the terrorists by turning their own methods against them.” (p241)

Please read it carefully. He is not saying that death squads are justified, nor is he saying that the US should support them. He is saying that their tactics are effectively being used to advance an overall strategy. It’s like a New York newspaper reporting that the Patriots outplayed the Giants. It doesn’t mean that the reporter likes the Giants. It simply means that he is objectively analyzing the issue. He is anti-leftist, and anti-rebel, but he is not pro-death squad. He is saying that because death squads are effective, we should help the Salvadoran government. Our help, he says, would reduce the penchant for death squads, and enable the Salvadoran government to combat leftists in an acceptable way.

If you continue reading the article, you will see that he concludes that when the US under Carter cut aid to Argentina and Guatemala, the number of human rights violations skyrocketed. Cutting aid, in his opinion, had the opposite effect of what Carter intended. He says “Today there are some who want to repeat this mistake. Those in the Congress who cry the loudest for cutting aid to nations like El Salvador are the real patrons of death squads. By denying the Salvadoran government the resources and assistance it needs to fight a "clean war" on the battlefield, Congressional opponents are, for all intents and purposes, mandating that those frustrated by the government's inability to win a decisive victory by means of conventional military power will increasingly resort to a "dirty war" in the cities and countryside…. Reason dictates, however, that if the United States can help nations beset by internal violence find better and more effective ways to solve their problems, they will not need to resort to such stomach-turning practices. Revolting acts of human savagery will still occur, as they do in every conflict, and anyone who does not realize and accept this fact is either naive or hopelessly idealistic, or both. Only by providing such governments with adequate arms, training, and supplies to conduct modern counterterrorist and counterinsurgency operations can we prevail on them to moderate practices such as torture and to control extremist and paramilitary vigilante groups that arise to defend the state.” pp247-248. --Lacarids (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Carter did not cut aid to Guatemala. This is false. Only publicly was this the case. Covert military aid to Guatemala during the Carter years continued on the same levels as the Ford administration. They even turned to Israel to increase support for the Guatemalan killing machine. Israel acted as a surrogate. In order to understand these issues you have to take into account more than just one piece of information.--Horhey420 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

And Livingstone is just being dishonest. He's arguing that US aid would moderate the death squads' human rights abuses even though he had to have been well aware that the US stategy in Salvador was to "drain the sea", so the rest of what he said should be discarded..

In the conservative journal of the London Spectator in 1986, correspondent Ambrose Evans-Pritchard explained the reasons for the decline in death squad killings in Salvador:

"Numbers are down and the bodies are dropped discreetly at night into the middle of Lake Ilopango and only rarely wash up onto the shore to remind bathers that the repression is still going on. The death squads did exactly what they were supposed to do: they decapitated the trade unions and mass organizations that seemed in danger of setting off an urban insurrection at the beginning of the decade. The survivors had either to flee the country or join the guerrillas. The practice, well known to Vietnam aficionados and brought to El Salvador by US military advisers, is to drive civilians out of the zones and leave the guerrillas cut off from their support structure. Without the 'sea' (people), wrote Chairman Mao, the 'fish' (guerrillas) cannot survive. So the sea must be drained. The peasants say they can always tell when there is going to be an attack. First comes a 'push and pull' reconnaissance flight, then an A-37 Dragonfly in a flat dive. And they say the bombs are so big — often 500 pounds — that they can tell where they are going to land and have about 30 seconds to find cover. If it is a fragmentation bomb that explodes in the air and blasts sharpnel in all directions, they can only trust to God. Then comes the 'guinda', the flight from follow-up sweeps by regular infantry. The peasants grab what they can and run off to secret caves and burrows where they may spend days on end, too frightened to venture out for food and water. Meanwhile, the troops go through their villages, burning crops, killing livestock, tearing down houses, ripping up water pipes, and even planting hideous booby traps in the ruins they leave behind. It is a cruel way to wage war, but then murder and terror have long been the hallmarks of El Salvador. The brutality often surprises visitors because the country is not depraved in other respects. It is neither rooted in crime like Colombia, nor in corruption and hypocrisy like Mexico. Instead El Salvador is by and large an honest, courteous and cheerful society. Hence there may be some truth in what many Salvadorans say about the violence: that it is not indigenous and that it has been imposed from outside. The army learnt its tricks at American counter-insurgency schools in Panama and the United States. "We learnt from you", a death squad member once told an American reporter, "we learnt from you the methods, like blowtorches in the armpits, shots in the balls." And political prisoners often insist they were tortured by foreigners, some Argentine, others maybe American."

