Talk:Contras/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

(previously untitled discussion)

The statement that "the Contras were considered terrorists by the Sandinistas and many Nicaraguans, and many of their attacks targeted civilians" is a bit problematic. The Sandinistas certainly labeled the Contras as terrorists, and part of the Nicaraguan population that supported the Sandinista government presumably agreed with this. But some of the Contras enjoyed significant public suport in Nicaragua. The current president, Enrique Bolaños, identified himself as an "old Contra" during his successful presidential campaing. The rest of the article makes it more clear that the Contras were never a unified force. While some elements of the movement were widely regarded as criminal and terrorist, others enjoyed support within the majority of the population that was against Sandinista rule, as demonstrated by the results of the 1990 presidential election. -- User:Eb.Hoop 1:00 19 Oct. 2004 (UTC).

Terrorists can be supported by the public and still be terrorists.

the term terrorist is commonly used in propaganda, to say terrorist means that the group is spreading terror across the country, with the use of bank roberies, explosives or kidnappings (with a political or religious purpose). While that term is certainly accurate for certain groups (such as the contras, in this case), it is a term used fairly wrong, specially by the media. Example of this can be, for example, that when a group of religious fanatics attack america it is called terrorism, but when america bombards middle east countries on a weekly basis (as it happened throughout all of the 90s), or when america kills thousands of civilians because those smart bombs werent that smart, THEN for some reasson, it is called "fighting for freedom", or some other sappy name, when it should be called terrorism too, considering that they pretty much do the same thing(but with bigger funding). As for contras, they were terrorists supported by the united states (they wouldnt be the first terrorist group supported by america, as the list reaches even the current Darfur genocide, were america supported the wrong side, again...), so perhaps very few american text books will call them terrorists, and will perhaps use an euphemism for it.

Really, so the US suports Islamist Sudanese in Darfur. Cognitive dissonance, much? Try Bieijing, Egypt, Russia, and the usual suspects. Good to see wikipedia is drawing upon such nonpartisan talent. DelosReyes

Okay

You never identified what is wrong with the quotation in question. It is indeed true that the Contras targeted civilians, that the Sandinistas considered the Contras terrorists (and they were, in every sense of the word), and that many Nicaraguans whose families were murdered by the Contras would most likely see them as terrorists.

     Can you provide an objective, neutral source for the claim "It is indeed true that the Contras targeted civilians"?

You're right, of course, any person or group could be considered a terrorist with any level of public support. I've always found it interesting that Russell Means sided with the Contras because some Miskito Indians had, in a quite knee-jerk fashion IMO, aligned with them as well. I don't know much about indigenous people in Nicaragua...anyone know their actual situation under Somoza, under the Sandinistas, and now today?

I've read that they and their possessions were treated pretty harshly by the Sandinistas, particularly as they were forced into farming co-ops. J. Parker Stone 07:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Their situation has been bad under every regime. The Somozas only wanted to enrich themselves and had the support of US multinationals, the Sandinistas tried to improve the situation of the poor, since the movement originated from peasants and workers. The civil war probably diverted much of their attention though. As for today, well Nicaragua is still the poorest country in Central America. P-O

Boiler plate, the movement originated from intellectuals and the uppermiddle class, i.e. people like Ortega. As in most Marxist Leninist revolutions it was imposed from the top down, and the aforementioned farming co-ops made the situation of their declared constituency worse, just as they did in Ethiopia, China, and everywhere else where Marxist Leninist agricultural policies were implimented. Like Mengistu in Ethiopia, the Sandinistas blamed the poor results of their agricultural policies on the opposition that resulted from those inneficient and counterproductive agricultural policies. Malik

My objections to the quote in question were: a. that it effectively lumps all of the Contras into a single category, which is inaccurate, b. that while it might be true that "many Nicaraguans" considered the Contras to be terrorists, the evidence from all subsequent democratic elections suggests that the majority of the Nicaraguans in fact sympathized with the Contra cause, and therefore presumably would not consider them terrorists (given the very negative connotations of that term in its modern usage). Also, in general we should try to adhere to a reasonably clear and uncontroversial definition of terrorism wherever the term is used. Terrorism is primarily a tactic: the carrying out of attacks against civilian targets with the purpose of psychological intimidation. A better approach would be to identify those Contra groups which engaged in such activities. -- User:Eb.Hoop 21:00 29 Mar 2005 (UTC).

That's completely false, only a minority of Nicaraguans supported the Contras. The Contras were killing civilians and burning villages, and were also tied with the loathed Americans, how could they have so much support? It's the Sandinistas who were for some time a popular movement. P-O

The Contras were mainly former Sandinistas who broke with the movement after it became clear Ortega's clique intended to consolidate power around themselves.

Terrorists? The sandinistas indiscriminatly shelled towns occupied by the Contras, killing many civilians. During the revolution, they also frequently made raids to take hostages and have hijacked planes..... do I see a double standard? Kaven06 08:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of "Contra"

In respose to SqueakBox's concern: The word contra means "against" in Spanish. But the usage of "Contra" in the current context comes from an abbreviated form of the word contrarrevolucionario, which in English means "counter-revolutionary." If you look up "contra" in a dictionary you will, of course, see it defined as "against," but that's not where the name for the opponents of the Sandinista regime comes from. (I am a Central American and a native Spanish speaker, so I can say this with confidence.) Web searches for "contrarrevolución nicaragüense" should convince you that this is the case. -- Eb.hoop 2 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

I have cleared up the ambiguity. Which CA country? if I may be so bold (I libve in Honduras), SqueakBox July 2, 2005 00:47 (UTC)

I'm Costa Rican. -- Eb.hoop 2 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a Wikipedia:Central American Wikipedians' notice board. You are the first other person either in or from CA I have met at wikipedia, SqueakBox July 2, 2005 00:59 (UTC)

Crack-dealing Contras

i'd be interested to know why the last paragraph doesn't have a linked source. Dr. Trey 23:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted edits by 66.68.69.130 (talk · contribs). The quote he added was not only irrelevant, but distorted the context of the alleged debunking of Webb. Furthermore, I restored a number of other edits which were distorted by 66.68.69.130, including the fact that the Contras were considered terrorists who targeted civilians. —Viriditas | Talk 08:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So in other words, the pro-Sandinista point of view is always the right one, and whenever someone offers evidence that refutes it, or tries to make the article viewpoint neutral, you delete it.

Hi. Do you have a good reliable source that claims the Contras didn't attack civilians? If so, please add it. As far as I understand it, the statement, "The Contras were considered terrorists by the Sandinistas because many of their attacks targeted civilians" is accurate. If it isn't, please correct me. —Viriditas | Talk 23:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

More reversion

I reverted [1] and [2], both by 68.33.244.135 (talk · contribs). They don't seem to be plain vandalism; merely biased. Welcome to dig through these to see if any real info was added. John Reid 23:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

---

This article on the Contras is simply pathetic, and I use that word advisedly. There is more space in this article devoted to Miskito complaints against Sandinistas than to human rights abuses of the Contras, which is curious considering that this article is supposedly about the Contras. The Contras were probably the most well-documented terrorists (or really brutal guerrillas, if you prefer that language) in modern history. I am forced to question the motives and the sources of all of the contributors.

May I suggest some reputable sources for the human rights abuses of the Contras, who are after all the subject of this article? These sources might also serve as sources of information on Sandinista human rights abuses, as the authors of this article seem so intent on focusing on.

Americas Watch. On Human Rights in Nicaragua. New York: Americas Watch, May 1982. ISSN 1261-5165

Americas Watch. Human Rights in Nicaragua: Reagan, Rhetoric and Reality. New York: Americas Watch, July 1985. ISSN 1242-3429

Americas Watch. The Miskitos in Nicaragua: 1981-1984. New York: Americas Watch, November 1985. LC 85-197278

Americas Watch. Human Rights in Nicaragua: 1986. New York: Americas Watch, February 1987. ISBN 0-9385-7930-4.

Dickey, Christopher. With the Contras: A Reporter in the Wilds of Nicaragua. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985.

Dematteis and Vail. Nicaragua: a Decade of Revolution. New York: W.W. Norton, 1991.

Or you could just read any Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch report from the same period. MarkB

U ARE RIGHT MARKB, VERY PATHETIC SUBJECT ON CONTRA...

F.D

Military history missing

Most of the people here seem to be mostly interested in arguing about the Contra human rights record, but something is glaringly missing from this article: the military aspect of the Contra war. It seems odd to discuss a rebellion, with little mention of its battles and campaigns. This might not be wholly inappropriate-- you wouldn't expect the article about the American Civil War to be called "Confederates," or the one about World War II to be "Nazis." (The article on the 1979 revolution appears to be the one on the FSLN, though.) However, as far as I can tell, there is no existing article on the Contra war.

One problem is that there doesn't seem to be an established, agreed-upon term to refer to that war-- Nicaraguan Civil War is too generic given the number of civil wars Nicaragua has had. Is this the article where people think the details of the war should go? If not, where?

One other little thing to mention, this article uses the plural form, whereas common Wikipedia practice is to use the singular. Any thoughts on why this article should or shouldn't be renamed? --Groggy Dice 22:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the war aspect. Most people do not even concern themselves with it.

As for renaming, it is likely because Contra is presently a disambiguation page. I'll do a few moves. --TJive 22:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did some moves. Initially I changed it to "Contra" but decided against simply using that (plus, people aren't keen on cut and paste moves and I didn't want to bother requesting it). So this is the title for now. As for redirects, pages linked to both Contra and Contras so fixing it would be a big undertaking no matter if this was renamed or not. I'll start on it eventually if no one else has bothered. --TJive 22:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

After several days of typing in Contra (guerrillas)| in wikilinks, I'm sorry I ever raised the subject. I think I'll formally request a move to Contra. --Groggy Dice 02:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Contra has a few meanings, not least of which (likely as commonly referenced as the Nicaraguan group) is a video game, so I left the singular page to redirect to the disambiguation page. This page is more specific and making further moves and redirects only creates another gigantic disambiguation task. There's no need. --TJive 11:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a quite long article about the Contra-War in the german wikipedia, parts of it could/should be translated? Oh, and I propose an additional link International Court of Justice: MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) 84.60.25.31 12:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know German, but from what I could make out, it pretty much replicates this article in focusing on human rights accusations rather than battles or campaigns. I don't see any references to Jalapa, Pantasma, Ocotal, La Trinidad, Cuapa, Bocay, Operation Olivero, Operation Danto... It also seems to be written from a left-wing European perspective. I doubt that it has much unique information beyond what is already in the article. --Groggy Dice 18:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

This article represents the predominant use of the term Contra, and I believe it should be moved there. (Failing that, I think the article would be better off being moved back to Contras.)

