Talk:Roberto D'Aubuisson

Top

Text and external sites I have followed up suggest that subject is deceased, but give no date or cause. This seems to be an odd omission. -- Shoka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoka (talk • contribs) 12 December 2004

On February 20, 1992, Roberto D'Aubuisson died. [NYT 2/21/92]

Seems to be reasonable. I'll amend the main page -- Shoka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoka (talk • contribs) 12 December 2004

http://www.deadoraliveinfo.com/dead.nsf/dnames-nf/D'Aubuisson+Roberto

This site gives a different and complete birthdate...

And gives the cause of death as cancer...

Brittania gives his birth year as 43. Any definitave sources? -- Shoka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoka (talk • contribs) 12 December 2004

How is his surname pronounced?

Does anybody know?

I mean: what is the pronunciation -- or, what are the pronunciations -- in El Salvador?

I have the impression that the most usual pronunciation is ['dabwison]: i.e., the first "-u-" is mute (they say [dab-] rather than [daub-]), and the stress is on the first syllable.

But, theoretically, the pronunciation should be [da(u)bwi'son]: this is clearly a French surname, so the stress should be on the last syllable.

Do you know whether the pronunciation [daubwi'son], or [dabwi'son], is actually used by at least somebody in El Salvador?

Thanks for your help. Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.66.205.24 (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

SOA Watch

SOAW mission statement (from website): "SOA Watch is a nonviolent grassroots movement that works to stand in solidarity with the people of Latin America, to close the SOA/WHINSEC and to change oppressive U.S. foreign policy that the SOA represents. We are grateful to our sisters and brothers throughout Latin America for their inspiration and the invitation to join them in their struggle for economic and social justice." Where is the left-wing partisanship you claim? —Seselwa 02:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you ever hear a conservative (hell, even a moderate) use the terms "economic and social justice"? And good job judging a site's partisanship based on it's fucking MISSION STATEMENT. I'm sure if you went to PNAC, they'd probably say "We're dedicated to expanding democratic influence and peace in the post-Cold War era" but that doesn't alter the fact that they're neoconservative.

SOA Watch is predicated on the assumption that with regards to Latin America, the U.S. was on the wrong side of history in attempting to combat both indigenous and Soviet-inspired Marxist influence. I'll dig up the source if you want, but one of the contributors has stated that he views Castroite Cuba as heaven on earth. And they allege that the U.S. deliberately trained Latin American officers in death squad tactics, which has never been conclusively proven; in fact, most of the dirty counterinsurgency tactics used in the '70s and '80s such as "disappearing" people was pretty endemic to Latin America. A more rational explanation is that the U.S. tried to make the best out of an already chaotic situation (indeed, I've read that the bloodiest year in El Salvador was 1980, BEFORE Reagan authorized military aid or was even President), but of course SOAW can't have that, 'cuz it'd ruin the whole foundation of their site. De-Chomskidize 21:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The term "activist" is sufficient. "Left-wing" refers to economic policy, and SOAW is a human rights group, not an economic policy think tank. I trust that interested persons will visit their website and determine for themselves whether it should be considered "leftist" or not. --Seselwa 23:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Last paragraph of PNAC "statement of principles": "Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next." (bolding added) The difference is PNAC states an affinity with a particular political tendency/ideology, and SOAW does not. --Seselwa 23:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No leftism is not just economic policy. And just because someone does not explicitly state their ideology, does not mean idiots cannot deduce it. De-Chomskidize 04:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do find this article POV against D'Aubuisson from a glance; it also lacks content; I think a rewrite is in order when the protection order comes off, hopefully with the intention of trying to resolve this obviously hot dispute. NPOV means balancing the good and the bad about the man. --SqueakBox 23:12, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

FYI everyone: User:De-Chomskidize is a "sockpuppet" of User:Trey Stone, who created that account to evade a 24 hr block, which should still be in effect. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Trey Stone. WebLuis 05:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted, Duarte's PDC government was extremely unstable during its 10-year rule, though, and many have accused him of turning a blind eye to human rights violations committed by the Salvadoran military and affiliated death squads. Another explanation could be the extreme difficulty of the situation, due to El Salvador's state of near-anarchy and potential death threats against Duarte had he strongly spoken out against extremist factions within the military. looks like it should be in the Duarte article, lets stick to D'Aubuisson here. this is a serious rewrite to start with; I am trying to get more info, though not easy in Spanish? If you have problems with my edits talk about it here. --SqueakBox 16:05, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

