Talk:Contras/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Saying webbs accusations weren't proven is wrong

I have know added the CIA report which confirmed much of what webb claimed, so it can't be claimed that theres no evidence to back it up.

Now Gustnado is trying to split hairs and say that webbs allegations in regards to crack cocaine were never proven. Namely that crack was introduced into southern california by the contras. Now it's true that the CIA report said it found no evidence of webbs claims that Rick Ross, Daniel Blandon and Norman Meneses were connected to the CIA or the Contras. However, a Justice department report confirmed that Meneses and Blandon had connections to the Contras and had probably given some of there money to them. The CIA report also confirms Webbs claims that the CIA intervened in the prosecution of a San Francisco based crack dealer with ties to the contras. The Report concluded that more than 50 Contras and contra related entities were involved in the drug trade. Well crack is a big part of the drug trade so to say they weren't involved with it is very naive. So while Webbs specific claim that the contras were resoponsible for the crack epidemic may remain unproven, although I don't think Webb blamed them for it entirely, it is simply innacurate to say webbs claims weren't proven.

As It stands the article says that some of webbs claims were proven which an accurate view of the facts. Unless you have a link to some sorta article that says otherwise than the sentence is simply wrong.annoynmous 13:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no hair splitting at all. The entire thrust of my objection to the original article, from the beginning, has been the Webb's allegation "alleging that the origin of crack cocaine in California was the responsibility of the Contras." was not supported by evidence. That remains true. Furthermore, that precise allegation is very important, since it in particular has led to much of the drug controversy; not that some Contras were involved in the drug trade and the CIA knew it, but that the Contras were responsible for the origination of crack cocaine in CA. I have never argued that some Contras were not involved in the drug trade. Hence the allegation that appears in the article is incorrect, and the qualifying statement is misleading - yes some of his allegations were confirmed, but not the central allegation.

Furthermore, it is inaccurate to use the term "the Contras" as a unitary item. The Contras were an every changing coalition of groups and individuals. However, this usage persists throughout the article, so correcting it in this one area would be insufficient.

---

Okay well the problem is that Webb never said the Contras were the origin of crack cocaine in california, just that they greatly contributed to the rise of it which is true. I've changed the wording to reflect this so it can no longer be claimed that his findings were unproven.

The fact is that many people in the contras were involved in the drug trade and this contributed to the rise of it in california. Were they the origin of it, probably not, but Webb never claimed that so your mythical straw man is destroyed. I now consider this matter solved.annoynmous 00:29, 13 February 200 (UTC)

pro-communist and anti-communist

I assume that these adjectives have been endlessly debated. My first time on the site. How would anyone know what the problem was reading the article which conceals the political identity of the two groups under Spanish abbreviations, not even calling them contras at times? What is wrong with presenting the problem up front: whether to support an anti-communist group whose roots were suspect or a pro-communist group who "might not be that bad?" While the language is unencyclopedic, that is about what happened. Student7 (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Terrorism

And another thing! Why is this part of WikiProject Terrorism? I thought these guys wore uniforms and did not "melt into the population" like true terrorists which do not wear uniforms and hide among civilians. Did they oppose legitimate government? Perhaps so, but so did the American revolutionaries who wore distinctive uniforms. Not exactly Al Queda here IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually brought this up on the project's talk page. One editor went on a tagging spree on several articles, offending people of all political stripes. I made the point that I wanted him to be the one to remove the banner he placed, rather than an involved editor whose political leanings are known, so that it didn't turn into an edit war. However, he didn't follow up on my complaint, and I didn't keep on his back, so nothing was done. But I certainly agree with you. --Groggy Dice T | C 21:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I put in my two cents there and will probably suffer for it but I agree that something needed to be said. Student7 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and… (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States… [or]… (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"-US federal criminal code definition of terrorism. One does not have to melt back into the civillian population to be a terrorist (in fact the contras were given marching orders from Washington in 87 to target more soft targets) the contras are definately a terrorist group.

As I noted on the WikiProject talk page, I was willing to live with the tagging, so long as a consistent standard was followed and the FSLN was tagged as well. Personally, I believe that both the Sandinistas and contras are best understood as guerrillas, along with groups such as the Colombian FARC that also have been called terrorists. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If a consistent standard were to be followed, the U.S. government or, if you prefer, both the Democratic and Republican parties would be tagged as well. It has committed more acts of terrorism(by its own definition) than the FSLN and Contras put together, and without even a four-year term of rest. Incidentally, the U.S. is the only government that's been censured by the World Court for state terrorism(for its actions, in collaboration with the Contras, against the Nicaraquan people). Obviously, abiding by the definitions of a government so officially unrivaled in terrorism has a certain artistic absurdity, but the U.S.'s "terrorism"(a designation applicable to most any armed force but applied only to enemies) should rather be seen as propagandistic(it explicitly excludes itself from consideration for the category, for example) and avoided. If the U.S. were not precluded before the fact, the three U.S.-designated terrorist crimes would have the following suspects: (i) all parties, (ii) U.S. and Contras, (iii) U.S. and Contras. Otherwise, the FSLN would have had to have been acting to influence itself.Tomblikebomb (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

James LeMoyne

James LeMoyne is cited as an authority on the subject of sandinistian violence, but everyone knows that he was a complete joke. The Times has confessed this and he left the newspaper after his alleged discoveries. So please, don't use him as an authority on the subject, at least not without mentioning the criticism. 130.235.23.66 (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiomono (talk)James LeMoyne was NYT bureau chief in El Salvador in addition to his coverage of Nicaragua. Recently he was appointed by the UN Secretary General to be special envoy to Columbia. He was like all NYT and mainstream media in Managua and only went where the Sandinstas allowed him to go. FSLN made war zones off limits without escorts and frequently as in articles I've occasionally cited, the NYT would just declare them "inaccessible". In spite of that, LeMoyne made more of an effort than most to look at both sides. I'm sure his reporting of the execution of campesinos by El Sal guerrillas for carrying voting cards outraged visceral elements of the extreme left as did his reporting of both Sandinista atrocities and well publicized campesino relocation camps. But bear in mind, today he is angering Columbian authorities by asking uncomfortable questions there, so he spreads it around is my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiomono (talk • contribs) 18:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of non-formal expressions

I am too lazy to go through the Policies right now but I am guessing this is not an appropiate expression (emphasized; permanent link):

The Milpistas are considered by many to be the "big cheese" as they predated any CIA support by several years.

I would change it If I knew what it means. Rafael Pi (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. A lot of awful quotes get into Wikipedia based on "well, it is true and in the media, therefore..." I suppose the editor was trying to tell us that the Contras (why fool with the name?) were popular enough to survive without outside help against the Sandanistas who were probably getting help from Fidel and maybe other places. Therefore they should be more highly regarded than any other anti-Sandanista party. Be nice to replace or delete it. Student7 (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Page has become pro-contra propoganda page

My god some people have really gone to town on this page in the last few months. This page has become an anti-sandinista, pro-contra propoganda page. I reverted everything back to a January 2008 edit because just about everything that has been added since then is a complete and utter travesty. I really don't know how to comment on all the things that are wrong with this article.

First off the entire origins section based on one biased source, Timothy browns book.

Also, Gary webbs accusations were confirmed by the investigation the CIA itself conducted. So to say that his claims were discredited is just a plain lie.

I sorry I had to go back to January, but the article as it stood was just unaccepatable. I'll add back in stuff that is relevant later, but for now I just had to clean house because this article has become a mess.annoynmous 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The version that you keep reverting to is at least as anti-contra as the other version is "pro-contra." The irony is that while the Sandinistas themselves have been willing to admit their errors and have reached out to win the votes of former rebels and their sympathizers, some of their foreign supporters seem to be stuck in their circa 1986 vision of Nicaragua. Some Wikipedia editors are holding to views about the contras that even the Sandinistas don't believe anymore.

For instance, while pro-contra editors like to emphasize the role of the MILPAS, anti-contra editors prefer to emphasize the role of former Guardsmen. Yet even Envio, in its February 1987 review of the contra war, noted that Dimas' MILPAS rebellion was "the most serious episode" of the early part of the war.

On the other hand, your favored version reads that "many members" of the old Guard were involved in forming early groups like the 15th of September Legion. But even writers who were hardly pro-contra, like Christopher Dickey and Roy Gutman, have noted how tiny these groups were.

I've been reluctant to touch this article, fearing that I would just be getting involved in a quagmire. However, I don't think I can remain on the sidelines anymore. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

First Archive

I have just archived the discussions up to February of this year. Although I expect many of these controversies to be perennials that will come up again (including some points I'd planned to respond to myself), it just became too ungainly with all the inactive discussions cluttering the page. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Proof of claims

What proof do you have to back up any of the claims you stated above. It certainly isn't in the article.

The first section of the article is based entirely on a timothy browns book.

Also it is simply a flat out lie that Gary webbs articles have been disproven.

Yes, I've heard this whole, a lot of the contras were former sandinistas argument before, but so far not one reliable source has ever been provided to show me that they were anything other than a minor part on the contra forces. The fact is that many of them were former somoza guards and mercinaries trained in argentina.

The article as it stands is borderline slanderous against the sandinistas. I am not going to allow people like Groggy dice and ultramarine to recycle old right wing slanders against the sandinistas and pass them off as fact.

I have kept the neutrality tag, but any further attempt to restore the old biased version of this article will be swiftly reverted by me.annoynmous 21:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping my edit would inch this page towards a consensus, but your reaction is that it's made the page even worse! Well, I tried. Some of my changes didn't even relate to POV. For example, Jaime Irving Steidel was not the FDN's field commander, if he even existed. That was a correction of misinformation that has been in the article for ages.

You don't like the fact that the old Origins section relied on Timothy Brown's book. Sure, I'd agree that Brown's not an objective observer, but the MILPAS have also been covered in less contra-friendly sources, such as Sam Dillon's Comandos. If you don't trust Brown, what is your source of information about the MILPAS?

I'd turn your challenge around, and ask you what your sources are, and why you consider them reliable. You believe that "many [contras] were former somoza guards and mercinaries trained in argentina." How many is "many?" What number or percentage would qualify in your mind as "many?" Even pro-Sandinista observers stopped trying to contend that former Guardsmen constituted a substantial proportion of the rebels' membership, instead arguing that they still dominated their military leadership. How many contras do you think were former Guardsmen, or trained in Argentina, and where are you getting your information? --Groggy Dice T | C 23:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again you haven't provided one signal source to prove your claims. What pro-sandinsita commentators said this and where did they say this. Almost all your sources for the claim that the majority of the contras were former sandinistas come from right wing sources or have no sources at all.