Of the other uses cited on the disambiguation page, only the video game (and sequels) really competes for primacy. Nevertheless:

• More links are intended for the article about the rebels than for the arcade game articles. Furthermore, due to Wikipedia's systemic bias favoring coverage of video games over historical events (and over Spanish-language topics), I consider it likely that the number of articles related to the games have pretty much been maxed out (I could be underestimating the fecundity of the fanboys here), while many articles relating to the rebels remain to be created.
• A case could be made that people are ever-forgetful, and those of a younger generation might be more likely to associate the term with the video games than the guerrilla fighters. However, they are still taught about the Iran-Contra affair in school, and Nicaragua looms large in coverage of the 1980s or the Reagan administration. Meanwhile, the game series is itself a little long in the tooth, and not a megaseries on the order of Mortal Kombat or Halo.
• The name of the video game is itself based on taking advantage of the fame of the rebel Contras, and their association with jungle warfare.
• People going to Contra expecting to find the video game entry already have to make another click, so they will be no worse off (I would add a specific link to that article as well as to the disambiguation page). --Groggy Dice 01:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nominator. --Groggy Dice 01:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the many uses of this term (and it is also a normal English word). If the problem is discomfort at (guerillas), why not use (Nicaragua) or (organization)? Both of these are used in other languages on Wikipedia. Dekimasu 08:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I would prefer "Contras," your suggestion only deals with the first of the reasons I gave below. Your comment that non-English Wikipedias are using different terms than "guerrillas," only highlights my third point, that it is not obvious what term those expecting the article to be at "singular (x)" should look for, so nothing is gained by following Wikipedia convention in this case. Of the two, I would definitely oppose "organization." There were many disparate Contra groups, using "organization" conveys an impression of a single, unified group. Many of the very early contra bands were quite small, calling them "organizations" makes them sound larger and more established than they were. Also, it does not distinguish them from other entities that may adopt the name; the disambiguation page specifically references a Swedish "anti-socialist organization" that does not yet have an article. Not to mention the howls we would get from British-spellers. --Groggy Dice 14:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay. I don't have any particular problem with "Contras," or "Contras (Nicaragua)," or anything like that. And your argument makes sense to me, so "Contras" is probably best. As for moving the article to "Contra," I continue to be in opposition. Dekimasu 16:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: there appears to be a number of uses of the term, and I'm not entirely certain that the average Wikipedian who searches for Contra will be looking for the guerillas. I think the disambiguation page should stay where it is, although the disambig page itself could use some polishing up. --Runch 04:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. To move a dab article you need a good case, simply counting links is not a good test to prove that case exists. Moves like this are more likely to direct a user to the wrong article so lacking an overwelming case, nothing should be changed. Vegaswikian 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Contras"?

As for why, as a backup, I think the article would be better off returning to "Contras":

• The name was changed to bring it in line with Wikipedia conventions favoring the singular, but then the appended term is pluralized ("guerrillas"), muddying the whole purpose of the move.
• Before, linking to this article often required adding a left side to the linked word. Now the article is at a spot that always requires left-siding, and is longer to type than the old name.
• A casual Wikipedia user might very well expect the article to be at "Contras." But even for a user who was expecting the entry name to be in singular form, it wouldn't be obvious what term to expect in parentheses: (guerrillas), (guerrilla), (rebels), (rebel), (movement), (Nicaragua), (Nicaraguan rebel), (insurgency), (insurgent), etc... Thus, more people would be likely to find the article directly at "Contras" than at the current location. --Groggy Dice 01:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, Britannica has them at contra (I couldn't find an article for them separate from Nicaragua or Iran-contra at Grolier, Encarta, or Columbia, though.) On the other hand, Google results are all over the map -- the game, the dance, the county. I'm thinking that because the group is defunct and passing into history that they don't quite meet the primary topic rule. --Dhartung | Talk 03:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd run the Google search, too. To a large extent, though, the Internet mirrors the same systemic bias issues as Wikipedia: pre-1995 topics get weak coverage, anglophone dominance, so forth. (There's also peculiarities of how search engines work. An article primarily about the game would be likely to have that in the title and in linking phrases. With the Contras being a broader topic, an article could deal primarily with them, yet have Nicaragua, FDN, Sandinista, Reagan, Oliver North, Eden Pastora, etc. in their title/links.) And the results for the county don't really count; no one calls it Contra county, it's always Contra Costa county. It's not even mentioned on the disambiguation page, perhaps for that reason. Similarly, however popular "contra dance" might be, it is not commonly referred to as "contra" alone. I suspect that those who are looking for its article would be more like to look at places like "contra-dance" and "contra dancing" than just plain contra. When it comes to standalone use, I think that it really comes down to the rebels and the game. As for the "passing into history" issue, that is real, but I think that their centrality to the Iran-Contra affair and the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine, a policy many consider to have contributed to the collapse of the Soviet empire, puts a "floor" under how far they can fall out of memory. --Groggy Dice 13:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

And, Oliver North has a show on Fox, John Negroponte and Elliot Abrams have positions in the administration, even John Poindexter made a brief return, so Iran-Contra is still resonating. --Groggy Dice 13:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I intend to move the article back to "Contras" in a couple of days, unless someone objects. The original move was made unilaterally, without consultation, from the longstanding location. Even if we were going to use a paranthetical clarifier, I always thought that (guerrillas) was not the best choice; I would have preferred (rebel) or (Nicaragua). Presumably, the previous mover would be opposed, but checking his contribs, he seems to have abruptly stopped editing Wikipedia in early July. Is there anyone else attached to "Contra (guerrillas)"? --Groggy Dice 20:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Tactics and Nature of the Contras

I altered the article in a couple of ways so as to make it more accurate.

First of all, the core leadership of the contras were former members of Somoza's National Guard. Eden Pastora, former leader of the Contra's small southern front, said that "in Nicaragua, the 'contras' are referred to as 'the guardsmen,' which is not altogether wrong, because the former Somozist guardsmen force peasent youths to join their ranks and take them away to camps in the Honduras." Arturo Cruz, the face of the contras, maintained that the contras was "formed" by the United States which "used as its core a group which the Nicaraguan people has rejected--the Somocista National Guard." I might go on with further citations, but I thought these famous contra leaders would be sufficient. The first quote is from "Pastora Comments on CIA, Contras' Struggle," El Siglo (Panama), Feb. 9, 1987. The second is from the AP March 15, 1987.

Secondly, I found the balance in the article to be ridiculous, the coverage so bent as to certainly be the product of deliberate tendentiousness. A casual, throwaway line about contra crimes followed by two paragraphs about Miskito complaints against the Nicaraguan government. Americas Watch documented that across seven years of fighting the number of civilians killed by Nicaraguan forces was about 300; the contras killed about 30,000 civilians during the same period. I find it amusing that the Miskito complaints against the Nicaraguan government merited a mention of the word "genocide" after only a couple hundred of them were killed, while the massive slaughter of the contras goes relatively unremarked. I have slightly altered the article accordingly. --MarkB2 19:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a point with some of your criticisms and edits, others I take issue with. For starters, the last bit about a "massive slaughter" of 30,000 civilians is simply wrong. Not even the Sandinistas' own figures come anywhere close to that, nor is Americas Watch irresponsible enough to issue such a wildly exaggerated number. For 1985, for instance, the Sandinistas claimed that 1,143 soldiers and 281 civilians had died. I don't know where you've gotten that number from, but here are some possibilities I see. First, if you totalled up the government figures for all dead, military, civilian, and contra (they generally claimed to have killed four contras for each soldier lost), you would indeed get a figure around 30,000. However, it would be wrong to use that number as a death toll for murdered civilians, especially since most of it consisted of supposed contras killed. Second, someone thought there was an extra zero that wasn't there. Or third, it's some bogus number that's gotten spread around.

Without having the Americas Watch report, I don't know if 300 is the number they cite or not. It sounds reasonable as a total for investigated and confirmed cases, though low as an actual total. For instance, if a "couple hundred" Miskitos were killed, that only leaves around a hundred or so killed in "Spanish" Nicaragua.

One point I would agree on is that the article has been influenced by an editor who wanted to play up the role of the MILPAS and other ex-Sandinistas, as opposed to former Guardsmen. For instance, the UNO trio are described as "original Sandinista cadre." While they did support the overthrow of Somoza, it is a stretch to describe them as "Sandinista cadre." On the other hand, I feel you are overstating the role of former Guardsmen. I will elaborate on this and the rest of my points later. Groggy Dice 05:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you disagree with everything I wrote, GD!

I’m happy to justify my “30,000” figure for the number of civilians killed in Nicaragua in the eighties. You’re right: battle deaths only account for some of those killed, and I shouldn’t have used the word “slaughtered” when many of the civilians were killed by preventable diseases that flourished in Nicaragua. You might not want to blame that on the contras, but I find it difficult to absolve them of responsibility when it was a cornerstone of their strategy to destroy health clinics and assassinate doctors to do exactly what they accomplished: bring suffering and death to civilians.

We don’t need to use World Health Organization disease incidence and infant mortality figures to support my larger point, though: the Nicaraguan government killed a fraction of the civilians that the contras did. Look at the figure you yourself cited: 281 dead civilians in 1985 alone.

You can argue about the other point, about the National Guard members making up the core of the contras, but I don’t think you’ll be very successful. In 1985 the Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus of the Democratic Party did an analysis that stated that 46 of the 48 commandantes of the contras were former National Guard members. Like I wrote before, I could go on all day with little factoids like this.

