Talk:Sandinista National Liberation Front

Archived Talk 1 Archived Talk 2

Democide and Support

The "democide" figure is bullshit. No reputable human rights group or foreign news agency ever described the Sandinista government as killing thousands of their own citizens. Some crank writing a book and making figures up is not admissable. The Permanent Commission on Human Rights was a US-funded propaganda outlet in Nicaragua that, contrary to every other organization on Earth, found more human rights violations with the FSLN than with the Contras.

The Support of Foreign Fighters section is bullshit, too. The ICJ determined that. In addition, it's pretty amusing that the State Department of the nation that the ICJ determined was waging a war of aggression against Nicaragua gets its own little section throw out accusations and slanders based on US State Department accusations. The part about Cuba is completely redundant as well. I'm heavily editing these sections. MarkB2 01:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

So you disagree. Then add additional reliable sources of your own. But Rummel's book is a reliable source and you have no justification for removing that material. He is a professor and his book is published by a major publisher. This is the definition of a reliable source. You don't get to vote it out simply because in your opinion he is wrong. - Merzbow 02:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Read an Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch or CIIR report on human rights in Nicaragua before citing an intellectual of the nation that was waging war against the Nicaraguan government as a "reliable" source on how many people the Nicaraguan government killed. I'm sure I could find all sorts of Chinese historians who would maintain that the Tibetan government of the 1940s was repressive and illegitimate. MarkB2^Chat 05:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it's your right to disagree. If you're correct, I'm sure you can find other reliable sources that disagree with the professor also, and add them to the article. - Merzbow 06:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

...After reviewing the human rights section, you're right. The sources I mentioned are all there. Why does "Democide" have its own section? The author is one of many sources describing the alleged human rights violations. Just because he uses a new term doesn't mean he should get his own section. MarkB2 ^Chat 07:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You have my full support, MarkB2; expanding the work of a single, obscure author dealing in a general subject -- not even specific to this page -- to the subject of an entire section is clearly a violation of WP:POINT and WP:SOAPBOX. I think this would be an excellent case for an RfC, and suggest you take it to the Wikipedia policy board for review. If you like, i will happily second the motion and offer evidence on your behalf. Stone put to sky 07:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Stone, what is your definition of an obscure author? Does a human-rights priest writing on a Catholic web site count? Just asking. - Merzbow 08:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean like, maybe, this guy? A priest, resident to the area in question for some thirty years, working in Human Rights the entire time, who is widely interviewed in the local and international media regarding the human rights situation there, who has won international awards for his work by two or three international (sectarian) human rights organizations, who gives lectures at Ivy League schools on the human rights situation in the region in question, and who is currently involved in documenting the local human rights violations for future reference?

But now, that must've been a rhetorical question, right? Because nobody would seriously suggest that a person who runs two different human rights organizations -- and who's been nominated by three different countries three different times for the Nobel Peace Prize -- and who's won 4 human rights awards from 4 different first-world countries -- and who's widely known for it in his country of origin -- wouldn't be a reliable source on the human rights situation there, would they?

And now you're seriously trying to argue that the Heritage Foundation is somehow a more reliable source? Stone put to sky 15:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to see if we can't get a consensus first. Pexise and Ultramarine might want to weigh in. MarkB2 ^Chat 07:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I could care less if it has its own section. What's not acceptable is blanking the material. Merzbow 08:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The material violated WP:POINT, WP:SYN, WP:SOAPBOX, and probably WP:OR as well. Obviously, deleting it was an act of mercy. Stone put to sky 08:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would take the reliability of a "human-rights priest writing on a Catholic web site" over that of a historian of a country that tried to decimate Nicaragua, Merzbow. But I suppose we need to be so inclusive on wikipedia that we give plenty of space to death squad apologists and revisionist historians so that every Heritage Foundation hack can piss on the memory of the Sandinistas after they urged and directed their country to destroy them in the 1980s. MarkB2 ^Chat 08:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Academic sources are the most reliable ones. You are right the NPOV requires the inclusion of the views of both sides.Ultramarine 09:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We have had a long discussion about this earlier (I wouldn't recommend you to read it as it is quite protracted) and we currently have the rather unsatisfactory compromise that is there at the moment. I had wanted to leave out some of the more unreliable sources such as the Heritage Foundation report, the TIME magazine article and certainly the democide section. However, another editor has insisted that these sources should remain. So, the compromise we have reached at is to include the unreliable sources which are subsequently largely discredited in the politicization section. It should be obvious that the democide stats are totally unreliable from the comment following that they are based on US state dept reports and PCHR.

However, I think that the quality of the article would be improved if certain sections were not included - the democide I find particularly problematic, and as the report is not specifically about the Sandinistas, but about every government in the world ever, I would say that it is way out of its area of expertise. It is also a fringe research area which is not part of mainstream human rights discourse (see earlier discussion on democide). I would also be happy to lose the Heritage Foundation article, and the subsequent trashing of its reliability, as I don't think it adds anything to the article other than being an example of Reaganite propaganda. Pexise 09:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, academic sources are the most reliable ones available. Again, NPOV requires the views of both sides. I do think, however, that we should start removing the large and completely unsourced pro-Sandinista sections, like the one on literacy and "Women in revolutionary Nicaragua".Ultramarine 09:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation material in no way approaches academic standards, and to suggest so is laughable.

For my part, i have no problem with relevant materials getting integrated into the article; however, this is another can of worms: if the Heritage Foundation numbers are in conflict with, say, the Nicaraguan Government's numbers, then which one should we accept? Obviously, reports by local observers are usually more reliable than reports by third-party or foreign ones; for the sake of a neutral article, though, we should also include dissenting views.

I propose this: the standard for inclusion in the article must be that any factsj presented have been reported by sources which are widely considered to be neutral, independent organizations. The Heritage Foundation clearly isn't, but if it's possible to back up their numbers with someone like Amnesty International or Human Rights' Watch, then i have no problem including them as part of the sources.

This is to protect against articles becoming "The Heritage Foundation presents: Sandinista History!" or some other such violation of NPOV.Stone put to sky 10:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation is most certainly a WP:RS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly is not; it's a publicly funded propaganda operation and nothing more. Its publications are not subject to peer review, are only published in accordance with Republican talking points, and are not used as authoritative, text-book material in any school, anywhere, unless it's some fourth tier joke like Dear Lord Bush's favorite Pat Robertson's McSchool for Dimwitted Scared-ee-cats.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation, and an obscure article from the back-pages of an over-priced propaganda group do not qualify as such. Stone put to sky 15:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the government think tank urging and advising the Reagan government to destroy the Sandinista government is certainly a WP:RS trustworthy source with regards to what the Nicaraguan government did. BTW, I find it amusing that you consider the Heritage Foundation a RS but Mediamatters isn't, of course.

I don't really care about the Heritage Source, because it shows what right-wing media in America looked like; the democide scholar is throwing numbers out that contradict every other WP:RS on the issue. And he still shouldn't have his own section. MarkB2 ^Chat 15:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats part of the problem! No one has put forth any other numbers from any outher sources. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes they have, please read the article: 'The CIIR report refers to estimates made by the NGO Americas Watch which count the number of non-battle related deaths and disappearances for which the government was responsible up to the year 1986 as "close to 300".' Pexise 17:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also argue that Rummel in this case is a fringe author writing outside his field of expertise. Pexise 18:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A widely-published professor writing in a book published by an academic press? You couldn't be more wrong: "Rudolph Joseph Rummel (born 1932-10-21) is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii... Rummel is the author of 24 scholarly books, and published his major results in Understanding Conflict and War (1975-81). He then spent the next fifteen years refining the underlying theory and testing it empirically on new data, against the empirical results of others, and on case studies." - Merzbow 19:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

CIIR is hardly a neutral source. From their own webiste: "CIIR's then education department supported the progressive elements of the church in various liberation and human rights struggles in Central America, southern Africa and Asia. CIIR published booklets on liberation theology and promoted progressive church speakers."[1] Furthermore, the American Watch figures refers to identified deaths at this time. Many human rights violations are not discovered until years later, usually when the old regime is removed, and even then many are never discovered. So it is not surprising that many mass graves were discovered after the Sandinistas were removed from power ,which American Watch has no knowledge of at this earlier time. Rummel's ´figure is his estimate of the total numbers killed, not only those clearly confirmed, based on the incomplete evidence available to him.Ultramarine 01:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

1) I was arguing that Rummel does not belong in a section on Human Rights violations by the Sandinistas because democide is a fringe concept in terms of human rights discourse - I notice that still no-one has provided a mainstream human rights source that refers to demcide - and because he is no expert on the Sandinistas or Nicaragua. This is evident by the fact that he uses US state department as a source, overlooking the widely documented propaganda generated by the US govt and the fact that the US was waging war against Nicaragua.

2) CIIR is a neutral source in this case - the section is about human rights, it just so happens that human rights correspond to the values of liberation theory and christianity. CIIR has no affiliation to any government, it has and had a mandate to promote development and human rights and fight against poverty.

3) Fine, but we are talking about non-battle related deaths attributed to the government, otherwise they are not human rights violations - there is no evidence of any more of these, the mass graves mentioned by IACHR were not attributed to government policy. Pexise 14:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply put: the "research" offered up in support of his "theory" is questionable, at best, and is in direct contradiction to most other research on the topic (and particularly that done by locals). Therefore, the citation should at best deserve a brief mention and nothing more; certainly not a whole section, the moreso because this is not the "Democide" page but the "Sandinistas" page. If these gentle and kind fellows want to start a "Democide" page and put this information there, then fine, they should go for it. Here, however, it should occupy only a small mention in the article and a link to the page in question, otherwise it's off-topic. Stone put to sky 15:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thos who want to dispute academic reserach should publish in academic journals, not as anonymous editors in Wikipedia. There are 200,000 Google hits for democide and it has been used in 400 academic works. Look at the description, CIIR was biased source at this time. The definiton of democide is essentailly "non-battle related deaths attributed to the government".Ultramarine 16:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am completely neutral on the Sandinistas and on the debate at hand. However I do have to point out that as a reader trying to learn more about the Sandinistas I can say that the article does have a pro-Sandinista lean at times. I would advise everyone debating here to please keep this in mind...it could lead some to questioning figures and claims that are totally legit. On the other side, it can cause some to totally discount the claims being made.Tbkflav 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey genious, as the sandinists promote human and social progress, how you could you not be pro-sandinist?By being egoist.And egoism is not a neutral POV.

We're all pro-sandinist here, because we do no think that torture, oppression and social inequality are the final goals of the human race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.196.65.91 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced sections on literacy and the role of women

Completely unsourced and pov. Objectiosn to removal? Ultramarine 16:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Democide is a neologism

According to Webster's dictionary [2], the American Heritage dictionary [3], and dictionary.com [4] , democide is not an established word in the english language. Its use in this article must be altered to an accepted word from the English lexicon. Using Neologisms certainly violates Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms guideline. I have included the relevant sections of the guideline:

Neologism as defined from Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms

Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities.

Why Wikipedia prohibits using neologisms

Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research—we don't do that here at Wikipedia. [5]

Abe Froman 15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! Definite grounds for removal. Pexise 16:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been cited by 400 academic works and have 200,000 Google hits. If you want to crticize academic material, publish in academic journals or books.Ultramarine 16:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"State terrorism" is not mentioned in these dictionaries either, but I presume you are not arguing that it should be removed? Ultramarine 16:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Invoking state terrorism is a red herring. State Terrorism is a phrase, not a word. Abe Froman 16:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

State terrorism is also irrelevant, nothing to do with this discussion. Please remain on topic. The 400 references etc. is not grounds to keep the section, as you can see neologisms: may be used widely or within certain communities Pexise 16:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"State terrorism" or "house demolition" are is not mentioned in these dictionaries either, so they shoudl be removed as well according to this claimed criteria. They are equivalent to new widely used words. Democde has been cited by 400 academic works and have 200,000 Google hits.Ultramarine 16:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

*1. Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms guideline mentions dictionaries as word sources, not google hits or academic works.

*2. Invoking state terrorism and house demolition are still red herrings. State Terrorism and house demolition are phrases, not individual words. Abe Froman 16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RS, academic sources are the most reliable. Dictionaries do not have only single words, they have combinations of several words also."State terrorism" or "house demolition" are is not mentioned in these dictionaries either, so they shoudl be removed as well according to this claimed criteria. They are equivalent to new widely used words. Democde has been cited by 400 academic works and have 200,000 Google hits.Ultramarine 16:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read the guideline. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Abe Froman 16:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(Responding to ultramarine) Irrelevant, please don't go off topic and please stop repeating yourself. You have copied and pasted the same point three times, and we have refuted it three times, you can't expect us to respond to this point again. Pexise 16:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Suggestion to delete democide section as this term is a neologism see discussion. Pexise 17:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding some sources. The term has been cited by 400 academic workds[6] and has 200,000 Google hits.[7]. As noted in Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms "the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal" which has been done. The term has been cited, used, and debated by many scholars. If Wikipedia should only include terms found in the above dictionaries, then widely used terms such as state terrorism and house demolition should be deleted as well.Ultramarine 17:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)." Pexise 17:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Lots of these academic works discuss the term. Again, if you want to dispute academic research, publish in academic books or journals, Wikiedia is not the place.Ultramarine 17:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." Please provide journal articles which discuss the term, not articles that just use it. Pexise 17:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, lots of these academic works do that. To quote from the guideline "Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources" Numerous academic works is just that.Ultramarine 18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

OK - let's see them then. Pexise 18:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

For starters, most of Rummel's books, published in academic press, discusses the definition and theory of the term.Ultramarine 18:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Any others?

Anarcho-capitalism, Juche, and Public choice theory are not found in the above dictionaries. Presumably we should delete these articles?Ultramarine 18:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Pexise 18:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? It is the same dictionaries you cite above.Ultramarine 18:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This section is about Democide. Any other sources that discuss the definition? Pexise 18:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No double standard please. I have already given Rummel's works and here is for example another.[8] But again, there are 400 academic works that use the term, and most of them discuss the term.Ultramarine 18:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That is an article about Genocide, not "democide". Pexise 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it also discusses democide and compares the concepts and definitions. Just one example of the 400 academic works.Ultramarine 18:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is not open access, so I can't read it, could you please quote the passages which discuss "democide". Pexise 19:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Once Abe's bad faith Afd on democide goes down in flames, the argument that "democide" is a violation of WP:NEO will have as much creditability as the AFD did. Ultramarine is absolutely right that Rummel's work is scholarly, well cited and he is a notable. The term, along with his work is used in multiple articles on Wikipedia. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is tendentious arguing, Pexise. We both know what you would be saying if this source was speaking from your POV. You're not going to succeed in getting impeccably academically referenced work like this removed from the article, period. I can agree to not giving it its own section, but the material will stay. - Merzbow 18:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks against me. I have a neutral point of view, it is uncivil to suggest otherwise. I have referred elsewhere to "democide" as a "useful concept" as I'm sure Ultramarine will confirm. I have also criticized it for being a fringe concept that is not used in human rights discourse. Since evidence has been provided that it is not an official word in the English language, I am questioning its inclusion based on Wikipedia policy. Pexise 19:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. WP:NEO is a guideline, not a policy. The guideline clearly says "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." As has been shown (for example [9], there are numerous such sources. - Merzbow 04:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would seem that based on the user input from the Afd the idea that Democide is a neologism and unsuitable for use in a wikipedia article is getting kicked in its nuts quite nicely. Perhaps the result of the Afd will settle this debate. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Rummel's source on Nicaragua is the US State Department anyway. WHy not go right to the source? MarkB2 ^Chat 04:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Was an official Afd opened? As the user who appears to have started this discussion, my concern was regarding use of the term "democide," not whether Rummel was a valid source (there appears to be no reason to show that it should not, although it is certainly fair to present other reliable sources that cast doubt on his methodology). It just struck me that 99.9% (approximately) of readers would be unfamiliar with this term and that it was unnecessary. WP:NEO may indeed only be a guideline, but it is a useful one. Notmyrealname 16:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced sections on literacy and the role of women

Completely unsourced and pov. Objectiosn to removal? Ultramarine 16:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you ask the editor who wrote the sections if they can provide their sources. Pexise 16:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Taht is your responsibility if you want to keep the material. See WP:RS.Ultramarine 16:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What specifically is the problem with the citations in the Women's section? Abe Froman 16:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that its my responsibility in WP:RS? Pexise 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have moved to WP:V, an even more important polivy. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."Ultramarine 16:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've started contacting the editors to ask for their sources. Pexise 17:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I will wait for a short time.Ultramarine 17:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't have time to delve into this right now, but this might be a useful source [10]. Notmyrealname 18:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If including a socialist magazine, then we should also include this.[11]Ultramarine 19:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

From the author's bio, she seems to have a certain expertise in the matter she's writing about. It's a carefully written and sourced article by an expert in her field. Notmyrealname 19:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find any section listing sources.Ultramarine 19:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The author of the other article is also an academic.[12]Ultramarine 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the article by Waller that you link to, this should be a separate discussion. This is not an arms race of articlesNotmyrealname 19:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There should not be a double standard.Ultramarine 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Each source should be considered on its merits. I agree that extra scrutiny should be given to items from publications with a pronounced ideological bent. This should also be made clear when citing the source in the text. Notmyrealname 20:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine - your academic teaches as a US military and intelligence school. And Notmyrealname is right, this discussion is not about the News World Publications article. We have already had the discussion about the News World Publications article and we agreed that you would try and find the original source. I assume that you have never been able to find it. Pexise 20:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find evidence for your description here.[13] Regarding the Spanish website, I find translating the Spanish boring. But my academic gives sources, which yours does not, which is another reason for his exclusion being a double standard.Ultramarine 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what Spanish article are you referring to? Notmyrealname 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The articles in general from the Spanish site.Ultramarine 20:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's some more useful sources [14] [15] Pexise 20:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