The link just goes to an advertising space for soawatch.com (spam?), and even using their search engine they give nothing about D'Aubuisson. --SqueakBox 18:09, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes they do. The correct address is http://www.soaw.org and the "graduates" section contains the following information:

Roberto D'Aubuisson, 1972, Communications Officer Course

Romero assassination, 1980: Planned and ordered the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, beloved champion of the poor in El Salvador.

Death Squad Organizer, 1978-1992: Organized El Salvador's death squad network. (United Nations Truth Commission Report on El Salvador, 1993)

--Seselwa 20:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have now done a rewrite. there doesn't seem to be that much info about him on the net. I still the article is very POV against him, but hard to find many good words about him, though he does seem to be respected by ARENA. This is an ongoing project. --SqueakBox 19:12, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a head-scratcher alright. Hard to find something good about a guy called, "blowtorch", dontcha think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.199.95 (talk) 05:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

All I can find on the page you know gave me is Lower-level SOA graduates have participated in human rights abuses that include the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero and the El Mozote Massacre of 900 civilians. If I follow the link I read

From El Salvador. In 1983, Colonel Francisco del Cid Diaz (then a 2nd Lieutenant) commanded a unit that forcibly removed 16 residents from the Los Hojas cooperative of the Asociación Nacional de Indígenas, bound and beat them, shot all 16 at point-blank range and threw their bodies in the Cuyuapa River. This is a very well known, very high profile and notorious massacre, and cited in the annual State Department Human Rights Country Reports throughout the 1980s. The case was also investigated by, and included in the final report of, the El Salvador Truth Commission established under the Salvadoran Peace Accords.

The El Salvador Supreme Court granted amnesty to all defendants, but in 1992 the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights stated that there was substantial evidence that Col. del Cid Diaz and the other ranking officer present gave the orders to execute, and recommended that the Salvadoran government bring them to justice. Instead of facing justice, we find that Col. del Cid Diaz was at the WHINSEC in 2003, and was also enrolled in SOA in 1988 and 1991.

None of which specifically mentions D'Aubuisson. I need a direct link to text that talk directly about D'Aubuisson. If you give me this i will happily put it in. --SqueakBox 23:17, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I finally found the right link, and have put it in. You must get a direct link and not allow the reader to have to search for it themselves; which could be misconstrued as forcing people to go looking through SOA watch, but is more likely to just irritate people. --SqueakBox 23:36, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

if that's the "evidence" they've got that the U.S. was complicit in massacres and indiscriminate killings it's pretty lackluster J. Parker Stone 04:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree the link is pretty lacklustre, especially as the man is so evidently hated in many quarters. --SqueakBox 19:04, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed link removal

I propose we remove the SOAB link. It is a tiny bit that you have to scroll through the page in search of. It is not appropriate, it does not add anything, it just distracts the reader. What do others think? Can we get a consensus here before making changes, --SqueakBox 19:18, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly that it is worth keeping. -- Viajero 19:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sesel just reverted the 2-0 consensus against removing the link, without even bothering to come here and express why that is the case. I will wait 24 hours, but 2-0 is consensus and no-one else has either wanted or bothered to put their piece in. Or what does Sesel want, that we return to his lousy link that you had to find 2 lother links to in order to finally find his piece. And this person wants to be an admin? --SqueakBox 21:56, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if rather than simply reverting Sesel would care to explain why he thinks this link should be included. For my part, I tend to favor external links to pages that offer a particular POV, say an Op-Ed, or more background information/detail than is included in the article. In this case, neither seems to apply here. Our article is far more substantial than the SOA listing, so why bother link to it? -- Viajero 22:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Juxtaposition confusing

I don't understand the juxtaposition of these two sentences in the fourth paragraph:

Yet it was his opposition to the Revolutionary Government Junta (JRG) which ruled El Salvador between 15 October 1979 and 1982 that brought D'Aubuisson to national prominence. On top of the 100 reported deaths at the hands of the new government in the first week of the junta were those of 11 secret agents of D'Aubuisson's killed by guerrilla groups.