As an aside, I find it disturbing that the Americas Watch quote regarding the contras was removed as “biased.” I can’t help but notice that Human Rights Watch was cited at the beginning of the Hamas article (Hamas’s leaders “should be held accountable for the war crimes and crimes against humanity” it has committed). Apparently human rights groups are good to use against Palestinian groups but not, of course, US proxy forces. In that case wikipedians will give a one-sentence passing mention of the group’s terror attacks and war crimes and then spend many paragraphs explicating the motivations and justifications of the group. Ronald Reagan would be pleased with the ideological discipline here, but Human Rights Watch would not.--MarkB2 17:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Request

I requesting that this article be submitted for a clean-up standard. The current POV of the article is heavily biased towards the Contra's and against the Sandinistas. There has been much information about the atrocities committed by the contras that has been deleted. Also the Misikto Indian complaints against the Sandinistas is takes up too much room in the article and I feel personally does not belong in this article at all. The Miskito complaints are already addressed in the sandinista article and don't belong in this article. The only reason to include this in the contra article is to unfairly balance the article against the sandinistas. This article originally had a great deal of valuable information on the contra atrocities, but because some right wing editor said that information is biased, it was deleted. I think that this article in it's current form is fundementally flawed and needs to be completely redone. Does anybody else but me realize that this article is almost completely unsourced. I think Groggy Dice needs to provide more citations for his claims and less opinion. MarkB2 IF your still out there I think you should attempt too put back in the information you had and not let Groggy Dice pussh you around. I think the Wikipedia adminstration needs to be aware that Groggy Dice is unfairly slanting this article in a baised direction with little or no references to back it up. annoymous 12:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This Article is a Disgrace, not to mention and outright lie. It is fundementally false, as the article claims or least infers that the majority of the early Contras were former sandinistas. Yes there some who participated in the overthrow of Somoza who became disgruntled with the sandinistas later, but there were extreme minority in comparison to the rest of the make-up of the contra which was primarily former somoza officials and extreme right wing forces. With the exception of the bibliography there is not one internet source in this entire article that corroborates a single thing in this article. I am therefore disputing the accuracy of this article and feel that the Wikipedia administration should place a tag on this article annoynmous 3:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of Contra fighters in the field (not necessarily leadership) were indeed former Sandinistas. As of 1982 the percentage of the FDN made up by former Sandinistas or milpistas was 97%, with Guardia making up the remaining 3%. Mattm1138 23:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't where you get this bogus statistic. I get the feeling it's sadly from reading this article in which many of it's claims are highly dubious. I do not dispute that there some of the fighters who were former Sandinistas, but to claim that a majority of the fighters were formers sandinistas is a flat out falsehood. I would like to know were you got that 97% figure from. As far as I know the majority of the Contra fighters were mercenaries from outside nations such as Honduras, Costa Rica and Mexico. annoynmous 19:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing, the specific cite is The Real Contra War: Highlander Peasant Resistance in Nicagragua by Tim Brown, pg. 90, there's a table that lays out the composition of Guardia vs. non-Guardia in the 'contras' as of 1982. If you have something to dispute it, by all means show me, and we'll work from there. I don't think the former Sandinista leadership would really dispute this, some were actually quite candid in their memoirs about their radicalism alienating the peasantry and driving them to join or support anti-government forces.Mattm1138 09:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bogus Sources

I checked the history section of this page and read someone claim that the information I entered was blatantly POV and that they were adding NPOV. Who do the they cite to give this piece more balance, uber-conservative Fred Barnes and fantasy talk about a Sandinista lobby that fabricated all these claims of Atrocity's by the Contras. Smearing Americas Watch because you don't like the conclusions they came to is just plain dishonest. I am imploring the wikipedia administration to please take this article back from the right wingers who have hijacked it. If you want to argue that the Contras were more than just one set group of people, that's a legimate debate, but to deny the atrocities that the contras committed is a amoral rewriting of history. annoynmous 7:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

First, your text is a polemic without any sources. Second, if you knew what the sources were you wouldn't be relying on them; for example if you'd checked the press report containing the horrible allegation about "Rosa" (Jonathan Steele and Tony Jenkins, "The Slaugter at the Cooperatives," The Guardian, Nov. 15, 1984), you'd know that the allegation came from a Sandinista government militiaman. Third, my edits were an account of the debate between supporters and opponents of the Contras; I expressed no conclusion about which side was right. Please read the sources I gave before speculating about their contents. Hecht 19:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I Find it Extremely Hypocritical that you accuse my sources of being polemical, but who do you site to back up your claims, Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke and Tucker Carlson. You repeat this baseless charge smearing Americas Watch report as somehow the work of the Sandinista lobby. The only sources you give to back this up are right wingers who naturally don't like the sandinistas. I also find it hypocritical that until I added this information on the atrocities, the part of the article that delt with it consisted of two throw away sentences at the beginning. In fact before I added this information there was more on the Sandinistas treatment of the Miskito Indians, even though article is supposed to be about the contras, than there was on the terrorist activities of the Contras. You also seem to forget that there was a House select committe report witch also documented the atrocities of the the contras. All you would need to do is look at the article on the Sandinistas to find this out, but of course in typical wikipedia fashion, two articles on the same situation contradict one another. Now if you want to move the atrocities I sighted into a seperate section from the general history of the contras fine, but I simply am not going to take lying down this slander against Americas watch from right-wing blowhards that there report was influenced by the Sandinistas without any confirmation from a more neutral source. I personally think this whole article is flawed, especially in it's allegation that most of the contras wer former Sandinistas and not former national guards in somozas army. I personally think this article is low on fact based sources and high on bull headed opinion and needs to erased completely and taken back to scratch. However, as long as this article remains in it's current polemical form, I'm going to keep my supposedly unverified opinions were you are also free to keep yours. I haven't erased any of the material I thought was biased, I simply added some material of my own to give it more balance. Again if you want to move my material into a seperate atrocities section fine, but if you try to denie the atrocities and make it seem like they didn't happen well then shame on you. annoynmous 20:43, 11, October 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious that this is an issue of some contention. If the wikipedia administration will cut me some slack I'd be willing to restore some of Hechts sources, while adding some comments that state that although the findings of Americas Watch were contested by some people, there genneral findings on the contras were confirmed by the congressional intelligence committee. I will also add the source were I got the Rosa story from. I hope Hecht will resist the urge to delete and claim it's biased, because his sources are just as bias as mine. I'm trying to be fair even though personally this situation really pisses me off as I feel that certain people editing this piece are trying to erase a genocide. I personally don't understand this claim that Americas Watch's findings are biased simply because Fred Barnes says so. Amnesty International and Human Rights watch may publish certain things that people on both sides of the political spectrum may find inconvinient for there pet causes, but unless were willing to be fair I think we should trust there judgment. I have problems with Human Rights Watch's reports on Hugo Chavez that I think are biased against him, but I would never suggest that Wikipedia should not include them just because I don't like them. Call me paranoid, but this seems like an effort to whitwash American Imperialism and say "See, Reagan wasn't a genocidal madmen, the contras were freedom fighters". Hecht, and for that matter Groggy Dice, can claim there unbiased all they want, but there actions speak for themselves in there dishonest attempt to whitewash a bunch of murderous thugs. Actually, I wouldn't be suprised if both Groggy Dice and Hecht are liberals from the Paul Berman wing that like to protray every revolution in latin america from Castro and Che Guevara to Hugo Chavez as nasty stalinist's and therefore every nasty, brutish act we inflict on them is therefore justified. However, even with all those issues boiling in my blood I will attempt to take the high road and restore some of Hecht sources and edit, but give it a less slanted feel than he did. annoynmous 22:06, 11, October 2006 (UTC)

I'm having some trouble reconnecting to the Fred Barnes and Morton Kondracke articles, can someone please find the link for them and reinsert them to the notes page, I'm having trouble doing it from the history section. annonynmous 24:21, 11, October 2006 (UTC)

In line with WP:DBTN, I'll be patient because you're new to Wikipedia and don't yet understand how it works.

(1) The first policy that all new editors need to learn is WP:AGF. This is violated when you accuse other editors of being "Extremely Hypocritical," when you accuse them of making a "baseless charge" and "smearing," when you call their citations of sources "slander," when you vilify them as "right-wing blowhards," etc., etc.

(2) The second policy that you need to learn is WP:NPOV. Please read this page from start to finish. Wikipedia is not the place for elaborating your opinions that the Contras were guilty of "genocide," that the Nicaraguan conflict was a case of "American Imperialism," that Reagan was a "genocidal madmen" [sic], that the Contras were "murderous thugs," that Castro and Guevara were not "stalinist's" [sic], etc. Wikipedia isn't the place for you to push these opinions, irrespective of whether they are true or false. If you want to express your political views, there are millions of websites where you can do this.

(3) The third policy that you need to learn is WP:OR. Wikipedia editors often report research or opinions from outside sources. But it is a textbook violation of WP:OR for you to add "some material of my own." This applies irrespective of how brilliant your original research may be. Again, if you want to publish your own research, there are millions of websites where you can do this.

(4) You should also consult the WP:RS guideline. The original source for the horrible "Rosa" story was the interview with Sandinista government militiamen in The Guardian report I mentioned above. The story was then quoted by many secondary sources, such as Noam Chomsky's Turning the Tide, which omitted the debatable credibility of the speaker. If you think that including this sort of thing is consistent with WP:RS, then ask yourself how you'd react if an editor inserted a denial of alleged Contra atrocities but omitted that the denial came from a Contra spokesman.

WP:RS hardly excludes arguably partisan articles in reputable news media such as The New Republic, especially when offered as one side of the issue in a section that also describes the other side of the debate. Please note that I cited both Fred Barnes' criticism of Reed Brody and the latter's response. It was Brody himself who admitted that his report was prepared on behalf of the Sandinistas.

I'm not seeking an apology for your personal abuse. To repeat, in line with WP:DBTN, I'm willing to be patient. I'll wait 24 hours before reverting your latest edits. In that time I hope you'll try to learn Wikipedia policies and culture so that you can become a valued member of the community. Otherwise this page will need to be protected. Hecht 12:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I had not read the material added by anonymous. I read your points, and I think that given its contents and expressions, the only reason not to revert them immediately is in hope that they will be reverted by the original author. --Atavi 13:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Exscuse me, I'm not nor am I ever going to seek your apology. Frankly I resent being threatened to shut up sing or else I'll get spanked. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a place were all voices could be heard and that anybody could contribute, not just officially sanctioned editors. How is the information your including not original research and mine is. You quote two frankly biased sources(which by the way there's no way to actually read to confirm anything put in the article) and I'm the one who's supposed to apologize to you. I resent the self-righteous attitude that is conveyed here. By, the way in case you didn't notice I actually restored your sources and attempted to give them a more balanced perspective. I also included the source were I got the Rosa story from. I think it would be rather disengenious to delete a source you think is opinionated and replace it with an opionated article that supports your view. I don't understand the logic here that a source that even you admit is opionated can be included, but the Rosa story can't. It might help you a little bit if you actually looked at the Sandinista article that completely contradicts this article. Also don't talk to me in that glib "You need to watch yourself" and "This isn't official Wikipedia Policy" condesending attitude. As I stated before when I first edited this article the section that delt with the Contra atrocities consisted of two sentences and nothing else. I don't understand how an article can include several line about the Sandinista treatment of the Miskito's (who by the way they reconciled with in the late 80's and attempted to make amends), but the fact that Human Rights watch documents rapes, killings, torture there blown off as biased and subject to Sandinista propoganda. Groggy Dice deleted the 30,000 killed number because that Human Rights Watch must have known they were wrong. You talk to me about sources, but just about everything in this article has no internet sources to it at all. All we have are several books listed by several opnionated authors that were supposed to trust to see things clearly. Were also supposed to trust that the editors of this piece have interpreted the authors correctly, even though we can't check for ourselves. I also resent your attempt to trivalize the Contrs-Drug connection by inserting another biased source from Tucker Carlson. That piece of the article was fine and don't understand why it needed to be monkeyed with. As I said in the last article I attempted to reinsert your sources, but give them a more balanced aura within the article. So why are you coming to me with this threat of I better start seeing things your way or else I"ll be locked out. I had some trouble putting your sources back in from the history section and thought maybe you could help me there. I thought that with my edits and maybe some further discussion we could come to some sorta compromise, but after this I seriously doubt it. I don't take kindly to threats and resent being schooled as though I"m a child. annoynmous 9:34, 11, October 2006 (UTC)

If I want to drive a car, I must abide by the traffic code. If I want to buy and sell stocks, I must abide by the securities laws. And if I want to post on Wikipedia, I must abide by Wikipedia policies. All of us must obey these rules, whether we like it or not.

