Talk:Sandinista National Liberation Front/Archive 2

History 1970-1979

Some comments and observations:

After a Cuban reorganization of the FSLN structure and tactics in the 1970s, it began to attract significant support from the country's increasingly politicised peasantry

1) Ironically, we can't give Cuba or the Sandinistas the credit for the increased support among the peasentry.

The Christian Democracy movement was as its height in Latin America. In Nicaragua, the Social Christian Party (PSC), had many followers on the countryside. They were supporters of the establishment of cooperatives, labor unions and opposing the classical liberalism and capitalism.

The Christian Democracy movement gained more and more supporters, even in the universities, where the FSLN traditionally recruited their members. Fonseca criticised the Christian Democracy's demagogy and stated the that the Marxism was the idelogical core of the Sandinismo.

2) The reorganization, and subsequent fragmention of the FSLN.

With a increasing support of the Christian Democracy movement and the failure of the foco theory in Bocay (1963) and Pancasán (1967), the Sandinista leadership put emphasis on the cult of "The New Man", "El Hombre Nuevo".

A true Sandinista had to undergo a "purification ceremony" known as "La Montaña" ("The Mountain"). "La Montaña" was the place where the guerilla was going to arise. "La Montaña" was seen as a process, a rebirth of the person both politically and of social awareness. "El Hombre Nuevo" was going to be made in "La Montaña" - the mountains of Nicaragua, the home of the Sandinista guerilla.

This emphasis on "La Montaña" was going to contribute on the fragmentation of the FSLN.

A new generation of Sandinista activists had grown strong in the cities. This tendency was reinforced by the victory of the Revolutionary Students Front (FER) in the Student Union elections Managua in the late 60's. These new Sandinistas had no official connection with the Sandinista leadership but identified themselves with the FSLN.

In 1974 the FSLN decided to send all new activists in the urban areas to the mountains.

The new activists were politically active in the cities and not very fond of the idea of moving into the mountains. In their point of view, the guerilla in the mountains were more concerned on trying to survive than on actually winning the war against Somoza. This resistance from the Sandinista activists in the city was reinforced by Jaime Wheelock book "Imperialismo y Dictadura" (Imperialism and Dictatorship), an historic analysis of the class struggle and the transformation of the economical structures in Nicaragua.

Wheelock came to the conclusion that due to the industrial expansion in the country in the recent years, a real working class has arose in Nicaragua. And since the historical antagonism has been between the working class and the traditional oligarchy, it was FSLN's duty to build up the revolution with the workers at the forefront.

FSLN's immediate reaction was to ban Wheelock and other leading proletarios. And with that, the Sandinistas split in two factions or "tendencias".

1) The Proletarian Tendency (Proletarios), led by Jaime Wheelock, Luis Carrión and Roberto Huembes that sought to organise urban workers.

2) The GPP, Guerra Popular Prolongada (Prolonged Popular War) faction that promoted "La mística revolucionaria", the revolutionary idealism and devotion towards "La Montaña" and the edification of the new man, "el hombre nuevo". The GPP faction was rural-based and sought long-term "silent accumulation of forces" within the country's large peasant population, which it saw as the main social base for the revolution.

The breaking-up was not an isolated situation that affected only the Nicaraguan progressive forces. It was common phenomenon in whole Latin America mainly due to the fall of the socialistic regime in Chile and the failure of the foco theory.

The foco theory was a concept developed by the Cuban revolutionary leaders Castro and Guevara. The basis of the idea is that it is not necessary to wait until the objective conditions are right before commencing an insurgency. Foco theory argues that a small group of armed insurgents can act as the focal point for discontents and thereby create the conditions for opposition. Guevara's subsequent campaign in Bolivia failed to substantiate the theory, and its successful application remains unique to the Cuban revolution.

Carlos Fonseca returned to Nicaragua in November 1975 from his exile in Cuba in an attempt to mediate between these two factions. He was killed by the National Guard one year later in the Zinica region in Matagalpa, Nicaragua. His body was mutilated and his hands send to Managua for a proper identification.

After Fonseca's death there were several unsuccessful attempts to reunite the two factions of the FSLN. In 1976 with a third faction came into scene led by the brothers Daniel and Humberto Ortega. The "terceristas" (the third way) as they called themselves, was ideologically eclectic, favouring a more rapid insurrectional strategy in alliance with diverse sectors of the country, including business owners, churches, students, the middle class, unemployed youth and the inhabitants of shantytowns. In the practice, this was the "winning strategy" that conducted the FSLN to the victory in 1979.

The terceristas also helped attract popular and international support by organising a group of prominent Nicaraguan professionals, business leaders, and clergymen (known as Grupo de los Doce, "the Twelve"), who called for Somoza's removal and sought to organise a provisional government from Costa Rica.

On January 10, 1978, Pedro Joaquín Chamorro, editor of the anti-Somoza newspaper La Prensa, was assassinated by the National Guard. It sparked a broad uprising against the regime. The Sandinistas led a combination of general strikes, urban uprisings and rural guerrilla attacks. The United States discontinued the military aid to the Somoza regime.

A few months later the opposition merged into the Broad Opposition Front (FAO), integrated by the liberal Nicaraguan Democratical Movement (MDN), the conservative Democratic Liberation Union (UDEL) and the Twelve, the Sandinistas spokesmen.

In August 1978 a group of terceristas disguised as members of Somoza's National Guard stormed the National Palace and took as hostages several members of the Nicaraguan Congress, which was in session at the time of the attack, and Somoza's half brother, José Somoza. The assault of the National Palace was led by Edén Pastora.

After a few days of negotiations the government capitulated to the insurgents demands; freeing of political prisoners, publication in the press and radio broadcasts of FSLN's political communiqué and a $500,000 ransom. The guerrillas, as well as the released prisioners, were flown to exile in Panamá. The streets were full of cheering people on their trip to Las Mercedes airport in Managua for their flight out of the country.

Due to the actual situation in the country, the United States initiated negotiations with Somoza and the FAO. The only proposal in the agenda was that Somoza had to hand the goverment over to a junta with representants from both the National Guard and Somoza's Liberal Party. FSLN considered it to be inacceptable and with that the Twelve broke-up from the FAO and organized the National Patriotic Front (FPN) as an alternative to FAO.

The three factions of the FSLN unified on January 1979. The leadership of the unified FSLN was composed by nine members, three members from each faction.

Somoza refused to negotiate with the oppposition. That position affected FAO - the right-wing opposition, that in contrast to the FPN didn't have any army, and whose power in the future depended on a political solution of the conflict.

The FSLN and the FPN launched a final offensive on June 1979. In a desperate movement, Somoza ordered the aerial bombardment of Nicaraguan cities, killing thousands of civilians and increasing the people's rage towards the regime.

Somoza fled the country on July 17. Following his resignation, Francisco Urcuyo Maliaños was Acting President of Nicaragua for a single day in 1979. Upon taking office, he announced his intention to serve out the remainder of Somoza's term, in violation of an agreement reached some weeks earlier between the government and the Sandinista rebel forces. This announcement provoked a strong reaction from the Sandinistas, other Latin American states, and the Carter Administration in the U.S. Recognizing the untenability of his situation, Urcuyo fled to Guatemala on July 18.

Although the Sandinistas didn't enter Managua and officialy assumed the power until two days later, the 19th July of 1979 is considered to be the official day of the liberation of Nicaragua from the Somoza regime.

--Magicartpro 19:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideologies

This part of the article becomes a bit repetitive since the break-up of the FSLN is explained in the History section. Some passages from the Sandinista Ideologies main article can be featured here.

--Magicartpro 19:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Tag

According to the guidelines on Wikipedia:Disputed statement

The accuracy of a statement may be a cause for concern if:

* It contains unlikely information, without providing references.

The material is not unlieky (as you have yet to provide a source challenging it) and a well known and notable reference has most certainly been provided

* It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.

It has been verified as per the Wikipedia guidelines on Wikipedia:Verifiability which I will quote:

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.

* It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

Well, we are all entitle to our opinions on cetain users, but two other users, Jmable and Viajero have looked over the material in question, see above, and have not commented on it after our discussion.

Your continual insertion of tags is a gross violation of stated policy, and your comparison of Andrew’s work and Red Dawn is a clear case of childish vandalism. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

For others benefit, I want to point out we discussed the exact same passage in July [1], and TDC is merely ignoring the discussion and reinserting this problematic passage. In brief, my problem with the passage stems from a belief that fantastic claims of an octopus-like KGB encirclement of Nicaraguan politics require incredible evidence. A single crank source, which is all TDC offers to buttress this retreaded conspiracy theory, does not qualify. I remind TDC that he is on content revert parole. Are there any sources beside this single defector, who I may add was paid to tell his story? Abe Froman 21:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

For your benefit, I posted THE RELEVANT POLICY. Please abide by it. It is not a single crank source, the US government had been making the allegation that the FSLN were little more than Cuban and Soviet puppets for years. Andrew, as a respected historian, has verified this as has Koehler’s book on the Stasi that I recently read. I realize that I am on content revert, but comparison of Andrew's work to the fictional movie Red Dawn is vandalism as per the policy:

Silly vandalism

Creating joke or hoax articles, replacing existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or adding silly jokes to existing articles is considered vandalism.

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to point out that Red Dawn's movie plot contains Mitrokhin's allegations, over 10 years before he made them. Abe Froman 21:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You are doing it as a joke, as you have offered no citation linking the two. It is vandalism, and will be reverted on site. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I might also add that your insertion of BS disputed tags is also vadalization:

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would we have the movie red Dawn in the article...it is a fiction based movie quite obviously--MONGO 07:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the most recent edit by Torturous Devastating Cudgel adding citations regarding the Mitrokhin material, I have some observations to make:

1. As it is written right now, the citation about Reagan's speaches is not displayed correctly.
2. Citing Reagan as independent, when it comes to Contras and Sandinistas, is not realistic.
3. The wording in "other, however, continue to believe..." introduces in the article the personal dispute. I think it should be changed to something more neutral, such as "other, however, claim..."

--Atavi 10:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In response:

1. Taken care of

2. Reagan is not being cited as independent, he is just being cited as the most prominent individual who said these things to justify his support for the Contras.

3. I removed it completely until a sourced addition, that is relevant to the topic at hand, can be made.

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Citing Reagan without a citation to any speech or document is not appropriate. Further, where in the Stasi book is the allegations supported? Citing an offline resource without even page numbers is not verifiable. Abe Froman 13:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Reagan speech did have a citation, although it was incorrectly formatted, that has been corrected. As far as Koehler’s book, all you need is a library card. I could certainly provide page numbers if that’s all it will take. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the Reagan citation. And as I said before, the documents provided by Mithrokin were not originals, only transcripts of handwritten papers, and have never been authenticated and therefore cannot be cited as a reliable source. On the other hand, I don't know how relevant these KGB allegations are in the Nicaraguan history and if they deserve a entire section dedicated to this topic. --Magicartpro 05:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The originality of the documents have been covered and MI5 has verified them. Using this issue to claim that Andrew is not an WP:RS is a gross misreading of that policy. I have also cited several sources that have commented quite favorably on this work from historians such as Niall Ferguson to book reviews in the NY Times. I think the material works in its own section, or dispersed into the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that we are wasting to much effort and energy to this single topic. I made several observations on the first three sections of this article that can be used to improve it. I don't know if we can reach a consensus on the disputed passages of the article and move on. --Magicartpro 15:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the only dispute is over this topic. Feel free to make any changes to the article you want, but please be sure to cite them in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Torturous Devastating Cudgel, regarding the sentence you deleted I think it's better this way. As for Reagan, you have a point that he is notable, but I still have some reservations. Anyway it's not really important. I agree that as the situation stands right now, the only dispute seems to be regarding the KGB material.

Magicartpro, although I haven't read all of your contributions dilligently, it seems to me that you know a lot about the subject matter and can make significant contributions. So please go ahead.

--Atavi 17:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Better off what way? The way it is right now? I think in this instance Regan or "US Government" could be used interchangeably. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, now it's better. The sentence offers nothing but confusion to the reader, so we're better off without it.

Yes, Reagan and "US Government" could be used interchangeably in this context.

I was catching up with the changes in the article, and have to comment that in my opinion B Raman's assessment of Mitrokhin's material at [2] is relevant. Yes, he is talking about India, but he is also arguing about Mitrokhin's credibility in general. I think that this could get a brief mention.

--Atavi 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Mitrokhin material is supported by one book from the same publisher, and alleged 'speeches' whose text are not presented in an accessible format. Check the links yourself. I think the disputed tag should be put back. I also believe the Raman assessment of Mitrokhin's credibility speaks to the outrageous and unsupported nature of these accusations TDC keeps flogging. Abe Froman 18:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am in the process of adding many many many more. How many you ask .. many. The Raman assessment is one, and it has nothing to do with Nicaragua, there are dozens of others who disagree with them, and there are simple factual errors in it. And Raman most certainly has a dog in this fight considering significant Soviet penetration took place on his watch. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Refs 4,5,6,7 are unverifiable. Given TDC's history on this page, I cannot take his sources on faith. Where are the available links proving they buttress what Mitrokhin says? Abe Froman 18:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Its called a library card, they are free and can open a young mind to a whole new world of possibilities in learning. The references are not unverifiable, at least not by the guidelines of what is verifiable

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers.Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, everyone. I hope I am not too bold to suggest that perhaps we should all make some concessions, so that some concensus can be reached.

In a separate issue, Raman's first three answers have bearing on anything Mitrokhin's material says, including Nicaragua.

--Atavi 18:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Raman's opinion does not deal with Nicaragua at all. As such, the material belongs in Mitrokhin's article, not here. The AHR review is also bieng taken out of context, because from what I can see it is largely supportive.

I have no problem with an alternative opinion being offered, but an opinion on who said it is not appropriate. If Abe can find some information saying that the Soviet and Eastern block intelligence (which seems unlikely with Wolf’s book) was not deeply involved in Sandinistan organization, that’s what belongs here, not a straw man attack on the source. Killing the messenger while ignoring the message in tact is not appropriate. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The criticism of Mitrokhin by the American Historical Review and Raman is not a straw man. It speaks to the credibility of the source. Abe Froman 18:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The AHR article for one, is written by J Arc Getty, and long story short, he thought only a few thousand died during the Soviet Purges. Secondly, from the link, the review appears to be quite favorable. Raman's critique is a strawman, and has been shown to be such above. Also, for the third time, it has nothing to do with Nicaragua, and is limited to India. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The American Historical Review book review calls the book entertaining, not true. I disagree with the "marxist" tag added to the passage, as it is uncited. I also disagree with the removal, twice today [3] [4], of cited content regarding Mitrokhin's credibility. Abe Froman 19:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed nothing, just condensed it, once. The American Historical Review book review is actually quite positive: "The book is a fascinating read. Separate chapters deal with Soviet espionage in individual countries, and the book provides both new detail on known events as well as a few sensational revelations. In correcting old stories, Mitrokhin's research shows". So much for that critic, I suppose. Raman's criticism on Andrew's take of on India is completely without merit as Mitrokhin only verifies what Oleg Kalugin disclosed about India: "the KGB turned down an offer from an Indian minister to provide information in return for $50,000 on the grounds that it was already well supplied with material from the Indian foreign and defence ministries: “It seemed like the entire country was for sale; the KGB — and the CIA — had penetrated the Indian government. Neither side entrusted sensitive information to the Indians, realising their enemy would know all about it the next day.” The KGB, in Kalugin’s view, was more successful than the CIA, partly because of its skill in exploiting the corruption that became endemic under Indira Gandhi’s regime. Suitcases full of banknotes were said to be routinely taken to her house and one of her opponents claimed that Mrs Gandhi did not even return the cases. ". And J Arch Getty is very much a Marxist, he would readily admit this. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Admit this where... By now, after being blocked over 10 times from Wikipedia, TDC should realize he needs to cite sources. Abe Froman 19:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have bent over backwards to cite my sources, and I have cited many. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this page due to a need to rehash out the contents without edit warring. Thanks. Let me know when a consensus is reached.--MONGO 19:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt consensus is ever going to be reached. Is there not another way?

--Atavi 19:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you not protect only the KGB section?

--Atavi 19:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't do a section protect but have suggested that if no consensus can be reached, an article Rfc may help bring in more editors that have more neutrality and can find a peaceful compromise.--MONGO 19:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I 'm sorry but could you spell out Rfc?

Anyway, whatever it is, I think that you should do it, because even users already involved such as Magicartpro seem to have given up on this one. I myself am considering it.--Atavi 19:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

An WP:RfC is a “request for comment” and is designed to bring the opinions of other users not involved in a debate to help end the debate and provide a consensus. I think this will be resolved quickly, so please don’t leave the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

TDC, I am not going to leave permanently.-Atavi 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Crux

It would appear to me that the crux of this current debate is as follows: some editors disagree with the Andrew (and other) material, but don’t have or will not cite a source that can offer a counter argument, so instead they take to criticizing the source. Attack the messenger instead of the message. While this is not disallowed, as long as said critics conform to WP:RS and WP:V, it’s a tangential attempt to fork the article because said critics are not attacking the specific conclusion in the article, only those who present them.

As such, I feel that any criticisms of Andrew and Mitrokhin belong in their respective articles, and criticism of their allegations against the Sandinistas belong in the Sandinista article. As is we are applying broad criticisms to address several narrow allegations.

If there is material that states “no the Soviets did not aid the Sandinistas, or no the Stasi did not organize the Sandinistan secret police, by all means introduce it, but I think it does a great disservice to the article to avoid this and instead focus on attacking the messenger instead of providing contrary information to the message.

Now, Abe, what specifically do you have to offer in an attempt to compromise and remove this protection. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, for the sake of the article, let's transfer the debate on the Mitrokhin archive page, as TDC suggests.

On another note, attack on the person is not pleasant at all, but is legitimate, since in trials this is done on witnesses to establish their credibility.

--Atavi 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the legitimacy of the criticism, as far as it conforms to policy, what I don’t agree with is its inclusion in the article as it forks the content and is related only tangentially to the issue at hand, were KGB and East Block contacts with the FSLN existent. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Is a criticism of a source in general, but not to the specific conclusions that the sources makes on a subject be allowed in an article. For example, “John Doe thinks that Acme chocolate ice cream is very good, but Jane Doe thinks that John Doe is a fraud” should Jane Doe’s criticism of John Doe go into the Acme chocolate ice cream article, or into the John Doe article.

Specifically here, Christopher Andrew, drawing off the work of Vasili Mitrokhin, claims that the KGB recruited a number of top Sandinistan officials, including one of its founders, and held a great deal of influence over the organization and subsequent government. Criticisms has been added that only deals with Mitrokhin (I think), not Andrew or the specific allegation with regard to the FSLN. Should these criticisms go here or in the Vasili Mitrokhin and Christopher Andrew articles?

The KGB didn't play a significant role in the foundation and development of the FSLN guerilla movement before 1979. --Magicartpro 20:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

TDC continues to remove any information noting his 'source' is less than credible. That is what this dispute is about. The Mitrokhin material has never been removed, but TDC continually removed any material which shows its credibility to be less than stellar. He is consoring Wikipedia to push his own political views. It is not the first time, or even the 10th. Abe Froman 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Its been removed several times, and I have explained my reasoning on removal/alterations of your recent additions. Now let other people chime in here and leave it be for a while unless addressed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The KGB's sphere of influence was limited to the Sandinista Army (EPS) and the Nicaraguan secret services (MINT-DGSE), and that was after 1979. Nicaragua wasn't a Socialist state under the Sandinista government.--Magicartpro 20:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that there is some (not much but some) agreement post 1979, but the charges that the Sandinistan organization, movement (or whatever) pre 1979 had a number of high level KGB recruits in it, is that challenged? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. There is no conclusive evidence on such allegations. --Magicartpro 20:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And who, besides you, believes this? I don’t mean to sound condescending, but material that will make its way into the article has to have a notable source. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Mitrokhin archives are not a reliable source. And that's your only source. --Magicartpro 20:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The opinion that Andrew’s collaboration with Mitrokhin is “unreliable” is a minority one at best. I could, and have cited many many positive reviews. And aside from two statements, namely the Red Dawn info and Fonseca as KGB recruit, Andrew is not the sole source. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And every time we add data pointing out Mitrokhin is not reliable, TDC deletes it wholesale. This is what started this dispute originally. Abe Froman 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As said above, the view that he is not reliable, is a small minority. Your own supposed critical source from the AHR even addmitted that the book provides both new detail on known events as well as a few sensational revelations . And as I pointed out above, the criticisms you interject have gone from being solely your own, to not related to the allegations, only poor attempts at character assassination on Mitrokhin na dhe did not even write the book, Andrew did. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not the book, it is the wholesale removal of anything deigning to question its credibility. Why do you feel the need to revert anyone's contribution who questions Mitrokhin and Andrew's credibility? Abe Froman 21:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is not about the book! Its about the FSLN! Criticism of the book belongs on the repective article which is not this one. Either the author is or is not notable enough to be cited here, or he is not, plain and simple. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If we allow open criticism of a notable and well respected sources, AND NOT CONFINE THE CRITICSM/REBUTTAL TO THE CONCLUSIONS THEY REACH, in this article, then we will have to allow it in every article. Imagine every article that contains information from the NY Times, or WAPO, or the Nation Magazine becoming a battle ground on the perceived biases or distortions of these outlets with little if any actual comments on the material cited, only the source of said material. That is the classic definition of a POV Fork. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole KGB conspiracy allegation with Sandinistas planning terrorist raids in the US mainland under the supervision or with the blessing of the Soviet Union and the Communists organizing their own personal army in Central America only proves a profound ignorance of the Nicaraguan history and the whole geo-political situation in Latin America at that time. --Magicartpro 21:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion and you are more that entitled to it. Unfortunately for you, you have yet to provide me with one single solitary citation of someone notable who agrees with that sentiment. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

According to TDC's logic so far, TDC could state the tooth fairy created the FSLN, and the tooth fairy's credibility could never be questioned. TDC, this is a charade. Simply stop removing credibility questions about your questionable sources. Abe Froman 21:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am really having a hard time trying to see the validity of a metaphor that tries to compare an imaginary entity with the Former Chair of the History Faculty at Cambridge University, Official Historian of the Security Service (MI5), Honorary Air Commodore of 7006 Squadron (Intelligence) in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, Chair of the British Intelligence Study Group …… and so on. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that so? Then why does TDC keep removing entries from the American Historical Society, America's largest organization of historians, that question Andrew and Mitrokhin's book? Why is all material questioning its credibility automatically censored by TDC? Abe Froman 21:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Because for one, the AHR article is not nearly as much of a criticism of Andrew’s work as you would like to make it out to be stating that "the book provides both new detail on known events as well as a few sensational revelations" and is "an interesting read". Secondly what little opinion from J Arch Getty is critical of the book, its not about the book cited in this article (review was done on “The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB”, not “The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World”, and in case you did not realize thet are two different books). And lastly, what little criticism is made has nothing to do with Andrew’s writings on Nicaragua. Strike one, strike two, strike three ..... that means you’re out! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the British Intelligence an independent source on Sandinista affairs? --Magicartpro 21:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources need not be independent, they must only pass WP:V and WP:RS. And I would like to know in what context or definition you mean when saying "independent source"? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about a book. Material critical of the book belongs in the authors article. Either the source passes WP:RS and WP:V or it does not. Plain and simple. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This may surprise some of you, but I'm more with TDC than not here. Abe, Mitrokhin is not your hypothetical "tooth fairy". We usually treat Mitrokhin as a generally reliable, but by no means a flawless, source. To my knowledge, the only notably better sources on KGB matters are official archival releases (and, like CIA releases, those aren't flawless either): please tell me if you are aware of other, better "inside the KGB" sources.

