Talk:Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

Critics

The following was deleted from the page "Critics argue that the school trains attendees in practices such as genocide, massacres of civilians, and egregious human rights violations, "Who are these critics and what is their first hand information concerning what is being taught at the shool? According to WHINSEC the school has never in its history taught any type of terrorigation techinques of any kind. To put this information in as fact simply because some organization makes an accusation is not proof. One of the main purposes of the creation of WHINSEC was to have a school which from its very beginnings was adament about properly reviewing any materials that were used by the school and removing any training that would raise questions of human rights abuse. (Just for everyone's information: One of the biggest drums being beat to attack the former School of the Americas is the "torture manuals". The SOA "torture manuals" often talked about were never used as instruction materials but were additional reading materials provided by a fromer instructor from another school. The school included them in their additional reading materials without reviewing them assuming they didn't not contain innapropriate materials. When it was brought to their attention that they did they recovered and destroyed them. That was an action taken by the school after the school realized the mistake.) I know these things because I traveled to the school for eight years and personally investigated most of the accusations.) If this defaming materials is to be returned to the page it should requre that somewhere there is found one person who will testify that they were taught any kind of interrorigation techniques at WHINSEC. If not what may or may not have been taughts at SOA has nothing to do with what is presently being taught at WHINSEC. This is an article about WHINSEC and not SOA. -- (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaplainSvendsen (talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

POV

This page is currently SERIOUSLY BIASED towards the school. There is almost no mention of the countless massacres and killings that the school's graduates have committed. There is no mention of the anti-union activity that the students are trained in. And, most of all, there is no mention of teh annual march against the school in which thousands participate every year, and in which dozens commit acts of civil disobedience in protest of the school. I have tagged this articl for disputed neutrality, and it would be great if someone researched the topic a little bit more and changed the article so it represented the reality of the school instead of the official government opinion. If no one else changes it, I'll have to. And soon.TrogdorPolitiks 20:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[Countless? How many do you consider countless. I have never heard of more than a small handful of accusations for which there was no direct correlation between what they did and what they learned at the school. With over 75000 students having attended the two schools, all military, police, or civil authority to have only a small handful being accused of misconduct is actually quite remarkable in that by pure chance the number would not be greater. I might even assume that is because the school and its training actually prevented such things from occuring. 72.69.90.213 (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC) ]

I fixed some stuff. Still needs a rewrite, not incredibly clear WHY there is so much dispute over the institution, but the facts are there.TrogdorPolitiks 20:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's remain objective. While I agree the article is flawed, what I see above my post here is as slanted as the article it's complaining about. If the facts are there, as you say, cite some references. I challenge you to present them without rhetorical devices like ALL CAPS; without inflammatory exaggerations like "countless massacres"; and without non-sequiturs: the fact that there are annual marches, in which people commit civil disobedience, does not demonstrate wrongdoing on the part of WHISC; it demonstrates that there are annual marches, in which people commit civil disobedience. The fact that numerous murders and some massacres (while clearly horrific and tragic) have occurred, does not prove that WHISC ordered them, nor that the WHISC trained the killers to commit them, any more than the fact that Ted Kaczynski's attendance at Harvard (or the attendance of any number of future white-collar criminals, lawyers, and CEOs) casts ill repute on that institution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ancientgeekphilosopher (talk • contribs) 9 August 2006.

I would say it is POV in this manner: Most people who know about the School of the Americas/Western Hemispher INstitute for SEcurity Cooperation know about it because of the attrocities committed by graduates and the high number of future dictators it graduated and not what the institution says of itself. There is no reason to give the institution's POV of itself at 50% of all content. This type of thinking gives government a de facto veto on all such content. And that's just speaking of a US centric POV. Move beyond the US and the SOA/WHINSEC's POV of itself would be a much, much smaller minority. Unless of course US POV are the only views that matter. I don't think that is what wikipedia is about. LobotRobot 21 December 2006

The writing style of this article is a complete embarrassment. It is so thoroughly biased toward the school as to approach complete self-satire. EVERY point in the criticism section is followed by pro-SOA/WHINSEC replies. This is not seen in reverse in the other sections. A total rewrite of this article is needed, although it appears that the school and-or its supporters will not allow it based on a careful review of the changes. Mac.bh (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that the "History" section is mostly in favor of the school, where in fact there's not much about the actual "history", while controversial parts of the history are only on the criticism part. I mean, for and against are in 2 separate parts, while "history" should be "history", representing both positive and negative sides.This part should be rewritten in order to match with the title of the section.--Desyman44 (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Pentagon changing the name

In 2000, mounting pressure upon the United States Congress to stop funding the SOA caused the Pentagon to rename the school the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, abbreviated as WHISC or WHINSEC.