Getting angry won't change the fact that you have to follow Wikipedia policies, especially WP:AGF, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Wikipedia is not "a place were [sic] all voices could be heard" - it isn't a chat room - it's an online encyclopedia where anyone can make a contribution that complies with these policies.

Incidentally, you haven't given the source for the "Rosa" tale. Giving sources means enabling readers to verify the information. In this case you'd have to cite the newspaper report I mentioned above and point out that the allegation came from a Sandinista government militiaman who had survived a battle at a Sandinista militia outpost.

I'm not the sort of person who enjoys wielding the axe, so I'm giving you another chance to start abiding by Wikipedia policies. After that your edits in violation of policy will have to be reverted automatically and this page will need to be protected. Hecht 00:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I talk about trying to come to some sorta mutual agreement and come back to me with bureaucratic nonsense. I don't understand this extreme uptight attitude about following these supposedly god-like rules set in stone and that may lighting strike me if I dare defy them. You didn't start this article, what authority do you have to erase my edits. The only reason you got involved in this article at all is because you didn't like my edits because it didn't fit your view of the Contras and now all of a sudden the article belongs to you. You have no right to kick me out of the article because you suddenly decided to take it over. Owe, and by the way your information isn't valuable either. When I tried to read the articles you inserted there was no way to actually read them to confirm what you say is in them. To say nothing of the fact that both articles are someone else's opinion of the Rosa story which in of it self isn't verifiable. I'm sorry, there's no way to get around the fact that the article's are the opinion of someone from the right wing who naturally has a bias against the Sandinistas. I never said you couldn't include them I just said that something needs to be there to counterbalance them. You therefore have no right to delete my sources simply they don't fit with your viewpoint. An by way, since you keep mentioning it, instead of continually threatning to remove my edits why don't you post this mysterious guardian article and then let the reader decide for themselves whether they believe it's propoganda. What a concept! The reader making up his own mind from opposing sources. If you ask me you are the real vandal of this article. I posted something and then you started deleting it and instead of adding your own information you simply deleted mine and changed the article so that it compltely fit your bias. Atavi, if your out there, just because Hecht decided to hijack this article doesn't mean he gets to be the overlord of what does or does not go in the article. He didn't start it and he shouldn't be allowed dictate everything that goes into it and callously erase what other people have contibuted to it. Atavi I am begging you to talk to Hecht. Tell him that I'm not deleting his information and that he should allow my information to stay to give the article more balance. annoynmous 4:53, 12, October 2006 (UTC)

I try not to get involved in heated disputes. With that in mind, I do have some observations to make regardless.

I just reviewed the history of the article. I read the recent changes and compared material. I didn't read exhaustively the discussion page. I'm surprised to see that anonymous's text [I suggest you create an account. you only have to use a user name and a password of your choice. no strings attached.] and Hecht's text basically say the same things, using different language.

I could not spot the excerpts that Hecht quoted as being written by anonymous, but I didn't look exhaustively.

There are many wikipedia policies, but the most important is that sources should be cited to support every statement in an article.

Personally I prefer the language used by Hecht, as it not emotionally charged. Other than that, I think that as long as any content is supported by citations, it has a place in the article; this includes both right and left wing sources.

About the Rosa story, which seems to be of particular concern, it can be included in the article, supported by a citation, and potentially with observations on the story source.

I hope my limited perception of the dispute hasn't done an injustice to anyone. If you think it has, please point out your concerns and I will try to address them.

--Atavi 11:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Atavi, I appreciate your reasoned and sensible response. I apologize if my language sounded overly heated. I was just extremely angry that after I offered to restore Hechts sources and work to give the article a more balanced view that we could both be satisfied with, I was threatened with being locked out and having all my edits reverted. Instead of trying to come to a mutual agreement Hecht through official wikipedia policy in my face and talked down to me in what I felt was a very condescending attitude. I thank you for coming to moderate and I am satisfied with the article as it currently stands and will make no further attempts to alter it. I started with my edits, as I've said before, because I was angry that all talk of the Contras atrocities in the article consisted of only two sentences. It felt to me like someone was trying to minimize this aspect of the contra war and in effect whitewash it. Whether certain claims are credible or not the Contras were regularly accused by many groups as having commiting atrocities and that simply wasn't in the article before I made my edits. I just felt the article was to slanted against the Sandinistas thats all. I'm sorry if my language seemed heated and unreasonable, but I felt as if everything I contributed to the article was being shut out. I truly didn't mean to offend any one. I thank for your kind and warm response and think that the current edits are very elegant. Thank you very much. annoynmous 1:50, 12, October 2006 (UTC)

We basically agree on the subject.

And indeed a mutually accepted text should be seeked.

Regards

--Atavi 20:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest Changes

Please do discuss concerns about the article. We wouldn't want to descend to "edit warring".--Atavi 10:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Atavi, I don't understand, I thought we had finally gotten this mess settled. Hecht had all his sources restored and while I got to keep mine and the Rosa story. I even changed the tone of the Rosa story so that it read "alleged" and "claimed" and I turn around and Hecht has decided once again to hijack the article so that it reflects his viewpoint and his alone. I merely added information I thought was relevant, were as Hecht completely changed the article. He basically took a Machete and hacked up the drug smuggling section of the article. As I've said before this article has a lot of contradictions with the Sandinista article and much of what I've added to the article is taken as a given in that article. If you doubt my claim that the state department certified the Contras as a terrorist group, just look at that article. Atavi you seem like an extremely reasonable and decent person and I really appreciated the edits you made to this article. However, I feel that Hecht has a persoanal crusade in regards to this article as he keeps rambling on about official wikipedia policy. I think the way article stood as it was yesterday was satisfactory and that it is way the article should stand for now. annoynmous 9:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

annoynmous, I disagree with the practice of reverting to previous versions of the article, save for reverting vandalism. My opinion is that we should return to the most recent version of the article. If you don't like something in what the drug smuggling section, or any other section, says you could edit it.

About the State Department, characterizing the Contras as terrorists, I have located the text in the Sandinistas article, but I think we have to have a reference to say so in either article.

I hope we can find an understanding.

Hecht, please contribute to the discussion.

--Atavi 18:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The best I could find is this

http://usinfo.state.gov/is/international_security/terrorism/terror_chronology.html

--Atavi 18:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Atavi, I think you should know that someone erased the last 3 comments on the discussion page. I restored it, but if Hecht did it I personally think that's very low. That would mean that not only is he trying to erase me from the article, he's even trying to erase me from discussion about the article. I've said before that I feel that Hecht is the real Vandal of this piece, not me. As for Hechts recent changes I reverted them because it is a dishonest attempt to discredite the drug charges which have been pretty well proven. By the way, I think it should be mentioned that Barry Seal was also a drug runner and an informant for the government who people felt fabricated his claims. There are numerous references to this in other wikipedia articles. However, I'll leave that decision to you whether or not to include it. Atavi I really appreaciate you involvment and I hope we can come to some sorta agreement annoynmous 9:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The allegation by annonymous that I erased the last three comments on the discussion page is false and absolutely outrageous. Looking at the history of this page, I see no evidence that anyone tried to erase the last three comments.

I hope that everyone following this discussion will notice these points:

(1) annonymous has repeatedly made it clear that he/she is not prepared to abide by Wikipedia policy (latest example: "he keeps rambling on about official wikipedia policy"). annonymous seems to think that he/she, alone of all Wikipedia editors, should be exempt from the rules.

(2) annonymous has repeatedly and systematically violated WP:AGF, even after being reminded of this principle. Other editors are "Extremely Hypocritical," guilty of making a "baseless charge" and "smearing," their citations of sources are "slander," they are "right-wing blowhards," etc. Now annonymous is making totally false and baseless allegations against me and calling me "dishonest" - this can't go on.

(3) annonymous now calls me a "Vandal" for the simple act of pointing out that new edits should comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines!

I'm reverting latest edit by annonymous. On the next intevention by annonymous, I'll have no choice but to nominate him/her to be blocked and this page to be protected. I've been very patient but enough is enough. Hecht 18:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that annonymous indeed engages often in personal attacks in the talk pages, which is something to be frowned upon at least.

I'm not sure that blocking is the only answer. annonymous seems to be a passionate person and this seems to often result in his or her getting out of line.

I also found no evidence of anyone trying to interfere with the contents of the talk pages.

--Atavi 19:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Atavi, is there an alternative to blocking that you'd like to suggest? Hecht 19:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with wikipedia policies, but I'm sure s/he can be severely admonished and instructed to abide by basic guidelines, policies, and principles by someone other than those involved in the debate, so s/he can realize that he is being unreasonable.

--Atavi 19:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been mulling over this whole affair, and I think that in order to be fair, I ought to be more severe with annonymous.

Hecht has conducted himself with dignity throughout, and I'm not at all certain that if I were in his shoes I could keep my cool as well as he has.

annonymous, even if we forgot entirely about wikipedia policies, it is absolutely unacceptable to attack verbally another person as you have against Hecht, whatever the differences of opinion.

We are persons, and we ought to be civil and courteous even in our disagreements.

Although, I still hope there is another way other than blocking to bring annonymous to his or her senses, I must stress strong exception at the way he has conducted himself or herself in this debate so far.

Whether our opinions on the subject of the Contras coincide or not, it should be clear that such conduct is simply beyond limits.