Im actually holding back a lot of information because an editor said the section is already too large.--Horhey420 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"Washington's Covert Wars"

There is currently a paragraph that reads Washington's Covert wars in Central America were largely a war against the Church, once the Bishops had adopted "the preferential option for the poor."[53] The 1980 Committee of Santa Fe Report prepared for the Reagan administration declares: "U.S. foreign policy must begin to counter (not react against) liberation theology as it is utilized in Latin America by the 'Liberation Theology' clergy. Unfortunately, Marxist-Leninist forces have utilized the church as a political weapon against private property and productive capitalism by infiltrating the religious community with ideas that are less Christian than communist."[54]

Both quotes in the paragraph are incorrect, and should be fixed or deleted.

[53] is a link to an LA Times Article. The article does not mention that or allude to "Washington's Covert wars in Central America [being] largely a war against the Church." The article doesn't mention Washington or the US in any way, shape, or form. The quote about "the preferential option for the poor" (at the end of the sentence) is verbatim from the LA Times article, but is taken out of context. The author of the LA Times article was merely explaining Liberation Theology. He did not say that the US was at war against the Church. Such misinformation is very false.

[54] is a link to an article on www.motherjones.com. First: I don't know much about the website, but it says on there that Michael Moore used to work there. It does not appear to pass the Wikipedia NPOV test. More importantly: the link presumably should tak readers to "the 1980 Committee of Santa Fe Report." The link actually takes readers to the Mother Jones website (not the Santa Fe Report, as implied). Only the first half of the quote in the Wiki article is on the Mother Jones article. The second part is NOT in the Mother Jones article (although the Wiki article says it is): "Unfortunately, Marxist-Leninist forces have utilized the church as a political weapon against private property and productive capitalism by infiltrating the religious community with ideas that are less Christian than communist." Maybe it's in the actual report? Maybe not? Can someone link to the correct report? --Lacarids (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere is it implied that it takes you to the report. The reference says Mother Jones. What are you talking about? I only referenced the LA Times article because it explains what Liberation Theology is and why it was being targeted. Take another look at the section. I had to show a large chunk of the Mother Jones article. The editor apparently just took your word for it. I dont think it was read very carefully. No offense. As for the second half of the quote. I'll cite it when I find the original report again.--Horhey420 (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Found it referenced in the National Catholic Reporter which is solid:

"U.S. foreign policy must begin to counter (not react against) liberation theol-ogy as it is utilized in Latin America by the 'liberation theology' clergy. Unfortunately, Marxist-Leninist forces have utilized the church as a political weapon against private property and productive capitalism by infiltrating the religious community with ideas that are less Christian than communist."--Horhey420 (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's from the early 80's so it's probobly in the archives somewhere.

Robert White quotes in Background Section

I relocated these quotes from the Prelude section but I dont really think it fits there very well either so feel free to move it somewhere else. I dont know where to put it. Maybe an FMLN section? Im currently reading Bonner's book and also Walter Lafeber's book so Im just sharing some of it as I read.--Horhey420 (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

