Talk:Sandinista National Liberation Front

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived Talk

Contents 1 History 1970-1979 2 Ideologies 3 Disputed Tag 4 Protected 5 The Crux 6 RFC 7 Protection - 1 8 Protection - 2 9 The Present Day. 10 Sandinista Ideologies 11 Censorship 12 The election of November 2006 13 The Rise of the FSLN 13.1 "iron fisted rule" 14 Missing Main article to subtopic 15 Mitrokhin archive 16 The Sandinistas were a coalition of disparate political groups 17 Suggestions: How to Hone Content

[edit] History 1970-1979

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)

[edit] Ideologies

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)

[edit] Disputed Tag

According to the guidelines on Wikipedia:Disputed statement

The accuracy of a statement may be a cause for concern if:

* It contains unlikely information, without providing references.

The material is not unlieky (as you have yet to provide a source challenging it) and a well known and notable reference has most certainly been provided

* It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.

It has been verified as per the Wikipedia guidelines on Wikipedia:Verifiability which I will quote:

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.

* It has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

Well, we are all entitle to our opinions on cetain users, but two other users, Jmable and Viajero have looked over the material in question, see above, and have not commented on it after our discussion.

Your continual insertion of tags is a gross violation of stated policy, and your comparison of Andrew’s work and Red Dawn is a clear case of childish vandalism. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

For others benefit, I want to point out we discussed the exact same passage in July [1], and TDC is merely ignoring the discussion and reinserting this problematic passage. In brief, my problem with the passage stems from a belief that fantastic claims of an octopus-like KGB encirclement of Nicaraguan politics require incredible evidence. A single crank source, which is all TDC offers to buttress this retreaded conspiracy theory, does not qualify. I remind TDC that he is on content revert parole. Are there any sources beside this single defector, who I may add was paid to tell his story? Abe Froman 21:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

For your benefit, I posted THE RELEVANT POLICY. Please abide by it. It is not a single crank source, the US government had been making the allegation that the FSLN were little more than Cuban and Soviet puppets for years. Andrew, as a respected historian, has verified this as has Koehler’s book on the Stasi that I recently read. I realize that I am on content revert, but comparison of Andrew's work to the fictional movie Red Dawn is vandalism as per the policy:

Silly vandalism

Creating joke or hoax articles, replacing existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or adding silly jokes to existing articles is considered vandalism.

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to point out that Red Dawn's movie plot contains Mitrokhin's allegations, over 10 years before he made them. Abe Froman 21:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You are doing it as a joke, as you have offered no citation linking the two. It is vandalism, and will be reverted on site. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I might also add that your insertion of BS disputed tags is also vadalization:

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would we have the movie red Dawn in the article...it is a fiction based movie quite obviously--MONGO 07:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the most recent edit by Torturous Devastating Cudgel adding citations regarding the Mitrokhin material, I have some observations to make:

1. As it is written right now, the citation about Reagan's speaches is not displayed correctly.
2. Citing Reagan as independent, when it comes to Contras and Sandinistas, is not realistic.
3. The wording in "other, however, continue to believe..." introduces in the article the personal dispute. I think it should be changed to something more neutral, such as "other, however, claim..."

--Atavi 10:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In response:

1. Taken care of

2. Reagan is not being cited as independent, he is just being cited as the most prominent individual who said these things to justify his support for the Contras.

3. I removed it completely until a sourced addition, that is relevant to the topic at hand, can be made.

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Citing Reagan without a citation to any speech or document is not appropriate. Further, where in the Stasi book is the allegations supported? Citing an offline resource without even page numbers is not verifiable. Abe Froman 13:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Reagan speech did have a citation, although it was incorrectly formatted, that has been corrected. As far as Koehler’s book, all you need is a library card. I could certainly provide page numbers if that’s all it will take. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the Reagan citation. And as I said before, the documents provided by Mithrokin were not originals, only transcripts of handwritten papers, and have never been authenticated and therefore cannot be cited as a reliable source. On the other hand, I don't know how relevant these KGB allegations are in the Nicaraguan history and if they deserve a entire section dedicated to this topic. --Magicartpro 05:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The originality of the documents have been covered and MI5 has verified them. Using this issue to claim that Andrew is not an WP:RS is a gross misreading of that policy. I have also cited several sources that have commented quite favorably on this work from historians such as Niall Ferguson to book reviews in the NY Times. I think the material works in its own section, or dispersed into the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that we are wasting to much effort and energy to this single topic. I made several observations on the first three sections of this article that can be used to improve it. I don't know if we can reach a consensus on the disputed passages of the article and move on. --Magicartpro 15:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the only dispute is over this topic. Feel free to make any changes to the article you want, but please be sure to cite them in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Torturous Devastating Cudgel, regarding the sentence you deleted I think it's better this way. As for Reagan, you have a point that he is notable, but I still have some reservations. Anyway it's not really important. I agree that as the situation stands right now, the only dispute seems to be regarding the KGB material.

Magicartpro, although I haven't read all of your contributions dilligently, it seems to me that you know a lot about the subject matter and can make significant contributions. So please go ahead.

--Atavi 17:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Better off what way? The way it is right now? I think in this instance Regan or "US Government" could be used interchangeably. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, now it's better. The sentence offers nothing but confusion to the reader, so we're better off without it.

Yes, Reagan and "US Government" could be used interchangeably in this context.

I was catching up with the changes in the article, and have to comment that in my opinion B Raman's assessment of Mitrokhin's material at [2] is relevant. Yes, he is talking about India, but he is also arguing about Mitrokhin's credibility in general. I think that this could get a brief mention.

--Atavi 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Mitrokhin material is supported by one book from the same publisher, and alleged 'speeches' whose text are not presented in an accessible format. Check the links yourself. I think the disputed tag should be put back. I also believe the Raman assessment of Mitrokhin's credibility speaks to the outrageous and unsupported nature of these accusations TDC keeps flogging. Abe Froman 18:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am in the process of adding many many many more. How many you ask .. many. The Raman assessment is one, and it has nothing to do with Nicaragua, there are dozens of others who disagree with them, and there are simple factual errors in it. And Raman most certainly has a dog in this fight considering significant Soviet penetration took place on his watch. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Refs 4,5,6,7 are unverifiable. Given TDC's history on this page, I cannot take his sources on faith. Where are the available links proving they buttress what Mitrokhin says? Abe Froman 18:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Its called a library card, they are free and can open a young mind to a whole new world of possibilities in learning. The references are not unverifiable, at least not by the guidelines of what is verifiable

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers.Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, everyone. I hope I am not too bold to suggest that perhaps we should all make some concessions, so that some concensus can be reached.

In a separate issue, Raman's first three answers have bearing on anything Mitrokhin's material says, including Nicaragua.

--Atavi 18:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Raman's opinion does not deal with Nicaragua at all. As such, the material belongs in Mitrokhin's article, not here. The AHR review is also bieng taken out of context, because from what I can see it is largely supportive.

I have no problem with an alternative opinion being offered, but an opinion on who said it is not appropriate. If Abe can find some information saying that the Soviet and Eastern block intelligence (which seems unlikely with Wolf’s book) was not deeply involved in Sandinistan organization, that’s what belongs here, not a straw man attack on the source. Killing the messenger while ignoring the message in tact is not appropriate. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The criticism of Mitrokhin by the American Historical Review and Raman is not a straw man. It speaks to the credibility of the source. Abe Froman 18:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The AHR article for one, is written by J Arc Getty, and long story short, he thought only a few thousand died during the Soviet Purges. Secondly, from the link, the review appears to be quite favorable. Raman's critique is a strawman, and has been shown to be such above. Also, for the third time, it has nothing to do with Nicaragua, and is limited to India. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The American Historical Review book review calls the book entertaining, not true. I disagree with the "marxist" tag added to the passage, as it is uncited. I also disagree with the removal, twice today [3] [4], of cited content regarding Mitrokhin's credibility. Abe Froman 19:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed nothing, just condensed it, once. The American Historical Review book review is actually quite positive: "The book is a fascinating read. Separate chapters deal with Soviet espionage in individual countries, and the book provides both new detail on known events as well as a few sensational revelations. In correcting old stories, Mitrokhin's research shows". So much for that critic, I suppose. Raman's criticism on Andrew's take of on India is completely without merit as Mitrokhin only verifies what Oleg Kalugin disclosed about India: "the KGB turned down an offer from an Indian minister to provide information in return for $50,000 on the grounds that it was already well supplied with material from the Indian foreign and defence ministries: “It seemed like the entire country was for sale; the KGB — and the CIA — had penetrated the Indian government. Neither side entrusted sensitive information to the Indians, realising their enemy would know all about it the next day.” The KGB, in Kalugin’s view, was more successful than the CIA, partly because of its skill in exploiting the corruption that became endemic under Indira Gandhi’s regime. Suitcases full of banknotes were said to be routinely taken to her house and one of her opponents claimed that Mrs Gandhi did not even return the cases. ". And J Arch Getty is very much a Marxist, he would readily admit this. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Admit this where... By now, after being blocked over 10 times from Wikipedia, TDC should realize he needs to cite sources. Abe Froman 19:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have bent over backwards to cite my sources, and I have cited many. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I have protected this page due to a need to rehash out the contents without edit warring. Thanks. Let me know when a consensus is reached.--MONGO 19:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt consensus is ever going to be reached. Is there not another way?