I don't think this article needs a general critique of Mitrokhin. On the other hand:

• The text (not just the citations) needs to make is clear which substantive claims are simply "according to Mitrokhin" with no independent substantiation.
• The first mention of Mitrokhin should make it clear that he is an ex-KGB defector, which should be a word to the wise that we are entering slippery turf.
• If there has been specific, citable disagreement from comparably reliable sources, those would emphatically also belong in the article. This would include explicit challenges to Mitrokhin's claims, but also claims that contradict Mitrokhin's claims without mentioning Mitrokhin.

This is also exactly the way I would expect handle a source like, for example, Daniel Ortega himself. We should be clear whose account we are retailing, but (in the absence of a specific, citable, critique or differing account) this is not the place to take up the precise degree of reliability of a generally reliable, but not entirely disinterested, source.

TDC's conduct elsewhere is irrelevant to the question at hand: I certainly have confronted him when I've seen him on the other side of this argument when it suits his political purposes, and I wish he would consistently extend to other editors the same fair treatment he demands for himself. - Jmabel | Talk 21:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The main article is about the FSLN, not the KGB or Mitrokhin. It can be cited in the context as "Carlos Fonseca, a young student and alleged by Mitrokhin to be a KGB recruit". But I don't see the need for an entire section with extended information about alleged conspiracy theories. In that case we have to edit the main British Labour Party article in order to include Mitrokhin's allegations on the fact that many members of the Labour party were KGB agents. And maybe another section with our conclusions on the role that the KGB played in Tony Blair's victory over the conservatives. And the fact that Tony Blair is President Bush's closest allied is maybe an evidence that the United States is on it's way to become a Communist State? Who knows? --Magicartpro 22:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Material relevant to the topic, the FSLN should stay, which clearly this is. As far as the BLP and Labour party, I will work on those when there is time as that is also relevant to that topic. Just because material from one source exists on one article where it applies and does not appear in another article where it equally applies, does not mean that it should not be used in either. This is a very poor argument, and I hope its just bluster and not a serious attempt to debate this subject. Also, if you can find a WP:RS, one as reliable as one the UK's top intel historians to agree with you that the US is on its way to communism then Huzzah! to you good sir. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem that started this is removal of information that could lend doubt to Mitrokhin/Andrew's credibility. It's instantly reverted when TDC sees it. If this stopped, there wouldn't be edit warring. Abe Froman 23:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, what started this was the childish vandalism of comparing this to Red Dawn and the subsequent attempt to turn this into a POV fork by adding unrelated criticisms. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• So whats the deal here? Are there any suggestions as to how to proceed or are we going to argue in circles for another month? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you show me one single Nicaraguan historian that agrees with the Mitrokhin allegations and your assumptions on the leading role of the KGB in the Sandinista revolution, I'll stick to your version of the history. And I don't care if this historian is not independent, if he is right wing or anti-communist. Just show me one single historical analysis from a person familiar with the Nicaraguan history that backs up your history.

One the other hand, the problem is not just Mitrokhin. The whole article is inaccurate. There are gaps in the history, misleading information, people, names and facts that don't match. In short, this article is a joke.

And answering your cuestion, what shall we do? I can't see a real interest from anyone here in having a serious, high-quality, NPOV article on this subject. So do what you want. I give up. --Magicartpro 13:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have said before, I don’t know much about the rest of the article, and if you think that there are serious questions regarding its accuracy, then I believe you. I don’t, however, know any Nicaraguan historians, and don’t read Spanish. I did, however, find an few articles from the “Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affair” from Jiri Valenta that document the pre 1979 relationship between the FSLN and the Soviets, mainly indirectly from the Cubans, but also directly from the Soviets. I do want a high quality, serious NPOV article; but I don’t want information scrubbed because it looks bad for the subject. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The official publication of the largest historian society in America, the American Historical Review, has called Mitrokhin's book of KGB fantasies entertaining, but questioned its credibility. If its to be included with this article, this troublesome credibility question must be reflected. But I guarantee TDC will delete any conflict with his worldview. This is what started the problem in the first place. Abe Froman 14:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Getty’s review is largely uncritical (as you have yet to show me even one critical sentence in the review), for one, and for the second time, Getty is not reviewing the same book that is being cited in the article. And as for questioning credibility, it took Getty until 1995 to admit that more than a “few thousand” died during the Soviet purges in the 30’s. But that’s not really relevant to the article.

When Eden Pastora broke ranks with the FSLN, he spilled the beans on their contacts with the KGB and other Soviet intelligence agencies. For example, he described in the mid 80’s how the 1978 attack on the Nicaraguan National Palace was planned and coordinated through a KGB contact in Managua. Of course many people discounted this because Pastora was now, at this time, an ally of the United States, but rather than “inventing” the claim Andrew’s book simply reinforces it.

As most reviews stated, including Getty’s, Andrews work on Mitrokhin’s material in most cases only confirms long held opinions. And like I said, what started this dispute was you attempt to fork this article with off subject debates about a sources credibility with petty vandalism. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What is ridiculous is these retreaded KGB allegations. Find one Nicaraguan historian who supports them. I doubt that TDC can. This is recycled right wing claptrap, and this is why it cannot be corroborated, and serious historians at American Historical Review are skeptical. The material should be labeled as hearsay, and not historical fact since the purported documents are notes, and the documents themselves have never been seen. [5] Abe Froman 16:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Serious historians" at the AHR actually said the following about a similar book: "The book is a fascinating read. Separate chapters deal with Soviet espionage in individual countries, and the book provides both new detail on known events as well as a few sensational revelations. In correcting old stories, Mitrokhin's research shows" but on this particular book, (you know, the one actually cited in the article) they have said nothing. And while you may be a "persnickety reader", most are not, and most think the quality of the writing as well as the information in the book (which just so happens not to be the same book cited in the article) Abe, my dad gave me some advice that I will now impart on you: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Use caps all you like. Andrew has covered the KGB in other books. The primary source for these KGB allegations in Nicaragua, Mitrokhin, is hearsay. He did not spirit out any documents. He supposedly took notes. The American Historical Review, British Journalists, and NYTimes [6] have each questioned the credibility of these claims. As such, they need to be labeled as hearsay, and not historical fact, as TDC's passages imply. Abe Froman 17:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

They are not being presented as "facts", they all begin with "according to" or alledgedly, which I might add, is the proper way to present material of any kind (aside from obvious undisputed facts like a yard is 36”) into an article. Did you know that, for example, Fonseca and his crew spent six months in 1968 in the DPKR for military training? Who the hell do you thing set that up? And this aint Andrew saying this, its Matilde Zimmermann in her book Sandinista (pg143). You don’t just book a flight to Pyongyang in 1968 unless you are working for someone. The more I dig, the more corroboration I find, this conversation is becoming quite productive. Sorry, abe, but you are not making a really convincing case that any of this material should be excluded. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not say 'excluded.' I said, "marked as hearsay" because the original documents have never been seen. Abe Froman 18:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that’s certainly one step in the right direction. And what, no comments about Fonseca’s holiday in the DPKR? So how, exactly would you modify the following:

According to Andrew, Mitrokhin says during the following three years the KGB handpicked several dozen Sandinistas for intelligence and sabotage operations in the United States. Andrew and Mitrokhin say that in 1966, this KGB-controlled Sandinista sabotage and intelligence group was sent to the U.S.-Mexican border. Their primary targets were southern NORAD facilities the oil pipeline running from El Paso, Texas to Costa Mesa, California. [3] A support group, codenamed SATURN, passed as migrant farm workers to conceal themselves and smuggle in arms caches. In 1967, the reconstituted Sandinista forces suffered another major defeat during a major National Guard offensive. One of the original Sandinista founders, Rigoberto Cruz Arguello, was killed in this attack.

I see this as completely NPOV in the way it is written, but lets hear your suggestion. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph is fine, except for the last sentence. The last sentence does not belong in the KGB passage and should be moved to the next passage. The last sentence is historical fact. The previous passage is an allegation. I would word the first sentence "According to Andrew, Mitrokhin's notes say..." Abe Froman 19:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

All right, then, present something youdont like, and then propose a change. And BTW, I do agree that the last sentence belongs in the history section somewhere. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

TDC: Zimmermann's book on Carlos Fonseca that you quote has been labeled by Nicaraguan historians as inaccurate, full of prejudices and omissions, and non-NPOV. [7]

Onofre Guevara López? The guy is a "nobody" trapped in the revolutionary possibilites of yester year screaming "Viva Fidel", and he is not a historian. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Who's killing the messenger now? --Magicartpro 04:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here is that TDC is trying once again to push his POV into this article. He is going well being adding noncontroversial facts to the article. There is no controversy about the fact that Carlos Fonseca and other Sandinista leaders were ideological believers in some form of Marxism-Leninism (although their versions of Marxism differ significantly from the Soviet version). There is also no dispute over the fact that they were guerrilla revolutionaries who overthrew the Somoza dictatorship by force. If you actually follow the footnotes of Andrews/Mitrokhin, in fact, you'll find that most of the evidence they present in support of these assertions is taken from the writings of people such as Donald Hodges (Intellectual Foundations of the Nicaraguan Revolution) and from the very biography of Carlos Fonseca by Matilde Zimmermann that TDC has sneeringly dismissed here.

The statements in this article that are highly questionable involve the claim by Andrews/Mitrokhin that Fonseca and the Sandinistas were recruited by the KGB for acts of violence and sabotage inside the United States. The evidence that Andrews/Mitrokhin present for this claim is very thin. In The World Was Going Our Way, which contains the largest treatment that they offer of this claim, Carlos Fonseca is only mentioned by name on two pages of the book (pages 41-42). Moreover, the passage in which Andrews/Mitrokhin discuss this charge is at odds with the interpretation that TDC is trying to foist upon this article. On page 42-43 of The World Was Going Our Way, they state:

The main objective of KBG penetration of the Sandinista FSLN was the creation within it of what the Centre called 'a sabotage-terrorism group headed by Manuel Ramón de Jesus Andara y Ubeda (codenamed PRIM), a Nicaraguan surgeon working in Mexico. ...

Andara y Ubeda, however, insisted, no doubt correctly, that his men were too poorly armed and trained to launch attacks against the well-defended US bases. Instead, they engaged in guerrilla and intelligence operations against the Somoza regime, non-military American organizations and anti-Castro Cuban refugees. ... Andara y Ubeda, however, was not at first aware that he was being funded by the KGB. Torres (PIMEN) told him that the money came from members of the 'progressive bourgeoisie' who wished to overthrow the Somoza dictatorship.

What we're left with, then, is the claim that the KGB attempted to recruit the FSLN for attacks on targets inside the United States, but no evidence that the FSLN ever actually undertook any such attacks or ever agreed to do so. In fact, the evidence from Andrews/Mitrokhin suggests that the FSLN expressly refused to do so, and that the individual within the FSLN who the KGB was trying to recruit for that purpose (Ubeda, not Fonseca) didn't even know that the KGB was trying to use him.

If you read Andrews' notes, moreover, he states that "Mitrokhin's notes identify PIMEN as 'one of the leaders of the ISKRA group', but his exact relationship with it is unclear." Furthermore, the Andrews/Mitrokhin books agree with sources like Donald Hodges and Matilde Zimmermann on an important point that undercuts the narrative TDS is trying to create: Although all parties (Andrews/Mitrokhin, Hodges and Zimmermann included) agree that Carlos Fonseca was impressed by the Soviet Union when he visited there in 1957 (and even wrote a pamphlet that celebrated his experience), there were significant differences in philosophy and priorities between the Soviets and Cubans. Fonseca soon became a critic of Soviet-style communism and preferred the Cuban approach.

Finally, Hodges and others have noted that Fonseca was expelled from the Nicaraguan Socialist Party (Nicaragua's Soviet-aligned communist party). His political thinking, like the philosophy of other Sandinistas, combined Marxist ideas with a belief in political pluralism and elements of Sandino's anarcho-syndicalism, all of which were heretical from the point of view of Moscow and the KGB.

In short, the relationship between the Soviet Union, Marxism, the Sandinistas and Carlos Fonseca specifically is considerably more complex and nuanced that the simplistic, accusatory and ideologically tendentious interpretation that TDC is trying to force upon this article. TDC's interpretation is so different from the accounts provided by serious scholars that it doesn't belong in this article and should be rejected under Wikipedia's policy of no original research. Moreover, his habitually bellicose style is tiresome and contrary to Wikipedia policies on civility and etiquette. He has been contributing an average of 30 edits per day to the talk page of this article, most of which consist of sniping, insults and threats aimed at other users. Given his long history of abuse including sock puppetry and other violations of Wikipedia policy, there is no reason why the community should to tolerate this. His behavior is disruptive and, if tolerated, will drive away responsible Wikipedia contributors who lack the patience to go to war with him every time they want to challenge his obsessive POV-pushing. --Sheldon Rampton 06:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Great work. I have been uncomfortable about information in this article being anchored by books that are not available immediately to verify claims. With Sheldon Rampton's information about the book, there is no way we can include TDC's passage stating the KGB masterminded FSLN without noting the credibility of the allegation is tenuous at best, patently false at worst. It probably does not even belong in the article's history section. Perhaps place under a 'Alleged Conspiracy' section? Abe Froman 15:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The charge of NOR is cute and all, but hardly applies here as I am most certainly not advancing a theory, or stringing together disparate pieces of information to do so. The notion that the FSLN leadership was, in no small part, being unduly influenced from Havana and Moscow is not an opinion that is solely mine and I have gone to great lengths to cite a large number of sources who also believe this to be the case. You should re read the section on WP:NOR so you don’t make this mistake again.

It is certainly true that there are people other than TDC who have thought that the FSLN was "unduly influenced from Havana and Moscow." However, that is not what is in dispute here. What is in dispute is TDC's attempt to insert the claim that the FSLN leadership was used by the KGB to set up sabotage operations aimed at targets on U.S. soil. TDC certainly knows that this is what is in dispute.

As for the reason that I spend so much time on the talk pages, its because in certain articles a good deal of discussion is needed to break away from the dominant POV of an article. An article like this does not draw upon a wide number of users, and it would appear that the majority have a sympathetic POV towards the Sandinistans. In a larger more heavily edited article, like say Julius Rosenberg, a large number of users with varying POV’s have edited the article and formed something closer to a balanced entry on the subject.

As to your citation from the book regarding the KGB’s recruitment of FSLN members, you did not look at the relevant passages, only sneakily pieced together select passages to reinfoce your argument, and had you cited the contents on page 43 you would have seen that this was not just an operation that was “proposed” but had in fact been implemented.

With the threatened collapse of the Soviet “bridgehead” in Cuba, the KGB’s grand strategy conceived in 1961 to orchestrate “armed uprising against pro-Western reactionary governments” in Latin America seemed in tatters. The Centre’s early optimism about prospects for a Sandinistan revolution in Nicaragua had faded away. During the 1960’s the Centre was more interested in using FSLN guerillas in operations to reconnoiter sabotage targets in the southern United States than in helping them prepare for a revolution in Nicaragua. In 1966 a KGB sabotage and intelligence group (DRG) based on the ISKRA guerilla group “was formed” on the Mexican-US border with support bases in the area of Ciudad Juarez, Tiajuana, and Ensenada. Its leader, Andara y Ubeda (PRIM), traveled to Moscow for training in line F operations. Among the chief sabotage targets were American military bases, missile sites, radar installations, and the oil pipeline (codenamed START) which ran from El Paso Texas to Costa Mesa California. Three sites on the American coast were selected for DRG landings, together with large-capacity dead drops in which to store mines, explosives, detonators, and other sabotage materials. A support group codenamed STAURN was tasked with using the movements of migrant workers (braceros) to conceal the transfer of agents and munitions across the border.

The following: Andara y Ubede, however, insisted, no doubt correctly, that his men were too poorly armed and trained to launch attacks against the well-defended US bases. Instead, they engaged in guerrilla and intelligence operations against the Somoza regime, non-military American organizations and anti-Castro Cuban refugees. ... has nothing to do with the operations inside the US and was in reference to Ubede’s refusal to launch attacks against the "well-defended US bases" (referring to raids on US business and financial interest in Nicaragua to in Nicaragua from Mexico.)

He later traveled to Moscow for his training in the American sabotage operations, so how in God’s name you could claim that he rejected to do it, and that he was unaware that the KGB was behind it? Your stringing together of entirely disparate sentences which have absolutely nothing to do with each other is either woefully ignorant or an underhanded attempt to use a source to imply something opposite to the conclusions of said reference (and you accuse me of NOR).

This intentional attempt to string together segments of source to make it appear the source is saying something that it clear does not, makes me much less willing to believe you are willing to engage in a good faith discussion of the material.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. There are two periods of time under discussion here. The first period of time, according to pages 41-42 of The World Was Going Our Way by Andrew/Mitrokin, was 1961-64, when they state that the KGB was attempting to influence the FSLN and to support its efforts aimed at overthrowing the Somoza dictatorship. They state that Carlos Fonseca visited the Soviet Union in 1957 and wrote enthusiastically about what he saw. This is certainly true. It's one of the points that Andrew/Mitrokhin cribbed from writers like Hodges (although Zimmermann wrote about it too in her biography of Fonseca). During that period, they state, the main objective of the FSLN, which the Soviets no doubt wanted to support, was "the organization of a partisan detachment on Nicaraguan territory" for the purpose of overthrowing the Somoza dictatorship. Andrew/Mitrokhin claim that the KGB supported a group tied to the Sandinistas called ISKRA and led by Andara y Ubeda (not Carlos Fonseca), which they tried to induce to attack U.S. bases on Nicaraguan soil, but Ubeda declined to do so.

The second period, from 1964-1966, came after "the demoralized guerrilla force was routed with heavy loss of life by the Nicaraguan National Guard." During that period, claim Andrew/Mitrokhin (p. 48), they tried to reconstitute a "sabotage and intelligence group from the remnants of Andara y Ubeda's guerrillas." The passage you cite, from p. 53, states that Ubeda traveled to Moscow for training so that this remnant of his guerrillas could be used to assist the sabotage effort of which you speak. However, you'll not that Carlos Fonseca is nowhere mentioned as part of ISKRA during this second period. Even if Andrew/Mitrokhin are correct, Andara y Ubeda is a much less notable figure within the Sandinista movement than Carlos Fonseca, and it is you, not me, who has blurred this distinction. (In fairness to you, I should not that Andrew/Mitrokhin are somewhat unclear in their brief discussion of the subject in The Sword and the Shield, although they are more clear in The World Was Going Our Way.

I should note, moreover, that the footnote for this claim in The World Was Going Our Way simply references "vol. 6, ch. 5, part 5" of the Mitrokhin archives. This indicates that it comes from the "vol-series" of Mitrokhin's materials, consisting of "typed volumes containing material drawn from numerous KGB files, mostly arranged by country, sometimes with commentary by Mitrokhin." In addition to the fact that Andrew/Mitrokhin give sketchy details to support their claim about Andara y Ubeda's alleged involvement in sabotage-related surveillance of U.S. territory, the footnote doesn't give us enough information to know even basic facts about the provenance of this information, such as the name or job title of the KGB operative who allegedly wrote it. Was it someone who had direct contact with Ubeda and was in a position to know? Was it some third-hand synthesis in some bureaucrat's report? Or was it simply Mitrokhin himself, making a commentary? It's doubtful that it was someone who had direct contact with Ubeda, since as Andrew/Mitrokhin admit in one of the notes that I quoted earlier, Mitrokhin seems unable even to clarify the relationship between the ISKRA and Edelberto Torres Espinosa (code-named PIMEN), the alleged KGB agent who was supposedly the KGB's contact within ISKRA: "Mitrokhin's notes identify PIMEN as 'one of the leaders of the ISKRA group', but his exact relationship with it is unclear."