Also what is this nonsense:

The rebels proclaimed democratic goals, but their image was tainted by the predominance in the FDN military leadership of former members of the notorious National Guard of the overthrown Somoza regime. In the first years of its activity, the FDN was accused of widespread murder, torture and brutality. Most rebel soldiers were peasants angered by the Sandinistas' collectivisation of their land and other grievances, and over the course of the war, ex-Sandinista and campesino commanders rose through the ranks to displace the ex-Guardsmen.

There image was tainted, where the hell does this come from. This is biased editorializing at it's most blatant and sloppy.

That's not even counting all the weasel words like calling the sandinistas a "Junta" and "Soviet aligned".

An now to boot you've completely erased the atrocities section.

This article has been a cesspool for far too long. It seems to be the tragedy on certain wikipedia pages that don't get enough attention, they become subject to violent POV pushing campaigns.

It's obvious to me that Groggy Dice can not be trusted and that his intention is bias the article against the sandinistas. I'm requesting that someone else comes along and gives a suggestion of how to make the language more neutral because I frankly don't trust Groggy Dice and the utterly dishonest edits he has made.annoynmous 00:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've cited a couple of sources: Christopher Dickey, Roy Gutman, Envio, and Sam Dillon, none of whom can be considered pro-contra like Timothy Brown (and actually I have not read The Real Contra War, so it is not one of my sources). That's four more than you have. But where have I claimed that "the majority of the contras were former sandinistas?" In fact, the very excerpt you cite states that "most rebel soldiers were peasants."

And you consider "their image was tainted" to be "biased editorializing at it's most blatant and sloppy," but you don't think that calling the National Guard "notorious" is editorializing? I left that in there mostly to placate you. Certainly, any acts by the Guard pale next to the slaughter in El Salvador and Guatemala.

As far as referring to the Sandinista "junta," I didn't put that language in there, and I don't care if it's taken out. However, are you seriously denying that they were "Soviet aligned?"

As for the two sections I took out, they were gunk and weren't worth the controversy they were causing. The section, "U.S. military and financial assistance," actually has very little to say about that subject. It gets sidetracked into a discussion of the World Court case. The truth is, this article shouldn't be getting bogged down in the details of the case. The contras weren't a party to the case, weren't asked to defend themselves, and while the result may have been embarrassing to the Reagan administration, it ultimately had little effect on the rebels. Wikipedia already has an article on the case, this article should simply mention it and direct readers there for the back-and-forth. But an anti-contra editor relished using it to put US policy in a bad light, then another editor felt the need to "balance" it with a rebuttal, so the section careens off into a tangent. There is some misinformation about the nature of the Boland Amendment. Then, much of the rest of the section gets taken up by the "contra cocaine" controversy you're so keen on.

As far as "completely eras[ing] the atrocities section" goes, I'm not averse to discussing the human rights controversies. I left them in the lead. However, this section was deliberately created with an anti-contra bias, and posed undue weight issues. Take the Viet Cong. They (and their Viet Minh forebears) assassinated and executed thousands of officials and opponents, often in brutal ways. Researching another Wikipedia article, for example, I read of a ten-year-old boy murdered in an effort to intimidate a village into submission. Yet such brutality didn't stop radical students from chanting "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh!" and waving the Viet Cong banner, even as their countrymen were being killed by VC. And if you look at Wikipedia's articles on the Viet Minh and Viet Cong, neither has a "human rights" section detailing their atrocities.

Or look at Wikipedia's article on Augusto Cesar Sandino himself; it hasn't a peep about his infamous "gourd cuts" and "vest cuts." And if one still remains under any illusions that anti-contra editors are concerned about human rights per se, one need only go to the FSLN page, where they are busy watering down any coverage of Sandinista human rights violations into "allegations" of abuses, and claiming that the only "politicization" of the human rights issue comes from the right. Yet in an article about rebels that fails to mention a single battle or talk about their political programs, they want a lengthy section that includes such human rights "abuses" as destroying bridges.

You seem to blame me for the things you don't like about the article, but historically I haven't been a major contributor to the article. I'm simply reverting to versions mostly written by others. While I have my leanings, I honestly strive for NPOV, something I feel some editors on both sides aren't really trying for. There have even been times that an editor has found my wording "biased" in favor of the side I disagree with (for instance, when I used the term "bourgeoisie" in the article). I'm not the most unreasonable editor you could be dealing with. --Groggy Dice T | C 06:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Really your striving for NPOV when you completely remove the atrocities section. A section that didn't exist until I added it. Before I added it to the article it made the absurd claim that most of the atrocities were committed by the sandinistas and not the contras. In fact the section on contra atrocities consisted of only a few sentences until I added them.

As for your sources, well you still haven't added any of them to the article or provided links to anything they have written. You say that these authors were anti-contra, but once again you provide nothing to back up your claims. You've haven't provided anything to challenge the notion that the majority of the contras were former somoza's and mercenaries from argentina. No one is disputing that there were other contra groups, but to say that the main contra forces were mainly peasants and former sandinistas has no factual basis.

Also who are you to say that the atrocities section and CIA support sections are irrelevant. Unlike your contributions they actually have links and sources to back them up. They also show that there were those who questioned the allegations of atrocities by the atrocities so you can't claim POV.

I'm willing to accept that the sandinistas made a lot of mistakes, but to paint them as repressive and the contras as heroic freedom fighters is the recycling of old right wing myths and I won't stand for it.

You have admitted you have a strong bias in this matter and to me you are trying to slant the article. I'm willing to compromise on making the language in the beginning paragraph more neutral, but I won't accept the deletion of the atrocities section or these absurd claims that the contras were mostly peasants.annoynmous 04:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is it relevant whether Brown is biased or not? The facts are what matters, I tried to leave an pro-Contra rhetoric out of the Milpistas section. The fact is that the Milpistas played a major role in the FDN, and that they were peasant farmers who began the resistance before American assistance to the FDN. That is cold hard fact and is extremely relevant and important when studying the resistance against the FSLN. Ignoring the great importance of the Milpistas would completely slant the presentation of the Contras and would be historically innacurate. Jpineda84 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is possible, but you might consider making separate threads for discussion from the many topics discussed above.

Gratuitous adjectives such as "notorious" should be omitted. These are blatantly pov. If the source itself contains words like these, the source itself is probably tainted with pov and shouldn't be used for this controversial topic. The use of the word implies that the reader is not smart enough to make up their own mind and needs "help" from us really smart editors who know more than anyone else. This is elitish and snobish. Give the reader a break for intelligence. Just present them with the facts as well as we can determine them.

Footnotes should be given particularly for controversial comments. Student7 (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Having seen no activity on this page, I have deleted the assertion that the drug allegations were supported, because there was no supporting information at all. Given the highly controversial nature of the allegations, I don't think such an assertion should not stand without supporting references.--Gustnado (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

focus on military wing of Contras manifestation of pro-Sandinista POV

The anti-Contra Tribunals that were set up by the FSLN did not only try armed Contras (indeed those were often killed and tortured behind the scenes) but rather they were meant to try political dissidents or non-military 'counter-revolutionaries'. Although Sandinista and left-wing propaganda has been extremely successful in painting the Contras as armed mercenary thugs, completely ignoring the more successful wing of the Contras, the political wing (which won in 1990 under UNO) is so blatant and absurd. I think it is important for all to recognized the Contra does not have a military connotation, it is a political term. Contras, those who opposed the revolution, were political dissidents. This page should do a better job at acknowledging this. Jpineda84 (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

On this point, I must disagree. Defining civilian opponents of the FSLN as "contras" is not only misleading, it actually plays into Sandinista hands. They may have been anti-Sandinista, but they were not contras, and they were not a "non-military wing" for the resistance. The Sandinistas would be quite happy to have all their opponents associated with the armed resistance against them, as a justification for their repression and censorship. Furthermore, to define these political opponents as "more successful," as if the Sandinistas would have held those internationally-monitored elections in 1990 without the military pressure from the contra war, is a rather ungrateful take on the sacrifices of the comandos, I feel.

I also find it strange, given your opinions and the turmoil on this page in the past couple of days, that you would choose to base your edits off of a version that leads by talking about the purported "fully democratic elections" of 1984. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And now you've reverted. After the frustrating wrangling with Annoynmous, I didn't expect to get hit by "friendly fire." I have to think that you are so focused on the two sections you want to add, that you didn't compare the two versions for the *REST* of the article. I find it hard to believe that you could consider the other version preferable in any other section. I simply can't understand why you didn't look at the page's history, and choose an earlier version of the article to jump off from for your editing.

For now, I've restored the "MILPISTAS" section, but I cannot do the same for the "Non-armed Contra Wings" section. As you yourself say, it was the Sandinistas who "considered any group that opposed the revolution as Contras," not these opponents themselves. Neither Obando y Bravo nor Violeta Chamorro has ever considered themselves contras. Any of these opponents who might be calling themselves contras now, weren't calling themselves contras back then, when the Sandinistas were in power. Defining these people as "non-armed contras" is to buy into Sandinista terminology, rather than letting them define themselves. --Groggy Dice T | C 18:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Chamorro and Obando y Bravo did consider themselves Contras ie. against the revolution. I don't have much time on my hands now but I will find evidence to support this. As for letting them define themselves, that is what I am attempting to do. Contras have been often described as mercenaries, much of the resistance was political resistance, and they did, by there own words describe themselves as Contras. I assume that I attain evidence to support this you would agree with creating a section for the non armed wing of the Contras? Jpineda84 (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

as for the mistakes on the edits and reverts, I am still quite a novice on Wikipedia, Im still trying to get the hang of it. I am here to honestly try to improve the page and if I reverted to a worse version I did not do it knowingly so I must apologize Jpineda84 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Either provide sources or stop adding POV claims to the article

So the fact that Brown is biased doesn't matter and we should just accept everything he says as fact. Like groggy Dice you have not provided one reliable or linkable source to back up your claims. So much of what is written seems to come less from any source and more from your own personal views.

I will accept a short section on the milpistas although I won't tolerate editorializing about how they were the biggest and earliest resisters to the sandinistas.

I erased the non-military contras section as it has nothing at all to back it up. You guys keep saying that this and that is an absolute historical fact and yet so far outside of browns book you haven't provided one source to support these claims. The article as stands is a fair and unbiased view of the contras and shows very clearily that they were not just one group.

Yes, I'm willing to concede that there several contra groups and not all of them were former somozas. I'm even willing to accept that some of them had legitimate motives and that the sandinistas made mistakes.

However, what I not going to accept is the notion that the majority of the contras were honarable peasants who were fighting against the evil soviet aligned sadinistas which how groggy dice and jpineda are trying to shape the article. The contras committed numeous terrorist acts and human rights abuses and trying to whitewash them as noble freedom fighters is dishonest and revolting.

