Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1954 Guatemalan coup d'état/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2017 [1].

1954 Guatemalan coup d'état

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most infamous, and probably the most well-studied, episodes in U.S. foreign relations, and as such is of great importance. I recognize that this is a highly complex, and highly contentious, topic, and have therefore delved into the source material extensively; I believe I have done it justice, within the confines of 61kb of prose. To those who may be struck by some of the statements in the article, and may have concerns about political neutrality, I can do no better than to invite you to dig into the source material, and also to assure you that the article is actually substantially milder than many of the sources. Have at it. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Simon Burchell

[edit]

Support Comment I reviewed this for GA a year and a half ago. It is a fine article and I hope to find the time to review it here. My one initial concern for an article about Guatemala is that no Guatemalan sources have been used. That being said, well done on getting it this far... All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Simon, good to see you. That is an entirely valid concern (though I note that I have relied a fair bit on Gleijeses, whose work is chiefly based on interviews in Guatemala). My handicap here is my lack of Spanish, and an unwillingness to rely entirely on google translate; but if you were willing/able to check some of my work, I'd be quite willing to check for Spanish sources and add them where appropriate. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lots more of Spanish-language sources on the Google Scholar search. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick note to say that I've added the Casteneda source (which is Mexican, I believe?), and used it in several places: but I've treated it with a little circumspection with respect to very specific details, because there are places where this source makes claims contradicting virtually every other on the subject: such as, for instance, the idea that Jose Angel Sanchez briefly held power, which nobody else mentions. Working on the others now. Vanamonde (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how relevant it is, but Gaitán (p117) lists Carlos Enrique Díaz was president for one day, immediately after the resignation of Arbenz, before being pressured by Peurifoy to integrate a military council. Maybe Castenada got Angel Sanchez and Díaz confused. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Simon Burchell: I've added four Spanish sources, two of which are from Figueroa Ibarra, who, as I understand it, is the best known Guatemalan historian in this particular niche. Would you mind having a glance at my additions, at your leisure? I'll look for more sources, but these seem to be some of the best/most relevant. And it's worth noting that even they rely heavily on Immerman, Schlesinger/Kinzer, and Gleijeses, the three truly heavyweight English sources on the subject. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've spot-checked over half the uses of Castañeda, and don't see any problems so far. More later... However, in this and some of the other refs (Gilderhus for example), these refs would be better broken down with specific page nos. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Simon: Just fyi, I've added specific page numbers to all of the journal sources. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Authoritarian governments

  • I'm afraid the source does not make it explicit, they just say fifty cents. The rest of the section repeatedly refers to dollars, which is really the only indication that they are referring to USD, apart from the fact that they were published in the US. Do you think this is sufficient basis to say USD? Other sources I've looked for do the same thing... Vanamonde (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemalan Revolution and Presidency of Arévalo

  • There are instances of "landowner" and "land-owner" - and I came across similar a similar inconsistency elsewhere that I corrected, so check all your hyphenated words against non-hyphenated forms, and be consistent. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I think I have them all now.
  • I've had another read through, and corrected some minor issues.

United Fruit Company lobbying

  • By 1950...annual profits were 65 million U.S. dollars - any idea what this is in modern money? I believe there is a template that does the inflation calculation somewhere, but can't recall what it is called. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the template and added it in a couple of places. I'm still wondering as to which other instances it should be added to, as it is quite wordy; thoughts?
  • It actually makes quite an impression, just about a 10-fold increase, which clarifies the article enormously, so for sums in the millions, I think it should be put in uniformly. If you don't like it interrupting the text, you could always insert the templates as footnotes - possibly in a separate footnote group. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thoughts I think I agree with you; and I've added it for every figure that is precise. Is this okay? Also, just a note that I have the template rounding to the same level of accuracy as the given figure, which seems best to me; but I can change that, if needed.
  • Well the capital T is in the quote. I've replaced it with [to]. Is that better?

