Talk:Contras/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Proposed New Approach: Common Sense applied to easily proven broad based facts

Hi folks. I recommend a new approach. I'm always amazed about how worked up people can get about a war they didn't take part in. This wiki page is however, of historical importance because when you google "Contras", this is the first hit. So as someone who was there with the campesinos during years in question, I recommend applying common sense to really broad facts as a starting point.

FACT: 23,000 Contras were demobilized. [1]

CONCLUSION: The majority had to be campesinos. Somoza only had 6k guardia at peak. By any ONUCA or UN count, there were 10 times as many ex Sandinista as ex Guardia members in Contra ranks. The Contras were campesinos. Period.

FACT: By 1987 Contras operated in absolutely every corner of Nicaragua except for the big cities.[2][3][4]

CONCLUSION: They couldn't have operated in all corners from Zelaya Sur, Rio San Juan, through Chontales, Matagalpa, Jinotega east to Atlantic Coast and north to Rio Coco and recieved undetected air drops from loud DC-6 cargo planes without OVERWHELMING campesino support.

FACT: The Sandinistas resorted to "Relocation Camps" for the campesinos. The forced relocation, often accompanied by destruction of homes, happened both in the North [5] and the South [6] and occurred over multiple years. Sometimes the "Relocation" was accompanied by wholesale slaughter,torture and aerial bombardment as happened during the razing of Miskito villages along the Rio Coco.[7]

CONCLUSION: Contras enjoyed such huge support among the campesinos, the Sandinistas had to "relocate" them by force to internment camps

FACT: The Sandinistas by early 1988 were reduced to rounding up teenagers in movie theaters and on city buses to fill their admitted 30,000/year conscription quota. This led to spontaneous uprisings of civilian mothers in Managua and Masaya [8][9]

INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION: The Sandinistas were getting their butts kicked militarily and were desperately scrounging for bullet catchers. The overwhelming majority of Nicaraguans had had enough of the Sandinistas authoritarian regime by 1988. Imagine how the anti-Resistance posters on this page would have treated prospects for military success if George Bush had done this for Iraq or Afghan wars. Facts are facts. This fact is great starting point when subject of Contras military momentum in 1987 & early 88 comes up.

FACT: In the 1990 elections, in spite of only giving campesinos 24 hours to register to vote in a country where the majority had to walk or ride mules to register and had no phones or electricity, the ANTI-SANDINISTA candidate Violetta Chamorro won by a landslide. [10]

CONCLUSION: The media bias predicting just the opposite result was in stark contrast to the LANDSLIDE decision of Nicaraguans at the polls to vote for Democracy over Communist authoritarianism. Brokaw, Jennings, Koppel all smugly predicted Sandinista victory. Jennings had to go on air and issue red-faced apology for being "terribly wrong". "Terribly wrong" sums up many of the posts on this wiki page. [11]

FACT: Witness For Peace and similar organizations to this day require indoctrination of their "witnesses" before, during and after visiting Nicaragua according to their own current web page.[12]

CONCLUSION: I can cite many more links. Leftist organizations and main stream media had an agenda. They would not visit "off limits" battlefields and "inaccessible" zones until those zones had been properly prepared by their Sandinista minders. Draw your own conclusions. Tiomono (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

'Democratic Resistance Movement'

The contras' 'ideology' in the box near the head of the main page should be altered; by no stretch of the imagination can the contras be described as 'democratic'; if they were democrats they'd have participated in the 1984 elections, as did several other opponents of the FSLN both left and right-wing, and have laid down their guns before the 1990 elections, rather than killing Sandinista activists and attempting to intimidate Nicaragun peasants into voting for UNO. http://www.envio.org.ni/articulo/2576 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,HRW,,NIC,467bb495c,0.html James O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.156.174 (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi James. Looks like we're the only ones discussing. :) Once again I couldn't disagree more. By no stretch of the imagination were the 1984 "Elections" fair or participated in by the campesinos of rural Nicaragua. I've posted the links about slaughter of Miskitos, and about campesinos houses being burnt as they were herded into internment camps. The intimidated survivors I'm sure voted as they were told and as usual (See 2008 stolen municipal elections), the votes were counted by the Piris (Sandinistas).

The Resistance did participate in an election once the infrastructure was in place for a safe one and they won by landslide proportions never seen since. Note that in 2006 elections it took a sleazy deal with convicted felon Aleman, lowering of voting age to 16, lowering of percentage needed to avoid runoff to 35%, a deal with the Caridnal to ban abortion, and a change in colors from red and black to PINK for Ortega and FSLN to weasel their way back into power. Although there were "Recontras" and "Revueltos" long after the 1990 elections, the vast majority of the 23,000 demobilized Contras surrendered their weapons and have lived the lives of peaceful, impoverished campesinos ever since. Ortega and his Piñata [13] gang never relinquished control of army, "state security" or national police. Bear in mind when listening to the paranoid fantasies of the FSLN that Costa Rica right across the border is infinitely more prosperous, has a vibrant democracy, and NO standing army.

FACT: In the 1990 elections, in spite of only giving campesinos 24 hours to register to vote in a country where the majority had to walk or ride mules to register and had no phones or electricity, the ANTI-SANDINISTA candidate Violetta Chamorro won by a landslide. [14]

CONCLUSION: The media bias predicting just the opposite result was in stark contrast to the LANDSLIDE decision of Nicaraguans at the polls to vote for Democracy over Communist authoritarianism. Brokaw, Jennings, Koppel all smugly predicted Sandinista victory. Jennings had to go on air and issue red-faced apology for being "terribly wrong". "Terribly wrong" sums up many of the posts on this wiki page. [15] Tiomono (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: On May 5, this section was renamed 'Right-wing paramilitary' by IP 94.112.2.176. I have changed it back, because I do not think talk sections should be retroactively altered. --Groggy Dice T | C 09:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Article's Current State

I've been away from this article for several months, due to a combination of burnout, wishing to avoid turning into a would-be WP:OWNer of the article, and general waning faith in Wikipedia. From time to time I've checked in, and found changes that were inaccurate or that I felt made the article worse, but I've held off on getting re-involved. Today marks an appropriate moment to jump back in. Knowing that edits to this article can be contentious, my approach for my return will be to start off with what I hope will be less contested corrections and changes, and build towards what may be more controversial changes.