So I will consent to a section on the milpistas, but I won't tolerate hyberole and editorializing on how great they were. I aslo under no circumstances will tolerate the deletion of the Human Rights abuses section or the U.S. assistane section sense both have more documentation than anything you've guys have offered.annoynmous 01:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you not going to accept the notion that the majority of the Contras were highland peasants and Miskitos based on fact or political conviction? Maybe if you did look at Brown's book, you would take a glance at the orginal FDN documents. Jpineda84 (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I won't consent to it because you haven't provided any evidence of this claim. You both admit that Brown isn't a neutral observer so who cares what he says in his book. Just because he writes it in a book doesn't mean it all of a sudden gains instant credibilty.

So far you haven't provided any evidence for this claim that the majority of the contras were peasants. I might be willing to consent to this stated as an opinion by Browm, but I won't tolerate it stated as fact.

Once gain, I will not tolerate a deleting or minimizing the human rights section. That part is non-negotiable.annoynmous 03:08, 30 May (UTC)

Where are any footnotes supporting any of these statements? Links to other articles are not equivalent to footnotes. For then we would be dependent on their research. All articles should be standalone. Okay to copy other articles footnotes. Just so we can examine them here without jumping out to another article.

This article is inadequately footnoted. No wonder you are having so many problems determing the facts! Great quotes of authority in the discussion. Would be nice if some of those would wind up in the article itself! For the record, each paragraph should have at least one footnote. With this sort of controvery, more would be a lot better! Student7 (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Annoynmous, we've finally found a point of common ground: we both agree that the "non-military contras" section should go. Let's try to resolve the peasant issue. You don't trust Brown's book. However, there is no dispute from the Sandinistas today that the contra fighters were peasants, and that their missteps drove the rural highlands into supporting the contras. Daniel Ortega himself said self-critically in 1991, "It's not true that we lost the peasantry because we never had them." ("No es cierto que perdimos el campesinado porque nunca lo tuvimos.") This is quoted in an article on the recontras by the pro-Sandinista Envio (the English version translates it as, "It's not true that [the FSLN] lost the peasants; we never had them"). The Spanish version includes an explanation not in the English article: "Se refería especialmente al campesinado del interior del país y no al del Pacifico, en donde el FSLN se logro el apoyo de gran parte de campesinos sin tierra y obreros agrícolas. Sin embargo, en la faja central del país y en otras zonas del interior, los contras contaron con un respaldo mayoritario de la población campesina." [He was referring especially to the peasantry in the country's interior rather than the Pacific, where the FSLN enjoys the support of much of the landless peasants and agricultural workers. However, in the central belt of the country and in other zones of the interior, the contras counted on the majority support of the peasant population. computer-aided translation] Also note the "A Peasant Without Land..." section, which treats Dimas' rebellion as the beginning of peasant resistance.

You've also never answered the question, if you reject Brown's book, where then are you getting your information about the MILPAS? El Nuevo Diario, the paper that split off from La Prensa precisely to take a more pro-Sandinista stance, carried an interview (Spanish) with Tigrillo, a MILPAS leader who later became an important FDN commander. (As always, if you need to use a translation site, be careful; 1,500 can become 500,000!)

On the other hand, you've never produced your sources for your own claims about the composition of the contras, that "many of them were former somoza guards and mercinaries trained in argentina." Also, look at it logically. The Sandinistas captured 7,000 Guardsmen in 1979, and for those who joined the contras, attrition would have whittled down their numbers. Similarly, the Falklands War set in motion the end of Argentine aid by the end of 1983. Where then did the contras get the recruits to replace their losses and grow their numbers during a long and bloody war?

In now-archived discussions (wouldn't you know, right after I archive them, I need to bring them up), you've elaborated, "As far as I know the majority of the Contra fighters were mercenaries from outside nations such as Honduras, Costa Rica and Mexico." And also, "Why isnt the fact that the "CONTRA" was not any real "counter revolitionary" force but rather bunch of thugs and mercenaries paid by the CIA and of whom not that many were Nicaraguans but from other nations of "Americas" ie Mexicans, Hondurians, Panamians and Cuban exiles so on.." Thankfully, you've never tried to introduce that claim into the article. Again, I wish you could tell us what the source is for these ideas. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to put this source in the article and quote them that's okay by me. As long as it has stated as opinion and not fact. You still haven't provided one bit of solid evidence that the majority of the contras were peasants.

I never disputed the idea that there were several contra groups and that some of them were peasants. However as the article you quote above says, some of the peasants were with the sandinsitas and some were with contras. To say that the majority of them were peasants is dishonest. An where does all this stuff in the intro paragraph about there motives being corrupted come form, I can only assume that sort of polemical speech comes from Browns book.

By the way I did provide sources that the majority of contras came form other countries, but apparently someone erased those links. I don't think anyone doubts that large part of the contra forces were foreign merceniaries organized by the CIA. Your really telling me that you believe that it's just a myth that mercenaries from outside countries were recruited to be part of the contras.

You quote ortega saying we didn't have the peasantry, that doesn't mean they were part of the contra forces.

Also you continually try to erase or take out large parts of human rights section. It would seem to me that you shouldn't lecture me on providing sources when you keep deleting large parts of the only sourced section in the entire article. You have not provided any legitimate reason why this section should go or be significantly altered. If you don't like some of the activities thatyour glorious contras did well that's too bad.

I'll willing to consent to Browns accusations in the article as long as they are stated as opinion and not fact. The way you have this material in the article now is very POV heavy and states the material as absolute fact.

As I said before you guys keep insisting on things as certain and yet you provide no links to back them up. It seems clear to me that most of your accusations come from browns book which you admit is biased. As long as you leave the human rights and CIA assistance sections alone I'll be fine with you adding browns views and anything else you want to add to it.annoynmous 19:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been known since at least early 1983 that most of the contra soldiers were peasants, not ex-Guardsmen, and certainly not foreigners. This is not an idea that only came out with Brown's book, which as I've told you, I haven't read (though recently I've skimmed through another book he edited, When the AK-47s Fall Silent), and is thus not one of my sources. I've also pointed you to a pro-Sandinista source which ought to convince you that yes, the overwhelming majority of contras were peasants. Yet you haven't produced any source for your own belief that most of the contras were ex-Guards or foreign mercenaries.

And I actually think the trouble you're having accepting that the contras were mostly peasants, is linked to your preconceptions about the human rights situation. If you start from the premise that the contras were sadistic brutes who did nothing but murder, torture, rape, plunder, and pillage, while the Sandinistas were noble idealists who treated everyone nicely and just wanted to build schools and health care centers, it becomes incomprehensible how any significant number of people could prefer the contras to the Sandinistas. The problem is that this is a distorted picture.

By the way, given that you believe the contras to be composed of mostly foreign mercenaries, I wonder why your reversions eliminate my mention of the Ecuadorian "UCLAs" from the "US assistance" section, one of the few cases where the CIA did employ foreign mercenaries in the war.

The peasant/Guard/mercenary issue is not the only area where I do not feel that you are following the same standards you are demanding of us. For instance, you deprecate Brown's book as a source because of bias, yet you fight to include biased leftist sources when it suits the point you wish to make. And though you complain that we are throwing out "sourced" material, your own reversions have thrown out sourced material, including not just "right-wing" sources like Brown, but New York Times articles, for example. Groggy Dice T | C 01:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again you say all this with such certainity and yet you give nothing to back it up. The article you linked doesn't say that the majority of the contras were peasants. In fact it says that the peasants that did fight against the contras were manipulated by the american right wing and other outside forces. I doubt that the editors of Envio would agree with your characterization of there article. It's amazing what people can do when they only quote a part of an article.

I have never disputed that there were peasant revolts inside nicuaraga, but to say that these were the majority of the contras is dishonest and flat out untrue. I have never said that the Sandinistas were perfect and that they didn't make some mistakes, particularly in regards to the miskito indians.

However, that's different from saying that the sandinistas were and evil soviet aligned junta and that the contra revolt was a just a poor peasant uprising against this evil regime.

The main fact is that the main contra force was run by people like Adolfo Calero and that they engaged in terrosim and mutliple human rights violations. I would say that your right that the human rights section does inconvenience your arguement, that doesn't make it not true. It is the only part of the article with actual documentation to back it up so why should it be erased. Your seriously claiming that americas watch and The Catholic Institute for international relations are left-wing propoganda outlets.

I have said multiple times, feel free to add Browns allegations to the article, as long as they are stated as opinion and not fact. Why is this so hard for you to do.annoynmous 02:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm becoming more and more convinced that, like me, you haven't actually read Brown's book. You seem to have built up "Brown's book" into a bogeyman. Whatever you don't like about the article, you convince yourself it came from "Brown's book." This allows you to rationalize dismissing any information that doesn't fit your existing beliefs.

By the way, you're the one who keeps putting the word "junta" back in the article, through your reversions.

I think I'll reply to some of Student7's sections before going on. Back later. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think about Browns book the fact the matter is that before I came along the majority of the first half of the article was entirely based on Browns book. You and others have admitted that Brown isn' a neutral observer so his thoughts shouldn't be stated in the article as abosolute fact.

The only reason you want to include it is because you want the article slanted to your viewpoint. Your dishonest erasing of sourced sections from human rights section shows this.

The article has been protected so I guess will have to find a neutral observer like student7 to address both our concerns sense the both of us are clearily to hot headed to do it ourselves.annoynmous 02:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Need to break down disagreements for discussion

The article is out of control. The discussions don't seem to be getting anywhere. Please try to focus on areas of disagreement. I will provide suggestions below. Okay to tweak my sections, but once one of you replies under one, please don't change it without the other's permission. This by no means properly describes all of the areas you disagree on.

Most of all, you guys need to footnote! Very little is footnoted. The footnotes should not be presumed but declared on areas where you disagree. Okay if they are all the same (named footnote). Student7 (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1984 election

Where is footnote? What impartial party said elections were fair? Percent of people voting and percent of people supporting one side hardly means the vote was impartially held. Student7 (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a battle being waged across several Nicaragua articles. Generally speaking, the Sandinistas had more success convincing some quarters of Western Europe that the election was fair than in the United States. In the US, only the pro-Sandinista left believed they were free and fair, mainstream liberal Democrats joined the Reagan administration in criticizing them.

It shouldn't be in the lead in any case, it's brought up to paint the contra cause as illegitimate, not because it's relevant. It totally failed to meet the Sandinistas' hopes of weakening support for contra aid in the US Congress, and may even have strengthened it. The 1990 elections would be a bit more relevant to this article, since a) it was the contra war that led the FSLN to agree to the extensive international monitoring, b) UNO racked up its largest margins in regions known as contra strongholds, demonstrating that they did reflect real grievances, and c) the elections led to their demobilization. But the people who like to talk up the "fully democratic elections" of 1984 generally don't like to talk about 1990.