While at least your first source is written by an academic, these seem to be obscure webisites making claims without sources.Ultramarine 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The United Nations Development Fund for Women is part of the UN. I agree that the EPICA article needs to be evaluated with more caution. Notmyrealname 20:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The women's fund of the United Nations is obscure?????? I don't think you can get a less obscure source. EPICA is a faith based NGO established for over 30 years. Pexise 20:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Website is using the not very informative name "WomenWarPeace.org". But we could probably use it as a source, although it does not list an author and its contents is outdated, seeming to stop in the mid 1990s.Ultramarine 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when have minor NGOs been reliable sources for foreign policy analysis? Only if the author is academically notable then it can be considered. - Merzbow 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding EPICA: given the contentiousness of the issues at hand here, I think we should try to avoid unsigned articles written by advocacy groups as a general rule. The UN source seems like the epitome of WP:RS to me. Notmyrealname 20:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The UNIFEM description does not list sources or author and is outdated, seeming to stop in the mid 1990s. If included this should be mentioned.Ultramarine 21:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are relentless, Ultramarine. It's an official UN report. But we have to balance out that report, don't we. I'm sure you have some old press releases from Eliott Abrams calling the FSLN despots you could use, Ultramarine. And Oliver North's testimony is some good evidence that's relevant. MarkB2 ^Chat 21:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The UNIFEM sources are UN documents like CEDAW country reports and country reports to the UN Human Rights committees. Would be good if we can get hold of this book: [16] Pexise 21:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The description at "WomenWarPeace.org", which seems to be some kind of earlier special project by UNIFEM not located at their official website, does not list sources or author and is outdated, seeming to stop in the mid 1990s. If included this should be mentioned. Here is more neutral description of the role of women: [17]Ultramarine 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How can you complain about the date - we are dealing with the 1980s!!!!!! This report is also very interesting, fully referenced and based on interviews: [18] Pexise 21:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be a better source, please use that one instead. I again point to [19].Ultramarine 21:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Patricia Richards article is a good one Ultramarine, although focusing on post-Sandinista Nicaragua, it seems to have some interesting things to say. I would be happy for it to be incorporated. Pexise 21:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope we have two acceptable sources then, the pdf report and the article.Ultramarine 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two are fine. I don't see any problem with the UN page, the article I included (if we include some sort of a note like "the author, writing for the socialist journal Monthly Review, found that..."), or Margaret Randall's Sandino's Daughters Revisited (the article Ultramarine linked to spoke positively of this book), for starters. Notmyrealname 13:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No double standard please. Then we should also include [20], written by an academic.[21]Ultramarine 15:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No double standard, just apples and oranges. That was an online magazine article with no citations that contains rather outlandish human rights numbers with no sourcing. The other is a properly written and sourced article by a respected expert in her field. Each article needs to be judged on its merits. Notmyrealname 15:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The article states sources like the Permanent Commission. On the other hand, the socialist magazine is a partisan source listing no sources for its claims. A clear double standard.Ultramarine 15:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I think we have enough solid sources without this one. You should read this before concluding that the Permanent Commission is a reliable source. Notmyrealname 16:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet another partisan source. Why should it have to "submit copies of its reports for prior censorship" by the government and what is so terrible with receiving "assistance in the translation and distribution outside Nicaragua of the Permanent Commission's monthly reports"? Also regarding the Permanent Commission, the Inter American Commission on Human Rights have no problem with citing it.Ultramarine 16:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you quoting from something? Because nowhere does that article, based on a Scottish legal report, advocate censorship. As the article notes, a human rights group seriously diminishes its credibility when it receives funding from a government that is actively trying to overthrow the country it is monitoring. No serious human rights group would do this. The article raises other serious concerns about the credibility of the group and about how they define "human rights abuses." The IACHR cited the group in a single report in 1981. Notmyrealname 16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to these points, if you are deciding about credibility, and you are aware that a lot of propaganda was being produced at the time in question, in order to propogate a certain image, the fact that an organisation took money from a propaganda organisation - the National Endowment for Democracy - should make you EXTREMELY sceptical of that organisations claims. Pexise 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The National Endowment for Democracy is not a propaganda organization and the only money sent was for translating their monthly report. Money not sent to organization itself. I am quoting the same magazine when it described the CIIR report. The IACHR contined to met with and quote the organization also in later years.[22]Ultramarine 16:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

$50,000 just to translate a report? $50,000 will buy you a hell of a lot more than that in Nicaragua. Pexise 17:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Many reports. Also, your own source above states that it was not sent to the organzation itself. I again note that the IACHR contined to met with and quote the organization also in later years.[23]Ultramarine 17:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that it was not given to the organisation itself? Also, how can you ignore all of the evidence against the CPDH: membership to opposition parties, receiving US funding, publishing without evidence and all the rest of the evidence? Do you just ignore this stuff? Pexise 17:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just read the source - you should read these things more carefully, it shows clearly how unreliable CPDH is. They claim that the $50,000 was used to make 100 photocopies of their bulletin - what about the other $49,995? Pexise 17:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your claims are incorrect. Publishing without evidence = not accepting prior censorship. Receiving US funding = for translation and not given to the organization itself. Membership to opposition parties = unclear what you mean. Regarding your quote "Hernandez told Preston: "Our institution doesn't receive a cent from PRODEMCA or Endowment." When he made that assertion recently to envío, we asked about the Endowment's funding of the international distribution of the publications. He responded: "If you make 100 photocopies of our bulletin and distribute them to friends, does that make us dependent on you?" Meaning that if other recieve money for copying or translating your bulletin, this does not mean that you are have been influenced.Ultramarine 17:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How does publishing without evidence=not accepting censorship? There is no correlation there. If the was just for translation, why did they accept money from the US govt - they can't have been ignorant to the politics in play at the time. RE opposition parties, read: "The entire board of directors," Laverty continued, "are members of or closely identify with the 'Nicaraguan Democratic Coordinating Committee' (Coordinadora), an alliance of the more rightwing parties and COSEP, the business organization". $50,000 buys you a lot of influence in Nicaragua. Pexise 17:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, they did not accept money, it was sent to others who translated and distrubated their reports. No evidence has been presented that they published without evidence, only that they ignored censorship.Ultramarine 17:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"CPDH's potentially valuable advocacy for human rights as a private organization is flawed by its willingness to publish unsubstantiated allegations as fact. Its independence has also been compromised by donations from sources close to the US government." + Right wing party membership of all its directors, that's a pretty strong case. Pexise 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim regarding money is denied by the organization, the money was not sent to them. Exactly how have they published unsubstantiated allegations as facts`Ultramarine 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

'Laverty expresses concern about CPDH's general tendency to provide relatively few names and other details in connection with alleged violations. "According to the 11 monthly bulletins of 1987 (July being the only month without an issue), the CPDH claims to have received information on 1,236 abuses of all types. However, of those cases, only 144 names are provided. The majority of those 144 cases give dates and place of alleged incidents, but not all. This means that only in 11.65% of its cases is there the minimal detail provided to identify the person, place, date, incident and perpetrator of the abuse."'Pexise 17:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The same could be said regarding the IACHR or any report by human rights organizations. Relatively few names are given in the reports. Those interested in more exact the details usually have to contact the organization directly in order to access their archives with full and long testimonials and other material.Ultramarine 18:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha - you're really skating on thin ice now. Laverty interviewed people from the CPDH. The CPDH does not have the names of the 'victims' it talks about, that is why Laverty says they are insubstantiated. Pexise 18:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please give a quote supporting the claim that he interviewed CPDH.Ultramarine 18:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, envio interviewed them, and I'm sure Laverty wouldn't base his report on the fact that he simply didn't get round to asking for the names.

'Laverty notes that even in the most serious cases (deaths, disappearance, torture), minimal details are missing. And there is no suggestion by CPDH that it is withholding names because of fear of victimization or repression.' Pexise 18:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As explicitly stated, he is looking at their reports which as noted above is not the complete source material for any human rights organization.Ultramarine 18:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, I'm obviously wasting my time here. Pexise 19:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Proper citation for NORAD accusation?

Can someone give a proper reference (book and page number) about the Carlos Fonseca/NORAD accusation? I can't seem to find it in the sources listed (and as cited above, Andrew seems to think the most notable Sandinista action against a US target was the attempted kidnapping of an ambassador). (I originally posted this at the end of a previous discussion, but it was apparently lost in the hullabaloo). Notmyrealname 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

here and here. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure this clears this up though (in any case, all citations in the article from books need page numbers). The section in question currently reads: "Andrew and Mitrokhin say that in 1966, this KGB-controlled Sandinista sabotage and intelligence group was sent to the U.S.-Mexican border. Their primary targets were southern NORAD facilities the oil pipeline running from El Paso, Texas to Costa Mesa, California.[36] A support group, codenamed SATURN, passed as migrant farm workers to conceal themselves and smuggle in arms caches." A few concerns: neither source uses the acronym NORAD. It may well be what the author was referring to, but to make that assumption is WP:OR. The sources are also do not claim that they "passed as migrant farm workers," but rather that they monitored farm worker migration routes. In fact, the sources don't seem to say that the group ever took any action, much less smuggling in any arms caches. The footnotes are not visible through Google Scholar, so I can't tell what the source of these allegations is. It would be helpful if someone who actually owns one of these books could include that here. If it is only Mitrokhin's notes, I think that is pretty shaky "evidence" for a plan that appears not to have gotten very far. At the least we should put in that these are allegations. Notmyrealname 20:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this is just nonsense. TDCs links merely point to book reviews which do nothing to back up his delusional paranoia about savage Sandinistas infiltrating the USA to blow-up Mt Rushmore or whatever. It stands to common sense that the FSLN would have zero interest in doing any such thing. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the links are actually to to Google Scholar scans of selected pages of the books. But my reservations about what the article says does not seem to match what the books say. Notmyrealname 13:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that the military sites referred to were labeled by myself as NORAD sites, and although not referred to specifically as NORAD in the source, any air defense or radar stations operated by the DOD, would fall under NORAD’s domain. As far as the migrant labor cover, the exact quote from the source is as follows:

That kind of inference is exactly what WP:OR prohibits. Notmyrealname 14:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A support group codenamed SATURN was given the task of using the movements of migrant workers to conceal the transfer of agents and munitions across the border.

Right, but there's nothing in the text, or even implied by the other book, that says that this actually happened. Even here, the wording is very vague and does not merit what is in the Wikipedia article. "was given the task" is very different from "passed as." Andrew himself, as I quoted earlier, thinks that the plan to kidnap the US Ambassador was more important. The article presents the plots as if they actually happened. That is not what the text from the books imply. You might want to read "Our Man in Havana" by Grahame Greene. Notmyrealname 14:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the text that implies this happened?

In 1966 a KGB sabotage and intelligence group based in the ISKRA guerrilla group was formed (not planned or proposed, but actually formed) on the Mexican-US border with support bases in the area of Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana and Escinada. It leader Andara Y Ubeda (PRIM) travelld to Moscow for training in Line F operations.

Now, were these sabotage units ever used for sabotage? Obviously not, they recointered their targets and gathered intel on them in the event that they were ever called up during a time of hostilities (which did not include an all out war between the US and the USSR), they could quickly deployed and using the pre-positioed stockpiles of arms and explosives could carry out thier asigned taskes. But what it illustrates in the larger schem of the section in the article is that a sizebale contingent of the early FSLN was armed, financed, trained and controled by the KGB which is exceptionaly notable. If your point is to remove the term NORAD from the text, you have a case for that, but if your point is to remove the material, then you have no case. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The source for the allegations is not relevant as they have been presented by a WP:RS, Christopher Andrew. As to Smokey’s concerns: irrelevant. The links are not book review, but are the passages from the book via google books. The operations against Mt Whitmore and Flathead dam were carried out via Canada, and the FSLN did not have anything to do with this. Deriding this as a “Red Dawn” fantasy is an interesting way to dismiss the material, but hardly a solid argument for exclusion of the material. And as to why the FSLN would do this, simple, they wanted to keep their paymasters happy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is just more rubbish. The FSLN were no more paid by the Kremlin than The Osmonds were. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is rubbish or not rubbish is immaterial, and more importantly is a matter of opinion. It is sourced to a WP:RS, and thats all the material needs for inlcusion into the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but only when what is written in the article actually matches what is in the source (which in this case it doesn't). Also, including annotation of the source (when it comes from another WP:RS is allowed. Notmyrealname 15:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Propose somethin, I'm game. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My proposal would be to add it to a trivia section, but as these are not allowed, I would delete it. Notmyrealname 16:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well since that ain't gonna happen why not try pitching something a bit more reasonable. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

TDC's 'thesis' that the FSLN were in some way the creation of or in the pay of the Soviet Union falls apart immediately. If this were so why are they still going strong when the Soviet Union is long gone. Mention this to TDC though and he will start going on about Iran or somewhere equally irrelevant. There's no reasoning with this fellow.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 15:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats an interesting theory. What you need to do now is take that idea, expand on it, publish it in a journal, book, or another WP:RS and then it can go in the article. All you are doing now is spinning your wheels. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a theory. Basic applied common sense.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 16:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Common Sense does not trump WP:RS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The citation TDC uses heredoes not mention NORAD, anywhere. I fear this is more confabulation on his part. Abe Froman 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

" We can take the word "NORAD" out, not a big deal. But there is lots more good stuff like payment details in the book [24] Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is TDC's edit, so I think he should have first crack at removing facts not contained in the citations used; NORAD being the example under consideration. Abe Froman 18:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Whomever gets to it first gets to it first. The other main thing that needs to be corrected is that as it is written, it gives the impression that arms and money were actually smuggled, when the text does not say this. I think the whole thing should also be shortened or it is giving undue weight to a very insignificant alleged episode in an article on the FSLN. Notmyrealname 18:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

1984 election

We should have a separate section on this election, there is much to discuss. Thoughts? Ultramarine 17:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My concern here (and with the other conversations) is that this is becoming an article on Nicaraguan history of 1979-90 rather than an article on the FSLN. Notmyrealname 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then we should remove the pro-Sandinista material regarding this period also, right? Ultramarine 17:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's looking to me like we need several separate articles. I'm saying we should move (not remove) a lot of these subtopics and put them in their own articles. Notmyrealname 01:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, Andrew has a number of insights into the behavior and Moscow's attitudes on the 84 election. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I edited the section that claimed the FDN was comprised largely of ex-Guardia and wealthy landowners because their is nothing to substantiate this, and that in fact most of the footsoldiers of the FDN were peasants. At their peak the Guardia had no more than 6,000 members. Thousands were killed by the FSLN, many others fled, and a few stayed to lead the counter-revolutionary struggle. The Milpistas were the regular soldiers that did the fighting and the dying. Jpineda84 (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

the FDN was a military wing, it did not run for office in the 84 elections. That the FDN abdictated from the elections is impossible since they were never running! UNO was the leading party that was running against the FSLN and there is no proof that they did not make the decision to quit solely on the advice of Washington. Jpineda84 (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm really new to wikipedia so I really don't know how to address people directly, I guess this is the best I can do for now. My main concern is the neglection of UNO from the 1984 election section. Arturo Cruz was running for UNO and not for any FDN party, which didnt exist. I'm not sure about how we formally settle this argument, there are no references in that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpineda84 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I revised the old version which stated that "new parties" were created under the Sandinistas that were never allowed under Somoza. This sentence was supported by Leslie E. Anderson and Lawrence C Dodd's "Learning Democracy", pg. 65. Knowing this to be falls, and knowing the Sandistas intense dislike for democracy in principle, I checked out the source, and of course, nothing of this sort is stated. In fact, pg. 64 and pg 65 of the book which begins the chapter on the 1984 elections described the Sandinistas aversion to democracy and the external and internal political pressures that made 1984 possible. This book was written by academics holding doctorates in History and Political Science, I dont understand the accusation of not using a "main stream source" whatever that means Jpineda84 (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC) On a further note, if you are attacking my source why do you revert it to the previous version which uses the same source, yet completely fabricates the information? clearly if a correct paraphrase of the source is wrong, and incorrect paraphrase is worse Jpineda84 (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dennis Gilbert's the Sandinistas: The Party And The Revolution. Blackwell Publishers, 1988, is also used in this entry. Pg 22 of his book can be used to corroborate some of this information. He explains how Humberto Ortega described the revolution as “irreversible” and asserted that the purpose of elections was to “improve revolutionary power, not to raffle who has power”, elections were held to gain international legitimacy, however some parties “existed only on paper”. Sandinista restrictions had deliberately limited their development. Elections were strategic in the long term goals held out in th e"72 hour document" of 1979 --- a lot of it is there, Gilbert's book is often used as authority in this subject.

In Lafeber, Inevitable Revolutions, 2nd ed. (a man who is a Sandinistophile)also states on pg 308 that the Sandinistas gave into the Contadora groups demands for an election due to "growing religious, economic and military pressures" and to maintain the political initiative on the United States. Nothing about wanting new parties, nothing and wanting plurality. He does mention of p 309 about using "strong arm tactics to keep the opposition as weak as possible". This book is also an authority in the field. Jpineda84 (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am reading something wrong. Lawrence C Dodds "Learning Democracy: Citizen Engagement and Electoral Choice in Nicaragua, 1990-2001":

“ As with politics before it, the 1984 election drew upon the democratic qualities of ideology as formulated by Downs; provided a forum for all parties; and encouraged contestation and participation as formulated by Dahl. It was itself an excercise in dissent within the growing political space offered under the new regime. It offered a chance to exchange information and express alternative opinions about the state of the nation. ”

This sounds like it fits the section in question. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You also go through "Inevitable Revolutions" and on the following page ignore the details of the US placing a mock candidate to run for office, who never planned to fully run since it would give legitimacy to the Sandinistas if they won. Ignoring further there were 7 parties running all together. It goes on to state on page 310:

“ Others sharply disagreed. Western European delegations observed and approved the election process. Fifteen U.S. experts making up the Latin American Studies Association Observer Delegation reached a unanimous agreement that (in the words of one leader), "the election was fair, clean, and competitive, and that the Reagan Administration and the U.S. mass media ... had performed in a reprehensible manner" in judging the elections" ”

Again it sounds like the items support the content in question. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

- There is no dispute on the fact that their were elections and that parties competed. The argument is over the impetus of such an election, which did not come from a sincere will for democracy on behalf of the Sandinistas. Furthermore, political parties existed and competed under Somoza, they were not new developments, as was implied in the original post.

-What was new was the success of internal and external forces in pressuring the Nicaraguan regime to hold an actual election. This is argued in Dodds.