Here are explanations for my first batch of changes:

• POV tag: I'm upgrading this tag to note that there are factual controversies as well. Even during the fracas that led up to the mediation, there were disputes over fact as well as bias. Even if I managed to correct all the errors in the current version, errors would continue to be introduced or reintroduced by people who aren't that familiar with the subject.
• Infobox: On a collaborative editing project like Wikipedia, the original characterization of "democratic resistance movement" is not going to go undisputed by the many anti-contra editors. However, it is also wrong to describe the contras as a whole as "right wing." Although the largest faction, the FDN, has often been described as "right wing" (though I consider that an oversimplification), this article is not about the FDN exclusively, but about the rebel movement as a whole. As the article itself states, the groups had "different aims and little ideological unity." The Southern Front included many groups with a social democratic or other leftish orientation, and the Atlantic Coast rebels had ethnic grievances that cannot be simply called right or left. Changing "right wing" to "various" is hopefully neutral. (As for "paramilitary," I don't see how this is a type of ideology.) Also, the Pacific Coast was not really penetrated during the war, so I do not think it is fair to imply that "all" rural areas of Nicaragua were in their area of operations.
• "resistencia": Clarify when the "Resistance" terminology was introduced.
• Bravo and the Guard: I'm going to roll this section back. An edit was made about Comandante Bravo being "chased," and about the fate of the Guardsmen, that set in motion further edits that have made this section more inaccurate and contorted. (Those who know how Bravo was killed know that he was lured, not "chased." And it was not only "those who had reason to fear arrest for war crimes" who needed to remain at large; even Guardsmen not convicted of specific criminal acts were sentenced by the Sandinistas for belonging to a "criminal organization," so just being in the Guard was made a crime. Richard Millett, a top scholar on the Nicaraguan Guard, believes that most of the rank and file in exile would have returned had the new regime offered a credible amnesty.)
• Dimas: One editor felt there was "no need to add 'nome de guerre' or aka's," and so took out this information about Pedro Joaquin Gonzalez. But he was arguably better known by his pseudonym than his real name, so I don't see why his case should be treated differently from Eden Pastora or Pablo Emilio Salazar's. (Also, took the opportunity to clarify that the MILPAS leaders were from those who had fought in the north, not former Sandinistas in general. For instance, ARDE also contained many former Sandinistas, but mostly Southern Front veterans.)

I'll make these changes now, and then go through the rest of the article. --Groggy Dice T | C 09:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points Groggy Dice. I share your frustration and concern that Wikipedia may not be modeled to handle polarizing, and sparsely documented historical periods. In interest of full disclosure, I'm a "Contra" who was with ARDE Frente Sur from 1985 to present day.

• Infobox: Agree with corection about Pacific Coast. Never got anything going there or in big western cities like Managua. That's an acknowledged tactical failure and IMO tribute to the ruthlessness of Lenin Cerna and Thomas Borge. As far as ideological unity, I can tell you that as the years progressed the lines between FDN and Frente Sur became blurred. By wars end the northern and southern forces were united militarily and old guard had been voted out and replaced by Franklin as chief of staff of FDN, with Leonel, Ganzo, Navegante and Pedro Raffaga in charge of ARDE Frente Sur. I can assure you the young men and women starving, fighting and dying for Nicaragua with the Resistance did so in hopes of a free and Democratic government as evidenced by both the election of Franklin and subsequent disarmament. Yatama and Musurasata fought bravely, suffered greatly, but were harder to figure out and had extreme independent streak.
• Bravo: Never heard of the guy. More left wing ranting by people desperately trying to prove this wasn't a campesino revolt against tyrrany.
• Dimas: Good man. Kind of psycho to come up with the idea that psuedonimos aren't relevant. Shows lack of knowledge of the region, or all Latin America. So now we shouldn't call "Che" "Che"? The obvious irony of this complaint being most wikipedia editing is done under pseudonyms.
• "Piri": You can't keep calling us Contras "Contra" without allowing me to state historic fact that in rural Nicaragua, only word one heard for Sandinista or E.U.P.S(Ejercito UnPopular Sandinsta) was "Piri", short for Piricauaco and meant "Mad Dog".
• 1990 Elecions: I'm going to edit this to make these points which bear emphasis. Biggest landslide in Nicaraguan history in spite of fact ~500,000 anti-Piricuaco refugees outside Nicaragua weren't allowed to vote, and that in many comarcas campesinos only got 24 hours notice about registration day in country where travel was by mule or foot and rained between 6 and 10 months of year. In spite of this UNO won 68% of the vote in rural provinces of Chonatales and Boaco, (See Mar 2, 1990 Washington Post article "Election Shattered Many Sandinista Myths"). Had Sandinista election officials not nullified an additonal 6% of ballots, woulda been even higher. Ortega kept army, national police, State Security, largest media outlets, and with Piñata episode[16], divided up all the land and businesses to his cronies. Imagine if Bush had gotten blown out at polls by Obama and had kept control of Armed Forces, CIA, FBI, State and local police, and had divided up land tracts and businesses to Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld? Ortega apologists on wikipedia would have squealed like stuck pigs, and rightly so.
• Current Day: Nothing could be more relevant to putting perspective on Contra War then current day. A month doesn't go by where there aren't hundreds of kilos of cocaine busted in Costa Rica, Honduras and elsewhere going by truck, car, plane and boat stopping off in Nicaragua.[17] Yet even when Ernesto Cardenal accuses mega rich Caudillo in charge of being in on it I get edited. The stolen municpal elections in 2008, continuation of poverty cycle while elite Ortega regime gets richer by the day, compared against the abject poverty of ex Resistance Commandos and Campesinos in general can help frame our historical perspective.

Tiomono (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

'Right-wing' is the only accurate characterisation of the contra's ideology given that their aim was the overthrow of a government of the left and the rolling-back of it's policies as regards health, education, women's rights, land reform and democracy, and they did so in alliance with the Reagan administration, the ex-Guardsmen and the Nicaraguan ruling class. If various groups amongst the contras convinced themselves they were left-wing then they were not only butchers but idiots. 'Paramilitary' is warranted given that the Contras pursued military - and solely military - means to achieve their political goals, although attacks on defenceless peasants and foreign aid workers stretches the concept of 'military strategy'. Any alternatives, such as participating in the 1984 elections, were never entertained. Given the anti-democratic and fascistic nature of the contras, their designation as 'right-wing paramilitary' is uncontroversial. James O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.4.178 (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed every aspect in your rant previously James. We weren't the ones building concentration camps, declaring all rural Nicaragua "Free Fire Zone", cutting off medicines to aforementioned "Free Fire Zones", and butchering the civilians. Your precious Piris were. That's why they were reduced to conscripting 14 year olds, and hiding behind Oscar Arias and Jimmy Carter's dresses to save them. Disallowing absentee votes in 1990 internationally monitored election, which ANTI-FSLN candidate won by epic proportions is further proof how distorted your viewpoint is. It ain't us in the present day stealing elections and turning loose organized gangs of thugs to murder protesters and opposition journalists.[18][19] I can post many more links, but they are in Spanish and we've already noted that you can't read Spanish. Since your rants are never supported with links, I have to conclude that your motive isn't to make discernable points but only to distract. Tiomono (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

MOVEMENT? NIGARAGUAN?