In every election from 1990 on, the FSLN has consistently gotten around 40% of the vote. It's likely that discontent rose between 1984 and 1990, so that they would have done better than that in a fair election in 1984, but they wouldn't have gotten 67%. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Convincing sectors of the Western Europe" were the hell did you pull this from. The election was observed by several human rights and election monitoring agencies and they all agreed the election was fair. The U.S. was the only country that didn't accept the elections. No evidence has ever been given by the right wing in the U.S. that election was rigged or illegitimate.

This is my problem with Groggy Dice, he pulls accusations like this out of the sky and then expects everyone to take it as gospel. He gives nothing to back it up and makes assumptions to suit his point of view.

The election is relevant because it shows that depsite the fact that nicaragua had a fair election the U.S. continued funding the vicious terrorists who were ripping the country apart.annoynmous 03:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith as per Wikipedia guidelines. Please stop attacking one another by name. You are representing points of views in your discussions which is fine. But you are speaking for other editors (and readers) as well because of your mastery of the topic. Seeing the other guy with tomato on him doesn't make me feel any better! (I don't mind seeing his points answered! That's fine. But both points are probably going to go into the article as "facts" on both sides. The "facts" need to be weighed. As do the topics/section names). Student7 (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This election may be a good place to start. Why can't one of you say "this election was perceived as fair by a number of observers,ref-ref-ref-ref-ref-etc." The other may reply, "however, some observers thought that since the Contras were not on the ballot, that the elections were unfair-ref-ref-ref" Again, my wording is lame. I'm sure you can easily improve this! Student7 (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Contras united into FDN

Where is reference? Who disputes this and why? Student7 (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I Probably misunderstood this as a problem that one of you disagreed with because it got erased during one of your reversions. Okay to ignore if not an issue. I'm assuming that the Contras were united into FDN. The effectiveness of the resulting organization may be in dispute, which is fine. Student7 (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

FDN committed atrocities

We need to discuss separate sections for accusations and rebuttal. All need footnoting. I think the basis of all this is "Did the contras commit atrocities as as matter of policy? I think one of you believes they did, the other not. We must state both sides. Stop erasing each others footnoted statements! Student7 (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

CIA support needs negotiation

HereStudent7 (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Referring to "Contras" in the first place

Generally we call groups what they want to be called. eg "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" not "Anti-Abortion" and "Pro-Abortion" which are biased terms used by the media. Student7 (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article could perhaps refer to the "rebels," the "resistance," or the "guerrillas" (or the "insurgents," but someone else felt that was disparaging) more frequently, but in general I think it's sufficient to simply note that some rebels disliked the term. Do you have some other term(s) in mind?

Certainly I don't think the article should be renamed (I know you didn't say that it should). The only obvious alternative is to move the article to Nicaraguan Resistance, which currently covers the group that formally existed by that name. It's a name that veterans of all contra factions seem to accept as a self-identification today, but it also has issues. People weren't really referring to a "Nicaraguan [Rr]esistance" before 1985. Probably because of Reagan's comparison to the French Resistance or Charles Krauthammer's explicit enunciation of a "Reagan Doctrine," the phrase came into growing use,[1][2][3] which is probably why the name was chosen in 1987 as the official name of the new organization. Thus, using "Nicaraguan Resistance" to describe the rebels has an ahistorical, retrospective tinge to it. Not to mention the problem of figuring out what to do with the current Nicaraguan Resistance article. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to create another article for the supposed peasant uprisings then go ahead and create it.

This article I feel should be about the main contra force run by adolfo calero called the Nicuaraguan Democratic Force who no one can accuse of being peasants. I think most people accept that this was the main contra force and that they were comprised primarily of mercenaries and former somoza guards.

I know that Groggy Dice wants to pretend like this group wasn't that important, but I feel they should be the main focus of this article.annoynmous 04:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How can you claim that I "want to pretend like [the FDN] wasn't that important," when the very second sentence of my lead says that "the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (FDN) emerged as by far the largest" contra group? And then my second paragraph focuses on the FDN?

As for the composition of the FDN, we've been over and over this ground. The point is that the MILPAS was absorbed into the FDN, and that peasants joined the FDN. Anyway, your expertise on the FDN is pretty shaky, since you don't even realize that there was no FDN "Honduran-born Field Commander" named Jaime Irving Steidel,[4][5][6][7] even after I pointed this out! (To be fair, you weren't the one who originally put that in there, and the article's other editors haven't corrected that, either).

Well excuse me, but you do have a sentence that says, "However, few Guardsmen were actively raiding into Nicaragua" and what is your source for this, right winger Robert Kagan.

Okay, you admit that they were the largest contra group. Well, at least until 1987, they were made up mostly of former members of the 15th of September Legion, so how can you objectively claim that a majority of the contras were peasants.annoynmous 05:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that the pro-Contra side in the US (in English) has that much problem with the name "Contra," nor was I suggesting that the article title be changed. It would confuse readers. Kind of a throwaway section header.

Is Brown scholarly or not? Or Kagan? I have not read the books. If truly comprised of "observations" and non-scholarly reporting, should the books be dropped for controversial stuff? Sometimes it is worthwhile to quote an extreme view (Smith, usually anti-Contra, says the Contras were charitable, or Jones, usually anti-Sandanista, says they provided good government. Nothing wrong with that on an occasional basis.).

We may be too far from this yet, but can we pick a section title for something you both disagree on and express both sides. The sections would NOT be merged but one would say "Sandanista accuations of ......" The other would read "Contra rebutal". (Lame titles). But one would not interfere with the other. You might propose (discuss new sections) here.

Okay to use Brown until you dispose of his scholarliness. But please PLEASE use footnotes. Since at least one of you has a copy, page numbers would be nice. I assume that some of this can be found on web pages. The article lacks credibility from either side. We need references. If they were from the web, other editors could help evaluate scholarliness. Student7 (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have a copy of The Real Contra War and haven't read it, and I suspect neither has Annoynmous. It's simply his assumption that all the editors on the other side are getting their information from that book. Through Google Books, we do have access to another book he edited, When the AK-47s Fall Silent, which has some of his sources. For example, he includes a presentation by Sergio Caramagna, who was with the OAS demobilization commission, who on page 261 says, "As the former Resistance fighters demobilized in 1990, a dossier was created on each person, on each combatant who disarmed... It was only at this point that we discovered, and the word really is discovered, that well over 80 percent of those laying down their arms were simple peasants, campesinos from the North Central mountain region of Nicaragua. Another 10 percent were Miskito Indians from the northern part of the Atlantic region of that country."[8] Since it comes from a "Brown book," some might consider this the fruit of a poisonous tree.

I would certainly say that Kagan is scholarly (whatever you think of the Kagans' politics, they are academics). It's also my impression that Kagan is better at setting aside his views and looking at matters dispassionately than Brown. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Milpistas

Include or not? Why or why not? Student7 (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not as its own section. That serves to draw undue attention to the MILPAS over other contras, and just as some people wish to play up the role of former Guardsmen, others want to emphasize the MILPAS. Note that I actually trimmed down much of the information about the MILPAS, because I felt that level of detail was out of sync with the level of detail in the rest of the article, again for the purpose of emphasizing their role. I do in fact believe that an article on the MILPAS should be created, where this level of detail would be appropriate, but not here.

Also note that currently the MILPAS paragraph does not depend on Brown's book, but only covers relatively general information that can be found in several sources. Some of the additional material I trimmed does include details that I would have to confirm from Brown or some other source I haven't read. For example, I have my doubts just how seriously Dimas believed that the Sandinistas arranged for the killing of El Danto, since he took a position in the Sandinista militia right after the revolution. My personal suspicion is that either as his discontent with the FSLN grew over other issues, the more "suspicious" he became of Danto's death, or that as the legend around Dimas built up, these supposed suspicions got introduced into the legend.

I've repeatedly asked "the other guy," since he doesn't trust Brown, what the source of his information on the MILPAS is. He's never answered. I've come to believe that he simply doesn't know anything about the MILPAS, and is covering it up with bluster about how biased Brown is.

By the way, I've introduced an error into the article. I wrote that "chilotes" means "ripe corn," but it actually means green corn. Unfortunately, because the page is protected, I can't correct myself. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your kidding me right, I kept the Milpas section that Jpendia added because you insisted that they were the earliest contra groups inside nicuaraga. I assumed this whole time that you wanted that so you could prove your point that the majority of the contras were peasants. Now your accusing me of adding it.

Listen to groggy dices language "I've come to believe", "My personal Suspicion". I'm curious what do you know about the Milpas outside of books you've read. On your own web page you admit that most of your knowledge of this subject comes from Arturo Cruz's book. So basically your taking right wing sources and passing off everything in them as fact

I'm sorry to everyone else about my tone my this type of thing makes me angry. Groggy Dice feels that because he read some biased books on the subject that conform to his point of view that it instantly gives him some sorta magic credibility.

Also, I"m sorry, but anyone who calls Robert Kagan scholarly in my opinion is delusional.

It seems to me that the main bone of contention between me and Groggy Dice is not content, but tone. I have said multiple times, but no one seems to listen, if you want to include the accusations in Timothy Brown or Robert Kagans books fine, but they must be stated as opinion, not fact.

You know I think I been pretty fair and neutral regarding this article. It's not as if that my version of the article is the one I personally like, but I accept it as a compromise. My version doesn't have any polemical language like this:

"The rebels professed democratic goals, but the predominance in the FDN military leadership of former members of the National Guard of the overthrown Somoza regime aroused skepticism".

Who says they professed democratic goals. How in the world can Groggy Dice claim to known there motives. Kagan and Brown say it so it must be true because why would they lie.annoynmous 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the above statement "The rebels professed...." requires a footnote. We cannot say that without a scholarly reference.

At some point in time, the protection will be released. I would appreciate it if you guys would give the other one day to footnote all statements. At an agreed time, hopefully more than one day later, flag with braces "fact" those statements that are not properly documented and need footnoting because they are (or may be to others) controversial.

Instead of guessing, we need explicit footnotes, I think, to books with page numbers. If not a book, the correct webpage (not one that needs paging). Will you do that? No more wholesale reversion? Okay to copy stuff from old edits and insert them with footnotes. Instead of emending the other's statement, just answer it instead until we come to some sort of working arrangement. Okay?