--Atavi 19:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you not protect only the KGB section?

--Atavi 19:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't do a section protect but have suggested that if no consensus can be reached, an article Rfc may help bring in more editors that have more neutrality and can find a peaceful compromise.--MONGO 19:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I 'm sorry but could you spell out Rfc?

Anyway, whatever it is, I think that you should do it, because even users already involved such as Magicartpro seem to have given up on this one. I myself am considering it.--Atavi 19:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

An WP:RfC is a “request for comment” and is designed to bring the opinions of other users not involved in a debate to help end the debate and provide a consensus. I think this will be resolved quickly, so please don’t leave the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

TDC, I am not going to leave permanently.-Atavi 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Crux

It would appear to me that the crux of this current debate is as follows: some editors disagree with the Andrew (and other) material, but don’t have or will not cite a source that can offer a counter argument, so instead they take to criticizing the source. Attack the messenger instead of the message. While this is not disallowed, as long as said critics conform to WP:RS and WP:V, it’s a tangential attempt to fork the article because said critics are not attacking the specific conclusion in the article, only those who present them.

As such, I feel that any criticisms of Andrew and Mitrokhin belong in their respective articles, and criticism of their allegations against the Sandinistas belong in the Sandinista article. As is we are applying broad criticisms to address several narrow allegations.

If there is material that states “no the Soviets did not aid the Sandinistas, or no the Stasi did not organize the Sandinistan secret police, by all means introduce it, but I think it does a great disservice to the article to avoid this and instead focus on attacking the messenger instead of providing contrary information to the message.

Now, Abe, what specifically do you have to offer in an attempt to compromise and remove this protection. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, for the sake of the article, let's transfer the debate on the Mitrokhin archive page, as TDC suggests.

On another note, attack on the person is not pleasant at all, but is legitimate, since in trials this is done on witnesses to establish their credibility.

--Atavi 19:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the legitimacy of the criticism, as far as it conforms to policy, what I don’t agree with is its inclusion in the article as it forks the content and is related only tangentially to the issue at hand, were KGB and East Block contacts with the FSLN existent. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Is a criticism of a source in general, but not to the specific conclusions that the sources makes on a subject be allowed in an article. For example, “John Doe thinks that Acme chocolate ice cream is very good, but Jane Doe thinks that John Doe is a fraud” should Jane Doe’s criticism of John Doe go into the Acme chocolate ice cream article, or into the John Doe article.

Specifically here, Christopher Andrew, drawing off the work of Vasili Mitrokhin, claims that the KGB recruited a number of top Sandinistan officials, including one of its founders, and held a great deal of influence over the organization and subsequent government. Criticisms has been added that only deals with Mitrokhin (I think), not Andrew or the specific allegation with regard to the FSLN. Should these criticisms go here or in the Vasili Mitrokhin and Christopher Andrew articles?

The KGB didn't play a significant role in the foundation and development of the FSLN guerilla movement before 1979. --Magicartpro 20:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

TDC continues to remove any information noting his 'source' is less than credible. That is what this dispute is about. The Mitrokhin material has never been removed, but TDC continually removed any material which shows its credibility to be less than stellar. He is consoring Wikipedia to push his own political views. It is not the first time, or even the 10th. Abe Froman 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Its been removed several times, and I have explained my reasoning on removal/alterations of your recent additions. Now let other people chime in here and leave it be for a while unless addressed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The KGB's sphere of influence was limited to the Sandinista Army (EPS) and the Nicaraguan secret services (MINT-DGSE), and that was after 1979. Nicaragua wasn't a Socialist state under the Sandinista government.--Magicartpro 20:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that there is some (not much but some) agreement post 1979, but the charges that the Sandinistan organization, movement (or whatever) pre 1979 had a number of high level KGB recruits in it, is that challenged? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. There is no conclusive evidence on such allegations. --Magicartpro 20:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And who, besides you, believes this? I don’t mean to sound condescending, but material that will make its way into the article has to have a notable source. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Mitrokhin archives are not a reliable source. And that's your only source. --Magicartpro 20:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The opinion that Andrew’s collaboration with Mitrokhin is “unreliable” is a minority one at best. I could, and have cited many many positive reviews. And aside from two statements, namely the Red Dawn info and Fonseca as KGB recruit, Andrew is not the sole source. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And every time we add data pointing out Mitrokhin is not reliable, TDC deletes it wholesale. This is what started this dispute originally. Abe Froman 20:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As said above, the view that he is not reliable, is a small minority. Your own supposed critical source from the AHR even addmitted that the book provides both new detail on known events as well as a few sensational revelations . And as I pointed out above, the criticisms you interject have gone from being solely your own, to not related to the allegations, only poor attempts at character assassination on Mitrokhin na dhe did not even write the book, Andrew did. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not the book, it is the wholesale removal of anything deigning to question its credibility. Why do you feel the need to revert anyone's contribution who questions Mitrokhin and Andrew's credibility? Abe Froman 21:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is not about the book! Its about the FSLN! Criticism of the book belongs on the repective article which is not this one. Either the author is or is not notable enough to be cited here, or he is not, plain and simple. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If we allow open criticism of a notable and well respected sources, AND NOT CONFINE THE CRITICSM/REBUTTAL TO THE CONCLUSIONS THEY REACH, in this article, then we will have to allow it in every article. Imagine every article that contains information from the NY Times, or WAPO, or the Nation Magazine becoming a battle ground on the perceived biases or distortions of these outlets with little if any actual comments on the material cited, only the source of said material. That is the classic definition of a POV Fork. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole KGB conspiracy allegation with Sandinistas planning terrorist raids in the US mainland under the supervision or with the blessing of the Soviet Union and the Communists organizing their own personal army in Central America only proves a profound ignorance of the Nicaraguan history and the whole geo-political situation in Latin America at that time. --Magicartpro 21:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion and you are more that entitled to it. Unfortunately for you, you have yet to provide me with one single solitary citation of someone notable who agrees with that sentiment. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

According to TDC's logic so far, TDC could state the tooth fairy created the FSLN, and the tooth fairy's credibility could never be questioned. TDC, this is a charade. Simply stop removing credibility questions about your questionable sources. Abe Froman 21:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am really having a hard time trying to see the validity of a metaphor that tries to compare an imaginary entity with the Former Chair of the History Faculty at Cambridge University, Official Historian of the Security Service (MI5), Honorary Air Commodore of 7006 Squadron (Intelligence) in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, Chair of the British Intelligence Study Group …… and so on. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that so? Then why does TDC keep removing entries from the American Historical Society, America's largest organization of historians, that question Andrew and Mitrokhin's book? Why is all material questioning its credibility automatically censored by TDC? Abe Froman 21:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Because for one, the AHR article is not nearly as much of a criticism of Andrew’s work as you would like to make it out to be stating that "the book provides both new detail on known events as well as a few sensational revelations" and is "an interesting read". Secondly what little opinion from J Arch Getty is critical of the book, its not about the book cited in this article (review was done on “The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB”, not “The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World”, and in case you did not realize thet are two different books). And lastly, what little criticism is made has nothing to do with Andrew’s writings on Nicaragua. Strike one, strike two, strike three ..... that means you’re out! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the British Intelligence an independent source on Sandinista affairs? --Magicartpro 21:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources need not be independent, they must only pass WP:V and WP:RS. And I would like to know in what context or definition you mean when saying "independent source"? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about a book. Material critical of the book belongs in the authors article. Either the source passes WP:RS and WP:V or it does not. Plain and simple. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This may surprise some of you, but I'm more with TDC than not here. Abe, Mitrokhin is not your hypothetical "tooth fairy". We usually treat Mitrokhin as a generally reliable, but by no means a flawless, source. To my knowledge, the only notably better sources on KGB matters are official archival releases (and, like CIA releases, those aren't flawless either): please tell me if you are aware of other, better "inside the KGB" sources.