I think you hardly can call a CIA manufactured mercenary army as a "movement" or let alone as "Nigaraguan" as most of its members were anything but. Fix the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.138.236 (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There were certainly a notable number of non-Nicaraguan mercenaries among the Contras, mostly per the USA's involvement. But it's important to note that the Contras were mostly Nicaraguans -- though at least with regard to ranking, the Nicaraguans were mostly of the "old order" -- mostly ex-National-Guardsmen of Somoza. The exceptions among ranking Contras include Eden Pastora, and several other ex-FSLN fighters who defected (though Pastora's group was eventually stripped of CIA funding in favor of the Somocistas of the FDN, and some accuse the CIA of orchestrating the bombing that nearly killed Pastora). In Pastora's group included Dr. Hugo Spadafora, hardly a CIA-crony, as he had fought alongside the FSLN as well as alongside Amilcar Cabral. There were also Miskitos who fought for the Contras (though Miskito communities have also been targeted by some particularly violent Contra abuses). And outside of the ranking soldiers, the majority of footsoldiers were poor Nicaraguans (though they hardly enlisted for ideological reasons -- the Contras paid well and recruits were poor). Point being, the Contras were mostly Nicaraguan, and it's important to understand the Contras as a loose umbrella organization since Eden Pastora's group and the FDN for instance really represent two totally different factions, with different motivations and ethics (and ultimately different levels of CIA allegiance/funding). Most of the notorious Contra abuses and drug trafficking happened under the FDN Somocistas among the Contras (Chomsky cites a quote from one of the Chamorro brothers who fought with the Contras, stating that most ranking FDN members were ex-Guardsmen of Somoza). In general though, I'd say it's fair to describe the Contras, at least certain factions of the Contras, as a "mercenary" force and Chomsky has certainly termed them as such. 96.246.39.61 (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Tiomono (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC) The "mercenaries" were the 2,000 Cuban, Soviet, Bulgarian and East Bloc soldiers "advising" the FSLN on how to use the $1B in Soviet hardware including Katyushkas and Mi-24 Hind D Helicopter gunships they used to prop up the wildly unpopular Ortega dictatorship. So thanks anonymous IP address from Finnland for pointing out the only imperialist mercenaries paid to shoot rockets, missiles, and bullets at the Nicaraguan people were from the Soviet Union, Cuba and East Bloc.

I wrote a post critiquing the propaganda claims both on the talk page and in the article, not least the fact that the contras assassinated FSLN candidates in the 1990 elections,and those who voted against the Sandinistas did so under the threat of US embargo and the contra war continuing, but it was deleted. It's clear that apologists for the contras are currently controlling this page and removing any dissenting opinions. James O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.16.60 (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiomono (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC) I totally agree that posts backed up by reasonable supporting links should not be arbitrarily deleted. However, I strongly disagree that the Nicaraguan Resistance or UNO were doing the majority of pre 1990 election intimidation. In fact, Jimmy Carter, hardly a 'Contra apologist', cites violence and killing of UNO supporters in his Carter Center report on the election [20]. Since then the FSLN under Ortega has continued to use "turbas" and violence against all oponents as recently as 2 days ago, 2/28/2009. Here's the Archbishop of Managua condemning Ortega as "a violent coward" in today's LaPrensa [21]. So it's pretty easy to draw conclusions on these issues.

There are no reports of the FSLN killing UNO candidates, in contrast to the many FSLN candidates the contras killed, as referenced in the main article on the Sandanistas. As ever, all reports by unbiased human rights organisation show the Contras were the main perpetrators of violence in 1980s Nicaragua. It's hard to think of any country which allowed the representatives of a brutal mercenary army to stand in election to the extent which occurred in 1990 (and 1984 had the right not chosen to abstain under orders from Washington) certainly no pro-Japanese or German candidates would have been allowed to stand in the 1944 American election. The facts on contra origins, funding and human rights abuses are all easily available but it's obvious that a concerted effort has been going on for several years to turn this article into an advert for the contras, similar in a manner to how the 'viet cong' article on wikipedia has become an uncritical repetition of Saigon / US propaganda.

James O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.201.47 (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a degree of respect for Jimmy Carter; he certainly had a lot more humanity than butchers like Nixon and Reagan. His election report refers to one UNO supporter killed at a rally after a rock-throwing incident - not mentioning if it was the UNO or FSLN supporters who started the rock-throwing, and it also makes clear that the Contras continued military activity throughout the election period, but the report fails to mention the 50 FSLN candidates the contras assassinated during the election. James O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.201.47 (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiomono (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) As always you cite no links to back up anything you say. Please examine my links in previous section which refute all your POV opinions and demonstrate that left wing American media and "human rights" groups like "Witness for Peace" had an agenda and wouldn't visit combat areas until they had been properly prepared by their EPS minders. My links in previous section advocating common sense interpretation of broad based facts should open any impartial readers eyes. As someone who witnessed it all first hand in 80s, I'm amazed that anyone still buys this unsupported pro Ortega propaganda. Ortega learned his lesson after 1990 election blew up in his face. Please google on "El Pacto" to learn how Ortega & Aleman destroyed Nicaraguan Democracy. [22] Please also go to laprensa.com.ni or El Nuevo Diario, or talk to any Nicaraguan to get verification that Ortega was a murderous thug then, and is a murderous election stealing Dictator now. You may not speak Spanish, so you may need to run some of my links through Google Translate or something. Maybe there is a "Witness for Peace" translation tool that will parse in Ortega apologist propaganda. :-) [23][24][25]

Your 'common sense interpretations' are a series of propaganda claims which aren't supported by the sources you cite; nowhere on the 'Witness for Peace' page does it mention indoctrination, as you claim. Similarly the Carter report on the 1990 election does not state that UNO supporters were killed by the FSLN, it states that a single UNO supporter was killed during a rock-throwing incident - a larger number of Americans were killed protesting the Vietnam war, or British miners killed during the Miner's strike. The rest of your claim are sourced to articles in 'The New York Times', hardly an unbiased or reliable source on American foreign policy. All the facts I've referred to are sourced on the main FSLN article on wikipedia - for instance the fact that the majority of those voting for UNO did so because they believed the contra war and economic embargo would continue if the Sandinistas won, and not because they 'overwhelmingly' supported the contras, a claim for which you provide not a shred of evidence. This article is becoming a joke, and in view of the suffering the contras caused, a very sick joke. James O