What real historians understand (and TDC obviously does not) is that "Every piece of evidence and every source must be read or viewed skeptically and critically," with attention to questions such as, "Did the recorder have firsthand knowledge of the event? Or, did the recorder report what others saw and heard? Was the recorder a neutral party, or did the creator have opinions or interests that might have influenced what was recorded?" The information provided by Andrew/Mitrokhin is too sketchy and incomplete to enabling even asking, let alone answering, these questions about this particular claim. And it's rather ironic that TDC, who obviously views the KGB as an institution that cannot be trusted (an assessment I share), is determined in this case to insist that Wikipedia should treat as unassailable fact a claim that is supported only by Mitrokhin's alleged copy of a document written on an unspecified date by an unnamed individual within the KGB.

A bit of background on this BTW, the same time the Soviets were using their FSLN contacts for they were also using agents in Canada for similar missions in the Northern US, like Flathead and Hungry Horse dams. The FSLN infiltration units the Soviets sent to Texas and the south were to reconnoiter and familiarize themselves with the targets, not to act on them. This was to be done in the event of hostilities between the Soviets and the United States, and not as some unprovoked act of aggression. No one is alleging that the FSLN units used in this capacity were there to destroy anything, only that thee were preparing themselves for it when their Moscow paymasters gave the order (kind of like Red Dawn. Most of this was done under the supervision of the GRU, and not the KGB, and as there have been no high level GRU defectors, the true extent of these operations is not known. When asked about these operations former KGB Col. Oleg Gordievsky said "It all rings very true, I personally participated in digging ground in [Stockholm] and putting radio equipment into the ground."

Furthermore Andrew’s use of sources like Zimmermann and Hodges was for background on the individuals mentioned, not to help establish their ties with Moscow, and furthermore, he cites Zimmermann and Hodges exactly once. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Andrews cites Zimmermann twice. Moreover, he quotes Hodges precisely for the purpose of establishing Fonseca's ties with Moscow and his enthusiasm for Fidel Castroy. The footnote to Hodges' book references the passage from Andrew/Mitrokhin which begins, "In 1957, at the age of twenty-one, Fonseca had been the only Nicaraguan to attend the Sixth World Youth Festival in Moscow..."

---

What historians understand, and what I apparently TDC doesn’t understand ….. what are you talking about? Andrew is one of the most well respected cold war intelligence historians around. He is evaluating the strength of the underlying material and of his source, not me. While it may be appropriate to judge the reliability of certain sources, we don’t extend that to judging the reliability of sources' sources. As a well respected historian, we have to rely on Andrew’s judgment on how seriously he investigated and vetted this information.

So, are you really going to say that since this historical work “may be” clouded with bias or second hand material, that it should be excluded? Almost all historic work is clouded with these problems issues and they aren’t made to be nearly as contentious as they are here. Far too many articles are ripe with material from sources who fail any of the above test (Gladio cough cough), but since they are popular amongst certain groups and often repeated, they are taken seriously.

This is really getting pointless, but here goes. On Fonseca:

The FSLN leader, Carlos Fonseca Amador, codenamed GIDROLOG (hydrologist) was a trusted KGB agent.

Furthermore an agent is described as follows: an individual who agrees to cooperate secretly with an official intelligence representative, and to carry out consciously systematically and secretly his intelligence assignments

This was not from Zimmerman, the only information from Zimmerman was taken to provide some context on who Fonseca was (one paragraph of background) not his relationship with Soviet intelligence.

But more, since your truncated and hobbled together quotes don’t clarify the material at hand.

Shelepin reported to Khrushchev in July 1961

In Nicaragua .. at present time – via KGB agents and confidential contacts PIMEN, GIDROLOG and LOT – the KGB is influencing and providing financial aid to the Sandio (Sandinista) Revolutionary Front and three partisan detachments which belong to the International Revolutionary Resistance Front, which works in coordination with its friends (Cuban and Soviet Block Intelligence services). In order to obtain weapons and ammunition, it is proposed that an additional $10,000 be allocated to these detachments from KGB funds.

The main early objective of KGB penetrations of the FSLN was the creation within it of what the Centre called ‘a sabotage-terrorism group’ headed by Ubeda (codenamed PRIM), a Nicaraguan surgeon living in Mexico. On 22 November 1961 Aleksandr Sakharovsky, the head of the FCD, reported to Semichastny the KGB Chairman:

In accordance with the long-term plan for the KGB’s intelligence operations in Latin America and Decision No. 191/75-GS of the highest authorities dated 1 August 1961 (Shelepin’s third world strategy), our residency on Mexico has taken measures to provide assistance in building up the national liberation movement in Nicaragua and creating a hotbed of unrest for the Americans in this area. The Residency, through the trusted agent GIRDILOG (Fonseca) in Mexico, selected a group of Nicaraguan students, (12 people), headed by Nicaraguan patriot doctor PRIM (Ubeda), and arranged for their operation training. All operations with PRIM’s group are conducted by GIRDILOG in the name of the Nicarguan revolutionary organization ‘The Sandinista Front’ of which he, GRIDILOG, is the leader. The supervision of the group’s future activities and financial aid given to it will also be provided through GIRDILOG. At the present time PRIM’s group is ready to be dispatched to Honduras, where it will undergo additional training and fill out its ranks … In order to equip PRIM’s group and provide for its final training in combat operations, assistance amounting to $10,000 is required. The highest authorities have given their consent to using the sum indicated for these purposes. I request your approval.

He could not be more clear on Fonseca’s relationship with both Ubeda and his activities. Are we going to go round and round here, with you distoring material and me correcting you, or are we going to agree on its inclusion in the article (if in a modified form), or does this go to mediation? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

<---------------------------- So what’s the deal here people? Is this over? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to interject when I've absent for a while, but it seems to me that for days nothing new has been contributed to the debate, but neither side seems to concede to the other's point. The article can't stay protected for ever, so some other action might be called for. I'm not very familiar with procedures so as to make a concrete proposition--Atavi 13:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is always a request for mediation. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection - 1

I would like to restore some material that got clobbered during the recent fights; normally, I would just do this, but I see that the article is currently protected, so I would like consensus.

If you examine this diff you can see that we lost three paragraphs near the start of the article that—give or take a few copy edits—seem to me like a good general introduction to the subject. I can't quickly sort out where in the contentious edit history they were removed (or, more likely, removed, re-added, removed again, etc.). Does anyone have any problem with my restoring these paragraphs? Given the protection, I will allow at least 48 hours for objections. - Jmabel | Talk 00:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Although this was not the reason the protection was brought in, and I'm not completely sure if this is the case, I must say some of the material was deleted by Magicartpro because it was inaccurate. I think the intention is to replace it with better material. I think you should wait to hear from Magicartpro to decide if you'll put that back.

Of course you could always put it back for now, and it can be deleted again, when the new material is ready.---Atavi 16:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So Magicartpro, are you out there? It's been over a week and you haven't said boo. - Jmabel | Talk 04:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This was written by Magicartpro in the protection-2 section. I have moved it:

Jmabel: As Atavi said, I removed the three paragraphs at the start of the article, mainly because there was inaccurate information on it. I explained that on the talk page before the edit. The rest of the article contains also inaccurate info (see my comments on 1961-1970 and 1970-1979 sections). I have more comments and suggestions for the rest of the article, but I prefer not to publish them until I know that there is a real interest from you guys in improving this article, and not just editing and restoring old material. --Magicartpro 17:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

--Atavi 11:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't really written much of the article, so I'm not the one whose consent is needed. I've just tried to keep the article from being actively damaged by political squabbling. - Jmabel | Talk 07:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection - 2

It looks to me like the current version is basically TDC's and it looks like in places it is written with evident animus against the Sandinistas. For example, the section Sandinista human rights record gives no context of either an ongoing war or the human rights records historically typical of the country or contemporaneously typical of the region. The Sandinista regime was flawed in this respect, but compared to anything else around it, it was a beacon of light, and groups like Amnesty generally acknowledged that even when they criticized the Sandinistas. - Jmabel | Talk 00:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"written with evident animus"??? When the first paragraph is basically fellating them? Riiiight. As usual at Wikipedia, every political subject which isn't hard-core Marxist or Meccan dogma just isn't good enough for some.--Mike18xx 06:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, I did not write the human rights section, so do what you want with it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. As I'm sure you know, when it's churning this much, it's hard to tell who did what. I'll probably lay off of this section until this is unprotected; the other one, though, I'd like to fix ASAP.

Is anyone working toward getting some consensus on other things here so that we can unprotect the article? - Jmabel | Talk 04:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Sandinista regime was flawed in this respect, but compared to anything else around it, it was a beacon of light, and groups like Amnesty generally acknowledged that even when they criticized the Sandinistas.

Given the political nature of Amnesty (U.S. and allies=evil, Soviets=? and leftist third world=good), that isn't a very impressive arguement. 65.185.190.240 22:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Sandinistas certainly weren't "beacons of light" to the Misquito indians whom they slaughtered...unless you're counting muzzle flashes.--Mike18xx 06:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an editor here, and not knowledgable about this topic, but I have some observations. The KGB section is at best confusing and poorly written. I am not sure what is being alleged - that the KGB formed the FSLN from nothing, or tried to use an already existing orgaization for its own ends. The final two paragraphs of the section, where the disputants throw references at each other, are not useful. KGB ties to this organization certainly seem relevant to the article. The biggest problems are readibility and making it clear where the information comes from, and including something brief about why this source may be contested.--MikeThicke 23:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The allegation that the KGB formed the FSLN from nothing is false. The KGB ties to the Sandinista organization before 1979 are irrelevant to the article. --Magicartpro 09:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Weare not saying that the KGB formed the FSLN from nothing, and no where in the article does it say that. And since the article does mention other activities before 1979, this would fall under that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite the anti-communist nature of the Somoza regime, the Moscow controlled Nicaraguan Socialist Party (PSN) was politically active in the 60's and 70's. In fact, the expulsion of prominent leaders of the PSN and the consequent formation of the Partido Obrero Socialista (later, Communist Party of Nicaragua) in 1967 was because of the position of a group of radicals within the PSN who opted for armed struggle against the Somoza regime. Moscow didn't sponsor the armed struggle in Nicaragua in the 60-70's, in fact, they were against it. --Magicartpro 14:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And that is exactly the kind of material (written in a less definitive way mind you) that needs to be in the article to provide a contrary POV to the material above. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough both the material above, as well as the material currently in the article could very well be true. How is that you ask? How could the Soviet government not be supporting the FSLN pre 1979 and the KGB/GRU was supporting the FSLN pre 1979? The KGB often acted independently from the politburo, with the politburo not informed, and usually not interested in many of the operations of Soviet intelligence agencies. Some of this has to do with the sheer power that the KGB/GRU had in the Soviet Union, and some of it was residual fear dating back from the activities of the Checka and the NKVD. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The Present Day.

This is very much a live issue. Elections are due in Nicaragua this Autumn and altho it is close it is possible that the FSLN will be returned to power. Naturally the USA is seeking to influence these elections and interfering with dire threats from the US ambassador if the FSLN are returned to power. The fact that the USA is still interfering in the internal affairs of Nicaragua now when the USSR is history gives the lie to the idea that it was Soviet influence that it feared in the country. What the USA feared - and still fears - is a negative effect on the profits of US-based fruit multinationals Del Monte and United Fruit(Dole). Doubtless the apologists for US imperialism here will soon find some 'source' showing the influence of Al Qaida on the FLSN and Daniel Ortega having tea with Osama Bin Laden. I know that the page is currently protected but there should be some mention of these coming elections.SmokeyTheFatCat 09:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Split between MRS and FSLN was barely noticeable at the polls. Had the opposition been united FSLN would of had never been re-elected. Daniel Ortega has never polled higher than 45%. Can anyone contribute to this article in the state of the Nicaraguan economy??? It's in shabmles thanks to the FSLN. People where dirt poor before, but now it's ridiculous, People are struggling to even eat Gallo Pinto because it's so expensive... Failed independance of national institutions. FSLN Complete sontrol of the CSE & CSJ, both the highest electoral and judicial courts of the land. CAN ANYONE HELP ME OUT WITH THIS BIASED ARTICLE???

Sandinista Ideologies

I'm going to rewrite this section for two main reasons:

1) The split of the FSLN into three factions is already explained here.

2) It's inacurrate to classify these three factions as separate Sandinista ideologies as the difference between them lied more in tactical and strategical issues rather than political ones. Magicartpro 22:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would object.

You might also want to take a look at the article Sandinista Ideologies.

--Atavi 07:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

There is a paragraph that makes true but (in my view) misleading statements:

The Sandinista government also repressed press outlets it deemed too critical of its policies. The most notable examples were the Catholic church's Radio Católica and opposition newspaper La Prensa. La Prensa was especially singled out for abuse. It was routinely censored and shut down, and its editors harrassed by the state security apparatus.

Given that both of these media organs were calling for the overthrow of the government in wartime, it is utterly unsurprising that they were censored. From what I remember from the time, it is more remarkable how long they were tolerated and how far they were allowed to go before they were shut. If we are taking up this topic in this article, then this short paragraph does not do it justice. - Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The subject heading is censorship. Shutting down opposition press and radio stations, irrespective of whether such actions are "unsurprising" or not, clearly qualifies as such.

And as an aside, I would note that there are plenty of examples of governments in wartime that do NOT close down opposition press outlets. Last I checked, despite being involved in a war in Iraq, the U.S. government hasn't shut down any Marxist organs. Your rationalization of the censorship, and even more so, your comment that seems to actually laud the Sandanistas for "tolerating" opposition and "allowing it to go on" (!) smacks much more of apologia than an attempt to provide context for the Sandanista campaign of oppression.Ritwingr 07:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comparison might be apt if America was a pathetic third world nation and the Marxist "organs" being funded were taking in millions of dollars from a superpower. Do you honestly think that if, say, the KGB had bankrolled the Washington Post that the United States wouldn't have shut down the paper and/or arrested the journalists on the KGB payroll?

The Sandinistas did get some criticism for periodically shutting down La Prensa, so that situation deserves mention. I'm not cool with the word "abuse" in the quote, as it's debatable whether it was abusive to periodically shut down La Prensa for what Ritwingr would surely label treason if an American did it to the American government. --MarkB2 05:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that the British government would have allowed Nazi propaganda mongers to run a daily newspaper in Britain in 1940? Of course not. The FSLN were just as tolerant as Winston Churchill. SmokeyTheCat 15:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The election of November 2006

In this Daniel Ortega of the FSLN regained the presidency of Nicaragua.

I added this single line to the main article. I very much hope that it won't be deleted as it is obviously relevant. SmokeyTheFatCat 17:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone can also insert some information here about Mr. Ortega's cozy relationship with Tehran. The slant on this article makes him seem like such a cuddly little teddy bear who has been wronged all these years by the big, bad United States. Maybe we can begin to insert some truth here.

The Rise of the FSLN

The level of detail provided in the paragraph on the hostage situation strikes me as one that needs sourcing, especially since this is narrative that has popped up in the last couple of days. I tagged it. Also, does anyone have the name of the minister whose home it was? 146.243.4.157 20:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"iron fisted rule"

I replaced that wording in industrial development with administration, since I think calling the previous elected Sandinista government of 1984-1990 iron fisted is complete POV. - Chris Gilmore

Missing Main article to subtopic

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FSLN_human_rights_abuses&action=edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front#Sandinista_human_rights_record
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.39.190.133 (talk • contribs) 12 November 2006.

CIA propaganda does not adhere to NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.255.184 (talk • contribs) 13 November 2006.

Mitrokhin archive

I added material to the criticism of the Mitrokhin passage because the archive is passed off as fact, when that is far from clear. The archive is not primary source, and mainstream historians from the American Historical Review have questioned these single-sourced claims. Abe Froman 20:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have restored deleted material because no discussion was made as to its removal on this dicussion page. Abe Froman 20:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

J Arch Getty wrote the review, my version is the condensed version that has been in the article for quite some time now [8]. Your version mentions Getty’s name as well as his comments twice, repeating them. Secondly, it is not correct to say that "mainstream historians blah blah" when you have only been able to cite one who actually holds this view. Lastly, this is not the page to debate a source for the article when that source had an article on it already. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The American Historical Review is the mainstream society for historians. Thus the passage deserves the appelation "mainstream." Getty wrote it, but it also represents the view of the American Historical Review. Lastly, passing this archive as fact when serious questions to its validity exist among mainstream historians is uncyclopedic, and must be noted. Why are the direct quotations from the American Historical Review removed by Torturous Devastating Cudgel? This editing seems tendentious to a high degree. Abe Froman 20:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The version I reverted to was the concensus agreed upon by the editors, including yourself apparently, and has been the stable verison of this section for two months. The rest is explained on the Mitrokinh Archive talk page. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The version I edited with sourced material did not deserve reversion, as TDC has not shown the information to be incorrect or improperly sourced. Passing this archive off as fact is not supported by the mainstream historians in this country, as reported by the American Historical Review. Maintaining the passage in its current state is unencyclopedic. It will change. Abe Froman 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As Andrew passes both WP:V and WP:RS, discussion of the source in this article, when an article already exists for it, is not proper. And, for the record, you have cited exactly one historian whose comments are not as critical as they are being portrayed in this article. As noted in the talk history of this article I have cited over a dozen of sources, historical, journalistic and political who are all very favorable towards Andrews research and the value of Mitrokhin’s material. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

TDC is missing the point. The existence of the entire passage is not at stake. The removal of quotes from the American Historical Review regarding skepticism toward Mitrokhin's claims is the issue. If TDC would discontinue removing cited material, which even he is quoting from, we would not have this mess. Abe Froman 20:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

J Arch Getty is the source of the material, not the AHR (just thought I would clear that up). It is unprecedented to have such a lengthy debate about a source in an article not on that source. There exists a mention to both Getty's and Raman's comments and that should suffice. We could just skip this here dog and pony show and take this right to mediation or even arbitration, you behavior here towards me is getting a bit out of hand.

Classic. Blame the victim. Anyway, TDC quotes from the same article he is simultaneously afraid of quoting, this has taken a turn for the weird. The skeptical passages from the American Historical Review are germane to the topic, and if TDC wants arbitration or mediation, I welcome it. Abe Froman 21:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have quoted the article in balance. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that at least a couple of sentences about the doubts surrounding the Mitrokhin archive would be appropriate here since the article cites the archive as (part of) the basis for connecting the FSLN to the KGB. There seems to be more specific criticism of the archive here then in the Mitrokhin archive article itself, so maybe some of the specific would be better off there. Take a look at the opening sentences of the KGB section too, some copyediting is needed there ("another competing group"? another compared to what and competing against whom?) It doesn't flow well from the preceeding history section either, jumping back to 1961. Thatcher131 02:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Comment self-deleted. Stone put to sky 06:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the "Relationship with the KGB" area cleaned up. As it is, there is little mention of the skepticism with which most of the world views Mitrokhin's material, nor of the many discrepancies which surround the U.S. government's accusations in that regard. As the material is currently presented, it appears that there are only two people in the world who are skeptical about the authenticity of the Mitrokhin material (when in fact it's more like 20,000), and that there are no questions about the veracity or motives of the U.S. government's "evidence". While the passage is couched in terms of "According to", the rhetoric gives center stage to Mitrokhin's assertions -- which many believe are sheer fantasy -- while giving no time whatsoever to the challenges those assetions have met with. For the record, i don't think this is a place where we need to get into a deep investigation regarding the questions surrounding Mitrokhin's material; but there needs to be a much stronger clarification of the considerable questions surrounding the material, as well as the many objections to the U.S. Government's material of the time (many of which originated from within the U.S. government itself). Stone put to sky 06:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

TDC is at it again. Getty's commenting on Mitrokhin's fantastic claims meets WP:CITE and WP:RS, but TDC deletes it as anathema to his political worldview. This is POV editing at its worst. Abe Froman 19:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A, Getty only addresses Mitrokhin's claims in general, nothing specific on these, B, and article on the Mitrokhin Archive already exists, and that’s where critical information goes, and thats why it don’t belong here.

And for the love of God, I am right here, so stop addressing me in the third person. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the Mitrokhin material is disputed, it is improper to present it as fact in this article. The Getty information is a WP:RS source for presenting this dispute to the reader. Abe Froman 19:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sandinistas were a coalition of disparate political groups

The article is misrepresenting the Sandinistas as strictly composed of the Junta that later came to be led by Daniel Ortega. This is wrong. The Sandinistas were composed of several different groups which -- with considerable help from the U.S. -- eventually splintered apart in violence against each other, but have since operated together under the auspices of the political system devised by the original coalition. The article should reflect that, but it doesn't currently do so.

The article should clearly indicate that the first group to operate under the "Sandinista" name was that of Eden Pastora, which predated the FSLN. After the FSLN was formed, they joined with Pastora and turned over military leadership to him. Later, the Sandinistas were joined in their fight by business leaders and moderate politicians who opposed the dictatorship. The article currently gives the false impression that the Sandinistas started with FSLN members, and that this group alone has comprised its core group. This is simply false. Stone put to sky 04:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If i don't hear anything back on this, then i'll take it as an accession and start to re-work the introduction in a couple of days. Sister-in-law's getting married tomorrow. Stone put to sky 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Stone:

Pastora's group was known as Frente Revolucionario Sandino (FRS) and was founded in 1957. Pastora abandoned the armed struggle in 1963 after an amnisty and becomes member of the Nicaraguan Conservative Party (PCN), in oppposition to Somoza.

