Talk:Sandinista National Liberation Front

How do you edit a ref list?

I would like to edit the ref list but I am not sure how. Reference 120 refers to an article that can only be read by subscribers now.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping these pages would give me a balanced over view of the Sandanista Movement and the events of the late 70's and early 80's. Instead we have what appears to be a largely uncritical and unsourced piece that could have come from the pages of the Morning Star. Look at the section on the Iran/Contra affair and see what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.154.96.98 (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Totally Biased

This article dosen't even seem to make a pretense of neutrality. What's with 'Any pretense of a change was dropped as soon as power was gained, the Red and Black flag is displayed once again in every public office' without a source... how is that NPOV?

I'm not advocating a pro-Sandinista article but it would be a start if the clearly anti-Sandinista statments here were at the very least cited... although according to NPOV they should be removed entirely.--86.138.113.101 (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This Article is dreadfully inaccurate

Can't the wiki editors just delete nonsense like this? It has a pretense of scholarship, but only quotes sources that support its position. It may be one of the last places on earth that takes Alexander Cockburn seriously. It leaves out huge quantities of information that don't support its point of view. Who wrote it? Daniel Ortega? It's unfixable and should be deleted. Wikipedia hurts itself by letting trash like this stand. PorkchopLarue (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The above is hardly a constructive contribution. Delete the article? Is the subject not notable? This editor does not make a single concrete proposal to improve the article and until s/he does nothing useful is served. SmokeyTheCat 18:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree that this article is inaccurate and extremely biased in favor of leftist and socialist ideologies, i.e. it completely lacks neutrality. There are hundreds of examples and there is no space to mention them all, but, for example, is it "by the way" mentioned that the police assasinating Sandino was "US equiped" (although it is completely random and unimportant fact - by chance in 1930 the police bought weapons in US, probably there were no other manufactures of the same quality in the Americas at that time and US were closest and logically cheapest) with the clear intention to attack US and discredit it. Also, massive human right violations committed by the Sandinistas are downplayed in the article, socialist and leftist buased opinions are stated as facts but any criticism are provided with citation in order, again, toe discredit the sources of such criticism.

Again, another non-constructive contribution, this time anonymous. Much work was done by several editors over months on the issue of human rights and this can be read in the archives. SmokeyTheCat 06:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the previous anon, but I agree. This article only contains half the story. The Sandinistas are widely acknowledged to have been terrorists at some point, and yet there's no mention of it in the article. In fact, there's pejorative comment after pejorative comment about the Contras and the US, but nothing in the same vein about the Sandinistas. Let's get things clear: you can dislike the US actions in Nicaragua and also dislike the way other groups behaved. Simply being on the opposite side to the US does not make a group heroic or good. The article's not NPOV. I won't try and edit it, because I know how these things go on Wikipedia - an article doesn't become this bad unless there are some very aggressive editors "protecting" it and enforcing their own views - but if you're congratulating yourselves on a good job, you shouldn't be unless the job you intended was to write propaganda. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Dave

The Sandinistas were not "widely acknowledged to be terrorists" by anybody but a few US apologists for the Contras (who were indeed terrorists). The USA was found guilty by the World Court of war crimes against Nicaragua: [[1]] The Sandinistas were never found guilty of anything by anybody. Indeed it would a strange nation indeed who re-elected a terrorist as president, as Daniel Ortega was re-elected by the Nicaraguans. You should read up on some neutral sources as opposed to just swallowing Reaganite propaganda before you make further comments here. SmokeyTheCat 06:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No Citations

For a large amount of this "information" there are no citations whatsoever. This article reads like a peice of propaganda! All of these articles support each other to support a case through halftruths and heresay. Somebody needs to delete all of the junk out of this article so each new section is not interwoven like the chronicles of narnia. People need to remove the literacy project and create a linking page with real facts and figures. I'll say it again; this article reads like the con-air script User Out: 174.31.214.195 (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

San Diego Teachers' Committee in Central America/Mataglapa and El Cua Bokay areas

I was with this group and have some information on the work they were doing along with numerous other groups in solidarity with the people of Nicaragua. Does any one know or have information on other groups and the areas they worked in?98.190.222.62 (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)VT