I don't think this article needs a general critique of Mitrokhin. On the other hand:

• The text (not just the citations) needs to make is clear which substantive claims are simply "according to Mitrokhin" with no independent substantiation.
• The first mention of Mitrokhin should make it clear that he is an ex-KGB defector, which should be a word to the wise that we are entering slippery turf.
• If there has been specific, citable disagreement from comparably reliable sources, those would emphatically also belong in the article. This would include explicit challenges to Mitrokhin's claims, but also claims that contradict Mitrokhin's claims without mentioning Mitrokhin.

This is also exactly the way I would expect handle a source like, for example, Daniel Ortega himself. We should be clear whose account we are retailing, but (in the absence of a specific, citable, critique or differing account) this is not the place to take up the precise degree of reliability of a generally reliable, but not entirely disinterested, source.

TDC's conduct elsewhere is irrelevant to the question at hand: I certainly have confronted him when I've seen him on the other side of this argument when it suits his political purposes, and I wish he would consistently extend to other editors the same fair treatment he demands for himself. - Jmabel | Talk 21:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The main article is about the FSLN, not the KGB or Mitrokhin. It can be cited in the context as "Carlos Fonseca, a young student and alleged by Mitrokhin to be a KGB recruit". But I don't see the need for an entire section with extended information about alleged conspiracy theories. In that case we have to edit the main British Labour Party article in order to include Mitrokhin's allegations on the fact that many members of the Labour party were KGB agents. And maybe another section with our conclusions on the role that the KGB played in Tony Blair's victory over the conservatives. And the fact that Tony Blair is President Bush's closest allied is maybe an evidence that the United States is on it's way to become a Communist State? Who knows? --Magicartpro 22:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Material relevant to the topic, the FSLN should stay, which clearly this is. As far as the BLP and Labour party, I will work on those when there is time as that is also relevant to that topic. Just because material from one source exists on one article where it applies and does not appear in another article where it equally applies, does not mean that it should not be used in either. This is a very poor argument, and I hope its just bluster and not a serious attempt to debate this subject. Also, if you can find a WP:RS, one as reliable as one the UK's top intel historians to agree with you that the US is on its way to communism then Huzzah! to you good sir. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem that started this is removal of information that could lend doubt to Mitrokhin/Andrew's credibility. It's instantly reverted when TDC sees it. If this stopped, there wouldn't be edit warring. Abe Froman 23:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, what started this was the childish vandalism of comparing this to Red Dawn and the subsequent attempt to turn this into a POV fork by adding unrelated criticisms. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• So whats the deal here? Are there any suggestions as to how to proceed or are we going to argue in circles for another month? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you show me one single Nicaraguan historian that agrees with the Mitrokhin allegations and your assumptions on the leading role of the KGB in the Sandinista revolution, I'll stick to your version of the history. And I don't care if this historian is not independent, if he is right wing or anti-communist. Just show me one single historical analysis from a person familiar with the Nicaraguan history that backs up your history.

One the other hand, the problem is not just Mitrokhin. The whole article is inaccurate. There are gaps in the history, misleading information, people, names and facts that don't match. In short, this article is a joke.

And answering your cuestion, what shall we do? I can't see a real interest from anyone here in having a serious, high-quality, NPOV article on this subject. So do what you want. I give up. --Magicartpro 13:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have said before, I don’t know much about the rest of the article, and if you think that there are serious questions regarding its accuracy, then I believe you. I don’t, however, know any Nicaraguan historians, and don’t read Spanish. I did, however, find an few articles from the “Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affair” from Jiri Valenta that document the pre 1979 relationship between the FSLN and the Soviets, mainly indirectly from the Cubans, but also directly from the Soviets. I do want a high quality, serious NPOV article; but I don’t want information scrubbed because it looks bad for the subject. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The official publication of the largest historian society in America, the American Historical Review, has called Mitrokhin's book of KGB fantasies entertaining, but questioned its credibility. If its to be included with this article, this troublesome credibility question must be reflected. But I guarantee TDC will delete any conflict with his worldview. This is what started the problem in the first place. Abe Froman 14:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Getty’s review is largely uncritical (as you have yet to show me even one critical sentence in the review), for one, and for the second time, Getty is not reviewing the same book that is being cited in the article. And as for questioning credibility, it took Getty until 1995 to admit that more than a “few thousand” died during the Soviet purges in the 30’s. But that’s not really relevant to the article.

When Eden Pastora broke ranks with the FSLN, he spilled the beans on their contacts with the KGB and other Soviet intelligence agencies. For example, he described in the mid 80’s how the 1978 attack on the Nicaraguan National Palace was planned and coordinated through a KGB contact in Managua. Of course many people discounted this because Pastora was now, at this time, an ally of the United States, but rather than “inventing” the claim Andrew’s book simply reinforces it.

As most reviews stated, including Getty’s, Andrews work on Mitrokhin’s material in most cases only confirms long held opinions. And like I said, what started this dispute was you attempt to fork this article with off subject debates about a sources credibility with petty vandalism. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What is ridiculous is these retreaded KGB allegations. Find one Nicaraguan historian who supports them. I doubt that TDC can. This is recycled right wing claptrap, and this is why it cannot be corroborated, and serious historians at American Historical Review are skeptical. The material should be labeled as hearsay, and not historical fact since the purported documents are notes, and the documents themselves have never been seen. [5] Abe Froman 16:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Serious historians" at the AHR actually said the following about a similar book: "The book is a fascinating read. Separate chapters deal with Soviet espionage in individual countries, and the book provides both new detail on known events as well as a few sensational revelations. In correcting old stories, Mitrokhin's research shows" but on this particular book, (you know, the one actually cited in the article) they have said nothing. And while you may be a "persnickety reader", most are not, and most think the quality of the writing as well as the information in the book (which just so happens not to be the same book cited in the article) Abe, my dad gave me some advice that I will now impart on you: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Use caps all you like. Andrew has covered the KGB in other books. The primary source for these KGB allegations in Nicaragua, Mitrokhin, is hearsay. He did not spirit out any documents. He supposedly took notes. The American Historical Review, British Journalists, and NYTimes [6] have each questioned the credibility of these claims. As such, they need to be labeled as hearsay, and not historical fact, as TDC's passages imply. Abe Froman 17:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

They are not being presented as "facts", they all begin with "according to" or alledgedly, which I might add, is the proper way to present material of any kind (aside from obvious undisputed facts like a yard is 36”) into an article. Did you know that, for example, Fonseca and his crew spent six months in 1968 in the DPKR for military training? Who the hell do you thing set that up? And this aint Andrew saying this, its Matilde Zimmermann in her book Sandinista (pg143). You don’t just book a flight to Pyongyang in 1968 unless you are working for someone. The more I dig, the more corroboration I find, this conversation is becoming quite productive. Sorry, abe, but you are not making a really convincing case that any of this material should be excluded. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not say 'excluded.' I said, "marked as hearsay" because the original documents have never been seen. Abe Froman 18:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that’s certainly one step in the right direction. And what, no comments about Fonseca’s holiday in the DPKR? So how, exactly would you modify the following:

According to Andrew, Mitrokhin says during the following three years the KGB handpicked several dozen Sandinistas for intelligence and sabotage operations in the United States. Andrew and Mitrokhin say that in 1966, this KGB-controlled Sandinista sabotage and intelligence group was sent to the U.S.-Mexican border. Their primary targets were southern NORAD facilities the oil pipeline running from El Paso, Texas to Costa Mesa, California. [3] A support group, codenamed SATURN, passed as migrant farm workers to conceal themselves and smuggle in arms caches. In 1967, the reconstituted Sandinista forces suffered another major defeat during a major National Guard offensive. One of the original Sandinista founders, Rigoberto Cruz Arguello, was killed in this attack.