Tiomono (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC) James, your IP address indicates you are from England so I'm assuming you didn't set foot in Nicaragua during war, and you haven't clarified whether you've been to the country at all or even speak Spanish. The FSLN is killing political opponents and protesters with "rock throwing" to this very day. I've cited numerous links demonstrating it, but any visit to any prominant Nicaraguan news site (laprensa, El Nuevo Diario, NicaTimes), Time Magazine, Economist or New York Times will confirm that. Your claim that NYT was somehow in the tank for the Nicaraguan Resistance is beyond laughable. I've demonstrated with my links in previous section that just the opposite was true. See the section about mainstream media sources predicting 16 point FSLN victory end ending up with nearly 15 point loss egg on their biased faces. Clearly your POV is from the extremest side of the fringes of die-hard "Sandalista" time warped left. The Orteguistas lost the 1990 election because the Nicaraguan people were sick of tyranny plain and simple. Same thing happened in internationally monitored election in El Sal 2 years later. Notice how nowadays Ortega refuses international election monitors and during November municipal elections, even counted what votes weren't thrown in to garbage dumps in CSE headquarters draped with FSLN flags on front of building. Please refer to my links in previous section. BTW, this section was created by someone whose IP address is in Finnland posting similar extremest unsupported rants. I guess the last people who still believe in Ortega are in colder sections of Europe.

It isn't relevant to your claims whether I can speak Spanish (I can, and there are numerous pro-Sandinista spanish language websites) or if i've ever been to Nicaragua since the sources which refute your propaganda are easily available in English-language websites, and, indeed, are featured on the main FSLN article. You're engaging in a rather crude attempt to avoid responding to my arguments. There's no evidence that you yourself are Nicaraguan, or indeed, were present in the country during the 1980s, and your authenticity - or not - is of no concern to me. As the Sandinistas won the 1984 and 2006 elections - and won large minorities in other elections, it's obvious that substantial numbers of Nicaraguans support the FSLN, and your claim that 'any Nicaraguan' would agree with you is laughable, although it's consistant with the contempt for democracy the contras displayed throughout the 1980s. For you to repeatedly cite the New York Times - and it's near-pornographic idealisation of the Contras - in your earlier article and then to cite it again in your response whilst at the same time claiming the american media were not pro-contra takes some chutzpah. But my original point still stands: the 'conclusion' you draw are not supported by the sources you cite, and the sources you cite are partisan and unreliable. The best source is the Carter report, and as I have already demonstrated, it does not support the interpretation you've given it, and also makes clear the Contras refused to put their guns down until the right party won the 90 elections. Your main claim is that Nicaraguans voted against the FSLN in 1990 because they were 'sick of tryanny' (a 'tyranny' which had been democratically-elected in 1984) yet poll data, easily available in english and sourced on the main FSLN article disproves this: they voted for UNO because otherwise they belived the US embargo and the contra war would continue, and you have wholly failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. James O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.116.198.129 (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiomono (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC) In previous section, I've cited approximately 20 links from various sources. None of them pro-contra by any rational unbiased observers viewpoint. You have cited zero on this discussion page. I've also demonstrated that your left wing sources had predicted huge Ortega victory, and just the opposite happened. To then cite bogus post election "polling" by same pollsters desperately trying to save face is not a very defenseable position. Ortega learned his lesson from that defeat. That is why a casual glance at any media source will show you that he gained power in 2006 by corrupting institutions through "El Pacto", refused international monitors in most recent Nov 2008 municipal elections, stole those elections, turned his thugs loose on his opponents during peaceful 2/28/2009 demonstrations, etc. etc. He allowed 1990 elections because Contras were defeating his military. Why else was he conscripting off city buses and outside Managua movie theaters as documented in previous section? One more military aid package and that would have been that for the Ortega caudillo. Again, your claim that NYT was anything but wildly pro-Sandinista shows just how extreme your POV is. Any rational observer knows NYT, Time, ABC and all the rest were big time Ortega cheerleaders, and that's why their polls were so "Terribly Wrong" as Peter Jennings put it, and that's why again and again they declared war zones "off limits" and "inaccessible" in their features. One of my favorite entries in previous section is about the Sandinista concentration camps created all over the country from North to South frequently accompanied by burning, murder, and torture. Why did they perpetrate these abominations on campesinos over a period of 8 years if Contras didn't enjoy pervasive support from coast to coast and Rio Coco to Rio San Juan?? Answer is obvious. Contras WERE the campesinos, Contras WERE defeating his military, Contras WERE the reason he screwed up and had the 1990 election. A lesson he learned well, which is why he goes to such extravagant lengths not to allow free elections today. Any sane reader examining this discussion, please read the text and links in my previous "Common Sense" section for more details.

FACT: The Sandinistas resorted to "Relocation Camps" for the campesinos. The forced relocation, often accompanied by destruction of homes, happened both in the North [26] and the South [27] and occurred over multiple years. Sometimes the "Relocation" was accompanied by wholesale slaughter,torture and aerial bombardment as happened during the razing of Miskito villages along the Rio Coco.[28]

CONCLUSION: Contras enjoyed such huge support among the campesinos, the Sandinistas had to "relocate" them by force to internment camps

There's little point in continuing this discussion; you have merely continued to repeat the same propaganda claims you made in your original post, and have again supported them purely by posting pro-contra sources. In your most recent comment you've once more posted two articles from the New York Times and insisted that the paper was 'a big time Ortego cheerleader' yet the right-wing sympathies of the paper would be obvious to any reader even from a quick glance at the articles you've cited. It's hardly surprising that the American media - which normally supports American foreign policy - were similarly supportive of Reagan's attack on Nicaragua. All unbiased sources confirm that the FSLN indeed committed human rights abuses, but these paled in comparison to the atrocities of the contras, and more crucially the FSLN enjoyed an electoral mandate whereas the contras possessed none. You've failed to provide any evidence beyond the circumstantial that the contras enjoyed the support of the Nicaraguan peasantry; the fact that most peasants voted for the FSLN in 1984, and only voted for UNO in 1990 under the threat of the contra war continuing suggests the opposite. Both NYT articles cited in your response above raise doubts that the peasants relocated by the government supported the contras; the July 26 1986 article quotes a local priest who refers to the contras as 'somocistas' and the June 17, 1987 article states the contras forced peasants to fight for them. However even if we accept the claim that being relocated was a sign of support for the contras, despite the other, obvious reasons for civilians being moved out of a war zone, this would mean that there were 'as many as 100'000' (figure cited in the second article) contra supporters from a Nicaraguan population of 3.5 million - around 3% of the Nicaraguan population - which, given the majority of Nicaraguans were campesinos, supports my argument that the majority of peasants were either pro-FSLN or neutral. As for your claim that 'Contras 'were' campesinos', a cursory knowledge of the organisation shows that they were organised,armed and funded from Washington, and led by former Somocistas. All these basic, uncontested facts can be sourced easily by reference to articles elsewhere on Wikipedia. In your many responses you have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary, and under the circumstances there's little point conversing with a man who is so eager to claim credit for the blood of 30'000 Nicaraguans. James O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.208.194 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiomono (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Truth for an outsider can be hard to come by because opinions are so heated and extreme on both sides. For me it's very simple because I was there for 3 1/2 years in mid to late 80s and know first hand the truth of what happened. As I've demonstrated. Main stream media would dutifully comply with "off limits" and "innaccessible" restrictions imposed by Sandinista war machine, and so you have to take their reporting of prepared battle fields with huge grain of salt. Hence my encouragement in previous section for anyone with an open mind to examine my links related to broad based easily provable facts and draw your own conclusions. Proposed New Approach: Common Sense applied to easily proven broad based facts