- Lefarber has no evidence that the US "placed a mock candidate" and thus does not argue it anywhere in his book and is not proven in your quote. In fact, Arturo Cruz had plans of his own and had many disagreements with the US, he was politically active, and was a Sandinista, way before AMeican intervention, these FACTS are demonstrated in any basic history of the revolution, including Inevitable Revolutions.Jpineda84 (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You did not actually counter anything I wrote, so my guess is you will leave the content as is. You made some complaints however the quotes covered them, no matter how much you disagree personally. The growing political sphere that was not available before obviously speaks to new groups. The passages also does not say there was no political groups under Samoza, so stating political groups existing was not a "new development" is true because it avoids the point of a broader political space. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed article

Thanks to TDC we now have a peer-reviewed article documenting serious human right violtions both during and after the Sandinistas were in power.[25] I will start incorporating it.Ultramarine 18:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"The article is based largely on interviews with the Permanent Commission on Human Rights." Source please for this claim.Ultramarine 19:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The references of the article include many interviews with Lino Hernández head of the CPDH. e.g. "9. Lino Hernandez, director, Comité Permanente de Derechos Humanos, interview with author, Managua, Nicaragua, June 4, 1999. ", there are many others. Pexise 20:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That is only a small minority. State how many you claim there are.Ultramarine 20:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to waste my time reading a clearly unreliable and biased article in order to ascertain what percentage or to what degree the article uses the CPDH, you can change it to 'the article uses interviews...' Pexise 20:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I will remove your claim entirely unless you, as a start, show that it is a significant part of the sources.Ultramarine 20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to "The article uses interviews with the Permanent Commission on Human Rights" I've already proved this. There are at least 10 other references to interviews with Lino Hernández. Pexise 20:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you implies that every source is an interview. Corrected.Ultramarine 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That article is obviously just Reaganite anti-Sandinista propaganda. It is full of lies. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 08:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Smokey, this kind of comment really isn't helping. Please be specific with your criticisms and cite proof to the contrary (this goes for everyone else too). Notmyrealname 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be lost on a few of the editors here that citing a lot of academics from the country that was waging war on the Sandinistas might not be the best way to source the article. I'll be sure to go on over to the East Timor page and rewrite the history of their genocide with some useful Indonesian sources. MarkB2 ^Chat 12:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, in the US you can also find lots of material claiming that the Sandinistas was just on the brink of the socialist paradise when the evil empire stopped them, since the US have free press. As a sidnote, if there had been a war, it would have been over in less than a week.Ultramarine 14:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultra, this kind of talk isn't really helpful. Talk pages are supposed to be places to discuss how to improve articles, not your feeling towards the subjects of the articles. Notmyrealname 23:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussions of organisations

It is relevant and important to discuss the PCHR - the subject of the section is the politicization of human rights which heavily involves the PCHR. They are also widely discussed in human rights literature. My objection to the CIIR quote was that it seemed too long and not particularly relevant. I'll make some changes. Pexise 13:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why it's necessary to include a long quote from the Progressio website in the main body of the text. It seems to be irrelevant for this section. I'm happy to have this as a footnote, but it's enought in the main text to just say that it identifies with liberation theology. Pexise 21:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Alleged support for foreign rebels section

This sole source for this section is a statement by Vernon Walters, the US Ambassador to the UN, directed at the UN Security Council in 1986. Considering the fact that the US was at war with Nicaragua at the time, this statement doesn't really count as a WP:RS. This section should be deleted until real sources are provided. Notmyrealname 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV. If you want to present an oppposing view, fine, but deletion of the views of one side is not allowed. It is clearly stated that this is the view of the US and not an established fact.Ultramarine 20:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we are expected to find a refutation of every piece of Reaganite propaganda - this ends up being a ridiculous state of affairs because there's too much of it. People have better things to do, and so much money has been pumped into the propaganda machine that its impossible for people to get round to writing and publishing articles about all of it. Hopefully readers will use their discretion and come to the conclusions that the more sensible among us arrive at. Pexise 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We are expected to present an NPOV version and not only present Sandinista propaganda, like some of the section are.Ultramarine 22:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, no propaganda would be best I think we would all agree. A couple of good sources about US propaganda in Latin America may be NACLA [26] and the Council on Hemispheric Affairs [27]. For example look at this article about master propagandist Otto Reich (note the section about the Office of Public Diplomacy 'Master of Diplomacy: OPD 1983-86' [28] also have a look at this site about the Office of Public Diplomacy: [29] Pexise 22:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to argue that everything that US says is propaganda and should be excluded automatically on sight from Wikipedia, then you will have to change policy elsewhere. The US is allowed to express its view as per NPOV.Ultramarine 22:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not everything the US says, but most of what is says regarding the Sandinistas. Pexise 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just found this: Declassified CIA documents discussing US propaganda strategy in Nicaragua... check them out, it's pretty damning stuff: [30]

There's even PDFs of the original declassified documents: [31] [32] might be worth looking for human rights stuff in them. there's certainly mention of human rights in the first document. Pexise 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If claiming that something specific is propaganda, then add these opposing views as per NPOV. But blank removal of the US views on this issue is not allowed as per NPOV.Ultramarine 00:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there is some misunderstanding here. In general, government pronouncements, press releases, etc., are not considered good source material. And yes, this goes for statements from the Sandinistas. It would be better to have secondary sources discussing US positions, rather than statements by politicians. Please read this section carefully. Notmyrealname 02:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They are certainly acceptable for what the expressed views are. Again, the text makes no claim that this is the truth. Add the Sandinista view on this if wanting the view of the opposite side. "Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations" The source is none of this, it is a secondary source refering to primary sources, like the evidence of Nicaraguan intervention in El Salvador.Ultramarine 08:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it also says that primary sources include "United Nations Security Council resolutions are primary sources. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them." It also says that "A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either." I think a governments statement to the Security Council pretty much fits this bill. There's plenty of secondary sources on what the US and Nicaraguan government's claims were. Given the additional fact that most of the Nicaraguan govt's statements will be in Spanish, why don't we just stick with secondary sources? Notmyrealname 14:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A resolution is primary source documenting a decision, the speech is a view. It is like arguing that we cannot quote a view by Amnesty on an issue, but must find another source quoting Amnesty and then quote that source.Ultramarine 15:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't quote an Amnesty International press release, because, it is, as you note, a view with no documentation. You would, however, cite a report by Amnesty International. For these same reasons, you can cite a State Department report, but it is not particularly helpful to quote a speech. In this case, the speech makes all sorts of allegations. I'm not saying don't include the substance of the information (the Reagan Administration-- although not "the US" -- clearly held these views). But for everyone's sanity (as well as the common sense reading of WP:RS) let's stick to reports and reporting, not press releases and speeches by government apparatchiks.Notmyrealname 15:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is no prohibition against press releases in the above list. The speech is a summary of the US position. There is nothing in the list of examples of primary sources that prohibits it.Ultramarine 18:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Debatable, but Wikipedia would certainly be so very tiresome if everyone just started quoting government press releases and speeches instead of the many more interesting and useful sources that are available. One of the particular problems with this speech is that it makes many specific allegations, but someone else could claim that this is just one official's interpretation of it. For that reason, it would be better to use one of the many Reagan administration reports that go over the same ground. Believe it or not, I'm really trying to make a general constructive point here. Notmyrealname 19:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The speech is a fine summary of the US position. It was publishedi in the US State Department Bulletin, which only happens to more important speeches outlining US policy. Similar statements can be found for example here: [33][34].Ultramarine 19:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to cite those sources. Otherwise, for the sections that currently exist, it should say, "In a speech to the UN Security Council, Vernon Walters (the US Ambassador to the United Nations at the time) alleged that ...". None of that is necessary if you include the sources you just listed. I have to say that it is rather ironic for the US to accuse another country of intervening in the affairs of another country. But that's something for another day. Notmyrealname 19:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's change the title of the section to "US Government allegations of support for foreign rebels". Pexise 09:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That is fine with me for the moment. Although it would need to be changed again if more material is added, like the view of the Sandinistas.Ultramarine 10:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK - will change it - might also be worth having a separate section about US propaganda discussing PRODEMCA, the Office of Public Diplomacy etc. Pexise 11:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

New Section on US Propaganda in Nicaragua in the 1980s

It would be good to start this new section. I have mentioned some sources in the previous discussion, could also be linked to Wikipedia pages on National Endowment for Democracy, Prodemca, The Office of Public Diplomacy, Otto Reich, Oliver North etc. Pexise 11:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

'Propoganda' should be first accurately desrcribed as a deliberate attempt to indocrtinate certain ideas through censorship, screening and fabrication. Sources should be used. This section could be balanced well with Sandinista Propoganda in Nicaragua. They a much larger monopoly on domestic information and news than any other actor

Jp04ja

I think both sections would be good additions, and agree that they (like everything else) should be properly sourced. Notmyrealname 03:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Politicization of human rights abuses?

This section is all based on a biased point of view. Is it really proper to have section on the politicization on human rights? Isn't the entire Sandinista-US relationship and history highly politicized? Every issue is politicized, there's no need to qualify and justify human rights abuses because they have been 'politicized'. Any so called achievement from the Sandinista rule is glorified from the left whether it is a real achievement or not. This is an equivalent of having a sections called "the politicization of Sandinistas social achievements". It simply is not useful information and is fundamentally a POV.

Jp04ja

The section is not about the politicization of human rights abuses, it is about the politicization of human rights. If you thoroughly read the section you will see that human rights was used as a political tool by the Reagan administration to justify its policies in the region. This included large-scale fabrication of human right abuses that did not happen, misrepresentation of the Sandinista government etc. The section is essential for the interpretation of the human rights section. Pexise 11:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the most POV sections of the article. Not only does editorialize, it goes out of the way to suggest that the Sandinistas are somehow blameless.

"The issue of human rights during the 1980s in Nicaragua should be treated with great care. It is impossible to deal with the issue without taking account of the circumstances and context in which events took place. It is very important to consider that a counter-revolutionary war was being fought against the government in this period (by the US-backed Contras) and that part of the government response to the situation of conflict was to enact a state of emergency, which included the derogation of certain human rights."

This entire article has a left wing slant where it goes on and on about the horrors of the Samazo dictatorship, but downplays the human rights violations committed by the Sandinistas. I am definatly editing this out. 216.201.33.20 05:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The FSLN was simply a pretty good government as governments go. The article reflects this. Get used to it.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 21:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A government with serious human rights abusses, constant warfare, and with a declining economy is not good.Ultramarine 09:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Who's that? The Bush administration? Pexise 11:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The US economy is one of most advanced in the world and generally doing quite OK. Compared to most of the world, human rights in the US are very good.Ultramarine 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The US has been at war for most of Bush's presidency, the US now has the largest National debt in the world - more than US$8 trillion [35]. RE: Human rights - look at the Human rights and the United States page, far from an impecible record there, just look at Abu Graib, Guantanamo, Death Penalty....the list goes on.... Pexise 20:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The has the largest GDP in the world also. If you want real human rights violations read some reports regarding China, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar, or Zimbabwe. For example,[36]Ultramarine 02:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As it says on the top, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sandinista National Liberation Front article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." Notmyrealname 14:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am completely neutral on the Sandinistas, their legacy, and the US Involvement. I really don't know anything about it. However, this section in particlar does have a definitive pro-Sandinista lean. This is an encyclopedia...whose purpose is to educate. The opening paragraph of this section is almost an apology for bringing up the potential human rights abuses. This is not the way an article or section should open. While I will not remove the passage, I strongly recommend someone remove the opening sentence advising "great care". As I highlighted earlier...no one need apologize for documenting an accusation. There isn't a similar passage in the earlier reference to CIA involvement in Drug Smuggling...leads me to think that the passage is either intended to placate people who disagree that there were human rights abuses, or that it it was intended to discredit the entire section by saying "Be Careful...what follows may be Bullshit". That kind of prefacing should be happening on the talk page. Just something to be aware of. Tbkflav 22:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Also...sorry I forgot... Additionally - to Smokey the Cat...your above claim that the Sandinistas were a "Good Gov't" is pure opinion and quite clearly indicates the POV of this section. Where in any encyclopedia does a government's perceived benevolence or malevolence become relevant to a documentation on it's existance? You can document the accusation of such...the fact that the opinion exists...but to come out and cleanly advocate that they were "good" and to "get used to it" is pure crap when talking about the encyclopedic value of the section.

Then, to Pexise...what the F does Bush have to do with an article on potential Sandinista human rights abuses? Answer: Not one d@mn thing. Why are you using up bandwith on Bush here on a talk page for Sandinistas??? I like Bush about as much as I like a stinky diaper...but even bringing him up is like me bringing up the relative effectiveness of my God Damn detergent on a talk page for an article on the LA Dodgers. It has no friggin bearing. Please do not misconstrue as a personal attack...you clearly feel very strongly about good ole W and I applaud you for it...but I don't see why its being discussed here. Tbkflav 23:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

He he - well, the reference to Bush was just to wind up Ultramarine who seems to have some warped ideas about the Human rights and the United States as compared to foreign governments. You see, the US made a concerted effort to discredit the Sandinista regime by producing vast amounts of propaganda accusing the regime of human rights violations, the majority of which were entirely fictional. This propaganda campaign was carried out throughout Central America - look at the links to the Office of Public Diplomacy and Prodemca - and continues to be carried out through neo-con institutions such as Freedom House, which Ultramarine is also very keen to defend. This may all be elementary to you, but I have friends in Nicaragua, and throughout Latin America, and have seen first hand the impact that US intervention had in wreaking violence and impoverishment.

The warning at the start of the section is essential because there was a massive propaganda machine producing lies and fictional accounts of Human Rights violations in Nicaragua. A lot of this propaganda was reproduced in sources that are considered mainstream by Wikipedia, such as Time magazine, or was produced by sources which Wikipedia considers credible, such as right wing think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation. These sources have been included in the article, hence the need for a warning that these sources may in fact have been infiltrated by US propaganda.

By the way, Smokey the Cat's comments are his opinion - this is the discussion page, it doesn't have to be NPOV.

Anyway, glad you're getting involved and showing an interest in these issues, a too often overlooked episode in US history. Pexise 08:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the gist of Pexise's analysis, but I don't think the intro, as it currently stands, passes the smell test. If you think it relevant to include information about the US government's use of human rights violations as a propaganda tool then you have to cite other reliable sources that have made this argument. Otherwise you're engaging in WP:OR and using Wikipedia as a soapbox and all sorts of other horrible evil things that people do here. Notmyrealname 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure - well, it's basically paraphrased from the CIIR report cited later on in the Politicization... section - I added the reference to the section below, but can directly cite the report again in this section if necessary. Pexise 21:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Gotcha Pexise...great minds think alike. I don’t consider the day complete until I wind someone up one way or another. Makes this whole thing a bit more fun, don't you think? Anyway - First off...you're right about the talk page. Smokey the Cat can share his/her opinion all she/he wants, even if it sucks and has absolutely no merit in an academically honest medium. That is what the talk page is for after all, right? Second: While I completely understand and support the spirit of what you're trying to accomplish with the warning, I ultimately still disagree that it should be there, and I'll tell ya why. The accusation of human rights abuses, whether true or not, does exist. Not only does it exist, but the accusation was made by many...some more influential than others. Now...it very well could be that it's all crap, and it's very important to note that in the article. That's not the argument here. My point is that instead of a disclaimer, that counterpoints or rebuttals be made in the passage itself. This allows the reader to review the facts presented along with the claim and the corresponding rebuttal FIRST, and then draw their own conclusion. A warning or disclaimer circumvents that. It immediately calls into question the legitamacy of the claim, and can cause the reader to disregard the facts presented since the reader may be under the assumption that the material is faulty and not to be believed. Secondly, using this warning could lead some to accuse bias, since the warning was not consistently used for all controversies in the article. Case in point is the CIA/Drug Dealing scenario. Many believe this is true, but a great deal think its crap, just as some think the Sandinista rights abuses are crap. The warning advising "great care" seems to be missing here. Why would it only be present in a section on rights abuses when the same scenario exists for the CIA? Some would draw a conclusion of bias. To illustrate, the following is an example of the alternative: "The Sandinistas have been accused by many of human rights abuses during their time in power (source). While many have made this claim, others have advanced the idea that the abuses were non-existant/minimal, and that the reports of such abuses were in fact a hoax created for propaganda value (source). The legitamacy and extent of Sandinista rights abuse is still subject to much debate, but abuse is claimed nonetheless." I think that is much more effective in questioning the abuse claims than a disclaimer...but I've been known to have been wrong before (as my brilliant plan to drink hot coffee through a straw would indicate). Later everyone, and go CU. Tbkflav 08:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, well, they're all good points you're making here, but, I think slightly misplaced. I'll make three basic points:

1. There is no insinuation that human rights abuses did not occur, in fact, my personal opinion is that some human rights abuses did occur - the problem is that abuses have been exaggerated, invented, fabricted and mischaraterised. It's all a case of interpreting the sources e.g. an article in Time magazine, quoting the discredited PCHR should be treated with extreme caution, while the regional human rights body, the Interamerican Human Rights Commission is far more credible. The warning is to advise the reader that their discression will be needed when interpreting this section. If you read carefully through the article, you should hopefully be able to reach a conclusion as to what is true and what is made up (e.g. all the sources that are connected to the US State department or propaganda orgs such as National Endowment for Democracy and Prodemca are probably 90% lies, while credible, well established human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Interamerican Commission are generally reliable).

2. This kind of warning is necessary because the situation is very particular - huge amounts of US$ were spent on propaganda and falsification. Wikipedia is about facts and truth, and as such it is important to inform the reader that some of what they are about to read may be non-factual and untruthful.

3. The warning is non-biased as the warning points out that care must be taken when looking at both sides - i.e. those who say the Sandinistas committed no abuses at all should be distrusted as much as those who say they were Stalinist madmen. In this way it is NPOV.

Cheers. Pexise 11:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said and well taken...but I still think its not very "encyclopediaesque" to present a disclaimer and I maintain the opinion that the section's opening could be improved upon. The wording isn't so unacceptable to me that I feel I have to change it...but if someone does re-write the section so that the gist of the warning was woven into the content (and voiding the need for the warning)I would be in support of their effort. It does set an interesting precedent though. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one I guess...although I will say the experience has broadened my knowledge base on the topic.

Beware though... Using the same logic, its conceivable that (albeit an extreme case) that an editor that happens to be a Neo Nazi or other type of holocaust denier could end up inserting a similar warning at the beginning of an article on the holocaust. While most people would be outraged, they would realize that the warning is crap and a mind game (please don't misunderstand here...I'm not saying that your warning is crap or a mind game...just the one in the example!!) , it would make the editors and Neo-Nazis feel good that they could challenge the existence of the holocaust via attacking the legitimacy of the evidence. They would justify it by saying all the holocaust sources/backup are a bunch of "lies" and propaganda created by the Jews, and that billions of dollars have been spent to perpetuate the "myth" by a conspiracy of collaborating Communists, Jews, and the media all to discredit National Socialism. If we're academically honest, we couldn't challenge them on the validity of the warning because of it's existence under similar conditions in this article. If anyone did challenge, they would claim bias and a double standard, which would just make them feel even better. The thought of a smug faced bigot sitting at a computer feeling justified makes me sick. If it wasn't so outrageous, I'd almost be tempted to test my hypothesis to see the reaction...however I'm just not sick enough in the head to do it.