--Atavi 20:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Atavi, I've been looking through Wikipedia policies, especially WP:DE, and it seems that there's a 6-stage process for addressing this sort of issue (although in fairness I wouldn't suggest that annonymous is a crank). If the disruption continues, the next step would be WP:RFC. If that doesn't work, then the next step is to request a warning or temporary block at WP:ANI. But I share your hope that annonymous will come to his/her senses before any of this becomes necessary. Hecht 21:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor correction: WP:DE is a guideline. Hecht 21:52, 14 October 2006

(UTC)

Atavi I sware to you that the last time I looked at the discussion page, everything except your opening comments had been erased. My comments and your reply were gone. If wasn't Hecht than I'm sorry, but someone did. As For your comment that you think he has been gracious I think your sadly mistaken. Hecht In my opinion has been extremely rude and petty in regards to this article. I wish I could be more gracious. I have said before several times, when I first started this article the part that delt with the Contra atrocities consisted of two sentences. Only after I added that information did Hecht get involved in this article at all. We went back and forth in between our edit wars and then I offered a compromise of re-adding Hechts sources, putting in some of my own and giving the article a more balanced feel. Well Hecht would have none of that! He hid behind wikipedia policy and and threatened me in an extremely rude manner and said it was either his way or the highyway for an article he didn't start in the first place. You came in made some edits of your own and adjusted it to fit both our viewpoints and I was satisfied with that version of the article. However, Hecht just couldn't leave it alone and decided again to edit the article so it was slanted against his point of view. I think the article in its current form is completely fair and I don't understand why Hecht has this personal crusade against me on this article. If ask me he's the one who engages in disrespectful behavior, not me. I wish I didn't have to resort this langauge, but I'm sorry Hechts disrespectful attitude offends me and I think I have a right to express that. As I've said before Hecht doesn't own this article and he shouldn't be able to hide behind wikipedia policy so he can kick me out and get the article the way he wants it. Atavi I once agian thank you for your graciousness and hope you keep the article in it's current form. annoynmous 23:16, 14, October 2006 (UTC)

Atavi, someone did it again and erased my last comment. I come to the discussion page to see my last comment and I see it gone. I then go into the edit portion of the discussion page and there my lastest comment still stands and I restored it. Someone is being very clever to erase my comments, but still have it in the edit portion of the piece so that it leaves no history of being deleted. If it's not Hecht than it's someone else with a grudge against me about my contributions to this article. I personally think they should be made to stop. annoynmous 3:48, 15, October 2006 (UTC)

annoynmous, about the missing comments, you might have problems with your browser cache memory. The browser remembers the last contents of the page, and continues to show just that. You might want to try to hit reload / refresh a couple of times, or even clearing your browser's cache.

Regarding the content of the article itself, I agree with you more than I agree with Hecht. It must be quite obvious.

But let me say again, you should try to refrain from abusing Hecht in the talk pages. Even if you think he's not gracious by threatening to block you, you should try to be gracious yourself.

Hecht, I agree with you that annoynmous is not a "crank". RFC sound good.

--Atavi 10:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hecht, let me add that I think annoynmous is being honest about the missing comments, and that it's a problem with his browser's cache. I hope neither of you will want to make a big issue out of this misunderstanding.

--Atavi 10:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Atavi, I've submitted a RFC here. Please certify the dispute with a comment in the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" section. I'm willing to grant that annoynmous is being honest about his/her perception of missing comments, but repeatedly accusing me of vandalism on the basis of no evidence is something else entirely. And the continued personal abuse speaks for itself.

annoynmous, you can reply in the "Response" section on that page. Hecht 10:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hecht, if this is a technical glitch as Atavi suggested than I am deeply sorry for implying that you erased my comments. I'll admit I hastely rushed to judgement and my natural incliantion was to think you did it because our heated differences. From the tone of your response I don't doubt your sincerity in that you had nothing to do with the deletions. This is what I wanted from the beginning, dialog not mad rhetoric. I'm sorry if I my response's sounded rash and impulsive, I just felt like I was being attacked because I tried to make the article suitable to both our perspectives. If both you and Atavi will cut me some slack, give me 24 hours to work on the article. The Atrocity section seems to be the main source of contention. Give me the time to work on this section and I'll try and come to a version that suits both of us. If after I'm done you still don't like it than I'll put your version of the atrocities in and I'll never say another thing about it. As for the Drug controversie section I think it should remain the way it is, but I'll leave that for you and Atavi to argue over. 24 hours is all I'm asking. annoynmous 8:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

annoynmous, as far as I am concerned you have all the time you require to work on the sections you think need work. You can work directly on the article, but can also utilize the talk page for what it is meant to: discuss potentially controversial edits. You can continue to work on the article indefinitely and no one will stop you from doing that, as long as you abide by some rules as WP:3RR

Regards,--Atavi 12:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting back and forth

We need to reach an understanding so that this "tug of war" with versions of the article doesn't continue. My opinion is that until then we should remain in this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contras&oldid=81952545 --Atavi 12:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Hecht 23:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make the changes I said I was going to make, but I went away with my family on vacation for a few days and didn't have access to a computer. Atavi I feel that article in it's current form is very biased against the Sandinistas and I can't just take it lieing down. I will attempt to splice together differents parts from mine and Hechts article to see if we can come to a mutual agreement on it. If Hecht doesn't like it, as I said before I'll revert to his version and that will be the end of it. However, I can't except whats been done to the drug smuggling section. I think that should stay the way it originally was. Has anyone not cared to check the fact that Barry Seal himself was a drug smuggler and a government informer and, as many people suspect, probably was lying on there behalf to smear the contras. However, I won't argue at this point that more information on Seal should be included, I just think that the drug smuggling section should stay the way it is. In fact I'll make a deal with Hecht, if he doesn't like my edits to the atrocities section he can have that section any way he wants it as long as he leaves the drug smuggling section alone. Again I'm sorry I didn't make the edits I said I was going to and I'll try to get them up by Tommorrow. annoynmous 23:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I made my edits. Hecht I'd be interested to know what you think. By the way Atavi I'm having some trouble inserting the State Department source you found a while ago. I was wondering if you knew how to include it without screwing up the entire page. Every time I try to include it, everything in the article gets shifted around and mixed up. Thank you. annoynmous 5:27, 20, October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the counter argument to brody's report should be included. we should let everyone judge for oneself.

to make the reference work the when the text for the reference ends.

But you see, that link hardly implies that the US characterized contra activities as terrorism. It only suggests that the US recognizes an isolated incident by persons identified as former contras to be terrorism. it can't support the claim.

--Atavi 14:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Why isnt the fact that the "CONTRA" was not any real "counter revolitionary" force but rather bunch of thugs and mercenaries paid by the CIA and of whom not that many were Nicaraguans but from other nations of "Americas" ie Mexicans, Hondurians, Panamians and Cuban exiles so on..

Contra Atrocities

I don't really think it's necessary to cover the Wall Street Journal's assertions of the "bias" of Americas Watch. Every human rights group on Earth excoriated the Contras for their systemic crimes. The story of Reed Brody is a small and unimportant chapter in this story and it's a waste of encyclopedia space to include it. --MarkB2 23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you have a point.--Atavi 10:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I must dispute the claim that the Reed Brody report was 'small and unimportant'. The brief had a huge influence on public perception of the contras. Regardless of whether or not it was an accurate description, the effect it had was quite substantial. Mattm1138 21:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia for just Americans, Mattm1138, or for everyone? I guarantee that Germans or anyone who lived outside of America through the 1980s never heard of Reed Brody.

The Reed Brody incident, by itself, is not a big issue for me. I have a larger problem with the faux controversy between the Wall Street Journal, Americas Watch, and "some" American news outlets. The article gives the impression that there was some fight only between Americas Watch and the U.S. and contra supporters. Americas Watch was not alone in its assertions. Amnesty International, the Catholic Institute for International Relations, and many other human rights groups concurred. In fact, every one of them I've ever heard of.

Finally, WTF is with citing Fred Barnes as a source? You've got to be kidding me! So can left-wing people come onto wikipedia and cite Michael Moore as a source? Is a man who denied that humans cause global warming a reputable source? If so, I know a homeless guy who lives under a bridge and drinks his own urine who I'd like to cite as a source for my new article "How Aliens Replaced the Real Tom Cruise with an Android."--MarkB2 02:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

more about abuses

i think that it may be prudent to talk about WHY the contras frequently attacked "civilian" targets. I realize that this issue has been the subject of heated debate, so i'll do my best to be NPOV. the sandinistas seized a lot of land when they first took power, which they used to set up farming co-ops and other state-run programs. thus, the contras frequently attacked these farms, which they saw as government targets, even though they were being run by civilians. i think that it would be a good idea to mention this in order to give some background to the numerous instances of contras attacking civilians.

additionally, i believe that a group called Witness for Peace had a large role in exposing contra atrocities to the united states public. it seems almost neglectful to not mention their role in documenting and reporting what was actually happening in nicaragua in the 1980's. Anriar 16:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As a movement built on smallholding peasants angry at a government that confiscated their land, of course the contras had a special hostility to state cooperatives. But in fact from the very start of the war, the Sandinistas intended for cooperatives to be militarized communities whose militias would help them control the countryside. The fact that most of the human rights organizations who criticized the contras refused to recognize this, portraying them as purely civilian, is a reflection of their bias.

I created the article on Witness for Peace, and at some point I intend to work some mention of them into the text. However, I think it would be a mistake to exaggerate their impact or role. They were just one group involved in the demonization of the contras, and were not decisive.

Personally, I think the whole Atrocities section is a mess. There are a lot of problems with this article that I've been intending to get around to, but I ended up not touching the article in months. I've actually had very little to do with the article; I know there was someone who was blaming me for everything he didn't like about the article, but most of the things he took issue with were already there.

Also, the standard is to add new sections to the bottom, not the top. I've gone ahead and moved it, as well as putting the starting discussion into a section. (You are probably aware that the "+" tab at top will automatically put your comments in a new section). That does put your comments pretty far down the page, perhaps it is time to archive some past sections. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

regardless of what the FSLN accomplished with these cooperatives, i think it would be a good idea to mention the fact that the contras DID specifically target them. about WFP, again, i think that they should be mentioned. they did have a considerable role in raising PUBLIC awareness in the united states. in addition, villages/cooperatives that had WFP members present were not the target of contra attacks as frequently as those who did not have representatives from the US.

i wholeheartedly agree with you that the "Atrocities" section is itself atrocious. perhaps we could work together to improve this section over the next week or so? it sounds as if we could get a fairly NPOV product if you and i both contribute. also, thanks for the tips on posting on the discussion board. i'll keep them in mind. Anriar 04:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see you here again, Groggy Dice. And hello, Anriar. I have a few bones of contention to pick with your recent characterizations, though, Groggy Dice.

I don't understand where human rights groups "portrayed" any contra targets as "purely civilian" when they weren't. I have reports from Americas Watch and the Catholic Institute for International Relations sitting on my bookshelf that extensively document the targets struck, whether there was militia present or any other civilians who might be armed, and the results of the attack. I can only assume you've read mischaracterizations of human rights reports.

