Talk:Sandinista National Liberation Front/Archive 2

message: Some comments and observations:
After a Cuban reorganization of the FSLN structure and tactics in the 1970s, it began to attract significant support from the country's increasingly politicised peasantry
1) Ironically, we can't give Cuba or the Sandinistas the credit for the increased support among the peasentry.
The Christian Democracy movement was as its height in Latin America. In Nicaragua, the Social Christian Party (PSC), had many followers on the countryside. They were supporters of the establishment of cooperatives, labor unions and opposing the classical liberalism and capitalism.
The Christian Democracy movement gained more and more supporters, even in the universities, where the FSLN traditionally recruited their members. Fonseca criticised the Christian Democracy's demagogy and stated the that the Marxism was the idelogical core of the Sandinismo.
2) The reorganization, and subsequent fragmention of the FSLN.
With a increasing support of the Christian Democracy movement and the failure of the foco theory in Bocay (1963) and Pancasán (1967), the Sandinista leadership put emphasis on the cult of "The New Man", "El Hombre Nuevo". 
A true Sandinista had to undergo a "purification ceremony" known as "La Montaña" ("The Mountain"). "La Montaña" was the place where the guerilla was going to arise. "La Montaña" was seen as a process, a rebirth of the person both politically and of social awareness. "El Hombre Nuevo" was going to be made in "La Montaña" - the mountains of Nicaragua, the home of the Sandinista guerilla.
This emphasis on "La Montaña" was going to contribute on the fragmentation of the FSLN.
A new generation of Sandinista activists had grown strong in the cities. This tendency was reinforced by the victory of the Revolutionary Students Front (FER) in the Student Union elections Managua in the late 60's. These new Sandinistas had no official connection with the Sandinista leadership but identified themselves with the FSLN.
In 1974 the FSLN decided to send all new activists in the urban areas to the mountains. 
The new activists were politically active in the cities and not very fond of the idea of moving into the mountains. In their point of view, the guerilla in the mountains were more concerned on trying to survive than on actually winning the war against Somoza. This resistance from the Sandinista activists in the city was reinforced by Jaime Wheelock book "Imperialismo y Dictadura" (Imperialism and Dictatorship), an historic analysis of the class struggle and the transformation of the economical structures in Nicaragua.
Wheelock came to the conclusion that due to the industrial expansion in the country in the recent years, a real working class has arose in Nicaragua. And since the historical antagonism has been between the working class and the traditional oligarchy, it was FSLN's duty to build up the revolution with the workers at the forefront.
FSLN's immediate reaction was to ban Wheelock and other leading proletarios. And with that, the Sandinistas split in two factions or "tendencias".
1) The Proletarian Tendency (Proletarios), led by Jaime Wheelock, Luis Carrión and Roberto Huembes that sought to organise urban workers.
2) The GPP, Guerra Popular Prolongada (Prolonged Popular War) faction that promoted "La mística revolucionaria", the revolutionary idealism and devotion towards "La Montaña" and the edification of the new man, "el hombre nuevo". The GPP  faction was rural-based and sought long-term "silent accumulation of forces" within the country's large peasant population, which it saw as the main social base for the revolution.
The breaking-up was not an isolated situation that affected only the Nicaraguan progressive forces. It was common phenomenon in whole Latin America mainly due to the fall of the socialistic regime in Chile and the failure of the foco theory.
The foco theory was a concept developed by the Cuban revolutionary leaders Castro and Guevara.  The basis of the idea is that it is not necessary to wait until the objective conditions are right before commencing an insurgency.  Foco theory argues that a small group of armed insurgents can act as the focal point for discontents and thereby create the conditions for opposition.  Guevara's subsequent campaign in Bolivia failed to substantiate the theory, and its successful application remains unique to the Cuban revolution. 
Carlos Fonseca returned to Nicaragua in November 1975 from his exile in Cuba in an attempt to mediate between these two factions. He was killed by the National Guard one year later in the Zinica region in Matagalpa, Nicaragua. His body was mutilated and his hands send to Managua for a proper identification. 
After Fonseca's death there were several unsuccessful attempts to reunite the two factions of the FSLN. In 1976 with a third faction came into scene led by the brothers Daniel and Humberto Ortega. The "terceristas" (the third way) as they called themselves, was ideologically eclectic, favouring a more rapid insurrectional strategy in alliance with diverse sectors of the country, including business owners, churches, students, the middle class, unemployed youth and the inhabitants of shantytowns. In the practice, this was the "winning strategy" that conducted the FSLN to the victory in 1979.
The terceristas also helped attract popular and international support by organising a group of prominent Nicaraguan professionals, business leaders, and clergymen (known as Grupo de los Doce, "the Twelve"), who called for Somoza's removal and sought to organise a provisional government from Costa Rica.
On January 10, 1978, Pedro Joaquín Chamorro, editor of the anti-Somoza newspaper La Prensa, was assassinated by the National Guard. It sparked a broad uprising against the regime. The Sandinistas led a combination of general strikes, urban uprisings and rural guerrilla attacks. The United States discontinued the military aid to the Somoza regime.
A few months later the opposition merged into the Broad Opposition Front (FAO), integrated by the liberal Nicaraguan Democratical Movement (MDN), the conservative Democratic Liberation Union (UDEL) and the Twelve, the Sandinistas spokesmen.
In August 1978 a group of terceristas disguised as members of Somoza's National Guard stormed the National Palace and took as hostages several members of the Nicaraguan Congress, which was in session at the time of the attack, and Somoza's half brother, José Somoza. The assault of the National Palace was led by Edén Pastora.
After a few days of negotiations the government capitulated to the insurgents demands; freeing of political prisoners, publication in the press and radio broadcasts of FSLN's political communiqué  and a $500,000 ransom. The guerrillas, as well as the released prisioners, were flown to exile in Panamá. The streets were full of cheering people on their trip to Las Mercedes airport in Managua for their flight out of the country.
Due to the actual situation in the country, the United States initiated negotiations with Somoza and the FAO. The only proposal in the agenda was that Somoza had to hand the goverment over to a junta with representants from both the National Guard and Somoza's Liberal Party. FSLN considered it to be inacceptable and with that the Twelve broke-up from the FAO and organized the National Patriotic Front (FPN) as an alternative to FAO.
The three factions of the FSLN unified on January 1979. The leadership of the unified FSLN was composed by nine members, three members from each faction.
Somoza refused to negotiate with the oppposition. That position affected FAO - the right-wing opposition, that in contrast to the FPN didn't have any army, and whose power in the future depended on a political solution of the conflict.
The FSLN and the FPN launched a final offensive on June 1979. In a desperate movement, Somoza ordered the aerial bombardment of Nicaraguan cities, killing thousands of civilians and increasing the people's rage towards the regime.
Somoza fled the country on July 17. Following his resignation, Francisco Urcuyo Maliaños was Acting President of Nicaragua for a single day in 1979. Upon taking office, he announced his intention to serve out the remainder of Somoza's term, in violation of an agreement reached some weeks earlier between the government and the Sandinista rebel forces. This announcement provoked a strong reaction from the Sandinistas, other Latin American states, and the Carter Administration in the U.S. Recognizing the untenability of his situation, Urcuyo fled to Guatemala on July 18.
Although the Sandinistas didn't enter Managua and officialy assumed the power until two days later, the 19th July of 1979 is considered to be the official day of the liberation of Nicaragua from the Somoza regime.
--Magicartpro 19:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History 1970-1979