Probably the last time I'll comment on this. I'd love to continue the discussion, but I'm in Chicago for the weekend and theres a lot of beer to be drank, and a lot of drunk chicks around. Drunk chicks dig me!!! Ciao! Tbkflav 00:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly (in my opinion), Wikipedia is not about facts and truth, it is about reporting what other sources say about a topic. The appropriate way to deal with this is to cite other sources that talk about the politicization of human rights in Nicaragua. There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss this. Notmyrealname 15:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

True dat Tbkflav 16:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think its fair, then, to make a "politicization of Contra human rights abuses", and if not, then this section should be scrappred. Jpineda84 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion

Please explain this unexplained deletion of sourced material.[37]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by user Ultramarine (talk • contribs) Revision as of 09:07, 23 July 2007.

I will restore shortly unless the reaons of removal are explained. Objections?Ultramarine 15:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I object. The phrasing "critics objected" is exactly what WP:Weasel prohibits. European government observers regarded the elections as free and fair. The main critics were Reagan Administration officials who were waging a low-intensity war. If we are to include the claim, we need to have more precise information about it. Notmyrealname 15:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The information is sourced. There were several parties in Nicaragua that were also critical. NPOV requires the inclusion of all views.Ultramarine 15:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

These views are already included in the earlier paragraphs. The deleted section was repetitive and vague (I didn't make the deletion though). The source is also inexact, as it goes to an index page. The actual source says that "On November 4 1984, about 75 percent of the registered voters went to the polls. The FSLN won 67 percent of the votes, the presidency, and sixty-one of the ninety-six seats in the new National Assembly. The three conservative parties that remained in the election garnered twenty-nine seats in the National Assembly; the three parties on the left won a total of six seats. Foreign observers generally reported that the election was fair. Opposition groups, however, said that the FSLN domination of government organs, mass organizations groups, and much of the media created a climate of intimidation that precluded a truly open election."[38]. I agree that the remaining paragraphs need to be toned down for POV problems and properly sourced. Again, the section that was deleted was a classic example of WP:weasel. Notmyrealname 15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect, this sourced information was not covered before. If we change the wording the "Library of Congress Country Studies argue..." then there is no weasel. Objections to restoting this text?Ultramarine 16:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Library of Congress COuntry Studies doesn't argue anything. They report that several unnamed opposition groups raised objections to the election. This is mentioned earlier in the text, although I agree that it should be modified as it currently reads. Notmyrealname 16:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Mentions only one party and that is unsourced. No mention of the reason for objecting.Ultramarine 08:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also please explain this deletion of sourced material.[39] Objections to restoring? Ultramarine 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I didn't make these deletions, but I do agree with them. They are large verbatim quotes from a speech by the US Ambassador to the UN (which isn't even stated here, so it's very confusing to the reader who is saying what is in the quotation). It would be much better to briefly summarize the statements. It would also be better to put the citation into the proper format as a footnote--the same source is used several times in this section. As it reads, a casual reader would think that there are several different sources. Formatting them all properly would be a better reflection of the source (also, the "US" doesn't "say" anything. Specific people say things). Again, it's fine for the information to go in, but if you're serious about improving the article, rather than just pushing a POV, you need to consider the form of your edits as well as the content. Notmyrealname 16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Published in US Department of State Bulletin, so considered an important speech explaining US policy. Paraphrasing is ok if this is your main objection. Each paragraph needs to have a source, otherwise it could be accused of being unsourced, but we can change the reference style if you prefer. Ultramarine 08:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would paraphrase and shorten. And yes, it should conform to the footnote style (there are already 43 footnotes, so this should be considered the norm). The whole thing could be shortened to about a paragraph. This is article is about the FSLN, not just the US State Department's view of the Nicaraguan government at that point in time. Notmyrealname 16:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I will paraphrase is shortly. You can obviously add the view of the FSLN if you have a source.Ultramarine 18:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I took the section out again. It contradicts the first paragraph of this section making it nonsense. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 18:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is a contradiction, then it is the unsourced material that should be removed. If still, objecting please state more concrete objections.Ultramarine 20:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The material talks of 'intimidation' but the election was very widely observed and universally agreed to be free and fair so obviously there was no intidimation. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not decide who is right or the truth of history. We present different views without judging who is right. NPOV requires the inclusion of this view, not only the pro-Sandinista one.Ultramarine 15:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it is to be mentioned (and I think it should), it should not be given undue weight. If the consensus of impartial observers is that the elections were free and fair, than that should be given substantially more weight than partisan actors who claim otherwise. For example, I'm sure that Fidel Castro has made many comments finding fault with elections in the United States, as have domestic actors like Lyndon Larouche. That doesn't mean they should get much digital ink on the corresponding pages. Notmyrealname 17:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ot the only sourced opposing view in the section. We can remove the other unsourced material if you prefer.Ultramarine 18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights POV

The Human Rights section on this article is completly pro-communist propoganda, look at the first line "The issue of human rights during the 1980s in Nicaragua should be treated with great care. It is impossible to deal with the issue without taking account of the circumstances and context in which events took place. It is very important to consider that a counter-revolutionary war was being fought against the government in this period (by the US-backed Contras). It is also very important to note that the human rights issue became politicized at this time (see section below on the Politicization of human rights and also articles on The Office of Public Diplomacy and Prodemca). Note that this applies to both sides."

This is a personal commentary from a POV perspective, not a neutral fact or statement, if were going to get subjective how about telling people whose family members were disapeared, murdered, or tortured by the Sandinistas that this is an issue that should be treated with great care. It is neither impossible nor necessary to look at the so called "context" wikipedia is about facts not personal points of view on the facts. This paragraph alone is gone. 216.255.40.172 02:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not unilaterally delete paragraphs from this article without consensus - the process of writing the section on human rights took months and was reached at by a consensus of several editors. The statement is entirely justified due to the massive amounts of propaganda surrounding this issue, propaganda which is documented in this and many other wikipedia articles. The fact that some of this propaganda is included in this section makes the initial statement necessary. The statement could be removed if the propaganda was removed from the article. Pexise 18:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First off I don't take orders from you, secondly your consensus doesn't mean anything when it violates wiki standards and rules, just because propoganda was used at that time does not allow for this sort of POV Commentary on the issue, wikipedias job is to report the facts not tell people how to interpet them, if you are concerned about propoganda then state that the Reagan Administration made charges, and the Sandinistas denied them, instead of violating wiki standards.

That entire paragraph is the topic for discussion, and is entirely inapropriate, as is most of this article. This entire article needs to be re-worked to remove the POV slant, by the editors that work on it to simply report claims, facts, and statements not spin them their way or comment on them.

Even as somebody who is no expert on this subject, I could tell within five seconds that this article is not even remotely credible, and it is articles like this that are the reason schools are now banning wikipedia as resource.

Include facts, claims, and statements, from both sides, but this entire article as it currently stands is b.s. along with that paragraph, and it violates every wiki standard even if it does have a consensus. 216.255.40.172 02:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that this article and this section are far from perfect, and I also agree that it's disappointing that wikipedia is not the perfect tool that we all wish it could be. I disagree that the paragraph you refer to is POV, it was witten by consensus and does not side with either the Sandinistas or the Reagan administration (it explicitly states that it refers to both sides). Pexise 09:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason its POV is because it is a commentary on the subject of the politicaztion of human rights, not a recording of the facts that one party says human rights were politicized. Its an injection of an opinion or belief by wikipedias editors, not a claim made by any of the parties relevant to the article, which is inapropriate.

It tells people that this issue should be treated with great care, and that it is politicized, ect . . . which is in and of itself a point of view. My charge is that wikis editors have either intentionally or inadvertently injected their own point of view. The fact is they also state human rights issues were used by both sides for human rights abuses, weather or not that is true it is a stated opinion, and as it is not presented as the claim of one group that was there it is highly POV.

A more approrpraite approach to this issue would be to say that the Reagan Administration made charges of human rights violations against the Sandinistas, and the Sandinistas denied the charges claiming the Reagan Administration was using it for political reasons. That is NPOV, while at the same time keeping the claims, but the fact is wikipedias editors have no buisness interjecting their opinion about weather or not human rights issues were politicized, ect . . . into an article, or telling people how to interpret claims made by either side. 216.255.40.172 20:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to re-write the section, post it on the talk page for discussion and we'll try and reach a consensus and add it to the article - but please read the section carefully first and take into account the fact that this is a very sensitive and serious issue (tens of thousands of people lost their lives and massive amounts of damage were done to Nicaragua during this time). Pexise 15:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Right now I am not proposing re-writing the section, I am proposing that this paragraph which is really irelevant, and is POV, should be deleted. It is not necessary either, and has nothing to do with the article anyway and is just someones stated point of view.

And yes I do know thens of thousands of people lost their lives because of the Nicaraguan civil war. 216.255.40.172 18:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, well this is exactly what I mean when I say that you need to be careful with this subject, the conflict in Nicaragua was not a civil war, it was a counter-revolutionary war, that was not confined to one country and was internationally sponsored (by the US). Pexise 18:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, and that is relevanthow? No one is denying that tens of thousands of people died irrespective of what you call it.

At any rate The Contras were Nicaraguan citizens who opposed the Sandinistas, not foreign mercenaries, and the Sandinistas were backed by the U.S.S.R. through Cuba. Just because the Contra's were counter revolutionaries doesn't mean that it wasn't a civil war. Other people list it as a Civil War, http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDnicaragua.htm and http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Nicaragua-Inside-Sandinistas/dp/1560007613

At any rate what does that have to do with the paragraph that I nominated for deletion, and again it doesn't matter that it was inserted with a consensus if it clearly violates wiki standards on NPOV and Soap Box, and it does. 216.255.40.172 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It is important because this is an encyclopedia and it deals with FACTS - it's therefore very important to be accurate. The first source you've linked to doesn't call the conflict a civil war, and the second one is a link to a book which I haven't read so can't confirm what it says about the conflict.

How does saying that it is important to be careful when dealing with an issue POV or soapbox? No one point of view is being privileged, in fact it states that this applies to both sides. Pexise 15:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a Point of View, it is a commentary, not a FACT, and as you stated Wikipedia deals with Facts, and using wikipedia to spread a commentary is using it as a soapbox.

Just because no one point of view is being privileged, and it states that it applies to both sides does not excuse the fact that it is in itself a point of view.

It expresses a point of view about human rights being politicized, and then expresses a point of view about what context the issue should be viewed in, and then expresses that this point of view should be on both sides. This is inparopriate, wikipedia is an encylopedia not a blog, and this sort of commentary doesn't belong.

As for it being a Civil War, the definition of civil war is one in which the citizens of a country engage in war against one another, which would describe Nicaragua, as both the Contras and the Sandinistas were Nicaraguan citizens. 216.255.40.172 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: civil war - a civil war must be confined to a national territory, the contras operated out of Honduras and Costa Rica, hence it was not confined to Nicaragua.

Regarding the human rights section, I think that paragraph could be modified slightly, although some of the claims are facts that are backed up with lots of evidence (there is a whole section on the politicization of human rights later on for example). I also think we could re-write other sections of the article, for example, cutting out some of the more partisan sources (the Heritage foundation would be a prime example). However, this has proved difficult in the past. Pexise 22:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Contras operating out of Honduras and Costa Rica were still Nicaraguan citizens, only in exile.

As for modifying, the problem is not one that can be modified, the entire paragraph which I copied here is a pov commentary by wikipedia's editors which has to be deleted to bring this article into line with wiki standards.

As for cutting out partisan sources, I see no reason to exclude or single out the Heritage Foundation, and I have yet to hear what sources you consider to be non-partisan. 216.255.11.132 02:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, claims about the issue being politicised are backed-up with a multitude of sources in the section below. It could be modified by prefacing the first sentence with: "According to the NGO CIIR, the issue of human rights ...." sourcing the CIIR's report on human rights in Nicaragua.

Regarding non-partisan sources, the Heritage Foundation is way out there, being a conservative US think tank. From the wikipedia article on Heritage Foundation: "In the 1980s and early 1990s, the Heritage Foundation was a key architect and advocate of the "Reagan Doctrine", under which the United States government supported anti-Communist resistance movements in such places as Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia and Nicaragua and generally supported global anti-communism during the Cold War. Heritage foreign policy analysts also provided policy guidance to these rebel forces and to dissidents in Eastern bloc nations and Soviet republics."

I would also exclude Time magazine as being too unspecialised to comment on complex human rights issues. The best sources to use are the human rights organisations and church organisations which are expert, non-partisan and not involved in the political issues. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, CIIR etc. Pexise 09:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not about weather or not human rights abuses were politicized, the issue is about what people claim concerning them. IT would be best if you stated NGO CIIR claims the issue of human rights was politicized.

As for the Heritage Foundation there is no rule that sources have to be non-partisan, as for human rights organizations they are just as partisan as anything else. The fact is there is no legitimate reason to censor either Heritage or TIME, just because one was involved in the Reagan Administration, and the other has no "experience."

The fact is that this article is about the Sandinistas, and the Heritage Foundation has just as much to say about the Sandinistas Human Rights record as any other group, in fact that was one of the reasons they were influential in the Reagan Administration, they were voicing their opinion on the Human Rights record of the Sandinistas.

I don't understand why Time Magazine should not be included. Wikipedia generally goes with Mainstream sources, experience not withstanding. Time Magazine is just as legitimate as any other source, and in some cases moreso. They should stay in. 216.255.11.132 (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In order to improve the section, I think it would be best to stick with non-partisan (i.e. were not closely connected to one side or the other of the conflict) expert sources. For a section about human rights, I think that it is reasonable to stick to human rights organisations and regional human righs instruments as sources. Pexise (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the following version would be a marked improvement:

Allegations of human rights violations committed by the Sandinistas

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in a 1981 report found evidence for mass executions in the period following the revolution. It stated "In the Commission’s view, while the government of Nicaragua clearly intended to respect the lives of all those defeated in the civil war. During the weeks immediately subsequent to the Revolutionary triumph, when the government was not in effective control, illegal executions took place which violated the right to life, and these acts have not been investigated and the persons responsible have not been punished."[34] The Commission also stated that: "The Commission is of the view that the new regime did not have, and does not now have, a policy of violating the right to life of political enemies, including among the latter the former guardsmen of the Government of General Somoza, whom a large sector of the population of Nicaragua held responsible for serious human rights violations during the former regime; proof of the foregoing is the abolition of the death penalty and the high number of former guardsmen who were prisoners and brought to trial for crimes that constituted violations of human rights." [35]

A 1983 report from the same source documented allegations of human rights violations against the Miskito Indians, which were alleged to have taken place after opposition forces (the Contras) infiltrated a Miskito village in order to launch attacks against government soldiers, and as part of a subsequent forced relocation program. Allegations included arbitrary imprisonment without trial, "disappearances" of such prisoners, forced relocations, and destruction of property.[36]

In its 1991 annual report the same source stated that "In September 1990, the Commission was informed of the discovery of common graves in Nicaragua, especially in areas where fighting had occurred. The information was provided by the Nicaraguan Pro Human Rights Association, which had received its first complaint in June 1990. By December 1991, that Association had received reports of 60 common graves and had investigated 15 of them. While most of the graves seem to be the result of summary executions by members of the Sandinista People's Army or the State Security, some contain the bodies of individuals executed by the Nicaraguan Resistance."[6]

In a 1992 annual report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights there are details of mass graves and investigations which suggest that mass executions had been carried out. One such grave contained 75 corpses of peasants who were believed to have been executed in 1984 by government security forces pretending to be members of the contras. Another grave was also found in the town of Quininowas which contianed six corpses, believed to be an entire family killed by government forces when the town was invaded. A further 72 graves were reported as being found, containing bodies of people, the majority of whom were believed to have been executed by agents of the state and some also by the contras. However, the report does not state that these executions were part of government policy.[7]

Politicization of human rights

The issue of human rights also became highly politicised at this time as human rights is claimed to be a key component of propaganda created by the Reagan administration to help legitimise its policies in the region. The Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America (ICCHRLA) in its Newsletter stated in 1985 that: "The hostility with which the Nicaraguan government is viewed by the Reagan administration is an unfortunate development. Even more unfortunate is the expression of that hostility in the destabilization campaign developed by the US administration ... An important aspect of this campaign is misinformation and frequent allegations of serious human rights violations by the Nicaraguan authorities."[40]

Human Rights Watch also stated in its 1989 report on Nicaragua that: "Under the Reagan administration, U.S. policy toward Nicaragua's Sandinista government was marked by constant hostility. This hostility yielded, among other things, an inordinate amount of publicity about human rights issues. Almost invariably, U.S. pronouncements on human rights exaggerated and distorted the real human rights violations of the Sandinista regime, and exculpated those of the U.S.-supported insurgents, known as the contras."[42]

In 1987 a report was published by the UK based NGO Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR, now known as Progressio). The report, "Right to Survive - Human Rights in Nicaragua",[43] discussed the politicisation of the human rights issue: "The Reagan administration, with scant regard for the truth, has made a concerted effort to paint as evil a picture as possible of Nicaragua, describing it as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. Supporters of the Sandinistas ... have argued that Nicaragua has a good record of human rights compared with other Central American countries and have compared Nicaragua with other countries at war." The CIIR report refers to estimates made by the NGO Americas Watch which count the number of non-battle related deaths and disappearances for which the government was responsible up to the year 1986 as "close to 300".

According to the CIIR report, Amnesty International and Americas Watch stated that there is no evidence that the use of torture was sanctioned by the Nicaraguan authorities, although prisoners reported the use of conditions of detention and interrogation techniques that could be described as psychological torture. The Red Cross made repeated requests to be given access to prisoners held in state security detention centers, but were refused.

Pexise (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that what you presented is an improvement, the primary problem with all the quotes you provided is that while they may be from technically non-partisan sources, they are all one sided, and unanimous in their condemnation of the Reagan Administration. I can not believe there were no human rights groups that had anything favorable to say concerning the Reagan's human rights foreign policy, and to include only one side still present serious POV problems, although not nearly as serious as it was before.