Planning

  • yes. done.
  • done

Caracas conference and U.S. propaganda

  • done

Árbenz's resignation

  • You refer to the PGT here, using the acronym for the first time. It would not be obvious to most readers that this is the Guatemalan Party of Labour, already referred to several times. I've added the acronym and Spanish name in parenthesis at the first instance, but you may want to think about whether you want to use the acronym in this section at all, rather than the name as used throughout. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point, thanks for fixing it. I think I would like to stick with the acronym, mostly to keep things concise. A minor point: you linked "Molotov" and "Austria" but I've always been under the impression that terms within quotation marks should not be linked...or am I misreading MOS:LINKSTYLE? Vanamonde (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great article, well researched, well written, and thorough. I am happy to support its promotion. Well done, and thank you for a great addition to the encyclopedia. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as always, for a solid review. Vanamonde (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest scaling up several of the detail-heavy images
  • I've scaled up Eisenhower, and the memorandum. Which else were you referring to? Is the scaling sufficient?
  • Done. I'd changed the memo from upright to normal thumb. I've now changed it, too, to 300px; but I'm actually uncertain about that. It's damned ugly, and you still can't read it, so I'm wondering if 220 is best for that image after all.
  • done
  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • done, I believe
  • File:Manuel_Estrada_Cabrera_01.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • Even the Library of Congress, where it is from, does not seem to know: the negative that it was created from is from between 1909 and 1920. The website of the LoC says "No known restrictions on publication." If this does not resolve the issue, how is [2] as an alternative?
  • Okay, I've removed this: though I'm curious as to why the pre-1923 rule does not apply to either of these. The author's date of death was a no-go, he seems obscure. How is this, for which we actually know the author, and know that he died in 1928?
  • Ah I see. I've added the alternative.
  • File:Ubico_Castaneda,_Jorge.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US?
  • Honestly, I don't know, and it does not help that the original link is broken, and it was PD in France.
  • Okay, I've dug into this further. Here is the situation: it was published in a newspaper [3] in France, on 8 January 1938. Its author is unknown. In France, this document would have entered the public domain on 8 January 2008, after which the image was scanned and uploaded to Wikipedia. This much I'm sure of. Now it seems that in most cases the US does not apply the rule of shorter term, and we're not yet 95 years from the date of publication: so I'm not sure how to proceed from here.
  • Ah that's unfortunate. I've removed it, and will look for alternatives.
  • Rather infuriatingly, none of the images on commons have the information to meet the criteria you have described here (except for one, which shows a young Ubico on a bicycle) and so I guess we will just have to do without.
  • File:Guatearbenz0870.JPG: what is the copyright status of the mural?
  • Investigating, but perhaps Soman could help here.
  • I wasn't aware of this before, but it seems to me that the copyright status of the mural itself is irrelevant, because Guatemala allows the reproduction of public artwork: [4]. In any case, it is a mural in a public area, created collectively by the activist group HIJOS. The group specializes in graffiti type images. It was painted in Spring 2004, and erased a year later [5]. This suggests, but doesn't state explicitly, that no copyright ever existed. What does this mean for its use?
  • Done, thanks
  • File:1920UnitedFruitCompanyEntrance.jpg: what is the copyright status of the sculptural work?
  • Investigating.
  • Did a little bit of digging: the building was built in 1920 [6] and was designed by a General Allison Owen, who died in 1951. I cannot find any source which specifically discusses the design of the sculpture. Where does that leave us?
  • Well nobody is saying "oh and the facade was definitely built at the same time as the building" but there are plenty of references that refer to its construction in 1920 and the facade in the same breath; so I think we're okay. I've added that tag.
  • It is merely a fragment of the flag: surely it has the same copyright status? Or is it more complicated than that? Anyhow, it is currently used in at least one FA, but it is far from critical to the article, and could be removed.
  • Oh lordy. I'd always sort of assumed using a flag was fine with respect to representing the country it was off...I'll investigate, although I'm wondering if Simon knows something, having brought multiple Guatemala articles to FA.
This seems a strangely complicated question to answer. The closest I've come to finding something is [7], on the Spanish Wikipedia: but even that does not answer this question completely. I'm pinging Simon again since I forgot to sign the previous post, and also because I suspect that without a knowledge of Spanish, I am going to get exactly nowhere with this search. Vanamonde (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, wasn't that easy to track down but I think this covers it, "LEY DE DERECHO DE AUTOR Y DERECHOS CONEXOS DE GUATEMALA DECRETO NÚMERO 33-98 EL CONGRESO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE GUATEMALA" (Law of Rights of the Author and Associated Rights) from the website of the Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes (Ministry of Culture and Sports) - specifically Article 13, subsection g (page 39 of the linked PDF):
ARTICULO 13. Exclusiones. No son objeto de protección por derecho de autor, entre otras:
g) Las reproducciones o imitaciones, sin autorización, de escudos, banderas o emblemas de cualquier país, Estado, municipio o división político administrativa equivalente, ni las denominaciones, reglas, símbolos, siglas o emblemas de organizaciones internacionales gubernamentales, no gubernamentales o de cualquier otra organización reconocida oficialmente, así como la designación verbal de los mismos;
Basically, and without fully translating the legalese (though I can do that if required) - flags are exempt from copyright, so you're good to use it. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Simon! That would have taken me hours to find, I think, if I'd found it at all....Nikkimaria, I believe that's everything. Vanamonde (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review. I know very little about image licensing, so I would ask your indulgence in helping me work through these.
  • @Nikkimaria: I don't have definite answers, but I've found more information with respect to each of those images. Could you take a look? Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: My apologies for bothering you once again: it's just that in the time since your review, two images (Arevalo, Rios Montt) have been added, and we are also contemplating replacing the Monroe doctrine map with this. In addition, some size changes have been made (mostly thumbnails being reduced to uprights). Would you be willing to scrutinize these additions as well? Thanks and regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria I was unable to track down the original author of the image, so I've removed it. In the meantime, though, I've added this, to address indopug's concern over insufficient images in the second half of the article. Is this okay, or do we need to be concerned about the PGT's claim over the image? Vanamonde (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: I've been investigating for a while, and (possibly because of my lack of Spanish) I was unable to find evidence of any claim that the PGT makes. I asked Mr. Penguin on commons, who created the file, and here is their response: "They're currently under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share 3.0 (that's the default whenever you upload), however I'd hazard that they're public domain. The Hammer-Sickle-Star is identical to numerous other communist flags and logos, and the text alone isn't enough to give it it's own copyright." Is this enough for us? If not, I will remove the image. Vanamonde (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indopug

[edit]

Comment on the first three sections Looking at the sources, the research seems impeccable, well done. However I find quite a bit of repetition of information, which usually points to the article improperly organised, and in need of a re-structuring. For example, take Decree 900:

  • Presidency of Árbenz and land reform: "The official title of the agrarian reform bill was Decree 900 ... Approximately 500,000 individuals, or one-sixth of the population, had received land by this point"
  • Operation PBFORTUNE: "The worries of the U.S. increased after the election of Jacobo Árbenz in 1951 and his enactment of Decree 900, the agrarian reform law, in 1952.[52][54] The new law benefited approximately half a million people"
  • United Fruit Company: "The company's labor troubles were compounded in 1952 when Jacobo Árbenz passed Decree 900, the agrarian reform law."
  • Cold war motivations: "The enactment of the agrarian reform law in 1952 provoked Truman to authorize Operation PBFORTUNE"

Note that Decree 900 is not even the subject of the article, just one of its (i.e. the coup's) many causes! And the same holds true for other stuff as well—the Guatemalan Party of Labour, PBFORTUNE's failure, UFC's lobbying etc.

