Talk:Nicaraguan Revolution

Quick Edit

I changed the anti-Sandinist to anti-Sandinista. Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.70.20 (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

What is that preface doing at the start of the article? Not exactly encyclopedia material... if you find an article inadequate or biased change it, don't add your opinion at the start of it.

Duplicated information

It looks like two people tried to write this. There is a good writing style present, and there is a really crappy writing style present (this style also seems to have a bias). Much of the information is duplicated in some way between the two styles, which has made the article out of order chronologically and very confusing to read. This needs a heavy rewrite, as everyone has said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.223.231.252 (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Approach to the article

This article urgently needs a thru clean-up... First do not confuse the Revolution with the Sandinista National Liberation Front, otherwise it is a duplicate.

Second. this article should seek to explain the orgins, causes, what brought it up, the mechanics of the revolution influences of thought , factors , Liberation theology moreover the development of the ideology, the motor of the revolution. shifts of ideology, historical context, historical background the particularities, comparison with other revolutions etc It should contain influence in other subsequent historic events

Third. Writers should have thru knowledge of the rules of style full command of English and composition, perhaps some academic background on these subjects--Andamio (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

agreement

this article is written in a style that is totally not for wikipedia, and even has large sections missing. this article needs to be completely rewritten. 68.193.106.206 (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

another thing

hi this is user: Muddycarpenter i was in the recent conflict in nicaragua. im still new to wikipedia and dont have the skills neccesary to write the large sections missing but i think the 2018 april schism should be talked about as conflict did break out and there were casualties on both sides. this whole page needs a revision. act quick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muddycarpenter (talk • contribs) 22:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

neutrality

This article is an essay and not an encyclopedia article. It's interesting to connect the revolution to world events, but that is not giving history about the revolution itself. The article is controversial in terms of its bias in favor of Sandinistas and against anti-Sandinistas.

The "Changes after 1979" section in particular strikes me as needing review. The language used reads like an opinion essay, and makes broad statements with few citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.200.168.16 (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to concur with the bias argument, especially if this page is going to be the redirect for 'Nicaraguan Civil War', a page which should pay equal attention to the FSLN and the Contras. Seriously, the opposition section consists of a link to the Reagan doctrine and the results of the 1990 election. No reports of why people were dissatisfied with the regime, or of the military back-and-forth of the civil war. The only descriptive paragraph of the Contras is a negative one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsidian11 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

1984 General elections

The candidate's name of PSN is Domingo Sánchez Salgado “Chagüitillo” es leyenda viva de luchas sociales —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnrslip (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Contra War

The section dedicated to the Contra War must be expanded. It was the most important and famous part of the Revolution. Charles Essie (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Massive Re-write

I found that probably around 90% of this article was cut-pasted from another source, Connexions Social Justice Encyclopedia. I tried to delete as much of that as I could and have left a very basic framework from which to rebuild this article. It does need the attention of an expert and the sources used should be improved and expanded.

Bottom line is this article covers a very lengthy period of Nicaraguan history (1970-1990) and includes two major armed conflicts and a socio-economic-cultural change (revolution ???). The wars are important and might need to be article on their own but no other wikipedia articles in any language do this. The first was the war against the Somoza Regime in 1978-79 which resulted in thousands of deaths. The second is the war against the FSLN by the Contras from 1981-1990.

My contribution here is just to prove the outlines for these topics. I have requested the contribution of an expert to add more to this article.Wareditor2013 (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this article conflates at least three different things: the social revolution (bubbling beneath the surface since the 1960s and, in a way, ongoing under Ortega), the Sandinista war of 1978–79 and the Contra war of 1981–90. Nobody (especially one who doesn't know much of Nicaraguan history) is well served by this mash-up. 216.8.129.51 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Student Editor: Preliminary Bibliography for Research

Preliminary Bibliography:

- Conge, Patrick J. "The Emergence of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, 1982–90." In From Revolution to War: State Relations in a World of Change, 89-112. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.14577.12.

-Gorman, Stephen M. "Power and Consolidation in the Nicaraguan Revolution." Journal of Latin American Studies 13, no. 1 (1981): 133-49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/156342.

-Henighan, Stephen. "Nicaraguan History, 1979–90." In Sandino's Nation: Ernesto Cardenal and Sergio Ramírez Writing Nicaragua, 1940-2012, 225-38. McGill-Queen's University Press, 2014.

-López, Fred A. "The Nature of the Sandinista Revolution." Latin American Perspectives 14, no. 1 (1987): 126-28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2633678.

-Peace, Roger. "U.S.-Nicaragua Relations, the Sandinista Revolution, and the Contra War." In A Call to Conscience: The AntiContra War Campaign, 7-28. University of Massachusetts Press, 2012.

