Talk:Sandinista National Liberation Front

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Socialism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cold War  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Central America / Nicaragua (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Nicaragua (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Politics / Political parties (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Political parties task force.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

How do you edit a ref list?[edit]

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

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


Totally Biased[edit]

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)

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))
  • 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)

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

This Article is dreadfully inaccurate[edit]

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

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

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)

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

No Citations[edit]

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

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

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

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

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)

FSLN was never a communist party[edit]

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


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

FSLN Definitely Started Out Communist at First...[edit]

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)

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

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)

Abortion[edit]

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)