After a short stay in prision in 1967 Pastora integrates the FSLN for the first time. That year, the Sandinistas suffered an historical defeat in Pancasán, and Pastora goes into exile. He returned to Nicaragua and to the FSLN two years later and remained there until 1973 when he abandoned the armed struggle once again and moves to Costa Rica. In 1976 he joined the FSLN for the last time. In 1981 he abandoned the FSLN for the third time and goes into exile. He later formed ARDE, a military opposition to the Sandinista government.

Remember also that Pastora was a "tercerista" and the military leader of that tendency was Humberto Ortega who later became chief of the Sandinista Army. --Magicartpro 18:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Granted, everything. However, this article is about the "Sandinistas/FSLN"; Pastora's group was the first one known as "Sandinistas" and it was from this group that the FSLN adopted the nomiker. Similarly, the fact that Pastora ascended to the status of "Comander Zero" says a great deal: Zero comes before even "the first". Pastora and his group represent a stage in the evolution of the people's movement that became the "Sandinistas" we think of today.

I have no problem with pointing out that the FSLN eventually came to be the only Sandinistas; but the Sandinistas of the '50's - '70's, the Sandinistas of the early '80's, the Sandinistas of the early '90s, and the Sandinistas of today represent four phases of a single movement, none of which are so clearly defined from their predecessor that we may comfortably say they are distinct. The name "Sandinsta" and the movement it represents has undergone steady and continuous change over these last five decades. It is undeniable that the Sandinistas of today are an entirely different group than the Sandinistas of the early '70's or mid-'80's, and wrong to say that the group got it's start with the FSLN. Stone put to sky 16:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Stone:

1) The "Sandinistas" in Nicaragua have far more history and are much, much older than Pastora himself. Even today, if you travel to Madriz or Nueva Segovia (in northern Nicaragua), there are people that say that they fought with Sandino, or that their father did. And they have called themselves Sandinistas their whole life. The word "Sandinista" was not invented by Pastora.

2) In guerilla warfare, when a commando performs a military action, such as a raid, the members of that group calls themselves by a number, instead of their name or pseudonym. Pastora was known as "Comander Zero" after the hostage take in the National Congress because he was the leader of that unit. He was number "0" and he was a Comander (Comandante), therefor the name; "Comander Zero". Dora Maria Tellez, for example, was the second in charge (number "1"), so she was Comander 1. The other members of the commando had the numbers 2, 3, 4 and so on.

3) The first Sandinista political group (political, not military) was the MNN (Movimiento Nueva Nicaragua), founded, among others, by Carlos Fonseca and a group of veterans from Sandino's army (Ejército Defensor de la Soberania Nacional, EDSN). One of them was Santos López, a colonel from Sandino's army. The MNN evolved in the FLN and the FLN evolved in todays FSLN. Santos López was one the founders of the three organizations and the first military instructor of this new generation of Sandinistas that had their base in Honduras.

4) You cannot describe the Sandinista ideology as a process in four phases (or decades). The Sandinista ideology is much more than that. I agree that the members of the FSLN are not the only Sandinistas in Nicaragua. There are marxists, social democrats, social christians, liberals and even conservatives that define themselves as Sandinistas. We have today two parties elected to the National Assembly that are Sandinistas (FSLN and MRS). We have also a dozen of political movements, such as Movimiento por el Rescate del Sandinismo, Movimiento de Reflexión, Generación del 80, etc. that are organizations with a strong Sandinista ideology. --Magicartpro 05:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Great! This is all excellent stuff, none of which i myself personally knew! Why in the world isn't this in the article?

This is the *main* article on "the Sandinistas". If you would like to split the FSLN off from it, then i think that would be appropriate. However, we should first build a case for that move here on this page, by introducing substantiated sources for the material that you are implying just above.

I, for one, am very happy to see that someone so informed as yourself about the Sandinista movement is helping to edit this page, now. Since this is the main page for "Sandinistas", where do you think we should start? Stone put to sky 05:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Stone. It's a common mistake to associate Sandinistas=FSLN, maybe we should redirect Sandinistas to Sandinista Idelogies and expand that article, because this is after all an article about the FSLN. I'll try to find some sources in English on the web. Cheers! --Magicartpro 09:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to simply name it "The Sandinista Movement" -- or make that last one plural, if you like -- because "ideologies" is a loaded word (considered "Marxist" by most people in the U.S.). Similarly, i think a lengthy explanation here in *this* article must be included to explain the relationship of the FSLN to the greater Sandinista movement. But yeah -- i think that we've hit on a very direct way to obviate a lot of the disagreement on this page. Stone put to sky 06:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a separate article for the FRS, to begin with? --Soman 08:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the FRS should also have its own page.

I don't have a problem developing separate pages, but i think we would best be served using this process:

• Start adding an "introductory" section just on the Sandinista movement, with the admission that it will quickly get too large
• Let it remain too large for a while, and use the "introductory" section to work with and help clarify the relationship and role of the FSLN / FRS / etc in this movement, and then
• After we're pretty comfortable with the basic structure, split everything off into separate pages

That would save us a lot of back-and-forth grief, i think. If we split the pages to begin with and then start editing them separately, i think a lot of information will get reduplicated unecessarily, there's a much greater chance of either article getting uncomfortably skewed towards a particular political viewpoint, and we're likely to see the total editing force that's currently present split up into different groups that rarely communicate.

So i'd rather see us work here first and then do the split, but that's just my opinion. Stone put to sky 13:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, "Capitalism" is also a loaded word where I come from (LOL). I don't know if we are talking about the same thing here... 1) The Sandinista ideology; anti-imperialism, social and economical equity etc. and 2) The "Sandinista Movements"; FRS, FSLN, MRS...

The problem, as I see it, is the way this discussion started: The Sandinistas were a coalition of disparate political groups. I think we must, in the first place, draw a line between the political and the military organizations. The FRS, such as the FROC and the FUAC in the nineties, was a military movement... maybe inspired by Sandino, or with a Sandinista ideology, but the FRS wasn't a political, or military-political movement for that matter. --Magicartpro 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why laugh? Capitalism is absolutely a loaded word! I am of the firm opinion that Adam Smith is spinning in his grave at the way it's currently being abused and misused by the "experts" of the U.S.  ;-)

Seriously, though: are you suggesting that the FRS didn't have political goals, and wasn't created as a means to engender or enforce certain political forms? I find that hard to believe, and as far as i'm concerned that's all that's needed for something to qualify as "political"; but i agree that my wording above was rather imprecise.

I'm starting a new section below, where we can explore possibilities for a new structure to this article. Stone put to sky 08:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions: How to Hone Content

I think we should start off with a discussion of what "Sandinista" means and how it's used within Nicaragua and other Central American countries. After first establishing a basic overview of the word "Sandinista" and how it's used natively, we will be able to get a better idea of where the article should go. Do folks agree with me on this? Stone put to sky 08:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Something like "The name 'Sandinista' refers to a...existing...still active...social movement that has its roots in the ideas of Augusto Sandino....Central America...socialism...catholic church...local natives...It includes a broad range of organizations, both formal and informal (see list below)....broad socialist principles....The name "Sandinista" is often wrongly associated...exclusively...with the FSLN, who represent only one....and is currently....

I think y'all get the idea. Next, perhaps followed by a structure something like this:

 II From Sandino to WWII
 III The Post-WWII Era
  A) 1950 - 1970
  B) 1970 - 1990
  C) 1990 - Present
 IV Groups and Movements Using the Name 'Sandinista'
 V  Social Change and the Sandinistas:  Achievements and Undertakings
 VI Military and Political Action Under the Name 'Sandinista'

It would then be a much easier thing to separate out the specifically FSLN, FRS, etc stuff, and those articles could simply make direct reference to the fundamental Sandinista article (which is where all traffic searching for "Sandinista" should be first directed). Comments? Stone put to sky 09:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The first part is History

 I Sandino and the EDSN
 II The Post-Sandino Era
  A) 1934 - 1937 : The annihilation of Sandino's movement
  B) 1937 - 1950 : Sandinism vs Somocism
  C) 1950 - 1970 : Formation of the new Sandinistas; FRS, MNN, FSLN, etc.
  D) 1970 - 1979 : The struggle against Somoza; three tendencies of the FSLN + MPU, FER, etc.
  E) 1979 - 1990 : Sandinistas in the Government; reunification of the Sandinistas
  F) 1990 - 2000 : Sandinistas in opposition; rearmed Sandinista groups, FUAC, FROC + the dissidents in the MRS
  G) 2000 - 2005 : Second reunification of the Sandinistas; the Convergence
  H) 2005 - Present : The internal struggle and the Sandinistas back in Government

Then there is the Sandinista Ideology and its influence in the Nicaraguan society

 III The Sandinista Ideology
  A) Sandino's ideological roots
  B) The legacy of Sandino 
  C) Sandino in the struggle against Somoza
  D) FSLN's historical program
  E) Sandinism vs. Socialism
  F) Today's Sandinistas
 IV  Social Change and the Sandinistas:  Achievements and Undertakings

And last, a list of Sandinista groups and movements

 V List of Groups and Movements Using the Name 'Sandinista'/ with a Sandinista Ideology
  A) Extinct
  B) Active

What do you think? --Magicartpro 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Good structure. I like it. Just do the rough draft in a sandbox so editors don't get the wrong idea when content disappears/reappears. Abe Froman 17:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it, too, but have some small adjustments i'd suggest.

Before i do that, though, let me preface what i'm about to say by admitting that i really have no qualifications to add much to a subject on which you are obviously quite knowledgable. With that in mind, i'm approaching what we're talking about more as an opportunity for me to learn much more about this subject while offering what i hope is some constructive advice to aid in the aims and utility of the article.

Now in regards to your suggestions, i agree with most of them; but i do worry that Sections II and III will become too detailed. Since we're shooting for an encyclopedic treatment, we should just give broad outlines with references to more detailed sources that the reader can follow up if they care to. My general aim for any article is that it can be easily broken up into large sections, and that the overviews (i.e. -- Section I and II) shouldn't take longer than five or ten minutes to get through on a quick read.

I like what you've done with the current "Sandinista Ideology" and would love to include most of it, but the detail you've provided there is frightening even for someone like me, who is interested in this subject. As i understand things, this 'pedia isn't here to educate people on the details of Sandinism, but only to give a broad outline that will help us understand what its relevance is to the Sandinistas, its broader influences on the movements which use that name, and how this all fits into the history of the region and of the greater American hemisphere.

On that basis, i'd suggest something like this:

 I Overview of the term "Sandinista"
 II History
  A) 1934 - 1950 : Sandinism vs Somocism
  B) 1950 - 1970 : Formation of the new Sandinistas: FRS, MNN, FSLN, etc.
  C) 1970 - 1979 : The struggle against Somoza
  D) 1979 - 1990 : Sandinistas in the Government
  E) 1990 - Present : Sandinistas in Opposition, Convergence, and Debate
 III The Sandinista Ideology
  A) Sandino's ideological roots and Legacy
  B) Sandino in the struggle against Somoza 
  C) FSLN's historical program 
  D) Sandinism vs. Socialism
  E) Today's Sandinistas
 IV  Social Change and the Sandinistas:  Achievements and Undertakings
 V List of Groups and Movements Using the Name 'Sandinista'/ with a Sandinista Ideology
  A) Active
  B) Extinct

What exactly is the "EDSN", and what relationship does it have to Sandino and the Sandinistas? Because i don't know the answer to that question, i can't really comment on it.

As it is, though, what i've suggested are pretty moderate changes, i think, and preserve the bulk of your suggested structure. The biggest challenges will be for us to keep the sub-sections in II and III from getting too dense, or growing too large.

Finally, there will definitely be people who demand a section outlining what sort of relationship Sandinista groups have had to Communism, the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc. So it's probably best to start worrying about that now rather than putting it off 'til later. Stone put to sky 17:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your structure, but we need to have something about Sandino's ideological roots and influences. He is after all the "father" of this movement.

The EDSN was the Ejército Defensor de la Soberania Nacional (Army in Defense of the National Sovereignty); Sandino's Army. Remember that Sandino was a Liberal, but he split from them after the Espino Negro Agreements: he was the only General of the Liberals that didn't surrender. And that's the origin of the EDSN whose main goal was to drive the marines out of Nicaragua.

On the other hand, I've included III.D) Sandinism vs. Socialism, in order to comment that the Sandinista revolution was heading towards Socialism, according to some of its leaders in 1989... If it was a Socialism like Cuba, or the Soviet Union, or a new kind of Socialism, a hybrid, we didn't have the chance to know because of the FSLN defeat in the 1990 elections. --Magicartpro 18:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the strikeout? I totally agree that we need to treat the subject of what Sandino and his (original) movement advocated. There's no problem from me on that, and i'd imagined that would come out naturally in the "Sandino vs Somocism" portion. I can't imagine that we'd be able to describe the differences between those two powers without also touching on the huge differences in their political and social goals. Stone put to sky 09:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

@ Abe Froman -- how do we make a "sandbox", as you call it? And what is it, exactly? Stone put to sky 09:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the strikeout?

You already have: III The Sandinista Ideology ---> A) Sandino's ideological roots and Legacy. --Magicartpro 17:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

section: "The Split of the FSLN"

In the section titled "The Split of the FSLN" is the following sentence: "On 10 January 1978, Pedro Joaquín Chamorro Cardenal, the popular editor of the opposition newspaper La Prensa and leader of the 'Democratic Union of Liberation' (Unión Democrática de Liberación - UDEL), the bourgeois opposition, was assassinated." First of all - "the bourgeois opposition"? What is that? The article does mention that in addition to the FSLN there was a right-wing opposition to the Somoza gov't, so maybe that's what this sentence is referring to; but it should be much clearer IMO. Secondly, editorial use of Marxist/Marxian terms is PoV and inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.187.201 (talk) 03:41, 16 December, 2006 (UTC)

UDEL was not (only) a right-wing opposition. There were many social democrats/christians, from center/center-right/left parties, for example, Edmundo Jarquin, the 2006 Presidential candidate of the MRS was one of UDEL's leaders.--Magicartpro 04:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Bourgeois" in itself is not an inherently marxist term. Even so, a term that is id'd by some as "marxist" is not inherently biased.

Secondly -- i do accept that the use of the phrase "the bourgeois opposition" in this context is unacceptably biased. The death or assassination of an individual is not meaningful only in relation to their perceived political outlook, and the use of the "bourgeois" qualifier here implies that. I support removal of "the bourgeois opposition". Similarly, i do not support identifying Chamorro as strictly "right wing" unless there is some sort of clearly articulated philosophical or poltical statement by Chamorro himself that identifies him in such a manner. Stone put to sky 20:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Prominent Sandinistas"

While I was looking over the article, I saw that an "Oscar Antonio Sanchez" had been added to the list of prominent Sandinistas. I don't claim to be familiar with the entire FSLN pantheon, but I'd never heard of him before. Checking the history, I found that he was added by an IP on November 6. He was described as being a colonel, but there were higher-ranking Sandinistas, like Joaquin Cuadra... who I realized wasn't on the list. So I've removed "Sanchez," and added Cuadra. If someone has information about this Sanchez being a major Sandinista, they can put him back in.

I also removed the bit about Tomas Borge's GPP being "explicitly Maoist." While it advocated a Maoist strategy, I don't see it as following Maoist programs in a wider sense.

There are a lot of other things I don't like about the article, but I'll have to deal with them later. --Groggy Dice T|C 09:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"Human Rights" Section

This sort of agitprop will not be tolerated. Either cite well-respected sources or stop trashing this page. Since none of the propaganda in that section can be verified by actual sources, it will be removed. For facts on human rights in Nicaragua refer to: http://www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Nica81eng/TOC.htm Jacob Peters

The section was at best a mixed bag, but probably we should have something on the topic. The initial Sanidinsta treatment of the Miskiot Indians was not good, as they would be the first to admit; on the other hand, it seems to me that they bent over backwards to try to make good on the situation. Their toleration of a hostile press in wartime was well beyond the usual, which certainly merits discussion. The section was anonymously removed and replaced with a fragment of a poem about Sandino by Pablo Neruda, which, in turn, I removed: Wikipedia is not a poetry anthology. - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

Why is there no mention of the anti-semitic policies of the Sandinistas? Prezen 21:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, because there weren't any?SmokeyTheCat 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Change of order of the article

I have moved the 'KGB' section towards the bottom of the article. Even if it is true - which I doubt - it is hardly the most important aspect of the FSLN. SmokeyTheCat 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Grammar and Bias

I wish I could say that it's incredible that an article this poorly written, and containing such flagrant examples of anti-American and pro-Sandinista POV and weasel words could remain virtually intact for so long, but unfortunately it's not. Such is the nature of Wikipedia, which is why it should generally not be taken seriously by anyone doing research on any topic more substantial than random pop culture references.

The article reads like a KGB propaganda leaflet, making the Sandinistas out to be saints while demonizing all of their enemies. Will someone who is NOT a Sandinista--and who, preferably has a decent understanding of English grammar--please go through this article and fix it so that it bears some semblance of neutrality, and thus becomes actually useful to someone looking for information about this period in Nicaraguan history? I would do it myself, but the article is too much of a mess for one person to clean up, and frankly I've got more important things to do.-- Antodav 68.52.242.229 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Antodav, thanks for your feedback! Please give examples of poor writing, weasel words and the flagrant examples of anti-American and pro-Sandinista POV. It is a shame you can't help us as you appear to be an expert here; but if you could point us in the right direction we will try to get this article to where it meets your expectations. Thanks again! --Agrofe 15:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what Antodav means. He gives no examples. The article seems reasonable to me.SmokeyTheCat 09:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this article side by side with the Wikipedia article on the Contras tells me all I need to know. This whole project is a joke and a disgrace. You people don't even try and hide your ridiculous leftist biases. This whole article is COMPLETE GARBAGE!!! How about putting in some TRUTH about Daniel Ortega . . . just to start? How about including information about what he is CURRENTLY DOING? Are his visits to Tehran of NO INTEREST to anyone?

The objective truth is that the FSLN were and are simply a quite good government and Wikipedia reflects this. Only apolgists for the Contras dispute that. Maybe this anonymous contributor should consider his or her rightist bias.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Block Section

I know I might be beating a dead horse here, but I am going to remove the on several grounds. First, material from Andrew is used in other articles, such as Salvador Allende without similar caveats on the source. Secondly, the caveats from Getty and Raman are generalized and not specific to accusations made against the FSLN. Lastly, the caveats appear, nearly verbatim in the parent article.

As such, I am going to remove the caveats. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

TDC, You try this every few months. It is tiresome. I replaced the material for the following reasons:

• There are no WP:RS sources denying what the historian Getty is saying. Removing his material is inappropriate when it is done for POV purposes. Especially considering this is not the first time you have done this.
• Changing the section heading implies more than one intelligence agency from the Eastern Block is involved, when it is clear from Mitrokhin's alleged notes he meant the KGB alone.

Cheers. Abe Froman 22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who think that Getty is moron. As on of the great cheerleaders of Soviet revisionism, if anyone lacks credibility here it is him. Secondly, had you actually bothered to read the section none other than Marcus Wolf confirms the Stasi's ties to the Sandinistan internal security forces. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Like who? Cite using WP:RS, please. Abe Froman 17:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Find it yourself if interesteg. Thats not the point, the point is MArcus Wolf, former spymaster for the Stasi has also made these claims. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be nice. I reverted your edit because Getty's claims in this matter are documented and correctly cited. Abe Froman 02:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This whole section is highly dubious. Why on Earth would three activists interested in helping the oppressed poor of Nicaragua go thousands of miles north to commit terrorist acts in the USA? TDC is the sort of person who took Red Dawn seriously.SmokeyTheCat 11:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if one of those “activists” was a KGB agent (and based on circumstantial and first hand evidence, it would appear that he was) then the KGB put their newly found assets to work when they had downtime. I know it sounds astounding, but it would most certainly not be unprecedented. The Hungry Horse Dam and Flathead Dam in Montana were targets of interest for KGB sabotage teams; they even had explosives smuggled in from Canada and pre-positioned in preparation of their orders. The Soviets co-option of revolutionary movements is also well established. Marcus Wolfs memoirs also removes the speculative nature of the “allegations” of cooperation between the FSLN and Warsaw Pact intelligence agencies. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever TDC. The Soviet Union is history but the FSLN have just returned to government. I don't think that this matter has any relevance to anyone but you so put in what you like. SmokeyTheCat 09:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And President Ortega's trips to Tehran? Tell us about those.

Iran is a part of the Eastern block now? You are completely off-topic. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Zero Hunger project"

I added this section. It seems important enough to be worthy of inclusion.SmokeyTheCat 09:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I was about to add something about that tomorrow, but you did a great job on it. I added a source to the zero hunger program section you added. The National Literacy Campaign begins this month, i hope i can find good information on that ass well.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 10:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah . . . these leftie projects are so vital. Let us know how they turn out, eh? You're due for one Socialist success somewhere in the world, aren't ya? Lord knows you'll keep on trying.

Reducing malnutrition would seem a laudable aim. Still if you just prefer to sneer that's up to you.SmokeyTheCat 10:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the aim. Just don't like the gun.