Schematically seen: he comes to prominence in his opposition --> government kills 100 people first week --> 11 of his men killed by guerrillas. Seems a non sequitur to me. I am removing the 2nd sentence pending futher discussion. -- Viajero 13:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Romero?

Just curious, but does anyone know why he killed Romero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.246.158 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 31 August 2005

Possible Answers: D'aubuisson order the killing of Romero, because Romero denounced the massacres by the right wing party which was associated with the militar dictatorship. At least 30,000 people were taken out of their homes, tortured, and executed by the death squads created and directed by D'aubuisson. At that time, the press was censured, there was no free speach, and anyone who made a comment against the dictatorship would be considered a traidor, terrorist, and as a result, executed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.6.39 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 6 March 2006

Note: The next respondent went back and numbered the previous answer as "A)," then added:

B) Romero, was considered by the Salvadorian rightwing to be an agitator, using his position in the church to politicize it. At the time, there was no dictatorship in El Salvador, but instead a purely unstable political climate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.225.2 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 May 2006

A dictatorship existed in El Salvador at least between 1932-1992. Anybody who wishes to refute this is respectufully invited to a duel, your weapon of choice. Jorcas 06:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all it is not clear that D'Aubuisson killed Romero. Then even if he did the reasons given by the person above are a complete fallacy. But what it fair to say is that Romero was killed by the right wing, because Romero became a big mass agitator for the left, that during mass he would implicitly invite people to join the revolution. Also I would like to know where do you get the 30 000 executions??? That is straight out none sense. The total number of casualties during the war was 75 000 of which more than half of those are credited to the Army (this is according to the Commission of Truth) so according to you there must have been way more than that, so there seems to be a problem with your numbers. Second of all the so famous Death Squads were created to commit political crimes, they never went to combat or anything so what you are saying doesn't make any sense and it is NOT TRUE! Then another fallacy in the 1980's is there was dictatorship in El Salvador. The Junta existed which was a board that was formed by civilians and members of the army ((gee, just like a town-hall meeting!)). Before you answer historical questions like that you should try to check your sources, because for the people like me who knows about the topic because we lived it, it could offending that someone who read a few erroneous books on it think that could come and topic about the topic in such an irresponsible way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.152.14 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 23 May 2007

Well shoot. You don't cite any of your evidence either. Why should you be any more believable than the guy above? Because you "lived it"? Half the population of the U.S. voted for George Bush in the last election, and they're also "living through it" (meaning current events (?))Twenty years down the road, I wouldn't trust their judgement looking back on current events, either. Do you really believe you're more "responsible", historically speaking? If so, how? Cite your evidence.

