The article in question has to be completely rewritten from scratch. Horhey420 has an undisputed history of abusing Wikipedia to promote his personal POV, and the problems there are obvious. Here are some of the problems:

• "The US increased aid as atrocities declined. The UN Truth Commission received direct complaints of almost 2,600 victims of serious violence occurring in 1980. It received direct complaints of just over 140 victims of serious violence occurring in 1985 (Report of the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador, UN Security Council S/25500, April 1, 1993, pp29, 36)". Horhey removed this without discussion (censorship!!!!!), calling it a "false premise".
• Neil Livingstone wrote that "Those in the Congress who cry the loudest for cutting aid to nations like El Salvador are the real patrons of death squads. By denying the Salvadoran government the resources and assistance it needs to fight a "clean war" on the battlefield, Congressional opponents are, for all intents and purposes, mandating that those frustrated by the government's inability to win a decisive victory by means of conventional military power will increasingly resort to a "dirty war" in the cities and countryside". ("Death Squads," World Affairs, Winter 1983-1984, pp. 239-248). Horhey added this to the article with the summary: "In [Neil] Livingstone's view, the mass murder is necessary as "nearly all were leftists or relatives of left—wing activists". Livingstone was then removed.
• The combination of primary sources and government documents that date back to the forties is a flagrant violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR, with Horhey taking any random quote that he feels makes the US look bad and adding it to bolster his argument.
• The absurdly long sections on US involvement and US media coverage are violations of WP:UNDUE.
• The fact that the "Deaths Squads" famously plotted to kill the US ambassador is not mentioned, among other salient facts.
• You shouldn't encourage him to believe that his edits to that page are under attack by several editors because of a right-wing censorship cabal. To defend the page in its current form is to show a shocking disregard for Wikipedia policy. If you do understand Wikipedia policy, as you claim, then you should not disregard it for those you see as "partisans" in your ideological fanaticism.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheTimesAreAChanging -- I'll point out again that I am not responsible for Horhey420, regardless of how many times you come here insinuating that I am. If you have a problem with him, deal with it somewhere other than my talk page. The fact that you're repeating the straw man about my "encouraging" everything he's doing, after I'VE CLEARLY STATED MULTIPLE TIMES THAT I DON'T SUPPORT MANY OF THE THINGS HE IS DOING (clear enough now?) is driving me to the point where I don't feel that you're worthy of responding to any longer (if you're just going to keep making things up and pretending like you don't hear me when I correct you, then what's the point?).

I'll say this one more time: I think you and Merabu have given Horhey420 good advice on both the content he is adding, and the manner in which he interacts with other editors. I stated this clearly to him, and to you. I ALSO think that you have a problem with how you're editing and interacting with other editors. You edit almost exclusively in a single, very narrow topic area (U.S. foreign policy), and almost all of your work there is geared towards making the U.S. government look good, often by removing reliably sourced information (e.g. [1]) ... and you regularly interact in the same uncivil way that you're hypocritically attacking Horhey420 for interacting.

The fact that I agree with Horhey420 on some things (i.e. the fact that you are a nationalist who is primarily on Wikipedia to sanitize the image of your favored nation), does not automatically mean that I support everything he is doing (i.e. extremely lengthy quotes, synth, placing huge amounts of information into single sections rather than integrating it into the article, misrepresentation of sources, etc). You and Merabu can keep insinuating that it does mean that, if you want, but I'm simply going to start ignoring you the next time it happens. That goes in both directions, by the way -- the fact that I don't agree with a lot of what you are doing, doesn't mean that I disagree with everything you've done. I actually like some of the edits you've made there. For instance, a lot of the content you removed from the Indonesia article did need to go. What I take issue with is the information you removed that should have stayed (after being rewritten, using better sources, and integrated into the article rather than in its own section).

Now, that said, I *do* agree with you that the El Salvador article needs a lot of work, and that many of Horhey's edits there are problematic. *But* what I think is that instead of what you normally do (i.e. remove everything you don't like), try to IMPROVE it. First off, the content U.S. section needs to be interwoven throughout the article. The U.S. was deeply involved throughout the whole affair, and should be talked about right alongside the Ecuadorian government, in each section. The only thing in the "U.S. involvement" section should be broad/general commentary about U.S. support as a whole -- specific historical information should be chronologically placed in the article body with other events that were taking place at that time. What should NOT happen is that these historical events should be removed (assuming they are backed by RS and these sources aren't misrepresented). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be more clear re: El Salvador. I agree, the article needs major reorganization, rewriting, etc. But what I'd like to see is that reliable sources that are currently in the article are kept and used appropriately, per WP:NPOV. You have a tendency to remove sources along with content, and replace them with sources/content that fits your POV. What I'd like to see is you adding your own sources and *keeping* the other sources, and integrating *both* into the article. I feel like this would diffuse a lot of conflict between the two of you, if instead of you just going and removing everything he's added, if you were to try to improve it AND add other sources/content with alternative viewpoints. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, I just now looked at the article again, and one thing that has changed for the better since the last time I looked at it is that there is no longer a lengthy "U.S. involvement" section, so disregard my comments above suggesting removing that (already done). So, since that's done, let's address your suggested changes:

• I agree with you that U.S. media coverage section is too long. I think that all of that section should be moved to a sub-article called U.S. media coverage of the Salvadoran Civil War. What I do not think should happen is that all of the information and sources are just thrown away. I'd rather see it put in the proper place (which is not in the main article -- at least, not at that much depth), rather than trashed. I do not agree with you that there is too much about U.S. involvement in the article. The U.S. was at the center of the entire affair, from the beginning to the end, and this is every bit as important to talk about as the role that the Salvadoran (and Soviet, Cuban, etc.) governments played in it. However, I do NOT think this should be done in a separate section. It should be intergrated throughout the article, chronologically.
• I do not agree with the way Horhey portrayed Livingstone in the article (assuming that what you said was true). I do agree, however, that Livingstone should have just been removed altogether -- primarily because it is all rhetoric, and doesn't talk about anything concrete; but also because it is simply a false representation of what happened: the dirty war was not something that was forced on the Salvadoran government -- it was engineered intentionally by them in concert with U.S. officials, and there was no conventional enemy to fight in the first place. It's not like they were planning on having tank battles and aerial dogfights with the guerrillas, and then the peaceniks forced them into fighting a dirty war. That doesn't even make sense. But again, the main issue is that it's just some random rhetorical quote that doesn't leave the reader any more informed about actual historical events (Horhey has also added a lot of this sort of rhetorical fluff, which I also think should go).
• I also agree that there are places where Horhey is using WP:SYNTH and this should be fixed by rewriting so that it isn't SYNTH, rather than by removing the sources. As far as primary sources, you'll need to be more specific. Primary sources are not prohibited. What is prohibited is original research from primary sources. If a primary source clearly states something important, then we can use it as a source for that. What we can't do (which Horhey has done at times) is take this and try to explain it on our own as editors -- we need secondary sources for that.
• Regarding "salient facts" that you feel are missing -- add them, with reliable sources. But try to get them from reputable sources like academic publishers, instead of corporate newspapers and such, which have now (in hindsight) been shown to have been dramatically misrepresenting what was happening there (whether intentional or not). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made plenty of edits that include criticism of US foreign policy; i.e. here, here, here, and here; I've even been accused of supporting the Soviet Union. I've certainly worked on other subjects. I appreciate the long and detailed response, but I'm not sure how to respond. I'm not sure I will get deeply involved in the article, because Horhey is too much trouble. Nevertheless, I will say that many of the death squads were private militias acting out of a deep-seated hatred for communists--likewise, the killings in Indonesia were largely carried out by ordinary citizens with machetes. The deaths squads denounced President Duarte as a traitor and threatened his life; the Carter administration repeatedly prevented right-wing coups. Your view of the death squads as a monolithic proxy of the US is at best an opinion, at worst the product of misinformation. Livingstone's comments are more in touch with reality in that regard, and he does offer historical examples for evidence. I'm not comfortable spending more time trying to justify myself or debating you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the death squads in El Salvador were "a monolithic proxy of the US" (yet another straw man argument) ... Nor did I claim that I want to debate you about anything. It's you who came here to start a discussion, with several different points you wished me to address. If you weren't interested in talking about them, I really wish you wouldn't have wasted my time starting the conversation in the first place. I was trying to be civil and address the concerns you raised, but I wouldn't have taken the time to respond if I knew you didn't actually want to talk about the article. In the future, please don't post anything here if you don't want me to respond to it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said that the death squads were created and "engineered by them [the Salvadoran government] in concert with US officials". Speaking of straw men, I never said that you were "responsible" for Horhey's edits (I asked why you defended them), nor did I mention any "corporate newspapers", nor was I upset that you responded. None of your general suggestions for editing the page are stunningly original or unique, however. You satisfied my desire for an explanation for your behavior. Anything else I would discuss on the TP of the article in question.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt this interesting. TheTimesAreAChanging if you're so confident in your views of the Salvador issue, just add it to the page. Oh and I did not remove this: "It received direct complaints of just over 140 victims of serious violence occurring in 1985 (Report of the UN Truth Commission on El Salvador, UN Security Council S/25500, April 1, 1993, pp29, 36)". I removed the commentary which was not supported by the source: the Commission did not say that US-aid to the security apparatus is what caused the decline in death squad activities but that is what the editor said. The evidence shows the opposite. It's all there if you look. You two are a little too concerned about me. Hey Jrtayloriv he frequently removes content he doesnt like because he's apparently allowed to. They let him do what he wants. That's what it looks like.--Horhey420 (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's on the talk page preparing for mass removal.--Horhey420 (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]