Talk:Daniel Ortega/Archive 1

Changes August 15 2005

I've done some significant reworking of this article, focusing on moving toward a NPOV. A few thoughts:

See the "President" article, and I think you will agree that the term can apply to a head of state regardless of how the leader came to power. Almost any source you can look at agrees that Ortega was President of Nicaragua. Calling Ortega “dictator” ESPECIALLY while calling Somoza “president”, expresses a clear POV.

Criticisms of broad Sandinista policies like land reform would fit better in articles like "Sandinista National Liberation Front" and "Contra".

Discussion of the pact definitely seems relevant, but the stuff I'm reading online is unclear and I'm having trouble understanding exactly how it effects Ortega (and Bolaños). I've left it pretty vague for now but I'm concerned this aspect still might not be very NPOV yet.

I think this is a significant improvement, but I look forward to seeing where this article goes from here! --Brian Z 04:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I like your changes. For one thing, you've focused the article more on Daniel Ortega, whereas the previous version tended to meander into boilerplate discussions of the FSLN's activities in and out of power -- discussions that would be better handled on the Sandinista page rather than here. Some of that material is inevitable and appropriate, since much of Ortega's public identity is bound up with his role as head of the FSLN, but "Daniel Ortega" and "Sandinista" are not synonyms. Even now, I think the article could benefit from some additional biographical information, such as mentioning his wife, children and brothers (both of whom were also significant Sandinistas).

I think you've also done a good job of mentioning criticisms of Ortega while also giving the caveats to those criticisms, as for example in your handling of the Carlos Guadamuz murder. In that regard, BTW, William Grigsby has written a detailed article for Envío magazine that gives some of the history of Ortega's relationship with Guadamuz and the known facts about his murder. --Sheldon Rampton 05:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

María José Bravo

I cut the name of María José Bravo from the main article because she was mudered by a liberal politician, during the provincial election of 2004, and not because any critic position against Ortega.

17.09.2006 -- The sentence where you removed her name no longer makes any sense. It needs to be fixed.

--Pkondrat 02:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes by 63.21.16.230, August 06 2005

I'd agree that the old version was a little uncritical, but this just swings WAY too far in the other direction. To call this new version NPOV is absurd. I'm going to leave it alone because I'm about to go to bed and don't want simply revert to the old version... There are obviously very different ways reasonable people can interpret the facts here; let's make a good faith effort at balance and objectivity ASAP.--Brian Z 07:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

---

to everyking: Ortega is a dictator. that election in the 1980's was a sham. the opposition could not participate because they were jailed in the infamous chipote prison in managua. of course this will not appear in books written by leftist american academics...........

if you want people to take you seriously you'll have to include citations on the junta's actions during the 1984 elections with regards to the political opposition, in terms of media control and harassment, rather than just railing against leftists. J. Parker Stone 03:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Perhaps this is a matter of opinion, but the 2nd paragraph seems to say that the Sadinistas were voted out just because of their own shortcomings, and not that the people knew voting them out was the price of the US stopping the terrorism against them.

• • • • Where exactly is your "proof" that what you claim here is at all accurate? As I understand, voting against the Sandanista's for the opportunity to achieve peace and stability that would have provided can be seen as both a "just" or "unjust" victory for the Contras, depending on your POV (personally, I would say that the people of Nicaragua voted the right way. You'd probably claim differently, and that's why POV statements like your rant about U.S. "terrorism"-- "justice" to me -- should be left on this discussion board and out of the main article).

---

What definitely doesn't qualify as a valid point to leave to matters of opinion is that the US-funded Contra army's actions amounted to "harassment"; the deaths of thirty thousand people cannot be described with the same term that applies to prank phone calls.

Point taken. I've changed it to "attacks." --Sheldon Rampton 02:24, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

A couple of points:

1. The claim that top Sandinista leaders personally appropriated luxury properties wasn't widespread in Nicaragua. Actually, the Sandinistas were fairly exemplary in this regard compared to many Latin American political parties. This changed after they lost the 1990 elections, when they hastily transferred a number of state-owned properties into the hands of party members, but it wasn't widely charged against the party prior to then.
2. Ortega's stepdaughter, Zoilamerica Narvaez, didn't merely accuse him of sexual abuse when she was 11. She accused of of an expended pattern of abuse, beginning in 1978 an continuing until 1998 when she filed charges.

--Sheldon Rampton 17:52, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is a non context opinion: You have this article indexed as "Saavedra", that, because your english name logic: First Name, Middle Name, Last Name. The problem with this is that in the Spanish Language, we don´t give much importance to the middle name as you don´t give it to the "Mother`s name", the fact is that "Ortega" is not the middle name but the First (Or father, whatever you want to call it) Name and "Saavedra" is the "Mother`s" Name. I don`t expect this opinion of mine remains in this topic, it is just for your information.