I would also contest your assertion that human rights groups "demonized" contras. Americas Watch and many other groups documented many, many instances where contra groups raped women, slit the throats of children, kidnapped and tortured civilians, and executed captives. Reporters and observers were at the scene, collected evidence and witnesses' testimony, and published their findings. They published pictures of the bodies. They signed their names at the bottom of their reports. They were from a variety of countries and organizations.

One fantastic reason why the contras avoided pitched battle with the Nicaraguan military might be that they were outnumbered ten to one. They never held a square inch of Nicaraguan territory for longer than a day. They uniformly beat a hasty retreat with 24 hours of making contact with Nicaraguan regulars.

I would be happy to contribute to revising the "Atrocity Controversies" section. I have already edited that section to remove the word "propaganda" from the description of the 1984 Sandinista report as it is already described as a "claim." I'm sure you understand. MarkB2 04:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous Evasion of the Word "Terrorist"

It is entirely reasonable to debate whether Contras was good or bad, whether they were freedom fighters, et cetera. In fact, I am anti-Sandanista, myself, as is absolutely reasonable considering that they were a repressive socialist tyranny.

But any actual FACTS of significant interest to the Contras article must be allowed, in fact must be actively included. The FACT that the United States considered the Contras a terrorist organization must be included, because it's true and the US was involved in the issue to a noteworthy degree. The fact that "attack non-specific civilians in order to advance a political agenda" is the almost universal definition of "terrorist", and that the Contras did that, is essential to the article, since the article is about the Contras, and this was one of their significant activities.

To pretend these things should be excluded is laughably PoV...it reminds me of the attempts to remove all mention of Senator Robert Byrd's status as a Klan leader.

As I often point out, any attempt to REMOVE true information because it supposedly wasn't formatted correctly is an almost certain sign of PoV censorship. If something needs a reference, either provide one (an honest person will do this even if he doesn't like the fact presented) or insert a tag. If it's in the wrong section, move it. If the wording is PoV, make the wording more neutral. There is no excuse for just cutting such material out completely.--Kaz 00:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, the article is not going to get anywhere if people try to impose their favored "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" terminology. Both are POV-pushing terms. The contras were guerrillas. They did not kill non-specific civilians at random, though the vehemence of the charges made against them create that impression. They killed people who were officials, informers, government workers, or otherwise supported the government. You may consider that horrible, but it was not random, not non-specific. And the Reagan administration that supported them certainly did not define them as terrorists. And while I do sympathize with the contras, I try not to have a double standard for left-wing and right-wing guerrillas. I've just visited the List of terrorist organisations, and I think a number of entries of all stripes should be removed. --Groggy Dice T | C 02:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Kaz is talking about "imposing" terminology, just mentioning it. I've heard that "FACT" before, I'd like to see it mentioned and cited.

The thousands of mines that COntras placed throughout the country did indeed kill randomly, as did their soldiers' grenades and rifles. But I suppose that any source that points that out is de facto biased, whether it's the Washington Post or the MIami Herald or Americas Watch or the CIIR. MarkB2 14:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to Sandinista mines and grenades and rifles, which presumably struck only rebels? --Groggy Dice T | C 14:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, contras laid most of the mines in the 1980s, and unlike the Sandinistas, they didn't map where they put them. Secondly, by 1986 there were maybe 300 civilian casualties attributable to Sandinista action according to Americas Watch. Contras killed that many every year. Thirdly, there are no sources I can find that attribute slitting children's throats and shooting pregnant women in the stomach to Sandinistas. I can list those events by date and name of victim that were attributed to the contras. Fourthly, I can list many names of civilians kidnapped and tortured and left dead in a river by contras. There is no record of Sandinistas performing analagous acts. MarkB2 21:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no record of Sandinistas performing those acts? I Perhaps you should get your facts with the population. I am a Nicaraguan who grew up during the Contra-Sandinista war and I know families who were killed by the Sandinistas in the acts that you described and later blamed the Contra for doing them. Many of those families fled to the US and received asylum. I personally know one lady whose family was massacred by the Sandinistas because they suspected they were Contras. The Sandinistas lied to us telling us that the Contras were Americans and it was not until 1989 that I saw the Contras myself surrendering that I realized we were killing ourselves. You might not find records here, but you just need to go the Nicaragua or ask Nicaraguans who lived those times, like myself to tell you the truth. I recommend you to go to Nicaragua to find the truth before you argue about records.

[I'm replying to the landmine issue in a new section below.] --Groggy Dice T | C 15:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the word terrorist can be sanely and honestly denied, if you have such references regarding the activities of the Contras, they should be in the article...--Kaz 05:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll stick a paragraph in the Atrocity Controversies section summarizing the sources' allegations. MarkB2 20:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice a trend in wikipedia articles towards an incongruous agglomeration of facts in articles. The dynamic seems to be that adding something (if you can cite your sources) is OK but eliminating information frequently brings howls of protest about censorship. With that in mind I'm going to ask for permission to eliminate the two paragraphs preceeding my addition (the dueling depictions of the woman "Rosa" who was mutilated and then killed). It seems to me to be an unnecessary anecdotal illustration of just one of the alleged crimes. If we did that for every example the Atrocity section would be ten pages long. MarkB2 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There would be nothing wrong with the atrocity section being ten pages; it would simply need to be given its own page, with a summary/link included here.

And there is good reason for inclusion of validly sourced information to be added, but "eliminating information" to be called censorship: That is what is occurring. The entire function of wikipedia is to accurately organize information. It is better included than excluded, anything truthful and relevant deserving to be included somewhere.

The overall trend is that when someone deletes information, their goal is very likely to censor it, specifically. You'll find that some guy who edits mostly Islamic pages is deleting the word "terrorist" from Palestinian groups' pages, and adding it to Zionist group pages, while some guy who mostly edits pages relating to Judaism is doing the exact opposite, whereas someone whose edits reflect no special interest in either one would have simply fixed problems, rather than deleted, in both cases. On here, it's likely the pro-Contras who are deleting, rather than fixing flaws with, any pejorative information about what the Contras actually did.

This is inexcusable. Any time you delete accurate, or fixable, information that is even arguably relevant, you are being a bad editor. And when it (as is usually the case) is because you don't like the information for personal reasons, you're being something even worse. --Kaz 22:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The "There would be nothing wrong..." sentence is true, and good point. It's debatable how much emphasis should be put on contra atrocities (or alleged atrocities) in an ostensibly balanced and clinical encyclopedia. Overemphasizing an issue is a kind of biased examination of an issue in itself, but here we are getting into the fine points of writing.

I agree that many people delete information on wikipedia to silence people with opposing points of view. I imagine that's how wikipedia's default editing policy emerged. It just makes for poor writing. Seeing as wikipedia's articles are ever-changing perhaps I am being too ambitious to hope for fluid writing as well as information. I won't delete anything if you contest it. MarkB2 23:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the contras were terrorists; but we don't call them that in an encyclopaedia. The quote about the woman having her breasts cut off and her heart cut out conveys sufficiently to the reader that these were evil people. Why bother throwing around a pejorative term which nobody can agree the meaning of anyway? We shouldn't use the narrative voice to describe these people as terrorists not because its untrue, but because its superfluous. Its the same reason Hitler's article doesn't begin 'Adolf Hitler was a very bad man' because the subsequent text conveys that impression far more effectively through objectively describing what he did with his life. Damburger 18:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Landmines

I found the claim that the contras laid most of the mines during the war to be doubtful, considering the massive numbers of mines that the Sandinista army laid near the border and around installations, though I didn't have any figures. So I searched, and found a Mine Action Information Center paper on de-mining in Nicaragua, which reports that the army planted 135,643 mines during the war. Later, it cites an estimate by the OAS Inter-American Defense Board that 150,000 mines were laid in Nicaragua during the war, of which about 80% were charted military mines and the rest were rebel mines.[3] Of course, 80% of 150,000 is only 120,000, so at first glance the numbers are discrepant. But they make it clear that while the contras have been accused of placing most of the mines by some of their critics, that is simply way off base.

I was also skeptical that the Sandinistas charted all their mines, since I'd read that the Sandinistas failed to map the mines they planted around San Andres de Bocay during their 1987 offensive, and suffered dozens of casualties to their own minefields when they returned to the area in March 1988's Operation Danto. The Landmine Monitor's 2000 report covers this issue: "The Centro de Estudios Estratégicos de Nicaragua (CEEN), and the Centro de Estudios Internacionales (CEI), two of the principal NGOs dealing with the landmine problem and mine awareness in Nicaragua, note that there can only be estimates of the number of mines planted in Nicaraguan territory. The Army's records of mines it laid do not account for the mines planted by the 'Contras' or, in all likelihood, those by all Army tactical units during the conflict. Joel Zamora, Director of CEEN, said, 'To be realistic, neither the Army nor the Contras know where they planted many of their mines.'"[#16] The report includes an estimate putting the total of charted army landmines at about 120,000.[#5][4] The latest report comments that "the military has only 80 percent of the records of the mines laid by the EPS during the war, which 'are probably not fully detailed or reliable.'"[#17][5] If that 80% figure is compatible with the earlier estimate of 120,000 charted mines, it would give a total of approximately 150,000 Sandinista mines. Later, the report says that Nicaragua had cleared 133,251 mines to date, including 11,660 previously unregistered mines not included in the 135,643 number, leaving 14,052 registered mines and an estimated 13,266 unregistered mines, for a total of over 160,000.[#58] So the Sandinista army may account for roughly 150,000 of 160,000 mines, or 30,000 of 40,000 uncharted mines, though there are a whole lot of assumptions plugged into that extrapolation. Still, it's clear that not only were the Sandinistas responsible for laying the overwhelming majority of the mines, they also laid a good many of the uncharted ones.

The articles do confirm that the contra mines were uncharted. However, I suspect that this is the norm among irregular forces, rather than a failing that the contras can be singled out for. The war was also fought before the anti-landmine awareness campaign of the 1990s, so there's a danger of judging them by an ahistorical standard. Also, the two sides used mines differently. The army planted large numbers of mines in planned, semi-permanent minefields, which were conducive to being charted. They would have wanted to record these minefields in any case, to avoid stumbling into them themselves; it's not as if they were nobly thinking only of postwar de-mining and preventing civilian casualties. During the rebels' low point in 1986, on the other hand, FDN units on the run adopted a tactic of dropping two or three mines behind them, to slow down or deter their pursuers. In their circumstances, their concern was immediate survival, not carefully charting mines for long-term de-mining, if they even had training in how to chart mines.