message: This part of the article becomes a bit repetitive since the break-up of the FSLN is explained in the History section. Some passages from the Sandinista Ideologies main article can be featured here.
--Magicartpro 19:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideologies

message: There is a paragraph that makes true but (in my view) misleading statements:
The Sandinista government also repressed press outlets it deemed too critical of its policies.  The most notable examples were the Catholic church's Radio Católica and opposition newspaper La Prensa. La Prensa was especially singled out for abuse.  It was routinely censored and shut down, and its editors harrassed by the state security apparatus.
Given that both of these media organs were calling for the overthrow of the government in wartime, it is utterly unsurprising that they were censored. From what I remember from the time, it is more remarkable how long they were tolerated and how far they were allowed to go before they were shut. If we are taking up this topic in this article, then this short paragraph does not do it justice. - Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: In this Daniel Ortega of the FSLN regained the presidency of Nicaragua.
I added this single line to the main article. I very much hope that it won't be deleted as it is obviously relevant. SmokeyTheFatCat 17:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The election of November 2006 

message: The level of detail provided in the paragraph on the hostage situation strikes me as one that needs sourcing, especially since this is narrative that has popped up in the last couple of days.  I tagged it.  Also, does anyone have the name of the minister whose home it was?  146.243.4.157 20:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Rise of the FSLN 

message: In the section titled "The Split of the FSLN" is the following sentence:  "On 10 January 1978, Pedro Joaquín Chamorro Cardenal, the popular editor of the opposition newspaper La Prensa and leader of the 'Democratic Union of Liberation' (Unión Democrática de Liberación - UDEL), the bourgeois opposition, was assassinated."  First of all - "the bourgeois opposition"?  What is that?  The article does mention that in addition to the FSLN there was a right-wing opposition to the Somoza gov't, so maybe that's what this sentence is referring to; but it should be much clearer IMO.  Secondly, editorial use of Marxist/Marxian terms is PoV and inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.187.201 (talk) 03:41, 16 December, 2006 (UTC)
::UDEL was not (only) a right-wing opposition. There were many social democrats/christians, from center/center-right/left parties, for example, Edmundo Jarquin, the 2006 Presidential candidate of the MRS was one of UDEL's leaders.--Magicartpro 04:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  section: "The Split of the FSLN" 