The source for this is an unsourced blog which is not a WP:RS. It was in fact Congress who changed the organization and name by law, the 2001 Defense Authorization Act, 10 USC, Sec 2166. It may have been the Pentagon who was behind the proposal for the changes that the Congress voted on but this would require a RS. As such I will removed this statement unless there are sourced objections.Ultramarine (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

At present WHINSEC is the best source of human rights protection and training available. How do I know that? Because I served for four years as and advisor and four years as a Board Of Visitors member at which time I helped in its development and implimentation. The real problem with entries on the page is evidently most people who post neither know the actual work of the school, have never been to the school, nor had any contact with its administration, teachers, or even students for that matter. I am constantly bewildered by statements such as "All those graduated who massacured people are never mentioned in connection with the school." Or statments like that. While in its existance the School of the Americas had over 60000 students. WHINSEC has had well over ten thousand students in its existance. I get a little greived when I give out information about WHINSEC and people say "who are you" that we should accept your information at truth. Well I ask the same question as to those who post falsehoods about the school and delete easily verified information which could be obtained by a simple phone call the school administration. What is even more frustrating is that after over 75000 students attended the two schools when a hand full go out and commit human rights violations that it is automatically assumed that they learned how to do it at either SOA or WHINSEC. How does a class on running a supply depot or writing military orders or working in cooperation with anti-drug taskforces across boarders teach torture or human right abuse? The answer is simple it does not. As concerns WHINSEC in their entire history they have never taught interrorigation techniques of any kind. Period. What they have learned at WHINSEC to the requirement of protecting human rights and not using torture or abusive treatment of others. Period. The WHISEC of today, an organization which is sending out trained country of origin graduates back home to teach their entire country the importance of protecting human right and the elemination of torture and such techniques is what should be the lead article on the WHINSEC post. Instead what we see is false propaganda coming from political anarchists such as SOA Watch and other organizations which are parroting false accusations in order to obtain political gain. Rev. / Chaplain (Major USAR, Retired) Kent Svendsen Advisor Board of Visitors 2000 - 2004 Member Board of Visitors 2004-2008 WHINSEC / Former member Board Of Church and Society United Methodist Church Northern Illinois Conference/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.90.213 (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Image

Not found on the webpage of WHINSEC, in contrast to the seal, and it does not list from where it was taken, so unless a source is given it will be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Not sure if this belongs under the Controversy section, but the Punk Rock band Anti-Flag has a song called "School of Assassins (SOA)" a clear reference to this topic I think is worth adding somewhere 76.190.164.114 (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Adds from Italian Wiki

I added some information that were missing, by translating from Italian Wiki[1]. I think that if on that version the information are not considered violation of POV, they arent as well on the English one. I am still working on it anyway.--Desyman44 (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

New Photo

I have a photo of what SOA looks like now (hotel) if that might add to the page?--Abarratt (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? in my opinion it's all right, but specify that that is the OLD location, not the current! On italian wiki there's this pic from commons: - is that one or a new one?--Desyman44 (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

adds on Japanese wiki

Please edit it, anyone who can speak Japanese :)--124.155.16.92 (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Posada Carriles

I added a picture of Posada Carriles at the time of his education in Fort Benning. at the time the school was in Panama, but Fort Benning is the actual location of the academy. That's why I chenged in the beginning my own edit from "in the school" to "here", of course referring to Fort Benning. --Desyman44 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Posada Carriles went there. In Joan Didion's book "Miami", she discusses that several Cuban exiles went to military training in the US prior to or concurrent with the formation of the exile action groups Alpha 66 and Omega 7. But it wasn't SOA, and actually (according to Didion) the exiles saw the training as a sort of run-around by JFK to keep them occupied without actually committing to a full-scale invasion (that is, a second attempt of the Bay of Pigs). After becoming disenchanted with JFK's plan to train them, they stopped their training and returned to Miami and apparently it was really touchy for JFK at the time and he pleaded with them to stay or something (he was desperate to keep them convinced that a second invasion attempt was underway, when in fact he didn't want to do that). 173.3.41.6 (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction, NPOVs and sources

Ultramarine made an edit to introduction [2], claiming there is a NPOV, without stating which one, since all information has source, they are not dissimilar to other wiki versions, they tell neutrally facts.