The vast minefields left behind by the Sandinistas made Nicaragua the most heavily-mined nation in Latin America. They dwarfed the 20,000 mines of both sides left by El Salvador's civil war. And though the Sandinistas charted most of their mines, that has not been a panacea. They laid so many mines that Nicaragua had not even been able to de-mine all the charted mines by 1998, eight years after Violeta Chamorro's election, when flooding from Hurricane Mitch shifted some mines from their original positions and destroyed landmarks and markings, reducing the usefulness of the original records. The passage of time has also altered terrain, and even where minefields have been marked by signs and barbed wire, over the years people have sometimes removed them for scrap or reuse. As of last year, Nicaragua had still not quite finished de-mining all of the 135,643 registed mines, much less all the unrecorded ones. Even after placing all those mines, the army still had 136,000 more in their stockpiles. These articles also point out another problem, unexploded ordnance (UXO). Considering the larger numbers and heavier artillery of the Sandinista army, they surely account for the majority of UXO too, and UXO is of course uncharted. All in all, I wouldn't point to landmines as evidence of Sandinista moral superiority. In fact, I see it as an example of what I'm talking about: that the contras were so thoroughly demonized that critics can be convinced that they laid most of the landmines, even when in truth their mines were greatly outnumbered by those placed by the Sandinista army. --Groggy Dice T | C 15:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

GD, I'd be happy to take up this argument with you, but to be honest I'm not sure it's worth my time. You have a habit of taking one point from an argument, disproving it, and then claiming vindication despite all the other points that were made that were sufficient(see the arguments above concerning the # of civilian casualties in the war), about which you are deafeningly silent. When I wait for you to either prove most of my points wrong that are the crux of my argument or cede those points all I get is sullen silence followed by a delayed response criticizing a single source I used.

I cede to you the point that the Sandinistas laid more mines. My source [6] ambiguously stated that "According to the OAS, about 3,000 mines were laid in Honduras and 1,000 in Costa Rica along their borders with Nicaragua, mostly by Contra rebels." Apparently the Sandinista mines were mostly in Nicaragua were more numerous. Nevertheless, I would also like to point out that the "great majority" of civilian casualties were caused by contra mines because they didn't map their location nor did they bother to tell civilians where they might be[7]. This, as opposed to the Nicaraguan government, which mapped the location of most of its mines and perhaps were able to warn civilians away from the general location of unmapped mines.

I'm amused that you reluctantly agree that the Nicaraguan government mapped its mines (OK, most of its mines) while the contras made no effort to, but that, apparently, is meaningless. They were, after all, guerrillas: "I suspect that this is the norm among irregular forces, rather than a failing that the contras can be singled out for." Oh, of course. They can't be held to the same standard as the Nicaraguan government. The "moral equivalents of our founding fathers" can't be expected to chart their mines. After all, "the two sides used mines differently" Really! How so? Apparently, the contras used mines in some special way that was difficult to map, while the Nicaraguan government planted mines in "semi-permanent minefields" which were just so EASY to map they couldn't NOT have. It was just so much harder for the contras to map their mines because of their special mine-laying technique, "if they even had training in how to chart mines," the poor freedom fighters. I am unmoved by your special pleading.

Granted, both sides used mortars that left unexploded ordinance. Granted, charting mines didn't mean that time and weather wouldn't put some of the charted ones in uncharted territory. But at least the Nicaraguan government tried. And that, indeed, leads me to point "to landmines as evidence of Sandinista moral superiority."

But it's a small point, and (as I feel) the least important of my many points that were "evidence of Sandinista moral superiority." By disputing that one point and then claiming vindication you have unselfconsciously engaged in denying the antecedent and you seem to need reminding of the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. MarkB2 23:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy?

I question when we can drop the language that Contra human rights abuses were "allegations." Every human rights group excoriated them for it. They were mentioned by Time, FAIR, the Washington Post, and too many newspaper articles that are not readily internet accessable to mention. Do we need a hand written permission slip from God to unequivocally assert these things happened? If these sources are insufficient there is no way to write a Human Rights article critical of Syria or almost any other nation on Earth MarkB2 05:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous

Why am I the only one using the discussion page even though 6 Users have altered it since I last posted?

Ultramarine: Please fact check your sources before you use them to support false claims on wikipedia, especially when you cite Frontpage.

First, criticisms of Sandinista human right abuses belong on their page, not in the section on Contra human rights abuses.

Secondly, we don't label groups on wikipedia as "terrorist" groups, as that is an evaluative judgment. If Hamas can escape such judgment on wikipedia I don't see how rebels in El Salvador can't.

Thirdly, your Frontpage source is a joke. As previously discussed, no media source on Earth in the 1980's could document more than a few hundred civilians who ever died at the hands of the Sandinistas. Frontpage also asserts there were 8,000 political executions within three years of the revolution.

The Sandinistas outlawed the death penalty as soon as they took office. There were no mass graves secretly created and hidden from the BBC, NBC, and every other foreign news outlet. Please don't dig up crackpot sources that contradict all known records of events and use it to libel political movements.

Because of this I couldn't see how to salvage the two sentences I'm talking about. MarkB2 06:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You might find a way to squeeze in our source about Sandinista aid the Salvadorans in the FSLN page or the El Salvador page. MarkB2 06:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Frontpage cites academic sources,[8], you do not give any for your claims.Ultramarine 08:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV requires mentioning the views of both sides. Human rights violations by the Contras are part of the reason for the activities of the Contras and the US.Ultramarine 08:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi all.

Ultramarine, I think that the material you wrote could only be relevant in the FSLN article. That said, I have two observations to make. Firstly I think it would be prudent to find these academic sources that Frontpage cites, read them and add any content based directly on them. I've read the article and it is far from temperate and might well bend the sources to arrive at conclusions of its liking. Secondly, while it would probably be an expected reaction, it is hardly valid as reasoning, that Contras should torture because Sandinistas torture (that is of course assuming that they did).

--Atavi 10:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Sandinista National Liberation Front article mentions human righs abuses by the Contras, so it is a double standard to not mention Sandinista human rights violations here. Regarding whether Jamie Glazov, who has a Ph.D. in History, has misrepresented the academic sources he quotes, that would be your responsibility to show.Ultramarine 12:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

One does not correct "double standards" by forcing the lowest common denominator of contentious nonsense on every article. if you have problems with the quality of other articles, try improving them. As for the frontpagemag source, I suppose it'd be an interesting intellectual exercise to categorically refute everything in a typical frontpage article, but the unabashed partisanship of the source means it's not usually considered a WP:RS. Chris Cunningham 12:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, NPOV requires the views of both sides, not only bashing of one side. I am still waiting for anyone to show that the frontpage article is incorrect.Ultramarine 13:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV absolutely doesn't require the inclusion of counterallegations. It requires that editors do not push a particular viewpoint on an article, and a good indicator of such is the inclusion of fiercely partisan sources. As for frontpage, the initial problem is that the site itself is not accepted as a reliable source. Individually going through the references in the specific article being referenced would be worthwhile if there were some reason to believe it was a useful source, but that wouldn't appear to be necessary here. Chris Cunningham 13:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints." Again, regarding whether Jamie Glazov, who has a Ph.D. in History, has misrepresented the academic sources he quotes, that would be your responsibility to show.Ultramarine 13:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to post this for some time, but get edit conflicts

Ultramarine, I'm glad that you decided to post the material in question in the Sandinistas page rather than the Contras.

Regarding Jamie Glazov, I could say that holding a PhD is no testament to the validity and ethos of one's argumentation.

I think the onus is on the one who makes allegations to prove them. But this is a huge discussion.

I wasn't really prepared to go into this very deeply, but right now I'm doing some research on Pascal Fontaine's chapter in the Black Book of Communism, on which the most serious allegations seem to be based. I'm afraid, I'm not going to buy the book just for the sake of this argument.

--Atavi 13:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The view of a PhD is certainly better than the view of an anonymous Wikipedia editor. The allegations have been "proved" for the purpose of Wikipedia verifiability, anyone can check them, as you now are doing. Very good, by the way.Ultramarine 13:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I am still arguing that these human rights violations should be mentioned here, since those of the Contras are mentioned in the Sandinista article, and since such violations were one of the reaons for the actions of the Contras and the US.Ultramarine 14:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You can always remove them from the Sandinistas article. In fact I believe that this is the correct course of action. I would even do it myself... As for the second argument, I think I've commented before, but let me say again one atrocity does not justify another to strike back.--Atavi 14:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the second argument, the Contras obviously did not say "Look, the Sandinistas is murdering people, so we are going to do the same." Rather, "Since the Sandinistas as murdering people, we are starting a Liberation Movement"Ultramarine 14:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reading (again) the FSLN article, I have changed my mind on one thing. I think that if you can provide the short text in context, for example in the History section, it would be OK. That is supposing that we have established that the sources are reliable. --Atavi 14:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How about the current text? Ultramarine 14:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are still very serious and poorly-sourced allegations. The basic argument is that the frontpage source needs to actually be rebutted to be invalid. But of course non-reliable sources (such as Horowitz's think tank) generally don't get taken seriously enough to be rebutted. Can no less questionable source be found? Chris Cunningham 14:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this is an excerpt from the Black Book's introduction.

All these definitions, especially the recent French definition, are relevant to any number of crimes committed by Lenin and above all by Stalin and subsequently by the leaders of all Communist countries, with the exception (we hope) of Cuba and the Nicaragua of the Sandinistas

--Atavi 14:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This argument is consuming too much of my energy. I'll try to get a hold of this book, and if I do I'll come back.--Atavi 14:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idead. Regarding poorly sourced, that is wrong. Again, regarding whether Jamie Glazov, who has a Ph.D. in History, has misrepresented the academic sources he quotes, that would be the responsibility of those arguing that to show.Ultramarine 15:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is anything poorly sourced, it is the page after page of uncritical praise for the Sandinista rule in the Sandinista article, which looks like taken straight from a pamphlet, although not even such a source is given.Ultramarine 15:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The sources cited in that article appear to also be the output of hard-right authors and think tanks. And no, the onus is on proof of reliability to cite things, not to remove them. Glazov's doctorate (which, incidentally, isn't in South American politics; the key link here is that he's a partisan anticommunist) doesn't make him untouchable. His position as a writer for a hard-right magazine run by a conservative think tank immediately casts doubt on his reliability as a source for such strong claims.