As a counter I recomend this lecture by Jeane Kirkpatrick, who was Ronald Reagan's U.N. Ambassador and the chief architect of his dealings in Latin America, http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human%20Rights%20Documents/Kirkpatrick_HRPolicy.html

I will state though that I am un-comfortable giving Human Rights groups an exclusive monopoly on this though, and I think other sources need to be found as well.

216.255.11.132 (talk) 09:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reference to the Sandinistas in the source you quoted. Shall we agree to replace the current version with what I've presented here, and that you will add positive comments about the Reagan administration's Human Rights policy in Nicaragua when you find them (though obviously from an independent source)? Pexise (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree to removal of sourced information. Wikipedia presents the views of both sides per NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, well, I've suggested that someone add a source which has positive comments about the Reagan admin's human rights policy, so if you can find one that fits the criteria (an independent source), please add it to the version here. NPOV is not a policy that means we have to fill articles up with crap. The version here is a vast improvement, using only human rights sources and independent sources (independent from all of those involved in the conflict in question). The section is hardly biased in one way or another, it is NPOV. Pexise (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no justification for limiting sources to some arbitrarily decided by you. Liberation theology organizations are certainly not neutral. On the other hand, respected newspapers and peer-reviewed journals are reliable sources.Ultramarine (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources are not arbitrarily decided by me, the criteria was clearly stated above: "non-partisan (i.e. were not closely connected to one side or the other of the conflict) expert sources. For a section about human rights, I think that it is reasonable to stick to human rights organisations and regional human righs instruments as sources." This is in the interests of improving the overall quality and NPOV of the section. Pexise (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer-reviwed articles, scholarly books, and important newspapers are certainly more non-partisan than liberation theology organizations. More importantly, the views of the parties themselves should certainly be mentioned. NPOV is not a supposed neutral single view, but a presentation of all the views. Let the reader decide himself and do not spoon-feed him one particular version.Ultramarine (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You see, you are making a fundamental error here by suggesting that human rights is a partisan issue. Human Rights is a non-partisan issue, and this makes it unclear who you are talking about when you say "the views of the parties themselves should be mentioned". Who are you referring to? If by this you mean that we should include the opinion of the US, are you suggesting that the US is implicated in the Sandinistas human rights record? The parties involved in this debate are the Sandinistas and the human rights bodies (IACHR) and organisations (AI, HRW, CIIR etc.) and those are the sources I have kept. Obviously if you want to include the views of the Sandinistas, feel free. Otherwise, I see nothing else that should be included in this section. Pexise (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer-reviwed articles, scholarly books, and important newspapers are valid sources in Wikipedida. A liberation theology organization is partisan but is allowed to present its view as per NPOV which states that all views should be presented.Ultramarine (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would greatly improve this section if we exercise some quality control of the sources. I think many others agree. Are you happy with the current version? Pexise (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Could be improved, but not by removing the peer-reviewed articles etc as per above.Ultramarine (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Haven't been on for a while, sorry about leaving the discussion up in the air. Just a brief comment, NPOV means by the editor, biased sources can and may be included provided they are countered by equaly biased sources.

Including only "Human Rights" groups is extremely POV, because it only allows for the bias of that group, it ignores the fact that human rights groups were for instance directly assisting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and the Frente in El Salvador, it should be remembered that during the cold war that human rights groups could mean anything you wanted them to be.

Giving a group that slaps the label human rights on themselves a monopoly to the extent that mainstream media sources such as Time Magazine are supressed, is both POV and censorship and not appropriate.

As for the Heritage Foundation that can be arued either way, but above all their is no cause under any circumstances to censor or suppress the mainstream media, in the name of only including Human Rights groups. Wikipedia specifically encourages use of mainstream media sources that are widely available to the general public, such as TIME Magazine. 216.255.11.132 (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

several points in response to this entry:

1) using human rights sources in a section about human rights appears entirely appropriate to me.

2) the human rights groups used are international human rights organizations and regional human rights bodies - by far the most reliable and appropriate sources to use in this context.

3) these human rights organizations and bodies are based on a position of impartiality and not bias.

4) please substantiate the accusation that human rights groups were directly supporting the Sandinistas - specifically, provide evidence that any of the sources used comes from an organization that supported the Sandinistas, otherwise this comment has no validity.

5) the Time magazine article does however use a questionable, partisan domestic (i.e. not international) human rights organization as a source as widely documented on the talk page and in the article. Pexise (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

responding to Ultramarine's assertion that we should use the Demokratizatsiya article - it is hardly an appropriate source, being "The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization is an international interdisciplinary quarterly journal devoted to changes in the late Soviet Union and post-Soviet states, issued by Heldref Publications in Washington, DC. It covers the processes in these countries since 1985" - not at all specialist in Latin America or Human Rights and the article in question also uses questionable sources including US State Department documents and the questionable human rights organisation used in the Time magazine article. Pexise (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to restrict sources to those some approved by you. Peer-reviwed articles, scholarly books, and important newspapers are valid sources in Wikipedida. A liberation theology organization is partisan but is allowed to present its view as per NPOV which states that all views should be presented.Ultramarine (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Duscussion of appropriate sources to be used for the "Allegations of Human Rights Violations" section

I think it is appropriate that we discuss the appropriate sources for this section here, in the interests of improving a convoluted section, which at the moment seems to have a somewhat 'anything goes' approach.

I propose that, with the quality of the section in mind, we try to use human rights sources that are impartial, not linked to either side in the conflict and expert. For this reason, I propose the use of the IACHR and the international human rights organisations. I propose that we discount sources that are clearly partialised or obviously linked to propaganda, or that are not expert or specialised in this area.

It may be worth creating a new section in the article documenting propaganda where propaganda linked sources can be presented - this is an idea I had proposed previously - the section could follow the human rights section and be titled something like: "US propaganda during the Sandanista government". That would be a good place for sources such as the Heritage Foundation. This would be a way to include all of the current sources, if that's what we really want to do.

Finally, regarding the CIIR - they are in impartial organisation which is not linked in any way to the Sandinistas, the Contras or the US government, and they have written an extensive, well documented, impartial report - I think this makes them an entirely appropriate source. Pexise (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Shall I interpret the silence on this point as assent? Pexise (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussed many times before, see earlier section. No reason to exclude certain sources you dislike. Remember NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to request a comment on this as I find the current section particularly unsatisfying, not because of POV, but because it is horrible to read. Pexise (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Which version of the Sandinistas human rights section is better from an encyclopedic point of view?

An alternative version of the human rights section has been proposed, please comment if you think it is an improvement.

This is the alternative proposal:

It's hard to evaluate this without seeing the actual sources.Notmyrealname (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding them now. Pexise (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Very POV selection of sources as discussed in earlier section. Excludes for example peer-reviewed studies documenting human rights violations, but includes apologist leftist organizations. Again, see NPOV, all views should be included, not only a small list handpicked by you.Ultramarine (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the section has a neutral point of view, neither saying the Sandinistas were innocent of any human rights violations, nor suggesting that they were Stalinist Nazis as some of the US propaganda suggests. The sources have been selected for their impartiality, relevance and reliability, not because they represent a certain point of view - I think the content of the new section bears this out. Pexise (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would argue that the current section in the article is over-long, confusing and includes some obscure and questionable sources and references. Pexise (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia NPOV requires the inclusion of all views, not just some left-wing apologists and some straw man critics you personally have "selected" as appropriate to spoon-feed the reader, while excluding for example peer-reviewed articles.Ultramarine (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK Ultramarine - I think your opinion is clear, and we have already discussed these issues at great length previously. I would like to know what other editors think. Also, please refrain from the personal attacks, I have suggested this as an alternative because I feel that it is better from an encyclopedic point of view - it is shorter, clearer and less confusing, and I think a reader will get a good, impartial view of the subject from it. But I would like some other opinions from visiting editors. Pexise (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What personal attack? Quote please. How can you claim that it is better when most of the sourced critical material has been deleted? Ultramarine (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, as usual, is intent upon introducing a POV skew to the article; the sources and statistics included in the passage below are appropriate for the article. Unfortunately, i do think that there needs to be at least some mention made of the horrific human rights violations undertaken by the Contras. I think it is not far from the mark to say that editors who share Ultramarine's political perspective have taken it upon themselves to paint as ugly a picture of the Sandinistas as possible so as to offer some sort of justification or apology for the clearly horrific actions of the Contras.

The current page includes this paragraph:

The issue of human rights during the 1980s in Nicaragua should be treated with great care. It is impossible to deal with the issue without taking account of the circumstances and context in which events took place. It is very important to consider that a counter-revolutionary war was being fought against the government in this period (by the US-backed Contras). It is also very important to note that the human rights issue became politicized at this time (see section below on the Politicization of human rights and also articles on The Office of Public Diplomacy and Prodemca). Note that this applies to both sides.

It's my opinion that some mention of Contra atrocities must be made; otherwise, a description or condemnation of Sandinista violations are without any meaningful context and -- consequently -- easily misinterpreted by readers. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that is a personal attack/uncivility. Read the appropriate policies: WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV. The paragraph you cite is an uncited opinion by Pexise and should by all rights be removed. Remarkable that this was included when so much well-cited info has been deleted. I am not entirely against mentioning HRV by contras. Obviously the same standard should apply to Contras article.Ultramarine (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It was by no means a personal attack. A "personal attack" would be something along the lines of me suggesting that you are a person who loves murder -- blasphemy -- or incest; or that you are stupid -- retarded -- mongoloid -- a jew/nigger/spic/nazi/commie/russkie/chink/catholic/protestant/goat-bugger/pig-farmer/protestant/catholic/christian-terrorist -- or --

How, precisely, was it that you stated that: a left-wing apologist, or maybe a straw man critic, or maybe something along the lines of spoon-feeding the reader????

Or are you honestly suggesting that my brief mention of your own POV intent -- neutrally introduced, btw -- is somehow more disingenuous and aggressive than your own use of such clearly antagonistic buzzwords?

Even so, my only assertion has ever been that you adhere to a particular POV and are interested in promoting it. I hardly think that is an antagonistic or violent suggestion. Haven't i simply stated what is an obvious fact to anyone who experiences the edifying instruction of your contributions? You clearly have a very narrow and utterly untroubled intent which, apparently, absolves you of any shame or embarrassment when posting. For my part, regardless of what name you edit under your linguistic gymnastics always identify you; or perhaps i'm mistaken in that, and am mis-identifying as one a great class of people who all happen to make the same syntactical and lexicographical mistakes, and all happen to share the same political views? Eh. Let me admit, here, that i may indeed be wrong and that you are, actually, someone working only in the interest of truth, disclosure, and the greater quality of this particular page.

Except that one peculiar trouble emerges, then: all of your edits exhibit a transparent bias towards a certain political view. Even in the face of this latest, transparently obsequious rendition of Sandinista human-rights violations, you yet insist upon ludicrously skewed and artificial standards of documentation.

Pardon me if i laugh while you sling arouund "left-wing apologist" and "straw-man critic" while accusing me of "personal insults" for characterizing you as a POV apologist.

I'm not interested in you, personally. I have no interest in discrediting you, personally. My only interest is in seeing you adhere to established Wikipedia policy -- nothing else. My one question is: why are you -- who so obviously casts aspersions on others -- so fearless in your own, so obvious violations of Wikipedia policy? Stone put to sky (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input User:Stone put to sky. I agree that the human rights violations of the Contras are an important component, however, I think that this section should stick to the subject matter of the Sandinistas' human rights record. Details of the Contras can be included in the Contras article and earlier in the section on the contras in this article. Otherwise this section starts to get too convoluted and you end up with what is in the article currently. The reader can then read all the sections and make up their own mind. In principle, do you think the new version of the section that I've posted below is an improvement? Pexise (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How can the reader make up their mind fairly when you have deleted most the sourced criticisms and inserted unsourced opinions? Ultramarine (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pexise's question:

In principle, yes; but that is only because the current section is such a one-sided violation of NPOV. As it is, a simple deletion of the current section would go a long ways towards improving the neutrality of the article; unfortunately, it is easy to see that you are plagued by POV gnomes who insist on forcing questionable sources into the article, and so i entirely sympathize with your current approach. Yet regardless of their claims, i think that any historian, human rights organization, or even mainstream media outlet would be hard-pressed to deny that by neglecting the context in which these atrocities occurred you would be skewing the reader's understanding. At the very least the current article includes a brief statement referencing the vast disparities between the violations attributed to the Sandinistas in contrast to the Contras. That statement is, IMHO, a key component of the current article, and i -- for one -- would consider it a misrepresentation if that mention were relegated to the dustbin. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ultramarine's question:

The reader makes up their mind by weighing the available evidence. Pexise's sources support that approach. Yours, OTOH, willfully misrepresent the truth. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is a vast disparity. But in favor of the Contras. If you want to do a comparison, I will happily provide sources. Stone put to sky, you continue your incivility and ad hominem. That is usually that last resort of those with no factual arguments. I will happily continue a factual discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, then -- if Ultramarine agrees with me that there is a vast disparity in favor of the Contras then we are clearly in agreement. I'm happy to hear that. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I meant that the comparison would be favorable to the Contras. The Sandinistas killed thousands of civilians, the Contras much less.Ultramarine (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what's obvious -- besides being just as flat-out wrong as one can be about pretty much any historical topic you ever try to contribute to -- is that you don't understand the word "disparity" but think you can get away with faking it. Beyond that, you could've meant anything. Stone put to sky (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• We appear to be getting off-topic here. I suggest that we stick to the human rights record of the Sandinistas - there is another section in the article which details some of the human rights violations committed by the Contras - I suggest that any additional details about this could be added to that section and also to the Contras article.
• Now, regarding the human rights record of the Sandinistas, I would argue that my proposed, cleaned-up version of the section will be a vast improvement, much clearer, impartial, using excellent sources. I would like to know if other editors agree (User:Ultramarine obviously does not, User:Stone put to sky seems to generally agree) - are there any other opinions? Pexise (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. While i maintain my reservations i still agree that the proposed version is better than the one currently on the page. It is factually more accurate and more rhetorically neutral. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just looked at the Wikipedia:Five Pillars - the first pillar seems particularly relevant: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers."; "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ". Pexise (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of human rights violations committed by the Sandinistas

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in a 1981 report found evidence for mass executions in the period following the revolution. It stated "In the Commission’s view, while the government of Nicaragua clearly intended to respect the lives of all those defeated in the civil war. During the weeks immediately subsequent to the Revolutionary triumph, when the government was not in effective control, illegal executions took place which violated the right to life, and these acts have not been investigated and the persons responsible have not been punished." The IACHR also stated that: "The Commission is of the view that the new regime did not have, and does not now have, a policy of violating the right to life of political enemies, including among the latter the former guardsmen of the Government of General Somoza, whom a large sector of the population of Nicaragua held responsible for serious human rights violations during the former regime; proof of the foregoing is the abolition of the death penalty and the high number of former guardsmen who were prisoners and brought to trial for crimes that constituted violations of human rights."

A 1983 report from the same source documented allegations of human rights violations against the Miskito Indians, which were alleged to have taken place after opposition forces (the Contras) infiltrated a Miskito village in order to launch attacks against government soldiers, and as part of a subsequent forced relocation program. Allegations included arbitrary imprisonment without trial, "disappearances" of such prisoners, forced relocations, and destruction of property.

In its 1991 annual report the Inter-American Commission stated that "In September 1990, the Commission was informed of the discovery of common graves in Nicaragua, especially in areas where fighting had occurred. The information was provided by the Nicaraguan Pro Human Rights Association, which had received its first complaint in June 1990. By December 1991, that Association had received reports of 60 common graves and had investigated 15 of them. While most of the graves seem to be the result of summary executions by members of the Sandinista People's Army or the State Security, some contain the bodies of individuals executed by the Nicaraguan Resistance."[40]

The 1992 annual report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights contains details of mass graves and investigations which suggest that mass executions had been carried out. One such grave contained 75 corpses of peasants who were believed to have been executed in 1984 by government security forces pretending to be members of the contras. Another grave was also found in the town of Quininowas which contained six corpses, believed to be an entire family killed by government forces when the town was invaded. A further 72 graves were reported as being found, containing bodies of people, the majority of whom were believed to have been executed by agents of the state and some also by the contras. However, the report does not state that these executions were part of government policy.[41]

Politicization of human rights

The issue of human rights also became highly politicised at this time as human rights is claimed to be a key component of propaganda created by the Reagan administration to help legitimise its policies in the region. The Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America (ICCHRLA) in its Newsletter stated in 1985 that: "The hostility with which the Nicaraguan government is viewed by the Reagan administration is an unfortunate development. Even more unfortunate is the expression of that hostility in the destabilization campaign developed by the US administration... An important aspect of this campaign is misinformation and frequent allegations of serious human rights violations by the Nicaraguan authorities."

Human Rights Watch also stated in its 1989 report on Nicaragua that: "Under the Reagan administration, U.S. policy toward Nicaragua's Sandinista government was marked by constant hostility. This hostility yielded, among other things, an inordinate amount of publicity about human rights issues. Almost invariably, U.S. pronouncements on human rights exaggerated and distorted the real human rights violations of the Sandinista regime, and exculpated those of the U.S.-supported insurgents, known as the contras."

In 1987 a report was published by the UK based NGO Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR, now known as "Progressio"). The report, "Right to Survive - Human Rights in Nicaragua", discussed the politicisation of the human rights issue: "The Reagan administration, with scant regard for the truth, has made a concerted effort to paint as evil a picture as possible of Nicaragua, describing it as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. Supporters of the Sandinistas ... have argued that Nicaragua has a good record of human rights compared with other Central American countries and have compared Nicaragua with other countries at war." The CIIR report refers to estimates made by the NGO Americas Watch which count the number of non-battle related deaths and disappearances for which the government was responsible up to the year 1986 as "close to 300".

According to the CIIR report, Amnesty International and Americas Watch stated that there is no evidence that the use of torture was sanctioned by the Nicaraguan authorities, although prisoners reported the use of conditions of detention and interrogation techniques that could be described as psychological torture. The Red Cross made repeated requests to be given access to prisoners held in state security detention centers, but were refused.

