text:
Talk:Efraín Ríos Montt

Use of Colville report
C. J. Griffin tagged the reference that I added to the 1984 Colville report as "primary source" and added an "undue weight" template at the top of the corresponding sub-section. I've since added other reliable secondary references that make a similar point: that some observers consider the counter-insurgency strategy under Ríos Montt a clear improvement over what had happened in previous governments, and especially under his predecessor, General Romeo Lucas García. Moreover, I don't think that the Colville report can be considered a "primary source" in this context. Lord Colville was the official United Nations special rapporteur for the situation of human rights in Guatemala from 1983 to 1987. Also, the report quoted was written after Ríos Montt had already been removed from power, and is therefore not an evaluation made in the heat of the moment by someone directly involved in the events in question. Colville was a politically independent British jurist, and his assessment of the situation in Guatemala deserves at least as much attention as the 1982 report from Amnesty International that was already being discussed in the article. The question of the extent to which Ríos Montt curbed extrajudicial killings and kidnappings is, at the very least, open to debate. During his brief term of office, Ríos Montt himself said repeatedly and emphatically that subversives should be killed in combat or captured and tried, instead of being secretly kidnapped, tortured, and killed by death squads.

Let me add that, as I've tried to summarize and to document in my recent edits, Ríos Montt was actually a complicated character operating in a profoundly complex and dysfunctional society, and not the straightforward fascist monster portrayed by most of the international press after 1982. My interest in the subject goes back more than fifteen years, when I was first surprised to learn that many ordinary Guatemalans had a high or at least ambivalent estimation of him, something which at first seemed incomprehensible to me. — Eb.hoop2 (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 * I tagged it as a primary source because it was written while the war was still going on and shortly after he was deposed, and is more of a historical document now than a reliable assessment of what happened during the period, especially given the subsequent findings of the Historical Clarification Commission and his genocide trial and conviction (which was overturned on a technicality), and retrial which wasn't completed due to his ill health and death. The argument made in the source that "killings and kidnappings virtually ceased under the Ríos Montt regime" is almost unheard of in contemporary reliable sources on the topic, and in fact literally every scholarly or media source I have seen on the subject states almost the exact opposite: that the most intense violence of the Guatemalan Civil War occurred during Montt's brief tenure. So I would not really consider such a position open to debate given that is the only source added to the article which advances it, and considering the date of the report I would consider it WP:UNDUE without further analysis of it in contemporary scholarship.

 * And the material you added following Colville's statement doesn't really buttress it at all. The statement that "chaotic terror" was replaced with "a more predictable set of rewards and punishments" doesn't mean that state violence and killings abated. If anything, it demonstrates that the violence became more systematic and better organized in Montt's attempt to "drain the sea," with whole communities being uprooted and subjected to forced labor and confinement in virtual concentration camps under inhumane conditions. And of course massacres (e.g., Dos Erres massacre), arbitrary executions, forced disappearances, torture and rape continued during this new counter-insurgency campaign of the Guatemalan state under Montt, as the commission makes clear. I would hardly consider that an improvement for the "lot of the rural population of Guatemala . . . under Ríos Montt." And that he enjoyed "particularly strong electoral support" in regions where intense state violence took place seems to me to be irrelevant to the section and in no way corroborates Colville's quoted statement. Stalin is enjoying a surge of popularity in Russia and other areas of the former USSR too, that doesn't mean widespread killings didn't occur under his rule.

 * Would any other editors like to weigh in on this dispute?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

 * I think that there might be some confusion about what Colville meant in the quoted phrase. The "killings and kidnappings" that he claimed had virtually ceased under Ríos Montt (only to return under his successor) referred specifically to death squads, i.e., to groups acting outside of official military or judicial channels. This is why I prefaced it with the term "extrajudicial".  I don't believe that there is really any clear consensus in the more serious modern scholarship to discount that.  As I said, it was actually a big part of Ríos Montt's official discourse that subversives should be "executed" rather than "murdered", by which he meant that the death squads would be replaced by overt military operations and by some form of official justice.

 * Moreover, if you read the most up-to-date scholarship on the subject, looking past the rhetoric and value judgments at the concrete evidence reported, you may find that neither the numbers of the dead nor the question of Ríos Montt's personal responsibility for crimes against humanity —and especially for genocide— are really settled. For instance, Garrard-Burnett wrote in 2010, after referring to the two Truth Commission reports, that

 * "If the figure 200,000 is correct, this would mean that somewhere close to 86,000 people died during Ríos Montt's tenure, an astonishing total not (yet?) borne out by forensic excavations of mass burial sites but which, at least, lends symbolic ballast to the charge that large, perhaps incalculable, numbers died at the hands of the regime. (p. 7 in the book cited in the article)"

 * Note that she begins by invoking a conditional about whether the 200,000 dead for the whole 36-year-long civil war is correct or not, then noting that it is not based on physical evidence from mass burials. She gives a figure of 86,000 killed under Ríos Montt regime, but presumably this number is also uncertain, and does not distinguish between combat deaths and the killing of innocent civilians.  In the article just published by Bateson in Comparative Politics, the estimate quoted for the number of those killed by the Guatemalan state during Ríos Montt's regime is 75,000.

 * Ríos Montt was convicted in 2013 by a Guatemalan judge for the deaths of 1,771 people. The disparity with the previously quoted numbers is striking.  Moreover, that verdict was not, as far as I've been able to tell, based on strong forensic evidence.  It was quashed by the Constitutional Court on the grounds that the trial judge had ignored its previous rulings about allowing Ríos Montt an effective defense.  The proceedings were highly politicized, in part because the elderly Ríos Montt was still a significant and controversial figure in Guatemalan politics, and especially because of the presidential ambitions of his daughter Zury Ríos.

 * In summary, I do not think that we can discount Colville's report as being flatly contradicted by a later consensus. Let me point out also that Colville's work as UN special rapporteur is important in that it bears directly upon the history of the international response to Ríos Montt's rule, which is a legitimate topic of interest in this article.  — Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

 * The aforementioned Dos Erres massacre alone demonstrates the absurdity of the position advanced by Colville that "extrajudicial" killings ceased under Montt, and that wasn't an isolated incident. A 2012 BBC report on the massacre says the following:

 * "Gen Rios Montt, 85, was in power from 1982-1983, when some of the country's worst civil war atrocities occurred. Whole villages of indigenous Maya were massacred as part of government efforts to defeat left-wing rebels."

 * Not really in keeping with the assertions quoted from the Colville's report by my estimation. These weren't mere "executions"; hundreds of people were literally butchered. None of that could reasonably be seen as "some form of official justice." Same goes for the establishment of concentration camps and forced labor which accompanied the blanket repression associated with Montt's counterinsurgency campaign.

 * Regarding the disparity between the various higher estimates of victims and the 1771 killings he was convicted of, the goal here was to secure a conviction, not to establish an exact tally of victims. Similarly, Saddam Hussein is widely seen as being responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, but ultimately was convicted of killing 148 people. And like Montt’s trial, there were numerous accusations of political bias, which is not surprising given the contentious Iraq war which ousted him. Accusations of bias also accompanied the trials of other rulers accused of mass killings and genocide, including Hissène Habré and Mengistu Haile Mariam.

 * It was a chaotic civil war, so an exact accounting of victims would be impossible. Quibbling over estimates doesn't really change anything. This is par for the course in scholarship on genocide and state killing, and not at all unique to Ros Montt's case. Stalin's death roll, for example, ranges from 3 million to multiple tens of millions (although more recent evidence has discredited some of the higher estimates).