But we don't have it indexed under Saavedra, do we? It's categorized under Ortega. Are you referring to a list somewhere? Everyking 11:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Everyking's changes

Some of them are good, but I have to object to "allegations of." The junta (post-1984 the "elected cabinet") did suppress dissent, it officially suspended civil liberties after a Contra group blew up some bridge in 1982 (and yes, their advocates always excused "no dissent" as a wartime measure, which can be noted.) and Marxism-Leninism was always the official Sandinista ideology. maybe it received sympathy from some social democracies in Western and Northern Europe but it was hardly "democratic" except that it had elections in 1984 and allowed some token opposition that got harassed. J. Parker Stone 06:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Lots of countries, including other democratic countries, suspend some constitional guarantees in time of war. Despite that many guarantees remained in place in Nicaragua - for example, there was no death penalty. As for the 1984 elections, they were recognised as free and fair by observers from numerous other democratic countries. I'm not aware that any opposition parties were banned, but it's clear that the main opposition parties, which could have contested the elections if they had so wished, withdrew from them, according to many reports under US pressure.Palmiro 17:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

i'm not sure how this post relates to anything i said. and the "US pressure" is just nonsense, why would the U.S. make it easier for the Sandinistas to win the election and drag out the conflict? J. Parker Stone 09:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Once again, Trey Stone demonstrates that he knows very little about Nicaragua or its history. The thing he calls "just nonsense" is historical fact. That the Reagan administration pressured opposition parties to withdraw from the 1984 elections was acknowledged at the time by both the U.S. government itself and by members of the opposition parties. Edgar Chamorro, a member of the contra directorate who later resigned (troubled, among other things, by the discovery of the CIA's assassination manual) wrote about pressures to boycott the elections in his memoirs. Here are a couple of relevant news citations written at the time of the 1984 elections:

Robert J. McCartney, "Sandinistas' Foes Always Intended To Boycott Vote," Washington Post, July 30, 1984, p. A1:

Last week's decision by Nicaragua's main opposition alliance to boycott elections scheduled for November represented a deliberate effort to embarrass the ruling Sandinistas, even at the cost of sabotaging the opposition's own goal of encouraging the growth of democratic pluralism here, according to Nicaraguan and foreign political analysts.

The four-party Democratic Coordinator gave up its best opportunity in five years of left-wing Sandinista rule to take its positions directly to the Nicaraguan people and to try to build a political network that would counter the Sandinistas' domination of Nicaraguan life. The boycott effectively means that the domestic opposition is counting on the U.S.-financed covert guerrilla war and on other international pressure -- rather than taking a primary role itself -- to bring down the government or force it to further open the political process, analysts said.

Opposition leaders admitted in interviews that they never seriously considered running in the Nov. 4 election but debated only whether to campaign for two months and then withdraw from the race on grounds that the Sandinistas had stacked the electoral deck against them. In the end, the Democratic Coordinator decided not even to register its candidates for the race, thereby attempting to deny the Sandinistas the opportunity to claim that the election was valid.

"These elections are like a bank check for legitimizing the government, but the check has to be countersigned by the Coordinator," the alliance's presidential candidate, Arturo Cruz, said in an interview today. "Their plan is to be totalitarians. Why should we participate in an election to legitimize this totalitarianism?"

The opposition's decision appeared to be a boon to the Reagan administration, because it will help the U.S. government to assert that the elections here will be a sham in the absence of the main opposition. After hailing last spring's election in El Salvador as a triumph for democracy, the administration would have been hard pressed to defend its CIA-funded guerrilla war against the Sandinistas if Nicaragua also held what was perceived to be a legitimate election.

One potential difficulty with the administration's stance was exemplified Friday by U.S.-backed anti-Sandinista guerrilla attacks in which two elections officials reportedly were killed and a third wounded while registering Nicaraguans to vote. ...

It remains unclear how well the Democratic Coordinator would have fared in the election, as virtually all political observers predicted that the Sandinistas would win easily, even without the boycott. A speech by Cruz on Wednesday was attended by only 900 people, despite leaflets and other advance publicity. ...

One opposition leader said that the Coordinator would accomplish more by boycotting the election than by participating. "It the boycott increases the pressure on the Sandinistas by showing people that there's no alternative. It's like a heater, and the knob has been turned up almost as high as it can go," said the senior opposition leader, who asked to remain anonymous.

John B. Oakes, "'Fraud' in Nicaragua," New York Times, November 15, 1984, p. A31:

The most fraudulent thing about the Nicaraguan election was the part the Reagan Administration played in it.

By their own admission, United States Embassy officials in Managua pressured opposition politicians to withdraw from the ballot in order to isolate the Sandinistas and to discredit the regime.

"It was really very light pressure," said one diplomat dryly. Some politicians affected did not see it quite that way. One conservative leader who refused to withdraw commented with some bitterness: "Two weeks before the election, a U.S. Embassy official visited my campaign manager and promised to help him with money to succeed me as party leader if he withdrew from my campaign. He did."

--Sheldon Rampton 02:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I've revised a sentence that previously read as follows:

The election was boycotted by most of the opposition and the results were rejected as fraudulent by the Catholic Church and the Reagan administration in the United States; however, many international observers declared the election to be relatively fair.