I see this as completely NPOV in the way it is written, but lets hear your suggestion. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph is fine, except for the last sentence. The last sentence does not belong in the KGB passage and should be moved to the next passage. The last sentence is historical fact. The previous passage is an allegation. I would word the first sentence "According to Andrew, Mitrokhin's notes say..." Abe Froman 19:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

All right, then, present something youdont like, and then propose a change. And BTW, I do agree that the last sentence belongs in the history section somewhere. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

TDC: Zimmermann's book on Carlos Fonseca that you quote has been labeled by Nicaraguan historians as inaccurate, full of prejudices and omissions, and non-NPOV. [7]

Onofre Guevara López? The guy is a "nobody" trapped in the revolutionary possibilites of yester year screaming "Viva Fidel", and he is not a historian. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Who's killing the messenger now? --Magicartpro 04:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here is that TDC is trying once again to push his POV into this article. He is going well being adding noncontroversial facts to the article. There is no controversy about the fact that Carlos Fonseca and other Sandinista leaders were ideological believers in some form of Marxism-Leninism (although their versions of Marxism differ significantly from the Soviet version). There is also no dispute over the fact that they were guerrilla revolutionaries who overthrew the Somoza dictatorship by force. If you actually follow the footnotes of Andrews/Mitrokhin, in fact, you'll find that most of the evidence they present in support of these assertions is taken from the writings of people such as Donald Hodges (Intellectual Foundations of the Nicaraguan Revolution) and from the very biography of Carlos Fonseca by Matilde Zimmermann that TDC has sneeringly dismissed here.

The statements in this article that are highly questionable involve the claim by Andrews/Mitrokhin that Fonseca and the Sandinistas were recruited by the KGB for acts of violence and sabotage inside the United States. The evidence that Andrews/Mitrokhin present for this claim is very thin. In The World Was Going Our Way, which contains the largest treatment that they offer of this claim, Carlos Fonseca is only mentioned by name on two pages of the book (pages 41-42). Moreover, the passage in which Andrews/Mitrokhin discuss this charge is at odds with the interpretation that TDC is trying to foist upon this article. On page 42-43 of The World Was Going Our Way, they state:

The main objective of KBG penetration of the Sandinista FSLN was the creation within it of what the Centre called 'a sabotage-terrorism group headed by Manuel Ramón de Jesus Andara y Ubeda (codenamed PRIM), a Nicaraguan surgeon working in Mexico. ...

Andara y Ubeda, however, insisted, no doubt correctly, that his men were too poorly armed and trained to launch attacks against the well-defended US bases. Instead, they engaged in guerrilla and intelligence operations against the Somoza regime, non-military American organizations and anti-Castro Cuban refugees. ... Andara y Ubeda, however, was not at first aware that he was being funded by the KGB. Torres (PIMEN) told him that the money came from members of the 'progressive bourgeoisie' who wished to overthrow the Somoza dictatorship.

What we're left with, then, is the claim that the KGB attempted to recruit the FSLN for attacks on targets inside the United States, but no evidence that the FSLN ever actually undertook any such attacks or ever agreed to do so. In fact, the evidence from Andrews/Mitrokhin suggests that the FSLN expressly refused to do so, and that the individual within the FSLN who the KGB was trying to recruit for that purpose (Ubeda, not Fonseca) didn't even know that the KGB was trying to use him.

If you read Andrews' notes, moreover, he states that "Mitrokhin's notes identify PIMEN as 'one of the leaders of the ISKRA group', but his exact relationship with it is unclear." Furthermore, the Andrews/Mitrokhin books agree with sources like Donald Hodges and Matilde Zimmermann on an important point that undercuts the narrative TDS is trying to create: Although all parties (Andrews/Mitrokhin, Hodges and Zimmermann included) agree that Carlos Fonseca was impressed by the Soviet Union when he visited there in 1957 (and even wrote a pamphlet that celebrated his experience), there were significant differences in philosophy and priorities between the Soviets and Cubans. Fonseca soon became a critic of Soviet-style communism and preferred the Cuban approach.

Finally, Hodges and others have noted that Fonseca was expelled from the Nicaraguan Socialist Party (Nicaragua's Soviet-aligned communist party). His political thinking, like the philosophy of other Sandinistas, combined Marxist ideas with a belief in political pluralism and elements of Sandino's anarcho-syndicalism, all of which were heretical from the point of view of Moscow and the KGB.

In short, the relationship between the Soviet Union, Marxism, the Sandinistas and Carlos Fonseca specifically is considerably more complex and nuanced that the simplistic, accusatory and ideologically tendentious interpretation that TDC is trying to force upon this article. TDC's interpretation is so different from the accounts provided by serious scholars that it doesn't belong in this article and should be rejected under Wikipedia's policy of no original research. Moreover, his habitually bellicose style is tiresome and contrary to Wikipedia policies on civility and etiquette. He has been contributing an average of 30 edits per day to the talk page of this article, most of which consist of sniping, insults and threats aimed at other users. Given his long history of abuse including sock puppetry and other violations of Wikipedia policy, there is no reason why the community should to tolerate this. His behavior is disruptive and, if tolerated, will drive away responsible Wikipedia contributors who lack the patience to go to war with him every time they want to challenge his obsessive POV-pushing. --Sheldon Rampton 06:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Great work. I have been uncomfortable about information in this article being anchored by books that are not available immediately to verify claims. With Sheldon Rampton's information about the book, there is no way we can include TDC's passage stating the KGB masterminded FSLN without noting the credibility of the allegation is tenuous at best, patently false at worst. It probably does not even belong in the article's history section. Perhaps place under a 'Alleged Conspiracy' section? Abe Froman 15:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The charge of NOR is cute and all, but hardly applies here as I am most certainly not advancing a theory, or stringing together disparate pieces of information to do so. The notion that the FSLN leadership was, in no small part, being unduly influenced from Havana and Moscow is not an opinion that is solely mine and I have gone to great lengths to cite a large number of sources who also believe this to be the case. You should re read the section on WP:NOR so you don’t make this mistake again.

It is certainly true that there are people other than TDC who have thought that the FSLN was "unduly influenced from Havana and Moscow." However, that is not what is in dispute here. What is in dispute is TDC's attempt to insert the claim that the FSLN leadership was used by the KGB to set up sabotage operations aimed at targets on U.S. soil. TDC certainly knows that this is what is in dispute.

As for the reason that I spend so much time on the talk pages, its because in certain articles a good deal of discussion is needed to break away from the dominant POV of an article. An article like this does not draw upon a wide number of users, and it would appear that the majority have a sympathetic POV towards the Sandinistans. In a larger more heavily edited article, like say Julius Rosenberg, a large number of users with varying POV’s have edited the article and formed something closer to a balanced entry on the subject.

As to your citation from the book regarding the KGB’s recruitment of FSLN members, you did not look at the relevant passages, only sneakily pieced together select passages to reinfoce your argument, and had you cited the contents on page 43 you would have seen that this was not just an operation that was “proposed” but had in fact been implemented.

With the threatened collapse of the Soviet “bridgehead” in Cuba, the KGB’s grand strategy conceived in 1961 to orchestrate “armed uprising against pro-Western reactionary governments” in Latin America seemed in tatters. The Centre’s early optimism about prospects for a Sandinistan revolution in Nicaragua had faded away. During the 1960’s the Centre was more interested in using FSLN guerillas in operations to reconnoiter sabotage targets in the southern United States than in helping them prepare for a revolution in Nicaragua. In 1966 a KGB sabotage and intelligence group (DRG) based on the ISKRA guerilla group “was formed” on the Mexican-US border with support bases in the area of Ciudad Juarez, Tiajuana, and Ensenada. Its leader, Andara y Ubeda (PRIM), traveled to Moscow for training in line F operations. Among the chief sabotage targets were American military bases, missile sites, radar installations, and the oil pipeline (codenamed START) which ran from El Paso Texas to Costa Mesa California. Three sites on the American coast were selected for DRG landings, together with large-capacity dead drops in which to store mines, explosives, detonators, and other sabotage materials. A support group codenamed STAURN was tasked with using the movements of migrant workers (braceros) to conceal the transfer of agents and munitions across the border.

The following: Andara y Ubede, however, insisted, no doubt correctly, that his men were too poorly armed and trained to launch attacks against the well-defended US bases. Instead, they engaged in guerrilla and intelligence operations against the Somoza regime, non-military American organizations and anti-Castro Cuban refugees. ... has nothing to do with the operations inside the US and was in reference to Ubede’s refusal to launch attacks against the "well-defended US bases" (referring to raids on US business and financial interest in Nicaragua to in Nicaragua from Mexico.)

He later traveled to Moscow for his training in the American sabotage operations, so how in God’s name you could claim that he rejected to do it, and that he was unaware that the KGB was behind it? Your stringing together of entirely disparate sentences which have absolutely nothing to do with each other is either woefully ignorant or an underhanded attempt to use a source to imply something opposite to the conclusions of said reference (and you accuse me of NOR).