-Regan, Richard J. "Revolution and Civil War in Nicaragua (1978-90)." In Just War, Second Edition, 163-68. Catholic University of America Press, 2013.

-Rodgers, Dennis. "Searching for the Time of Beautiful Madness: Of Ruins and Revolution in Post-Sandinista Nicaragua." In Enduring Socialism: Explorations of Revolution and Transformation, Restoration and Continuation, edited by West Harry G. and Raman Parvathi, 77-102. Berghahn Books, 2010.

LilyWhites1882 (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead for Article

At the moment, I think the current lead of this article suffices as a strong introduction and summary to the article as a whole. Any tweaks of the lead would stem from my future additions to the article itself. This is likely to include information on the post-Revolution government, interactions between the U.S. and Nicaragua, and cultural elements of the Nicaraguan people resulting from the conflict.

LilyWhites1882 (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you feel like the critiques that earlier reviewers brought up about the tone and neutrality of the lead section have been addressed? What headings would help organize your expansions? You might also consider a timeline to help orient your readers. Katherine.Holt (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Class Peer Review

Great intro! I think it should be cut into several sentences, though. It was kind of hard to follow. All of your sections have great and relevant information, I just think that they need to be expanded. I also really love your use of images, which is great in breaking up lengthy articles. Overall, your article was interesting to read and relevant!

Offering of Aid

No mention of perhaps one of the biggest motivating factors of our support for the Contras? Namely the fact the FSLN were offering aid to other communist rebels in the region. (Aid originating with the communist bloc.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit about the Heritage Foundation

Rja13ww33, let's talk about the edit here instead of arguing about it using reverts. Why do you think this violates the rules?

50.225.39.74 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

As I explained: We are not supposed to label sources. Violates WP:IMPARTIAL. The fact that it is on another page is not an argument. See WP:OTHERCONTENT.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT explains that it is sometimes a valid argument and that you can't just rule it out. Not bringing up that a source is biased is bias, and strategic omission of facts.

50.225.39.74 (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

If we are going to label the Heritage Foundation.....are we going to do the same thing with other sources in the article? Or is it just reserved for them? Furthermore, it is beyond dispute that some of these abuses by the Sandinista regime happened (further making such labeling pointless).Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I would like to point out that section already has the heading "The primary sources for the content in this section are not impartial.". So I would think an additional label would be a bit redundant.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

As far as the Miskito Indians go.....Sandinista repression against them is beyond dispute. If sources are an issue.....I found this in the LA Times archive (and can add it): "Never close to the central government, the Miskitos began to actively oppose the Sandinistas in 1982 when authorities killed more than a dozen Indians, burned villages, forcibly recruited young men into the army and tried to relocate others. Thousands of Miskitos poured across the Coco into Honduras, and many took up U.S.-supplied arms to oppose the Nicaraguan government." (LA Times, 8/2/1987) I assume no one is going to call the LA Times a right wing rag.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33 The Heritage Foundation is a highly partisan think tank and absolutely should not be used as a source without clear identification, per Wikipedia reliable source guidelines. If these issues are so well documented and inarguable, then it should be easy to get reliable sources here instead of having the whole human rights violations section rely on one think tank piece from the 80s and an article in French. This would allow the removal of the tag and you also wouldn't have to monitor the article to make sure no one adds much needed context. Palinurus7 01:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

First of all, WP:AGF. And secondly, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that if we ID the Heritage Foundation as a conservative think tank....then the section heading can go?Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No. I said that if it’s easy to find reliable sources, as you have stated, then that should be done. Until then, the section needs more context. Palinurus7 (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Well it's either one or the other. Either the section header stays and the all the "conservative American think tank" stuff stays out.....or the header goes and we label The Heritage Foundation. To attribute a claim (i.e. calling them by name) and label them AND (on top of all that) having a section header talking about the fact they are not impartial.....well, that is getting ridiculous. I'm not sure I've seen that on any article here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an aesthetic concern and we have two editors in the talk page supporting labeling the Heritage Foundation and only one opposing. I am restoring the qualifications on the basis of WP:Consensus. In the near future I will simply add better sources to this section, which I hope will be more acceptable to all concerned. Palinurus7 (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a grand total of 3 editors. (One of whom is inactive and has been blocked before. Furthermore, I did not discuss the section heading with that person.) I will remove the section heading for the reasons previously stated. There is no rule that requires that much alert about the sources.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, I am going to add more myself (today).....with RS. So that pretty much negates any reason to have that heading. (Since the label for the Heritage Foundation is now present.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Gratitude

Thank you for your contributions to this topic! I find the Nicaraguan Revolution to be fascinating.

Sydneg has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit!†

Sydneg (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)