 * Nevertheless, none of the above has changed my opinion on the source in question being undue. As no one else seems to be interested in joining this discussion, we seem to be at an impasse. Perhaps an WP:RfC might help.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, no one else seems to have joined this discussion in more than a month. So let me add here that I've been looking further into the existing literature on the subject, and there's at least one other current and respectable secondary academic source that supports the claims made by Lord Colville that the human rights situation in Guatemala improved markedly under Ríos Montt.  Carlos Sabino is a sociologist and historian who was born and educated in Argentina and who taught for many years at the Central University of Venezuela before retiring and settling in Guatemala.  In his two-volume Guatemala, la historia silenciada (1944-1989), published in 2007 by the Fondo de Cultura Económica, in Mexico, he claims that the army's counter-insurgency offensive in the Guatemalan highlands was launched towards the end of 1981, well before the coup that brought Ríos Montt to power.  Sabino also writes that the severity of the massacres perpetrated by the army peaked in May 1982 and then declined sharply afterwards, presumably because of the policies of the new government.  Sabino re-edited the book in 2017 and published an English translation.  Sabino has written several other books about recent Guatemalan history and supervised many dissertation on the subject at the Universidad Francisco Marroquín.  He was among those who in 2013 publicly expressed the view that the singling out of Ríos Montt for prosecution over war crimes committed during the Guatemalan Civil War could be explained only by political considerations.

 * I accept that this article should reflect, as it currently does, the fact that most commentators have regarded the charges of crimes against humanity and genocide against Ríos Montt as well founded. But it should also, at the very least, mention that there have always been credible, informed, and not obviously interested voices that have challenged that interpretation.  Colville's official 1984 report to the UN still seems to me the most important of them. -Eb.hoop2 (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Is this the same Carlos Sabino who regularly writes right-wing columns for the libertarian website PanAm Post, such as this unbelievably misleading polemic from 2017 "From Venezuela to France, Socialism Is Failing All Over the World"? (France? Last I checked the country has been in an uproar for the last three years not over the "failures of socialism", but the harsh neoliberal policies imposed by the Macron government which clearly favored the very rich at the expense of the working class. But I digress. I could write walls of text debunking this but this talk page is not the place for that.) Sure, he might be a "respectable" academic in some circles, but his claims about the Rios Montt government are clearly revisionist, and his political views are quite extreme. It also seems to me that, from what I can tell, his revisionism is based on his politics, and not because new evidence came to light to justify revising the consensus view, as happened in the field of Soviet studies following the archival revolution of the 1990s.

 * It seems we do agree on something, that "most commentators have regarded the charges of crimes against humanity and genocide against Ríos Montt as well founded." This is the consensus view in contemporary scholarship and mainstream discourse on the subject of the Guatemalan genocide and Rios Montt's role in it. As an example, the book Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century (Cornell University Press, 2004), says on page 211 that "The Guatemalan army under Rios Montt dramatically escalated the already brutal war of counterterror that it inherited from Lucas, killing more people in less than fifteen months than Lucas had in almost four years." It took me just a few minutes to pull a book of my bookshelf and find this passage. I'm sure I could find myriad other examples given the time. The revisionist views that you are adding to the article, that killings largely ceased or dropped sharply during Montt's tenure and on his orders, qualify as WP:EXTRAORDINARY which "requires multiple high-quality sources". I don't believe an antiquated primary source and one right-wing scholar with fringe views meets that threshold. Regarding the former, what weight is this given in contemporary scholarship? Is it deemed a credible source on the genocide and Rios Montt's role in it, especially in light of subsequent evidence and scholarship which directly contradicts it? Unless reliable, contemporary secondary sources can be provided which show this report is notable I still hold the position that its inclusion is WP:UNDUE. If this remains, it should be clarified for readers that this is not the consensus. Additions from the Valentino book might be a good start.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I think that your last response ignores several important arguments that I'd made previously. The first is that it's far from clear to me that the Colville report should be considered a "primary source".  It was published in 1984 on the authority of the UN, after Ríos Montt was already out of power.  Colville went on to publish further reports in '85, '86, and '87 that do not contradict the first report.  The article (properly) cites an Amnesty International report from 1982, in the midst of the violence and of the brief Ríos Montt regime.

 * You're also ignoring the references and quotations to the work of David Stoll, including his statement that the Nebajeños liked Ríos Montt because "he offered them a chance to surrender without being killed" (which argues rather strongly against a deliberate policy of genocide). This is very different from the case of support for Stalin in modern Russia that you alluded to earlier.  This is a respected anthropologist, whose research has focused precisely on the ethnic group allegedly targeted for genocide by Ríos Montt, documenting the support for Ríos Montt among a majority of the survivors of precisely those military actions alleged to have constituted genocide.

 * With respect to Sabino, the point is not so much his political views as the fact that he's one of the few people who've published extensive academic research of their own about the Guatemalan Civil War, investigations carried out in Guatemala and which have made use of testimonies and documents not available elsewhere. Most of the published sources that discuss the subject are written by people who've been content to take their facts from the REMHI and CEH reports.  I don't think that there's anything wrong with that, but it can tend to give the impression that there is a consensus on the subject that does not actually exist among the researchers who've studied the subject themselves.

 * Moreover, if you know Latin American academia at all, you might note that it's all the more remarkable that Sabino (given his publicly expressed pro-free market views) should have succeeded in getting his two volumes about the Guatemalan Civil War published by the Mexican government's FCE, which is perhaps the most prestigious academic publisher for the social sciences in Latin America and has traditionally had a decidedly left-wing tilt (its current director is the very leftist Paco Taibo).

 * According to Sabino himself, writing in 2016, the only other full academic studies of the Guatemalan Civil War, besides his own, are Yvon Le Bot, La guerre en terre maya. Communauté, violence et modernité au Guatemala, 1970-1992 (Karthala, 1992), and a couple of books published, respectively, by Francisco Villagrán Kramer and Héctor Gramajo (both of whom participated directly in some of the events and cannot therefore be accepted as impartial observers). I've not read Le Bot's book, but Sabino cites it in support of some of his conclusions, including the exaggerated death tolls.