It now looks like this:

This is denied by the WHINSEC and supporters who argue that the alleged connection is often weak, such as taking a single course on Radio Operations and human rights violations many years later. The education now emphasizes democracy and human rights. [6][7][8]

Since: 1. Saying the connection is "often weack" can be considered a NPOV, since the only provided case of weak connection is the one of Roberto D'Aubuisson. I doubt, anyway, that this can be considered a "weack connection", since he actually was fully graduated there - independently from the specialization course he attended - as all of the "Notorious graduates", and not a sporadic contact. The fact that years passed from his graduation, I dont think can be brought as justification. Graduation is not like milk, that then you throw away. One remains a graduate till he dies...or have I to repeat my study in 10 years to have it confirmed???

2. "such as taking a single course on Radio Operations" is given as a general statement, while it does correspond just to D'Aubuisson. This is, anyway, explained later on, in the "according to SOA Watch" section, where this information seems more appropriate since states who is the person in the case.

3. That "The education now emphasizes democracy and human rights" is given as stated, while this is only wht DIRECT SOURCES, that should be avoided but here are widley used, do say. Sources, in fact, are: the official website (6), an article quoting the school's officials (7), another article where I dont find traces of the words "human rights" or "democracy", but rather talks about the case of D'Abuisson (8). "Emphasize", in fact, seems not neutral, but rather a personal consideration. More neutral would be stating the fact, more reliable, that 8 hours of Human rights and democracy education has been introduced in curricula, or at least write that the "emphasizing" is in supporters'/officials' words.

Then I suggest to: - restore the previous version;

-in alternative, to find a compromise such as: This is denied by the WHINSEC and supporters who argue that the education now emphasizes democracy and human rights and that the connection with the school is in some cases weak. --Desyman44 (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the actual courses taken by these persons if is usually in things like logistics, tank warfare and so on. Only a few took courses in the intelligence and counter-intelligence which allegedly mentioned some torture techniques in intelligence manuals. If you insist, I can state exactly which courses those persons mentioned in the intro, and other places, took. 8 hours of human rights eduction is the minimum per course.Ultramarine (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I know it's the minimum. If u prefer, it can be written explicitly that "a minimum of 8 hours of human rights and democracy education has been introduced in curricula", even if it's already written several times later on. The "emphasizing" still remains not neutral if not stated that is a consideration by somebody. Or writing the pure fact that min. 8 hours have been introduced, or that the consideration that it "emphasizes" comes from DIRECT SOURCES (that should be avoided as often partial).

Adding all the courses taken can be a good idea for the scheme in the bottom, that needs to be filled, according to SOA Watch, eventually also with the main crimes those people are accused of. But seems not proper in the introduction nor in the text of the article, since will make it less flowing.

the use of the "often weak" remains non neutral, since I dont think that the type of course does mean a stronger or weaker connection, since we dont know, besides the tytle of the course, what exactly they were thought or which manuals they actually read. It can be stated connection is sometimes weak, but "often" it's a word I'd avoid.

The "such as..." part does apply only to one person, so it's not properly written. Better avoid the "such as" and just say in some cases ("some" doesnt nor say "many" or "a few", so fits better and is more neutral) the connection is weak. Then you can specify all the courses later on. I thik this can be a good compromise, hm?

--Desyman44 (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We know that the criticized manuals were used in Intelligence courses. That seems to be the only concrete allegations regarding teaching material or other material teached. No evidence that every course included teaching human rights violations. I disagree that it is necessary to mention specific persons in the intro. The intro in your version is biased against one side. Another suggestion for solving this would be to restore the prior intro which was not biased against either side.Ultramarine (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont see why u see it biased against one side. I put a specific, relevant and sourced information, not a POV, that is in nobody's interest to hide, unless that person is a Carriles supporter! The part about answers to critics was present, I never deleted it. Some of your expressions, on the other side, such as "very weak" or "emphasizes" seems not neutral as to try to understimate the responsibilities. I will split my points it in parts, please answer me to each, so discussion is easier:

1."often weak" is not really neutral, I'd avoid "often" and put some more neutral word such as "sometimes weak" or "not often strong"...etc.