I note yesterday that Obama & Hillary extended aid denial to Ortega Thugocracy as has EU. [29] I suppose like the New York Times, Obama is just a right wing extremist in your mind. Ortega can't travel to many Central and South American countries due to Feminist protests all over Latin America over charges Ortega repeatedly molested his 11 year old step daughter, thrown out by a Sandinista judge[30] Old commie buddies recognize he's just another Somoza now, that's why he illegalized the Movimiento Renovedor Sandinista party, and put Ernesto Cardenal under house arrest.[31] As far as discredited thug Dictators go, Ortega is right up there with Mugabe. As GroggyDice noted, the last vestiges of support for Ortega's thugocracy seem to be here on wikipedia.

We're hoggin the discussion! Maybe GroggyDice or that anonymous IP guy from Finnland want to pipe up. :-)

As I expected, no evidence that the contras enjoyed any support from the Nicaraguan peasantry has been provided. For other readers of this site, as around 90% of the sources provided to support pro-contra claims are articles from the New York Times, it's worth noting the paper was consistantly biased in favour of american foreign policy: http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/nyt-central-america.html James O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.133.47 (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What the Contras did?

Hello, this article fails to reach its goal: after I read it, I understand that contras were like 2nd WW partisans. But actually I don't read anything about their massacres. And I don't read anyhing that links contras to other similar US-backed operations in the Central and Southern America (Chile, Argentina, Guatemala and so on). I don't know what contras did in Nicaragua or who paid them and so on. I don't read nothing at all, actually, except an hagiography of contras. Peace Gags —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.157.105 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's what many people would still have you believe about the Contras, even after they came under fire from Human Rights Watch for innumerable human rights abuses (not to mention the little issue of narcotrafficking). Remember what Reagan said about them -- they reminded him of the American Revolutionaries. In light of what the Contras actually did, that statement is rather telling as to how Reagan viewed the American Revolutionaries (Reagan must have thought that George Washington et al were going around the Northeastern seaboard raping/kidnapping/torturing/killing/disemboweling innocent civilians, and running drugs while they were at it). 173.3.41.6 (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This comment is right on. Having studied happenings in Nicaragua for 30 years and lived here for going on eight, I see a lot of words but the article does not cover the reality of what was done within Nicaragua. For example, we can continue to fight about who killed more innocent people but something like 30% of the bridges in Nicaragua were destroyed. Why would the government want to do this? Or, at least on the northern front, the Contra bases were in Honduras, not Nicaragua. If these facts are covered in detail, the conclusions should just fall out naturally. Nicafyl (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This comment is way off. Having lived in Nicaragu during the war, I can say that the conclusions do fall out naturally. During the 80s Daniel Ortega cut off medicines to the campesinos of Nicaragua causing 10s of thousands of children to die. The only way to get medicines was to show up at FSLN "Citizen Committee" headquarters where you were liable to thrown in jail or murdered. From the north to the south, over a period of several years concentration camps were created and campesinos were forced to abandon their homes and marched at gunpoint into them. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE3DB1330F934A25755C0A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all And don't forget "Navidad Roja" where hundreds of Miskitos were slaughtered by EPS troops along the way. In the current day, the Ortega Dictatorship has stolen regional elections, taken over the supreme court, the election council, the state police, and uses violent, well armed "turbas", state controlled thugs to intimidate civil protest. The only international friends Ortega has are brutal totalitarian regimes like Moamar Gaddafi of Libya and Achmadinijad in Iran. The conclusions most definitely do fall out naturally. Tiomono (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Still lurking around this page, Tiomono? "Having lived in Nicaragu during the war" indeed! Don't be so modest! You WERE a contra. It's like having a former member of the Shining Path editing the Shining Path page in a relentlessly pro-Shining Path way. Why don't you spare us your underground Spanish-language paper sources and bizarre unsourced Ortega accusations and your unresolved guilt over having fought to overthrow the democratically-elected government of your own country.MarkB2 ^Chat 11:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

C'mon MarkB2, your rage and zealotry are getting the better of you once again. None of my Spanish language sources are "underground". Anyone who has been to Central America and reads Spanish will recognize them. Nothing I've mentioned about Ortega, whether it was the "Red Christmas" massacre in 1981, the stolen 2008 regional elections, or the unleashing of machete wielding FSLN "Turbas" on peaceful unarmed protesters in the present day is unfounded or false. And yes, I am very proud to have witnessed and supported first hand the struggles of the Nicaraguan campesinos against the first Ortega thug Dictatorship. Tiomono (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the English language wikipedia. Neither I nor most readers can check the veracity of your Spanish-language whatever source that was. And although I know you consider it noble to still be fighting the war you lost 25 years ago, Sandinista atrocity stories really belong in the FSLN article, not the contra article. And, as I have had to remind Reagan's warriors OVER and OVER again for many years, Ortega was democratically elected in internationally-monitored elections in 1985.MarkB2 ^Chat 03:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"catholic church's view" section isn't entirely fair to church