 * I certainly think that the view that the charges of genocide against Ríos Montt are well established is dominant in the secondary literature, but I deny that it is a consensus. In my edits I have tried to reflect just that. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I think that the section on the counterinsurgency is OK as it now stands. The secondary literature on the allegations of crimes against humanity and genocide, and Ríos Montt's role, is reviewed fairly.  If others don't object, I'll remove the "undue weight" tag in a few days.  - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since a longstanding content dispute regarding Efraín Ríos Montt's role in perpetrating war crimes and genocide is still ongoing in the article, a surprising development given the copious amount of reliable sources and a judicial tribunal that found his government guilty of crimes against humanity in the 1980s, I wish to resolve it right here, for the sake of stability. As far as we are aware, EB Hoop's sweeping changes and addition of contentious and questionable material to this article, which apparently seeks to exonerate Montt of any complicity in the aforementioned genocide, have not received any actual support in the discussion at hand, neither by CJ Griffin nor by an uninvolved third party review, and violate both WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, as they seek to unduly give weight and credence to fringe and antiquated viewpoints on the Guatemalan Civil War, especially the extraordinary claim that extrajudicial mass killings and brutality "significantly dropped" under Ríos Montt's regime despite multiple historians explicitly revealing how his government was the most brutal period of the civil war, killing more people in several months than Romero Lucas Garcia did in his entire term in office. So far, the only support for EB Hoop's claims apparently come from a series of outdated and outright questionable sources, including a columnist for a right-libertarian tabloid that had made many false claims in the past, and a fringe scholar that ran a smear campaign against an indigenous human rights activist named Rigoberta Menchú, falsely accusing her of fraud and supposedly fabricating her testimony. With this mind, the edits EB Hoop seeks to preserve do not at all meet the WP:EXTRAORDINARY standard to allow such a drastic change to the article, especially not when it comes to exonerating him, and it is for this reason I have reverted them, particularly as they never obtained legitimate approval for their passage on the talkpage, and potentially serve as an attempt to whitewash a well-documented atrocity. I rest my case. 178.41.240.18 (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 * The source characterized above as "a columnist for a right-libertarian tabloid" is Carlos Sabino. The main work in question is Guatemala: La historia silenciada, published in two volumes in 2007-08 by the most prestigious academic publisher in the social sciences in Latin America, the Fondo de Cultura Económica, based in Mexico.  Sabino retired as a full professor from the Universidad Central de Venezuela and his writings on research methodology are among the most cited of any living Latin American social scientist.  Just one of those books, El Proceso de Investigación, is currently listed by Google Scholar as having 8,619 citations.  After moving from Venezuela to Guatemala, he has also directed the postgraduate program in history of the Universidad Francisco Marroquín.  If he should have and express right-libertarian opinions, I do not see how this makes him unworthy of discussion on the subject of this article.

 * Even more egregiously, the other "fringe scholar" referred to above is David Stoll, who even a critic called "a responsible scholar who’s done a great deal of valuable work in Guatemala" after questioning his conclusions about Rigoberta Menchú in the New York Review of Books (see this exchange). Stoll's critique of Menchú's testimony was eventually embraced by the sociologist who had originally written up and published that testimony, Elizabeth Burgos.  Burgos even wrote a preface to that effect for the extended edition of Stoll's book.

 * Other references that this anonymous editor has tried to remove are to the French sociologist and expert Latin Americanist Yvon Le Bot and to the official UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Guatemala from 1983 to 1987, Lord Colville of Culross. This editor has also attempted to distort the fact that although Efraín Ríos Montt was convicted of genocide by a trial court in 2012, that verdict was vacated ten days later by the Constitutional Court and his re-trial was still ongoing when he died, after which the case against him was closed and his co-defendant was acquitted.

 * We are instructed to presume good faith from Wikipedia editors. But in this case I feel obligated to point out that there's reason to believe that the above anonymous editor is someone who was permanently banned from Wikipedia for extensive and persistent sock-puppetry (see Sockpuppet investigations/SmalforaGiant).  This page has already been semi-protected twice because of disruptive editing by IP addresses connected to that banned editor.  It was also necessary to semi-protect the page on David Stoll for the same reason (including introducing material potentially libelous to a living person) and I'll be keeping an eye on that.  - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 * I am not even sure who exactly is "SmalforaGiant" to begin with, nor why did he vandalize Wikipedia. To my knowledge, I have never registered any such account, nor did I engage in sockpuppeteer vandalism, and it would be unwise to accuse someone of such serious misconduct without irrefutable evidence to accompany it. We have the presumption of innocence for a reason, after all, and making the conclusion that one may be a sockpuppet from a line of code of all things is not exactly a well-founded concern. Regardless, Carlos Sabino's flaws have already been revealed by CJ Griffin, who notes several questionable articles he wrote for a right-libertarian tabloid by the name of PanAm Post, including a factually incorrect claim that the protests in France against Macron's government are supposedly caused by the "failures of socialism" rather than neoliberal austerity measures, indicating a prominent bias towards the hard-right, to the point that it compromised his factual accuracy, and likewise, his material that supposedly exonerates Ríos Montt appears to be motivated by his political beliefs and agenda, rather than actual archives being unearthed that would justify such a drastic revision of the historical record, and he would therefore not qualify as a high quality reliable source to satisfy the "Extraordinary Evidence" standard. As for Lord Colville, his report, while not having the ideologically driven false claims that Sabino's analyses have, is an outdated and incomplete document that was published before the Guatemalan Civil War even ended, in an era where the nation still lived under an autocratic regime, making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get complete information on Ríos Montt's regime that weren't distorted by propaganda and censorship, and subsequent scholarly analyses and commissions after Guatemala's transition to democracy revealed that Efraín Ríos Montt's regime was directly responsible for multiple crimes against humanity and genocides against the Indigenous people of Guatemala, motivated by claims of "communist subversion", and that, contrary to the view that is being presented here, Montt's junta oversaw the bloodiest and most violent period of the civil war, massacring more people in just one year than Romeo Lucas Garcia did in an entire term in office. We should always use the most up-to-date scholarship whenever available, especially on such a traumatic and contentious subject like the Guatemalan genocide, and presenting outdated and obsolete rapporteur reports from a time period in which it was virtually impossible to comprehensively investigate Guatemala in a proper manner as an equivalent conclusion to the current consensus falls foul of Wikipedian policy. Finally, as for David Stoll, he too was the center of a serious controversy after he published questionable claims that accused Rigoberta Menchú and other Indigenous activists of supposedly "fabricating their testimonies for leftist radicals", a paper which made him the subject of heavy criticism from several anthropologists and historians, who noted numerous major factual errors and conflicts of interest in his thesis, along with the questionable history of individuals who he derived his conclusions from, and his findings were not at all corroborated to the extent that a new consensus was formed. As a short note on the supposed acquittal, Montt was never found innocent of crimes against humanity by any court, and the verdict's overturning was based on an alleged procedural irregularity, a claim stated by judges that had close ties to Montt himself and his FRG party, rather than reasonable evidence being presented thst proves him innocent in regards of the Guatemalan genocide, and he was still on trial up until his untimely death from a heart attack, so he was never officially exonerated of any misconduct. Thus, with this in mind, none of the sources that EB Hoop presented here are sound enough to qualify as high-quality reliable sources under the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" standard, and are therefore not nearly sufficient enough to justify such a drastic revision of Efraín Ríos Montt's biography, as seen on this article, especially not without solid talkpage consensus, something that hasn't been achieved either, and since we appear to be at an impasse due to the relative obscurity of this article, having another uninvolved person resolve this dispute for us seems like the best solution. Would you agree with this step? 178.41.240.18 (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 * EB Hoop, it seems to me you want to make a drastic change to an article about a leader involved in the genocide of thousands of indigenous people. Rios Montt was a right wing leader, and you citing a source by a radical far-right to push this change is not reliable. Further, you cite David Stoll, who has accused indigenous activists such as Rigoberta Menchú (who lived through the genocide) of lying about their experiences for the sake of "left wing radicals". My point being, what is driving you to push for this radical change on an encyclopedia article? As said before by the anonymous user (who you falsely accused of sockpuppetry), there is nobody else pushing for this huge change but you. You continually cited Stoll who slandered an indigenous activist from my tribe of K'iche' Maya to push a change that would remove an acknowledgement of the genocide and violence indigenous people faced in Guatemala. Despressso (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Per David Stoll, it seems that Stoll's main findings were widely corroborated by other experts.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 * In response to Despressso, let me clarify a few things: 1. I'm not pushing for any changes to the current article at all. I was defending the current text from an anonymous editor who was trying to remove large amounts of properly sourced and cited material that s/he disagreed with.  2.  I'm morally certain that that anonymous editor was the same person who was permanently banned from Wikipedia due to extensive sock-puppetry (see Sockpuppet investigations/SmalforaGiant/Archive).  This editor is based in Bratislava, Slovakia, and has shown a consistent pattern of disruptive editing focused on pages connected to far-right or anti-Communist political topics.  I interacted extensively with this person on Wikipedia and the administrators have semi-protected several pages, including this one, because of those disruptive edits.  Moreover, one of the user names officially confirmed as a sock puppet of SmalforaGiant, User:Alexander Zubatov, edited this article in 2019 in order to label Ríos Montt as a "war criminal" in the first sentence of the lead.  3.  I think it's evident that we can't disqualify sources that meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability (see Reliable sources) simply because an editor considers the authors to be far-right or because s/he disagrees with their views on another subject.  My concern has always been to present a balanced summary of the various divergent evaluations of Ríos Montt and his regime by reliable published sources, not to minimize the credible accusations against him.  - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Your other discussion right under this shows that you want to change the "convicted" part of the article. Your "morally certain" thoughts that "s/he (they would really be a better word) disagrees with their views on another subject" have no relevance to an anonymous editor. Accusing people for no other reason is not cause to change or not change the article. Despressso (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Convicted war criminal?
It seems to me that labelling Ríos Montt as convicted (as is currently being done here in the short description and in the categories) may be problematic. A Guatemalan court did in fact convict and sentence him for war crimes and genocide in 2013, but that verdict was soon overturned by the country's Constitutional Court and a retrial was never completed. I think that a lawyer could argue that Ríos Montt was therefore not, in the end, actually convicted of anything. Is there a Wikipedia policy about such cases?