US Involvement

The US involvement section need to be halfed at the very least. You just listing every bit of info regarding the US. There is no need. Please cut it down and summarise more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.215.191 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an example quote box, containing some wise words from Thomas Jefferson: "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."|source=Jefferson, Thomas. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Jarvis -- September 28, 1820}} It's large because almost everything that happenned in the war involved the United States. Ive been trying to add more to the other sections but like I said, the US is almost always involved. Some of you just need to accept it. Central America is to the United States as Eastern Europe was to the Soviet Union. I dont understand this "too much information" critisism. Cutting it in "half" seems a bit extreme. I can only expect this reaction from someone who does not like what it says. Still waiting for someone to "balance" it out with their own information. So far all I got was some guy who correctly pointed out a missquote (I got the interpretation from a second hand source) but then he overplayed his hand as did an editor. By the way.. Who knew about this stuff before the overhaul? Apparently some people here thought the US was barely involved at all, in it's COLONY. Yes, that's what is. An economically colonized client state.--Horhey420 (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The section doesn't need to be cut (because as Horhey points out, the U.S. was at the center of the conflict), but what does need to happen is that it needs to be integrated throughout the rest of the article, instead of in its own section. That way, at each stage of the process, people can learn about the U.S.'s involvement, instead of having to wait and get a separate history at the end that suddenly reveals this to them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. I would also like to cut down on the quotes but Im just not very good at it. I could be if I had the time and patience but I usually use this time to read and then share. A lot of books. Got them cheap from Amazon.--Horhey420 (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Oh yeah, and I have a fealing that if there were a lot less quotes there would be a lot more allegations of the information not being supported by the source.--Horhey420 (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there are too many quotes, considering the length of the article. One thing that might be helpful is to take some of the more interesting quotes and put them in the {{quotebox}} template, and float them to the side of the main text body. Since there aren't very many images in the article right now, this would help make the article more visually appealing as well. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Float them to the side? Since this page is still marked as 'needing an expert' I vote whoever edits this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

I added a lot of information to it and within 5 minutes he made it look real nice. That page is under high mantainance for some reason. So much so, that I only need to add one small section haha - "US Media Reportage" - check it out. This page will get one as well.--Horhey420 (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey420 -- Sorry for using technical jargon like that. I created an example quotebox for you in this section, so you can look at the markup. By "floated right", I just mean how it is aligned to the right and the text kind of flows around it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks for the tip and the words of TJ.--Horhey420 (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for all of the great work you've done on the article. It's really coming along well. My only major concern about it right now is, like I said above, the separate U.S. section instead of integrating throughout the article. I'd really work on breaking up as much of that as you can, and just integrating it into all of the other sections. If you have some kind of general statements that have been made about U.S. involvement, perhaps keep them in that section. But the specifics should be mixed in throughout the article. Anyhow, thanks again for all you're doing. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Under construction." Time for bed.--Horhey420 (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey -- I've begun integrating the content from that section throughout the article. I think it makes more sense to just talk about U.S. involvement when we're talking about the other events that were taking place at those times. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I just got home from 10 hours of work. Looks real good. Didnt expect to see all that.--Horhey420 (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Horhey. Sorry that some of it is such a mess right now. Some of the section titles I came up with when I was trying to break up the U.S. involvement section are no good -- I meant them as just placeholders, until we better determine how to arrange things. For instance, one is called "Violence in the 1980s", because I couldn't figure out a better way to frame/describe that time period. -- i.e. the time period after Duarte was "elected". I'm also sure that I misplaced some of the stuff as I was cutting and pasting, so feel free to move anything that seems out of place. Some of the stuff doesn't flow together very well now thanks to me moving things all over the place, so it will need some copyediting.

Another thing that I feel needs improvement, by the way, is coverage of the FMLN and what they were doing (how were they organized, what was their military strategy, what was their philosophy and relation to other social/political movements, etc.). I'd be glad to help you with this if I have the time, but if you know some resources already, that would be a great section to start (perhaps as a subsection of the "rise of the insurgency" section?). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a few news articles on them which include interviews and an explanation of their goals. It's in the Associated Press I believe. I also have information from books in which they declare their hostility to the idea of Soviet influence in their country. They werent very ideological. They were just tired of being hungry, sick and persecuted all the time. In Raymond Bonner's book it says that Washington didnt care to find out exactly who the guerrillas were and what they planned to do. They didnt care because the enemy wasnt so called "communism" necessarily. The real enemy of the United States has always been independant nationalism which is consistantly stated in the internal documents.

Could you if it is not too much too ask add a few counter points (i.e. defending the Reagan Doctrine) such as quotes defending containment in El Salvador (not defending collusion with death squads). I think it would make far balanced an neutral since I don't really see any defense. Other than that the rest of changes made have been very good. Also as someone said above their need to be more description of Rebel forces (tactics, ideology, atrocities).