TDC (presumably) this project gives the poor people some seeds and livestock. And you feel threatened by this how exactly? SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 08:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't discuss the realities of it's work. It hasn't worked, along with the other cero's. (ex. Usura Cero) I don't see the relevance of this article and dispute it's leftist bias. 12 June 2008

El Salvador

I have an issue with the source that characterizes the El Salvador groups as terrorists. I would not call it reliable.--Atavi 14:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is another with references.[9]Ultramarine 15:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a very biased and Right-wing source. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist is a word to avoid

Wikipedia urges extreme caution when using words like "terrorist" and "freedom fighter." It's best to avoid them altogether, stick to verifiable facts, and let readers make their own judgments. If we are going to use them, we need to avoid using weasel words like "some people accuse them" and specifically say who makes the accusation. Unfortunately, it seems like there's always someone ready to call someone else a terrorist... Notmyrealname 23:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Human rights violations

"It has been alleged that the Sandinistas were supporting militant groups in El Salvador using "terrorist tactics".[10] The Sandinistas have also been accused of practising terror against its Indian population, of carrying out approximately 8,000 political executions within three years of the revolution, and as well as numerous other repressions.[11]"

Yes, right-wing sources. That does not necessarily exclude them, NPOV requires the views of both sides. They both list references.Ultramarine 10:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you can probably always find a publication somewhere that calls a group on the other side of the ideological spectrum a nasty name. Should we list every newspaper that calls George W Bush a fascist? Why not stick to verifiable facts and leave the contentious adjectives out of it? Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor should minority views be given undue weight. Notmyrealname 15:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, at least the second source lists academic sources. That is as reliable source as one can get. Furthermore, the double standard is strange. This article has page after page of glowing praise for the Sandinistas which looks like taken straight from a propaganda pamphlet. Unfortunately, even such a source is usually rare, most is simply unsourced.Ultramarine 15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There is only one standard. If there is inappropriate or inaccurate information on the page, it should be removed or reworded. Compounding one error with another is not the way to go. The Frontpage article is full of inflammatory rhetoric on a proudly non-partisan website. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This goes for everyone. Again, let's leave out the rhetorical language (e.g. "terrorist") and stick to facts. Notmyrealname 18:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Frontpage article is written by a historian, citing academic sources. Have a look at the this article. Do you agree to remove all the sections marked as unreferenced? They are certainly full of extraordinary claims and full of naive rhetoric.Ultramarine 18:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is a statement that needs referencing, has been tagged for a while, and remains without a source, than it is reasonable to remove it. If you are going to remove a large amount of text, it would be wise to copy it onto the talk page and discuss your rationale. Regardless of the author's credential's, it is not a serious piece of scholarship. The tone is polemical. It would be better to cite the original sources. Regardless, there is no need to include words like "terrorist." Notmyrealname 18:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So why did you remove the sourced text without first moving it to the talk page? Another double standard. We can avoid terrorist if you want, instead stating "human rights violations" or something similar.Ultramarine 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Not sure what you're talking about here. The last edit to this page I made was several weeks ago, and involved an issue that had been discussed on the talk page. Also, read my previous entry again. There is no requirement to post things on the talk page or to even discuss them. I'm just saying that it's a good practice if you're making a lot of changes (to avoid edit wars and as a courtesy to others). Notmyrealname 18:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a point the language is inflammatory, so I will wait until I receive a copy of the Black Book of Communism. I'll be back then, citing it directly. I will probably also be useful for various other Communist movements.Ultramarine 18:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There were human rights violations in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas (these were documented by Amnesty International) but the figures were nothing like the one being quoted here. 34 dead is the figure most often given not thousands. The FLSN made mistakes in a war zone which they admitted. There are many sources on the Sandinistas which are simply propaganda produced by US imperialism. These should not be quoted in a neutral space like Wikipedia.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is another source.[12]Ultramarine 11:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A few more: [13][14]Ultramarine 11:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine: again you are citing only right-wing sources, this is not neutral. Pexise 14:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So TIME is a right-wing source? Even if correct, this is not a reason for exclusion in Wikipedia. Please read WP:NPOV and also ad hominem.Ultramarine 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a source that is not American? Pexise 14:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why should I do that? There is no such requirement in Wikipedia. But just as a general information, the Black Book of Communism is written by six European academic researchers, originally published in France.Ultramarine 14:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are really interested in truth and neutrality as you claim you are you should diversify your sources to avoid just propogating one point of view. And also because, as stated above: "There are many sources on the Sandinistas which are simply propaganda produced by US imperialism." Pexise 15:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly trying to diversify this article, which almost exclusively has glowing praise for the Sandinistas, most of which is without even a propaganda pamphlet as a source. If you are arguing that the material is fabricated, then you have prove that. Otherwise any anonymous Wikipedia editor could remove any sourced material simply by stating that his personally suspects that it may be fabricated.Ultramarine 15:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• From The Black Book of Communism: "Argument that book is one-sided The most common criticism of the Black Book is the charge that discusses the communist states alone, without making any sort of comparison to capitalist states. Critics have argued that, if one was to apply the Black Book's standards to capitalism, it could be held responsible for just as many deaths as communist states, or perhaps more according to some scholars." If you are interested in nuetrality, will you also be quoting from The Black Book of Capitalism in order to balance your arguments? Have you ever quoted an unbiased source? Would you quote a left-wing source? Pexise 16:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not an argument stating that the Black Book of Communism's extensive documentation is inaccurate. As stated previously, this article does not need more arguments supporting the Sandinstas, it already has page after page of glowing praise, so there is no need for me to add even more. Is a small paragraph describing the views of the opposite side so dangerous? Ultramarine 16:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, as long as it's based on fact. The problem is the notorious propoganda mentioned earlier, which is also frequently used in the right-wing material that you seem to solely rely upon. Pexise 16:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

TIME is only right-wing to those on the far left. Academic research is the most reliable sort of source in Wikipedia. If you are arguing that the material is fabricated, then you have prove that. Otherwise any anonymous Wikipedia editor could remove any sourced material simply by stating that his personally suspects that it may be fabricated.Ultramarine 16:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The views in the BBOC about the level of human rights abuses under the Sandinistas are definitely in the minority compared with other reputable sources. However, as long as it is properly sourced and credited, I don't see a problem with including these charges here. My suggestion is that everyone should be precise (this holds for both sides). Instead of "critics accuse" or "some say" or other weasel words like that, let's be specific. For example, "according to the BBOC" or "according to Amnesty International," etc. These descriptors should go into the text, with a full citation in the footnotes. Is this required by Wikipedia? No. But it is good practice when dealing with contentious topics. Notmyrealname 16:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia certainly requires documentation of sources, see WP:V and WP:RS. Unsourced material, such as much of this article, can be removed anytime. What other "reputable sources" disagree with the BBOC? It quotes numerous sources in its documentation.Ultramarine 17:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet another source. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights documenting numerous mass executions by the Sandinistas, as well various other human rights violations.[15][16]Ultramarine 17:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to imply that Wikipedia doesn't require documentation of sources! I was referring to the degree of specificity in the text. In this case, the more specific the better (and this goes for everyone on all sides of this). Sources like the IACHR are especially helpful, as they are considered more neutral than the BBOC (although the BBOC in general certainly fits the category of reliable source). Notmyrealname 17:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

gain, with contentious topics like this, it is best to be as precise as possible. For instance, the first IACHR report you cite concludes that "In the Commission’s view, while the government of Nicaragua clearly intended to respect the lives of all those defeated in the civil war. During the weeks immediately subsequent to the Revolutionary triumph, when the government was not in effective control, illegal executions took place which violated the right to life, and these acts have not been investigated and the persons responsible have not been punished." (this is in point 6 of Part C, at the end of the report. There is no pagination, so it is important to specify what part of the report you are citing). This gives a very different sense than someone saying "the Sandinistas committed massacres." Notmyrealname 18:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the US is blamed for every human rights violations done by members of the Contras, whether approved the Contras leadership or not, also ignoring that the Contras was not under direct US control, an equal standard would hold the Sandinistas as least as responsible for human rights violations done by their members in territory they controlled.Ultramarine 18:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly one point of view, but it is not the way to go about things on Wikipedia. If you cite a source, you have to represent what it says. The IACHR report (you post two links, but the second one is to the table of contents for the same report) discusses dozens of killings (not 8,000) and makes the conclusions that I quoted above. The Time Magazine article is a statement from one witness testifying to a human rights group. It's fine to cite it, but it needs to be described properly. Notmyrealname 18:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have cited many sources. These in turn cite many more. For example, the Time magzine article is not only about one witness, but also references sources such as Nicaragua's Permanent Commission on Human Rights.

• TIME (1983): [17]
• National Review (1991): [18]
• Heritage Foundation (1983): [19]
• Black Book of Communism (exact details later)
• Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1981): [20][21]Ultramarine 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine: you are using demagogy in this argument. The US has not been charged by international courts or commissions for the human rights violations of the Contras (although it has been criticised for financially supporting and trianing an illegal militia organisation) - you are therefore setting up a "straw man" which you are arguing against. The US was, however, found guilty of violating international law for mining Nicaragua's ports - that is a FACT - meaning that it can be proved ojectively, there is concrete evidence that it happened, just as it is a FACT that the selling of arms to Iran in order to fund the Contras was illegal under US law. + I have cited many sources. These in turn cite many more. For example, the Time magzine article is not only about one witness, but also references sources such a Nicaragua's Permanent Commission on Human Rights. Pexise 18:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

- I'm pleased that you have used a more objective source, the IACHR, and note that it contradicts your argument - as well as the quote indicated above by Notmyrealname, your source includes the passage: "4. The Commission is of the view that the new regime did not have, and does not now have, a policy of violating the right to life of political enemies, including among the latter the former guardsmen of the Government of General Somoza, whom a large sector of the population of Nicaragua held responsible for serious human rights violations during the former regime; proof of the foregoing is the abolition of the death penalty and the high number of former guardsmen who were prisoners and brought to trial for crimes that constituted violations of human rights." Pexise 18:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The US is commonly accused, at least among the less informed, of all the HRV of the Contras, so the comparison is valid. Yes, maybe the government had reformed a few years later, in 1981 when the IACHR report was written, when convinently most of its political opponents had been killed. Of course, they soon started again, as documented in the Time article, when they started facing new opposition. Adding another source, now The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1983 report on the treatment of Miskito Indians.[22]. As can be seen, this promise regarding the treatment of political opponents was just empty words.Ultramarine 18:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Demagogy once again - your final conclusion does not correspond to the evidence that you have provided. While it's great that you've started using more reputable sources like the IACHR, it's also important to give a true representation of what these sources say. Otherwise it just looks like you are trying to SMEAR the Sandanistas, and to promulgate your personal point of view/opinion of the world rather than having a real and genuine preoccupation with the truth. Pexise 19:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I couldn't find any references, or an author for the Time magazine article you have cited - do you know where I could find these? Pexise 19:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to chill out and assume good faith. This is not the forum to discuss all the nuances of history. Rather than engaging in fights, stick to the texts, and find other sources that challenge them. Maybe we can have a section on human rights abuse allegations and present all the documentation from all sides. Notmyrealname 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All the sources given are, or cite, reliable sources. As noted earlier, since they all in turn cite many other sources, the total number of sources is already very great. The date of the Time article is Monday, Jan. 24, 1983 and its linked above on Time's website. It lists its sources inline.Ultramarine 19:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Now for a megasource. It is Statistics of Democide, R.J. Rummel, 1997. The book lists numerous sources regarding democide in all nations and what their estimates for numbers killed are. The sources and numbers for Nicaragua under the Sandinistas can be found here: [23]. The full references are here: [24] Even if you dislike Rummel's own estimate, 5,000 dead due to Sandinista democide (and 8,000 political prisoners on average each year), which he makes using these sources, then the sources he list are still valid on their own. As a summary, I will list all my current sources (again, these list sources on their own).

• TIME (1983): [25]
• National Review (1991): [26]
• Heritage Foundation (1983): [27]
• Black Book of Communism (exact details later)
• Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1981): [28][29]
• Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1983): [30]
• Statistics of Democide (1997): [31][32]

From wikipedia article on R. J. Rummel: "Most estimates of democide are uncertain and scholars often give widely different estimates." Pexise 19:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I still can't find any of the sources or the author of the Time article - could you please show me one of the refernces and the name of the author? Pexise 19:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Notmyrealname: I agree, that is a good idea. Although of the sources proposed by Ultramarine, I would only consider the IACHR sources trustworthy. There are no references in the Time article, National Review is neoconservative, Heritage foundation also appears to be neo-con, as is R. J. Rummell. These opinions could be included, but with a qualifier such as: conservative commentators allege ... followed by an alternative view. Pexise 19:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, estimates vary widely, as Rummel compilation of sources demonstrate. Regardless, he lists lots of sources showing HRV by the Sandinistas. Regarding the Time article, not all magazine articles list their authors, and most do not have a reference list at the end. Newspapers, like Time and National Review, are considered acceptable sources in Wikipedia, although obviously less reliable than academic ones. Exact date is given, as is a link to Time's own website. Rummel's book and the BBOC are academic books, the most reliable sources in Wikipedia. Reports by think-thanks are at least acceptable in Wikipedia, otherwise you cannot cite the views of Greenpeace and similar organizations.Ultramarine 19:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think National Review is more of a case-by-case basis. In a situation like this, I think the way to go is to list the charges and ranges of numbers along with the sources. Maybe the heading of the section could state that there is disagreement amount the extent of human rights abuses by the Sandinistas. The Miskito issue probably deserves its own section, as Sandinista policy towards them changed throughout the 1980s. The Time article seems to be a reprint of testimony given by a person to the Nicaraguan Permanent Commission on Human Rights (which was not considered a non-partisan source by many). Again, the sources that Ultramarine lists appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. We must take care to accurately portray what they actually say, and it is also appropriate to put in other material that challenges these sources. Notmyrealname 19:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Just to explain to editors new to Wikipedia. Wikipedia does no decide who is right or not and which source is correct or not, and spoonfeed the reader this. We simply list the different views, from all sides, and let the reader decide for himself.Ultramarine 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ultramarine: refering to my earlier comment, I agreed that your sources could be included with a qualifier. I would stress however that in order to balance the article an EQUAL amount of space should be given to opposing views. Perhaps you can find some opposing views to balance the argument Ultramarine? Pexise 19:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • NPOV is not an equal space policy, if there are no or very few arguments for a position, then less space is given. For example, the flat earth theory does not get equal space with other theories. This article in general is biased towards the Sandinstas in amost all sections. But I will see if I can find some statement by the Sandinistas regarding these accusations.Ultramarine 20:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"National Review is more of a case-by-case basis" - are you sure about this? See Wikipedia article National Review quote: "Generally the magazine provides conservative views and analysis on the world's current events." Also see The Economist [33] Pexise 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, conservative views are not automatically removed from Wikipedia on sight. We include all the major views and let the reader decide. Thus, we can state "According to the conservative magazine National Review..."Ultramarine 20:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The HRW report from 1989 is very pro-Sandinistas and good at explaining away the HR violations, so it can be cited by those who wish to defend the Saninistas.[34] (It also finds the US responsible for all HR violations by the Contras, as could be expected)Ultramarine 20:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not Ultramarine's job to provide balance (although it is certainly welcome!). It's up to all the editors collectively to ensure that there is some measure of balance on a controversial topic. Regarding National Review, I would avoid including general analysis from them (for example, "according to the National Review, the Sandinistas were intent on overthrowing the Reagan Administration" or something), but we could include specific numbers and accounts from a serious journalistic article, as long as it's identified along the lines that we've been talking about. Again, let's put out all the information from credible sources, identify the sources and potential biases, and then let the readers sort things out. Notmyrealname 22:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Any serious of human rights violations in Central America should compare like with like. Let us consider Nicaragua -where the US was actively opposing the government - with El Salvador where the US was actively supporting the government. Where did the Death Squads operate? El Salvador. Where were the nuns raped? El Salvador. Where were the priests murdered? El Salvador. Where was the archbishop assassinated? El Salvador. Death squads never operated in Nicaragua, not one nun was raped, not one priest was murdered. (Except by the Contras obviously)  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Marxist rebels in El Salvador certainly contributed to the HR violations there, but that is another topic I will take up in a better article, once I get some scholarly sources. As the sources above amply document, the Sandinistas committed numerous HR violations. Whether they were done by "death squads" or the secret police does not matter.Ultramarine 09:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So as a start, I propose just creating a section, called Human rights violations, and initially stating: "The Sandinistas has been accused of human rights violations such as mass executions, political prisoners, and restricting freedom of expression and association.New Regime, Old Methods (January 24, 1983), TIME. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Roxana Chahin, Nicaragua's killing fields, (April 29, 1991), National Review. The Sandinista War on Human Righs (July 19, 1983), Heritage Foundation. Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Repulic of Nicaragua (1981), Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Report on the Situation of Human Rights of a Segment of the Nicaraguan Population of Miskito Origin (1983), Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. R.J. Rummel, Statistics of Democide (1997) TableReferences" This can later be expanded. Thoughts?Ultramarine 15:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. My only suggestion is to be precise with wording and to try to use specific sources for specific accusations. There's a big difference between restricting freedom of association and committing mass executions, for instance. Best not to lump everything together. Most governments in the world have been accused of committing human rights violations, so you should try to be specific. "In 1983, Time magazine printed testimony by a former police officer given to an exile human rights organization detailing practices that violate human rights." or something like that. Don't just list a bunch of sources along with a general accusation. Read the sources and pull out relevant items and statistics or numbers. People who disagree with this can do other research and come up with other items and numbers. Notmyrealname 17:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Starting section. Note that the TIME interviewed this person "In an exclusive interview with Mexico City Bureau Chief James Willwerth, Guillén detailed the secret jails, torture methods and unprosecuted murders committed by the Sandinistas, including the systematic killing of Miskito Indians in the northeast department of Zelaya."Ultramarine 13:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It must always be remembered that we are talking about events in a war zone, for that was what the Contras - backed by Reagan - had created. Mistakes happen in war. The area is question is very remote and no-one else from Nicaragua ever goes there. The Contras had obliged the some of the indians to take their side by coercion or other means. Thus they were on the side of the aggressors. The Sandinistas were always taking defensive measures. If the Contras hadn't started meddling in Nicaragua's affairs none of the human rights violations would have happened. You might as well talk about Soviet soldiers abusing the human rights of Romanians who fought for the Nazis in WW2. Let us see the situation in context please.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 08:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly condemn the Soviet Union for their mass rapes of German women and numerous other war crimes. See for example Evacuation of East Prussia. Nothing similar happened on the allied side. The Contras could equally well argue that they operated in a "war zone" created by Cuban and Soviet infiltration.Ultramarine 09:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Contras were just the sweepings of Somoza's old hated National Guard. They were rapists and torturers. They had no mandate to do anything in Nicaragua. If Reagan hadn't funded and organised them would have quickly disappeared. There were elections held in 1984 and the FSLN recieved huge support. The Contras none. There is no comparison.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That is the black and white theory. The reality is more complex. But you have a point regarding the election which could be added.Ultramarine 09:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remove the last two paragraphs from the "human rights violations" section. The 1984 elections could be dealt with in a separate section more thoroughly - at the moment this paragraph seems tagged on and I don't think it belongs in a section about human rights allegations. The paragraph before (1 sentence) doesn't add anything to the section and is another far-right source that tells us nothing new. Pexise 18:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree on election. Regarding Frontpagemag, if allowing the openly pro-sandinista magazine, then Frontpagemag should also be allowed.Ultramarine 21:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Ultramarine, let me congratulate you for helping to add a good section to the FSLN article.

I want to say a couple of things. First, the Frontpage article is ridiculously inaccurate and slanderous, as I mentioned on the Contra discussion page. Its about as appropriate to use as a "source" for info on wikipedia as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is appropriate to use as a "source" for secret Jewish practices. Even your own sources contradict it. As with TDC (you two should really go out and have a brew sometime) you need to keep in mind that just because you can find someone somewhere with a PhD who is willing to say Jews drink the blood of children doesn't mean it deserves mention in wikipedia.

Secondly, the truth is a knowable thing. It can be discovered. It is not some unknowable thing about which there are two sides that deserve equal time. I find sometimes that people with a point of view bring it to wikipedia, keep trying to assert it, run to the library to find some book written by someone who supports their point of view, and then keep returning to wikipedia with yet another book written by a crackpot demanding that THIS new information must be refuted by the wiki community or the information must be included.

Let's play a game: I want to argue the Holocaust never happened. Here is a source that agrees. And guess what! There's a history PhD there to back me up! And here's another "historian!" I DEMAND considerable space for the POV that the holocaust never happened in wikipedia's history of the Holocaust. And if anybody wants to dispute that, they HAVE to read the execrable work of every holocaust denier I can dig up and specifically refute them, page by page, or allow the information to be included!

Not really, and you know why. You don't seem to be disturbed that your sources contradict each other. You seem to be flailing around looking for anything that says something bad about the Sandinistas, oblivious to the sources you dig up that are discredited, like throwing spaghetti at a wall to find something, anything, that will stick. Try looking for the Truth inbetween looking for a scholar to back up your POV. Try reading an Americas Watch, Amnesty International, or CIIR report on Nicaragua in the 1980s instead of a source that is directly tied to a government that was making war on the Sandinistas.MarkB2 23:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have access to those sources, then those views cold be added to the article. I do not know who is right, so more views would be welcome. I find Frontpagemag and the pro-Sandinista magazine about equally biased, but at least both cite sources.Ultramarine 00:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you MarkB2 for your excellent comments - I was also considering getting some Holocaust deniers out to subtly make the point to Ultramarine that just because there is a source on something, academic or not, doesn't mean that it's true, reasonable or that it should be inserted into the Wikipedia page. The point is, we want a GOOD QUALITY article out there - that means good sources and a balanced point of view. Putting in loads of right-wing sources with slanderous accusations compromises the quality. I agree it's worth mentioning the right-wing point of view, because it is noteworthy and a lot of this material was produced, but it has to be kept within reason.