I may add that this isn't just a legal quibble. When the Constitutional Court quashed Ríos Montt's conviction, many journalists commented on the fragility and corruption of the Guatemalan judiciary, but this cuts both ways. Many people, including foreign observers and ordinary Guatemalans, have said that the army and the death squads behaved more lawlessly under his predecessor Gen. Lucas García and under his successor Gen. Mejía Víctores, neither of whom ever went to trial, perhaps because they weren't politically significant figures anymore after the return to democracy.

I've tried to look seriously into the evidence that was used to convict Ríos Montt in 2013. His defense was that, though the army did commit war crimes during the counter-insurgency campaign of 1982-83 (including massacres of civilians, rapes, and tortures), this had not been with Ríos Montt's knowledge or under his orders. This isn't entirely implausible on the face of it, especially considering that Ríos Montt did not, in fact, ever have a solid hold over the entire army (which has always been the most powerful social institution in Guatemala), as evidenced by the fact that he lasted less than 17 months in power before being overthrown by his own Defense Minister. Ríos Montt had been on the outs with the army high command since 1973, had been publicly denounced as a "communist" by the far-right during the 1974 electoral campaign, dropped out of active military service altogether by 1977, and had not been directly involved in the planning of the 1982 coup that ended up putting him in power.

What evidence was presented in the 2013 trial that Ríos Montt had actually ordered the crimes for which he was convicted? I can find only two mentioned online (see, e.g., here). One of them seems to me so weak that it may even bring into question the good faith of the prosecution: In the course of a long interview at the Presidential Palace that he gave in 1982 to US journalist and filmmaker Pamela Yates, Yates asked him if he really controlled the army on the ground (a question evidently motivated by a widespread perception at the time that he didn't) and Ríos Montt responded: "If I can’t control the Army, then what am I doing here?". Under the circumstances, could he have said anything else? Using this as evidence in the 2013 trial seems to me a "gotcha" move with no probatory value.

The other evidence mentioned is a cache of official military documents related to an Operación Sofía. Here this is presented as clear evidence of a deliberate policy of genocide under Ríos Montt. But I've gone through the entire file and nothing in it is either signed by or addressed to Ríos Montt. If you read the evaluation (in Spanish) prepared by Kate Doyle of the National Security Archives, you'll find that she says that the documents show that "the chain of command functioned at all times and that the High Command —which at the time would have included the Commander General of the Army and de facto Minister of Defense Efraín Ríos Montt and the Vice-minister of National Defense Oscar Humberto Mejía Víctores, both charged in [the case brought by Rigoberta Menchú in Spain]— were perfectly informed of operations in the field" (emphasis added to highlight the use of the subjunctive, presumably because the names of Ríos Montt and Mejía Víctores are not actually in the documents). But Doyle also notes that the file covers only "one month and three days" of operations in one specific location (Nebaj, Quiché) and that nothing in the file "gives any explicit information about the perpetration of massacres".

I therefore don't think that, particularly in the absence of a settled legal conviction for a crime, the characterization of Ríos Montt as a "convicted war criminal" can be regarded as totally uncontroversial and neutral. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

 * @Eb.hoop2 at the time of writing this reply, Ríos is no longer labelled as convicted, except to mention he was convicted at some point. Thinker78  (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Efraín Ríos Montt


text:
Abra

Abra may refer to:

Places

 * Abra, Burkina Faso
 * Abra, Ivory Coast
 * Abra (province), a province of the Philippines
 * Abra's at-large congressional district
 * Legislative district of Abra
 * Abra de Ilog, a municipality of Occidental Mindoro in the Philippines
 * Abra River, in the Philippines
 * El Abra, an archaeological site in Colombia
 * Abra, Lebanon, a municipality of Lebanon
 * Abra, Pakistan
 * Abra Channel, connecting the Magellan Strait with the Pacific Ocean

People

 * Abra (name), a given name and a surname
 * Abra (Samma tribe) or Abro, an ethnic group in Pakistan
 * Abra (rapper) (born 1990), stage name of Filipino rapper Raymond Abracosa
 * Abra (singer) (born 1989), stage name of Atlanta-based R&B musician Gabrielle Mirville

Other uses

 * American Boat Racing Association
 * Abra (boat), a type of river-crossing boat in Dubai, United Arab Emirates
 * Abra (bivalve), a genus of Semelidae clams
 * ABRA (gene), a human gene located on chromosome 8
 * Abra Group, holding company of Avianca Group, GOL Linhas Aéreas Inteligentes and Wamos Air
 * Abra (company), an American financial services and technology company operating in the United States and the Philippines
 * Abra (Pokémon), a Pokémon species
 * Abra, a novel by Joan Barfoot
 * Abra (motorcycle), an Italian motorcycle that was manufactured from 1923 to 1927
 * Abra, short for Abrakebabra, a fast food chain in Ireland
 * Check Point Abra, a USB drive that combines an encrypted USB flash drive with virtualization, VPN and computer security technologies

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Abra


text:
Talk:Benguet

Userbox
Here's a new template that you can use on your userpage! Just copy this code: User_Benguet

This will produce this: Bu b0y2007 04:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Philippine LGUs
Wondering how to edit the article? The WikiProject Philippine LGUs could be of help. :)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Benguet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DpMOBTiK?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nscb.gov.ph%2Factivestats%2Fpsgc%2Flistprov.asp to http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/listprov.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019211257/http://www.benguet.gov.ph/index.php?Itemid=268 to http://www.benguet.gov.ph/index.php?Itemid=268
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019211257/http://www.benguet.gov.ph/index.php?Itemid=268 to http://www.benguet.gov.ph/index.php?Itemid=268

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Benguet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/listprov.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121232623/http://www.dilgcar.com/index.php/lgu/car-profile/benguet/la-trinidad-capital to http://www.dilgcar.com/index.php/lgu/car-profile/benguet/la-trinidad-capital
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141022184555/http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=16&r=14 to http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=16&r=14
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150421091400/http://census.gov.ph/content/benguet-dependency-ratio-down-four-persons to http://census.gov.ph/content/benguet-dependency-ratio-down-four-persons
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141009231415/http://www.bar.gov.ph/chronicle-home/archives-list/374-december-2005-issue/2624-la-trinidad-veggie-trading-post-revisited to http://www.bar.gov.ph/chronicle-home/archives-list/374-december-2005-issue/2624-la-trinidad-veggie-trading-post-revisited

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Benguet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121706245500/http://www.nscb.gov.ph/rucar/fnf_mprov.htm to http://www.nscb.gov.ph/rucar/fnf_mprov.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509114013/http://itsmorefuninthephilippines.com/benguet/ to http://itsmorefuninthephilippines.com/benguet/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Benguet


text:
Talk:Abra

Add more
Add more abras Lilbogus123 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Abra


text:
Talk:Batanes

WikiProject Philippine LGUs
Wondering how to edit the article? The WikiProject Philippine LGUs could be of help. :)

Earthquake
I add the quake news today.