My recommendation is to re-read the first three sections and re-arrange the information chronologically. The stuff about PBFORTUNE, UFC and Cold War paranoia (in Operation PBFORTUNE and Genesis of the coup) are so interrelated that maybe you're better off dealing with them together in a single section called Prelude that deals with what the Americans (govt + its cronies + UFC) were up to in 1951–1953. Obviously para 1 of UFC, which begins in 1899, wouldn't fit here; that would instead dovetail better with Authoritarian governments. Doing so will also prevent the article from taking way too long (6800 words) to get to the actual coup itself (the Operation PBSUCCESS section).—indopug (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indopug I've implemented your suggestion of reorganizing, which I think is a good one. I'd quibble with your notion that the actual coup is limited to the Operation PBSUCCESS section, but that's maybe a discussion for elsewhere. The merger allowed me to prune about 1500b of text, give or take. The minor problem this creates is that of section titles, as Cold war stuff is now spread over two subsections; but take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've got more time IRL I want to do a more-detailed section-by-section copyedit and review over the coming days. For now I want to ask what the point of the third para ("Historians and authors writing about the 1954 coup...") of Eisenhower administration is. It just rehashes everything you've already said in Genesis, with a repetitive prose style, "Some historians say this, others say that, still others say this". Further that section isn't really the place to discuss the historiography of the coup. I think deleting the paragraph wholesale will not affect the article in any negative way.—indopug (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copy edit, I think it has tightened the prose. I should probably ping @Simon Burchell: and @Midnightblueowl: though, because Simon is not overly fond of the "UFC" acronym, which you've reintroduced, and MBO made suggested some wording changes that have now disappeared. As to that third paragraph: I can see why it seems a little repetitive, but as Snowfire has said below, I do think we need to include that level of analysis somewhere. In my mind, I sort of saw the first two paragraphs as describing the two motivations, and the last one as weighing them against each other (which is honestly what a lot of the source material does). Vanamonde (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I went into it gung-ho; feel free to revert any inappropriate changes. ("UFC" was there before my copyedits though.)—indopug (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde's not wrong - I detest overuse of acronyms, which will often send a reader back to the beginning of an article to see what it stands for, especially if an article is using a lot of different acronyms. I'm not dead set against their use in moderation, but I prefer clarity over brevity. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Indopug, but I'd agree that if we can avoid it; by the use of "the company", for example; we should. I also think it would not be wrong to use the full form in a new section. So, to go forward, how about I wait until you're done copy-editing, and then I can go and perform a few minor reverts/tweaks, and then Simon could read it over? Vanamonde (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with my copyedits, so you can go ahead. I understand not wanting to overuse acronyms, but here they were mostly to avoid being repetitive ("the company ... the company ... the company" in consecutive sentences). One acronym I have inserted widely is PGT for the Guatemalan Party of Labour; again, I don't mind reverting to the full name, but I don't think referring to them generically as "the communist party" is appropriate.—indopug (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • Second half of the article needs more pics.
  • I agree in principle, but to be honest it is really difficult to find appropriately licensed images...indeed when I began working on this I spent a lot of time searching for such, and added all I could find. In fact, I'm not even sure that the licensing is okay for image of Arevalo. If you have any suggestions, they would be welcome. There are pictures of more peripheral figures: Nixon (who received a hostile reception in LA because of this coup), Dag Hammerskjold, Alvaro Colom (who issued the official government apology) and some of the figures peripheral to PBHISTORY, who are not currently named in the article. Thoughts?
  • Also, a question I've been meaning to ask: is there a reason you've reduced image size? I thought it was prose length that was a problem...
  • Another question for you: you're copy-edits removed the fact that Arbenz had been a leader of the October coup in 1944. This was a fact which gave him a lot of legitimacy, and so is probably worth mentioning; indeed, i'd say it's more important than the entire Arana episode in which it was included; but since you removed it, I want to ask about where it might fit best. Thoughts?
  • "65 million U.S. dollars (equivalent to $647,030,000 in 2016)"—not a fan of this too-wordy format (there's also the mismatch of style between "65 million U.S. dollars" and "$647,030,000"). This is cheeky but all I think you just need a single footnote (or even a parenthetical note in the main text itself) saying "to obtain the approximate equivalent value in 2016 dollars, multiply the 1950s dollar figure by 10." I also think "65 million U.S. dollars" should be rendered "$65 million" throughout.
  • I'm going to ping Simon again (sorry!) because adding the template was his idea. I could fix the wording by removing a template parameter and adding some words, but I'd rather not do it twice.
  • I've modified the template to deal with the formatting issue.
  • Never mind: the formatting issue is insoluble. We have to decide whether we want this template or not. Simon (again, sorry!), Indopug. Vanamonde (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really out of it today, it would seem. I had fixed it, just missed one instance...still, a decision is needed, but no formatting issue.
  • I think the template should be used; it is no good taking up Indopug's suggestion of saying "to obtain the approximate equivalent value in 2016 dollars, multiply the 1950s dollar figure by 10.", because inflation will render this statement obsolete sooner or later, while the template will update the value (as I understand it). The template can be moved to a footnote, if it is interfering with reading flow, for example:
