Talk:Central American crisis

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles

Central America

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America articles

Military history: North America C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force

Scholarship[edit]

Is there some kind of scholarship that supports this type of organization of material? Hires an editor 17:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some books on the Central American crisis did use a country-based thematic organization. For instance, The Central American Crisis Reader divides into chapters on Historical Background, two chapters on Nicaragua, two chapters on El Salvador, a chapter on US policy, and a chapter on Soviet and others' policies. Inevitable Revolutions, in Chapters IV and V, also follow a scheme similar to the current article. It is of course not the only way to organize the article, and whether this is in fact the best way to do so going forward could be debated. For instance, a more straightforwardly chronological version could be attempted. I am not wedded to my initial sectional scheme, and if you have your own ideas how the material could be reorganized, I'm open to hearing them. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so there's some scholarship. :-) I'd just never thought about it like this. It doesn't seem like a "Crisis" but then again, we have a verifiable source that says this is what it was. I was a little suprised to see it listed this way, but I'm getting used to it. :-) Hires an editor 22:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scope and name of article[edit]

I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with the name of this article. It kind of rubbed me the wrong way from the start, but I didn't want to let my initial reaction determine my view of things. I first saw the article because it was substituted for two separate entries in the Cold War template, which raised red flags for me. (And I'm still not sure I'm entirely comfortable with that change, either. :)

Given that the template is a prominent feature of this article, it seems pretty evident that the subject matter is being viewed very much from within that particular historical frame -- and I'm not sure that's appropriate. Obviously, there were very real ways that events in Central America during the 70s & 80s were shaped (and distorted) by policies and actions of the US & USSR (especially the former), but I think placing them in the Cold War frame seriously downplays the importance of intrinsic factors and local histories. Also, the choice of the word "Crisis" seems to betray a certain "Yanqui-centric" view of things -- which I think is borne out by the article's current intro.

That being said, I do think there's good reason to have an article that covers developments in the entire region during the time period. But I would be much happier if we came up with a better name for it, for starters. I haven't resolved this in my own mind yet, so I'm going to indulge in a bit of "thinking out loud", if that's alright.

On one hand, the word "upheavals" keeps occurring to me, though I haven't yet come up with a title that makes good use of it. At the same time, I also keep thinking that the title needs to indicate more clearly what it's about, so it might make sense to use the term "civil wars" right there in the name. Of course, any change of terms in the title will alter the apparent scope of the article somewhat. So perhaps the first order of business should be to define that more clearly. As I've said, I want to move away from the "Yanqui-centric" view of things, which implicitly presumes that events in Central America only matter when they seem to present a "crisis" for US foreign policy. Needless to say, that's a major part of the story, but it's rather unbalanced, to say the least.

Okay, so instead of rambling on without reaching a conclusion, I'm just going to invite comments on all of this so we can get a good discussion going. Cgingold 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cgingold. I think this article is informative, but leans way too heavily on criticism of the United States and opponents of the communist movements. The crisis of instability & economy was real, and that should be the focus of the article. One can speculate on "Causes" but that should have its own section and not be systemically included everywhere in the article. Panaffa (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]