This is not about making the other guy look bad. It is about documenting something that needs it and you two appear to have the background to do this. If either side comes out looking perfect, there is something wrong with the article! :) Student7 (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I never accused you of adding the MILPAS section instead of Jpineda, this is a misunderstanding. I don't have a problem only with your edits. I consider Jpineda to be one of those editors who wants to overemphasize the MILPAS, ARDE, BOS, and all the other groups besides the "tainted" FDN. You can read one clash with him above. Later, he added some material on BOS that I thought was excessive, so I trimmed it down. You believe that I represent the most extreme pro-contra position, when I don't.

I think it's safe to say by now that if you had read Brown, or had your own source of information about the MILPAS, you would have flatly said so when I raised the issue.

Yes, it's true that I've never visited Nicaragua, so my knowledge comes from books and articles. I read voraciously on Nicaragua back in the 80s, reading several books from both sides. You seem to be suggesting that you have some superior information resource than books you've read; what is it?

I never said that most of my information on the MILPAS or Nicaragua comes from Arturo Cruz, Jr.'s book. I simply described it as "one book I've used in my research on Nicaragua." The reason I have a subpage on it, as I also explained, was that the book came without an index, so I thought there might be someone who could benefit from my notes. (Unfortunately, even if someone is looking for something like it, it's hard to find from Google.) Cruz's book takes a breezy tone and occasionally gets sloppy with names and dates, but it gives some interesting behind-the-scenes insights. As for him being so "right wing," that must be why Ortega appointed him ambassador to the United States after his return to the presidency.[9] His vice president, Jaime Morales, is also a former contra spokesman, another example of how the FSLN has been better at moving on than some of their foreign supporters.

You've attacked the impartiality of Brown and Kagan and other sources when you dislike what they have to say, yet you never acknowledge that the sources you want in the article are at least as biased (yes, the Catholic Institute for International Relations is left-wing).

You want accusations against the contras presented as fact, not opinion, yet if someone "accuses" the contras of being peasants, you want that presented as opinion, not fact.

I'm amazed that you interpret that phrase as "polemical language." It ought to be obvious that the rebels professed to have democratic goals from such names as the Nicaraguan Democratic Force, the Democratic Revolutionary Alliance, or the Nicaraguan Democratic Union. Then I talk about the participation of former Guardsmen, which is even described as "predominance" in the FDN leadership, and the "skepticism" that caused. No claim is made of being able to divine interior motives, to resolve whether that skepticism was warranted.

As for being "pretty fair and neutral," I actually thought your version was so obviously tilted against the contras that, especially with the POV tag, it would make people want to read the other side of the story. If I thought it was more obvious where readers could find prior versions, I might have been more willing to leave your version be for a couple of days while arguing on the talk page. I've made a proposal at the Village Pump to rename the history tab to "versions" or "revisions," which I think would make its function clearer to casual readers. If you have an opinion on that, you can go there and chip in. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll confess something, no I 've never read Browns book. There, you discovered my dirty little secret. Let me add a little comment to that revelation, so what?

Just because I haven't read a book by a biased commentator on the subject deosn't mean that I have no right to profess my viewpoint. An just because you've read a bunch of books from biased commentators doesn't mean you are somehow more informed than I am. You claim you read books from all sides, well the only ones you've cited so far are ones with an obvious bias like Cruz, Kagan and Brown.

You say I want accusations against the contras presented as fact. However, I believe all the citations are preceded by comments "this human rights group says" or "according to this human rights group", were as your comments state Browns and Kagans accusations as absolute fact. Now if there are some comments that have what you consider left-wing sources and you feel there presented as facts and not opinion, feel free to change them so they are. All I have ever asked is that you do the same with your comments.

Finally I want to turn to the most laughable part of your argument. You say that it's obvious they had democratic goals because they gave themselves democratic sounding names. Of course they did. All reactionarie political organizations give themselves nice sounding names, that proves absolutely nothing. So all a terrorist organization has to do is give themselves a noble democratic name and that proves they have democratic goals?

I'll comment once again on groggy dices language "It ought to be obvious" with nothing to back it up. Just because you make an assumption doesn't mean the rest of us have to take it as fact. Groggy Dice even admits that his main source of information is sometimes "Sloppy" with the facts.

As I said before, It's not like I like the version of the article I reverted to, but it seemed to me a lot more fair than the biased version that existed before I came along.

I'll say that I'm willing to consent to getting rid of the sentence on the 1984 election. While in my opinion it's obvious they were fair, I agree they aren't relevant to this article. annoynmous 22:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am pro-Contra. But we cannot say that the Contras professed democratic goals without a scholarly reference! It doesn't make a bit of difference what GroggyDice says here or annoynmous says here. No opinion is worth spit without a good reference! No Brown, no Kagan, no article! It can stay locked forever! Start looking for support on the web if you don't have a hardcopy. Best for the rest of us anyway.

And if appropriate to the Contra article, the 1984 election should go in with good references! Even if it makes the Contras look bad! It's okay to negotiate here. I appreciate the effort of trying to make tradeoffs. But the main tradeoff is not to revert each other's copy. Most of the statements under disagreement with scholarly refutation will have to be worded "The UN claimed the 1984 election was fair {ref)" "The Contras claimed that they weren't" {ref}. If there are enough credible organizations claiming the elections were fair it isn't going to make any difference what the Contras claimed. The reader is going to be able to figure that out for themselves.

The main point here, is don't try to connect the dots quite so well for the reader. Let the reader connect them. This saves you guys psychic energy as well. Student7 (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

GD, you're like a case of herpes that won't go away. Did you think you would outlive me? I don't understand how one can lose repeated arguments but think that if they hang around and pester the opposition for YEARS they will prevail in an argument.

Shut up about the 1985 and later elections. They were certified as fair by every nation and organization or Earth outside of America. Most encyclopedias not run by revisionist historians would stop there <https://edit.britannica.com/getEditableToc?tocId=40993>. . But there always has to be a qualification, doesn't there? The KKK chapter in Kentucky didn't certify that election, so we should explore their objections. MarkB2 ^Chat

Please stop attacking the WP:good faith of other editors. Please use Wikipedia:Civility. The last thing we need here is more rudeness! We have two editors who are trying to reach a working agreement. If we have to go to three, we made be forced into mediation which is very time consuming and something you will wish to avoid in the future once you have been through it! (I have).

Your point about the elections may be valid but it seems to stand on its own merits and does not require dramatization and attacks on other editors. Student7 (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't think you had the better points, you'd have taken the other side of those arguments, so it's natural to think that you "won" them. In your case, you also often got the last word, which probably led you to conclude that I'd been left with no answer to an irrefutable case. In fact, there were many things you said that I'd planned to respond to, and I even have some half-finished replies to some of them on my hard drive, but I was busy in AFD debates or elsewhere. By a certain point, the discussions had gone so stale, that I figured it was best just to wait for the issues to come up again, as I thought they almost certainly would.

The election controversy is probably best dealt with back in its own section. But many of those observers were self-selected contingents of leftists like the Washington Office on Latin America, who went down to Nicaragua to see what they wanted to see. You also know that Carlos Andres Perez publicly and pointedly refused to attend Ortega's inauguration, and that in the US not just the Reagan Administration, but liberal Democrats and the mainstream media condemned the elections. This is why Oliver North thought it was a great coup to get Arturo Cruz to sign on for UNO, because of the prestige he had gained among swing votes in Congress as a democrat and man of conscience. Obviously, if he had been regarded as a whiner who refused to participate in fair elections, his endorsement of UNO would have been pointless.

I wonder why you seem to dislike me in particular, when there are more hardline pro-contra editors who work on this article like Ultramarine. I think it's because you find them easy to write off as partisan yahoos, running to Frontpagemag for sourcing, whereas a thoughtful advocate is more unsettling.

So, are you joining annoynmous on this "most of the contras were foreign mercenaries, most of the rest were former Guardsmen, and only a handful were peasants" stand? This is one point where I thought you knew better. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he is joining me in believing that because you haven't given any solid proof to show otherwise. Just because you use right wing books instead of right wing websites doesn't mean your someone less partisan. Your dishonest deleting of sourced sections of the human rights section to minimize the disgusting things these thugs did shows your motives.

Once again numerous respected human rights and election monitoring organizations certified the election as fair and to call them "Self-selected contingents of leftists" is outright slander. Just because you don't like there results doesn't mean you get to lie and say they were leftists. You claim you've read arguements from all sides, but from comments like this I doubt it. Anyway, I already said I think the election isn't relevant to this article. So in the interest of coming to some sorta compromise I'm okay with it being deleted.

As I said before my main problem with Groggy Dices edits is that he takes the opinions of people like Brown, Kagan and Cruz and states them as absolute fact. If he wants them as sources in the article then they have to be stated as opinion, not as fact. If groggy dice considers some source is left wing then he is free as well to edit them so there stated as opinion and not as fact.

One thing I will not compromise on are human rights sections and U.S. assistance section. Both these sections have muultiple reputable sources to back them up and there is no good reason for them not to be reverted back to the way they were. Other than maybe some alterations in wording this point for me is non-negotiable.annoynmous 23:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please respond to technical points of the article, not each other!

Please conduct personal wars somewhere else - user page or something. Please assume good faith. Why would an admin want to unlock the article with this sort of emotional exchange going on?Student7 (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I had thought that this discussion was taking on a calmer tone; I hope that isn't breaking down again. Let me just comment on sources.

I have in fact cited a number of unsympathetic sources in this discussion, and I had even added Dickey to the article.

Brown was not brought into the article by me, and until recently my knowledge of his books was secondhand. Over the past few days, I've been gleaning what I can about his books from Google Books. What the article currently says about the MILPAS is at a general level and doesn't rely on Brown's specific unusual theories. It can be sourced to other authors, like Sam Dillon, Glenn Garvin, and Lynn Horton.

Cruz, Jr. is just one of my sources, not my "main" source. (It's from other reading that I acquired the knowledge to realize that his book has some errors.) Actually, his book focuses on the infighting among contra politicians, while my interests lie more with military matters. I haven't used it as a source in this article, because his book is mostly useful for activities he was personally connected with, not as a general history. I've used it in some more specific articles, but never as the main source, except possibly for his own article.

Since I've been absent for so long, I'll put out what I've written so far, and come back later. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before I have no problem with Brown or any other source being linked to in the article, as long as it is stated as there opinion and not fact. My problem was that assertions about the contras motives, something that no writer no matter how intimately involved they were with them could ever know for sure, were being stated as if they were absolute rock solid fact.

When I came to the article, the only source for the first two sections of the article was Browns book. It may not have been added by you, but it seems to me that whoever orginally edited the article that most of there information came from Browns book.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that these authors accusations, but you have to accept that there are also other authors like Edgar chamoro, william blum and gary webb who disagree with there interpretation of the contra wars. I'm willing to accept that these aren't neutral commentators, but neither are Cruz, Kagan and Brown.annoynmous 05:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Student 7: I didn't think I was attacking the good faith of GD. I think he sincerely believes things that are absolutely wrong. You got me on the civility point though. I might argue, however, that the stinking mound of offal this article has become is far more offensive to the memories of the thousands that died at contra hands than any incivility on my part.