How about "at least sometimes weak"

2."The education now emphasizes democracy and human rights." is a quotation from school's officers[3]. Or you report it, as it is in the article you put as a source (School's Officers claim that...) or you just tell the fact that min. of 8h education in human rights has been introduced in curricola.

More correct "According to the WHINSEC, now there is a minimum of eight to forty hours of human rights eduction per course depending on its length.[4]."Ultramarine (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

3.If, as you stated, the evidences are not enough to know whether the manuals were used in other courses or not and, I would add, since we dont know if there have been other manuals or if the teaching has also been without manuals explicitly teaching "human rights violation", using the case of one person (itself, anyway, not clear) in order to state it is the case of many ("such as...") is implicitly a contraddiction. I do not say not to write it, and I agree with you mentioning a specific person in intro is not the best solution. That's why i would avoid talking about him without telling his name (it's not really encyclopedic) and state that is argued that sometimes connection is weak/not often strong. Then the topic will be developed in details in the appropriate section.

But you are describing specific individuals in the intro. We do not know if the SOA teached those individuals anything corrupting or was in any way responsible for later human rights violations. Since this is unknown such controversial allegations should not be in the intro. I still think the earlier shorter version was NPOV. It did not mention any individuals exactly because there is no evidence for any role of the SOA except for those taking Intelligence courses. If you accuse specific individuals, it should be those who took Intelligence courses.Ultramarine (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, according to the SOA "The School of the Americas taught military education courses as they were taught in U. S. Armed Forces institutions -- the School translated the courses, lessons plans and all, into Spanish."Ultramarine (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

4.You wrote that WHISC and supporters say connection between SOA and terrorists is often weak, but I can only see that WHISC reject accuses to CURRENT practices, while about SOA just says it belongs to past and that now there's human rights education. The defence of SOA through the "very weak connections" are stated only by supporters (the Paul Mulshine you quoted), not by WHISC and, anyway, they regard just D'Aubuisson: another reason why I'd avoid the "such as...". Let me know if you have information that state it differently--Desyman44 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Mulshine only mentions D'Aubuisson but it is quite clear that he argues that many of the other individuals linked to the school are so on similar weak grounds. Again, I think this whole problem could be avoided but not mentioning any individuals in the intro.Ultramarine (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Pov tag