Deleted Two Poorly Sourced Sections

The sources quoted were: Time Magazine, the Heritage Foundation, and an obscure book expounding on the concept of "Democide". In and of themselves, any source is generally reliable. In this case, however, each makes extraordinary claims that are unsubstantiated by any well-regarded academic or official sources, nor are they widely substantiated by other respected observers. Thus, they have been culled until such time as corroborating sources can be provided to back up their claims. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well-known newspapers and scholarly books are certainly reliable sources. Please respect NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultramarine (talk • contribs) 04:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Time" magazine is not a "well-known newspaper". Further, the points in question make "extraordinary claims" that are clearly contrary to established academic consensus. Unless you can find a well-respected academic source that backs their claims up then it is inadmissible as a source.

The "Heritage Foundation" is a right-wing political activist group; again, if the claim it were making were in-and-of-itself uncontroversial then the citation would stand. The claims made, however, are not backed up by any academic sources.

The "Democide" book is, certainly, a scholarly work. It does not deal with the Sandinistas in particular; it mentions the Nicaraguan revolution only as one conflict among many, and only as a supplement to its main thesis. The figures it cites, therefore, are a novel interpretation that are neither backed up nor verified by any other organizations or academic sources. UOnce again: if the claims made are truly scholarly citations, then it will be easy for you to find other academics that back up the accusations made.

As things stand, you have attempted to force the inclusion of three extraordinary claims based on three different, suspicious sources without any supporting evidence to back these claims up. This is the essence of Wikipedia:Verifiability: if one is making extraordinary claims then solid, reliable sources must be provided.

On this basis, therefore, the material will remain deleted until you come up with reliable corroborating sources. 06:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to argue with scholarly works, publish your own. The work cites numerous supporting sources.Table Heritage foundation is allowed to present its view, just like the left-wing organizations now cited in the article. No double standard please. Time is making no more extraordinary statements than those of the regarding for example HR violations by the Contras in other newspapers cited in Wikipedia. Truth is not claimed, the view is only reported.Ultramarine (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, why delete the material from the peer-reviewed journal Demokratizatsiya? Ultramarine (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We have already had an RfC treating these subjects, above. The arguments you are putting forth here have already been repeatedly dealt with above, over the course of some six months. In the past, many editors here have, in the interest of avoiding an edit-war, acceded to the inclusion of the material. Yet in each case this was only an accession avoid an edit war -- in all cases where the material has been questioned there has been no effort on your own part to attempt to reach consensus or portray an accurate version of the prevailing academic and international consensus regarding the points in question.

The two sections above were floated as an RfC. To anyone who is sincerely interested in writing an encyclopedic, NPOV article it is clear that these two sections are a vast improvement over the clearly propagandistic and narrowly pro-Reagan, pro-U.S.A. version that you are now arguing for. It is unfortunate that you yourself are unable to acknowledge the clear bias and baselessness of the version you prefer. Even so, the community here has -- over the course of nearly a year now -- spoken repeatedly:

The sources you are arguing for are not substantial enough to support the claims you are making. If Time magazine said something in 1983 that, as of today, virtually all HRO's, international observers, and academics dispute then it is not up to Wikipedia to include the source but, instead, up to you to find a recent, alternate and more reliable proponent. The same clearly goes for any quotes from a 1983 Heritage Foundation report -- and would also follow for any such claims by the CCCP, Granma, the New York Times, or whatever. Wikipedia makes it quite clear that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources", and the sources you have provided are clearly inadequate to the arguments you are making.

Now, the Democide book is, in and of itself, a useful source. Unfortunately it, too, is making extraordinary and poorly-sourced claims about Sandinista rule. Further, it undertakes no detailed analysis of the period under Sandinista rule, and what analysis is undertaken is only in the context of a book that tries to deal with over 100 years of historical analysis. While "a third" of its sources may have come from reliable HROs, the unfortunate truth is that many of its sources are considered quite questionable by Wikipedia standards and, among mainstream academics, the book has entirely failed to find traction or support.

So, once again: extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You claim that "virtually all HRO's, international observers, and academics dispute" and "among mainstream academics, the book has entirely failed to find traction or support." But provide no sources for this claim. I have given sources. The text is not making an "extraordinary claim" of truth, it is merely reporting a view, just like left-wing sources do in other articles when they criticize the US. Again, no double standard. If you any support for your claims that the scholarly material is considered false as you claim, cite supporting sources for this here and now.Ultramarine (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not up to me to provide sources for my challenges here, on the discussion page. It is, however, required for you to show us more and better sources for these claims.

Once again: one 1983 article from a non-academic, non-peer-reviewed, partisan source is not enough to support an extraordinary claim that disputes all modern, academic and formal scholarship on the issue in question.

Once again: i don't need to show proof that i am right on this -- you must show us the additional, reliable, recent sources that support your claims.

Now, regarding the Democide book, there is a lot of controversy surrounding Rummel's definitions and methodology. He tries to keep battle deaths, capital punishment, and military "collateral non-com deaths" outside his definition of "democide"; however, many of the instances he includes in his statistics are alleged to fall under these various categories, while other statistics which he does not include (when dealing with democracies) have been alleged to be circumstances which fall outside these allowances. There is considerable academic controversy about this approach and about whether or not Rummel is, in fact, stacking the analytical deck by using a definition that allows him to eliminate unfortunate challenged to his thesis by manipulating the definitions and interpretations of different data sets. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So you have no sources backing up your earlier claims. You make new claims but again present no sources. So not interesting. I on the other hand have cited scholarly works. Wikipedia relies on verifiability. So again, do you have any verifiable sources for your claims? Unsourced personal opinions by anonymous editors do not count.Ultramarine (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Once again: it is not necessary for me to provide sources to back up my claims here. Providing sources for "new claims" applies to content on the article page, and you know that. If you continue to insist on this point then i will be happy to take to AN/I.

Once again: the sources which dispute the claims made by your own sources have already been posted.

Once again: your sources are not reliable and are making extraordinary claims.

Once again: the burden of proof is upon you. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have no sources, then you have no support for you claims of inaccuracy in my scholarly sources. Thus, no justification for excluding my scholarly sources.Ultramarine (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply ignoring my points will not work here, Ultramarine. I have already explained to you repeatedly why the sources you have provided are questionable and fail Wikipedia guidelines. You now seem to believe that simply by ignoring their deficiencies and declaring them as reliable sources you can force their inclusion on the page. Things don't work that way here, though. The relevant wikipedia guidelines have already been quoted for you. After a cursory glance i see at least five different editors here that have made similar or the same criticisms and comments on the material in question. If you cannot bring it into line with wikipedia standards and guidelines then i am afraid that we will be forced to exclude it from the page. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You have presented your personal opinions for why "why the sources you have provided are questionable". However, you have presented no sources backing up your claims. Thus, the scholarly sources remain unchallenged. Personal opinions by an anonymous editors do not count. I will restore the scholarly and peer-reviewed material unless you can provide sourced justifications. Please, not again your own unsourced personal opinions.Ultramarine (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already answered all of your claims above. The sources you have provided are from 1983 and contradicted by more recent, authoritative, neutral, and internationally accepted sources. The Democide book is considered only a preliminary, non-authortitative estimate culled from questionable sources. Unless you can come up with recent, reliable sources to support the material then it will remain deleted. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not provided any sources supporting your personal opinions. I have cited peer-reviewed material. The Demokratizatsiya article is from 2004. Please provide the sources for your statements "contradicted by more recent, authoritative, neutral, and internationally accepted sources" and "considered only a preliminary, non-authortitative estimate culled from questionable sources". If there are such sources, why are you unable to cite them? Ultramarine (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources have already been provided. The sources are quoted just above where we are posting. They clearly contradict the assertions made in the articles you cite. They are more recent. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You have provided no sources. If so, post them again, and this discussion can be easily resolved. If you thinking about the sources in the "Politicization of human rights" section, they are older and less reliable since they not scholarly material. They are not discussing the scholarly material I have presented, merely presenting the less reliable view of some left-wing organizations. NPOV requires the inclusion of all views.Ultramarine (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources are provided above. The arguments are made above. The arguments have already been made many times before. See:

• According to the CIIR report, Amnesty International and Americas Watch stated that there is no evidence that the use of torture was sanctioned by the Nicaraguan authorities

• The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in a 1981 report found evidence for mass executions ... stated "In the Commission’s view...the government of Nicaragua clearly intended to respect the lives of all those defeated in the civil war...[and] is of the view that the new regime did not have, and does not now have, a policy of violating the right to life of political enemies..."

• The 1992 annual report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights contains details of mass graves ... The 1992 annual report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights contains details of mass graves ... containing bodies of people, the majority of whom were believed to have been executed by agents of the state and some also by the contras. However, the report does not state that these executions were part of government policy.[41]

• The Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America (ICCHRLA) in its Newsletter stated in 1985 that: "The hostility with which the Nicaraguan government is viewed by the Reagan administration is an unfortunate development. Even more unfortunate is the expression of that hostility in the destabilization campaign developed by the US administration... An important aspect of this campaign is misinformation and frequent allegations of serious human rights violations by the Nicaraguan authorities."[6]

• Human Rights Watch also stated in its 1989 report on Nicaragua that: "Under the Reagan administration, U.S. policy toward Nicaragua's Sandinista government was marked by constant hostility. This hostility yielded, among other things, an inordinate amount of publicity about human rights issues. Almost invariably, U.S. pronouncements on human rights exaggerated and distorted the real human rights violations of the Sandinista regime, and exculpated those of the U.S.-supported insurgents, known as the contras."[7]

• According to the 11 monthly bulletins of 1987 (July being the only month without an issue), the CPDH claims to have received information on 1,236 abuses of all types. However, of those cases, only 144 names are provided ... only in 11.65% of its cases is there the minimal detail provided to identify the person ... incident and perpetrator of the abuse."

And then there is this absolutely ridiculous statement taken from the Heritage Foundation report that you are quoting:

• The Heritage Foundation report appears to play-down human rights abuses committed by the US-backed Somoza regime, stating that: "While elements of the Somoza National Guard tortured political opponents, they did not employ psychological torture."

Considering that the U.S. itself now openly practices both forms of torture, the report does beg a few questions about which is worse: having your face eaten off by rats, getting raped repeatedly by your prison guards who may or may not be using iron bars, having body parts cut off and getting electorcuted or --

what, being locked in solitary confinement because you were guilty of such crimes? Being taunted and ridiculed by your guards? The Heritage Foundation report doesn't really say, now, does it?

The content you seek to include is either directly contradicted by these and other sources in the article, or has been rendered outdated and illegitimate by them. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All of these sources are older and less reliable documents, several from dubious left-wing salvation theology organizations, than the peer-reviewed article and scholarly book. Since they are older, they cannot possible be discussing the later sources.Ultramarine (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion is quite obviously a false statement. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The scholarly book is from 1997 and the peer-reviewed article is from 2004. Your sources are much earlier. Thus they cannot be discussing the academic writings. Nor do they necessarily contradict the academic writings. For example, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights notes the existence of mass graves, most done by the Sandinistas. Amnesty and HRW discusses HR violations by the Sandinistas. The academic writings are more reliable, the other sources you mention are not academic. Thus no justification for exclusion. Regarding my non-academic sources, TIME and the right-wing Heritage foundation are not worse than the included obscure left-wing liberation theology organizations.Ultramarine (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you are wrong on that. The IACH, AI, HRW, etc, all had direct access to the Nicaraguan Government and professional observers on the ground. The U.S. State Dept, Heritage Foundation, and Time Mag didn't.

The IACH also clearly states that there's no evidence those graves had anything to do with Sandinista policy. So to attribute those graves and murders to the Sandinista government will require a source as reliable, neutral, and which had as much access to Nicaraguan government bodies as did the IACH. Clearly that rules out the U.S. State Dept, the Heritage Foundation, and Time Magazine.

The scholarly book does not have definite figures, and so far no analyses using the concept of "Democide" have been able to arrive at a conclusive and accepted methodology.

The article you quote does not have a section dealing with Sandinista human rights violations; instead, there are a series of random quotations, most of which make allegations from extremely suspect research organizations (AEI, the U.S. State Department, the Cuban-American Foundation, etc) and none of which make any categorical statements about the state of Human Rights under the Sandinistas. Since "an encyclopedia entry is not a collection of facts", this article is clearly inadequate for making blanket assertions regarding human rights under the Sandinistas. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, more unsourced personal opinions. The first IACH article is from 1981. They later changed their minds regarding policy in the later articles from 1991 and 1992 when many mass graves was found, most by the Sandinistas. The scholary book have definite figures and many sources.Table Stop ignoring the 2004 peer-reviewed article. If we can quote dubious left-wing theology organizations, then also the Heritage Foundation which lists its sources is allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The "scholarly book" is a neologism that hasn't received widespread acceptance in the academic community. The figures in that book are disputed even by the idea's supporters.

The IACH reports are from '81 and '92. I was talking about the '92 report. So your "objections" are obviously misplaced.

The Heritage Foundation report is out-dated, suffers from questionable scholarly standards (see the quote, above), and is overtly contradicted by the third-party, neutral sources provided.

The rest of what you write is, as usual, utterly unintelligible. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Still no sources for your claims. "The "scholarly book" is a neologism that hasn't received widespread acceptance in the academic community. The figures in that book are disputed even by the idea's supporters." Source please. The Heritage Foundation report and TIME is no worse than those from left-wing liberation theology organizations from the same period now included in the article. No double standard please. The 1991 IACH report clearly states that most of the mass graves were by the Sandinistas. It was the 1981 report who stated that HR violations was probably not related to Sandinsta policy. Before these discoveries. The later reports simply makes no comment on policy by either the Sandinsitas or Contras. Still no justification for excluding the 2004 peer-reviewed article.Ultramarine (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ultramarine - it is quite misplaced to refer to the CIIR (Progressio) as a dubious "left-wing theology organization". Please see their entry in the British Overseas NGOs for Development (BOND) Directory: [42]. It is a registered NGO, which is both credible and well established - so much so that it now receives a large part of its funding from the UK Government, Department for International Development. Pexise (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That is the current status. But the report quite old. The organization have an interesting earlier history. Here is how they describe themselves: "Throughout its history, the organisation has sought to influence church and state, most notably to support liberation struggles, grassroots developments and to strengthen a moral voice against human rights abuses. ... CIIR's then education department supported the progressive elements of the church in various liberation and human rights struggles in Central America, southern Africa and Asia. CIIR published booklets on liberation theology and promoted progressive church speakers.[43]Ultramarine (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - they are a source which works to "strengthen a moral voice against human rights abuses". If you read the report you'll find that it's quite dispassionate in its treatment of the Sandinistas. It also uses AI and HRW as sources. Quite suitable for a section on human rights. Pexise (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

An organization openly supporting "liberation struggles" and leftist "liberation theology" is not a simple human rights organization but quite openly has a bias from the beginning. No more neutral than the Heritage organization who also cites various neutral sources in its report.Ultramarine (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You are grossly oversimplifying here. Regardless, you'll agree that the fact that the CIIR reports criticises the Sandinistas' human rights record shows that it is not biased. Pexise (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the CIIR references do not make extraordinary claims, they just corroborate what other sources have already stated. Pexise (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am quoting what they say regarding themselves. An organization openly supporting "liberation struggles" and leftist "liberation theology" is not a simple human rights organization but quite openly has a bias from the beginning. They also state "There was a clear division within the church between the progressive and the more conservative elements." and explicitly declare themselves to be in the "progressive" or left fraction. Some minor straw man criticisms of the Sandinistas do not make them less biased, any more than some minor criticisms by CIA of Contras make the CIA unbiased. The Heritage foundation also "do not make extraordinary claims, they just corroborate what other sources have already stated".Ultramarine (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're way off the mark there - the CIIR report's criticisms are direct quotes from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, hardly "minor straw man criticisms". But you seem to be immune to reasonable argument, logic and rationality so I'm sure you'll come up with some other absurd claim. Pexise (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Heritage Foundation also use independent sources in their rapport. CIIR was an openly leftist organization at the time and was no less biased than the rightist Heritage Foundation.Ultramarine (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then are we not just comparing on one side, 2 human rights groups to the word of Time Magazine? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No we are comparing one 2004 peer-reviewed article, one 1997 scholarly book, one TIME article, one Heritage report + many other deletions against an openly biased organization. See the deletions here: [44]Ultramarine (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you'll are arguing over Human Rights section, why not just agree to use quotes from Human Rights groups, wouldn't that be easier? Sorry to jump into the fracas, but it just seems like this argument can easily be solved by using the most appropriate source. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy in Wikipedia restricting sources to Human Rights groups. Scholarly books and peer-reviewed articles are at least as reliable. CIIR was not a human rights group at the time but an openly partisan organization.Ultramarine (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what Wikipedia considers a "scholarly book" I wouldn't go with a newspaper over a human rights group, nor a conservative think tank over a human rights group. I respect Time Magazine, which is a magazine, but not more than a human rights group when it comes to the area of human rights, and if violations against human rights occurred. Is there a way to find out who Time Magazine used as a source? It may be more credible then the sources being presented. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, CIIR was a human rights group at the time. An organization openly supporting "liberation struggles" and leftist "liberation theology" is not a simple human rights organization but quite openly has a bias from the beginning. They also state "There was a clear division within the church between the progressive and the more conservative elements." and explicitly declare themselves to be in the "progressive" or left fraction.[45] Most serious is of course the deletion of the 1997 academic book and the 2004 peer-reviewed paper. The TIME article and Heritage Foundation report + various other deletions can also be found in the undeleted version [46] or more easily here: [47]Ultramarine (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If we removed CIIR and Heritage Group we are still left with 3 human rights groups and on your side Time Magazine. What is an academic book? I also cannot see what was deleted, the link you gave just shows the article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the deleted sections here: [48]Ultramarine (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that shows the differences. What is the peer reviewed article you are citing however? I see a image, but it does not list where it is from, just says Hawaii.edu. I also see the Times article you mention, and the CIIR article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I will just step away, I thought I had a good idea that would quell the argument, however it seems there is no agreement on who would be the better source. Hopefully you'll can come to an understanding. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the peer-reviewed article: [49] The book is Statistics of Democide by R.J. Rummel. The Heritage article is here: [50]. The TIME article.[51].Ultramarine (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued mass deletion of sourced material

See this: [52]. There is no justification for violating fundamental policies such as WP:NPOV. The views of both sides should be presented.Ultramarine (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit you are contesting is a fact. You apparently believe that you can contest this obvious and widely acknowledged fact by simply declaring it POV. That is, of course, a farcical, shameless attempt to push a lie onto the page, and you are doing so for the sole reason that the facts do not support your own personal, uninformed POV.