This intentional attempt to string together segments of source to make it appear the source is saying something that it clear does not, makes me much less willing to believe you are willing to engage in a good faith discussion of the material.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. There are two periods of time under discussion here. The first period of time, according to pages 41-42 of The World Was Going Our Way by Andrew/Mitrokin, was 1961-64, when they state that the KGB was attempting to influence the FSLN and to support its efforts aimed at overthrowing the Somoza dictatorship. They state that Carlos Fonseca visited the Soviet Union in 1957 and wrote enthusiastically about what he saw. This is certainly true. It's one of the points that Andrew/Mitrokhin cribbed from writers like Hodges (although Zimmermann wrote about it too in her biography of Fonseca). During that period, they state, the main objective of the FSLN, which the Soviets no doubt wanted to support, was "the organization of a partisan detachment on Nicaraguan territory" for the purpose of overthrowing the Somoza dictatorship. Andrew/Mitrokhin claim that the KGB supported a group tied to the Sandinistas called ISKRA and led by Andara y Ubeda (not Carlos Fonseca), which they tried to induce to attack U.S. bases on Nicaraguan soil, but Ubeda declined to do so.

The second period, from 1964-1966, came after "the demoralized guerrilla force was routed with heavy loss of life by the Nicaraguan National Guard." During that period, claim Andrew/Mitrokhin (p. 48), they tried to reconstitute a "sabotage and intelligence group from the remnants of Andara y Ubeda's guerrillas." The passage you cite, from p. 53, states that Ubeda traveled to Moscow for training so that this remnant of his guerrillas could be used to assist the sabotage effort of which you speak. However, you'll not that Carlos Fonseca is nowhere mentioned as part of ISKRA during this second period. Even if Andrew/Mitrokhin are correct, Andara y Ubeda is a much less notable figure within the Sandinista movement than Carlos Fonseca, and it is you, not me, who has blurred this distinction. (In fairness to you, I should not that Andrew/Mitrokhin are somewhat unclear in their brief discussion of the subject in The Sword and the Shield, although they are more clear in The World Was Going Our Way.

I should note, moreover, that the footnote for this claim in The World Was Going Our Way simply references "vol. 6, ch. 5, part 5" of the Mitrokhin archives. This indicates that it comes from the "vol-series" of Mitrokhin's materials, consisting of "typed volumes containing material drawn from numerous KGB files, mostly arranged by country, sometimes with commentary by Mitrokhin." In addition to the fact that Andrew/Mitrokhin give sketchy details to support their claim about Andara y Ubeda's alleged involvement in sabotage-related surveillance of U.S. territory, the footnote doesn't give us enough information to know even basic facts about the provenance of this information, such as the name or job title of the KGB operative who allegedly wrote it. Was it someone who had direct contact with Ubeda and was in a position to know? Was it some third-hand synthesis in some bureaucrat's report? Or was it simply Mitrokhin himself, making a commentary? It's doubtful that it was someone who had direct contact with Ubeda, since as Andrew/Mitrokhin admit in one of the notes that I quoted earlier, Mitrokhin seems unable even to clarify the relationship between the ISKRA and Edelberto Torres Espinosa (code-named PIMEN), the alleged KGB agent who was supposedly the KGB's contact within ISKRA: "Mitrokhin's notes identify PIMEN as 'one of the leaders of the ISKRA group', but his exact relationship with it is unclear."

What real historians understand (and TDC obviously does not) is that "Every piece of evidence and every source must be read or viewed skeptically and critically," with attention to questions such as, "Did the recorder have firsthand knowledge of the event? Or, did the recorder report what others saw and heard? Was the recorder a neutral party, or did the creator have opinions or interests that might have influenced what was recorded?" The information provided by Andrew/Mitrokhin is too sketchy and incomplete to enabling even asking, let alone answering, these questions about this particular claim. And it's rather ironic that TDC, who obviously views the KGB as an institution that cannot be trusted (an assessment I share), is determined in this case to insist that Wikipedia should treat as unassailable fact a claim that is supported only by Mitrokhin's alleged copy of a document written on an unspecified date by an unnamed individual within the KGB.

A bit of background on this BTW, the same time the Soviets were using their FSLN contacts for they were also using agents in Canada for similar missions in the Northern US, like Flathead and Hungry Horse dams. The FSLN infiltration units the Soviets sent to Texas and the south were to reconnoiter and familiarize themselves with the targets, not to act on them. This was to be done in the event of hostilities between the Soviets and the United States, and not as some unprovoked act of aggression. No one is alleging that the FSLN units used in this capacity were there to destroy anything, only that thee were preparing themselves for it when their Moscow paymasters gave the order (kind of like Red Dawn. Most of this was done under the supervision of the GRU, and not the KGB, and as there have been no high level GRU defectors, the true extent of these operations is not known. When asked about these operations former KGB Col. Oleg Gordievsky said "It all rings very true, I personally participated in digging ground in [Stockholm] and putting radio equipment into the ground."

Furthermore Andrew’s use of sources like Zimmermann and Hodges was for background on the individuals mentioned, not to help establish their ties with Moscow, and furthermore, he cites Zimmermann and Hodges exactly once. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Andrews cites Zimmermann twice. Moreover, he quotes Hodges precisely for the purpose of establishing Fonseca's ties with Moscow and his enthusiasm for Fidel Castroy. The footnote to Hodges' book references the passage from Andrew/Mitrokhin which begins, "In 1957, at the age of twenty-one, Fonseca had been the only Nicaraguan to attend the Sixth World Youth Festival in Moscow..."

---

What historians understand, and what I apparently TDC doesn’t understand ….. what are you talking about? Andrew is one of the most well respected cold war intelligence historians around. He is evaluating the strength of the underlying material and of his source, not me. While it may be appropriate to judge the reliability of certain sources, we don’t extend that to judging the reliability of sources' sources. As a well respected historian, we have to rely on Andrew’s judgment on how seriously he investigated and vetted this information.

So, are you really going to say that since this historical work “may be” clouded with bias or second hand material, that it should be excluded? Almost all historic work is clouded with these problems issues and they aren’t made to be nearly as contentious as they are here. Far too many articles are ripe with material from sources who fail any of the above test (Gladio cough cough), but since they are popular amongst certain groups and often repeated, they are taken seriously.

This is really getting pointless, but here goes. On Fonseca:

The FSLN leader, Carlos Fonseca Amador, codenamed GIDROLOG (hydrologist) was a trusted KGB agent.

Furthermore an agent is described as follows: an individual who agrees to cooperate secretly with an official intelligence representative, and to carry out consciously systematically and secretly his intelligence assignments

This was not from Zimmerman, the only information from Zimmerman was taken to provide some context on who Fonseca was (one paragraph of background) not his relationship with Soviet intelligence.

But more, since your truncated and hobbled together quotes don’t clarify the material at hand.

Shelepin reported to Khrushchev in July 1961

In Nicaragua .. at present time – via KGB agents and confidential contacts PIMEN, GIDROLOG and LOT – the KGB is influencing and providing financial aid to the Sandio (Sandinista) Revolutionary Front and three partisan detachments which belong to the International Revolutionary Resistance Front, which works in coordination with its friends (Cuban and Soviet Block Intelligence services). In order to obtain weapons and ammunition, it is proposed that an additional $10,000 be allocated to these detachments from KGB funds.

The main early objective of KGB penetrations of the FSLN was the creation within it of what the Centre called ‘a sabotage-terrorism group’ headed by Ubeda (codenamed PRIM), a Nicaraguan surgeon living in Mexico. On 22 November 1961 Aleksandr Sakharovsky, the head of the FCD, reported to Semichastny the KGB Chairman:

In accordance with the long-term plan for the KGB’s intelligence operations in Latin America and Decision No. 191/75-GS of the highest authorities dated 1 August 1961 (Shelepin’s third world strategy), our residency on Mexico has taken measures to provide assistance in building up the national liberation movement in Nicaragua and creating a hotbed of unrest for the Americans in this area. The Residency, through the trusted agent GIRDILOG (Fonseca) in Mexico, selected a group of Nicaraguan students, (12 people), headed by Nicaraguan patriot doctor PRIM (Ubeda), and arranged for their operation training. All operations with PRIM’s group are conducted by GIRDILOG in the name of the Nicarguan revolutionary organization ‘The Sandinista Front’ of which he, GRIDILOG, is the leader. The supervision of the group’s future activities and financial aid given to it will also be provided through GIRDILOG. At the present time PRIM’s group is ready to be dispatched to Honduras, where it will undergo additional training and fill out its ranks … In order to equip PRIM’s group and provide for its final training in combat operations, assistance amounting to $10,000 is required. The highest authorities have given their consent to using the sum indicated for these purposes. I request your approval.