GD: You make me laugh every time you write. God bless you. I'm sure your hard drive is just BRIMMING with DEVASTATING replies to my posts you just never got a chance to post. I love how you point out that the leftish spectrum of American opinion had some sceptics as to the accuracy of the elections. The nation that was waging covert war on the Nicaraguan government had some doubters when their proxy forces lost elections? No!

BTW, I don't dislike you at all. Nor do I dislike Ultramarine. Nor, frankly, do I think you are any more thoughtful than he is, if that matters. As far as the composition of the contras goes, we've covered this ground before. It isn't it a very important point.

Over the past year this article has again been degraded to the point of ridiculousness. I hesitate to edit an article whose bulk is both absolutely false and poorly written. On wikipedia you can get away with writing anything until someone alters you edits. I wonder what space we would provide to Soviet historians writing about their Afghanistan invasion in a truly objective encyclopedia. Wikipedia, it seems, should be called Ameripedia: our history of the world, by God. Thankfully, there are few enough Nicaraguan, Argentinian, Spanish, Chinese, and Russian readers to disturb our retelling of the fable of the brave US funding of the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government in the 1980s. MarkB2 ^Chat 02:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

MarkB2, please see note on your page regarding discussions elsewhere. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Groggy Dice and annoynmous: you guys seemed to be getting somewhere in your discussions. Why not continue? We may wind up in arbitration if mediation doesn't go through, but having a "working agreement" between you two will either make the mediation or arbitration proceed more smoothly IMO. We may have to have outside help with some of the other editors but that is another matter. Don't let waiting for mediation slow you down! Student7 (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

cat change per WP:CFDS

{{editprotected}} I request the following cat change be made in accordance with WP:CFDS: Iran-Contra Affair → Iran-Contra affair --Rockfang (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not in agreement with the original page move, but since it went through, I guess the category must follow. But as long as an edit is going to be made to the page, perhaps a mistake I made can be corrected. In the History/Origins section, last paragraph, chilotes should have been translated as green corn, not ripe corn. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done both. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection expiration

Even though the page protection has expired, I expected there to be a truce as this worked its way through mediation. There appear to two issues in particular that have been described as intolerable. Here's why I feel they can at least be tolerated, while mediation goes forward.

• The phrase, "the rebels professed democratic goals," has been interpreted as an effort to add "polemical language" to the article. But it doesn't say that the contras had democratic goals, it says they professed to have democratic goals, a distinction I've tried to explain before. I've added "to have" to the phrase, in case that makes the point clearer.

• Another complaint is the "removal of sourced material." Yet if you actually compare the two versions for the human rights section, most of the other version is still present, though sometimes rearranged. But the other version also removes sourced material, such as New York Times articles. Sourced material is not automatically sacrosanct from the editing process, but how can this complaint be raised at the same time that this very act is being committed? --Groggy Dice T | C 07:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have said time and time again that you are free to put in any source you want as long as there claims are stated as opinion not fact. You have also have significantly altered the human rights section and U.S. assistance section which I have said is a deal breaker and I won't accept the removal of sourced material.

Now if you want to add something into these sections go ahead, but I'm not going to tolerate you taking stuff out and completely altering so it reflects your bias.

As to why I didn't wait for the mediation editor, well I signed everything and nothing came of it. It seems like the editor completely forgot about this article and I figured if the block is over there isn't any law that says I can't edit while the mediation process is still going on.

Also it seems unfair as you had an editor named peter seymonds doing edits for you while the block was up. annoynmous 21:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

All I asked Symonds to do was correct a factual error I made, changing the translation of chilotes from "ripe corn" to "green corn." It didn't have anything to do with any of the political controversies surrounding this article. Check the diff if you suspect he did more. Earlier I'd already expressed regret that I couldn't correct the mistake because of the page protection, and no one contested the translation.

I'm frustrated with the slow pace of mediation as well, but Dweller was gone for a few days until Monday, and he's apparently still waiting on MarkB2 to sign the summary.

You are upset about the changes to the human rights section, but the bulk of your version is still there. Americas Watch, the Brody Report, the Catholic Institute for International Relations, The Guardian - they're still included. But since you will not countenance the absence of a human rights section, I resurrect some sourced passages added by Tiomono and Ultramarine for balance. If I had my druthers, I'd scrap both versions of the human rights section and rewrite it from scratch.

As for stating claims as opinion instead of fact, your version presents several contentious drug-running allegations as undisputed fact, in a manner that probably violates BLP. On the other hand, when you contend that it's just "Brown's" opinion that the contras were peasants, that's simply not so. You've mentioned Edgar Chamorro, but for all his accusations about the nature of the contras, he too says that the FDN army consisted mostly of (Nicaraguan!) peasants.

I'm glad that you've decided to honor an informal truce. There are improvements I'd like to make to the article, but I realize that any changes are likely to set off another edit war. I've also realized that you've been more vocal about what you don't like about my version, than I've been about what I don't like about your version. Maybe I should take some blame for leaving you in the dark about all the specific issues I have with your version. I'll try to outline some of these points in the future. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite?

Based on a comment by GroggyDice (not here necessarily) and a comment I read in Brown, I'm wondering if this shouldn't be rewritten into five (or whatever) separate sections or maybe articles, reflecting the true division of the Contras? The masses would have their lead article. Those who have studied the matter would have different articles which do not even start to lump the groups together, except where the some outside group tried to treat them collectively, like the UN or the US. 13:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. What exactly would the five sections be called?

Also, I'd like to mention that I went ahead and created the MILPAS article a few weeks ago, and it's in pretty grungy shape, so you guys are welcome to pitch in. --Groggy Dice T | C 15:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Er...

1. MILPAS (off to a good start!)
2. simple peasants, campesinos from the North Central mountain region of Nicaragua.
3. Miskito Indians from the northern part of the Atlantic region of that country (YATAMA)
4. Somozans?
5. FDN

Well, there. That's five, isn't it?  :) Student7 (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why five articles are necessary, given that the present article isn't that large to begun with, and few wiki-browsers would have any idea what to look for anyway. Sections, otoh, are welcome.--Mike18xx (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandinista human rights abuses

I was assigned to the US embassy in Managua in the mid 80s. One of my jobs was to investigate human rights abuses. Somehow, stories like these never made it into the US press.

-- a young Nicaraguan woman, married to a PLO official, who allegedly committed suicide. The Sandinistas refused to investigate or let the family see the body. The family thought the husband had killed her and the Sandinistas were covering up out of revolutionary solidarity. I was able to get access to the body and found she'd apparently committed suicide by shooting herself 3 times in the back.

-- An alleged contra massacre in Bluefields. The contra had attacked the town, and after they left the Sandinistas took more than a dozen people out of the jail and killed them, saying they had died in the contra attack.

-- The wife of a campesino leader killed by the Sandinistas. She was weeping as I asked her why he had been killed. Was he with the contra? The political opposition? She kept shaking her head. Finally, I said, they must have had some reason to kill him - her answer was "I think it was for the gold in his teeth."

I heard and saw more like this, which is why I volunteered to advise the contra after my next assignment. When I talked to them, it turns out most had joined because their families had been the victims of Sandinista abuse - a relative jailed, tortured, or killed. I quickly realized that the Sandinistas (and their Cuban, KGB, and Stasi advisors) were our best recruiters.

The contra were not saints, but they were better than the Comandantes who ran the FSLN (particularly Borge and his deputy, Cerna). The two armies were really different. The Contra were mainly campesinos and Indians (Miskito, Rama, Sumo), while the EPS was recruited from the urban poor. There were tensions in the contra - between the former GN and the campesinos, between the Latinos and the Indians, just as there were tensions among the Comandantes. Being campesinos, the contra were able to blend into the rural population, who would protect them. If they committed an abuse, the EPS would be told how to find them, so there was a strong incentive not to attack their own. Sandinista militia members were another matter - they were seen as legitimate targets and their families sometimes were in the crossfire. The Sandinistas seemed less discriminating, and would hit anyone - ours, theirs, neutrals - who crossed them.

I write this because on balance, the Sandinistas were much worse when it came to human rights, and by 1985 had institutionalized political violence along the lines proposed by their Cuban and Eastern European advisers. The Sandinistas were indeed Marxists and like other Marxists believed in dictatorship (of the party) and the legitimacy of violence to maintain it. The contra were more like those who resisted the Soviets and their client regimes in Hungry or East Germany in 1956 than we may like to admit. The article needs to emphasize this fundamental link between government repression and the resistance (the counter-revolution) it engendered. Aiklabanka (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are questions over the validity of claims against the Contras, then this would seem to me to be the place to deal with them. Adding a litany of Sandanista atrocities, whether accurate or not, is not only inappropriate because that isn't the topic of the article, but is also tantamount to blaming a rape victim because she was known to be promiscuous. The fact that the Contras' enemies may be heroic (or sinister) has no relationship to the actions of the Contras themselves. Someone who is more experienced than I with regard to editing Wikipedia pages should purge this article of all claims about Sandanista atrocities and invite this discussion on the Sandanista article's discussion page. That is, unless compelling reason can be shown to keep such references, though Aiklabanka's reasons do not, in my mind, cut the mustard. If we intend to show that the Contra's felt they were facing a dictatorial and atrocious enemy, we can say that. Illustrations are not necessary, unless one thinks that the Sandanistas' actions should be justified by the atrocities of Somoza.198.49.239.248 (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)jmedlong

This article reads like the CIA's version of events

I couldn't believe what I read here. This article almost fails to mention that the Contras were essentially a Reagan-backed group fed arms and money by the US to overthrow a socialist government in their sphere of influence. This must have been edited by some people with extreme right wing views of what actually happened down there. This article has very little fact remaining in it, this needs a complete rewrite. Until then, there should be a POV tag right at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wannabe rockstar (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there were five groups which did not coordinate activities. The largest a peasant farmer group. All counted when they laid down their arms a dozen years or so ago. The name "contra" which means "anti" was given to all five groups as a way of disparaging their activities against the essentially communist government which did have the ear of the media at the time. Student7 (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Shrug. The article does in fact discuss the Reagan Administration's support for the rebels. For those who are interested in why the United States was supplying arms, but not that interested in why Nicaraguans were taking them, the article might not discuss it as prominently as they feel it should, but that is an issue of tone and emphasis. If you could be more specific about actual factual inaccuracies you perceive, we could discuss them. --Groggy Dice T | C 21:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What alternative history of Nicaragua are you reading, Student7? Where is this "peasant farmer group" you mention that I can't find anywhere else? What cities or land did they hold? How was a government that held multiparty elections and handed out private land titles to farmers "essentially communist?" How was it that a destitute little nation the size of Iowa "had the ear of the media at the time" but the most powerful nation on Earth was helpless to get media coverage?