--Juanatoledo 09:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Batanes Islands
User:seav claims that there is no such thing as Batanes Islands. .

On the other hand there is a whole category named Category:Batanes Islands.

And User:RioHondo tries to remove the Category:Islands of Batanes in favor of Category:Batanes Islands.

This is one more inconsistency in the Philippine geography content in the English Wikipedia.

Androoox (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 * You are really fond of not comprehending things? I said, there is no such thing as "Batanes Island" (singular). There is however such a thing called "Batanes Islands" (plural) and this is synonymous with the province of Batanes. —seav (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was gonna move that category to Islands of Batanes the natural way like I did for cat:Visayan Islands, but you already created the destination. Haven't figured how to speedy delete destination category and speedy move at the same time, so i thought of emptying it first and wait for the bots to delete it. So okay, just to get this issue over with, i manually transferred the island articles to the cat you created, and emptied that one instead. --RioHondo (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Taipei Times challenging Philippine's claims to the Batanes
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2007/12/23/2003393815

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2013/05/25/2003563102

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/09/23/2003204030

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Batanes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DpMOBTiK?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nscb.gov.ph%2Factivestats%2Fpsgc%2Flistprov.asp to http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/listprov.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602035342/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net:80/breakingnews/regions/view/20080601-140104/64-magnitude-earthquake-rocks-Philippines-Taiwan to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/regions/view/20080601-140104/64-magnitude-earthquake-rocks-Philippines-Taiwan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Batanes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/listprov.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107065629/http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/micro/micro_55_74.html to http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/micro/micro_55_74.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212194455/http://www.batanesonline.com/LiteraryArts/IvatanLanguage.htm to http://www.batanesonline.com/LiteraryArts/IvatanLanguage.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Gloomy Sky Over the Lighthouse.png

Fact check William Dampier
Mentions ‘Slaver William Dampier’ - do they mean ‘pirate’ or do they refer to Henry Dampier (the slave trader)? 2A02:C7F:1243:A800:89A9:7D16:E6A2:A91D (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Some of the facts about William Dampier are wrong. The original source of the information presented is Dampier's own book, but the reference is a secondary source.
 * 1. His party were privateers, not "freebooters". To wit, he only described attacking Spanish shipping and colonies, which was lawful, since England and Spain were at war, and he was commissioned by the English government to do so.
 * 2. He was not the head of the expedition.
 * 3. He was not the captain of the ship he was on.
 * 4. Nowhere in his book does he mention "claiming lands" for England. That was not the purpose of the voyage.(see 1.) Armadillo Ocean (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Read WP:SECONDARY and especially WP:HISTRS. We don't build history-related content based on primary sources. But the secondary source is admittedly not correctly paraphrased. I have thrown out all details not supported by Bellwood and Dizon, and added more ethnographic information (Bellwood and Dizon's actual topic). –Austronesier (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Batanes


text:
Talk:Isabela (province)

WikiProject Philippine LGUs
Wondering how to edit the article? The WikiProject Philippine LGUs could be of help. :)

The Isabela District Locator is not correct due to error color coding/labeling of First and Third Districts of Isabela. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerryyabes (talk • contribs) 02:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

From the table of municipalities, Echague is set to 4th class and belong to 2nd district. However, when you go to the link where Echague is described, the town is a 1st class (partly urban) municipality and belong to 4th district. I believe Echague belong to 4th district but i do not know about the ranking in terms of economy 121.97.177.115 (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Daryl

 * The color-coded picture was based on the Table of Municipalities. If the table will be updated to a more accurate one, then the picture will be updated too. jmarkfrancia (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 * The color-coded picture for the districts is already updated. ✅ jmarkfrancia (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The map of Ilagan is re-drawn showing its coastal area facing the Pacific Ocean gerryyabes (talk) 18:05, 30 August, 2012 (UTC)

 * Are you sure Ilagan has a coastal area? jmarkfrancia (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which Ilagan barangay is located on the Pacific coast, but I do know Ilagan extends to both Divilacan and the Pacific Ocean on the northeast. From Republic Act No. 8474 (Charter of the City of Ilagan), "The City of Ilagan shall comprise the present territory of the Municipality of Ilagan over which it has jurisdiction bounded on the north by the Municipality of Tumauini; on the west, by the Municipality of Quirino; on the northeast, by the Municipality of Divilican and the Pacific Ocean; and on the southeast, by the Municipality of San Mariano." Btw, Fuyot Springs National Park, located in the Ilagan portion of the Sierra Madre range close to the Pacific coast, is at Barangay Santa Victoria, the easternmost barangay that I know. Cheers! Posted byRioHondo (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC) oon Talk:Ilagan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerryyabes (talk • contribs)

Physiographical Areas ?
L.S. ,

Under the heading Geography, Subheading Physical , the article mentions 3 physiographical areas but defines only 2 , namely an Eastern and Western Area. What is the third, distinct area ( if any ) and where can this information be verified ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.92.72.214 (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isabela (province). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DpMOBTiK?url=http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/listprov.asp to http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/listprov.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120413163013/http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/default.asp to http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/default.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isabela (province). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132114534700/http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/368552/ilagan-kicks-off-cityhood-bid to http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/368552/ilagan-kicks-off-cityhood-bid
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150630234413/http://news.pia.gov.ph/article/view/481433287402/p7-b-solar-power-plant-to-rise-in-isabela to http://news.pia.gov.ph/article/view/481433287402/p7-b-solar-power-plant-to-rise-in-isabela

