Jump to content

Talk:Sandinista National Liberation Front

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SatanicSanta (talk | contribs) at 16:39, 28 February 2019 (→POV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

How do you edit a ref list?

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

Comment

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

Totally Biased

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

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

agreed, this is hardly neutral and much of the content is in fact innacurate which is why i flagged it. however i would argue it is absurdly and unashamedly pro-sandinista (Ender3 (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • this article is a complete joke - both Sandinistas and Contras have a lot of civilian blood on their hands, yet this text only shows one side... shame for such a great project as the Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.229.81 (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

=Yes, this article seems heavily edited to remove references to Sandinista killing of wealthy/powerful civilians. Who created this page, the party itself?


Just the fact that the Sandinistas are listed in 'The Black Book of Communism : Crimes, Terror, Repression' by Karel Bartosek, 1999, ISBN: 9780674076082, should be enough to invalidate the article. A "Social Democratic" political party? Not even close! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.114.225 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is dreadfully inaccurate

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

The above is hardly a constructive contribution. Delete the article? Is the subject not notable? This editor does not make a single concrete proposal to improve the article and until s/he does nothing useful is served. SmokeyTheCat 18:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree that this article is inaccurate and extremely biased in favor of leftist and socialist ideologies, i.e. it completely lacks neutrality. There are hundreds of examples and there is no space to mention them all, but, for example, is it "by the way" mentioned that the police assasinating Sandino was "US equiped" (although it is completely random and unimportant fact - by chance in 1930 the police bought weapons in US, probably there were no other manufactures of the same quality in the Americas at that time and US were closest and logically cheapest) with the clear intention to attack US and discredit it. Also, massive human right violations committed by the Sandinistas are downplayed in the article, socialist and leftist buased opinions are stated as facts but any criticism are provided with citation in order, again, toe discredit the sources of such criticism.
Again, another non-constructive contribution, this time anonymous. Much work was done by several editors over months on the issue of human rights and this can be read in the archives. SmokeyTheCat 06:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I only read the first 2 paragraphs, which are supposed to give a general overview, and it appears to speak of the Nicaraguan overthrow of a "dynasty" - what's with that? (Somoza was a capitalist dictator-he had U.S. support)76.121.99.198 (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC) It also told of improvements to healthcare et cetera, but without any slight mention of the blood and human rights violations. The Contras and U.S. involvement are described negatively and portrayed practically as evil. My California-produced textbook managed to be much more neutral than this, and no offense, but please return the favor. I came to this article to study for my World History AP test next week, not for pro-Sandinista propeganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.18.232 (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not the previous anon, but I agree. This article only contains half the story. The Sandinistas are widely acknowledged to have been terrorists at some point, and yet there's no mention of it in the article. In fact, there's pejorative comment after pejorative comment about the Contras and the US, but nothing in the same vein about the Sandinistas. Let's get things clear: you can dislike the US actions in Nicaragua and also dislike the way other groups behaved. Simply being on the opposite side to the US does not make a group heroic or good. The article's not NPOV. I won't try and edit it, because I know how these things go on Wikipedia - an article doesn't become this bad unless there are some very aggressive editors "protecting" it and enforcing their own views - but if you're congratulating yourselves on a good job, you shouldn't be unless the job you intended was to write propaganda. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Dave[reply]
The Sandinistas were not "widely acknowledged to be terrorists" by anybody but a few US apologists for the Contras (who were indeed terrorists). The USA was found guilty by the World Court of war crimes against Nicaragua: [[1]] The Sandinistas were never found guilty of anything by anybody. Indeed it would a strange nation indeed who re-elected a terrorist as president, as Daniel Ortega was re-elected by the Nicaraguans. You should read up on some neutral sources as opposed to just swallowing Reaganite propaganda before you make further comments here. SmokeyTheCat 06:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the Somoza family was a dinasty. the first one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasio_Somoza_Garc%C3%ADa gave hes son https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Somoza_Debayle 

the charge on death who gave hes brother

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasio_Somoza_Debayle 

the charge later.and the contras were terrorists funded by usa.http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?sum=367&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&p3=5

William M.hijo (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Citations

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

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

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

FSLN influenced by Communist controlled idealogy in the late1970's and 1980's

The Sandinista movement was influenced by the communist movement during the cold war in the mid 20th century. Today, the FSLN has evolved from a communist to more of a socialist movement. The opposition party in Nicaragua is the Constitutionalist Liberal Party. They want to follow responsible democratic capitalism like the Republicans and Democrats do in the United States. The Sandinistas have trouble conforming with that idea because of the history of the United States' occupation and involvment in Nicaragua the past century, as well as Somoza's irresponsible nondemocratic capitalist practices. Both parties in Nicaragua do want a true democracy though, whether it's socialism or capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.99.198 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FSLN was never a communist party

This article is dreadfully inaccurate, but not for the reasons people have mentioned in the comments before mine. This summer, I visited Nicaragua and lived in a rural community that was very politically active. I learned a lot about the Sandinista party from locals who lived in the community, many of whom were Sandinistas themselves during the Nicaraguan Revolution and Contra War, and all of which are current full fledged supporters of Daniel Ortega and the FSLN. They stressed that the Sandinista party had absolutely no affiliation with cold war politics, and therefore, was never a communist movement. However, the U.S. government and Reagan administration mistakenly believed during the early 1980's that the Sandanista party was in fact, communist, and thus could undermine the U.S. anti-communist agenda during the cold war. To crush the potential threat to U.S. authority, Reagan financially supported the Contra party (mainly consisting of wealthy landowners and former national guard members of the Somoza regime who strongly opposed the Sandinistas), giving the Contra party the capacity and financial backing to attack the Sandinistas after their revolution and launching the Contra War. Reagan even sent CIA agents to fight for the Contras against the FSLN. In sum, the Contra party received full fledged support from the United States simply because Reagan suspected the FSLN of having communist interests.