Also more stuff regarding support for Christian democrats as opposed to right wing extremists

Some stuff (from bognador blog): America supported the centrist Christian Democrats, who were targets of death squads. The security forces were split between reformists and right-wing extremists, who used death squads to stop political and economic change. The Carter Administration repeatedly intervened to prevent right-wing coups. The Reagan Administration repeatedly threatened aid suspensions to halt right-wing atrocities. As a result, the death squads made plans to kill the American Ambassador.

Sources:Los Angeles Times, June 1, 1982 (Christian Democrats killed); Washington Post, February 24, July 13, 1980 (Carter); New York Times, November 20, 26, December 12, 1983 (Reagan); New York Times,

Also stuff regarding decline of violence in El Salvador in late 80s

Some stuff: Atrocities fell as military aid increased. The UN Truth Commission received direct complaints of almost 2,600 victims of serious violence occurring in 1980. It received direct complaints of just over 140 victims of serious violence occurring in 1985.

Sources: Report of the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador, UN Security Council S/25500, April 1, 1993, pp29, 36.

Anyway changes so far are quite good. Keep it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.119.251 (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

All that has already been addressed and explained. Duarte was a Christian Democrat but under US pressure he governed as an ARENA. I have an article on that by the International Monetary Fund. After Duarte came Christiani who was an ARENA. Death squad victims declined as oppostion activity declined:

The Washington Post: Papers Expand on U.S. Role in Guatemala

"The documents show that Washington not only was aware of the Guatemalan military's excesses against civilians but continued to support it – sometimes openly, sometimes not – throughout the bloodiest days of the conflict, which killed 200,000 people."

One would also have to ignore US policy of "draining the sea." It is difficult to do everything you ask when you know these things, for risk of contributing to the continuation of a "bewildered herd." (Walter Lippmann)--Horhey420 (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Mate I've heard of much of what you have mentioned. Im not denying CIA collusion with death squads, US support for illegal military tactics or general support for El Salvadoran government, there just really needs to be more counterpoints so that it is actually neutral or balanced. As in why the US would favor government victory as opposed to rebel victory(not why US would support civilian murder). It isn't much to ask is it. Tbf I highly doubt you'll actually do this but please to so the article actually meets wiki standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.119.251 (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Why arent you signing your comments? The motives for the war have already been explained but it's apparently over your head. If you want to show their publicly stated reasons you can do it yourself. I wont mess with it. It'll just end up as fluff.--Horhey420 (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh sorry I always forget it sign my comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.119.251 (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Also how can you say this "it's apparently over your head". How can you claim that I have limited understanding of the war? Allo I am asking is that you make the article more neutral and balanced.

You did it again. WHO ARE YOU????--Horhey420 (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Mate chill my IP is 89.168.119.251.

I know who you are now. This is from YOU:

Horhey420TheTimesAreAChanging You should take at look at these pages if your concerned about NPOV, bad sourcing and/or too much info:

Guatemalan Civil War

Salvadoran Civil War

1954 Guatemalan coup d'état

The user Horhey420 who added a lot to the Foreign Policy of Reagan added a lot of info to these pages. It is quite alot of good info but he has made little attmept to add counterpoints (defenses of Reagan and Carter) and I think the articles may end up violating neutrality. There really need to be some defense of US policy because virtually all of the quotes are condemnations of US policy. Think you might be interested to take a look. Stumink

I may do so. The Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration article was just such a mess; it read more like a blog, and I couldn't ignore the problems. I figured that there were other slanted articles, but I'll just have to see how bad the bias is and how much time I have to fight for any changes. I will say, though, that the third article you listed isn't particularly egregious. In any case, thanks for your suggestion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2012

You went to the SAME editor that censored ALL my information on another page. You want to "balance" it out so badly? Do it yourself. I will not mess with it. I welcome it so get to work.--Horhey420 (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, since you're so concerned about balance, you may want to work on the Pol Pot page and offer some defense of his policies.--Horhey420 (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Im not trying to defend the actually action of killing innocent civilians. And don't you think it awfully Hyperbolic to compare Pol Pot to US support for El Salvador against a leftis rebellion. That seems an extreme comparison and completely irrelevant to what I was talking again. Supporting the Reagan doctrine of containment of communism is nothing compared to supporting Pol Pot. You're being ridiculous in mentioning Pol Pot. If you havent noticed I at no point expressed support for terrorism against civilians.