US$65,000,000<ref group="inflation">US$65,000,000 is equivalent to {{Inflation|US|65000000|1930|r=-5}} in modern money.</ref>
and display to footnotes separately below with {{reflist|group="inflation}}
However, I do now note that you have put "in 2016" after the templates - this is not correct, because the template will update as new years are added, so needs to be changed to "today" or something not time sensitive. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm open to trying the footnotes. There isn't really a way around the "2016", though, because it is 2016, not today; that's what the template produces, and as I understand it the template is linked to an inflation value that might not be up to date. Vanamonde (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's 2016 now, but it defaults to the latest value, so when the 2017 value is added, that is what it will display, if you change to "in modern money" no-one has to come back and constantly update the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, but the "2016" really needs to be change to "modern money" or something similar, since the 2016 has not been defined in the inflation template. Since by default the template will grab the latest value, when 2017 (or later) is added, the footnote will be incorrectly stating that the value is for 2016, when this will no longer be the case. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ctrl+F for "Dulles" and make sure its clear which brother is being referred to. Eg: "In a report to Dulles, Peurifoy stated..." could go either way.
  • done
  • This is a personal preference but I never knew the point of having "Further information" and "Main article" links at the start of every section when those links usually feature in the first very words of the section.
  • Given that this is a long and complicated article, with a large number of links, I thought it would be helpful; is it much of a problem?
  • Now that you ask, I'm wondering if it needs to be italicized anywhere...thoughts?
Monroe Doctrine
  • I think the map should be more closely cropped so that you can see Guatemala better. You certainly don't need to show Greenland and maybe not even the most of Canada to help the reader locate its position on the world map.
  • Uh, this is an svg map, so it's not simply a matter of cropping and uploading again; so if this is important, it might take me a while to figure out how to do.
  • The map's caption reads as though the Doctrine was a law that made Guatemala come under US hegemony.
  • tweaked this
  • "The Monroe Doctrine continued to be seen as relevant to Guatemala, and was used to justify the coup in 1954"—this sentence is unnecessary. It is out of place here (rightly discussed later at Reactions), and somewhat obvious and redundant to what's been discussed before in the section.
  • I put it there because Smith explicitly states what the rest of the section only implies, thereby avoiding even the suggestion of synthesis in a politically fraught topic.
  • "control of Guatemala's resources and its economy shifted away from Britain and Germany to the U.S."—"shifted" gives off a passive connotation here; as though the change happened spontaneously. But surely it was because of deliberate U.S. policy?
  • Not necessarily; a lot of this was British and German withdrawal, if the source is to be believed.
Authoritarian governments and the United Fruit Company
  • I think you should insert banana republic somewhere; isn't Guatemala the archetype?
  • Yes it is, but this is trickier than it would seem because the term is thrown around to the point where it looses meaning, so scholars don't use it as much as the popular media. I've added it in the Monroe doctrine section, where it seemed most appropriate.
  • "When Cabrera was overthrown in 1920, the U.S. sent an armed force to make certain that the new president remained friendly to it" but also "The U.S. did not need to use its military might in Guatemala"?
  • Not sure how to deal with this. This is the same source, stating two sort-of-inconsistant things two pages apart; but strictly speaking its not inconsistant, because the US force didn't actually do any fighting in Guatemala, unlike elsewhere. They just hung out and looked threatening.
Guatemalan Revolution and presidency of Arévalo
  • I'd remove it, but it was the result of a suggestion below. I thought about Military dictatorship, but that article is just as bad.
  • The first para here lacks flow and is a little confusing, especially "It stopped short of drastically changing labor relations in the countryside" onwards. That sentence indicates that you're going to discuss his conservative measures but instead it is followed by the minimum wage and state farms. I'm also not sure the "nonetheless" belongs in the last sentence.
  • I've tweaked this; take a look. The idea is that though he implemented some social reform, the system of feudalism did not change (though the source does not say feudalism) and that he was not remotely radical: Streeter says "barely qualified as a social democrat".
  • "Another cause for U.S. worry was Arévalo's support of the Caribbean Legion, a group of progressive exiles, and of revolutionaries who aimed to overthrow U.S.-backed dictatorships across Central America, who included Fidel Castro"—very confusing sentence. It's not clear whether "the Caribbean Legion, a group of progressive exiles, and of revolutionaries" refers to three different groups or two or one. The "who included Fidel Castro" clause also seems ungrammatical.
  • tweaked this: is it better now?
Presidency of Árbenz and land reform
  • Not sure Fortuny needs to be named. He doesn't feature in the article again, and we're already drowning in names. "and a few played a role in drafting the new president's policies" is all you need.
  • done
  • "The value of the land itself was what the owners had declared it to be in their tax returns in 1952" → wasn't there something in the article about how the owners had understated these values to save on taxes? That was hilarious and awesome, and you should restore it.
  • done
  • Is the acres-to-ha conversion necessary? It is also inconsistently done (1.4 million acres).
  • I think there is enough variation in the basic measure of land across the globe that it is, in fact, necessary. I fixed the inconsistency.