The section "Catholic Church's View" only really outlines the opinions of Obando y Bravo (his positive opinions about the Contras, which were not widely shared by the majority of Catholic clergy in Nicaragua, let alone by the laypeople), and not the opinions of so many others in the Church who spoke out against the brutality and flagrant human rights violations of the Contras. The fact is that the Church has too bad a reputation in Latin America due to folks like Obando y Bravo, or due to the Catholic clergy who supported the Argentine dictatorship in its Dirty War; when we examine history, we find innumerable examples of people in the Church who were against the abusive Contras, just like many of the Catholic Church clergy in El Salvador spoke out against the government death squads there. In Nicaragua, for example, many of the human rights investigations that ended up condemning the Contras, were carried out by groups sponsored by the Catholic Church (not connected to Obando y Bravo of course, as he seemed to be in complete denial of the human rights abuses of the Contras). This section should reflect those efforts made by other factions of the Catholic Church. 8.14.69.218 (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Catholic Church" section doesn't tell half the story of the repression of religion in Nicaragua. While there were attempts by the Ortega Dictatorship to set up a "Liberation Theology" communist alternative, this was soundly rejected by the Nicaraguan people. In fact, Ernesto Cardinal was defrocked by Pope John Paul II and disgraced in 1983. http://www.tldm.org/News14/JohnPaulIIRepremandsErnestoCardenal.jpg There were no truth commissions or human rights investigations after the war - because Daniel Ortega and the FSLN would not allow them. The FSLN slaughtered the Nicaraguan people then, and to this day unleash machete wielding, rock throwing "turbas" on all civil protests. See this link about Ortega cynically accepting responsibility for the "Red Christmas" massacre of Miskito Indian men, women, and children 25 years too late in order to short circuit an attempted judicial investigation. http://www.elsalvador.com/noticias/2006/10/21/internacionales/int1.asp Please read the following article and the comments at the bottom, from today 3/26/2011 in which the Bishop of Esteli gives a speech from the Cathedral of Managua encouraging the youth of Managua "Have no fear... "Yo sé muchachos que ustedes tienen miedo, sus padres tienen miedo, nuestra sociedad tiene miedo porque temen perder algo (...) el miedo nace de dificultades concretas pero pasa a ser una auténtica o parálisis del corazón cuando se asocia al amor por uno mismo” http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2011/03/26/nacionales/55982 If there was even a tiny grain of truth about who was committing the human rights abuses, why were the 500,000 refugees in Costa Rica and Honduras NOT allowed to vote in the 1990 elections, and why in the zones where the war was being fought did UNO win with up to 70% of the vote? Tiomono (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Tio. Funny meeting your here again! A few questions: 1 How was it that the FSLN "would not allow" human rights investigations after the war when they weren't even in control of government? 2 Do you really care that much about fifty or sixty dead Miskito indians compared to the thousands of Nicaraguan civilians who were killed by contras? Because you keep bringing up this "Massacre" like it was a second holocaust. 3 How personal is your axe to grind here? Did you murder Nicaraguan civilians? Are you a surviving Miskito Indian? 4 Usually refugees in foreign countries aren't allowed to vote. If I have to explain the legal and logistical reasons....MarkB2 ^Chat 03:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Human rights (violations) controversy

Since it doesn't seem to be disputed that human rights violations by the Contras did take place (question is just: to what extent?) I propose to change the section's title to "human rights violations". Inside of the section, I propose a subsection titled "controversy" dealing with the US/contra view. Comments? --Mallexikon (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This section even for wikipedia is astoundingly biased and one sided. For example there is a lengthy SECOND HAND quote from a "Sandinista Militiaman" claiming all sorts of evil deeds by the resistance. About like asking one of Ghaddafi's troops to relate any misdeeds by the Libyan resistance. Pretty ridiculous. Yet there is no mention of ANY Sandinista human rights violations. On these discussion pages I have sourced many examples.

• 1981 "Navidad Roja" Forced resettlement and accomapnying massacre of Miskito Indians along Rio Coco
• 1984 - 1987 "Resettlement Camps" throughout the country with tens of thousands of Campesinos forced to abandon homes and livestock
• 1981 -1988 Cutoff of medicines to rural areas resulting in astronomical infant mortality rate
• 1981 - 1989 Indiscriminate planting of soviet mines throughout country side
• 1981 - 1989 Strafing of civilians using Soviet Hind-D helicopter. Punishing of campesinos with random Katyushka rocket launcher bombardments.
• 1980 - 1989 Selective murder, expropriation of property, burning of houses, and torture by EPS troops
• 1981 - 1988 Forced conscription of children 14 years and older into Sandinista army
• 1990 - Refusal to allow 500,000 refugees. Most of them first hand witnesses of human rights violations, to vote in presedential elecions.
• 1990 - Present. Refusal to allow investigations of war time human rights investigations. No truth commissions. No court investigations. No tribunals.

Will try to add some balance to this and other sections, but even well sourced entries are removed one at a time by biased wikipedia participants. For example regardless of preconceived opinions on this period, one of the most historically significant event was the approval by democrat majority in congress and Senate of a $100 million aid package to the Contras. While there are lengthy rants about imagined drug links, there is not one word about this significant and undisputed historic event?!? Tiomono (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, don't try to add "balance" to this or any other section. And since when is it remarkable that the minority party in a nation waging a covert war against a neighbor approves more aid to their mercenary army? You do know that the United States was convicted[32] of waging an illegal war, yes? Why do you have the irritating habit of citing Spanish language papers from Belize with a circulation of 400 as a source when convenient and then arguing that the entire spectrum of reasonable discussion must be present in the United States Congress? MarkB2 ^Chat 03:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasize that this is the contra article. If Tiomono would like to add material concerning Sandinista human right violations (I'm sure there were quite a few), he should add those to the Sandinista article, but not here. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This quote that Tiomono mentioned:

A Sandinista militiaman interviewed by The Guardian stated that Contra rebels committed these atrocities against Sandinista prisoners after a battle at a Sandinista rural outpost: "Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit."

actually is too graphic in my opinion. I recommend deletion. Comments? --Mallexikon (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Unity efforts

This section includes the following text:"Mediation by other Central American governments under Costa Rican leadership led to the Sapoa Accord ceasefire of March 23, 1988, which, along with additional agreements in February and August 1989, provided for the Contras' disarmament and reintegration into Nicaraguan society and politics. The agreements also called for another internationally-monitored election which was subsequently held on February 25, 1990. Violeta Chamorro, a former Sandinista ally who turned into a vocal opponent and widow of murdered anti-Somoza journalist Pedro Joaquín Chamorro Cardenal, defeated Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega by a huge margin and became President with the backing of the center-right UNO. Some Contra elements and disgruntled Sandinistas would return briefly to armed opposition in the 1990s, sometimes styled as recontras or revueltos, but these groups were subsequently persuaded to disarm."
This obviously belongs into an different section. Since it's also unsourced, I deleted it. If someone would like to reinstate it, please equip it with citations. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Catholic church

I challenged the second part of "The Catholic Church in Nicaragua to which 85% of Nicaraguans claimed to belong,[12] often spoke out in favor of the Contras[citation needed]." a few days ago. The statement is (still) not sourced, so I now deleted it. --Mallexikon (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic church section has degenerated into a bizarre endorsement of "Liberation Theology". The general, well documented truths of this 10 year period of Nicaraguan history are as follows...