Anyway thanks for your edits, Im just trying to help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.119.251 (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"Containment of communism" it was not. Your basic premise is false and is based on Administration pretext. Like I said. Get to work.--Horhey420 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I was saying defending "Containment of communism" of wasn't the same as defending Pol Pot killing 2.5 million. Also how is supporting right wing government against leftist rebellions(rebellions that are percieved as communist) not an attempt at rollback of communism. What do you think were the reasons for supporting El Salvador? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.119.251 (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer is in front of you. The Only thing that's missing is the internal version of the domino theory but I have to go to work. Look at FMLN party. They are democratic socialists not Marxist-Leninists--Horhey420 (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Im sure your right that they were democratic socialists but that doesn't mean US support for El Salavdor wasn't because of "Containment of communism" or "Rollback". As far as Im concerned support for right wing governments in the cold war was a component "Containment of communism". Regardless the FLN were far leftist and contained the communist party. You know the CIA, any reasonably leftist militant organization (especially one that contains the a communist wing) will generally be opposed due to fear of development like that of Cuba. So I think "Containment of communism" is probably the reason.

Anyway what do you mean by this "The Only thing that's missing is the internal version of the domino theory".

You're just going to pretend you didnt see it anyways. I have to go.--Horhey420 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Come on stop being so confusing. Just answer please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.119.251 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine you don't need to answer. There is little point discussing the Salvadoran Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.119.251 (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What a strange conversation. It's just a notch above the comments section on Youtube. Horhey420 appears totally incapable of objectivity, as usual. I always enjoy seeing him take out of context quotes that really say nothing surprising and then treat them as some sort of revelation. I'm no longer surprised by the rambling nature of the section on US involvement in the Indonesian killings of 1965-66 now that I know he wrote it, because nothing he edits ends up even remotely coherent or above blog quality. And then we have 89.168.119.251, who steadfastly refuses to sign his comments, despite being reminded to do so in the past. Even as Stumink, he still fails to sign his comments. Although I noticed his "secret identity" a few days ago, I may as well take this opportunity to ask him: Why do you bother with the charade of being two different editors? As for Horhey420, I would suggest After the Cataclysm or Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution by your heroes (Chomsky, Porter, Herman) for a defense of Pol Pot.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I always forget to login and never bother sign my comments (it does it automatically so I never bother). I actually did edit the section you mention on Indonesian killings of 1965-66 regarding US involvement. I edited the section regarding Indonesian requests to arm "Moslem and Nationalist Youths" to "exterminate the PKI". Regardless cheers for checking this page out after I mentioned it to you. Stumink (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

[Copied from an editor's talk page:] Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, your additions to this article (403 of them) are not in agreement with our guidelines, in form but especially in content. In fact, I was on the verge of reverting them, all of them, but for now I will refrain. I will, however, place an NPOV tag on the article: too much of the text you added reads like an essay and an indictment of the Carter and subsequent administrations. This is a matter for the article talk page; I am hoping that you will show some good will by reading WP:NPOV and editing the (huge amount of) content you have added. The language needs tweaking, and the many long quotes need trimming--in fact, most of them probably need to be removed. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Im open to suggestions on how to make it seem more nuetral in your view but before I contributed anything there was a lot of missinformation that was presented as fact such as Soviet sponsorship of the FMLN even though there was no evidence to support that conclusion besides the simple fact that the President and the State Department said so. Another example was the assertion that the elections were free and fair and that Duarte was some kind of benevolent figure leading El Salvador to substantive democracy. All this lingered here for years. These and other false impressions, distortions and ommissions were fostered by the public relations industry and the Office of Public Diplomacy headed by Otto Reich.

  I also found that too much important information was left out and many of the citations were broken and "unverifiable." My sources are solid and in my view, the information I have contributed is too valuable to leave out of this history. I did not find most of it in standard Google searches. What you see so far is from over 7 years worth of research. Many books, many documents and many press reports. It would be very unfortunate to have to remove everything.