Comments from Midnightblueowl

[edit]

Great to see the article brought this far, Vanamonde. I have a few comments:

  • I'm a little confused by the use of citations in the lede. Some sentences have them; others do not. Personally I think that the best option is to be rid of them entirely in the lede, particularly as all of the material is appropriately cited in the article body. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a response to a tendency for people to read just the lead, and go "hey I don't like that and it's not cited, let me remove it." Some sentences are specific enough to allow me to cite a source in the lede: others are too much of a summary, and so I don't. If you think it will be clearer without, I can remove them. Vanamonde (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't because I wanted to avoid a duplicate link: if you think it's worth it, I'll add one.
  • Hmm. The term is used by the sources quite frequently, but I can see your concern. I've always understood "junta" to mean a council: how about "authoritarian ruler" or "authoritarian military ruler"? Also, I'm wondering how to avoid repetition in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede. Vanamonde (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Junta is definitely a council. If it was just Armas in charge, I'd only use junta if there was strong WP:COMMONNAME that his government was referred to as a junta anyway, which it sounds like there isn't. As for dictator or not: dictator is fine if the politically "neutral" sources by detached academic historians use it freely, IMO. (Which I suspect they do. Just sources politically hostile to the coup calling the resulting government a dictatorship is less compelling.) SnowFire (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe a lay reader would understand the terms junta, dictator and authoritarian to be largely synonymous, and hence I don't mind either way.—indopug (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put it there because I felt having text-only boxes at the very top was dreadfully dull, but I'm open to suggestions.
Historical background
[edit]
  • done: "U.S. access".
  • Did Latin American countries of this era lock out the Europeans or the like? It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the US was keeping access open in general, rather than trying to make the Latin American countries personal economic colonies. (There are certainly some cases of US cooperation with European powers elsewhere, i.e. in China and Japan, to open markets.) If so, I'd actually go back to the old wording and leave out "American." SnowFire (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • sure, done.
  • Honestly it's not made clear, because this is Gilderhus quoting Cleveland. The statement came after an incident in Venezuela, so I suppose it would have to be the Americas; but saying "practically sovereign" in the Americas might be a little dodgy...what if I extend the quote, and say ""practically sovereign on [the] continent"" that way we dump the ambiguity in Cleveland's lap?
  • "While the U.S. did not initially have the power to enforce the doctrine, over the course of the 19th century many European powers withdrew from Latin America, and the U.S. expanded its sphere of influence there" - I wonder if "and the U.S. expanded its sphere of influence there" could be replaced with something that flows a little more smoothly. How about "allowing the U.S. to expand its sphere of influence throughout the region"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think you can probably drop the quote entirely and be fine. In the 1890s, a more expansive interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine rose to prominence, culminating in the Spanish-American War, etc. Maybe a little dryer, but also potentially more succinct. SnowFire (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • done
  • "a U.S. economic empire" - I'm always a little concerned by references to an "American empire" or a "Soviet empire" given that neither were literal empires; for that reason I wonder if there is a more neutral way or phrasing this? "U.S. economic hegemony" perhaps. Not a big point, and I'm personally fine with the present wording but just wondered if you had any thoughts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'd share your hesitation with respect to the general "American empire" but the "economic" is, I believe, enough of a qualifier. Common sense says it's not off the mark, either...the U.S. owned bits of territory everywhere, and U.S. companies owned large chunks of central America. like the UFC.
  • done.
  • "Manuel Estrada Cabrera, president of Guatemala" - we capitalise "President" when referring to U.S. leaders in the sub-section above. I'd recommend standardisation here, unless you have a particular reason not to. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding of this is that we capitalize when the term is before the name, ie "Guatemalan President Manuel Estrada Cabrera" but "Manuel Estrada Cabrera, president of Guatemala". Am I wrong about this?
  • Never mind, I was wrong. I looked up the MOS page, and I believe I have aligned all titles with it. Vanamonde (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The new entity held large tracts of land across Central America, and also controlled the railroads in Guatemala.[12] By 1900 it had become the largest exporter of bananas in the world,[13] and had a monopoly over the Guatemalan banana trade.[14] It also controlled the docks and the communications in the country.[14]" Here we have three sentences, but I think that the first and the third have a strong thematic similarity, so I would recommend putting them next to each other. For instance, the wording could be rearranged so that it says "The new entity held large tracts of land across Central America,[12] and in Guatemala controlled both the railroads,[12] and the docks and communication system.[14]." Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like that. done.
  • "Manuel Estrada Cabrera, Dictator of Guatemala from 1898 to 1920." - I'd recommend changing this to "Manuel Estrada Cabrera, President of Guatemala from 1898 to 1920." in order to avoid any possible neutrality issues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • done
  • done
  • done
  • "Ubico was strongly anti-communist, reacting to several peasant rebellions with incarcerations and massacres" - this sentence feels a little bit like it is situated in the wrong place in the paragraph, being squished between two sentences discussing the UFC. I would move it to an earlier point in the paragraph, probably just before the sentence that mentions Ubico's admiration for European fascism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • done
  • "Ubico received substantial support from the U.S. throughout his tenure." - again, I think that this is a sentence that would thematically work more appropriately at an earlier juncture in the paragraph, perhaps right after "had to ally with the U.S. for geopolitical reasons" Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • reorganize
  • No, doesn't really seem to be...the articles on political philosophies tend to be rather centered on Europe and the US, and I don't think Arevalo's rather unique philosophy fits into this very closely.
  • no, we don't. I could add a redlink, if necessary.
  • done
  • Not sure if the Caribbean Legion really fits western definitions of progressivism..
  • linked.
  • I feel that the images are a bit too clustered around the 'Presidency of Árbenz and land reform' sub-section. Would things be improved by moving the "Farmland in the Quetzaltenango Department" image to the left? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is mostly a personal hatred of left-aligned images: I find them highly disruptive to the text, especially when they are small...
  • done
  • done
  • done
Genesis and prelude
[edit]
  • done
  • done
  • I'd rather stick to progress, because this is the view of the government, attributed in the text, and not Wikipedia's voice.
  • Changed to "Further information"; or would you rather see it removed?
  • done
  • Well to me "launched" suggests something public, which this was not, so I went with "began".