+ There was an attempt by the Soviet backed Communist regime to setup an alternative church embracing "Liberation Theology". FSLN Culture Minister Ernesto Cardinal was in charge of that effort. Ernesto was scolded and DEFROCKED by Pope John Paul II. The defrocking is one of the stealth omissions in the current slanted and watered down section.

+ Obando y Bravo was promoted to Cardinal as a direct reaction to Sandinista attempts to subvert the Catholic church, and other faiths such as Evangelicals, Pentacostals. And as a reward to him for resisting the FSLN human rights abuses taking place.

+ The main stream Vatican approved Catholic church was frequently censored, silenced and intimidated by the ruling FSLN Dictatorship as described in his letter "Sandinistas Bound and Gagged Us".

+ Cardinal Obando y Bravo's letter was cited by multiple US legislators as reason for voting for bipartisan passage of the 1987 $100 million aid, including lethal aid, to the Nicaraguan resistance fighters. Sections of that letter tacitly supporting right of Nicaraguan people to armed resistence have been ommitted from current section and replaced with highly selective alternative quote. The historic fact is that there was bi-partisan approval of $100 million in lethal aid for the Nicaraguan Resistance ("Contras"), and one of the key reasons for that package was Cardinal Obando's letter. Tiomono (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. If you got any material from a reliable source that you'd like to add - please go ahead. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually understand the significance of this part of the section:

To quote from Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo's May 12, 1986 Washington Post letter to the editor "Sandinistas Gagged and Bound Us":[59] "We feel that any form of assistance, regardless of the source, which causes the destruction, suffering, and death of our families, or which sows hatred and discord among the Nicaraguan people is reprehensible. To choose annihilation of the enemy as the only possible way to peace is inevitably to choose war."

What kind of information regarding the contras does the reader gain from this? --Mallexikon (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to be able to come up with any arguments in favor of the significance of this quote, I'll hide it for now. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Contra drug trafficking

"Webb's controversial and highly damaging revelations were disputed at the time, but later revelations confirmed much of his reportage.[48]" - I read the source and couldn't find any confirmation upon contra drug trafficking. Now, maybe I missed it - could someone point it out to me? Otherwise I'd delete this sentence as it's unsourced material. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Military successes ...

The first part of the first sentence:

While faced with the largest standing army in the history of Central America, thousands of Cuban and East Bloc military advisers, and "Flying Tank" Mi-24 Soviet gunships Mil Mi-24,...

is not substantiated by the citation given (I read it), so I deleted it. If someone would like to reinstate it, please provide accurate citations. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I had to really change this section, unfortunately, to reflect widely-accepted reality: 1) The Contras were not on the verge of conquering Nicaragua in 1988; 2) Most polls indicated strong support for the Sandinista government through 1988 and 1989 right up until the election. MarkB2 ^Chat 04:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I once again added some more sources regarding the state of Contra military activity in the late eighties. Although I am loathe to delete material in wikipedia, I felt compelled to delete much of Tiomono's additions that were simply false and totally unsupported by the sources he cited. For example, the sentence insisted that the FSLN conscription rates were at 30,000 people per year and rising and that this was causing rioting throughout Nicaragua. Checking the source revealed no mention of the number of conscriptees and a mention of protests in a SINGLE town in Nicaragua that was famous for its anti-government sentiment because of its Native heritage. MarkB2 ^Chat 01:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandinista drug trafficking

"On the other hand, the 1989 book, Kings of Cocaine, alleges Sandinista involvement in cocaine smuggling. Barry Seal, a Medellin cartel pilot took photos which allegedly showed a high ranking Sandinista official unloading cocaine shipments at a Sandinista military airport." - this doesn't belong here but to the Sandinista article. I'd delete it. Comments? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Human rights violations - Americas Watch citation

I removed the 7 "citation needed" that Sopher99 put up, since the bullet points actually are all adequately cited. The sentence in question basically says: Americas Watch "...accused the contras of: a) b) c) d)..." then adds a citation after the full stop. By definition, the citation thus extends to all the bullet points listed. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned sentence

"The CIA distributed to the civilians The Freedom Fighter's Manual, meant to teach them simple sabotage methods (not going to work, damaging light bulbs, putting nails on roads, and so on.) and more dangerous ones (how to make a molotov cocktail)."
This wound up orphaned in the US assistance section. It's unsourced and I don't see its significance, so I cut it out. If someone would like to re-insert it in a way that makes sense, please go ahead. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of quotations

The use of quotations in this article is becoming excessive. Please read WP:QUOTE. Using several quotes to prove a single point just makes this article too long and unaccessible to the reader. Gathering quotes and source of course is one of the most important part of our work here at WP but it should only be the first step - the raw material has to be bundled and paraphrased into an encyclopedic article after all. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Horhey420

I've just blocked Horhey420 (talk · contribs) for large scale copyright violations, as well as POV pushing. Any material currently in this article which was added by this editor should be checked to see if it's a copyright violation. If in doubt, please remove it. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm confident that large chunks of this article are copyright violations.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I went through the material Horhey posted, and most of it actually consists in direct quotes. I deleted large chunks and worked others into adequate text. Hope this cuts it. I'd remove the POV tag if nobody objects. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Estimate on contras' victims

I still hope the estimate number given in Rummel's table under "contras" refers to killed contras (the table is somewhat labyrinthine), but I have to admit it could actually denote the number of civilians killed by contras. In this case, this material definitely has to be rejected - as heavily POV derived. Only 500 unlawful killings between 1981 and 1988? The other side (the Sandinistas) "... reported that the contras have been responsible for over 730 killings, the wounding of over 1,000 persons and the kidnapping or disappearance of over 1,400 Nicaraguans since the start of the unilateral cease-fire in March 1988."[33] - After March 1988! Now that's a POV number as well, but 500 altogether?... I recommend to delete Rummel's estimate. Comments? --Mallexikon (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I'll go ahead with deletion. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand the meaning of Rummel's figure. Rummel is estimating democide, a term he coined, which he characterizes as the equivalent of homicide. The vast majority of deaths from war are never counted as democide. A fraction of the death toll ascribed to each side is counted as democide, based on Rummel's analysis of their tactics and methods. Moreover, Rummel's figures do not extend past 1987 (when he stopped collecting data).