He could not be more clear on Fonseca’s relationship with both Ubeda and his activities. Are we going to go round and round here, with you distoring material and me correcting you, or are we going to agree on its inclusion in the article (if in a modified form), or does this go to mediation? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

<---------------------------- So what’s the deal here people? Is this over? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to interject when I've absent for a while, but it seems to me that for days nothing new has been contributed to the debate, but neither side seems to concede to the other's point. The article can't stay protected for ever, so some other action might be called for. I'm not very familiar with procedures so as to make a concrete proposition--Atavi 13:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is always a request for mediation. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection - 1

I would like to restore some material that got clobbered during the recent fights; normally, I would just do this, but I see that the article is currently protected, so I would like consensus.

If you examine this diff you can see that we lost three paragraphs near the start of the article that—give or take a few copy edits—seem to me like a good general introduction to the subject. I can't quickly sort out where in the contentious edit history they were removed (or, more likely, removed, re-added, removed again, etc.). Does anyone have any problem with my restoring these paragraphs? Given the protection, I will allow at least 48 hours for objections. - Jmabel | Talk 00:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Although this was not the reason the protection was brought in, and I'm not completely sure if this is the case, I must say some of the material was deleted by Magicartpro because it was inaccurate. I think the intention is to replace it with better material. I think you should wait to hear from Magicartpro to decide if you'll put that back.

Of course you could always put it back for now, and it can be deleted again, when the new material is ready.---Atavi 16:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So Magicartpro, are you out there? It's been over a week and you haven't said boo. - Jmabel | Talk 04:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This was written by Magicartpro in the protection-2 section. I have moved it:

Jmabel: As Atavi said, I removed the three paragraphs at the start of the article, mainly because there was inaccurate information on it. I explained that on the talk page before the edit. The rest of the article contains also inaccurate info (see my comments on 1961-1970 and 1970-1979 sections). I have more comments and suggestions for the rest of the article, but I prefer not to publish them until I know that there is a real interest from you guys in improving this article, and not just editing and restoring old material. --Magicartpro 17:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

--Atavi 11:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't really written much of the article, so I'm not the one whose consent is needed. I've just tried to keep the article from being actively damaged by political squabbling. - Jmabel | Talk 07:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection - 2

It looks to me like the current version is basically TDC's and it looks like in places it is written with evident animus against the Sandinistas. For example, the section Sandinista human rights record gives no context of either an ongoing war or the human rights records historically typical of the country or contemporaneously typical of the region. The Sandinista regime was flawed in this respect, but compared to anything else around it, it was a beacon of light, and groups like Amnesty generally acknowledged that even when they criticized the Sandinistas. - Jmabel | Talk 00:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"written with evident animus"??? When the first paragraph is basically fellating them? Riiiight. As usual at Wikipedia, every political subject which isn't hard-core Marxist or Meccan dogma just isn't good enough for some.--Mike18xx 06:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, I did not write the human rights section, so do what you want with it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. As I'm sure you know, when it's churning this much, it's hard to tell who did what. I'll probably lay off of this section until this is unprotected; the other one, though, I'd like to fix ASAP.

Is anyone working toward getting some consensus on other things here so that we can unprotect the article? - Jmabel | Talk 04:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Sandinista regime was flawed in this respect, but compared to anything else around it, it was a beacon of light, and groups like Amnesty generally acknowledged that even when they criticized the Sandinistas.

Given the political nature of Amnesty (U.S. and allies=evil, Soviets=? and leftist third world=good), that isn't a very impressive arguement. 65.185.190.240 22:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Sandinistas certainly weren't "beacons of light" to the Misquito indians whom they slaughtered...unless you're counting muzzle flashes.--Mike18xx 06:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an editor here, and not knowledgable about this topic, but I have some observations. The KGB section is at best confusing and poorly written. I am not sure what is being alleged - that the KGB formed the FSLN from nothing, or tried to use an already existing orgaization for its own ends. The final two paragraphs of the section, where the disputants throw references at each other, are not useful. KGB ties to this organization certainly seem relevant to the article. The biggest problems are readibility and making it clear where the information comes from, and including something brief about why this source may be contested.--MikeThicke 23:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The allegation that the KGB formed the FSLN from nothing is false. The KGB ties to the Sandinista organization before 1979 are irrelevant to the article. --Magicartpro 09:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Weare not saying that the KGB formed the FSLN from nothing, and no where in the article does it say that. And since the article does mention other activities before 1979, this would fall under that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite the anti-communist nature of the Somoza regime, the Moscow controlled Nicaraguan Socialist Party (PSN) was politically active in the 60's and 70's. In fact, the expulsion of prominent leaders of the PSN and the consequent formation of the Partido Obrero Socialista (later, Communist Party of Nicaragua) in 1967 was because of the position of a group of radicals within the PSN who opted for armed struggle against the Somoza regime. Moscow didn't sponsor the armed struggle in Nicaragua in the 60-70's, in fact, they were against it. --Magicartpro 14:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And that is exactly the kind of material (written in a less definitive way mind you) that needs to be in the article to provide a contrary POV to the material above. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough both the material above, as well as the material currently in the article could very well be true. How is that you ask? How could the Soviet government not be supporting the FSLN pre 1979 and the KGB/GRU was supporting the FSLN pre 1979? The KGB often acted independently from the politburo, with the politburo not informed, and usually not interested in many of the operations of Soviet intelligence agencies. Some of this has to do with the sheer power that the KGB/GRU had in the Soviet Union, and some of it was residual fear dating back from the activities of the Checka and the NKVD. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Present Day.

This is very much a live issue. Elections are due in Nicaragua this Autumn and altho it is close it is possible that the FSLN will be returned to power. Naturally the USA is seeking to influence these elections and interfering with dire threats from the US ambassador if the FSLN are returned to power. The fact that the USA is still interfering in the internal affairs of Nicaragua now when the USSR is history gives the lie to the idea that it was Soviet influence that it feared in the country. What the USA feared - and still fears - is a negative effect on the profits of US-based fruit multinationals Del Monte and United Fruit(Dole). Doubtless the apologists for US imperialism here will soon find some 'source' showing the influence of Al Qaida on the FLSN and Daniel Ortega having tea with Osama Bin Laden. I know that the page is currently protected but there should be some mention of these coming elections.SmokeyTheFatCat 09:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandinista Ideologies

I'm going to rewrite this section for two main reasons:

1) The split of the FSLN into three factions is already explained here.

2) It's inacurrate to classify these three factions as separate Sandinista ideologies as the difference between them lied more in tactical and strategical issues rather than political ones. Magicartpro 22:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would object.

You might also want to take a look at the article Sandinista Ideologies.

--Atavi 07:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

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)

The subject heading is censorship. Shutting down opposition press and radio stations, irrespective of whether such actions are "unsurprising" or not, clearly qualifies as such.

And as an aside, I would note that there are plenty of examples of governments in wartime that do NOT close down opposition press outlets. Last I checked, despite being involved in a war in Iraq, the U.S. government hasn't shut down any Marxist organs. Your rationalization of the censorship, and even more so, your comment that seems to actually laud the Sandanistas for "tolerating" opposition and "allowing it to go on" (!) smacks much more of apologia than an attempt to provide context for the Sandanista campaign of oppression.Ritwingr 07:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comparison might be apt if America was a pathetic third world nation and the Marxist "organs" being funded were taking in millions of dollars from a superpower. Do you honestly think that if, say, the KGB had bankrolled the Washington Post that the United States wouldn't have shut down the paper and/or arrested the journalists on the KGB payroll?

The Sandinistas did get some criticism for periodically shutting down La Prensa, so that situation deserves mention. I'm not cool with the word "abuse" in the quote, as it's debatable whether it was abusive to periodically shut down La Prensa for what Ritwingr would surely label treason if an American did it to the American government. --MarkB2 05:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The election of November 2006

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)

[edit] The Rise of the FSLN

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)

[edit] "iron fisted rule"

I replaced that wording in industrial development with administration, since I think calling the previous elected Sandinista government of 1984-1990 iron fisted is complete POV. - Chris Gilmore

[edit] Missing Main article to subtopic

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FSLN_human_rights_abuses&action=edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front#Sandinista_human_rights_record
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.39.190.133 (talk • contribs) 12 November 2006.

CIA propaganda does not adhere to NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.255.184 (talk • contribs) 13 November 2006.