As for the Revista Envio, I used this source because it is a translation of the report by the CIIR - a wholly independent source. CIIR is an independent NGO with an excellent reputation and no affinity to the Sandanistas in any way - it is a non-political organisation that has a development and human rights mandate, and the report is very balanced. It is also incorrect to call Revista Envio 'pro-sandinista' - you will notice that they are described as 'CRITICALLY supporting the Sandinistas' - this means they are quite happy to criticise the Sandinistas when necessary, as they do in several cases. In fact Ultramarine, you have used Revista Envio as a source to point out that prison conditions were not always as good as they could have been and that the Red Cross was denied access to State Prisons. Hardly a one sided source. Pexise 08:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing that automatically declares a right-wing view inferior to a left-wing view. Revista defined itself as a "publication that provided 'critical support' to Nicaragua’s revolutionary process from the perspective of liberation theology’s option for the poor" Yes, Envio cites a good source. So does Frontpagemag, feel free to quote its sources.Ultramarine 08:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine - you have used Revista Envio as a source to make one of your points. I would never use the Frontpagemag article because I consider it to be extremely one sided and inaccurate. Pexise 09:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I would not cite an unsourced opinion by Frontpagemage as evidence, the same regarding Revista. However, as both purport to cite reliable sources, the information from those sources can cited.Ultramarine 11:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, but at the moment there is a general comment referring to the FPM article. I would like to remove this as it does not add anything to the section and jeopardises the NPOV. Pexise 11:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine if we also remove Revista.Ultramarine 11:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove sections which refer only to Revista Envio and no other sources and the section with the FPM reference. Pexise 11:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You cannot have it both ways. If you remove the Revisa article but want to keep the the sources it cites, you have cite them exactly, including year and so. Furthermore, you cannot reuse the Revista descriptions. Instead, you have to quote from the sources directly.Ultramarine 12:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we are removing biased sources, we should also remove the Heritage Foundation source as it is clearly very right-wing. Pexise 13:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is different since a think thank has more fact checking than opinion magazines. If removing it, we should also remove for example all references to Greepeace in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 13:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• From Wikipedia article on HF: In the 1980s and early 1990s, the Heritage Foundation was a key architect and advocate of the "Reagan Doctrine", under which the United States government supported anti-Communist resistance movements in such places as Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia and Nicaragua and generally supported global anti-communism during the Cold War.

I hardly think that it is an unbiased source seeing as it directly supported the Contras (and UNCRITICALLY, I'm sure) Pexise 13:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is itself not a reliable source, so please quote something else. Greenpeace is not unbiased regarding the environment. Wikipedia allows sources with such a POV, as long as they have some degree of fact checking. Thinks thanks supposedly do that.Ultramarine 14:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

May I add a few centavos to the conversation? In my understanding, the bar for inclusion on Wikipedia for reliable sources is pretty low, although there is definitely a hierarchy of reliability. On a contentious topic like this, it is important to identify sources and discuss possible biases. While publications from think tanks and NGOs with a stated bias should be viewed with greater caution than independent commissions and investigations, and broadly respected organizations like Amnesty International, they shouldn't be excluded without good reason (with the main good reason that the particular report has been proven to be false or inaccurate). So, it's fine to include a report from the Heritage Foundation or Greenpeace, but it's also important to identify the source and briefly discuss its possible bias (either in the article or the footnote). Ideally, you would put in a citation that refutes the original claim, rather than just stating something like "this is a right-wing think tank that hates the Sandinistas" (see Ad hominem). I find the Frontpage article particularly troubling, however. Frontpage is not a think tank, but is very openly an agenda-driven advocacy organization. The citations do not seem to always support the more hyperbolic claims. And the language is very incendiary and non-academic (comparing the Sandinistas to the Khmer Rouge, for instance). It would be better to leave it out and try to incorporate any of its claims from the sources that it cites. Notmyrealname 15:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Have just got hold of the original CIIR report which has some great nuggets that totally discredit the Heritage Foundation article. Shall I add them, or would it be better to simply remove the Heritage Foundation material? Pexise 10:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Add them, we do not decide who is right or exclude views.Ultramarine 11:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as they come from reliable sources, of course. Notmyrealname 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Organization

Ultramarine - please don't add new sections to this article without first discussing the changes. This is quite obviously a controversial issue. I discussed first before adding my new sources, please extend the same courtesy. Pexise 10:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You reorganized the material without dicussion in a very POV way. New material should have been added at the end, then we could have discussed the organization.Ultramarine 10:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to know what other editors think. Pexise 10:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Add you new material at the end or as per my suggestion. Then we can all discuss.Ultramarine 10:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule in Wikipedia that states that new sources should be added at the bottom of an article or section. You said: "Add them, we do not decide who is right or exclude views." I have not removed any of your sources. The article reads best and makes sense as it is now. I'd like to know what other editors think. Pexise 10:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a rule against presenting the material in biased way. See WP:NPOV. You reframed and reorganized all the text without discussion first.Ultramarine 10:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My new text is NPOV - you'll notice that in the discussion of the politicisation of human rights I also mention "Supporters of the Sandinistas", suggesting that their view is politicised. That is NPOV. I'm not concerned with a POV, I'm concerned to make the article reflect the truth. Pexise 10:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. It start by implying that all the criticisms are part of Reagan propaganda. You call all criticisms allegations or accusations, the view of the opposing side is framed as facts. You make an OR synthesis by placing statements from the CIIR report after every criticism, implying that it has discussed theses sources and proved them incorrect, when it in many cases it have not, only made different estimates and claims.Ultramarine 10:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1) I don't think that the statement: "The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in a 1981 report FOUND EVIDENCE for mass executions in the period following the revolution" is described as an allegation.

2) I have used other sources besides the CIIR report.

3) I have never implied that ALL criticisms are part of Reagan's propaganda - I have merely used sources to establish that there was an aggressive propaganda campaign during that period.

4) There is no opposing view presented as facts - what are you talking about? Pexise 11:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1 and 4.Criticisms: "A 1983 report from the same source documented allegations" "Among the accusations in this report"" in a 1983 report alleged"

Counter-criticisms: "The CIIR report refers" "The ICCHRLA reported" "The Heritage Foundation report also plays-down""The CIIR report also questioned the independence of the Permanent Commission on Human Rights, pointing out""was a key component of the propaganda"

2. Yes, a newsletter, not a very reliable source, from some organization so small that it does not have a Wikipedia article.

3.You imply this by starting the section with this.

Fair would be to have one section for criticisms and one for counter-criticisms. What is your objection to this? Ultramarine 11:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:AVOID: "Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than 'distilling' them out into separate sections that ignore each other." Pexise 12:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not an answer to my other points. Regardless, sources should be kept together. You make an OR synthesis by placing statements from the CIIR report after every criticism, implying that it has discussed these sources and proved them incorrect, when it in many cases it have not, only made different estimates and claims. We do not declare who is right.Ultramarine 12:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ultramarine - please revert the changes you have just made - we have not agreed that it is OK for you to make these changes, this is still under discussion - I disagreed that this change should be made clearly citing WP:AVOID with reasons why. Pexise 12:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not separate sections, only that the material from the same source should be kept together. I had not agreed to your reorganization.Ultramarine 12:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to your previous points (which I hadn't seen before):

1) There is a very clear difference between allegations of HR violations and evidence of HR violations. If you read the sources you will see that where the term "allegations" has been used, they are allegations, where the term "evidence" is used, evidence has been provided. Also there is nothing biased or loaded about saying "refers", "reported" etc. - they have reported things and they have referred to things - I'm not saying you should agree or disagree.

2) The source I have used is a reliable independent source - they have a website, if you want to check the source, call them up.

3) I have implied no such thing. It is important to start the article mentioning this because it is important to draw attention to the fact that there was a propaganda campaign taking place at that time. This is a crucial piece of information that the reader should have when interpreting the information.

4) you didn't respond to my fourth point - what is this mysterious opposing view you allude to? We are trying to establish the nature of the facts concerning HR violations in 1980s Nicaragua - what is the opposing view in this case?

Pexise 14:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1.In Wikipedia we do not decide the "truth". We only report the different views. Your description is incorrect, for example the Heritage foundation report does not say that it alleges, yet you claim that it alleges.

2 A newletter is not very reliable per definition. Anyone can create a website.

3 You claim that there has been a propaganda campaign. Again, because you or a source believe something, it is not necessarily true.

4 No, we are not trying to decide the truth. We are presenting all the views on this subject.Ultramarine 15:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That RJ Mullel reference does not mention Nicaragua so I have deleted it.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 15:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Line 2477 and onwards.[35].Ultramarine 16:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to your points: 1. Of course Wikipedia does not decide the truth - however it is based on FACT. To prove a crime you need evidence, otherwise it is an allegation or accusation. However, the Heritage Foundation report does not provide evidence.

2. I'm not sure what you're getting at here - as I said, if you doubt this source, phone them up - there is a number on their website. You'll also notice that in the citations, they refer to fact-finding missions to Nicaragua itself, during the time period under discussion - this is a very reliable source.

3. I have many sources which state that there was a propaganda campaign, I can provide many more. That is a very strong and convincing case. In light of such evidence, it is very important that attention is drawn to this.

4. That is incorrect. We are presenting good, trustworthy and reliable sources to create an informative article with a NPOV. This does not mean we present ALL views on this subject. Please read: WP:RELY

I am going to incorporate some of your changes into a new version of the text, but with my original structure. Please do not change it until we have the opinion of a third party WP:THIRD Pexise 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia does not decide what is a fact and what is an allegation. We list all the views. The Heritage report has list of references at the end.

2 An organization so small that it is not mentioned in Wikipedia is not very notable. Anyone can create a website or publish a newsletter.Ultramarine 17:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

3 Again, wikipedia does not decide truth or facts. You can list claims that there was a propaganda campaign, but not state that this is a fact.

4 WP:NPOV if one of the three cornerstone policies, more important than all else: "The policy requires that, where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, these should each be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, 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 to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers are allowed 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. It is a point of view that is neutral; that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence."Ultramarine 17:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not accept a biased structure. Please list your proposed version on talk first.Ultramarine 17:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason why I should, seeing as you completely changed the article without even discussing it. However, I will assume that you are participating in good faith, and that you will treat my opinion with respect. I have made some changes to the language, letting the sources speak for themselves. I've also added some additional material in the quotations which balance them slightly more. I've also cut out one of the paragraphs criticising the HF report as it goes off the subject a little talking about Somoza torture, and should probably be elsewhere.

However, I think that the order is very important, first of all drawing attention to the controversies in play, then presenting controversial sources and criticisms and finally presenting less controversial, credible sources:

New text for section

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

Independent organisations have also drawn attention to the politicisation of the issue of human rights at this time, stating that human rights was a key component of propaganda created by the Reagan administration to help legitimise its policies in the region. The Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America (ICCHRLA) in its Newsletter commented that: "The hostility with which the Nicaraguan government is viewed by the Reagan administration is an unfortunate development. Even more unfortunate is the expression of that hostility in the destabilization campaign developed by the US administration ... An important aspect of this campaign is misinformation and frequent allegations of serious human rights violations by the Nicaraguan authorities."

Weasel start, state "Some organizations..."

No, this is pointing out the fact that these organisations are not politicised. If you like we can change it to international organizations. Pexise 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's ok.Ultramarine 19:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The 1987 report published by UK based NGO Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR, now known as Progressio), "Right to Survive - Human Rights in Nicaragua", also discussed the politicisation of the human rights issue: "The Reagan administration, with scant regard for the truth, has made a concerted effort to paint as evil a picture as possible of Nicaragua, describing it as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. Supporters of the Sandinistas have produced lengthy critiques of the Amnesty International and Americas Watch reports. They have argued that Nicaragua has a good record of human rights compared with other Central American countries and have compared Nicaragua with other countries at war."

TIME magazine in 1983 published allegations of human rights violations in an article which stated that "According to Nicaragua's Permanent Commission on Human Rights, the regime detains several hundred people a month; about half of them are eventually released, but the rest simply disappear." TIME also interviewed a former deputy chief of Nicaraguan military counterintelligence, who stated that he had fled Nicaragua after being ordered to eliminate 800 Miskito prisoners and make it look like as if they had died in combat.

Also using the Permanent Commission on Human Rights as one of its sources, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think thank, in a 1983 report alleged various human rights violations, including censorship, creating a neighborhood system which encouraged spying and reporting by neighbors, torture by state security forces, thousands of political prisoners, assassinations both inside and outside Nicaragua, and that a former Sandinista Intelligence officer has stated that 5,000 were killed in the early months of Sandinsta rule.

The CIIR was critical of the Permanent Commission on Human Rights, citing a tendency to immediately publish accusations against the government without first establishing a factual basis for the allegations. The CIIR report also questioned the independence of the Permanent Commission on Human Rights, pointing out that it received funds from the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization funded by the US government, and that these funds were administrated by Prodemca, a US-based organization which later published full-page advertisements in the Washington Post and New York Times supporting military aid to the Contras.

If you insist on splitting the material from the sources and adding a counter-criticism numerous times at the end of each criticism, I will add a counter-counter-criticism from the Black Book of Communism every time you do.

Among the accusations in the Heritage Foundation report are lengthy references to alleged policies of religious persecution. The ICCHRLA reported that: "From time to time the current U.S. administration, and private organizations sympathetic to it, have made serious and extensive allegations of religious persecution in Nicaragua. Colleague churches in the United States undertook onsite investigation of these charges in 1984. In their report, the delegation organized by the Division of Overseas Ministries of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States concluded that there is 'no basis for the charge of systematic religious persecution'. The delegation 'considers this issue to be a device being used to justify aggressive opposition to the present Nicaraguan government.'"

If you insist on splitting the material from the sources and adding a counter-criticism numerous times at the end of each criticism, I will add a counter-counter-criticism from the Black Book of Communism every time you do.

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

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

The CIIR report refers to estimates made by Americas Watch which count the number of non-battle related deaths and disappearances for which the government was responsible up to the year 1986 as "close to 300". Amnesty International and Americas Watch stated that there is no evidence that the use of torture was sanctioned by the Nicaraguan authorities, although prisoners reported the use of conditions of detention and interrogation techniques that could be described as psychological torture. The Red Cross made repeated requests to be given access to prisoners held in state security detention centers, but were refused. Pexise 17:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• (1.) A similar argument should be presented for the Contras, they viewed themselves as acting against a tyrannical regime in liberation war and acting in a state of emergency.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about here. A state of emergency is a legal term referring to the derogation of certain civil and political rights (censorship of the media, restrictions on movement, organisation etc.) by a government during a conflict situation. As the Contras were not a government and were not administering a state there is no way this could apply to them. Look at the Wikipedia definition - or go to a library and look it up if you don't trust Wikipedia. Pexise 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that has been a common excuse for dictatorships for ignoring rights. But you present this from the view of the Sandinistas. We must also present it from the view of the Contras, they were fighting a liberation war against a tyrannical regime supported by Cuba and the Soviet Union.Ultramarine 18:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• (2.) You probably made a mistake regarding the second to last sentence, right?

What do you mean? I don't know what you're talking about?

Would you accept that I add that there has been much misleading propaganda in favor of the Sandinistas?

Of course - it would be good to add some of the biased pro-Sandinista sources, to balance the anti-Sandinista sources which are amply represented. Please add them. Pexise 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are some sources about pro-Sandinista propaganda: [36][37][38]

• (3.) If you insist on splitting the material from the sources and adding a counter-criticism numerous times at the end of each criticism, I will add a counter-counter-criticism from the Black Book of Communism every time you do.

Are you threatening that you will sabotage the article? Pexise 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I will do the same as you. I propose we keep each source to one paragraph. Otherwise we will get an endless counter-counter-counter~counter sequence where everyone attempts to get the last word.Ultramarine 19:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss this now as I've numbered the points above. And please try and be more constructive about this, I'm finding it very difficult to assume good faith as you are being quite petty and spiteful.

(1.) This section is not about the Contras, it is about allegations of human rights violations by the Sandinistas. It is not the place to discuss the motivations of the Contras.

NPOV requires the views of both sides. Only presenting the viewpoint of the Sandinistas is POV.

(2.) I said some pro-Sandinista sources, or examples of propaganda from independent sources. You keep using far-right wing American sources.

That is also a POV.Ultramarine 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(3.) As I said before, the structure is not argument/counter argument, it is thus: "first of all drawing attention to the controversies in play, then presenting controversial sources and criticisms and finally presenting less controversial, credible sources". This is a perfectly adequate structure following WP:AVOID guidelines. Pexise 19:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Your strutcture is like this:

• a. First presenting the POV of the Sandinistas, they were forced to do some bad things
• b. The accusations are Reagan propaganda
• c. Present a criticism from one source
• d. Counter-criticisms citing the same source as in b
• e. Present criticisms from another source
• f. Counter-criticisms citing the same source as in b

A and b are POV violations in itself since they only present one view. Repeating a single source numerous times gives it undue weight and the structure makes it looke like all the criticisms have been disproved, when this source is just one among many.Ultramarine 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of you are doing an admirable job of trying to work this out without going into a full-blown edit war. Remember, we're trying to build a nice section, not come to an agreement about the facts. Try to keep personal comments off this page (using the "show preview" function to vent your frustrations is often helpful). My two cents on the recent discussion: I think Pexise's opening two paragraphs do not yet conform to WP:NPOV, or at least WP:NOR. Let's list the information from the most reliable sources and then let the readers decide to what degree the context was a mitigating factor. Let's NOT threaten each other with tit-for-tat edits ("I think your edits are crap, so I'll just dump an equal number of crap edits in myself"). That is not allowed and can lead to blocks. It seems that Pexise has identified the proper format in accordance with WP:AVOID. Regarding sources, I think we need to agree on a hierarchy of sources, rather than throwing in everything plus the kitchen sink. Investigations by human rights organizations should rank the highest in my view. If we're citing academic books, we should take care to look at the sources of their allegations. I'll try to dig into my library next week. I think it might be helpful to try to draw in a few other editors with an rfc, a discussion board, or from the Central America project. Notmyrealname 20:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Notmyrealname - I'll be interested to know what you think of the first two paragraphs and any ideas you have to improve them. I also think the sources hierarchy idea is excellent, and agree that human rights organisations should rank highest, also bearing in mind the fact that there are different types of Human Rights organisations, and some may be less reliable in this situation (see the material about the Permanent Commission above). I think that in most cases international organisations are more independent and more reliable. I also think an RFC would be a good idea. Pexise 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I happen to share the concern about the Permanent Commission. Not sure how to deal with this though. Perhaps an extended footnote. Did they last past the early 1980s? Are they still in business? That would help in determining their credibility. I'll try to give some thought to the opening paragraphs (might be best just to remove them) if it's still an issue in a week. By the way, I'm not trying to impose my views or pretend I'm an admin or anything. I'm just getting worn out by edit wars. Notmyrealname 20:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - well, the first paragraph is basically a summary of the introduction to the CIIR report - I think it's really important to include this information in this section as there is a danger that lots of false information is presented without being questioned. I think the ideal solution would be to stick to the international Human Rights sources and not to include clearly biased sources such as the Heritage Foundation and the Time article, the first two paragraphs would then not be so necessary. Pexise 21:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV requires the inclusion of all views, there is nothing that excludes respected think thanks like Greenpeace or the Heritage Foundation. TIME is a neutral newspaper.Ultramarine 21:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Permanent Commission on Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found it perfectly accpetable. It was very active during the Somoza regime.[39] This should be added to the article.Ultramarine 21:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

TIME may be neutral, but the sources they cite are not above beyond question. It doesn't appear that they conducted an independent investigation to verify the accusations they printed. Regarding the Greenpeace & Heritage comment: It depends on what you're citing. An opinion article in the Greenpeace newsletter would probably not meet WP:RS standards. A thorough investigation of a particular company or industry, might. Again, it's a case-by-case thing. The problem here is that there are a million things written on the Sandinistas. We need to use our editorial judgment in using only the most credible. I think the CIIR report falls into this grey zone. Instead of saying that they cite different reports, we're better off going to the reports themselves. The first order of concern is to get out the most credible claims on human rights abuses, and then worry about how we deal with things like context and analysis (perhaps by avoiding them altogether). Notmyrealname 21:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no sources beyond question. Your accusation of TIME is unsourced. As per NPOV, we do not judge what is correct or the truth, we present the different views.Ultramarine 21:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the structure, there are some different ways to do this. 1. The material from each source in a single paragraph. There is nothing in WP:AVOID regarding this, it only talks about not having all the criticisms separated from the rest of the article. 2. Separate sections for Numbers killed, Freedom of expression, Torture, Propaganda, etc. Then we can cite what each source has to say in each section. Either one is acceptable for me.Ultramarine 21:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose these sections:

• Claims of propaganda and reliability of sources
• Numbers killed
• Political prisoners and torture
• Freedom of expression and association

The problem with "each source" is that there are an unlimited number of sources. Let's try to stick to the most credible sources (on both sides). Let's try to avoid the sources that are just based on other sources, though. In other words, when people come up with numbers or specific accusations, what is the basis for those numbers or accusations? Notmyrealname 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Each source may need to be discussed individually. What about my proposed sections? Ultramarine 21:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to address a number of points. First of all, it is ridiculous to keep comparing The Heritage Foundation with Greenpeace. In this situation, I have shown the Heritage Foundation report to use questionable sources and make clearly refuted and unfounded accusations. What is more, the Heritage Foundation was advising the Reagan Admin at the time of the Contra war (see Wikipedia article on Heritage Foundation) - hardly an independent or reliable source.