  But anyways, I am open to specific suggestions to make it seem less bias but one good way to balance it out would be if someone could contribute their own information to counter what I have presented. 04:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horhey420 (talk • contribs)

  • Thank you for discussing the matter here. What this article needs is attention and, no disrespect intended, that includes attention from experienced editors with a firm knowledge of the Manual of Style. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This "US Involvement" section is just way too big. It's more than half the article. Worse, it doesn't jive with how such an article should be organized--basic organization should be chronological, and a section on involvement should be commensurate, lengthwise, with the rest. It also doesn't jive in tone: it reads like an argumentative essay, which is why editors don't think this is neutral enough (I'm not the only one, apparently). This needs an expert, and I'll tag it accordingly. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been checking this page every few weeks since May. Since I began checking it, I've noticed that the article has gone from bad to worse, from biased to very biased. The problem is getting worse. I don't have the inclination to trowel through the history to figure out the person(s) responsible, but I would like to point out here the noticeable decline in the quality of the article and the increased bias that it has.--Lacarids (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of U.S. from belligerents

"United States support to El Salvador began in 1981. Three mobile training teams (MTTs) of military advisers provided infantry, artillery, and military intelligence instruction.2 Service support advisers on 1-year tours augmented these limited-duration (3- month) MTTs. Typical service branches were infantry, Special Forces (SF), and military intelligence officers, usually majors, captains, noncommissioned officers (NCOs), or warrant officers with linguistic capabilities. Some were Latin American foreign area officers, and most SF personnel had served exclusively in Latin America.

U.S. military advisers populated the entire ESAF from joint headquarters to brigades. Two officers (operations and intelligence) were assigned to each of the six ESAF infantry brigade headquarters in six geographical areas of the country. Personnel were also assigned to the ESAF artillery headquarters, the logistics center, and the national training center. Their mission was to support their Salvadoran counterparts in establishing training programs and to assist in the military decisionmaking process and in staff and operational matters. In San Salvador, El Salvador's capital, U.S. Army combat and combat support majors and lieutenant colonels supported key ESAF joint staff elements while quietly and discreetly prosecuting the war operationally and with intelligence."

U.S. military personnel were clearly directly involved in the conflict on one side, and thus should be included in the list. Unless you've got evidence that this is not true, stop removing the U.S. from the list of belligerents. I'll give you a day or so to come up with some type of explanation, and then I'm going to re-add it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

− Obviously they were helping the prosecute the war but I thought the belligerants was for sides that directly participated in the war(ie thought). Tbf Im not bothered either ay you can add it. Also then wouldn't Nicaragua count as a belligerent since they allowed geurrilla to fight from bases within Nicaragua. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.119.251 (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone is changing things that are supported by the available information for dubious reasons. Look at the history.--Horhey420 (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

On the issue of Nicaragua. The World Court dismissed the administration's allegations that the Nicaraguan government was supplying arms to the Salvadoran rebels fighting the U.S. backed military junta, concluding that:

"The evidence is insufficient to satisfy the Court that, since the early months of 1981, assistance has continued to reach the Salvadorian armed opposition from the territory of Nicaragua on any significant scale, or that the Government of Nicaragua was responsible for any flow of arms at either period."

Edit warring on this pagespace

I open this thread in order to encourage those who have been reverting each other to discuss issues related to disputed content, and to also encourage them to avoid continuing this reverting without discussion. I have no opinion myself as to content, but am disturbed when I see these kinds of edits, especially over such a short time period: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I invite editors to discuss instead of reverting again. BusterD (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This article does, indeed, require a complete redo. Horhey420 has a history of abusing Wikipedia to promote his personal POV, and the problems here are obvious.

• "The US increased aid as atrocities declined. The UN Truth Commission received direct complaints of almost 2,600 victims of serious violence occurring in 1980. It received direct complaints of just over 140 victims of serious violence occurring in 1985 (Report of the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador, UN Security Council S/25500, April 1, 1993, pp29, 36)". Horhey removed this without discussion, calling it a "false premise".