Like the orther Mr. said before, there's not a proven fact that D'Abuisson "killed" Romero, this is because there were never a trial or a profesional investigation about the assasination. There was one, in the times of the civil war, a sloppy investigation, with poor information, with a lot of fantastic theories pointing at "in wich way was Romero killed", but not centered in "who killed it". On the other hand, the fact that D'Abuisson was a leader of the death squads, that Romero was seen as an enemy by the right wing, such as other priests, political activists, intelectuals, and such, and that R. D'Abuisson had a major role in the development of the death squads, it's right, and it's not a secret. There are reports (I don't have the citation, but I have readed a report in a local newspaper) that even were foreigns involved in the assasination of Romero, there are reports that claim that an Argentinian Army Officer was involved in the plot. In the country (El Salvador), by far, nobody knows the truth about who killed Romero, but by the modus operandi, the form of the assasination, the principal suspect is D'Abuisson Arrieta and the death squads he was involved. Let's say that in El Salvador everybody knows (or pretend not to know) that D'Abuisson was the principal figure behind the assasination of Romero, but it's like an urban legend. There are no proofs actually. Romero was not a "big mass agitator", it was only a priest, who was comited to the poors, and to the opressed, he never "implicitly invite people to join the revolution". There was never such a speech by Romero. Never. If this user was talking about fallacies, he must see what he has just writed down. About the executions, perhaps the number "75 000" is a total conservative number. This number (as far as I know) it's too low, because the Commission of truth couldn't with all denounces of abuses commited in the war. So, say "75 000" could be even a small number, because it doesn't count many casualties that the comission of the truth never heard of them, including dissapearences. There's no such thing as "an exact number", these are only aproximates. There's another thing, not only D'Abuisson was involved as a leader of the death squads, there were more people involved as leaders. This is because there was not only one movement or cell, there were many. Many of these leaders were linked to the state security forces, the military or the police. Saying that D'Abuisson (only) created or directed the death squads is perhaps giving him to much credit. As a final item, the person who said that "the people like me (he) who knows about the topic because we lived it", I should say that you live it, but perhaps blinfolded because what you did is posting your opinions, not facts. The truth about history is that there is not just ONLY ONE explanation, there are many, as there are many sources, as there are many theories, as interpretations. Irresponsable is to say "I know the truth because I live it", yes, you live it ... but I still don't know where ... I think we all can contribute to to make articles like this one better ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniellederossi (talk • contribs) 08:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What I resent in the original article is that claim that Romero had sexual affairs with many women throughout El Salvador. I have read several biographies of Romero and have spoken to people who knew him personally, and never once have I heard anything remoted related to any breaches of his priestly promise of chastity. That statement is pure slander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.129.139.236 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed inaccurate information

I removed the statement that no street has been named in his honor and that ARENA is trying to distance itself from its founder. The former "Calle El Pedregal" in San Salvador's metropolitan area was renamed in D'Aubuisson honor on June 21, 2006. The news were published in several Salvadoran newspapers. Here is the link to one:

[1] Luis Basurto Aramburu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisbaram (talk • contribs) 19:36, 25 August 2006

Blowtorch Bob?

So the article says he was known as "Blowtorch Bob" by some of his detractors. It would be nice if the article says why they referred to him as that. Was it his love of oxy-acetylene welding to create beautiful sculpture in his spare time? Was it his blazing fastball as a young baseball player? Or was it because he was known for favoring the use of a blowtorch as an instrument of torture? Or something else entirely?

Regardless of its actual truth, if you're going to mention something significant like that nickname, I think it merits including *why* that nickname was given to him, even if it is a unjustified pejorative. Especially considering this man's other documented exploits, there is probably at least some truth to the origin of the nickname.

208.185.179.196 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)andrew

I have removed it. Especially during this time of great tragedy for his family we need to remeber that even dead folks bios need extra care not to introduce negative material, SqueakBox 21:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Aww. Poor D'Aubuisson family…

The recent murders should not influence Wikipedia's content. —Sesel 00:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What recent murders? Forgive me, I am out of the loop. Chris 08:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Three Salvadoran members of the Central American Parliament, including Eduardo D'Aubuisson, were found dead outside Guatemala City a few days ago. —Sesel 09:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we source that and get it in the Parlacen article? I would say that is significant. Chris 10:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Easily sourced [2]. On the other hand somebody replaced the unsourced Blowtorch Bob which as uncited material should be treated as vandalsim but do source and replace. We cannot make up one set of rules for some bios and others for others, by having editors let alone admins here who just mock the D'Aubuisson family we are in danger of ruining wikipedia's credibility, SqueakBox 15:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, for those of us whose Spanish gets in more barfights than out of ;) , can we get an English language source? Really think that needs put in the article on Parlacen. Chris 22:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I put it there already. Couldnt find an en source but I only read UK press in en, suggest you try the US press. Its been headline news here and on CNN, SqueakBox 22:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"dead folks bios need extra care not to introduce negative material" Great! Let's clean up Hitler's, Reagan's, Saddam's and McVeigh's bio's. (BTW, D'aubuisson's family includes a half sister nun that was afraid of him.) Jorcas 06:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not demonising people judged wicked is an important part of wikipedia, especially as mostly when we deal with politicians one man's wicked is another man's good, this is obviously the case with Reagan and arguably with D'Aubuisson too, eg the support of Saca, SqueakBox