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Map
This has been asked many times before, but while we have the four coastal towns correct, it seems that the boundaries for the inland towns still need correction. If you'll be shading the towns per legislative district (Isabela was recently redistricted to 6 districts from 4), the southern ones show up to be noncontiguous. (Noncontiguous districts are okay if it's separated by a body of water, or if a new district was created from the old one, splitting it into exclaves.) Howard the Duck (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You can always try and ask the Commons Map Workshop for help. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm looking for authoritative sources on municipal boundaries... Howard the Duck (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see... Yes, that is hard. I have looked for that before too. Without success. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Among the provinces, this is the hardest to get right. I believe Echague doesn't separate Jones, San Agustin and Dinapigue from each other. Dinapigue is in the district with the southernmost towns, it doesn't make sense if they don't border each other. See for example this page. We've already fixed up Santiago encircling Cordon, I guess this is the last major correction we'd have to do. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider an image from a blog as an authoritative source... --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right, but I suspect he stole it from an authoritative source. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The map looks like a revamped version of 's work: both are using the same font (ITC Officina Sans Std) and has similar boundaries (except Echague's extent). This issue is not exclusive for Isabela only, Misamis Oriental and Davao de Oro has noncontiguous districts as well, according to your map btw. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 12:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Davao de Oro's districts are contiguous, it's just that our base map has to be wrong. MisOr's districting is unique, since the province itself is not contiguous as Cagayan de Oro isn't in MisOr. (See Sarangani and GenSan for another example of that.) Howard the Duck (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then how about Cabuyao in Laguna? It's separated from the rest of Laguna's 2nd congressional district because of the apportionment of Calamba. You didn't even include Cabuyao in your map. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 01:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Piecemeal redistricting screws up things. See for also Batangas-2nd. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe they messed up on Isabela too? — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 01:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Isabela was redistricted wholesale, not piecemeal. There's good reason to believe Echague doesn't go all the way into the Aurora/Quirino border. These noncontiguous districts only happen if a province is not contiguous in the first place, or piecemeal redistricting divides a district into two enclaves. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Kindly let me know if you come across something. I based Isabela's map from what I saw on their website, plus a few other sources which somehow is consistent. I haven't been making maps for a while but I'll be glad to be back on it. -- Namayan (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Most maps in the internet do have Echague bordering Quirino and Aurora, but Openstreetmaps has a quadripoint border, causing it to border Jones, Dinapigue and Maddela, Quirino at the quadripoint, and never Aurora. If this is right, this means Dinapigue borders another town of the 4th district, and we'd have to correct the maps. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Current depictions, even in Google Maps, do show a quadripoint, but for Echague, Dinapigue, Maddela and Dilasag, Aurora. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Google Maps shows the Dinapigue poblacion south of the border, in Aurora. (WTF!) Howard the Duck (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

NAMRIA
I think as far as maps and city/municipal boundaries in the Philippines are concerned, Wikipedia should rely on only one source and one authority: Namria, the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority. It has all sorts of downloadable maps for all provinces, including topographic maps at different scales and hazard maps showing municipal borders. Based on a few of those ive seen of Isabela, a narrow strip of Echague does extend southeast to Aurora, and Aurora only. Ilagan also does have a narrow access to Palanan Bay (Pacific Coast). See this landslide hazard map of Isabela for example. Feel free to download each type of map for comparison, but be mindful of boundary markers vs. road markers (boundary markers are those dashed or dotted lines while roads are solid lines).--RioHondo (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * NAMRIA maps have disclaimers that boundaries are not authoritative/approximate. Just like how one barangay in San Pablo, Laguna is excluded from Laguna's Hazard Map. -- Namayan (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Isabela (province)


text:
Talk:Nueva Vizcaya

WikiProject Philippine LGUs
Wondering how to edit the article? The WikiProject Philippine LGUs could be of help. :)

TWENTIUS
Funny grammar = "japanese forces was entered in blah*"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.211.87 (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nueva Vizcaya


text:
Talk:Quirino

WikiProject Philippine LGUs
Wondering how to edit the article? The WikiProject Philippine LGUs could be of help. :)

The section labeled "unencyclopedic" does not seem to follow Wikipedia's guidelines. It is written more like a campaign material. Lemg (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Quirino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DpMOBTiK to http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/listprov.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Quirino


text:
Talk:Montenegrin Mountain Hound

Redirect
Michael, if you intend to move and redirect these breed pages for capitalisation, perhaps you could get together with Sannse and agree whether or not to capitalise second and third words of breed names when they are common nouns. Both this breed and the Yugoslavian Tricolour Hound have all three words capitalised on the List of Dog Breeds page and I would think it sensible to follow a uniform convention throughout, both on the breed list page and on the individual breed pages. Ditkoofseppala 01:27 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Planina
…from the Planina region of Serbia... – planina means mountain (in Serbian), and it is not a region of Serbia. Therefore here should either stand from which mountain this dog breed is, either it should stand …from the mountain region of Serbia… -- Obradovic Goran 00:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Goran is perfectly right. Planina means mountain in Serbian.

title: Talk:Montenegrin Mountain Hound


text: File:Pantera-FarBeyondDriven.jpg

title: File:Pantera-FarBeyondDriven.jpg


text:
Leonard Peikoff

Leonard Sylvan Peikoff (born October 15, 1933) is a Canadian American philosopher. He is an Objectivist and was a close associate of Ayn Rand, who designated him heir to her estate. He is a former professor of philosophy and host of a nationally syndicated radio talk show. He co-founded the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) in 1985 and is the author of several books on philosophy.

Early life and career
Leonard Peikoff was born on October 15, 1933 in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, to Samuel Peikoff, MD, a surgeon, and his wife Bessie, a band leader. He attended the University of Manitoba from 1950 to 1953 as a pre-med student. However, following his early discussions with Rand, he transferred to New York University to study philosophy, where he received his BA, MA, and PhD degrees in philosophy in 1954, 1957, and 1964, respectively. His doctoral dissertation adviser was the noted American pragmatist philosopher Sidney Hook, and his dissertation dealt with the metaphysical status of the law of noncontradiction. He taught philosophy for many years at various colleges.

Early involvement in Objectivism
Peikoff first met Ayn Rand through his cousin Barbara Branden (then Barbara Weidman) in California when he was 17. He reports that this meeting with Rand made him aware of the profound importance of philosophy. When Rand moved to New York City in 1951, Peikoff decided to study philosophy at New York University. While studying at NYU, he frequently discussed philosophy privately with Rand in depth across a range of issues.

Peikoff, along with Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan, Barbara Branden, and a number of other close associates, who jokingly called themselves "The Collective", met frequently with Rand to discuss philosophy and politics, as well as to read and discuss Rand's then-forthcoming novel, Atlas Shrugged, in her Manhattan apartment. In 1958, Branden founded the Nathaniel Branden Lectures, later renamed the Nathaniel Branden Institute (NBI), to promote Objectivism through lectures and educational seminars around the United States. Peikoff was among NBI's first lecturers, teaching a course on the history of philosophy. By the early 1960s, NBI had representatives in multiple cities who replayed taped versions of the lectures to local audiences.

Discussions with Peikoff and Allan Gotthelf in the 1960s motivated Rand to complete an extended monograph on concept-formation, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Rand included Peikoff's essay on the "analytic–synthetic dichotomy" when it was published in book form in 1979. Peikoff was also an active participant in Rand's 1969–71 workshops on the monograph, as well as subsequent, smaller philosophy workshops at Rand's apartment. Peikoff later used the transcripts of these workshops to create an expanded edition of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, which he co-edited with Harry Binswanger.

Following the dissolution of NBI in 1968, Peikoff continued to give private lecture courses on a variety of topics to large Objectivist audiences, and recordings of these have been sold for many years. His lecture courses include: The History of Philosophy (in two "volumes" of lectures), An Introduction to Logic, The Art of Thinking, Induction in Physics and Philosophy, Moral Virtue, A Philosophy of Education, Understanding Objectivism, The Principles of Objective Communication, and Eight Great Plays. Rand endorsed his 1976 lecture series on Objectivism as the best exposition of her philosophy, the only one she knew to be accurate.

Peikoff's first book, The Ominous Parallels, was both an Objectivist explanation of the rise of the Third Reich and The Holocaust, and a warning that America was being led down the road to totalitarianism because of far-reaching philosophical and cultural parallels between the Weimar Republic and the present-day United States. In her introduction, Rand said it was the first book by an Objectivist philosopher other than herself.