And for the second time (mayhaps you missed it before), the existence of other bad articles doesn't warrant this one being made worse by the inclusion of partisan think-tank output which appears to downplay the negative impact of death squads by equivocation with their enemies. If you have a problem with how other articles are written I implore you to improve them. Chris Cunningham 15:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem is not a valid argument. I could as well argue that left-wing writers should be removed on sight.Ultramarine 15:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make any ad hominem attacks. The source is indisputably right-wing and partisan, as are its own references. And you can argue that if you want; I've likewise argued against the inclusion of partisan left-wing sources where they haven't met particular standards of reliability. Were this a mere difference in opinion there would be an argument for presenting it anyway to reflect the existence of opposing opinions, but this is an assertion than a group carried out a series of atrocities. That's a massively serious charge and sources should be bulletproof. Chris Cunningham 16:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Right-wing proponents are allowed make their case, as are left-wing proponents. From WP:NPOV "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints." The references are academics sources.Ultramarine 16:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, we are not stating that this is the truth, but accused of.Ultramarine 16:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We could just as well quote, for example, the Black Book of Communism directly instead. I could manage to read it again, say tomorrow, then attribute many of these statements, and probably much more, directly to it. Better?Ultramarine 16:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd obviously prefer something a little more universally acknowledged, but yeah, this would be excellent. For the time being I've removed the section. It's contentious in the extreme given the current sourcing. Chris Cunningham 21:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all let me apologize if I come (or came) off as pompous or dismissive. I was meaning to be dismissive of the Frontpage article.

Secondly, I would be happy to refute Jamie Glazov, who is a cut-rate propagandist. It’s just that it would be unnecessary if you read this discussion of this page from the beginning. So, to point out the simple factual inaccuracies in Glazov's writing:

A. Ortega was never a "ruthless dictator." The bloodsoaked monster he replaced, backed by the United States for years, was a ruthless dictator. Ortega won internationally-monitored elections in 1985. He and his government were democratically elected. When they lost elections in 1990 they stepped down peacefully. That's called "democracy."

B. I don't know what Glazov means by saying the FSLN "Stalinized" the country, other than to point out his inflammatory language apparently needs no support other than to also mention that the FSLN had freindly contacts with Cuba and Eastern Bloc countries.

C. "...making their country a base for the export of Marxist revolution throughout Central America" is, again, ridiculous. Even the United States only claimed the FSLN were trying to send weapons to El Salvador, which hardly constitutes "throughout Central America." The only sources I've ever heard of regarding this issue, after reading dozens of books and magazine articles on it, asserted a couple of trucks of rifles.

D. "...the new regime constructed a fascistic apparatus to maintain rigid control." Again, no hyperbole seems beyond Glazov. First of all, see earlier reference to the internationally-monitored elections. Secondly, the neighborhood associations did exist, but they resembled some Stalinist bloc committee about as closely as a neighborhood watch committee in America.

E. Entire following paragraph: I don't know where to begin. The Sandinistas did indeed appropriate land, but they handed out thousands of titles to private farmers and subsidized small, independent farmers here. They periodically shut down La Prensa, but that is the worst of what they did. It is pretty ridiculous to say that they censored "all freedom of speech" when they certainly allowed opposition parties (including the ones that unseated them in 1989) and American diplomats and journalists to visit, give speeches criticizing the Nicaraguan government, etc.

F. "In Khmer Rouge style..." Again the wild-assed slander and exaggeration. Mentioning the FSLN, who killed a few hundred Native Americans when some disgrubtled groups took up arms, in the same breath as a government that killed hundreds of thousands is ridiculous. The rest of the paragraph is beyond mention. Please read a good encyclopedia article on the Miskito Indians for a factual description that is a wee bit less insane than "a calculated liquidation of their entire leadership."

G. Please read a reputable human rights group's report on human rights in Central America to get an accurate view on the laughable statistics in the following paragraphs like "8000" executions and "20000" political prisoners.

Every one of the other hundreds of sources cited on the relevant wikipedia articles refute the assertions of this insultingly slanderous Frontpage source.

It's been awhile since I read the rambling epic that is the FSLN page but I don't remember assertions of contra atrocities being there, nor do they probably belong there except in passing mention when discussing something else. You might want to remove them and explain why on the discussion page.MarkB2 23:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has spoken

We are, apparantly, now using the word 'terrorism'[9]

In light of this, we should at least use it equally, and apply it to this group funded by the US. We must also do so in the narrative voice in order to maintain consistency. Damburger 12:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. In controversial cases, I'll give Hezbollah as an example, we typically do not use the "terrorist" label ourselves, but rather indicate who and what designates the group as terrorists. I'd like to see that here. Evercat (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

MILPISTA

Why are the Milpistas completely left out of this "Contra" page? They account for the majority of the FDN's foot soldiers. Furthermore, their origins stretch back before CIA assistance. Has this been discussed already? Jpineda84 (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Due to a large number of recent edits which appear to either remove or select sourced information, I have added the NPOV tag to this article. Please do not remove it without discussion. Black Kite 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you give an example? I have tried to remove unsourced claims and replaced them with sourced.Ultramarine (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been through everything yet, but this edit [10] removes part of the court's finding and replaces them with another section more favourable to one side. No problem adding the new section, but the original section should have stayed too. PArt of this edit [11] is sourced to an unreliable source (Horowitz). Black Kite 23:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the actual court statements and the current version is correct. I can cite exact passages if you prefer. Horowitz is no more unreliable than for example William Blum who is currently cited.Ultramarine (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll check the court statements, though i believe the original edit to be broadly accurate. As regards Horowitz, this is definitely an unreliable source (personally I think Blum isn't much better, but there you go). It should be fairly obvious that a book called "The Anti-Chomsky Reader" isn't exactly going to be objective! Also, this edit [12] appears to replace sourced information with unsourced ... followed by this edit [13] which introduces a new source, replacing the deleted one, which backs up an anti-Sandinista POV rather than the deleted one, which didn't. Black Kite 23:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the book. It is well-sourced and written by many different writers, including several academic ones. See the The Anti-Chomsky Reader. Wikipedia cites Chomsky writings in numerous articles so I do not see why a critic should be disallowed. Anyway, I have removed both praise and criticisms equally when unsourced, as can be seen in my edits. Regarding the last edit, I removed a duplication. The election is mentioned, including a mainly favorable review for the Sandinstas victory.Ultramarine (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Look again, I removed a false anti-Sandinista view not supported by the source "Because the 1984 election was viewed internationally as a sham".Ultramarine (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for that, the two sections ran together. I'd still recommend removing the Horowitz citation though, it's only going to cause problems at some point. Black Kite 00:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed, can cite the court statement directly regarding denying jurisdiction.Ultramarine (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Webb's assertion of Crack Cocaine introduced in US by Contras is unsupported

"In August 1996, San Jose Mercury News reporter Gary Webb published a series titled Dark Alliance, alleging that the origin of crack cocaine in California was the responsibility of the Contras. Although some Contra factions were involved with the drug trade, no evidence supports Webb's assertion."

The latter sentence was incorrectly deleted. The references cited show no evidence of Contra association with crack cocaine and no evidence of an association with crack cocaine in California. There is evidence that some Contras, with knowledge of the US government, were involved in the Cocaine trade - which is a substantially different matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustnado (talk • contribs) 19:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is false, The CIAs own report on the matter confirmed most of webbs claims. So the claim that "no evidence supports webb's assertions" is just outright false. As the section stands now it is a neutral presentation of webbs claims and adding this sentence simply slants the article. annoynmous 19:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply assserting that is insufficient. A reference is required to support such claims, and there is nothing I can find in the references that comes close. If no evidence exists to support his allegations, then it is also neutral to state so - it is relevant and the truth. If evidence does exist, it needs to be produced. Ihe link to Webb's web page will also be deleted, as it does not qualify as a reference source.

Just go to the article on webb and you will see that it was confirmed. The sentence slants the article and is just flat out untrue. You have provided no reference to rebut webbs findings so the sentence is innapropriate. This is a POV sentence plain and simple. The section as it is a neutral representation of webbs accusations. It doesn't say whether Webb was proven right or wrong at that is the way it should stay.annoynmous 23:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No reference has been provided. Simply asserting that it is there somewhere is not enough. If it is there, point it out. If it is not there, then webb's findings are unsuppported by evidnece and it is not POV to state that. It is just as easy to argue that putting the Webb assertions in there, unconfirmed, slants the article towards a POV also. Furthermore, because Webb's assertion is one of the most controversial and provocative in the whole "Contra" debate, it should not stand unqualified unless it is solidly supported.----

This has to be the most absurd piece of reasoning I've ever heard. Just because the article mentions Webbs accusations that somehow automatically biasis the article?

Without discussing the quality of those accusations, yes, it supports a POV.

The sentence you added biasis the article not just because it isn't true, but you also have no link or source to support it. It appears to me to be your own editorializing. There are multiple sources in the Gary Webb and CIA/cocaine smuggling articles that corrobate much of webbs findings so to say that nothing he wrote was proven is just a flat out lie.

You continue to insist that the evidence exists, but you continue to fail to provide the evidence. If the sentence is false, it should be no problem to show it.

There used to be a sentence in the article that said most of webbs findings had been proven that you removed. I didn't object because I felt that question of whether Webb was right or wrong is more appropriate for his article, not this one. However, an article that makes the unfounded claims that Webb was wrong and biasis the article is unexcepatable and I simply will not except it. The section witbout the sentence is a neutral representation of webbs accusations without commentary on whether they were proven or not and that is the way it should stay.annoynmous 05:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The sentence does not say that Webb was wrong about everything - if it did, I would agree with you. However, it clearly says that no evidence exists for the specific allegations about crack cocaine. Since it is impossible to prove a negative, the burden is to show that evidence DOES exist. Since you insistently assert that it does, show it. So far you have simply asserted that the evidence exists, not actually providing it. If it cannot be produced, the sentence should remain.----

The very mention of Webb's allegation, without further context such as the validity of his allegations, supports a particular POV - that the Contras were responsible for the Cal crack cocaine problem. This has long been a major source of controversy, and thus the truth value of Webb's assertion is critical to its value. No evidence has been adduced that the California crack connection existed. None.----

By your logic, we could take any allegation supported by suggestive but not actual evidence and just leave it hanging without reference to inappropriateness of that evidence to the specific allegation. For example, we could take another controversial area - books saying that the OK City bombings were actually a plot by ATF, with the evidence being that they were suspiciously all out of town that day (they were). This assertion is wrong, but supported by the same sort of "evidence" as Webb's specific allegation of Contra responsibility for introducing crack cocaine into CA.----

Your right it is a controversial accusation, but it is innaccurate to say no proof was found beacause it is was. The article on Webb contains much which corrobates webbs findings. The sentence itself even admits that "Although some contras were involved in the drug trade" that would seem to contradict your assertion that theres no proof. It's clear to me that you haven't done any research on this subject and that the sentence is simply your own editorializing.

In response to your question about the OKC bombing, I would be fine with stating an accusation like that without a debunking as long as it's stating it as someones claims and not absolute fact than what's the problem? Lastly if your gonna debunk something that your have provide evidence for it, you can't just claim it wasn't true just because you deam the theory to be controversial.

An to answer you, yes in an enclyclopedia you do have to prove a negative. You link to some article or report which refutes webbs allegations. Otherwise the sentence is POV.annnoynmous 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)