Who referenced Robert Kagan? As I have previously cited, the US Congress did a survey of the leadership of the contras. But I guess we should take the study done by the prominent neoconservative and founding member of the Project for the New American Century as fact instead. MarkB2 ^Chat 04:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Brown. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4000/is_200510/ai_n15640772. There are a lot of Brown articles BTW! I had found an entire document by him online which I now can't easily locate which discusses counting peasants when they laid down their arms.

I know. We're going to be discussing whether he can be used in the article. One of these days. I don't think he has been rejected totally as a source BTW nor do I expect that. The question is whether he can't be used for certain specific facts or maybe conclusions.Student7 (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus study

That Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus study was one of those items that I didn't get around to responding to, so I'm glad you brought it up again. It estimated that all but two of the FDN's top commanders were former Guardsmen. In making such a stark claim, however, it posits a basic test of its accuracy: it is falsifiable if any other non-Guard commanders can be named besides the two (Tigrillo, Pajarito) identified by the report, but in fact I can name several: Rigoberto, Fernando, Ruben, Denis, Douglas, Ivan, more.

On the other hand, if you look to the report for the names of the supposed 46 ex-Guardsmen, you won't find them. That's because the bulk of them come from the FDN's "30" task force commanders, who at various points the report describes as "all," "probably all," or "most and probably all" former Guardsmen. But the study only identifies seven of them (by their noms de guerre only, not their real names), four of them from a single regional command. At least two (Tiro al Blanco, Franklin) were not actually ex-Guard. It is apparent that the study's informants didn't have a great deal of specific information about the task force commanders. (They also seem to have been most familiar with the Nicarao Regional Command, whose leadership was dominated by Guardsmen, and likely extrapolated its composition as typical.) But on this vague supposition that "most and probably all" task force leaders were Guards, the report adds all 30 of these positions to its ranks of ex-Guard FDN commanders.

(On the plus side, even the report reckoned that "roughly 80 percent of the group leaders" and "nearly all the detachment leaders have no prior Guard service." It also concluded that "FDN and U.S. Government claims that the FDN is largely a 'peasant army' of Nicaraguans disaffected with their government are accurate," for those who may still be in doubt on this point.)

It's also not necessary to take Kagan's word on the composition of the FDN leadership. The Caucus report prodded the FDN and the State Department to publish full rosters of the FDN's commanders and their backgrounds, including both their aliases and real names. Why trust them, you might ask? With the commanders' real names, their backgrounds can be investigated and confirmed. So when these rosters identify Franklin as Israel Galeano Cornejo and Tiro al Blanco as his brother, José Danilo Galeano Rodas, locals from their part of Nicaragua know that they weren't in the Guard and that their family was prominently involved in the MILPAS. (Ironically, the Galeanos have been so alienated by what they see as the ingratitude of the post-Sandinista governments, that today many of them support the FSLN. Tiro al Blanco himself stood as an FSLN departmental deputy candidate, his sister Elia María Galeano Cornejo (Comandante Chaparra) is an FSLN legislator, and brother Denis Galeano Cornejo (Comandante Jhonny) has been appointed by Ortega as consul to San Francisco. Franklin died shortly after the end of the war.) --Groggy Dice T | C 05:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the attempt to make a distinction between the ex-Somozan contingent in the Contras and other elements is a red herring, since historically all armed forces have been composed of a majority of peasants and / or working class combatants, without having any corresponding influence on the aims and ideology of their commanders; the Tsar's army during World War 1 was composed of the Russian peasantry, yet - as the soliders themselves realised - this was not a war conducted in their interests. The fact that disaffected peasants formed an element of the contras is less important than the fact that they had no qualms about serving with former Somozistas and National guardsmen. Similarly in 1919 Germany it was the leadership of the German SPD that allied itself with the far-right to crush the German revolutionaries; this did not alter the counter-revolutionary nature of the Freikorps, and nor does the alliance of disaffected Nicaraguan peasants with the Guardsmen alter the counter-revolutionary nature of the Contras. Crucially, all were content to accept American arms and patronage, and all were implicated in the horrendous human rights violations the Contras perpetrated. Attempts to portray elements of the Contras as a legitimate peasant uprising on the grounds that a proportion of the Contras were of peasant origin fail due to the fact that both were they unable to command any significant popular support in the 84 election, and (with the exception of the Miskito) they failed to command any popular support for their military activities which would have enabled them to operate within Nicaragua, and not operate from American-organised bases in neighbouring countries. This compares not only with the guerrillas in Guatemala and El Salvador who retained large areas of popular support despite repression from the right-wing regimes in their countries infinitely worse than anything the Sandinistas were guilty of, but also with other counter-revolutionary groups such as Angola's UNITA who retained significant domestic support within Angola itself. If peasant participation in the Contras occurred, this still fails to lend any support to the claims of the right that they were a legitimate popular rebellion.

James O 20-8-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.35.118 (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sandinistas wished everyone to believe that all groups were led and controlled from one source. This was the great public relations coup, to call them "Antis" (in English) and to presume single leadership so that any offense by one would reflect on all. But we believe they were not coordinated - that there was no "central command".

"Peasants" doesn't so much refer to poor people (they were) but to people who worked the land and had some capital interest in it, however meager by American standards. Communism was aimed at the heart of these people. I doubt they formed the backbone of the Sandistas. Student7 (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been preparing a point-by-point response, but I see that the discussion is already moving on. I'll dump what I have now, and finish up later.

1. "Historically all armed forces have been composed of a majority of peasants and / or working class combatants, without having any corresponding influence on the aims and ideology of their commanders." Obviously, any large-scale rebellion has recruited members from the numerous classes into the rebel army, or it would remain small-scale. However, if rebel leaders hope to voluntarily enlist ordinary people in their army, they do need to convince them that rebel "aims and ideology" are in their interests (or else that the aims of the other side are hostile). Sometimes they need to adjust at least their stated aims to win support, so it is possible for the people to influence the programs of rebel commanders. Also, in the case of the FDN, peasants usually preferred to join units led by MILPAS veterans, who were often from the communities where they operated, than Guard-led ones. By picking their commanders, they tilted the balance between Guard and MILPAS. (These are critical differences with the Tsar's army. First, the Russians were fighting a foreign enemy, and shared patriotic fervor initially trumped whether soldiers and commanders shared congruent internal political or social goals. Second, the army was conscripted, and so the Russian peasants fought whether they thought the war was being conducted in their interests or not - at least until 1917.)
2. "They had no qualms about serving with former Somozistas and National guardsmen." There are many historical instances of disparate factions coming together against a common foe. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." But there were tensions between Guardsmen and peasants. There also seems to be an assumption that former Guardsmen were all Somocista and counter-revolutionary in nature, and that all right-thinking persons should have had qualms about serving with them. I'll have to address that assumption sometime. (A closer analogy to the arguments presented, I think, would be to contend that the SPD leadership's willingness to ally with the "essentially counter-revolutionary" Freikorps made them just as counter-revolutionary as the Freikorps. While the Spartacists and the Communist Party might condemn the "Social Fascists," however, many people would disagree with that characterization.)
3. "Crucially, all were content to accept American arms and patronage,..." And why was this crucial? And why would it be more crucial than the willingness of the Sandinistas to accept Soviet arms and patronage? In my opinion, it's unrealistic to think that the MILPAS should have said, "No thanks to your FALs and AK-47s and grenades, we'd rather go up against the Sandinista army with our trusty hunting rifles than take gringo aid." The underlying perspective, I infer, is that the United States' role in Nicaraguan history should be seen in overwhelming negative terms, as a bullying colossus that was constantly invading and imposing and preying on a weak nation; that Nicaraguan nationalism was thus obligated to take an anti-Yankee form; and so to retain any shred of patriotic legitimacy, the contras should have rejected CIA aid as more interference in the right of Nicaragua to decide its own destiny. However, while this was the Sandinista interpretation, many Nicaraguans did not share their perspective. They saw the United States as a great friend of Nicaragua whose historical role had mostly been beneficial, and contra sympathizers saw no stigma in American support for the rebels.
4. "...and all were implicated in the horrendous human rights violations the Contras perpetrated." Many critics of the contras have an exaggerated sense of the scale of rebel atrocities. They typically also like to believe that there were no "horrendous human rights violations" by the Sandinistas, but there were. (For example, La Chaparra and Jhonny, the Galeanos I mentioned earlier who now work with the FSLN, told Timothy Brown about the Sandinistas' treatment of their family: "The clan's patriarch and one of his older sons were arrested, and another of his sons, Pastor Galeano, disappeared. Pastor's body was recovered in 1990, when it was exhumed from a clandestine cemetery used by the Sandinistas to dispose of the bodies of campesinos killed early in the Revolution. Francisco "Foncho" Galeano, one of those who had fought on the Sandinista side, was arrested in 1983 along with his wife. La Chaparra said he was tortured at a prison known as La Perrera and then castrated, after being forced to watch as his wife (her aunt) was gang-raped by their captors.") The truth is, while the amount of coverage devoted to atrocity charges and counter-charges would lead one to believe that this was a particularly brutal civil war, it was not. There was far less slaughter than in Guatemala and El Salvador, and both sides committed their worst abuses in the early years of the war. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the fabled Sandanista public relations machine. All the Contra groups apart from Eden Pastora's group and the Miskito(which were both distinguished by less barbaric behaviour and reached separate ceasefires)were unified under a single command operating from Honduras; indeed the claims that ex-peasant members displaced the former National Guardsmen is a testament to the fact that the ex-peasants were serving alongside the Somozistas. And it would have made no difference to the Nicaraguan peasants the Contras raped, tortured and killed if it was a Guardsman or a Milpasta responsible. And, as you say, to be a peasant is a reflection of a relationship with the land and not of income, there's no basis to assume they were poor. The land reform as carried by the Sandinistas was more moderate than those carried out by the US in Japan after WW2, so any peasant recruits may have been wealthy peasants who lost out to their poorer neighbours, and as such they were fighting for themselves alone. Of course, as numerous human rights organisations reported, peasants were also kidnapped and forcibly inducted in the contras. others may have joined out of intimidation and fear. The actual composition of the recruits is less relevant to understanding the Contras than the aims and objectives for which they were fighting, and this was for the benefit of the USA and the Nicaraguan upper class. the fact that several former Contra members have moved towards the FSLN only emphasises this fact.