After Rand's death
Rand named Peikoff the legal heir to her estate. As the executor of Rand's will, Peikoff handles the copyrights to all of her works, with the exception of Anthem, which has passed into the public domain. He has supervised the editing and release of Rand's unpublished works in several volumes, which includes her letters, philosophical journals, and the fiction not published in her lifetime; he has also written forewords for all the current printings of her fiction. For several years, he continued Rand's tradition of lecturing annually at Boston's Ford Hall Forum, and his other lecture appearances have included an address to the cadets at West Point and another while cruising the Greek islands.

In 1985, Peikoff founded the Ayn Rand Institute. Peikoff revised his 1976 lecture course on Rand's ideas into book form as Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, published in 1991, the first comprehensive presentation of Objectivism. In the mid-1990s, Peikoff taught courses at the Ayn Rand Institute's Objectivist Graduate Center (which was renamed the Objectivist Academic Center in 2000), along with Harry Binswanger and Peter Schwartz.

From 1995 through 1999, Peikoff hosted a nationally syndicated talk-radio show focusing on philosophy and culture. From February 2006 to June 2007, Peikoff posted an online Q&A featuring questions that had been e-mailed to him. This was replaced with a podcast that debuted on October 22, 2007, and continued until October 31, 2016.

Peikoff's lectures or books have been used extensively in the works of Allan Gotthelf, Harry Binswanger, Andrew Bernstein, and Tara Smith, writers who are associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, and also in works such as David Kelley's The Evidence of the Senses, George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God, and the treatise, What Art Is: the Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kahmi, despite these authors' other differences with him.

Peikoff's 1983 lecture course Understanding Objectivism was edited into a book of the same title by Michael Berliner, editor of the Letters of Ayn Rand, and Peikoff's theory of logical induction, first presented in the lecture courses Induction in Physics and Philosophy and Objectivism Through Induction, has been developed further by David Harriman in his book, The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics. In his 2012 book The DIM Hypothesis, Peikoff defines the three approaches to cognitive integration—disintegration, integration, and misintegration—and applies the hypothesis to physics, philosophy, education, politics, and other fields.

His articles have appeared in publications as diverse as Barron's and The New Scholasticism, and his television appearances have ranged from Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect and Bill O'Reilly's The O'Reilly Factor to C-SPAN panel discussions. He also appears in Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life, the Academy Award-nominated documentary by Michael Paxton.

Split with David Kelley
Peikoff views Objectivism as a "closed system" that consists solely of the philosophical principles Rand herself had articulated, and he considers disagreement with any of these principles a departure from Objectivism. The Ayn Rand Institute promotes Peikoff's view of Objectivism.

The closed vs. open issue came to the fore when David Kelley, a philosopher then affiliated with Peikoff and ARI, published his essay "A Question of Sanction", arguing for greater open-mindedness in working with other groups. Kelley sees Objectivism as an "open system" that can evolve beyond Rand's own writings and beliefs. Peikoff presented his objections to Kelley in an article called "Fact and Value," arguing that Kelley's case itself contradicted Rand's understanding of the relationship between cognition and evaluation, facts, and moral values. Peikoff concluded that Kelley was not a genuine Objectivist and urged anyone agreeing with Kelley to leave the Objectivist movement. Ultimately, Kelley responded by founding the Institute for Objectivist Studies in 1990, which later changed its name to The Objectivist Center and finally The Atlas Society.

Library of Congress dispute
Peikoff inherited many of Rand's manuscripts. During her lifetime, Rand had made a statement that she would bequeath her manuscripts to the Library of Congress. She later had reservations, and the bequest was not part of Rand's will. However, after her death, the Library of Congress requested the manuscripts. In July 1991, Peikoff had an assistant deliver the manuscripts of Rand's novels, except for the first and last pages of The Fountainhead, which he had framed. In their stead, he had the pages photocopied so that the manuscripts would be "complete". On August 16, 1998, the Los Angeles Times published an article about Peikoff, including a joke he made about "stealing" the pages from the Library of Congress. The library demanded that he deliver the pages to them, deeming them to be U. S. government property. A complaint from the United States Department of Justice followed in October 2000, claiming over a million dollars in damages unless Peikoff turned over the pages. After consulting his lawyer, Peikoff released the pages to a representative of the Library of Congress.

Epistemology
In his book The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics (which he co-wrote with physicist David Harriman), Peikoff argues that there is no problem of induction, because philosophy is itself an inductive science and, therefore, that any attempt to deny the validity of induction contradicts itself by implicitly accepting the validity of induction. Peikoff and Harriman also argue that scientific claims verified by induction should be considered true until new evidence warrants modifying or amending them because scientific knowledge derived from induction is contextual. In other words, those who on the basis of conclusive evidence make inductive scientific claims regarding science cannot argue that their claims are subject to no possible modification but can argue that they are the only rational claims that can be believed based on the available evidence. They conclude that the same process of induction is essential to every rational field (except mathematics) and that, as a result, truth in any such field possesses the same objectivity as that of physics.

Politics
Peikoff supports laissez-faire capitalism, arguing that the role of government in society should be limited to night-watchman state conceptions of protecting individuals from the initiation of force and fraud. He opposes taxation, public education, welfare, and business regulations. He also opposes laws regulating pornography, euthanasia, or stem cell research. He is a supporter of abortion rights but criticizes defenders of abortion who label themselves "pro-choice", arguing that the term ignores the deeper philosophical issues involved. He believes that circumcision of a child too young to consent should be a crime and is evil.

He also continues Rand's opposition to libertarianism, remaining sharply opposed to any description of Objectivist political philosophy as "libertarian" and to any collaboration with most libertarian groups. He has been critical of American foreign policy, considering both neoconservative and libertarian views self-sacrificial. He objects to the terms "isolationist" or "interventionist" to describe his foreign policy views, stating that the only "intervention" the United States should enact is war and "only and when it is in self-defense."

Elián González
Peikoff campaigned for Elián González' right to remain in Florida, rather than returning to his father in Cuba, stating, "To send a child to rot in the prison of Cuba for the alleged sake of his own well-being is criminal hypocrisy. To send him there in order to preserve his father's rights is absurdity, since there are no parental or other rights in Cuba. To send him there because 'He needs a father, no matter what' is a mindless bromide. Does he need a father who has no choice but to watch his son being broken in mind and starved in body?"

Palestinians and Israel
Peikoff claims that Palestinian people prior to the establishment of the State of Israel consisted solely of "nomadic tribes meandering across the terrain," and that "the Arabs" today have no concept of property rights; indeed, that their "primitivist" antagonism to such rights is the root cause of Arab terrorism. He argues that Israel is a moral beacon which should not return any territory to Arabs or even negotiate with them.

Iran and nuclear weapons
Peikoff considers the nationalization of Middle Eastern oil properties developed by Western corporations—beginning with Iran in 1951—to be in violation of international law and refers to such efforts as "confiscation" and supports covert actions to reverse such efforts. He advocates bringing an end to what he claims are "terrorist states" and has routinely lobbied for regime change in Iran "as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire," not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons, arguing that moral responsibility for innocent deaths would lie with their governments rather than the United States.

Presidential endorsements
In April 1992, Peikoff endorsed "any Democrat nominated by his party for the Presidency", citing President George H. W. Bush's "truly disgraceful" record, specifically tax hikes, support for new employee protections, his foreign trade policy, foreign aid to Russia, alleged hostility to Israel, the Gulf War, anti-abortion and anti-obscenity views, and alleged failure to defend Salman Rushdie's freedom of speech during The Satanic Verses controversy.

