Talk:Sandinista National Liberation Front

message: 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)
thread_title:  How do you edit a ref list? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Totally Biased

message: 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)
thread_title:  No Citations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  San Diego Teachers' Committee in Central America/Mataglapa and El Cua Bokay areas 

message: 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)
thread_title:  FSLN influenced by Communist controlled idealogy in the late1970's and 1980's 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't think you could currently call it that.....but as RS shows they (back in the late 70's/80's) were planning with Moscow to spread communism in Central America. But then we could wind up having the old debate was the USSR really communist?. So not 100% sure on this. At one point, I think the article did note them as formerly having those tendencies.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, one source for what I was saying above: "[KGB agent Nikolai] Leonov reported to the Centre [in 1979, in the immediate aftermath of the Sandinistas coming to power] that: The FSLN leadership had firmly decided to carry out the transformation of the FSLN into a Marxist-Leninist Party, including within it other leftist parties and groups on an individual basis. The centrist and bourgeois mini-parties already existing in the country would be kept only because they presented no danger and served as a convenient facade for the outside world........[later text] According to Leonov, Ortega 'regarded the USSR as a class and strategic ally, and saw the Soviet experience in building the Party and state as a model to be studied and used for practical actions in Nicaragua'. Ortega agreed to 'unofficial contacts' with Soviet representatives (a euphemism for meetings with KGB officers) in order to exchange information. He gave Leonov a secret document outlining the FSLN's political plans for transmission to the CPSU Central Committee.....[it] proclaimed the intention of turning the FSLN into a Marxist-Leninist 'vanguard party' which, in alliance with Cuba and the Soviet bloc, would lead the class struggle not merely in Nicaragua but across its borders in Central America.' [from: 'The World Was Going Our Way' by: C. Andrew & V. Mitrokhin p.120-121]Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That quote from the KGB guy refers back to the 1970's, so doesn't help much in telling us what the Sandinistas are in the 21st century. Looks to me like some people are using this article to fight old wars.  Ortega looks like a thug, an authoritarian and an all-in-all rascal, but a 'Marxist-Leninist' he ain't (right now at least).  So that info needs updating. OscarFred1952 (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not making the case they are (currently) Marxist. But the poster above was saying his notation that (in the past) they were was reverted......and I was giving him a RS for that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and added RS for the claim.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  FSLN was never a communist party 

message: 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)
thread_title:  FSLN Definitely Started Out Communist at First... 

message: 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)
replies: text: For the record: The FSLN does not have an anti-abortion policy, and if you talk to Sandinistas you will find a wide variety of opinions on it. It was a Liberal-majority National Assembly under the Bolaños administration which banned abortion, not the FSLN. Some Sandinistas in the National Assembly voted against it, and some voted for it. -- SatanicSanta 19:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sandinista National Liberation Front. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID={641B840F-9D25-43BC-9FA9-0E7472635D4F}%29&language=EN
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081007113947/http://www.ciir.org:80/progressio/Internal/89624/91445/progressios_history/ to http://www.ciir.org/progressio/Internal/89624/91445/progressios_history/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Movie Kill the Messenger 

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.fsln-nicaragua.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019083239/http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2010/06/15/politica/27852 to http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2010/06/15/politica/27852
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Civil war 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Will remove the POV tag. As per the wiki page's discussion page "the lack of edits and/or talk page discussion should be interpreted as the issue not worth fixing (as a form of "silent consensus")".Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2018 unrest 

message: Can somebody find Out the membership figure? Lovemankind83 (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership figure 

message: There is no mention of prominent US Govt officials currently in office that supported SDLN and visited there in 1988.  If there is no objection , i will create a paragraph devoted to US political figures that supported there cause. Jacob805 (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warren Wilhelm Jr. Aka Bill De Blasio