message: While I was looking over the article, I saw that an "Oscar Antonio Sanchez" had been added to the list of prominent Sandinistas. I don't claim to be familiar with the entire FSLN pantheon, but I'd never heard of him before. Checking the history, I found that he was added by an IP on November 6. He was described as being a colonel, but there were higher-ranking Sandinistas, like Joaquin Cuadra... who I realized wasn't on the list. So I've removed "Sanchez," and added Cuadra. If someone has information about this Sanchez being a major Sandinista, they can put him back in.
I also removed the bit about Tomas Borge's GPP being "explicitly Maoist." While it advocated a Maoist strategy, I don't see it as following Maoist programs in a wider sense.
There are a lot of other things I don't like about the article, but I'll have to deal with them later. --Groggy Dice  T|C 09:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Prominent Sandinistas" 

message: This sort of agitprop will not be tolerated. Either cite well-respected sources or stop trashing this page. Since none of the propaganda in that section can be verified by actual sources, it will be removed. For facts on human rights in Nicaragua refer to: http://www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Nica81eng/TOC.htm
Jacob Peters
: The section was at best a mixed bag, but probably we should have something on the topic. The initial Sanidinsta treatment of the Miskiot Indians was not good, as they would be the first to admit; on the other hand, it seems to me that they bent over backwards to try to make good on the situation. Their toleration of a hostile press in wartime was well beyond the usual, which certainly merits discussion.  The section was anonymously removed and replaced with a fragment of a poem about Sandino by Pablo Neruda, which, in turn, I removed: Wikipedia is not a poetry anthology. - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Human Rights" Section 

message: Why is there no mention of the anti-semitic policies of the Sandinistas? Prezen 21:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-semitism 

message: I have moved the 'KGB' section towards the bottom of the article. Even if it is true - which I doubt - it is hardly the most important aspect of the FSLN. SmokeyTheCat 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of order of the article 

message: I wish I could say that it's incredible that an article this poorly written, and containing such flagrant examples of anti-American and pro-Sandinista POV and weasel words could remain virtually intact for so long, but unfortunately it's not. Such is the nature of Wikipedia, which is why it should generally not be taken seriously by anyone doing research on any topic more substantial than random pop culture references. 
The article reads like a KGB propaganda leaflet, making the Sandinistas out to be saints while demonizing all of their enemies. Will someone who is NOT a Sandinista--and who, preferably has a decent understanding of English grammar--please go through this article and fix it so that it bears some semblance of neutrality, and thus becomes actually useful to someone looking for information about this period in Nicaraguan history? I would do it myself, but the article is too much of a mess for one person to clean up, and frankly I've got more important things to do.-- Antodav 68.52.242.229 19:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The objective truth is that the FSLN were and are simply a quite good government and Wikipedia reflects this. Only apolgists for the Contras dispute that. Maybe this anonymous contributor should consider his or her rightist bias.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar and Bias 

message: I have an issue with the source that characterizes the El Salvador groups as terrorists. I would not call it reliable.--Atavi 14:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another with references.Ultramarine 15:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is a very biased and Right-wing source. SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: El Salvador

message: Wikipedia urges extreme caution when using words like "terrorist" and "freedom fighter." It's best to avoid them altogether, stick to verifiable facts, and let readers make their own judgments. If we are going to use them, we need to avoid using weasel words like "some people accuse them" and specifically say who makes the accusation. Unfortunately, it seems like there's always someone ready to call someone else a terrorist... Notmyrealname 23:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorist is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Words_to_avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter word to avoid]

message: Frontpage Magazine is funded by right-wing political groups and is an activist political organization;  the assertions in question are made in an editorial;  and the material is clearly outside the Historian's area of expertise (a canadian slav specialist in U.S.-Canadian relations writing on Latin America?  Can this guy even speak spanish?).  
The MIPT terrorism page has been disallowed on at least one page, Jewish Defense League, as not conforming to WP:RS.  I'm not saying that it can't be allowed here -- nor am i saying that the material presented there cannot be used -- but rather that it must be used judiciously and sparingly, and not as the basis for lengthy, off-topic commentary.  Others, however, might object to it.
A sentence or two stating that the activities of the FMLN were considerd terrorism by the United States is fine;  it might be accompanied by a sentence or two from the ICJ ruling in Nicaragua v. United States, where the ICJ ruled that U.S. claims against the Nicaraguan government vis a vis El Salvador are clearly specious and without merit would be, too.  Stone put to sky 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilarious. You are the one claiming in Talk:State terrorism by the United States that a Catholic priest writing on a non-notable Catholic news site is a reliable source for accusations of terrorism against the United States -  - "Can't get much more neutral than a priest". Plus you claim that a slew of activist political organizations are notable for the same accusations. Yet here you claim the FPN is not reliable because it is an activist site and the writer is writing outside of his area of expertise. No, you can't have it both ways. - Merzbow 21:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to mention that FPM or MIPT are not even used as sources in this article now. We did agree to remove activist magazines and similar material from both sides in this article. Now if only another article...Ultramarine 22:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep your comments focused on content, not on users, or their edits on other pages. Notmyrealname 16:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frontpage Magazine plainly does not comply with [[WP:RS]];  unless corroborating sources can be found the material can not be used 