....be interesting to hear the argument you got in the old Blowtorch's favor..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.9.3 (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The POV issue

One continuing problem with the article, despite recent months' attempts to rewrite it, is that there is only one footnoted citation. Much of what must be said about D'Aubuisson is going to come off as non-neutral POV with no citations to let the reader assess the credibility of the sources used; it also lends itself to questions of original research. Wikipedia policy doesn't necessarily call for a one-to-one ratio of positive and negative information, but the least we can do in gathering information that's going to trend negative is to give solid references to back it up. Lawikitejana 21:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and easily done. Here is the UN Commission for Truth's finding, which has been widely received. The US ambassador to El Salvador until 1981, as mentioned, called D'Aubuisson a "psychopathic killer." MarkB2 15:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the term "left leaning" which was used to describe the UN Commission for Truth. --The Four Deuces (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I dispute putting him in the category "anti-communist". I would like to see some citation that any of the people he opposed were actually Communists.Pustelnik (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Admiration of Hitler?

"In the course of his politics, he voiced admiration of Adolf Hitler, saying, You Germans were very intelligent. You realized that the Jews were responsible for the spread of Communism, and you began to kill them."

Does anyone have a more reliable source than ThirdWorldTraveler? It's hardly the most credible site around. I'm not disputing that D'Aubuisson said that (he was hardly a great guy), but how about a more objective source? Josh (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"D'Aubuisson has at various times threatened to murder all the Jesuits in El Salvador, as instruments of Communism; threatened to murder James Cheek, a State Department official under Carter, also for serving the Red cause; and expressed admiration for Hitler's efficient resolution of the Jewish problem." Walden Bello and Edward S. Herman, "U.S.-Sponsored Elections in El Salvador and the Philippines," World Policy Journal, (1: 4, Summer, 1984), 851-869. www.jstor.org/stable/40208969.--Lacarids (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: "Reception in the U.S." section

There is an attempt in this section to link D'Aubuisson and his radicalism to being US-supported or US-aided. Such a link did not exist at all. Please see

• Walter Lafeber, "The Reagan Administration and Revolutions in Central America," Political Science Quarterly, (99: 1, Spring, 1984), 1-25. www.jstor.org/stable/2150256.
• Pratap C. Chitnis, "Observing El Salvador: The 1984 Elections," Third World Quarterly, (6:4, Oct., 1984), 963-980 www.jstor.org/stable/3991805.
• Walter Lafeber, "The Reagan Administration and Revolutions in Central America," Political Science Quarterly, (99: 1, Spring 1984), 1-25. www.jstor.org/stable/2150256.

Please note that there is absolutely zero question that the US was very much anti-D'Aubuisson. As it currently stands, the article reflects the opposite. Is it better to note the US opposition to his radicalism? Or is it better to delete the US section all together? I'm in favor of deleting the reference all together. --Lacarids (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? Bueler? I'll give it a few more days...if no one voices any thoughts, I'm taking out the misleading paragraph. --Lacarids (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed. --Lacarids (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"neo-Nazi"

Here are five neutral RS encyclopedia articles about RdA which discuss his crimes but call him extreme-right rather than neoNazi. A Noam Chomsky remark in an interview is not RS. https://books.google.com/books?id=b8k4rEPvq_8C&pg=PA72 https://books.google.com/books?id=tIOzDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA251 https://books.google.com/books?id=55NPpA6EvyMC&pg=PA69 https://books.google.com/books?id=jVqqAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA139 https://books.google.com/books?id=AHpFp2nsGyUC&pg=PA119 NPalgan2 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I do what you want, then you revert me because it’s not an ‘RS’ source? Thanks for wasting my time. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 05:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Logical brist

On May 7, 1980, [...], D'Aubuisson and a group of civilians and soldiers were arrested on a farm. ... Their arrests ... [lead] to D'Aubuisson's return from Guatemalan exile.

D'Aubuisson's arrest led to his return from Guatemalan exile? That makes no sense. Uglemat (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)