I have removed the POV tag since the user who added it, even after I invited him/her to leave a comment on this talk page, did not explained why and what his/her proposal were, therefore only adding the template without allowing any possible resolution of the dispute as no dispute actually started.--Desyman44 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So the introduction is not open to any changes? The instuctions plainly state that wikipedia entries are supposed to be impartial and not defaming. Why is the opening statement that WHINSEC is equivalent to SOA when in fact the two schools are nothing like each other? Granted SOA trained Central and South American soldiers, police, and civil authority and WHINSEC teaches the same catagory. And yes I can see where it would be logical to link WHINSEC to the SOA article and state the connection. But why is this article about WHINSEC almost totally filled with accusations against SOA as if it were things that WHINSEC are presently doing. They are two different schools. If there are accusations against WHINSEC and their it documentation then fine. But to repeatedly over and over again talk about SOA activities like they are WHINSEC activites is dishonest and defaming. This article so extremely biased and does not reflect the wonderful work WHINSEC is doing today. I am asking that all materials regarding SOA and their former activities be moved to the SOA article and that WHINSEC be given an opportunity to post what they are presently doing at the school. I investigated the school for over eight years. I traveled to the school and interviewed teachers, students, and administration asking the hard questions. I find it rather insulting to have materials I put on here dismissed and deleted saying I have no documentaion. I am that documentation having researched it. While other organizations are given credibility when they are simply repeating accusations. In investigation SOA I was told that while there was inappropriate materials given to the student that is was by accident and part of a reading list of materials that were not vetted before including them. I was told that they were never used as text books and never taught from. If that is not true than if that accusation is to be made surely after over 61000 students attended the school some former student somewhere can be found to say: I was taught this at the school. I read all kinds of accusations but I never read about any eye witnesses to it. Are there such witnesses out there willing to say it was done? I have never heard of any and would gladly accept such information as part of my research. So what we have is organization like SOA Watch and Amnesty International which quotes themselves in their accusations and because its repeated enough times its accepted as documentation. Did anyone stop to consider why so many congressional inquiries were completed and nobody was cited or prosecuted for any wrong doing? So what happened? Were all of them corrupt and all of the investigations biased and all of their outcomes rigged? And do you want to know why I spend so much time personally on this issue? Its because when I talk to people like SOA Watch and get letters back from those sitting in jail who were arrested when presented with the facts their reply shows they don't really care if what I tell them is true or not. That's right and I quote: "Even if what you say is true we simply don't want the US military training anyone." So its not about ending human rights abuse and stopping torture thinking the WHINSEC is promoting and teaching such things. Its about a dislike for the US military and any information used no matter how biased, defaming or just plain wrong is properly used for the cause. WHINSEC is in fact actively helping to prevent torture and human rights abuses. Their program on human rights protections is being taught to every student and instructors are returning to their countries and teaching it to their military, police, and administration. Democracy, the type we have where people can speak their minds and protest is being taught as a valuable move forward in the progress of a nation. I spend so much time on this subject because if the school were to be closed I truly believe it would be a blow to human rights protections and people would be tortured, hurt, and killed who would otherwise have been spared such a fate. Rev. Kent Svendsen Advisor WHINSEC 2000-2004 Board Of Vistors member 2004-2008 peace and justice advocate and retired Army Chaplain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaplainSvendsen (talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"Between 1946 and 2001, the SOA trained more than 61,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. Some of them became notorious for human rights violations, including generals Leopoldo Galtieri, Efraín Ríos Montt and Manuel Noriega, dictators such as Bolivia's Hugo Banzer, some of Augusto Pinochet's officers,[1][2] members of the Atlacatl Battalion of El Salvador who carried out the El Mozote massacre of 1981, and the founders of Los Zetas, a drug cartel formerly affiliated with the Gulf Cartel.[3][4]"

This material needs to be deleted. First because it certianly is not neutral and secondly because of its lack of fairness. This statement is equivalent to blaming the high school somebody graduated from for causing somebody to become a thief and a murder. Where is the cause and effect? Also why is this on the WHINSEC article. While some people think WHINSEC is exactly the same school as SOA many other know it is not the same school. There are many significant differences between the two. What this article should contain if referring to SOA is the many changes the new school made to change. i.e. The many ways the school worked to become more "transparent" in what it did and how it did it. The development of new programs such as the "Shoot Don't Shoot" training and especially its development of the human rights training program. In the past I've attempted to put things like this in the article only to have it removed without reason. Everything I listed can be found on the website.

The other real problem this article has with neutrality is its massive use of quoted from SOA Watch which often colors to truth to the point that its unrecognizable. And also you don't want original research, so then lets say I have a number of documents that are good references to prove verifiability. How do I use those references. You seem to accept whatever SOA Watch says regardless of what proof of verifiability they have just because one of their writers says it. So if I create an organization called WHINSEC report and have people write things about the school would you accept them as a means to verify the information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaplainSvendsen (talk • contribs) 03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Human Right Violations

"The School of the Americas has been criticized concerning the human rights violations performed by a number of its graduates"