  • "The U.S. had grown more suspicious of the Guatemalan Revolution as the Cold War developed and the Guatemalan government clashed with U.S. corporations on an increasing number of issues,[56][57] and the Cold War predisposed the Truman administration to see the Guatemalan government as communist.[56]" - this is pretty lengthy. How about dividing it into two sentences? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • done
  • I guess we could: the term was introduced (not just by me) for variety, as "US government" gets repetitive really fast.
  • done: government
  • done
  • There is much use of "dictator/s" here, to describe the presidents of Nicaragua, Venezuela, and the Dominican Republic. Are all of these figures unequivocally regarded as such? As mentioned before, this is a term that I am very reluctant to use. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from passerby: I can't comment about Venezuela, but for Nicaragua, yes, definitely a dictator even in neutral sources, and for Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, I think you could say "megalomaniac" in a scholarly, neutral voice. (From the article: "Dios en cielo, Trujillo en tierra", to give you an idea of his self-worth. ) SnowFire (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I hear your concern; but these are, if anything, even more clear cut than Castillo Armas, which I talked about above. The most charitable term used for them is "autocrat". The comparison to Fidel Castro is actually a trifle misleading, because from what I can tell from the sources, some scholars won't call Castro a dictator because he took power in a popular insurrection; whereas these rulers generally inherited their power, or took over in a military coup.
  • "However, the plan was terminated soon after: accounts of its termination vary. Some sources state that the State Department discovered the plan when a senior official was asked to sign a certain document: others, that Somoza was indiscreet." - I'm not convinced by the recurrence of the ":" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • removed the second instance.
  • done
  • done
Operation PBSUCCESS
[edit]
  • "The total budget has been estimated at between 5 and 7 million dollars, and the planning employed over 100 CIA agents. In addition, the operation recruited scores of individuals from among Guatemalan exiles and the populations of the surrounding countries. The operational headquarters was in the town of Opa-locka, Florida". I would ensure that there is a citation at the end of every sentence here, as each is somewhat stand-alone in its content. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it's the same source, but okay. Duplicated.
  • Random passerby comment: I disagree. The preceding paragraph is on the CIA, the next sentence says "Ambassador to Guatamala." It's perfectly clear from context it's talking about the US, and I'd say good writing style would be to remove superfluous words in the name of concision. It's especially unneeded here because nobody ever translates the Spanish equivalent government agency as "State Department", it's "Ministry of Foreign Affairs" ("Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores"), at least for Spain. Checking... seems it's similar for Guatamala, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Guatemala) / Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. I don't think anybody would ever refer to it as a "State Department" to begin with. SnowFire (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The version I wrote said U.S. state department: Indopug removed it, and honestly I think it's clear who we're talking about.
  • fixed
  • replaced one of those with "several"
  • The fourth paragraph of "Planning" has only one citation, right at the end of the paragraph. I would ensure that there is at least one other citation earlier in the paragraph, even if it just a duplication of the aforementioned citation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington issued a series of statements" - is it worth using "U.S. government" over "Washington"? "Washington" is a commonly understood synonym for the U.S. government in the U.S. and U.K. but I do not know if it is widely utilised elsewhere. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced some uses, but left some others in where there isn't really room for confusion, to provide variety; per above.
  • "her continuing non-intervention" - again, giving the U.S. a feminine pronoun is probably something we should avoid for the purposes of Wikipedia. "its continuing non-intervention" would be better. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this was not me...fixed (also mentioned below).
  • "was able to make concrete Latin American views on communism" - I think that this could be rephrased; I misunderstood what it was saying the first time around. "able to cement negative views of communism across Latin American governments"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, fixed.
  • done
  • "forcing Árbenz to hand them over to the military, and deepening his rift with his top generals" - "forcing Árbenz to hand them over to the military, and deepening the rift between him and his top generals"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • done
  • done
  • done
  • changed to "regarded to be". It's a good point, I slipped into the tone used by the source there.
  • "The Soviet Union was the only country to support Guatemala. When the U.S. and its allies proposed referring the matter to the Organization of American States, the USSR" - Maybe standardise the use of Soviet Union/USSR. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • done
  • I dunno that it's strictly necessary, but I agree it flows better. done.
  • likewise
  • Ah screwed up the template there (and once below). This format is going to change, though, per the discussion above.
Operation PBHISTORY
[edit]
  • "Due to the quick overthrow of the Árbenz government, the CIA believed that the government " - this is a little repetitive. Maybe switch the second "government" to "regime" or "administration". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • done, to "administration
  • done
  • Well the source says structure, so I'd like to stick with that...one might, I suppose, be an expert in the ideology of communist parties, or the history thereof...
  • done
  • "Despite the efforts of the CIA, both international and academic reaction to U.S. policy remained highly negative. Even books partially funded by the CIA were somewhat critical of its role." - what is the citation for this statement? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Holland, who is doing sort of a meta analysis, so I've duplicated the source.
Aftermath
[edit]
  • "which led to the Bay of Pigs disaster" - "disaster" may be a bit POV. Maybe "failed Bay of Pigs invasion". Then maybe add a bit more about that: "failed Bay of Pigs invasion to overthrow the Cuban government"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • done
  • just removed the first one, as it's sort of redundant.
  • You know, I realized belatedly that Cerezo is not really mentioned in the source connected with the coup at all; whereas Rios Montt is, and is already mentioned in the article, and we seemed to have an okay image of him. So I've switched the image instead.
Some issues with the citations
[edit]
  • In the citations, there is a mention of "Grandin, Greg (2000). The blood of Guatemala: a history of race and nation." I would definitely capitalise "Blood", and "A History of Race and Nation" to ensure that there is a standard formatting throughout the citations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • done
  • done
  • "Cullather, Nicholas (1994). Operation PBSUCCESS: The United States and Guatemala, 1952–1954." No publisher?
  • fixed. It's not really a book, it was a report...
  • removed
  • done
  • fixed
  • fixed
  • Okay, this one is going to take more time: location of publication is ridiculously hard to track down sometimes, and many of these books won't say anywhere in the book itself.
  • done, I believe.
  • "McCleary, Rachel M. (1999). Dictating Democracy: Guatemala and the End of Violent Revolution. University Press of Florida. p. 237. ISBN 978-0-8130-1726-6. Retrieved 3 January 2017. - Why is the page number appearing in the reference here? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • because I imported the ref from another article...removed.