It has been claimed that perhaps 30,000 people died in the Nicaraguan civil war. Yet--in counting only democide up to 1987--Rummel estimates that the Contras killed 500 people and the Sandinistas killed 5,000 people. The relevant claim from Rummel is that the Nicaraguan government, with its large military build-up and Stasi-trained secret police, committed 10 times more democidal killings than the non-state rebels.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well it's obviously a POV estimate. This table specifies the casualty number give by the WFP and Nicaraguan government I mentioned above: 736 murder victims from 03/1987 - 10/1988 alone. I'm not familiar with Rummel's "democide" definition (I guess most readers of our article won't be) but I can only interprete his low number as POV-derived. This is not surprising. Since the US was one of the adversaries in the contra war, we have lots and lots of POV US sources (of course we have lots of propaganda from the other side as well). Thus, we should leave these two kinds of material out of the article if possible: pro-contra material from contra or US sources, and pro-Sandinista material from Sandinista or Soviet sources. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can disqualify all Americans from commenting on the war. Nor, in fact, should it be out of bounds to cite Sandinista official claims, as long as it is clear who the source is.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I don't want to disqualify all Americans from commenting. I only want to exclude US sources that are pro-contras. And Sandinista claims that are pro-Sandinista. For obvious COI reasons. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Rummel doesn't claim to be "pro-Contra." Such a judgement seems open to interpretation. We don't erase scholarship on Wikipedia, although it is true that we exclude fringe theories.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, he's not particular pro-contra, but he's anti-communist, which amounts to about the same in regards of the contra war. I'm sick of anti-communist US sources trying to downplay contra atrocities, and I'm appalled that you imply that I want to erase scholarship on WP. My rationale here is very simple: pro-contra material from contra or US sources has to be considered to carry a COI and is thus POV. The same goes for pro-Sandinista material from Sandinista and Soviet sources. Where do you see a logical flaw here? --Mallexikon (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

For starters, you are suggesting that US media is state-controlled propaganda, no freer or more open than Soviet media.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not. When your country is engaged in an international conflict/war and you support your own country, that's perfectly understandable, very common behaviour and (as even newer history has shown) definitely doesn't need state control to arise. It's a COI situation nevertheless. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

C'mon guys, talk to me. My rationale is that Rummel suffers from COI since he's from the U.S. (one of the adversaries in this conflict) and pro-contra. His numbers of contra victims are far, far lower than the numbers given by WFP and Sandinistas. He's POV. If you have a rational argument against that, let's hear and discuss it. Simply trying to edit me away is not going to cut it, though. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Then cite the Sandinista figures! But remember, democide is only a fraction of the death toll, and Rummel didn't cover the entire war. Being an American is not a conflict of interest.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. Only if you are American and taking a pro-American stance. If I thought it would help anything to cite the Sandinista figures, I'd have done it already. But they're just as POV as Rummel's. What's the gain? --Mallexikon (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To show both "POVs."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine. As you wish. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Controversy about victims estimates

"U.S. political scientist Rudolph Rummel estimated that by 1987, the contras had murdered about 500 people while the Sandinistas had murdered 4,000 to 7,000 people in democide.[72] In contrast, Witness for Peace and the Sandinista government claimed at least 736 civilians were murdered by the contras between March 1987 and October 1988 alone.[73]"
There is a controversy about victims estimates here - and no, it's not Original Research to notice that. Thus, I'd like to insert this in the controversy section. And I don't get it - why would you want to hide that there is a controversy here? --Mallexikon (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the sources talk about these figures as being controversial therefore it is OR, however they do talk about human rights violations. This should be in the human rights section because that is exactly what it is. It is your original research that these certain figures are controversial. It is not sourced. Find a source calling these figures controversial and then it may not be OR. 88.104.221.196 (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Why are you denying that these are controversial numbers? --Mallexikon (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The figures are most likely controversial, however there is no source saying that these certain figures are controversial. Therefore it is your own original research to put them in the controversy section. 88.104.221.196 (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "most likely"... the numbers are irreconcilable. Please read WP:OR again, especially: Synthesis of published material that advances a position: this is dealing with synthesis of an argument which isn't present in either of these source. However, I'm not synthesizing an argument here. I'm allocating material to an appropriate section. What argument are you seeing in that? --Mallexikon (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

By putting this in this section, it implies that both these figures are biased. Maybe they are but this is not sourced. The appropriate section for human rights murder estimates or claims is in the human rights section. I do agree that these certain figures are controversial however this my opinion and also your opinion and there is no source on the page currently that claims these figures to be controversial therefore it is your own original research that they are. 88.104.221.196 (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Well no, I don't agree that putting these irreconcilable numbers into the "controversy" section is implying that both figures are biased - from a logical point of view, the only implication here is that at least one of them must be incorrect. And it's not OR to insert these numbers into the "controversy" section since they clearly are irreconcilable - actually I'm not even sure if it was OR to embed them in a sentence explicitly noting their irreconcilable nature (since no argument is advanced by that), however, that case would probably be open for debate. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

By putting this in this section it does imply that both are biased or deliberate over counts or under counts i.e. controversial. All I am saying is that there is no source saying figures are controversial therefore it is your OR. It is also OR that these figures are irreconcilable. These figures don't even cover the same dates. I'm pretty sure both these figures are irreconcilable, however this is my opinion and your opinion. 88.104.221.196 (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, your logical argument is flawed. These irreconcilable numbers only imply that at least one of them is incorrect (and they imply this no matter which section they're in). Also, it's not just your or my opinion - they are irreconcilable. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It is my or your opinion that these numbers are irreconcilable. They most likely are however this is not fact. That is all I meant. Anyway can't bothered with this discussion anymore. 88.104.221.196 (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Political background section

Hi Boba! Thanks for your great edits. I observed, however, that you added large amounts of material to the "Political background" section... Since this article primarily deals with the contras, and not with US-Sandinista relations, I think it is important to keep that section shorter - it looks a little out of proportion now. Sorry for curbing your enthusiasm. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

150 sources!

At the time of me writing this comment, this article had nearly 150 sources for its information. I don't know of any Wikipedia articles with that many sources. And yet it's only a B-Class? Outrageous! moeburn (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Boba Fett TBH

I have just blocked this editor as they were clearly a sockpuppet account belonging to a blocked editor. Per the usual way of handling such situations, all of their contributions can, and probably should, be reverted. I've found several copyright violations in the material added by the Boba Fett TBH account in various articles, and this was one of the main reasons the parent account was blocked. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nick-D, for vindicating my well-grounded suspicions here.

CJK (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)