I deleted WHINSEC from the sentence because the reference given while it does mention SOA it does not mention WHINSEC. Also the facts do not match this statement. Of the WHINSEC students who have been accused of wrong doing the list is not "numberous" but very small. And of the accused wrong doing of the former students most were for criminal acts other than human rights abuses. Finally if you look at the reference given to verify the information that reference while it does mention SOA it does not mention WHINSEC. ChaplainSvendsen (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the motivations you gave are rather "technicalities" and do not seem so persuading to me: I mean the reason why the list is not "numerous" is because the name WHINSEC is relatively recent and there's no dirty war going on anymore in latin america (so it's a consequence of an exogenous factor = historical background). 2 of the sources do not mention WHINSEC because they are older than 2001 (how could they?) while the one from commondreams.org, which is from 2001, actually mentions WHINSEC. Finally, SOA Watch and other HR organizations are still there, still campaigning for WHINSEC closure, that's a proof enough I suppose. No NGO changed attitude the day after SOA turned into WHINSEC. It is therefore misleading to make the reader believe only SOA was criticized and WHINSEC is not, also because critics to WHINSEC as a mere "renaming" for SOA are reported later in the paragraph, so it would result as incoherent for the reader. I would reinstate the deleted part.--Desyman44 (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You said: "there's no dirty war going on anymore in latin america" and that is why there are no accusations of human rights abuse against WHINSEC. That is what you said. So if there had not been any "dirty wars" going on during the time SOA was in existance would that also mean that there would not have been any accusations against SOA? Do you see how faulty that reasoning is. "No NGO changed attitude the day after SOA turned into WHINSEC." Sorry that is not true. You have been believing the misinformation which groups like SOA Watch have been handing out. There was a radical change when SOA was eleminated and WHINSEC was created. And in fact since the beginning WHINSEC has continued to evolve in many positive ways. Examples of this are: "Shoot, Don't Shoot" training. (I actually was allowed to participate in one try of their computer weapons training program.) How to determine if somebody with a weapon is a threat to you or not. So you don't shoot first and ask questions later. Their Anti-Drug Task Force Training. Which includes how to recognize innocent civilians and protect them from harm around remote drug labs. Also how to handle toxic and potentially environmentally hazardous waste on the sites. Finally cooperation between nations so that one country can pass off or receive permission to cross a border to arrest drug traffic offenders. Next The Human rights protection training which became mandatory for all students at WHINSEC. Followed by the "Train the Trainer" program which is producing Human Rights Protection trainers who return to their country to give the training to the nation's military and police forces. The Vetting system which is probably one of the best prevention tools for any soldier hoping to gain higher level ranks. For many graduating from WHINSECs Command And General Staff course (it has since been renamed) is the only way to be promoted to the higher level ranks. For the Central and South American service members its the equivalent of a US soldier graduating from West Point as concerns future career possibilities. Potential students tread very carefully so as to no be accused of human rights abuse and even being a part of a unit with human rights abuse accusations against it can prevent one from being accepted as a student. I could give much much more information. But can you see how WHINSEC is not SOA even though they both train(ed)common leadership courses all of which are also used by our armed forces for US military. (I know all of this because I spent 27 years in the military and have had some of those exact leadership training courses. I also know all of this because as a peace and justice advocate I spent 2000-2008 traveling to the school each year investigating, asking questions of students and teachers, reviewing materials, and serving both as an advisor (2000-2004) and then as a Board Of Visitors member (2004-2008). What I find incredible is that Wikipedia will accept radical groups with a political agenda like SOA Watch which in many ways has little use for the truth as valid references. Then on the other hand refused to allow references from the school itself and individuals like myself who have actual first hand knowledge to be used. All of what I have writtn above at one time or another I posted into the article and it was removed without any discussion or comment. ChaplainSvendsen (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Editorial Disputes

I realize that it states that this is not the place to have a discussion about the article. That is not my purpose here. My purpose is to prevent ongoing battles of people adding things only to have them removed. The guidelines state that any materials which are posted need to be "verifiable" and that the writing be "neutral". So here's my contention. If I read the materials and they appear to be attacking rather than "neutral" then that is a reason to remove or change it. Also, who decides what source is a legitimate source. I do not consider SOA Watch a reliable or truthful source. So unless somebody from Wikipedia can give me a good reason otherwise if the source is SOA Watch I can take that material out because SOA Watch is not a legitimate source. My rationalization for that is simple. If Wikipedia articles are supposed to be "neutral" then I'm assuming that the sources should not be organizations who's only goal in life is to attack, defame, and eleminate the subject. i.e. SOA Watch. Surely there are other sources which can be found to verify the materials.

Next I want to know why the introduction is off limits to editors. The introduction is not neutral and in my educated opinion contains misleading information. I can't edit it, however, because there isn't an option to do that. Also can anyone from Wikipedia explain why WHINSEC should not be allowed to write major portions of this article? If what they write can be proven wrong then of course it should be deleted. What I have a problem with is false and misleading accusations are aimed at the school and written into the article as if they were fact. But on the other hand represenatives from the school arn't allowed to put information about the school and its activities because its not verifiable? So accusations verifiable or not are OK but telling the story about the school is not. How is that fair let alone "neutral". I'm doing this now because I'm planning on posting information about the school and will be very vigilant as to who deletes any of it and challenging it to the editorial board. ChaplainSvendsen (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)