Support. Fantastic work Vanamonde, well done for all the hard work that you have put in to this article. It is an important subject and I look forward to seeing it becoming an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SnowFire

[edit]

Nice work. Support. I have some comments, but these are mostly optional or are "my two cents" type deals, especially if they conflict with others recommendations.

Many thanks, Snowfire. I've responded below. Vanamonde (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A few responses in-line, but as per above, don't feel obligated to make any changes for 'em, the article is solid as is. SnowFire (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monroe Doctrine: This section reads rather, hmm, how to put this... very cynical. A nicer interpretation would be something like "the Monroe Doctrine was about protecting Latin America from European imperialism" (which I'm not saying should be the slant instead, but merely pointing out that this can go multiple ways). Also, I'm a little skeptical of taking random quotes from earlier eras out; I've found myself accidentally doing the same thing myself to make it clear who I think the heroes or villains are in a drama. Like, Cleveland was not particularly an imperialist from my recollection + a quick check of his WP article, and he clearly didn't mean that the US actually ruled or had sovereignty in Latin America. (Mentioning a quote like that, for, say, Teddy Roosevelt, who definitely WAS an imperalist, would be fine.) I'd tone the section down a little.
  • I can understand the concern here, to some extent. The Monroe doctrine main article says "opposing:" isn't that the same as warning? I don't think we can say "protecting Latin America" in Wikipedia's voice. The quotations are all those selected by Gilderhus, you're completely correct in saying that we should not pick and choose them. Even so, if there are quotations you would wish to omit or paraphrase, let me know; and I can provide quotes from the source if needed. In passing, I will point out that Gilderhus himself is somewhat harsher on the doctrine than our article is.
  • Fair enough. I'd just prefer that any quotes on an "expansive" reading of the Monroe Doctrine come from people who Definitely Were on the "American imperalism is rad" side of things, since it's entirely possible to say one thing and do another. Did Gilderhus quote anyone other than Cleveland? (Or was Cleveland more of an imperialist than I think?)
  • Truman: Did Truman actually authorize the coup? My readings on the topic were mostly related to the Iran incident where Truman resolutely ignored the British and wanted to present that US as the true ally of nationalist movements around the world. The caption (for a slightly misleading image, since that's apparently Korea) indicates he authorized it, but the text says "relied on purely diplomatic and economic means." Was this the CIA running around on their own? (Wouldn't surprise me.) Could this be clarified?
  • Well the sources all do seem to say that Truman authorized it; he used diplomatic methods initially, got steadily more concerned/paranoid (depending on your POV) and authorized PBFORTUNE in 1950. The point about the image is a fair one, and I've mentioned the date in the caption.
  • Historiography: Thank you, thank you for acknowledging that there are historians who think it was about the UFC and ones who think it was about anti-communism. I've run into zealots before who are 100% sure that "their" school is correct and the other is irrelevant propaganda, so acknowledging that both exist is great, especially when both are probably right.
  • Yes this does tend to polarize folks, does it not? What I find interesting is that multiple sources decidedly sympathetic to the GR say that it was the fracas over communism that really drove the coup; but also that the concerns over communism were misplaced/exaggerated/paranoid...which is a different sort of dialectic than usually plays out with this matter.
  • To wildly guess... I think that certain Marxist historians really, really want "proof" that their hypothesis that corporations secretly run everything in capitalism, and that they're also psychotic and evil, is true. It's too tempting to use Iran & Guatemala for this, despite the fact that it requires them to pretend that the Red Scare wasn't going on, a strange position for a socialist. Flip side, from the "conservative" perspective, the Red Scare is already a well-known and lost battle, so sweep as much stuff under it as possible.
  • Arms shipments: The line about the naval blockade violating international law is probably fine, but just curious, what kind of law was it? Weapons shipments are traditionally a big exception or, at the least, an argued-over point... something very similar happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis, after all. Also, the US had to *inform* the Guatemalan military of the arms shipment? Were the military really that clueless, or was it more "exacerbate tensions and insist the military not take the creation of a rival force lying down?"
  • With respect to illegality, I'm afraid the source is not very helpful. Here is the quote (yeah the article uses a different edition, I know):

    On 24 May, the Navy provided a more daunting indicator of US resolve in operation HARDROCK BAKER, the sea blockade of Guatemala. Submarines and warships patrolled the sea approaches to Guatemala, stopping all ships and searching for arms. The task force was instructed to damage vessels if necessary to make them stop. Ships transiting the Panama Canal en route to Guatemala were detained and searched. The blockade's blatant illegality made it a powerful weapon of intimidation. The United States stopped and boarded French and British freighters in defiance of international law. France and Britain muted their protests in hopes that the United States would show similar restraint with regard to their colonial troubles in the Middle East. The message to Guatemala was clear: If the United States would violate freedom of the seas, it would not be stopped by so feeble an instrument as the nonintervention clause of the Rio Pact.[Cullather, 1999, page 82]

  • As to the rest of it, honestly it's possible. The Guatemalan military/intelligence was quite a shambles during this period.
  • Interesting. It's something I'd personally find questionable to emphasize too much (I can think of plenty of situations where not selling armaments to a government would be *stopping* human rights abuses, so standing up for the international right to weapons purchases is a bit shaky...), but up to you.
  • Aerial bombing: Wait, the CIA *admitted they did that* and paid a million dollars compensation for damages?! Weird. (Not a request to change anything, I'm just surprised.)
  • Right?
  • Political legacy: This is kinda vague, but... the article says that the CIA thought Guatamala was a success, and it helped lead into the Bay of Pigs? The impression I always got was that even at the time, Guatamala was considered a disaster gone terribly wrong done by clueless cowboys. And that was within the CIA, not just internationally.
  • My understanding is that the CIA felt it was a success because they removed the government they wanted to remove, and replaced it with one they liked better...the messiness enters the picture when you take a step back and see what it actually did.
  • "93% of these violations were committed by the U.S.-backed military" - I see this is super-cited, which is great, but can the phrasing be a little clearer here about 93% of what kind of event specifically? Or maybe a wikilink? Counting atrocities is really tricky. (Especially since you have stuff like 10 arbitrary executions of one person at a time, and a single slaughter of 500 people... is that 11 atrocities or 510?) SnowFire (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • In the external links, "From Árbenz to Zelaya: Chiquita in Latin America" is a dead link.
  • I made some minor formatting corrections [8]
  • Sentences that need cites are all cited.
  • Sources are all of encyclopedic quality.
  • I don't think spotchecks are needed, but I'll do them if they are. This otherwise looks good. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Finetooth