Regarding the Permenent Commission, I have provided sources to show that they produced unfounded reports and that they received funding from the US propaganda organisms. The source in the CIIR report for this is the Washington Post - hardly an obscure source.

The CIIR report is a sound source - it's a very thorough report that is balanced and neutral. CIIR is an independent International Organisation with a Human Rights mandate - the report was funded by SIDA, the Swedish International Development department, a credible and independent source.

I like Notmyrealname's structure - we could deal with the propaganda issue and then try and establish facts about the different human rights violations. I would also include a section: "State of emergency" after propaganda. Pexise 22:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You have shown that there are sources that claims that Heritage foundation uses unreliable sources like the Nicaraguan Permanent Commission on Human Rights. Others disagree and find it reliable, like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Permanent Commission was very active during the Somoza regime.[40] Again, read NPOV and WP:No original research. We do not "try and establish facts", we report the different views. Regarding the struture, are you talking about the four points above (five with you last point)?Ultramarine 23:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the IACHR used the Comision Permanente de Derechos Humanos (CPDH) during the Somoza dictatorship, but you must understand that organisations change - they are not one homogeneous entity. After the revolution there were many changes in Nicaragua, and the leadership of the CPDH also changed:

"The CPDH, founded in 1977, played an important part in denouncing the crimes of the Somoza dictatorship. Founding members represented a broad spectrum of opposition to the regime, from Conservatives to those identified with the Sandinistas. Jose Estéban González, then coordinator of the organization, was also Secretary General of the Social Christian Party.

In its October 1981 report on human rights in Nicaragua, Pax Christi International noted that "the fall of the dictatorship brought about many changes within the commission's direction, as its members who were directly committed to the revolution did not agree with the policy line of Jose Estéban Gonzalez." The latter's Social Christian Party was becoming "a catalyst of the opposition," according to Pax Christi, and González was giving grossly exaggerated reports on the number of political prisoners (a tradition his successors have honored).

In January 1982, González was accused of collaborating with the contras, left the country and was sentenced in absentia. Laverty adds: "He has opened up a human rights organization in Belgium called the Nicaraguan Committee on Human Rights and distributes CPDH material widely throughout Europe."

González's successor as CPDH coordinator was Marta Patricia Baltodano who, Laverty notes, "is now working as director of the contra human rights organization called the Nicaraguan Association of Human Rights (ANPDH)." (See January envío for an analysis of the ANPDH.) On the other hand, many founding members of the CPDH left the organization in 1979 to take up significant posts with the new government."

What is more, this was not my only evidence for the unreliability of the Heritage Foundation - also the fact that it was a government think tank for the Reagan Admin during a period when the US was financing a counter-insurgency against the Nica Govt - harldly trustworthy. I also have INDEPENDENT, INTERNATIONAL sources which point out that accusations of religious persecution were a key part of the Reagan propaganda, and the HF report goes at length to accuse the Nica govt of religious persecution. I think this all adds up to a pretty strong case. Pexise 08:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following structure:

• The politicization of Human Rights in Nicaragua (Claims of propaganda and reliability of sources)
• "State of Emergency"
• Right to life (Numbers killed)
• Political prisoners and torture
• Freedom of expression and association

Although if we want to be really comprehensive, a section about the Miskito indians might be appropriate. Pexise 08:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC))

Miskito indians fall under the other sections. "Claims of propaganda and reliability of sources" is a better name, we do not declare the truth of one view in the title. The same with "State of Emergency" which is a POV title as thus stated, it could be acceptable if within citation marks, as modified above.Ultramarine 09:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe we can leave the state of emergency section and include mentions of it in the other sections. Pexise 09:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Does not really fall under the other sections. How about "War-time conditions" Ultramarine 09:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

War-time conditions sounds good, although we have to be careful that this doesn't end up becoming a catch-all battleground for POV accusations. But let's give it a shot. In the United States, "Right to Life" is a phrase heavily linked to the abortion issue. I think we might be better off with something like "extrajudicial executions," which is a phrase that is commonly used in human rights language. I would strongly advocate for a special section on the Miskito Indians. Many of claims made about Sandinista (mis)treatment of the Miskito population fall outside these areas (for example, forced migration). Sandinista policy also changed over time in response to domestic and international criticism. To deal with the overlap issue, we could include any numbers relating to the Miskito population in the other sections, but make a small note (or asterisks?) saying "see treatment of Miskito Indians below" (or some variation of that). A concern I have about the war-time conditions section, is that this the excuse every government uses to justify human rights abuses ("it was a war. Mistakes were made"). While not denying the importance of the actual conditions that the FSLN faced during this time, I'm thinking that perhaps it would be better to have a brief comparison to other governments in Central America and South America during the same time frame. Notmyrealname 16:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with most of this, unsure of Miskito, but we could try such a section.Ultramarine 19:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Statistics of Democide

Again, the statistcs can be found from line 2477 and onwards.[41]Ultramarine 15:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

After a rough look at the sources the study looks quite fishy: out of 42 different sources, there are only 10 which come from independent human rights groups or latin-american sources. There are almost as many U.S. government sources (8 or so, i think), and the rest appear to be academic or formal research undertaken by non-native academics. My guess is that this guy can't even read spanish; there has been so much done on this subject by local, independent organizations that it makes no sense for his statistical data to come from such a heavily-skewed outsider perspective.

Judging both by the apparent quality of the research and the names of the researchers, my guess is that they'd be North Americans working at U.S. universities.

So really: use the source, if you feel like it bolsters your case. For my part, i'd keep looking around for somebody who knows enough spanish to be able to read what the local people have to say on the subject. Stone put to sky 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and i'd like to add: i'd really love to see more such sources here. There's no reason the sources for this article all need to be in English. I'm sure there are native spanish speakers here, and i'd love to see what they have to add. Stone put to sky 19:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to criticize an academic book, publish in academic literature.Ultramarine 19:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Frontpage Magazine plainly does not comply with WP:RS; unless corroborating sources can be found the material can not be used

Frontpage Magazine is funded by right-wing political groups and is an activist political organization; the assertions in question are made in an editorial; and the material is clearly outside the Historian's area of expertise (a canadian slav specialist in U.S.-Canadian relations writing on Latin America? Can this guy even speak spanish?).

The MIPT terrorism page has been disallowed on at least one page, Jewish Defense League, as not conforming to WP:RS. I'm not saying that it can't be allowed here -- nor am i saying that the material presented there cannot be used -- but rather that it must be used judiciously and sparingly, and not as the basis for lengthy, off-topic commentary. Others, however, might object to it.

A sentence or two stating that the activities of the FMLN were considerd terrorism by the United States is fine; it might be accompanied by a sentence or two from the ICJ ruling in Nicaragua v. United States, where the ICJ ruled that U.S. claims against the Nicaraguan government vis a vis El Salvador are clearly specious and without merit would be, too. Stone put to sky 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious. You are the one claiming in Talk:State terrorism by the United States that a Catholic priest writing on a non-notable Catholic news site is a reliable source for accusations of terrorism against the United States - [42] - "Can't get much more neutral than a priest". Plus you claim that a slew of activist political organizations are notable for the same accusations. Yet here you claim the FPN is not reliable because it is an activist site and the writer is writing outside of his area of expertise. No, you can't have it both ways. - Merzbow 21:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that FPM or MIPT are not even used as sources in this article now. We did agree to remove activist magazines and similar material from both sides in this article. Now if only another article...Ultramarine 22:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your comments focused on content, not on users, or their edits on other pages. Notmyrealname 16:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have sources on Sandinista human rights violations against the east coast Miskito Indians? That would be a useful addition to this section.

Democide

Democide seems to be a neologism coined by one scholar and not picked up by anyone else. It's one thing to cite the guy, but there's no reason to use a made-up word that nobody understands. Notmyrealname 16:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, used by many other scholars.[43]Ultramarine 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary contrary, 99% of the links are to Rummel. Notmyrealname 17:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

On the first page yes, since he created the term. Look at the other 400 scholarly works.Ultramarine 17:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the concept of Democide - I actually think it's quite useful. However, I'd be concerned about it being used politically - it appears to me that it has been used to justify cold war realpolitik, war crimes, aggression etc because Communist dictators (Mao/Stalin) are counted as some of the worst perpetrators. It also seems that Rummel has neo-conservative tendencies (supported Iraq war for example). I would say that the theory is flawed for three principal reasons: 1) it is oversimplistic, creating a kind of *score keeping* system that ignores the complexities in any given situation, and leads to crude comparisons and judgements - e.g. well, Stalin's got the highest democide score, therefore its a good idea to invade country X because the score will ultimately be lower. 2) all of the scores that Rummel records are very controversial, it is far from an exact science. 3) It doesn't take into account deaths caused by government actions in other countries - this is very unfair against countries that project their power, e.g. USA, - what about the 600,000 civilians killed in Iraq as a direct result of the US lead invasion.

Besided all this, I would question whether it belongs in a section about human rights, as I don't believe it has entered the mainstream of human rights discourse. It is certainly a fringe research area (Democide had just under 400 entries on google scholar - try genocide for example and you get 67,000) Pexise 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, picked up by a few others, but most of the entries on Google Scholar seem to be citations of the book, not people who have adopted the term. Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't include (with commentary) his figures, but the term is not a mainstream one and serves to distract from the matter at hand. Notmyrealname 18:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the points 1) The number of deaths caused is probably a pretty fair indicator of the how repressive a regime is, compared to population size. This number in itself does not advocate invasions causing even more deaths. 2) Correct, mass murder is always controversial, as can be seen in this article. Regardless, it is an estimate published in academic press and the sources and calcuations are clearly indicated. Even if you dislike Rummel's own estimate, he lists lots of sources giving others. 3) Democide include deaths in other nations, most of the US democide is from foreign wars. His book if from 1994 if I remember correctly, do therefore does not include the Iraq War.Ultramarine 19:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's clearly a reliable source. Since we're not giving it its own section "Democide", just a paragraph in another section, we can't be accused of forcing new terminology on the reader. There is no justification for removing the material. - Merzbow 16:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rummel's sources referring to PCHR or US State dept:

2508 From CPDH (Comision Permanente de Derechos Humanos)

2518 Brown, from US State Dept

2519 Brown, from US State Dept

2532 SANDINISTA PRISONS: A TOOL OF INTIMIDATION. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of State

2533 SANDINISTA PRISONS: A TOOL OF INTIMIDATION. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of State

2536 From PCHR

2540 SANDINISTA PRISONS: A TOOL OF INTIMIDATION. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of State

2552 U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

That seems to be a fairly substantial reliance on these sources. The rest of the sources he uses are a Hawaiian local newspaper, TIME articles and Wall St Journal. These may also use PCHR and State Dept, I can't check because they aren't online. Pexise 22:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there are around 70 different lines with different sources, 8 out of this is not much. You are incorrect regarding the other sources which also include for example Americas Watch. Ultimately most sources for this kind reserch come from the testimonals of individuals, so there is nothing wrong with citing such testimonals by persons from Nicaragua in newspapers. How to from this extrapolate the total number of human rights violations, most of which are never reported, is the most difficult part.Ultramarine 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong - the estimate for Democide is based on 21 lines, not all with different sources. 8 out of 21 is a very significant proportion. However, it is correct he has used Americas Watch, although not enough to lend real credibility to the estimates. Pexise 17:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[44][45] Sorry, looked at Nicaragua as a whole. Looking at actual lines with sources, there are 26.Ultramarine 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

21 actually - 5 of the lines you mention are political prisoners, not executions - look at the formula for calculating the democide. Having recently spoken to some human rights lawyers, I would once again question whether this section belongs here. It seems to me that democide has not entered the mainstream of human rights discourse. I suggest a separate section for democide. I will rescind if you can find one mainstream human rights source that mentions democide (either part of the UN human rights mechanisms, an international body such as the IACHR or a large international human rights NGO like Amnesty) Pexise 07:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I can live with this section and the one above as they are now. It seems fair now.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Sandinistas and Agrarian Reform

The following text is completely unsourced. If any sources can be found, then that sourced material can be added back.

"Immediately after the Sandinistas gained power they began implementing agrarian reforms. Initial measures involved appropriating all Somoza owned land (apx. 20% of the arable land in Nicaragua) and nationalizing banking institutions giving the government control of credit. During their ten year duration in power their policies and reforms shifted and can be categorized in six different stages: agrarian reform from 1979-1981; recognition of the peasants in 1981; agrarian reform 1981-1982; acceleration and deceleration 1982-1984; prioritization of peasant in 1985; and changes in expropriation from 1986-1989

Initially the Sandinistas plan involved restructuring the country side. Their policies were geared to achieving four main goals: to recover 1978 production; maintain national unity; avoid conflict with the United States; and begin “transition structure” for the introduction to socialist methods of production. To attain these goals, the government implemented policies to promote and revive the Nicaraguan agrarian export economy through the establishment of state farms. The government recognized this as the most efficient means of creating a transition to socialism while avoiding conflict with the United States. The government guaranteed agricultural export growers credit (at negative interest rates). They also guaranteed profitable (although in practice this was not the case, such as coffee) export prices at the government’s expense (should international market prices drop). Rural labourers received a 30% increase in minimum wages. Consumer prices were kept low via cheap food policies and access to subsidized goods from state farms. Employment increased and the work day was shortened. In addressing peasant interests the government took three measures. First, in the spring of 1980 the government expropriated farms seized by the ATC (Farm workers Association). Secondly, they extended low interest credit to small producers and co-operatives. Thirdly, land rents were reduced by 85%. The resulting inflation due to the increased availability of currency without the corresponding increase in product meant that many peasants were unable to repay their loans. The cheap food policies also hurt many peasant food producers. Peasant support of the Sandinistas declined as they began aligning themselves with the conservative UPANIC (Nicaraguan Union Of Agricultural Productivity).

In 1981 there was a shift in agrarian policy. In August of 1981 the government discarded its credit programs. A few months prior, in March, 1981 the “Law of Forced Rents” was instituted. It required that all idle land be rented at legally established low rent rates. This was a response to the increase in demand for land by providing greater access to good quality low rent land. The second measure was the creation of UNAG (National Union of Farmers and Ranchers). It was an arm of the Sandinista government where the peasant farmers could re-align themselves and voice their concerns.

At this point there were three streams of opinion regarding the agrarian reform. Some favored collectivization via state farms, others favored allowing peasant choice in the matter, and others rejected the gradualist actions of the agrarian reform. In 1981, the institution of the Agrarian Reform Law and the Law of Cooperatives were introduced in August. These would maintain state collectivization but would not isolate it as the only path to socialist agricultural development. At the same time a voluntary gradualist policy was initiated while prioritizing both the cooperatives and ownership. Distribution of state resources such as land and credit would favor productive cooperatives. Distribution to individuals favored injured veterans and families with members that had been killed in the war or tortured by Somoza’s security forces. Additionally the government retrenched its former policies. Greater focus was placed on successful cooperatives. Credit policies were more discriminative favoring the most successful cooperatives. In the fall of 1982 these measures were institutionalized with the Programa Nacionale de Desarollo Cooperativo (National Cooperative Development Program). This involved an increased replacement of credit with government established producer prices to increase staple food production. Consumer prices were pushed down by consumer subsidies and price controls.

From the fall of 1982-1984 the Nicaraguan agrarian policies were influenced by the increase in counterrevolutionary activity and many of the governments policies were geared at gaining peasant support. This period of acceleration and deceleration refers to the increased preference in giving land titles to individuals as opposed to cooperatives. From 1979-1982, 952.82 square kilometres in new land titles was redistributed to individuals whereas in 1984 it increased tenfold to 9802.26 km². This period is also characterized by an increase in farming subsidies, producer prices and expansion of technical and training programs.

In 1985 the Sandinistas priority shifted due to an impending economic crisis. This phase is called the prioritization of the peasants. Land was distributed to individuals at a rate of 300% more than the prior six year period. Share croppers and peasants were also given titles to their land. The policy regarding the formation of the cooperatives relaxed allowing for greater diversity. With regards to macroeconomic policies the government was again emphasizing production. They increased producer prices, cut food imports, decreased credit to small and medium producers, cut consumer subsidies and prioritized production inputs for government investment.

After 1986 the agrarian policy experienced changes in expropriation, beginning January 1986. The policy favored limitations on expropriation and redistribution. They removed the bottom acreage limit for land expropriation; expropriated for public use or social interest; no longer compensated expropriation of idle land; allowed for the eligibility of landless peasants as recipients of redistributed land; and created a land bank established from all idle and abandoned lands.

In 1989 the agrarian reform was declared complete by Minister of agriculture, Jaime Wheelock. At this time, state farms constituted 11.7% of arable land; large capitalist land ownership, 6.4%; medium-sized capitalist producers, 9.0%; cooperatives, 13.8%; and peasant production 48.7%."

Stop using human rights reports on Guatemala

The report you were quoting, with 170 cadavers found in mass graves is about Guatemala. The Nicaragua section is the following page. Pexise 12:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm. It seems the linkage is wrong the webpage. Will investigate.Ultramarine 12:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect description

"In a 1992 annual report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights there are details of mass graves and investigations which suggest that mass executions had been carried out. One such grave contained 75 corpses of peasants who were believed to have been executed by government security forces pretending to be members of the contras. Another grave was also found in the town of Quininowas which contianed six corpses, believed to be an entire family killed by government forces when the town was invaded. A further 72 graves were reported as being found, containing bodies of people, the majority of whom were believed to have been executed by agents of the state and some also by the contras. However, there is no indication that these executions were part of government policy."[46]

That is inocrrect, there is no such mention of the contras, or at least not equal weight, in the source. In contrast,

"According to the information supplied to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, between January 14 and 15, 1992, seven common graves were discovered in El Bijagua district, Camoapa jurisdiction, department of Boaco. They contained the bodies of 75 people. The investigations conducted by human rights organizations found that they were the bodies of peasant farmers from the area who were murdered in November 1984, after being "recruited" by elements of State Security who pretended to be members of the Nicaraguan Resistance. They were taken to the site where the graves were discovered supposedly to receive military training. According to the reports received. The current Chief of the National Police, Commandant René Vivas Lugo, was Deputy Secretary of the Interior at the time these events occurred."

"The Inter-American Commission was also told that in May, a common grave containing the six corpses of an entire family were discovered in the town of Quininowas, Department of Jinotega. Human rights groups investigated and found that the killings were allegedly committed by members of the Ligero Cazador Battalion of the Sandinista People's Army, who invaded that town on February 7, 1985."

"By December 1992, human rights groups had received 72 reports of common graves and had investigated 13 of those reports. While the majority of those graves seem to contain the remains of individuals summarily executed by members of the Sandinista People's Army, some contain the remains of persons executed by members of the Nicaraguan Resistance."[47]

Okay - maybe we should be more specific - mass executions can be 5 or 10,000 people. I've made some adjustments. Pexise 13:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"However, there is no indication that these executions were part of government policy." There is no mentioning of this in the report, so OR. Should we state the same regarding the Contras? Ultramarine 13:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's necessary to mention this because the section is about *human rights violations committed by the Sandinistas*. In order to qualify as human rights violations committed by the Sandinistas, they would need to be attributable to the government. Without this sentence, the passage does not belong in this section. However, I think it is an interesting addition to the material, so I think it should stay along with the explanation. Pexise 13:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Violations by government forces are, to some degree, the responsibility of the government, although there is a vast difference between ordered kilings and soldiers doing this on their own due to lack of discipline and punishment. But again, the report never states "there is no indication that these executions were part of government policy"Ultramarine 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you removed the disputed template when there is an ongoing dipuate? Ultramarine 13:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, violations by government forces can be the responsibility of the government if the government ordered the violations, had a policy of human rights violations or had knowledge of the violations and did nothing in response. The report does not state that there was such a policy or order, and this fact has been included. Pexise 13:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The report does not make the claim you mention. We could state "However, there is no mention in the report that these executions were part of government policy."Ultramarine 13:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK - I'll change it. Pexise 13:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sourced criticisms

See [48]. Conservative sources are not excluded automatically, see NPOV. Explain please.Ultramarine 13:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

We had a long discussion earlier, to which you were party, in which we agreed to exclude far-left or far-right sources. Hence the exclusion of Revista Envio (which is, by the way, far from being a far-left source) Pexise 13:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The source you excluded is not a far right source.Ultramarine 13:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It is from News World Communications see article. Pexise 13:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Conservative, not far rights. We could source it directly to Commission and Hernandez instead, just like you did with the Catholic organization.Ultramarine 13:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have the report of the Catholic organization next to me right now. If you can source it to the original PCHR report, that's fine, include it, but please don't use these dubious sources, we should try and maintain a high standard in the article. Pexise 13:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I will have a look at their website.[49]Ultramarine 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits by TDC

User:TDC, a well known and frequently -blocked [50] reverter on this page, continues to remove the caveats given to the Mitrokhin Archive. I find this improper for two reasons:

• 1. TDC presents Mitrokhin's claims as fact, when they are merely notes one man allegedly took over thirty years.
• 2. Historians such as Getty have found the material problematic given it's single-sourced and fantastic claims. American Historical Review (106:2, April 2001) [51]

TDC claims Mitrokhin's material is cited, but look closely. The cites refer back to the Mitrokhin archive itself. This is circular verification. I believe removing the caveats given to the Mitrokhin material is tendentious at best, POV at worst.