The fact that this article labels the FSLN as "communist" in the first sentence is truly appalling, not only because the claim is undeniably false, but also because it was the United States who wrongly believed that the FSLN had communist ties, when in reality, the party made efforts to separate itself entirely from the agenda of the Cold War. Describing the FSLN as "communist" implies that Reagan's suspicions were correct, when in fact, they were anything but, and almost justifies the atrocities of the Contra War triggered in part by the United States. Ultimately, the U.S. was wrong; furthermore, the Reagan administration's false suspicions generated dire consequences for millions of Nicaraguan individuals, many of whom are still living with those physical and emotional repercussions today.

Wikipedia has the privilege and the responsibility to take ownership of that fact. Though the writer may not have been aware of the article's implications, I am. Identifying the Sandinista party as "communist" disguises history itself to the benefit of the United States, which is utterly unacceptable. The United States is not perfect, and history knows it and is there to prove it. 72.229.1.71 (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)July 31, 2012[reply]


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.1.71 (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FSLN Definitely Started Out Communist at First...

Daniel Ortega was influenced by the Cuban Government when he lived in Cuba for seven years. He helped overthrow the Somoza regime in the late 1970's and he has been the leader of the FSLN ever since.

I too have visited the rural areas of Nicaragua and have befriended a family who once were called the "wealthy land owners" in the 1970's. This family had worked very hard and spent many years with much dedication to build a successful coffee plantation, only to be pushed out by the Sandinistas in 1981. Their home, land, and all of their possessions were confiscated by the Government and divided up between the other people. Their home was tranformed into a Government building and hospital in the 1980s. Their once profitable coffee business was now run by the other citizens of the community who had no experience with the business practices. They basically ran the business into the ground, and it was not profitable. Nicaragua's GDP dropped dramatically in the 1980's. The FSLN did change their way of thinking in 1990, when the opposing party won office. Daniel Ortega was still a big influence in the politics though! He won back his Presidency in 2006 and has been there ever since. He will never let go of his power.

The family that I mentioned above fled for their lives to Miami in 1981. They then moved to Montreal, Canada where they opened up a profitable small family store for 10+ years. In that time the family had rebuilt some of their wealth. Ironically, they took the money that they had earned in Canada and returned to Nicaragua. The government was nice enough to give them their old house back. 76.121.99.198 (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ortega has already given up power once, in 1990 when the FSLN lost the election. SmokeyTheCat 18:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ortega never lost all of his power. He manipulated his way back into office. The democratic process in Nicaragua (as well as in Russia) is questionable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.99.198 (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion

I was surprised to find no mention of this in the article, since their total right-of-Pat-Robertson abortion ban is an oddity for a supposedly left-wing and explicitly pro-woman political party (even in Catholic Latin America). So, if anyone was waiting for some excuse to add a section on their abortion policy, here it is. 184.18.4.90 (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sandinista National Liberation Front. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Kill the Messenger

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1216491/?ref_=nv_sr_2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.19.87 (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sandinista National Liberation Front. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war

The lead states: "The civil war between the Contras and the government continued until 1989." Can invasion by US funded and trained mercenaries be considered "civil war"? 2601:644:1:B7CB:DC07:19DB:657B:E42 (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly wasn't a civil war in the same sense as the American Civil War, in which two parts of the country waged war on one-another. The Contras couldn't even hold onto a single village or town. But the dictionary definition is "a war between political factions or regions within the same country." It was a political-military conflict between Nicaraguans over control of Nicaragua, so I think "civil war" isn't necessarily inaccurate. The problem is that "civil war" can also make the Contras sound considerably more powerful than they were. --Ismail (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV

I have added a POV tag to the article, as it is clearly not written from a neutral point of view (as can be seen in this talk page). The article makes numerous errors, largely in the area of the Contras and failing to show that the government was both democratically elected and remained democratic throughout its time in office.

The interference by other governments in the country's affairs should be given more prominence, along with the views of the country's inhabitants (and victims of this interference). 121.45.222.8 (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article does (in fact) mention the election victories of the FSLN and also the US's support for the Contras and the trade embargo by the United States. So I'm not sure what the complaint here is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. So much of this article is extremely anti-Sandinista, especially the areas in which HRW is heavily cited but also just generally. HRW and the whole US "aid"/"human rights" NGO scene (Americares, USAID, etc) was/is connected to the CIA and to the Contra weapons and drug trafficking specifically, yet it's being treated here as some sort of "neutral" party. The claim in there that the US-Somoza dictatorship didn't torture people is just insanity. -- SatanicSanta 16:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 unrest

I visited the reference provided, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/world/americas/nicaragua-protests-ortega.html, and it doesn't mention 500 people being killed at all. It uses the phrasing "over 45", with the death toll being uncertain. 2601:482:8005:6100:55B2:A752:8CBB:5937 (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front&oldid=885530692"