[edit] Mitrokhin archive

I added material to the criticism of the Mitrokhin passage because the archive is passed off as fact, when that is far from clear. The archive is not primary source, and mainstream historians from the American Historical Review have questioned these single-sourced claims. Abe Froman 20:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have restored deleted material because no discussion was made as to its removal on this dicussion page. Abe Froman 20:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

J Arch Getty wrote the review, my version is the condensed version that has been in the article for quite some time now [8]. Your version mentions Getty’s name as well as his comments twice, repeating them. Secondly, it is not correct to say that "mainstream historians blah blah" when you have only been able to cite one who actually holds this view. Lastly, this is not the page to debate a source for the article when that source had an article on it already. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The American Historical Review is the mainstream society for historians. Thus the passage deserves the appelation "mainstream." Getty wrote it, but it also represents the view of the American Historical Review. Lastly, passing this archive as fact when serious questions to its validity exist among mainstream historians is uncyclopedic, and must be noted. Why are the direct quotations from the American Historical Review removed by Torturous Devastating Cudgel? This editing seems tendentious to a high degree. Abe Froman 20:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The version I reverted to was the concensus agreed upon by the editors, including yourself apparently, and has been the stable verison of this section for two months. The rest is explained on the Mitrokinh Archive talk page. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The version I edited with sourced material did not deserve reversion, as TDC has not shown the information to be incorrect or improperly sourced. Passing this archive off as fact is not supported by the mainstream historians in this country, as reported by the American Historical Review. Maintaining the passage in its current state is unencyclopedic. It will change. Abe Froman 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As Andrew passes both WP:V and WP:RS, discussion of the source in this article, when an article already exists for it, is not proper. And, for the record, you have cited exactly one historian whose comments are not as critical as they are being portrayed in this article. As noted in the talk history of this article I have cited over a dozen of sources, historical, journalistic and political who are all very favorable towards Andrews research and the value of Mitrokhin’s material. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

TDC is missing the point. The existence of the entire passage is not at stake. The removal of quotes from the American Historical Review regarding skepticism toward Mitrokhin's claims is the issue. If TDC would discontinue removing cited material, which even he is quoting from, we would not have this mess. Abe Froman 20:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

J Arch Getty is the source of the material, not the AHR (just thought I would clear that up). It is unprecedented to have such a lengthy debate about a source in an article not on that source. There exists a mention to both Getty's and Raman's comments and that should suffice. We could just skip this here dog and pony show and take this right to mediation or even arbitration, you behavior here towards me is getting a bit out of hand.

Classic. Blame the victim. Anyway, TDC quotes from the same article he is simultaneously afraid of quoting, this has taken a turn for the weird. The skeptical passages from the American Historical Review are germane to the topic, and if TDC wants arbitration or mediation, I welcome it. Abe Froman 21:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have quoted the article in balance. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that at least a couple of sentences about the doubts surrounding the Mitrokhin archive would be appropriate here since the article cites the archive as (part of) the basis for connecting the FSLN to the KGB. There seems to be more specific criticism of the archive here then in the Mitrokhin archive article itself, so maybe some of the specific would be better off there. Take a look at the opening sentences of the KGB section too, some copyediting is needed there ("another competing group"? another compared to what and competing against whom?) It doesn't flow well from the preceeding history section either, jumping back to 1961. Thatcher131 02:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Comment self-deleted. Stone put to sky 06:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the "Relationship with the KGB" area cleaned up. As it is, there is little mention of the skepticism with which most of the world views Mitrokhin's material, nor of the many discrepancies which surround the U.S. government's accusations in that regard. As the material is currently presented, it appears that there are only two people in the world who are skeptical about the authenticity of the Mitrokhin material (when in fact it's more like 20,000), and that there are no questions about the veracity or motives of the U.S. government's "evidence". While the passage is couched in terms of "According to", the rhetoric gives center stage to Mitrokhin's assertions -- which many believe are sheer fantasy -- while giving no time whatsoever to the challenges those assetions have met with. For the record, i don't think this is a place where we need to get into a deep investigation regarding the questions surrounding Mitrokhin's material; but there needs to be a much stronger clarification of the considerable questions surrounding the material, as well as the many objections to the U.S. Government's material of the time (many of which originated from within the U.S. government itself). Stone put to sky 06:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sandinistas were a coalition of disparate political groups

The article is misrepresenting the Sandinistas as strictly composed of the Junta that later came to be led by Daniel Ortega. This is wrong. The Sandinistas were composed of several different groups which -- with considerable help from the U.S. -- eventually splintered apart in violence against each other, but have since operated together under the auspices of the political system devised by the original coalition. The article should reflect that, but it doesn't currently do so.

The article should clearly indicate that the first group to operate under the "Sandinista" name was that of Eden Pastora, which predated the FSLN. After the FSLN was formed, they joined with Pastora and turned over military leadership to him. Later, the Sandinistas were joined in their fight by business leaders and moderate politicians who opposed the dictatorship. The article currently gives the false impression that the Sandinistas started with FSLN members, and that this group alone has comprised its core group. This is simply false. Stone put to sky 04:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If i don't hear anything back on this, then i'll take it as an accession and start to re-work the introduction in a couple of days. Sister-in-law's getting married tomorrow. Stone put to sky 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Stone:

Pastora's group was known as Frente Revolucionario Sandino (FRS) and was founded in 1957. Pastora abandoned the armed struggle in 1963 after an amnisty and becomes member of the Nicaraguan Conservative Party (PCN), in oppposition to Somoza.

After a short stay in prision in 1967 Pastora integrates the FSLN for the first time. That year, the Sandinistas suffered an historical defeat in Pancasán, and Pastora goes into exile. He returned to Nicaragua and to the FSLN two years later and remained there until 1973 when he abandoned the armed struggle once again and moves to Costa Rica. In 1976 he joined the FSLN for the last time. In 1981 he abandoned the FSLN for the third time and goes into exile. He later formed ARDE, a military opposition to the Sandinista government.

Remember also that Pastora was a "tercerista" and the military leader of that tendency was Humberto Ortega who later became chief of the Sandinista Army. --Magicartpro 18:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Granted, everything. However, this article is about the "Sandinistas/FSLN"; Pastora's group was the first one known as "Sandinistas" and it was from this group that the FSLN adopted the nomiker. Similarly, the fact that Pastora ascended to the status of "Comander Zero" says a great deal: Zero comes before even "the first". Pastora and his group represent a stage in the evolution of the people's movement that became the "Sandinistas" we think of today.

I have no problem with pointing out that the FSLN eventually came to be the only Sandinistas; but the Sandinistas of the '50's - '70's, the Sandinistas of the early '80's, the Sandinistas of the early '90s, and the Sandinistas of today represent four phases of a single movement, none of which are so clearly defined from their predecessor that we may comfortably say they are distinct. The name "Sandinsta" and the movement it represents has undergone steady and continuous change over these last five decades. It is undeniable that the Sandinistas of today are an entirely different group than the Sandinistas of the early '70's or mid-'80's, and wrong to say that the group got it's start with the FSLN. Stone put to sky 16:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Stone:

1) The "Sandinistas" in Nicaragua have far more history and are much, much older than Pastora himself. Even today, if you travel to Madriz or Nueva Segovia (in northern Nicaragua), there are people that say that they fought with Sandino, or that their father did. And they have called themselves Sandinistas their whole life. The word "Sandinista" was not invented by Pastora.

2) In guerilla warfare, when a commando performs a military action, such as a raid, the members of that group calls themselves by a number, instead of their name or pseudonym. Pastora was known as "Comander Zero" after the hostage take in the National Congress because he was the leader of that unit. He was number "0" and he was a Comander (Comandante), therefor the name; "Comander Zero". Dora Maria Tellez, for example, was the second in charge (number "1"), so she was Comander 1. The other members of the commando had the numbers 2, 3, 4 and so on.

3) The first Sandinista political group (political, not military) was the MNN (Movimiento Nueva Nicaragua), founded, among others, by Carlos Fonseca and a group of veterans from Sandino's army (Ejército Defensor de la Soberania Nacional, EDSN). One of them was Santos López, a colonel from Sandino's army. The MNN evolved in the FLN and the FLN evolved in todays FSLN. Santos López was one the founders of the three organizations and the first military instructor of this new generation of Sandinistas that had their base in Honduras.