The problems with this sentence include the following:

• Saying "most of the opposition" boycotted the election is POV. How do we define "most"? A number of opposition parties did participate, and won 37% of the vote. Obviously, there's no way to know whether the parties that declined to participate would have gotten more votes than the parties that did participate.
• I'm unaware of the Catholic Church having issued any statement saying the results of the election were fraudulent.
• The precise language used by Reagan in denouncing the election was that he called it a "sham." I don't recall any specific allegations of fraud per se. There certainly weren't any allegations of tampering with the vote count. The main criticisms levied against the election had to do with the conditions under which opposition parties campaigned (e.g., they didn't have enough time to mount a campaign, or allegations that they were harassed or otherwise prevented from campaigning freely). Those criticisms may or may not be valid, but they don't constitute "fraud."
• Saying "many" international observers declared the election fair understates the degree to which international observers reached this conclusion. Virtually every observing organization that issued a statement reached this conclusion (including delegations from numerous countries as well as the Latin American Studies Association, the main professional association of Latin American scholars in the United States). Also, the word "relatively" before "fair" is a weasel word. "Relative" to what?

--Sheldon Rampton 16:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty controversial question so we need to site some sources on it. A few years ago I tried to find an authoritative summary of what election observers and other commentators thought of the 1984 election and I didn't have much luck. I will try to find the time and look some more, but if you have anything at hand please add a footnote! --Brian Z 03:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

POV?

I'd like to see some citations for the allegations that Daniel Ortega is corrupt

19.09.2006 -- In the same vein, the characterization of the Contra as "various anti-Sandinista guerilla movements" is not at all substantiated. There is ample historical agreement at this point that the Contra were created by the US, first covertly, then overtly. They were an arm of US policy. And they were not a "guerilla movement" so much as a terrorist force, attacking the symbols of Sandinista policy, things like farm collectives, schools, and health clinics. The article also does not say anything about the admission of the Bush Administration (the first one) that they funnelled millions of dollars into Chamorro's campaign, in violation of specific provisions put in place by the US Congress. That seems a significant little detail to mention about 1990. --Pkondrat 02:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Soyla America

Where should we put the allegations that Ms. America (funny...) has annouced against Ortega. Should it be simply placed on the last part of the article or should it be treated with a little more detail and be devoted a section? I mean, a rape allegatiojn is serious, so treatment of both sides should be considered. Let me know what you think. Brusegadi 02:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. El Rojo 02:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ana Fodor's edits

I have reverted Ana Fodor's edits today because they are massive, unsupported, and biased. They should defenetly be discussed first. Brusegadi 07:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

President-elect?

The opening line currently reads that Ortega is the president-elect of Nicaragua. This is false. A president-elect is someone who has already been elected, but has yet to take office. The election is currently underway, so he is not the president-elect but simply a presidential candidate. JF Mephisto 17:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry the radio news report must have been premature. Gotta be careful Chivista 18:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It is taking forever for these guys to count the votes... I am so desperate to know, and with 15% of the votes counted you cant really know (statistically speaking, the difference would prevail only if the votes already counted represent a random sample, but I dont think they do, so there is enough room for a turn around...) Brusegadi 18:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

40% counted and it still looks the same...I guess it was random after all!!!!Brusegadi 18:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oliver North and the Iran Contra Affair

I think when discussing the CIA's funding of the Contras under President Reagan, one should mention Oliver North and the Iran Contra Affair which was one of the biggest scandals of the 80's.Ivygohnair 23:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Go for it! SqueakBox 00:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that just writing "See Oliver North and the I ran Contra Affair." does the article any good. I say you go for it, but as long as you expand on it. Otherwise, it is better to just keep the hypelink to the contras, since the contras article contains all the relevant info. So, for readability, reduction of redundance, and aesthetic reasons, I am removing that note. Brusegadi 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I have expanded it and integrated it in a readable, aesthetic and unredundant way into the text. It is not only unredundant but such an important part of the Contra affair that I feel strongly that if Wikipedia is to be an objective encyclopedia and not a platform for partisan views, this should NOT be deleted by anyone. Please do not start an unnecessary polemic war here.Ivygohnair 10:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks good now. I agree with you, but things needed to be done correctly. Good work, Brusegadi 23:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Obi Wan" out of context qoute

I don't understand why this qoute "A Fitting Quote: 'So this is how freedom dies with people giving the death a standing ovation'--Obi Wan appears in artcle but I can't find it to edit. I'm a little rusty around here but this seems like some kind of tricky vandilsim. I refreshed my browser but it still appears. --Edivorce 01:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Its not there now, SqueakBox 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I recall deleting that and leaving a comment on the anon's talk page (the anon who added that.) Brusegadi 06:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

rape allegations

any reasons that the rape or abuse allegations by his step daughter were taken out? seems notable enough, propose to put them back.trueblood 10:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

again, sources, sources... and speaking of which, how about adding something a tad more important (such as his second presidency, according to wikipedia all that Ortega has done in his second term is to meet with the iranian president...) instead of something as sensationalist as an alleged rape.

Reference Needed

In the Sandinista Revolution section, paragraph 3, the following statement appears: "...many opposition parties boycotted it, under pressure from U.S. embassy officials"

This is commentary and should be referenced or otherwise relegated to the discussion page with other commentaries. Origen