The simple fact is that the original Sandinista coalition was not "Marxist", but was a broad coalition of many different groups, many (perhaps most) of whom were openly corporate and capitalist. You are wrong, you are unwilling to admit you are wrong, and in the face of mountains of evidence proving you wrong you are still insisting that your own utterly uninformed POV be included on the page.  :::It is you -- not we -- who are violating WP:NPOV. 09:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added sources for my statements. If you add for yours, there will be no problem.Ultramarine (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but until i have seen you present the proposed changes on this page in a good faith gesture of cooperative editing i will continue to revert you. I am not going to have a discussion with you about material you have already forced onto the page against consensus. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If is unfortunate that you will refuse to discuss and follow Wikipedia policy.Ultramarine (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again you are trying to change the subject. It is quite clear, here, that you are contesting a proven and undeniably commonplace fact. You are trying to replace it with unsourced assertions, and when asked to show those sources you refuse. When asked to show your proposed edits, you refuse. It is clearly you who are in violation of policy.

Once again: either float your edits on this page for comment and input from your fellow editors or see them reverted. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again: the only violation of WP:NPOV occurring, here, are your proposed edits.

The three articles you have suggested are demonstrably inaccurate and unreliable. Many editors have pointed this out (at least seven different long-term editors, so far).

We will be happy to consider the statistics from the book you propose for inclusion -- Democide -- if only you provide us with two or three independent studies which corroborate the statistics put forward, there, and come up with the same figures. However, i will point out that the book does not treat the Sandinista regime in any greater or less detail than the others presented, of which it is only one among some thirty or forty. I will further point out that the Sandinista regime was, in fact, Democratic; as such, the statistics cited in the book call into question its very thesis and methodology (i.e. -- the book considers the Sandinistas to be undemocratic, which by any common measure is just factually incorrect). Finally, the book does not deal directly with "Human Rights Violations", but instead only quanitifies "civilian deaths attributable to the state" under an opaque and non-peer-reviewed methodology.

If the statistics the book cites are as commonly accepted and unquestionable as you claim they are then it will be a small thing for you to find some academic journals, local, official investigations or human rights reports which validate its methodology and quantification techniques. It will not be necessary to include these articles on the page, but they are necessary to persuade the other editors here that the book you are citing -- Democide -- is as widely accepted as you claim it is. Otherwise, we will continue to reject it as a fringe source. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Who are "many editors"? I count only you and Pexise. Again, please stop give me your unsourced personal opinions and claiming WP policies which does not exist like "two or three independent studies which corroborate the statistics". A scholary book and a peer-reviewed article are as reliable sources as there are. If you disagree, add your own sourced view.Ultramarine (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to go look back into the history of the page; believe it or not, some of us have memories that go back longer than two weeks. There are a few editors who popped in from other pages to help out your defense, but most of the long term editors to this page -- myself included -- have steadfastly opposed inclusion of this material for over half a year, now (at least). Stone put to sky (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I the article was quite stable with the now deleted material included until very recently. More importantly there is no justification for violating fundamental policies such as WP:NPOV. The views of both sides should be presented. If you dislike the views, add your own sourced disagreeing one. Simply deleting views you dislike and claiming without any evidence falsehood is not acceptable.Ultramarine (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. For seven months now people have been protesting at its inclusion and asking you to either remove it, back it up, or re-work it into something more NPOV. You have refused every attempt to re-work it into a neutral point of view. Now that there are editors who are insisting that it be brought into accordance with Wikipedia policy, you are provoking an edit war. Thus, as you so aptly point out: the article was stable as long as other editors here acquiesced to your own skewing of its POV into unfounded, factless lies. Now that there are editors here who are insisting that it be brought into accord with Wikipedia guidelines, you are provoking an edit war and refusing to provide evidence which you claim -- without any proof -- to be abundantly verified. If it's so easily verified then it will be easy for you to back it up. Otherwise, it is now being rejected on the basis of WP:RS. I am once again asking of you: please edit in accord with Wikipedia guidelines. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, a stable version was reached with only one long-term objector. Why are you deleting sourced material such as peer-reviewed articles? I have presented peer-reviewed and scholarly material. No need for presenting three or ten or twenty as support in WP policy, a single academic work is enough. You have presented claims of falsehood. Please give supporting sources for these claims.Ultramarine (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You wrong, once again purposefully lying about the facts and then declaring the opposite to be true. This is easily verified by anyone who browses the discussion page above us. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you make another personal attack, then I will report you. If you have sources for your claims, present them.Ultramarine (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you have not presented any "peer-reviewed and scholarly material". You have presented: a 30 year old TIME magazine article; an equally out of date "study" containing many blatant and already demonstrated falsehoods commissioned by the partisan Heritage Foundation; an equally biased article from yet another political journal that contains conspicuously out-of-date material and non-academic sources, among them political front-groups like CANF (among many others), and finally a non-notable book that invents a neologism which it tries to support with obvious factual and statistical inconsistencies that are not verified or validated by any academic sources. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The 2004 peer-reviewed study: [53]. Ultramarine (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding, right?

Many of its sources come from organizations that fail WP:RS. It's an article published on the website of an unaccredited (at the time) university. The references you cite from the article are from an article published in a tabloid newspaper and without formal attribution.

Nowhere in the article does it discuss the FSLN and its Human Rights policies. The article makes extraordinarily confident pronouncements on the basis of a few vague and unreliably sourced assertions regarding interpretations about certain events which neutral, third-party observers who were present at the events openly and clearly dispute.Stone put to sky (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You make many claims, but have no supporting sources. If you want to criticize a peer-reviewed paper, you need to publish yourself. The personal views of an anonymous Wikipedia editor is certainly not a reliable source. The article has 103 citations from many different sources. Of course you may dispute these view, if you have sources, by adding sourced views to the article. There is no justification for deleting peer-reviewed material.Ultramarine (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Ultramarine; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is clearly stated in WP:Verifiability. To take an example, when a group of scientists came out and stated that Cold Fusion was possible there was skepticism. 'Even though they have published a peer-reviewed article detailing their experiment, in the lack of any corroborating evidence their claims are not now taken as true. In other words: if you go to the Wikipedia article for Cold Fusion there is nothing definitive saying that "Cold Fusion is real and it happened!".

In order for that to happen, we need academic consensus. Regarding Cold Fusion -- as well as the human rights violations your article refers to -- there is no current consensus. Further, the article you provide clearly does not meet WP:RS; first, it doesn't make the claim you assert it does (i.e. -- it says maybe as many as 215 rebels were murdered); second, the source from which it derives this information is questionable; third, the journal was, at the time, supported by an unaccredited school; fourth, the information as presented only makes an extraordinary claim about events in the '92 election, and says nothing about Sandinista official policy; fifth, there are no other reliable sources which back this claim up; sixth, there are numerous reliable sources which dispute the claim and have already been presented; seventh, the article does not attempt to document Sandinista human rights violations but, instead, purports to establish a conspiracy theory regarding the Nicaraguan state police agencies; eighth, Wikipedia "is not a collection of facts", and yet that is the only purpose for this particular assertion you wish to include (i.e. -- to assert a random fact); ninth, when you have been asked to present supporting, corroborating sources you have explicitly refused.

Any one of these issues is enough to call the reliability of this article of yours into question. The simple fact is that this source does not meet Wikipedia standards as a reliable, verifiable source. It goes on to reject the established consensus of literally scores of international, third-party, neutral, specialist organizations, and then from there proceeds to establish a conspiracy theory about the events which, in contrast to all available academic and official consensus, it asserts are true.

The solution to this impasse is simple: find a better source that corroborates it and it will be included. Otherwise, there is no way it can be included. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:V refers to for examle "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;". Peer-reviewed sources is a reliable as there is. We are not stating that this is the truth, which would require extraordinary evidence, we are presenting a view. There is no requirement in Wikipedia for academic consensus. Only that all views should be presented. Have a look at the Multiverse article. That article has really extraordinary claims. But since they are merely represented as different views and not truths, there is no justification for deleting most of this article.Ultramarine (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "It goes on to reject the established consensus of literally scores of international, third-party, neutral, specialist organizations", this is unsourced as usual. On the other hand, the many other deleted sources, and many of those still in the article, give support for substantial human rights violations.Ultramarine (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The article appeared in a "journal" released by an unaccredited school composed of admittedly ex-CIA and State Department officers. It proposes a fringe conspiracy theory about groups active in an election that took place 15 years before it was written. As support, it quotes anonymous sources and fringe partisan political groups most of whom were not present as sources. The assertions made in the article are disputed by neutral, third-party observers from formal political, governmental, UN and Human Rights watchdog groups.

I'm sorry, but that clearly doesn't qualify as a "peer-reviewed source". Stone put to sky (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was published in Demokratizatsiya which is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.Ultramarine (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

...and which is a "journal" released by an unaccredited school composed of admittedly ex-CIA and State Department officers. It proposes a fringe conspiracy theory about groups active in an election that took place 15 years before it was written. As support, it quotes anonymous sources and fringe partisan political groups most of whom were not present as sources. The assertions made in the article are disputed by neutral, third-party observers from formal political, governmental, UN and Human Rights watchdog groups.

End of story. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As usual you give no sources for you claims. I have. WP uses verifiable information.Ultramarine (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For whoever this may assist: "Imperialism did not have the great amount of direct investments in Nicaragua that it did in Cuba, and it therefore exercised its control over the country in a less direct fashion. This meant that Nicaraguan capitalists, while they were still a neocolonial bourgeoisie dependent on imperialism, had somewhat greater room for manoeuvre in the conduct of day-to-day affairs, including greater room for intrabourgeois conflicts. This fact and Somoza's use of state power to enrich himself at the expense of competing capitalists combined to create a fairly broad layer of capitalist opposition to the dictatorship, which even engaged in sporadic armed struggle on a few occasions. This bourgeois opposition was not revolutionary or even consistent in its opposition to Somoza, but it had sufficient reality - symbolized by Somoza's assassination of the publisher Chamorro - to attract a certain following amount the workers and peasants."

It goes on to explain how the FSLN were able to recruit those capitalist forces by promising a portion of control to the bourgeois. Source: The Cuban revolution and its extension: Resolution of the Socialist Workers Party. Page 74 --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is more: "Capitalists' support for the FSLN was based on tactical coalition, rather than ideological conversion. The basic vision held by the Nicaraguan capitalists of an alternative social structure was primarily reformist and consisted of recasting certain aspects of society and government, rather than introducing broad social transformations. Specifically polity, reduce corruption, reform the National Guard and eliminate its repressive aspects, and introduce some reforms to ameliorate the conditions of the working classes. This vision was hardly compatible with that of the FSLN, and, as a result, capitalists did not shift their support to them until the final days of the revolution when it became clear that no other option existed. As one business leader remarked, "The businessmen thought of the sandinistas as their people. They thought they could put [the Sandinistas] in the field to take care of the guard. Then they would step in and take over when Somoza fell. If there eaws a problem, the United States would stop the Sandinistas from taking power"

In summary, historical divisions and weakness of the capitalist class prevented the business sector from playing an important political role in Nicaragauan politics. Despite rising conflicts, Nicaraguan capitalists were slow to join the opposition and challenge the regime. Although broad segments of the entrpreneurial sector were adversely affected by the earthquake and certain state policies in the early 1970s, and even though they possessed some measure of organization, capitalists failed to play a significant political role immediately after the earthquake. But the assassination of Chamorro and the political and economic crisis resulted in capitalist mobilization and defection from the state. By August 1978, the capitalists ultimately broke away from Somoza and demanded his resignation."

States, Ideologies, and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of Iran, Nicaragua, and the Philippines by Misargh Parsa for Cambridge University Press. Page 224.

Hopefully these help. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that i was banned before i could comment on these, N4GM, but i would like to now say that i think your additions are extremely valuable. I would like to see them expanded. Stone put to sky (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

MoS

I have previously argued for a separate MoS for articles on political parties, one of the issues being on what basis on how to delimitate between governments and the political parties holding office in those governments. I think the ongoing edit war, at least partly, reaffirms the need for such a policy. --Soman (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

1982 emergency rule

is there a reason why their is no section on the establishment of emergency rule and cancellation of civil liberties? I cant find it in the discussion pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpineda84 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The section 1984 election contained it. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

I can see the article has had a POV tag since last June[54] but in talk page and archives I've seen discussions are mostly related to the section "Allegations of human rights violations committed by the Sandinistas". Have you considered a {{POV-section}} tag instead and/or inline tags like {{POV-statement}}? I think that would help focusing the discussion. JRSP (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine adding unverified references against consensus

Ultramarine - please discuss your controversial edits and establish consensus before making them. Pexise (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You removed sourced information, such as peer-reviewed articles and scholarly books, without a consensus. Always remember, WP must follow NPOV. Here is the sourced information removed.[55]Ultramarine (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The section is completely NPOV - it uses neutral sources and does not push any particular point of view. Why are you suggsting that it's POV? Pexise (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be specific about this, I'd like things to be clear in this discussion. Pexise (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You have removed peer-reviewed articles and scholarly books presenting important POVS. While keeping material from biased organizations from the other side.Ultramarine (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1.) the removed sections represent fringe theories and exceptional claims, you must provide more sources to verify these claims for them to be included, as per WP:V.

2.) PLEASE BE SPECIFIC - what material, what biased organisations? Pexise (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed articles and scholarly books are not "fringe theories and exceptional claims". Sources and deleted text can be seen here.[56] While removing this academic material, you have kept material from CIIR which was not a human rights group at the time. An organization openly supporting "liberation struggles" and leftist "liberation theology" is not a simple human rights organization but quite openly has a bias from the beginning. They also state "There was a clear division within the church between the progressive and the more conservative elements." and explicitly declare themselves to be in the "progressive" or left fraction.[57]Ultramarine (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1.) the sources you have presented present represent exceptional claims - "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community".

2.) Please don't make completely unsubstantiated claims attempting to smear a highly reputable organisation. CIIR was funded by the UK government when the report was written. In the UK (unlike in the US) this is a clear indicator that the organisation is mainstream and produces high-quality research. Pexise (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. I have presented numerous sources showing many human rights violations by the Sandinistas so this is the prevailing view. More, I have cited academic sources, you none.

2. I am just citing what they write themselves. Regarding UK funding at the time, your presented no evidence and even if true is no more evidence for reliability than US funding of universities automatically is.Ultramarine (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. ??? this seems to miss the point entirely. The sources cited at the moment are the Interamerican Human Rights Commission - this is the most mainstream and authorative source we could use.

2. read the page you've cited to try and discredit the organisation. It clearly states that it has been funded by the UK government since 1966. It is not equivalent to US university funding at all - as I stated, in the UK this clearly indicates that it is a mainstream, high quality organisation - otherwise they would not get UK Development Asistance funding. Pexise (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. The Interamerican Human Rights Commission in no way contradicts numerous human rights violations by the Sandinstas. In the later reports they note the findings of many mass graves. Most of these due to Sandinista crimes. Peer-reviewed articles and scholarly books are no less reliable and a newspaper such a TIME is very mainstream.

2. Why do you trust them regarding this but not when they themselves say they were a biased organization? What evidence do you have for that "in the UK this clearly indicates that it is a mainstream, high quality organisation". In European nations numerous organizations and parties recieve some sort of state funding without this meaning reliability. For example, all parties, regardless of if they are Communists or racist nationalists, often receive various forms of state funding if they manage they win some form of election and gain some seats.Ultramarine (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Once again you seem to be missing the point here - your sources make extraordinary claims about extreme torture, vast networks of sectret police etc etc - this is certainly not substantiated anywhere else.

2. They have not said they were biased at all, you have completely misrepresented the organisation - they state on their website: "The organisation was founded in response to the silence of the Catholic church's hierarchy in the face of the rise of fascism." - solid human rights credentials there; after the sectino you mention about the progressive church, the site states: "This, however, was only a small part of the work of the department, as detailed policy analysis and innovative work on issues such as drugs, debt and trade were not expressly church linked. CIIR worked in collaboration with others and published high quality analysis.".

I know that the UK DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT funds mainstream, high quality, neutral organisations because I live in the UK and have a good understanding of the way the UK government works. Also, at that time, UK registered NGOs were required by law to be neutral and apolitical. Pexise (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, the claims made by CIIR are corroborated by three other sources, so this argument is pretty irrelevant. Pexise (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"I know that the UK DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT funds mainstream, high quality, neutral organisations because I live in the UK and have a good understanding of the way the UK government works." Personal opinions by anonymous editors do not count. Source for claims please. See also other arguments above regarding this and please answer them. The CIIR are opposed by numerous other sources including academic works. NPOV requires the inclusion of all views.Ultramarine (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're losing me now, I', not sure what you're talking about here. What are you talking about? The CIIR source is used to state that the Reagan admin was producing anti-Sandinista propaganda - that is corroborated by two other sources in the section and is a widely acknowledged fact with hundreds of other sources, for example in the sections about PRODEMCA, Otto Reich etc. What were you talking about? Pexise (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have "hundreds of other sources", then state them. Again, CIIR was biased leftist organization at the time. No excuse for deleting more reliable peer-reviewed and academic sources and mainstream newspapers. And if we include CIIR, then we should also include the Heritage organizaton.Ultramarine (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with UK gov funding CIIR, it was M. Tatcher administration so this can hardly be a point for saying that CIIR was a leftist organization. --JRSP (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed articles and scholarly books presenting a critical view has been deleted. Including academic books and peer-reviewed articles. Sources and deleted text can be seen here.[58] While removing this academic material, material from CIIR have been kept which was not a human rights group at the time. An organization openly supporting "liberation struggles" and leftist "liberation theology" is not a simple human rights organization but quite openly has a bias from the beginning. They also state "There was a clear division within the church between the progressive and the more conservative elements." and explicitly declare themselves to be in the "progressive" or left fraction.[59]Ultramarine (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

At the time of its publication the journal was published by an unaccredited school. Further, the article was written by the founder of the journal himself (i.e.-- self published). Further, the journal is clearly rife with unsourced speculation and conspiracy theories.

If its such a reliable source then please -- find some other, more clearly reliable, academic sources which say the same thing. Then we shall consider it.