In 2004, Peikoff endorsed John Kerry (despite thinking of Kerry as a "disgustingly bad" candidate) against George W. Bush (whom he called "apocalyptically bad"), on the basis of Bush's religiosity and his refusal to crush Islamic regimes, especially Iran, along with his "doomed" economic policies. In advance of the 2006 elections, Peikoff recommended voting only for Democrats, to forestall what he sees is a rise in influence of the religious right, adding:

"Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer [Democrats], and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer [Republicans], it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad.""

Of the 2008 United States presidential election, Peikoff said, "I wouldn't dream of voting", saying that the Republicans should be "wiped out" or "severely punished" for their association with the religious right. Furthermore, he characterized Barack Obama as "anti-American" and a "lying phoney" with troubling connections to both Islam and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He labelled Obama's running mate Joe Biden an "enjoyably hilarious windbag", and their Republican opponents John McCain and Sarah Palin as a "tired moron" and an "opportunist", respectively.

In a 2010 podcast, Peikoff explained why he supports immigration restrictions in the current context of the welfare state, and why he does not see this as a contradiction to Objectivism's general rejection of immigration restrictions. In another 2010 podcast, Peikoff explained that he does not support the building of a mosque near Ground Zero in New York City, arguing that property rights are always contextual and that preventing the construction is a wartime necessity. Similarly, he supported the French ban on the burqa.

In September 2012, Peikoff endorsed Mitt Romney for the Presidency, citing President Obama's alleged nihilism, taxation, economic and energy policies, Obamacare, and his use of executive orders. However, Peikoff was not enthusiastic in his endorsement of Romney, calling him an "appeasing, directionless" candidate with "no political convictions" who would be useful for buying time. For the same reason, he endorsed the Republican Congressional nominees. Afterwards, he called Obama's re-election a "catastrophe", "the worst political event ever to occur in the history of this continent" and "worse than the Civil War".

Personal life
Peikoff has been married and divorced three times. By his second wife, Cynthia, Peikoff has a daughter, Kira Peikoff, a novelist. His third ex-wife is Objectivist philosopher Amy Lynn Peikoff.

Books

 * The Ominous Parallels (1982) ISBN 0-452-01117-5
 * The Early Ayn Rand (edit. and introductory essays by Peikoff) (1984) ISBN 0-453-00465-2
 * The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought (edit. and additional essays by Peikoff) (1989) ISBN 0-453-00634-5
 * Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (expanded second edition) (with Harry Binswanger, PhD, editor) (1990) ISBN 0-453-00724-4
 * Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (1991) ISBN 0-452-01101-9
 * The Ayn Rand Reader (with Gary Hull, PhD, editor) (1999) ISBN 0-452-28040-0
 * Understanding Objectivism: A Guide to Learning Ayn Rand's Philosophy (Michael Berliner, PhD, editor) (2012) ISBN 0-451-23629-7
 * The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West Are Going Out (2012) ISBN 0-451-46664-0
 * Objective Communication: Writing, Speaking and Arguing (2013) ISBN 0-451-41815-8
 * Teaching Johnny to Think: A Philosophy of Education Based on the Principles of Ayn Rand's Objectivism (2014) ISBN 0-9794661-6-4
 * The Cause of Hitler's Germany (2014) ISBN 0-14-218147-1
 * Discovering Great Plays: As Literature and as Philosophy (2017) ISBN 978-0979466199

title: Leonard Peikoff


text:
Faces (1968 film)

Faces is a 1968 American drama film written, produced, and directed by John Cassavetes. It is his fourth directorial work. The film, shot in cinéma vérité-style, depicts the final stages of the disintegrating marriage of a middle-aged couple, played by John Marley and newcomer Lynn Carlin. Cassavetes regulars Gena Rowlands, Seymour Cassel, Fred Draper and Val Avery also star.

Initial critical reception to the film was somewhat polarized, but it went on to gain widespread acclaim, and the film is now considered one of the most demonstrative and influential works of the New Hollywood movement.

At the 29th Venice International Film Festival, the film won the Pasinetti Prize and the Best Actor Award for John Marley. At the 41st Academy Awards, it received three Oscar nominations – Best Original Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor for Cassel, and Best Supporting Actress for Carlin. In 2011, Faces was added to the National Film Registry for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant."

Plot
The film, shot in cinéma vérité-style, depicts the final stages of the disintegrating marriage of a couple (John Marley and Lynn Carlin). Various groups and individuals with whom the couple interacts after the husband's sudden statement of his desire for a divorce are introduced. Afterwards, he spends the night in the company of brash businessmen and prostitutes, while the wife spends it with her middle-aged female friends and an aging, free-associating playboy they had picked up at a bar. The night proceeds as a series of tense conversations and confrontations occurs.

Production
Faces was Cassevetes' fourth directorial work, and was entirely self-financed by Cassavetes and his wife Gena Rowlands. The cast allegedly worked for no pay, but were promised profit participation. Filming, including protracted rehearsals, took place over the course of eight months in locations throughout Los Angeles, including Cassavetes' house. The film was shot in high-contrast 16 mm black and white film stock.

Lynn Carlin had no prior acting experience when she was cast as Maria Forst. She was working as a secretary for Robert Altman at the time, and Cassavetes often hired her as a script reader and casting assistant. After she was fired by Altman, Cassavetes cast her in Faces, and she earned a Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination for her debut performance.

Steven Spielberg worked as an unpaid runner.

Versions
As is the case with several of Cassavetes' films, several different versions of Faces are known to exist (though it was generally assumed that, after creating the general release print, Cassavetes destroyed the alternative versions). It was initially premiered in Canada with a running time of 183 minutes, before Cassavetes cut it down to 130 minutes.

Though the 130-minute version is the general release version, a print of a longer version with a running time of 147 minutes was accidentally found by Ray Carney, and was deposited at the Library of Congress. 17 minutes of this print were included in the Criterion box set John Cassavetes: Five Films, though Carney has said that there are numerous differences between the two films.

Reception
Faces holds an 85% approval rating on review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes, based on 26 reviews with an average rating of 7.3/10. Roger Ebert gave the film 4 out of 4 stars and wrote that the film "tenderly, honestly, and uncompromisingly examines the way we really live".

Manny Farber wrote of Lynn Carlin's performance, "Carlin is near perfection, playing the deepest well of unexplored emotions as the wife of a rubber-faced business wow who seems like a detestable ham walk-on until he surprisingly lodges into the film's center for good." Paul Schrader, for the Los Angeles Free Press, wrote "Faces" is a film with a confused on-screen life, but with a rich cocktail party life-span."

Pauline Kael, however, was negative to this film, criticizing the "badly performed" acting and "crudely conceived" scenes.

In a retrospective review for Slant Magazine, Jeremiah Kipp wrote "Cassavetes was interested in actors and their freak-show intensities, and their performances give his films a hyper-real quality."

Faces, and other Cassavetes projects, had significant creative impact on Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, and Robert Altman. James Benning's Faces (2010) is a found footage remake or reconstruction of Cassavetes' film. It lasts exactly as the original, but it just consists of silent slowed-down close-ups of the characters, which are on screen for as long as they are in the original.

Recognition
In 2011, Faces was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". The Registry called the film "an example of cinematic excess" whose extended confrontations revealed "emotions and relations of power between men and women that rarely emerge in more conventionally structured films".

title: Faces (1968 film)