• Neil Livingstone wrote that "Those in the Congress who cry the loudest for cutting aid to nations like El Salvador are the real patrons of death squads. By denying the Salvadoran government the resources and assistance it needs to fight a "clean war" on the battlefield, Congressional opponents are, for all intents and purposes, mandating that those frustrated by the government's inability to win a decisive victory by means of conventional military power will increasingly resort to a "dirty war" in the cities and countryside". ("Death Squads,” World Affairs, Winter 1983-1984, pp. 239-248). Horhey added this to the article with the summary: "In [Neil] Livingstone's view, the mass murder is necessary as "nearly all were leftists or relatives of left—wing activists". Livingstone was then removed.

• The combination of primary sources and government documents that date back to the forties is a flagrant violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR, with Horhey taking any random quote that he feels makes the US look bad and adding it to bolster his argument.

• The absurdly long section on US media coverage is a violation of WP:UNDUE.

• The fact that the "Deaths Squads" famously plotted to kill the US ambassador is not mentioned, among other salient facts.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey responded in a manner that made the discussion hard to follow, so I've combined his remarks:TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry if it's the wrong conclusion but these are the facts. Take the time to look at the facts. I cringe at the idea of what your redo would look like and would be total disrespect to the victims of state-terror.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I removed the added commentary saying US aid caused the decline [note: the article never said if it was causation or correlation] which was not supported by the source. Indeed, other evidence provided shows the opposite. All you have to do is look. It's all there.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, and then after I found this article http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1988-02-14/news/8801100092_1_death-squad-el-salvador-killings I removed it [UN report] because it was redundant. All it did was give numbers. The article said the same thing and had more substance: "Although death squad killings are down significantly from the early 1980`s, human rights analysts say the military was successful in wiping out opposition movements and leaving large sectors of the population too scared to participate in opposition political activity."--Horhey420 (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• No scheme on my part. Add it [the ambassador plot] in there.

• That's [Livingstone's] old news. Got it second hand from a book.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Your vendetta is transparent by the way.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• "with Horhey taking any random quote that he feels makes the US look bad and adding it to bolster his argument." Prove it. Am I really going to have show the entire documents, as in more mass quoting? See. I cant paraphrase anything because of people like this person here. Most of your sources cant be verified at all. Hipocrisy is not good.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• More removals coming from you huh. You're just itching for the green light.

• You're so obsessed with romoval of content that you refuse to add anything or try to work with me or anyone else you disagree with to improve the page. I have told you repeatedly that I will cooperate with you and others to improve the page. It does need work but I seem to be the only one maintaining it. Why does it depend on me? Why havent you or anyone else who does not like the content not counter it with their own information? Do you not know very much about this history? If you dont I can suggest some sources. The only other explanation I can think of is that you just want to remove all of it and then replace it with Washington's version of events, like the way it was before (for the most part) the revamp.--Horhey420 (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit this article at all (at least, not anytime soon). I wouldn't know where to begin, or where to end. It needs attention from an expert.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be easy for you to contribute. For example. If you have another version of what is shown or counter evidence you can use it as a counterweight. Like what I started to do with you at the Reagan page but then there were too many details for that particular format. If I left anything out you can fill in the blanks. Im sure I did leave a lot out. Much information about events during the war itself are still not in there but they should be. Here's a good addition for you to make. In 1984, Vice President Bush went to El Salvador and publicly demanded that death squad activities stop. That's in the papers, all still free to view online.--Horhey420 (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey420

I've just blocked Horhey420 (talk · contribs) for large scale copyright violations, as well as POV pushing. Any material currently in this article which was added by this editor should be checked to see if it's a copyright violation. If in doubt, please remove it. Nick-D (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that huge chunks of this article are copyright violations.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Where to start? --Lacarids (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Too much Politics

This article contains too much information about politics,and less information about civil war.Include FMLN offensives,Army offensives,it will improve.Ovsek (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC) BepFlaco= I inserted some content in the article and provided as a source the page "Weapons of the Salvadoran Civil War" from Wikipedia itself.What is weird is that the link appears in red and it gives a message stating that the page is non existing. Nevertheless, if you scroll down the page,the link appears as existing towards the end of the article.(user: BepFlaco) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BepFlaco (talk • contribs) 13:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)