For the FSLN, it would have been impossible for the Sandanistas to exist during Somoza's reign and come to power without some degree of support from the peasantry - that the Sandanistas remained active within Nicaragua before 1979 compares well with the Contras who operated from over the borders - and there is no evidence that the peasantry supported the Contras, either if they were ambivalent or neutral to the Sandanistas. James O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.70 (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to these points after I finish my reply above. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Arguing with you, GD, is like arguing with a gifted three-year-old who has a photographic memory but the reasoning skills of a preschooler. Remember "denying the antecedent?" Whether or not the leadership or the body of the contras were ex-guardsmen or not is a small point in the face of the larger argument that the contras were bloody mercenaries living out of US-funded-and-constructed military bases in Honduras, who never held any territory in Nicaragua, and who would have been smashed had the United States not made it clear that a Nicaraguan incursion into the Honduras would have been met with a US military response. See all those other questions I asked before? Those are important, too. As usual, I never got an answer to those, so I will reprint them in bold for those who may have trouble reading: Where is this "peasant farmer group" you mention that I can't find anywhere else? What cities or land did they hold? How was a government that held multiparty elections and handed out private land titles to farmers "essentially communist?" How was it that a destitute little nation the size of Iowa "had the ear of the media at the time" but the most powerful nation on Earth was helpless to get media coverage? MarkB2 ^Chat 00:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for responding to the Arms Control and Foreign Policy study two years after I first brought it up. MarkB2 ^Chat 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Those questions were posed in response to comments by Student7, so I don't see why I'm expected to answer them. Your approach to discussion also seems to be that if you make six points, any reply should deal with all of them. On the other hand, if I've worked up a lengthy response to one of them, I may decide that it's better to post what I have, especially if it's already been a while since the original post, or the discussion is moving on. I figure it's better than taking potentially six times as long to reply, or worse, running out of steam before finishing. It doesn't mean I have no answer to the other five. One reason so many of your earlier posts went unanswered is that I took too long drawing up a comprehensive reply.

Nevertheless, if I can catch up on all the other responses, I may get to your questions. I will say that I myself am a little confused by Student7's five-group taxonomy, and why he lists a "peasant-farmer group" separately from the MILPAS and FDN, so I'll leave it to him to clarify. --Groggy Dice T | C 07:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot clarify.Student7 (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The evidence for widespread peasant participation is derived entirely from pro-Contra sources so any claims deriving from it need to be treated with caution. However, the notion that any ex-peasant combatants 'tilted the balance' away from the aims and ideology of the Contras isn't born out by either their behaviour during the Contra war or in the policies of the post-1990 government they brought to power. The aims of the Contra movement - in so far as they can be distinguished from Washington - were domestic neoliberalism and subservience to the USA. The fact that similar counter-revolutionary armies such as UNITA, Renamo and the Khmer Rouge were composed of the peasantry - in far higher proportions than the Contras - did not therefore lead to them becoming armies representing peasant interests. 2. So from defending the Contras, you've moved to become a defender of Somoza'a National Guard, the force which oppressed Nicaraguans for four decades and was the only group still to support him in 1978-9 when even the ruling class had jumped ship. That the Guardsman in your opinion are an unproblematical groups with which to ally reflects more on the moral degeneration of Reaganism, and is about as credible as Sihanouk's claim that he had allied with the Khmer Rouge to bring democracy to Cambodia. The comparison with the Freikorps is apt: the material result of their terror was to crush the German left irregardless of the SPD's claims they were defending democracy, and the SPD found this out to their cost in 1933. The later claim of 'social fascist' convinced many because this was precisley the role the SPD had played in 1919-23. Similarly the aim of the Contra war was to return the Nicaraguan government to its economic and political dependancy on the USA, as evidenced by post-1990 history of the country, and if elements of the contra army convinced themselves they were fighting for peasants' right then that was their mistake. 3. The comparison between Soviet aid to the Sandinistas and American aid to the Contras falls down on a number of grounds. The aid Sandinistas recd from the Soviet Union was of course, far less, and they developed as an indigenous force which later sought some aid from the Soviet Union; by contrast the Contras were entirely organised, armed and funded by the USA; their very existance was contingent on American power, particularly the fact that they were based in pro-American countries around Nicaragua; the Contra war - and all the subsequent human and economic devastation - would not have occurred without American support. And more crucially, the USSR had not been responsible for the previous 40 years of oppression in Nicaragua. Your claims that Nicaraguans see the USA as a benign friend is a fable, given that they only voted for the USA's preffered candidate in 1990 after 10 years of economic embargo and contra war. the equivalent would have been a Polish partisan army raiding Poland from over the border after 1989 being armed, trained and funded by the USSR. Only the most ardent Stalinist hacks would have accepted any claims that they were a legitimate popular resistance, even if large numbers of their footsoldiers were workers or peasants. 4. As the FSLN page on wikipedia makes clear, there were human rights abuses by the Sandinistas, but the majority of claims derive from the 'Permanent commission on Human rights' and other right-wing outlets, whose evidence has not stood up to subsequent scrutiny. Any comparison of the human rights violations by the Sandinistas with those of the Contras using reputable organisations - Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch - shows that the Contras overwhelmingly committed the majority of human rights abuses in the Nicaraguan war. The fact that there was less human rights abuses in Nicaragua than in Guatemala and El Salvador is reflected in the fact that the majority of the population supported the FSLN and they did not need to rely on repression as did the Duarte and Rios Mount regimes. Crucially, the FSLN were an elected government defending their country, and the Contras were American mercenaries attacking from Honduras and Costa Rica without any form of popular mandate, which they made up for by calculate tactics of fear and intimidation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.6 (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from WP:ATTACK. This is not conducive to objective discussion.

As in any "asymmetrical" guerrilla warfare, the forces arrayed against the Sandinistas held what control they could when they could. We saw that in Vietnam.

I doubt that people given free access to the ballot box would vote anti-Sandanista because they were cowered by the USA. This is interesting and a new spin. So the 1990 elections were a sham? Hmmmm.

Latin American countries have often been perceived as "needing" land reform. How this proceeds is the problem. In the meantime, farms are consolidating in the US. Do we "need" land reform? When the government does something it isn't always efficient nor economically timely. Student7 (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dweller is back BTW. I vote for a start/restart in the mediation. IMO this just is covering too much territory. With so many opinions/editors, we just can't hone in on a topic and resolve it.Student7 (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In Vietname the NLF remained inside South Vietnam from the beginning of the Diem regime until the end of the war, despite ferocious repression and violence. the Contras by contrast held no 'liberated zones' inside Nicaragua because they enjoyed no support from the peasantry capable of sustaining them - and nor did they require it since they were armed and paid by Washington. However, a better analogy would be the fact that the FSLN and other anti-Somoza groups remained active inside Nicaragua during the 2 decades before 1979 without a shred of the aid the Contras received. As for the 1990 elections, they were internally free and fair but they were undertaken under the shadow of a clear threat by the USA that the contra war would be resumed and the economic embargo maintained unless the Sandinistas were removed from office. the Nicaraguan people had been impoverished and bled white during the previous decade and the pressure from Washington was sufficient to compel many of them to vote against the Sandinistas. it's impossible to argue that - under threat from the most powerful country in the world - the vote for UNO was an unbiased reflection of Nicaraguan political choice. Sandinistas land reform was actually conservative, both by global and latin american standards, and peasant discontent was actually directed against the FSLN because of the slow pace of reform, and it was only widespread peasant activism which led to land reform in 1981 and 85. Ironically, this was also the criticism of the MILPAS groups who had originally held a much more radical vision of land reform. Except for Somoza's land, private property was respected and large capital conciliated. The article refers to Somoza 'collectivisation' yet at no point did the Sandinista's attempt to enserf the peasantry as did Stalin under a similar term, and land was redistributed to peasants on both a co-operative and an individual level. One consequence of this was to make the small and middle peasantry amongst the most consistant supporters of the government, and as already stated, there is no evidence that any of the Nicaraguan peasantry - with again the crucial exception of the Miskito - supported the Contras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.6 (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

ICJ Ruling

I'm glad to see that the American patriots contributing to this page have destroyed reference to the ICJ ruling. Embarrassing little chapter, there. Anyway, as Groggy Dice would surely agree, world opinion is irrelevant and leftish-leaning and not fair and not worth mentioning. Even centrish politicians--liberal democrats--in the nation violating international law felt the ICJ ruling was not fair! Not Fair! Not Fair! MarkB2 ^Chat 03:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've largely covered this in an earlier section. Yes, I've cut down on the coverage of not just the World Court ruling, but its rebuttal (while actually adding a bit of background about the CIA's seaborne campaign). As I explained, that level of detail and argumentation is appropriate to the article on the case itself, not here. The case didn't directly involve the rebels as a party, and its outcome had little practical effect on them. However, the article still mentions that the decision largely went against the United States, nor do I think the additional information about the CIA's UCLAs puts it in a good light.

I know that you see this trimming as politically motivated. But from my perspective, it seems that some editors want the degree of coverage the article gives a topic to be decided not by relevance, but whether they think it puts the contras or the Reagan administration in a bad light. (Or perhaps it might be more accurate to say that they think a topic's relevance is determined by how bad a light it puts the contras/Reagan in.) Nor do I think that the solution to a topic being given undue weight is to balance biased treatment with a long rebuttal; that addresses POV but reinforces undue weight. The FSLN article has been turned into a rambling mess partly due to both sides staging full-blown debates over every little point, and I don't want the same bad practice to get started here.

(As for the politics of the ICJ case itself, I do think that the mining and the CIA's sea raids were legitimate matters for the Court's jurisdiction, but not overall US support for the contras. Many nations have sponsored foreign rebels, so singling out this instance to take up did betray political bias.) --Groggy Dice T | C 04:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, GD, that's a BRILLIANT argument. The ICJ ruling that the Contras' biggest funder could no longer fund them is HARDLY relevant on an article about the contras. We wouldn't want to sully Ron Reagan's image, after all, OR that of the FREEDOM FIGHTERS. God bless you for your contributions to this article. MarkB2 ^Chat 01:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:FAITH, WP:Civility, and no WP:ATTACK. Which reminds me, we are back doing mediation if you would like to join us. Student7 (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

'The FSLN article has been turned into a rambling mess partly due to both sides staging full-blown debates over every little point' It would be more accurate to say of the original FSLN article that each propaganda point regurgitated by the right has, of necessity, been challenged, and the talk page on the contras has expanded for a similar reason. Removing details, as MarkB2 points out above, removes crucial facts. This is not an academic issue: thousands of Nicaraguans were killed, wounded and impoverished under the cover of lies spread by the Reagan regime and it's only appropriate these should be countered. James O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.6 (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)