message: The report you were quoting, with 170 cadavers found in mass graves is about Guatemala.  The Nicaragua section is the following page. Pexise 12:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. It seems the linkage is wrong the webpage. Will investigate.Ultramarine 12:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop using human rights reports on Guatemala 

message: "In a 1992 annual report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights there are details of mass graves and investigations which suggest that mass executions had been carried out.  One such grave contained 75 corpses of peasants who were believed to have been executed by government security forces pretending to be members of the contras.  Another grave was also found in the town of Quininowas which contianed six corpses, believed to be an entire family killed by government forces when the town was invaded.  A further 72 graves were reported as being found, containing bodies of people, the majority of whom were believed to have been executed by agents of the state and some also by the contras. However, there is no indication that these executions were part of government policy." 
That is inocrrect, there is no such mention of the contras, or at least not equal weight, in the source. In contrast, 
"According to the information supplied to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, between January 14 and 15, 1992, seven common graves were discovered in El Bijagua district, Camoapa jurisdiction, department of Boaco.  They contained the bodies of 75 people.  The investigations conducted by human rights organizations found that they were the bodies of peasant farmers from the area who were murdered in November 1984, after being "recruited" by elements of State Security who pretended to be members of the Nicaraguan Resistance.  They were taken to the site where the graves were discovered supposedly to receive military training. According to the reports received.  The current Chief of the National Police, Commandant René Vivas Lugo, was Deputy Secretary of the Interior at the time these events occurred."
"The Inter-American Commission was also told that in May, a common grave containing the six corpses of an entire family were discovered in the town of Quininowas, Department of Jinotega.  Human rights groups investigated and found that the killings were allegedly committed by members of the Ligero Cazador Battalion of the Sandinista People's Army, who invaded that town on February 7, 1985."
"By December 1992, human rights groups had received 72 reports of common graves and had investigated 13 of those reports.  While the majority of those graves seem to contain the remains of individuals summarily executed by members of the Sandinista People's Army, some contain the remains of persons executed by members of the Nicaraguan Resistance."
::Okay - maybe we should be more specific - mass executions can be 5 or 10,000 people. I've made some adjustments. Pexise 13:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "However, there is no indication that these executions were part of government policy." There is no mentioning of this in the report, so OR. Should we state the same regarding the Contras? Ultramarine 13:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's necessary to mention this because the section is about *human rights violations committed by the Sandinistas*.  In order to qualify as human rights violations committed by the Sandinistas, they would need to be attributable to the government.  Without this sentence, the passage does not belong in this section.  However, I think it is an interesting addition to the material, so I think it should stay along with the explanation. Pexise 13:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Violations by government forces are, to some degree, the responsibility of the government, although there is a vast difference between ordered kilings and soldiers doing this on their own due to lack of discipline and punishment. But again, the report never states "there is no indication that these executions were part of government policy"Ultramarine 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you removed the disputed template when there is an ongoing dipuate? Ultramarine 13:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, violations by government forces can be the responsibility of the government if the government ordered the violations, had a policy of human rights violations or had knowledge of the violations and did nothing in response.  The report does not state that there was such a policy or order, and this fact has been included. Pexise 13:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The report does not make the claim you mention. We could state "However, there is no mention in the report that these executions were part of government policy."Ultramarine 13:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I'll change it. Pexise 13:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect description 

message: See . Conservative sources are not excluded automatically, see NPOV. Explain please.Ultramarine 13:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had a long discussion earlier, to which you were party, in which we agreed to exclude far-left or far-right sources.  Hence the exclusion of Revista Envio (which is, by the way, far from being a far-left source) Pexise 13:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source you excluded is not a far right source.Ultramarine 13:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is from News World Communications see article. Pexise 13:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conservative, not far rights. We could source it directly to Commission and Hernandez instead, just like you did with the Catholic organization.Ultramarine 13:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the report of the Catholic organization next to me right now.  If you can source it to the original PCHR report, that's fine, include it, but please don't use these dubious sources, we should try and maintain a high standard in the article. Pexise 13:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will have a look at their website.Ultramarine 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of sourced criticisms