[edit]

Support Comment

This looks very good to me thus far. I will have to review in installments. This is installment 1, and I'm planning to do installment 2 over the weekend. I don't anticipate there will be many recommendations, but here are a few:
Lede
  • "Castillo Armas' force invaded Guatemala on 18 June 1954, backed by a heavy campaign of psychological warfare. This included bombings of Guatemala City, and a radio station which broadcast anti-government propaganda and a version of military events favorable to the rebellion, claiming to be genuine news." – Since at first glance this might seem to be saying that Armas bombed the radio station, perhaps this would be more clear: "Castillo Armas' force invaded Guatemala on 18 June 1954 and bombed Guatemala City. Armas was backed by a heavy campaign of psychological warfare, including radio broadcasts of anti-government propaganda and a version of military events favorable to the rebellion, claiming to be genuine news."
  • I agree that this is a problem, but the fact is that the sources make it clear that the primary intent and impact of the bombing was psychological. How about this: "The coup was preceded by U.S. efforts to criticize and isolate Guatemala internationally. Castillo Armas' force invaded Guatemala on 18 June 1954, backed by a heavy campaign of psychological warfare. This included a radio station which broadcast anti-government propaganda and a version of military events favorable to the rebellion, claiming to be genuine news, as well as bombings of Guatemala City and a naval blockade of Guatemala."
Yes, that's fine. Finetooth (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Monroe Doctrine
  • "The U.S. did not need to use its military might in Guatemala, where a series of dictators were willing to accommodate her economic interests in return for her support..." – Suggestion: "U.S." and "its" rather than "her" and "her".
  • Hmm, dunno how this crept in, certainly wasn't me...but I've fixed it.
Authoritarian governments and the United Fruit Company
  • "By 1930 the UFC had built an operating capital of 215 million U.S. dollars (equivalent to 3082400000 U.S. dollars in modern money)" – Instead of spelling out U.S. dollars here and elsewhere, wouldn't the dollar symbol be more tidy? Also, the conversions to equivalent values are hard to read, especially when they run to billions. A possible solution would be to use rounded numbers supported by an a single explanatory footnote or citation explaining how these numbers were derived. Making these changes, you could then say, "By 1930 the UFC had built an operating capital of $215 million (equivalent to about $3 billion in modern money)."
  • Might I refer you to the discussion above, about this issue? I'm going to attempt a solution based on all of your suggestions, and let's take it from there.
Yes. I missed that discussion earlier. This is tricky. I think it would be best to cite Schlesinger and Kinzer for the base number and to give a source for the inflation calculator. Here's a possible fix. The rounding is easy to adjust; the calculator updates automatically; the formatnum template adds comma separators. A small problem is that the current year template will be slightly off for a little while each year, but the difference is not apt to be mathematically significant.
By 1930 the UFC had built an operating capital of $215 million,{{sfn|Schlesinger|Kinzer|1999|pp=67–71}} equivalent to ${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|215000000|1930|r=-5}}}} in {{CURRENTYEAR}} dollars when adjusted for inflation.<ref name="CPI">{{cite web|title = Consumer Price Index (Estimate) 1800– | publisher = Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis | year = 2016 | url =https://www.minneapolisfed.org/community_education/teacher/calc/hist1800.cfm | accessdate = 10 March 2017}}</ref> Finetooth (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will be inclined to support promotion whatever you decide to do with this suggestion. Finetooth (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eisenhower administration
  • "During his successful campaign for the U.S. presidency, Dwight Eisenhower to pursue a more proactive anti-communist policy, promising to rollback communism, rather than contain it." - Missing word(s). Should "planned" be inserted between "Eisenhower" and "to"?
Finetooth (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Installment 2
Operation PBSUCCESS
  • "Castillo Armas was given enough money to recruit a small force of approximately 150 mercenaries from among Guatemalan exiles and the populations of nearby countries." - "Small" could be deleted since 150 is specific.
  • done
Castillo Armas' invasion
  • "Castillo Armas' force of 480 men..." - How did it grow from 150 to 480? Is a one-sentence explanation needed, or did I miss it?
  • I dug into the source material again, and I found that my memory was correct: this is a slight discrepancy between the sources. Immerman, who describes the preparation in great detail but is the older source, says that Castillo Armas was given the money to hire 150 men. Cullather, who is more recent and also had access to declassified CIA documents, says 480: and this tallies far better with the fact that there were four separate forces attacking four cities during the invasion. Meanwhile, Gleijeses also mentions a force of larger than 150, but neither Gleijeses nor Cullather explicitly discusses this fact of Castillo Armas being given funds for recruitment, which seems an important detail. So I'm wondering if the way out of this is just to call it a "small force" when citing Immerman for the recruitment, and using the 480 figure later on, when discussing the invasion?
Yes. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. In my mind, the doubt was created only by the difference between the two numbers, and 480 seemed much more plausible. Finetooth (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Árbenz's resignation
  • "The victory of a small garrison of 30 soldiers..." - "Small" could disappear here too since 30 says it all.
  • done
Military governments
  • "Elections were held in early October, from which all political parties were barred from participating." - "from participating" could be erased without changing the meaning.
  • done
That's all of my suggestions. Excellent article. Finetooth (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to support, as noted above. If you find an answer to the 150 to 480 question above, that's great. If not, that will not noticeably diminish my enthusiasm for this very fine article. Finetooth (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Finetooth. For the sake of completeness, I have answered your question above. Vanamonde (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think this is ready to wrap up, but Vanamonde93 there is one unanswered query in the image review from Nikki. This could probably be promoted anyway, but I think it's worth wrapping it all up, and this is all I have time for tonight anyway! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I've responded to Nikkimaria, and I will leave or remove the image depending on her response. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27état/archive1&oldid=859498554"