Passage TDC removes:

Mitrokhin's claims were based on notes allegedly taken from the Former Soviet Union. Historian J. Arch Getty of the UCLA in the American Historical Review (106:2, April 2001): found Mitrokhin's material to be “fascinating," but he also questioned plausibility that Mitrokhin could have smuggled and transcribed thousands of KGB documents, undetected, over 30 years. Former Indian counter-terrorism chief Bahukutumbi Raman also questions both the validity of the material as well as the conclusions drawn from them. [52] Raman points out that Mitrokhin did not bring either the original documents or photocopies. Instead, he brought handwritten/typed notes of the contents of the documents.

I believe the caveats should be reinstated. Abe Froman 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:COATRACK, this article is about the Sandinistas and their activities, its not an appropriate place to attack the credibility of sources used in the article, especially when those source have their own articles. Secondly, Getty and Raman’s criticism are general criticisms, and have nothing to do with the material about the FSLN’s involvement with the KGB. Lastly, Marcus Wolf wrote about the Stasi’s involvement in training the FSLN’s secret police, if a more reliable source is available on this topic, please present it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

1. WP:COATRACK is not applicable, given your single-sourced claims are dubiously factual. Presenting them as fact is a disservice to the encyclopedia.

2. The Marcus Wolf 'magic' citation is bogus. It gives no page number or context. A search of Wolf's book finds ZERO mentions of Mitrokhin. [53] I believe this may be a fabrication on TDC's part. Abe Froman 16:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

3. The "Guerilla Prince" citation supporting Mitrokhin also mentions Mitrokhin zero times. No page number or context is given. Another fabrication? [54]

4. The "Violence in Latin American Revolutionaries" citation supporting Mitrokhin also mentions Mitrokhin zero times. No page number or context is given. Another fabrication? [55]

5. The "Secret History of the East German Secret Police" citation supporting Mitrokhin also mentions Mitrokhin zero times. No page number or context is given. Another fabrication? [56]

We have a problem with all of TDC's cites supporting Mitrokhin. At the very least, he must provide relevant passages and page numbers to support his fantastic claims. Otherwise, his screed has to go. Abe Froman 16:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK seems more apt to TDC's edits than Abe's. According to Jack Straw (British Foreign secretary) "As there were no original KGB documents or copies of original documents, the material itself was of no direct evidential value, but it was of huge value for intelligence and investigative purposes." As there is no proof of the authenticity of the documents or the claims regarding the Sandinistas, this doesn't appear to meet WP:RS. Maybe the whole thing deserves a sentence at most, or perhaps a footnote, but any reference should definitely include qualifiers. Notmyrealname 16:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere do I state that Wolf’s book cites Mitrokinh, only that Wolf admits that the Stasi trained the Nicaraguan secret police, which would fall under the heading “East Block Intelligence Agency”.

Jack Straw also commented, which you left out that "Thousands of leads from Mr. Mitrokhin's material have been followed up world wide. As a result, our intelligence and security agencies, in co-operation with allied Governments, have been able to put a stop to many security threats. Many unsolved investigations have been closed; many earlier suspicions confirmed; and some names and reputations have been cleared. Our intelligence and security agencies have assessed the value of Mr. Mitrokhin's material world wide as immense."

So obviously, British Intel found it credible enough. We could go round and round as to WP:RS, but all the material from Mitrokhin is presented to use via Christopher Andrew, who definitely qualifies as a WP:RS, Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Without page numbers and relevant passages from your alleged supporting citations, they have to go. Mitrokhin makes very specific claims like remote orchestration by the KGB of FSLN, and KGB sponsored FSLN infiltration of the United States. These allegations are not supported by anyone but Mitrokhin, at this time, given the current citations. At the least, the Mitrokhin caveats must remain. At best, the whole Mitrokhin based section must go unless these problems with TDC's citations are fixed and verified. Abe Froman 17:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The link provided by Abe includes questions about some of the (thousands of) claims made in the archives. What are "valuable" to an intelligence service is not the same as a reliable source. Information that has been verified by other reliable sources is okay, but stuff that isn't doesn't belong, or if it must be there, definitely needs qualifiers and caveats. In any case, Abe is certainly correct that any claims need to be properly cited with page numbers, etc.Notmyrealname 17:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the following passage very carefully, because you are either not looking closely enough or you are intentionally distorting the passage.

Aside from Andrew and his source Mitrokhin, a number of other sources have claimed ties between the FSLN and Eastern bloc Intelligence agencies.[37][38][39][40]

Note that this did not say, a number of other sources have confirmed Andrew, only that they also mentioned ties between the FSLN and Eastern bloc Intelligence agencies, which they all have. This has all be discussed in talk before, and the concensus then was for the materials inclusion. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

TDC, please provide page numbers, context, and supporting passages for the cites challenged in points 2->5 above. At this time, the citations supporting the Mitrokhin Archive do not meet WP:RS, or even WP:CITE, given the dearth of page numbers. Abe Froman 17:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the phrasing is particularly weasely. You need to include proper citations, which means page numbers, in any case. The bulk of the section is on the Mitrokhin allegations, of which you provide no additional support. Given WP:COATRACK and WP:RS, I think the Mitrokhin info should be removed.Notmyrealname 17:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously to argue that Christopher Andrew is not a reliable source? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Go back and reread this section. Abe Froman 17:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No, please answere the question directly: does Christopher Andrew qualify as a WP:RS or not?. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not change the subject. We can talk about Christopher Andrew, next. For your benefit, I have posted the four issues you must respond to in order to keep the compromised citations supporting Mitrokhin:

1. The Marcus Wolf citation. It gives no page number or context. A search of Wolf's book finds ZERO mentions of Mitrokhin. [57].

2. The "Guerilla Prince" citation supporting Mitrokhin also mentions Mitrokhin zero times. No page number or context is given. [58]

3. The "Violence in Latin American Revolutionaries" citation supporting Mitrokhin also mentions Mitrokhin zero times. No page number or context is given. [59]

4. The "Secret History of the East German Secret Police" citation supporting Mitrokhin also mentions Mitrokhin zero times. No page number or context is given. [60]

TDC, please provide page numbers, context, and supporting passages for the cites challenged in points 1->4 above. At this time, the citations supporting the Mitrokhin Archive do not meet WP:RS, or even WP:CITE, given the dearth of page numbers. Abe Froman 17:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

-Left indenting- I think the book qualifies as a reliable source in that it reports the material provided by Mitrokhin. That doesn't mean that the claims made in the book are reliable. Thus, if they are to be included, they need to be qualified. If a psychologist writes a scholarly book collecting stories of people who claim to be abducted by UFOs, that doesn't mean that you can cite the content as evidence of alien abductions (an extreme example, but hopefully you see the distinction). Notmyrealname 17:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Man Without a Face: 346-347
2. The "Guerilla Prince" 287
3. The "Violence in Latin American Revolutionaries" pg 29, 67-69, details the Soviets involvement with the FSLN, all the back to 1961
4. The "Secret History of the East German Secret Police" pg 298-310, details the Stasi’s involvement with the FSLN.

Reliability of the Mitrokhin material was vetted by Andrew the author. There is a difference as to what constitues a WP:RS and what you may deem as "reliable". Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Does Andrew say that everything stated in all of the documents are true? Or does he say that these are the documents that Mitrokhin provided? I have separated out the Mitrokhin allegations and the other claims (I don't think it's very controversial that the Sandinistas got logistical help from other countries when they were in power. As long as you provide proper sourcing in the article, they should stand). The Mitrokhin archive can be cited, but it is not a traditional academic source. If you are citing specific claims made there, the reader should know that there are questions about the source. Notmyrealname 18:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrew uses the documents in concert with other sources for most of the information. I fail to see how Andrew’s book does not qualify as a traditional academic source? Every book or research paper or author will have its critics, but the vast overwhelming consensus is that Mitrokhin’s archives were one of the most important intelligence finds of all time. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

1 Man Without a Face: 346-347

• "In 1985 I visited Managua, from Cuba..." Thus starts a passage in which Nicaragua is never mentioned outside its relationship with Cuba. Far from being a KGB operation, the text refers to the Sandinista's as a pet project of Cuba's, with the KGB coming along as tourists. In no place does it mention direct KGB orchestration. Mitrokhin goes unmentioned. [61]

You forgot to include the rest of Wolf's quote:

We tried to seek partners there (Nicaragua) among the most stable ranks of the security services. Our main contribution to Nicaraguan Security was the training of security guards for the for the president and ministries. This became quite a cottage industry of the East German Ministry of State Security.

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

2 The "Guerilla Prince" 287

• Page 287 deals with Castro, his brother, and the KGB. [62] In no place does it mention Nicaragua, the FSLN, or Mitrokhin. This citation will have to be removed.

3 The "Violence in Latin American Revolutionaries" pg 29, 67-69, details the Soviets involvement with the FSLN, all the back to 1961

• Another problem. The context in this citation says the Soviets supported the FSLN through their Cuban allies. This is very different than saying the Soviets orchestrated the FSLN themselves, from 10,000 miles away. Also, Mitrokhin is not mentioned at all, years after his allegations became known. [63]

No its not, the Soviets had defacto control of Cuban Intelligence. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

4 The "Secret History of the East German Secret Police" pg 298-310, details the Stasi’s involvement with the FSLN.

• The text refers to "FSLN training in Cuba..." [64] Like the previous citation, FSLN is characterized as being helped indirectly by the Former Soviet Union, through their Cuban allies. Mitrokhin goes unmentioned, 8 years after his allegedly groundbreaking allegations become known.

Thats a borderline lie:

Nicaragua had provided the Stasi officers stationed in Havana with the opportunity to become immediately acquainted with the leadership, especially Thomas Borge. Shortly after the FSLN defeated the Somoza regime and seized power in July 1979, Colonel Fiedler set up a Stasi outpost in Managua. Over the years the size of the Stasi contingency fluctuated between 60 and 80 officers. The primary task of this group was to systematically construct a Nicaraguan General Directorate of State Security that was identical in structure and operational doctrine of the Stasi.

In mid-March 1980, Nicaraguan Interior minister Thomas Borge visited Moscow for meetings with KGB Major, Yakov P. Medyanik, deputy chief of the First Main Directorate, the KGB’s foreign intelligence arm. Later that month Borge flew to Czechoslovakia then to Sofia, where he consulted with the secret police officials.

The next few pages contain similar material. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the citations do not say what the present passage claims they do, they should be reworded at the very least to truly reflect their content, or better yet, removed. Abe Froman 18:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I could find on the cited pages in Geyer's book was this: “Because of the knowledge that had flowed from Moscow to Peking to Prague to East Berlin to Havana to Managua, the Sandinistas soon understood Castro’s sophisticated political techniques, and they used them most effectively against the United States.” Pg 345. That hardly supports what TDC has written. Notmyrealname 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely why you need to include page numbers with citations, btw. Sheesh. Can we stop this now? Notmyrealname 18:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I second Notmyrealname's reformulation. Abe Froman 18:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just looked this over again. Given the unreliability of TDC's referencing, documented above, I'm inclined to delete the Mitrokhin allegations altogether unless TDC (or someone else) can provide proper citations for the other allegations there. I'll leave it up for the moment. I would strongly suggest that TDC type the cited passage on the talk page so we don't play this silly game again. Notmyrealname 18:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. TDC, can you provide the page numbers and quoted passages from Andrew's book? Abe Froman 18:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read it agian, along with mny resonses and see how Abe is misrepresenting the material? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, Abe knows damn well that we already played this game before, with me transcribing every relvant passage from Andrew over here, and having other editors comment on it. Talk:Sandinista National Liberation Front/Archive 1, go have a look see for yourself. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"After a Cuban reorganization of the FSLN structure and tactics in the 1970s...In Latin America, somewhat to its irritation, the KGB found itself being upstaged by the DGI, its Cuban ally. By 1970, the (Cuban) DGI has effectively expropriated the Sandinista Guerilla group." pg 385 Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB. [65]

* As we have been saying, the citations, when read, support the prevailing historical view that Cuba was the FSLN's main patron. Mitrokhin's own book states the Cubans were running the show, and the KGB was irritated at being left out. Interpreting the text to claim a grand KGB orchestration from half a world away is unsupported by the citations we have, including Motrokhin. Abe Froman 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as novel as your interpretation of Andrew’s work is, its definitely WP:NOR and as such has no place in the article. Secondly, simply because the Cubans were the primary patron’s of the Sandinistans, does not mean that Moscow was calling the shots, because Cuban Intel was under the direct control of Moscow, and it does not mean that Moscow was not running its own separate operations within Nicaragua. And, if you have a source for any of thie, I would be more than interested in seeing it (but we know you dont). Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My quotation was from Mitrokhin and Andrew's book. It states Moscow was secondary to Cuba. Indeed, according to Mitrokin and Andrew themselves: "By 1970, the (Cuban) DGI had effectively expropriated the Sandinista Guerilla group." pg 385 Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB. [66]

As for TDC's new claims: "Moscow was calling the shots, because Cuban Intel was under the direct control of Moscow, and it does not mean that Moscow was not running its own separate operations within Nicaragua..." Now who is engaging in WP:OR? Please cite the following:

1. Moscow making all major Cuban decisions.

2. Cuban DGI under the direct control of Moscow.

3. Moscow ran its own separate operations within Nicaragua.

Since Mitrokhin and Andrew were TDC's single-source for allegations of total orchestration of the FSLN from the Kremlin, these claims should be removed now that it is clear Mitrokhin and Andrew were not saying this. Abe Froman 19:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

From *gasp* Andrew (Sword and Sheild, pg 385): "By 1970 the DGI (Cuba's intelligence agency) had effectively "expropriated" the Sandinista ISKRA guerrilla group." If you read the rest of the passage and the following pages, it is clear that the Cubans were doing their own thing with the Sandinistas. Andrew does not paint a picture of Soviet "de facto" control over the DGI, as TDC states. I also looked over the archive page you refer to. You cite page numbers that do not support your statements. For instance, I could find no mention of NORAD in S&S. In fact, Andrew says that the "most dramatic attempt by the Sandinistas on a United States target was the attempt, with assistance from the DGI and the personal blessing of Fidel Castro, to kidnap Turner B. Shelton, the United States Ambassador." (page 386, S&S). (he also notes that Shelton had appeared with Somoza on the 20 cordoba note and was commonly called "sapo" or "toady"). Your citation of Geyer was bogus. You can't dump a load of bogus and legitimate references (without proper citations) and expect everyone else to clean up your mess. This is edit warring and POV pushing. I agree that Andrew's book can be cited (if you actually cite what he says, and not what you wish him to say) but you can't delete all criticisms of his sources. Notmyrealname 19:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Moscow making all major Cuban decisions. And 2. Cuban DGI under the direct control of Moscow.

Castro’s return to Moscow loyalism had an immediate effect on the DGI’s relationship with the KGB. In accordance with the wishes of Castro, during the winter of 68-69 all heads of the DGI overseas stations were recalled to Havana to be given new instructions on cooperation with the KGB. Early in 1969 KGB pressure led to the replacement of Manuel Pinero by the more reliably pro-Soviet Jose Mendez Cominches. The World Was going our way, pg 91

The General Intelligence Directorate (DGI) was established under the Ministry of the Interior (MININT) in late 1961. The new agency included three Liberation Committees - for the Caribbean, Central America, and South America - collectively known as the Liberation Directorate (DL). In the early 1960's, the DL also was responsible for supporting liberation movements in Africa, including those who overthrew the government of Zanzibar in 1963. However Soviet economic pressure on Cuba in 1967-68 forced Castro to develope a more selective revolutionary strategy, and subordinate the DGI to the KGB. The KGB compelled Castro to replace its chief, Manuel Piñeiro, with José Méndez Cominches in 1969. ederation of American Scientists:

3. Moscow ran its own separate operations within Nicaragua.

The KGB did retain a number of agents within the Sandinsita’s, Among them GRIM (not identified by Mitrokinh’s notes) , who was used to identify possible operation in which the KGB could make use of the FSLN. The Sword and the Shield – pg 386

And yes, deletion of the criticism is valid becasue what little there is dopes not deal with any of the information regarding the FSLN, and an article already exists on the source, which is the proper place for the criticism to goTorturous Devastating Cudgel 19:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Addressing TDC's 1st point: From the Wikipedia DGI article: "The relationship between the Soviet Union KGB and the Cuban DGI is complex and marked by times of extremely close cooperation and times of extreme competition." That sums it up. It is too simplistic, to the point of negligence, to claim the DGI was an unthinking arm of the KGB. As Mitrokhin and Andrew write, "the KGB found itself being upstaged by the DGI, its Cuban ally," [67] in its contacts with the Sandinistas.

Addressing TDC's 2nd point: So Mitrokhin writes the KGB had one agent, unidentified to date, with the Sandinistas? Was he a super agent? This does not seem notable in TDC's original context: That of the KGB running an equal, parallel effort to the DGI. Abe Froman 20:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, because, as usual, you only cite what supports your POV, and leave out inportant details: In 1970 a team of KGB advisors led by General Viktor Semyonov was sent to the DGI to purge it of officers and agents considered anti-Soviet by the KGB. Manuel Piñeiro, becoming increasingly upset at the co-optation of the DGI by the Soviets, was removed during the 1970 purge and replaced with the pro-Soviet José Méndez Cominches as head of the DGI. Semyonov also took this opportunity to oversee a rapid expansion of the DGI's western operations. . Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

KGB agents within the FSLN:

The FSLN leader, Carlos Fonseca Amador, codenamed GIDROLOG (“Hydrologist”), was a trusted KGB agent … The KGB’s second major penetration of the Sandinistas was probably the recruitment by the Mexico City residency in 1960 if the Nicaraguan exile Edelberto Torres Espinosa (codenamed PIMEN), a close friend of Fonseca as well as General Secretary of the anti Somoza Nicaraguan United Front in Mexico

In Nicaragua … at present time – via KGB agents and confidential contacts PIMEN, GIDROLOG and LOT – (the KGB) is influencing and providing financial aid to the Sandio (Sandinista) Revolutionary Front and three partisan detachments which belong to the Internal Revolutionary Resistance Front, which works in co-ordination with its friends (Cuban and Soviet block intelligence services).

The Residency (Mexico City), through the trusted agent GIDROLOG in Mexico, selected a group of students (12 people), headed by the Nicaraguan patriot-doctor PRIM (Andara y Ubeda), and arranged for their operational training. All operations with PRIM’s group are conducted by GIDROLOG in the name of the Nicaraguan revolutionary organization “The Sandinista Front”, of which he, GIDROLOG, is the leader. The supervision of the group’s future activities and financial aid given to it will be provided through GIRDILOG. At Present time PRIM’s group is ready to be dispatched to Honduras, where it will undergo additional training and fill out its ranks with new gueriilas, after which the group will be sent to Nicaraguan territory.

So, no, Andrew writes that there were lots of KGB agents within the FSLN. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please give it a rest for today. Your above edits (which you, once again, do not cite) come from a web page that lists its main sources as the Cuban American National Foundation. There's plenty of nasty things you can write about all the lefty groups in the world. Please do it by abiding by the rules of Wikipedia, which include properly citing sources, not pushing your POV, and reporting what sources actually say. Notmyrealname 20:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, yes I did cite it, and the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is most definately a WP:RS, as it is used in countless articles on Wikipedia. And so far, the only citation I could not verify (and I still dont understand that one) was the Gerogia Ann Geyer, all the other ones were cited and used properly. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

FAS only repeats what a Cuban exile group claims. The original source is not FAS, but the Cuban American National Foundation. It's original cite from FAS is a dead link. [68] Abe Froman 20:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the link is dead, we dont know what the FAS took from that paper So, are you saying that the FAS is not a WP:RS? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you do this all the time, TDC? Mitrokhin is one source, and even then you extrapolate wildly from what he alleges. Mitrokhin maintained the DGI was primarily involved in Nicaragua, and just because the KGB had a bunch of agents in the FSLN that doesn't mean they were a pathetic appendage of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, as you well know, had a bunch of agents in the US government in 1930s and 1940s: does that mean that Washington was being run from Moscow?

In addition, Mitrokhin himself states that agents, in their reports filed to HQ, would frequently exaggerate the amount of influence they had over a particular person. I think you need to throttle back a little to get a better perspective. MarkB2 02:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If the KGB had a hand in supporting, financing and training the FSLN, is that not notable? If one of the founders of the FSLN was a KGB agent, wouldn’t that be notable? If the KGB was using its assets in FSLN to run surveillance on NORAD targets in the US, wouldn’t that be noteworthy, Until Froman got here, no one seriously objected to this material, and it had been subject to an RfC and several other editors chimed in on it. It passes all the criteria for inclusion. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's notable, yes, but only with the caveat that the information is from a single source that is a historian's summary of hand-written notes allegedly copied from destroyed KGB documents. I don't really doubt Andrew and Mitrokhin made things up, but even the best historians have a POV, and KGB records don't necessarily give honest evaluations of situations. The section as it stands now is fine. MarkB2^Chat 05:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone give a proper reference (book and page number) about the Carlos Fonseca/NORAD accusation? I can't seem to find it in the sources listed (and as cited above, Andrew seems to think the most notable Sandinista action against a US target was the attempted kidnapping of an ambassador). Notmyrealname 17:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This debate could go on forever but it's clear that only TDC believes this Red Dawn-inpsired nonsense about bloodthirsty Sandinista commandos infiltrating the USA to blow-up the Whitehouse or whatever. Any sensible student of the FSLN knows that they just want to be left alone by the USA.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)