The book and the other articles, however, have already been shown to be too riddled with inconsistencies, outlandish claims, and direct contradictions to the current international consensus regarding these events that they can no longer be considered reliable. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Again more claims without sources. If you want to criticize a peer-reviewed article, then write one yourself.Ultramarine (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This revert war can't go forever. I've seen you already tried RfC so I'd suggest you to try the Mediation Cabal to help you with this dispute. JRSP (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Clearly there is no consensus for Ultra's arguments, and I do agree that it makes exceptional claims, and the source is self published, i.e. the author is the owner, and the quality of the content is sub par. CIIR is a mainstream reliable source. I will try to maybe work out a compromise but in the interests of working with consensus, I will revert most of the disputed material that was added without consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How can for example a peer-reviewed article be these things? Sources for you claims.Ultramarine (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultramine seems to be in a minority of one here.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NOT and [60]. Wikipedia is not a democarcy. NO factual arguments for excluding peer-reviewed articles and scholarly books have been presented.Ultramarine

(talk) 13:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a democracy but it works by consensus and you are the only one supporting your rather strange thesis Ultramine. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 13:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no justification for violating policies such as WP:NPOV. WP is an encyclopedia based on V, NOR, and NPOV. Not a published survey of the majority personal opinions of Wikipedia editors. Again, discuss the factual content. Peer-reviewed articles and scholarly books are as reliable sources.Ultramarine (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ultramarine - factual arguments have been presented for excluding your sources, you've just chosen to ignore them. The facts are: 1. The sources present EXCEPTIONAL CLAIMS; 2. These claims are not verefied by any other RELIABLE SOURCES; 3. The "peer reviewed article" is self-published and therefore not reliable. Pexise (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Many sources document many human rights violations. Not exceptional claims. 2. Scholarly articles and peer-revewed articles are reliable sources. 3. Source please.Ultramarine (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Demokratizatsiya (journal) is certainly not self-published. Here is some info [61] and here is the submission page for peer-review: [62].Ultramarine (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly articles and peer-revewed articles are not necessarily reliable, remember that WP:RS is only a guideline and several editors have showed they concerns about the credibility of the Demokratizatsiya article and other sources. I understand that simple majority is not the wiki way but that's not the problem here, it appears to be Ultramarine against everyone else. JRSP (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No one has shown anything. Just stated unsourced opinoins. On the other hand, NPOV is one of the core policies. Please explain why sourced views should be excluded.Ultramarine (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless factual arguments are presented, I will restore the well-sourced material. Respect NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced sections

Another Issue there are two completely unsourced sections. "Women in revolutionary Nicaragua" and "1980 literacy campaign". They read like propaganda pamphlets for the Sandinistas. According to WP:V should unsourced material be removed. Objections? Ultramarine (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

These are important subjects - rather than just deleting all of the material as you have done previously, could you try and find some good sources on these topics and work to improve the article? Pexise (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the unsourced sections, it is important to note that WP:V says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" so sourcing these sections is not Ultramarine's homework. These sections have been unsourced for a long time, perhaps moving the material to talk page until it is sourced could be a better idea but unverified material and original research is not good for the article's quality. JRSP (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am unclear what Ultramarine objects to in these two sections. They may be be unsourced but they are generally correct. What would Ultramine want to say about the 1980 (and continuing) Literacy campaign? Would he rather it wasn't mentioned at all because it shows the FSLN in a good light? That can't be right. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No evidence for that any of this is true. Again, the burden of evidence is on you. Source please. To quote from WWP:V: I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.Ultramarine (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, enough with the shouting. I have added 4 sources for the Literacy Campaign, all quite respectable, and removed the 'unsourced' tag. Happy now Ultramarine? SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Another section still unsourced. Also see above regarding the human rights sections.Ultramarine (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Two links given for the role of women in Nicaragua under the FSLN and unsourced tag removed. Also if you look in the subsidary articles from that section you will find them very well sourced Ultramarine.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 13:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The claims in the text not mentioned in these sources. Corrected. Also, why did you delete another sourced text? Remeber NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is long been clear that you despise the FSLN and all that they stood for and stand for Ultramarine but to delete a whole, serious section and replace it with one weasel word sentence is really not acceptable. Your obvious bias makes you blind to all reason. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll add some sources to the sections. I don't think deleting them is correct since there are many sources available, all they are missing is inline citations and someone with the time to do it. I'll help out. As for reliable sources, I'm not too sure what is or what isn't but if i add anything that isn't please let me know. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  12:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

JPineda introduced some material...

But some of that material was clearly outside the scope of the section to which he added it, while some was simply incomprehensible -- i really had no idea what he was trying to say or what he hoped to communicate.

I have no problem discussing the Tribunales Espiciales, nor with showing how they contributed to the era of martial law; however, unless there can be some clear cause-and-effect shown, events which took place in 1979 do not belong in a section that is discussing a time-period that starts in 1982.

JPineda hasn't shown us how these events are related. Once again: i'm happy to discuss inclusion, but an edit that confuses the reader is best left out until it can be re-worked. Stone put to sky (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't see this on the discussion page earlier. I understand that the time period officially begins in 1982. However, when we are talking about martial law in general is useful to see that their was indeed a precedent to 1982, thus I believe it is very relevant to the entire issue. no? Jpineda84 (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How odd!

Ultramarine adds a tag "Totally Disputed" with the comment "See Talk" -- but then doesn't make any comment on the discussion page! Stone put to sky (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See the the section two step up.Ultramarine (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not disputed by anybody but Ultramarine. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 15:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted material can be seen here: [63]. It includes material from sources such as this peer-reviewed article: [64] Or the scholarly book Statistics of Democide by R.J. Rummel, citing numerous sources. The Heritage Foundation is a POV source but this is allowed by WP:NPOV. They also cite many sources for their claims: [65]. TIME is mainstream newspaper: [66].Ultramarine (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with the Catholic Church

Can someone incorporate the required sources for this section, if they are in the main page move them over. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Sentence Structure in "Sandinista rule (1979–1990)"

In the second to last paragraph of "Sandinista rule (1979-1990)", the senctence structure is rather awkward, and I admit I cannot actually determine what it is exactly trying to say:

"Armed opposition to the Sandinista Government eventually divided into two main groups: The Fuerza Democratica Nicaraguense (FDN), a U.S. supported army formed in 1981 by the CIA, U.S. State Department, and former members of the widely condemned Somoza-era Nicaraguan National Guard; and the Alianza Revolucionaria Democratica (ARDE), a group that had existed since before the FSLN and was led by Sandinista founder and former FSLN supreme commander, Eden Pastora, a.k.a. "Commander Zero".[29] and Milpistas, former anti-Somoza rural militias, which eventually formed the largest pool of recruits for the Contras."

First of all, I can't tell what the two groups of the opposition were. I'm assuming that the first group was the FDN, which was supported by the U.S. and the Nicaraguan National Guard, while the second group was the ARDE. However, the paragraph also states that the ARDE was led by Eden Pastora, who was a Sandinista founder. This seems odd considering that the two groups were stated to be the armed opposition to the Sandinista. Did Pastora switch sides, or was the ARDE not one of the two groups?

If anyone here knows about this, could you please fix it? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.33.26 (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Pastora did indeed change sides. He was a bit of a maverick.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 19:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Pastora did change sides, however his group remained quite independent from and generally despised the UNO, refused Washington aid, and equally rejected the UNO/Contra groups as well as the FSLN. "Maverick", indeed; clearly, however, the quotation referred to above is false (Pastora did not make up the "majority" of the UNO and Washington proxies) and should be deleted. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

CDS

where are the sources to support any of this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpineda84 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC) The whole section of CDS is missing crucial information. IE they were intended to politically educate the masses, to mobilize them in effort to push the revolution forward. They were indeed used to apprehend and spy on Contra activities and were empowered to negate rights to those who were against the revolution. But, there are no sources in that section at all, as it stands. I will work on that when i get the chance. Jpineda84 (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Continued deletion of sourced material and violation of NPOV

Deleted material can be seen here: [67]. It includes material from sources such as this peer-reviewed article: [68] Or the scholarly book Statistics of Democide by R.J. Rummel, citing numerous sources. The Heritage Foundation is a POV source but this is allowed by WP:NPOV. They also cite many sources for their claims: [69]. TIME is mainstream newspaper: [70].UltramarineUltramarine (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the source for all of the most radical claims is the Permanent Commission on Human Rights. The numbers are unbelievable and not substantiated by independent, reliable, nonpartisan sources. This would be like writing a book about WMD in Iraq based only on reports from Ahmed Chalabi. If (and that's a big if) any of these sources are to be used, it has to be with a big *. Otherwise it smacks of undue weight. Notmyrealname (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. They list many other sources also for their claims. Even if it were true, there is no justification for excluding this source. They are a legitimate human rights organization and is allowed just like pro-Sandinista sources. See WP:NPOV, "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"." For example the TIME article and the many mass graves found after they lost power, reported by the IACHR, most due to the Sandinsitas, certainly indicate wide spread human rights violations.Ultramarine (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not if you look closely at the footnotes. In any case, their methodology is outside the norm of independent human rights organizations, and they took US Govt money at a time when the USG was at war with Nicaragua. I agree that their information should not be excluded, but their biases need to be explained. This goes for all sources in such a contentious article. On another note, this article should be required reading for everyone working on this section.Notmyrealname (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the footnotes do not reference them. The many mass graves as reported by the IACHR show widespread mass executions by the Sandinistas. Source for you claims of "their methodology is outside the norm of independent human rights organizations". They only received some money for translation and distribution outside Nicaragua of its monthly report. This is already included in the text. Envio is an openly pro-Sandinista magazine, as reliable as the Heritage Foundation.Ultramarine (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

All of this has already been explained at length, above. First, the "Statistics of Democide" makes the absurd claim that Nicaragua was not a democracy; that alone is enough to call the assertions in question, but expanding on the objections it is a noted fact of this "theory" that none of its proponents have yet agreed upon a methodology that has ever arrived at the same statistical results for any chosen timeperiod. Thus, not only is the very foundation of the methodology called into question by its clearly shoddy scholarship (Nicaragua continued to hold democratic elections even at the height of the U.S. proxy war), but since there is not even enough consensus amongst its proponents to arrive at consistent statistics then we will continue -- until such time as you can come up with more than this single source to support the assertion -- to politely decline to include it.

Secondly, the TIME magazine article is over thirty years old. The information it claims to be "reporting" is today contested by virtually every single human rights group and political observer organization there is. It would be as if you were to attempt to use an article from TIME magazine in 1936 that said "Hitler is the best thing that ever happened to the German Jews!" as justification for an assertion that the Holocaust never happened. Yes, it may have appeared in TIME magazine. But unless you can come up with something more reliable than a thirty year old magazine article to substantiate your claim then again: we politely decline the source until you can corroborate it with something better.

All of those objections hold equally for the article from "The Heritage Foundation ", with the additional worry that, as a partisan political group using U.S. State Department sources, it suffers from fundamentally questionable motives. Further, since most of the assertions presented there have been debunked by other, more reliable, neutral sources then -- again -- there is no justification for including it unless you can come up with something more modern and more reliable.

Notmyrealname has already debunked the stuff from the Permanent Commission on Human Rights, so that's moot. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please give sources for claim. Regardless, Nicaragua was not a democracy before the election in 1984 when much of this occurred. "The information it claims to be "reporting" is today contested by virtually every single human rights group and political observer organization there is." Source please. Read NPOV, claimed POV is not an excuse for deletion. If we can quote pro-Sandinsta sources, then we can also quote critical.Ultramarine (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

All of the information you are now requesting has already been provided, above. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Attention, Please

I would like to ask Ultramarine to please explain this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front&diff=196311778&oldid=196284143

It appears that your very first -- and totally unexplained -- move is to delete two sources and replace them with "fact" tags. Why did you do this? Stone put to sky (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at the whole diff. I reverted the very long duplication of almost the whole article that another editor had reintroduced. Due to the complexity of duplicate material, and new edits after this duplication possible only in one of duplicate sections, some material more than intended may have been lost when reverting. Seems fixed now.Ultramarine (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You eliminated two sources that were not included in the repeated material and then replaced them with "fact" tags. Since the sources that were included lay well outside of the duplicated material i would appreciate it if you would please explain how that happened. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I reverted to an earlier version as per above.Ultramarine (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The additions to the content had taken place many edits before. This was not a simple "undo". This was an obvious reversion to a state that existed before the sources had been put into place.

In other words: you were not reverting deleted content, and you were not reverting the inclusion of new content based upon objections to its neutrality. You were -- and this is totally clear from the diff -- reverting content back to a state that existed before the inclusion of two sources that would bolster comments you yourself had tagged as fact.

Please explain this obvious failure in judgment. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Jtrainor (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw that an editor had by mistake duplicated almost the whole article. So I reverted to my last version before this, which was the last edit before this editor. I also restored the sourced critical material. However, the same editor who had duplicated the article had also added these two sources which I by mistake did not see.Ultramarine (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As the article is heavily cited and only disputed by one person I have removed the tags.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 16:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's review this step-by-step, shall we?

N4GM makes edit #1, adding the two sources in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front&diff=196283091&oldid=196256443

Next, he makes edit #2, removing some highly suspect material that is not attested to in the source offered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front&diff=196283652&oldid=196283091

Next, N4GM makes edit #3, which is an obvious error in judgment where he accidentally duplicates a whole section of material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front&diff=196284022&oldid=196283652

Next, N4GM makes edit #4, where he re-introduces the sources he has just accidentally deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front&diff=196284143&oldid=196284022

Next, we have your own edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front&diff=196311778&oldid=196284143

In this edit, what is patently clear is that you do two things:

A) You delete the duplicate material. Thank you. That was something that needed to be done.

B) You also revert the text to a state preceding N4GM's first edit'. In other words: you didn't bother to review the edits, you simply reverted them to the last edit by yourself and pretended like you were doing us all a favor.

Pardon me if i question that last move. What we have here is a clear case where you reverted four different edits without review and deleted clear sourcing as if it were irrelevant to the activity of this project. I am asking again: why is it that you couldn't be bothered to check up and validate the last, proper edit of your fellow editor. Why is that? Stone put to sky (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"pretended like you were doing us all a favor." I did a favor by removing a gigantic duplication. Also a mistake as stated earlier.Ultramarine (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Apparently you missed it. Here it is again:

Why is it that you couldn't be bothered to check up and validate the last, proper edit of your fellow editor...and reverted the edit to your own prior version, regardless of the consequences?

Stone put to sky (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I already answered that. I made a mistake.Ultramarine (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems a very convenient mistake, Ultramarine. Oddly enough, all your mistakes seem similarly convenient. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See the section below. You deleted this section by revering [71] without discussing my question on this. A mistake?Ultramarine (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

US government allegations of support for foreign rebels

The United States State Department accused the Sandinistas of many cases of illegal foreign intervention.

One was supporting the FMLN rebels in El Salvador with safehaven; training; command-and-control headquarters and advice; and weapons, ammunition, and other vital supplies. As evidence was cited captured documents, testimonials of former rebels and Sandinistas, aerial photographs, tracing captured weapons back to Nicaragua, and captured vehicles from Nicaragua smuggling weapons. However El Salvador was in the midst of a Civil War in the period in question and that the US was intervening massively against the FMLN.

There were also accusations of subversive activities in Honduras, Costa Rica, and Colombia and in the case of Honduras and Costa Rica outright military operations by Nicaraguan troops.

There were also allegations of the presence of thousands of Cuban and other foreign advisers operating from the highest echelons of ministries to the battalion and even company level, including Cuban pilots flying combat missions.

I see that this material has been deleted. Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

I have created a little sandbox regarding the disputed material: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox2. Please discuss any objections with explanations here.Ultramarine (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This material has already been closely examined. The overwhelming consensus of we editors was that it should be deleted and replaced with something more neutral and more reliably sourced. This has already been explained to you again, again, and again. Moreover, a "sandbox" was already presented on this very page, just above, and has been there for quite some time. You -- not we, you -- simply refused to cooperate towards a more neutral point of view on these matters.

The long and the short of it is this: the sources you are attempting to insert into the article are long outdated, unreliable, and demonstrably outside international consensus. Period. Nothing more can be said on this matter. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources used include this peer-reviewed article: [72] Or the scholarly book Statistics of Democide by R.J. Rummel, citing numerous sources. The Heritage Foundation is a POV source but this is allowed by WP:NPOV. They also cite many sources for their claims: [73]. TIME is mainstream newspaper: [74]. The following sections discusses possible problems. If you have some more sourced objections not already included in this material, please include them. But please, no unsourced allegations. That is not a justification for removal.Ultramarine (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, TIME is a magazine not a newspaper. The issue they have is with age of sources, not reliability I believe. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what policy are you thinking about? Age has not been mentioned. The article includes many older sources. Some from the 70s. The peer-reviewed article is just a few years old.Ultramarine (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I brought this up at the appropriate location to get a few outside voices, hopefully some will respond soon. As I have said, I have not read the material, however the age seems to be the issue. An article written in the 70's is not as reliable I would argue, as one written in the 90's. More information is present later, then prior. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, no one has complained about age. The article includes many older sources. Some from the 70s. The peer-reviewed article is just a few years old.Ultramarine (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Contested material

There seems to be no consensus for the big changes introduced by Ulramarine. I took a look at it and it uses questionable POV sources, that need to be looked at further to determine if they meet reliability standards. Also, NPOV is at issue here because the introduction of such large amounts of material creates undo weight for these arguments. I will revert to the long term version until there is some consensus here about what are appropriate parts to Ultramarine's major changes.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have any concrete arguments, then state them. The article has numerous pro-Sandinista arguments. So some criticisms only improves NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I did. My main concern is NPOV unbalance with the very large amount of material you added. You also appeared to remove sourced material that doesnt match up with the POV you are inserting. Why was this removed:

"According to the CIIR report, Amnesty International and Americas Watch stated that there is no evidence that the use of torture was sanctioned by the Nicaraguan authorities, although prisoners reported the use of conditions of detention and interrogation techniques that could be described as psychological torture. The Red Cross made repeated requests to be given access to prisoners held in state security detention centers, but were refused."?

Not removed. It is there. Look carefully.[75].Ultramarine (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My other objection is making these massive changes without consensus. Big changes, esp. ones that seem problematic, and are disputed, should be introduced via the consensus process, not edit warring.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Claims that this violates NPOV is false. The article has numerous pro-Sandinista arguments and sections. So some criticisms only improves NPOV. If you have any concrete objections, then we have something to discuss. Do you have any?Ultramarine (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, already raised but you ignored them. I'd like to hear other editors views about this. My objections stand.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone have any concrete objections, then I will be happy to discuss them.Ultramarine (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Human rights section

I've now updated the human rights section in a way which includes all of the sources (as some editors insist on this) in a format which should be more acceptable to other editors. Pexise (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)