4) You cannot describe the Sandinista ideology as a process in four phases (or decades). The Sandinista ideology is much more than that. I agree that the members of the FSLN are not the only Sandinistas in Nicaragua. There are marxists, social democrats, social christians, liberals and even conservatives that define themselves as Sandinistas. We have today two parties elected to the National Assembly that are Sandinistas (FSLN and MRS). We have also a dozen of political movements, such as Movimiento por el Rescate del Sandinismo, Movimiento de Reflexión, Generación del 80, etc. that are organizations with a strong Sandinista ideology. --Magicartpro 05:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Great! This is all excellent stuff, none of which i myself personally knew! Why in the world isn't this in the article?

This is the *main* article on "the Sandinistas". If you would like to split the FSLN off from it, then i think that would be appropriate. However, we should first build a case for that move here on this page, by introducing substantiated sources for the material that you are implying just above.

I, for one, am very happy to see that someone so informed as yourself about the Sandinista movement is helping to edit this page, now. Since this is the main page for "Sandinistas", where do you think we should start? Stone put to sky 05:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Stone. It's a common mistake to associate Sandinistas=FSLN, maybe we should redirect Sandinistas to Sandinista Idelogies and expand that article, because this is after all an article about the FSLN. I'll try to find some sources in English on the web. Cheers! --Magicartpro 09:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to simply name it "The Sandinista Movement" -- or make that last one plural, if you like -- because "ideologies" is a loaded word (considered "Marxist" by most people in the U.S.). Similarly, i think a lengthy explanation here in *this* article must be included to explain the relationship of the FSLN to the greater Sandinista movement. But yeah -- i think that we've hit on a very direct way to obviate a lot of the disagreement on this page. Stone put to sky 06:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a separate article for the FRS, to begin with? --Soman 08:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the FRS should also have its own page.

I don't have a problem developing separate pages, but i think we would best be served using this process:

• Start adding an "introductory" section just on the Sandinista movement, with the admission that it will quickly get too large
• Let it remain too large for a while, and use the "introductory" section to work with and help clarify the relationship and role of the FSLN / FRS / etc in this movement, and then
• After we're pretty comfortable with the basic structure, split everything off into separate pages

That would save us a lot of back-and-forth grief, i think. If we split the pages to begin with and then start editing them separately, i think a lot of information will get reduplicated unecessarily, there's a much greater chance of either article getting uncomfortably skewed towards a particular political viewpoint, and we're likely to see the total editing force that's currently present split up into different groups that rarely communicate.

So i'd rather see us work here first and then do the split, but that's just my opinion. Stone put to sky 13:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, "Capitalism" is also a loaded word where I come from (LOL). I don't know if we are talking about the same thing here... 1) The Sandinista ideology; anti-imperialism, social and economical equity etc. and 2) The "Sandinista Movements"; FRS, FSLN, MRS...

The problem, as I see it, is the way this discussion started: The Sandinistas were a coalition of disparate political groups. I think we must, in the first place, draw a line between the political and the military organizations. The FRS, such as the FROC and the FUAC in the nineties, was a military movement... maybe inspired by Sandino, or with a Sandinista ideology, but the FRS wasn't a political, or military-political movement for that matter. --Magicartpro 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why laugh? Capitalism is absolutely a loaded word! I am of the firm opinion that Adam Smith is spinning in his grave at the way it's currently being abused and misused by the "experts" of the U.S.  ;-)

Seriously, though: are you suggesting that the FRS didn't have political goals, and wasn't created as a means to engender or enforce certain political forms? I find that hard to believe, and as far as i'm concerned that's all that's needed for something to qualify as "political"; but i agree that my wording above was rather imprecise.

I'm starting a new section below, where we can explore possibilities for a new structure to this article. Stone put to sky 08:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions: How to Hone Content

I think we should start off with a discussion of what "Sandinista" means and how it's used within Nicaragua and other Central American countries. After first establishing a basic overview of the word "Sandinista" and how it's used natively, we will be able to get a better idea of where the article should go. Do folks agree with me on this? Stone put to sky 08:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Something like "The name 'Sandinista' refers to a...existing...still active...social movement that has its roots in the ideas of Augusto Sandino....Central America...socialism...catholic church...local natives...It includes a broad range of organizations, both formal and informal (see list below)....broad socialist principles....The name "Sandinista" is often wrongly associated...exclusively...with the FSLN, who represent only one....and is currently....

I think y'all get the idea. Next, perhaps followed by a structure something like this:

 II From Sandino to WWII
 III The Post-WWII Era
  A) 1950 - 1970
  B) 1970 - 1990
  C) 1990 - Present
 IV Groups and Movements Using the Name 'Sandinista'
 V  Social Change and the Sandinistas:  Achievements and Undertakings
 VI Military and Political Action Under the Name 'Sandinista'

It would then be a much easier thing to separate out the specifically FSLN, FRS, etc stuff, and those articles could simply make direct reference to the fundamental Sandinista article (which is where all traffic searching for "Sandinista" should be first directed). Comments? Stone put to sky 09:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The first part is History

 I Sandino and the EDSN
 II The Post-Sandino Era
  A) 1934 - 1937 : The annihilation of Sandino's movement
  B) 1937 - 1950 : Sandinism vs Somocism
  C) 1950 - 1970 : Formation of the new Sandinistas; FRS, MNN, FSLN, etc.
  D) 1970 - 1979 : The struggle against Somoza; three tendencies of the FSLN + MPU, FER, etc.
  E) 1979 - 1990 : Sandinistas in the Government; reunification of the Sandinistas
  F) 1990 - 2000 : Sandinistas in opposition; rearmed Sandinista groups, FUAC, FROC + the dissidents in the MRS
  G) 2000 - 2005 : Second reunification of the Sandinistas; the Convergence
  H) 2005 - Present : The internal struggle and the Sandinistas back in Government

Then there is the Sandinista Ideology and its influence in the Nicaraguan society

 III The Sandinista Ideology
  A) Sandino's ideological roots
  B) The legacy of Sandino 
  C) Sandino in the struggle against Somoza
  D) FSLN's historical program
  E) Sandinism vs. Socialism
  F) Today's Sandinistas
 IV  Social Change and the Sandinistas:  Achievements and Undertakings

And last, a list of Sandinista groups and movements

 V List of Groups and Movements Using the Name 'Sandinista'/ with a Sandinista Ideology
  A) Extinct
  B) Active

What do you think? --Magicartpro 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Good structure. I like it. Just do the rough draft in a sandbox so editors don't get the wrong idea when content disappears/reappears. Abe Froman 17:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it, too, but have some small adjustments i'd suggest.

Before i do that, though, let me preface what i'm about to say by admitting that i really have no qualifications to add much to a subject on which you are obviously quite knowledgable. With that in mind, i'm approaching what we're talking about more as an opportunity for me to learn much more about this subject while offering what i hope is some constructive advice to aid in the aims and utility of the article.

Now in regards to your suggestions, i agree with most of them; but i do worry that Sections II and III will become too detailed. Since we're shooting for an encyclopedic treatment, we should just give broad outlines with references to more detailed sources that the reader can follow up if they care to. My general aim for any article is that it can be easily broken up into large sections, and that the overviews (i.e. -- Section I and II) shouldn't take longer than five or ten minutes to get through on a quick read.

I like what you've done with the current "Sandinista Ideology" and would love to include most of it, but the detail you've provided there is frightening even for someone like me, who is interested in this subject. As i understand things, this 'pedia isn't here to educate people on the details of Sandinism, but only to give a broad outline that will help us understand what its relevance is to the Sandinistas, its broader influences on the movements which use that name, and how this all fits into the history of the region and of the greater American hemisphere.

On that basis, i'd suggest something like this:

 I Overview of the term "Sandinista"
 II History
  A) 1934 - 1950 : Sandinism vs Somocism
  B) 1950 - 1970 : Formation of the new Sandinistas: FRS, MNN, FSLN, etc.
  C) 1970 - 1979 : The struggle against Somoza
  D) 1979 - 1990 : Sandinistas in the Government
  E) 1990 - Present : Sandinistas in Opposition, Convergence, and Debate
 III The Sandinista Ideology
  A) Sandino's ideological roots and Legacy
  B) Sandino in the struggle against Somoza 
  C) FSLN's historical program 
  D) Sandinism vs. Socialism
  E) Today's Sandinistas
 IV  Social Change and the Sandinistas:  Achievements and Undertakings
 V List of Groups and Movements Using the Name 'Sandinista'/ with a Sandinista Ideology
  A) Active
  B) Extinct

What exactly is the "EDSN", and what relationship does it have to Sandino and the Sandinistas? Because i don't know the answer to that question, i can't really comment on it.

As it is, though, what i've suggested are pretty moderate changes, i think, and preserve the bulk of your suggested structure. The biggest challenges will be for us to keep the sub-sections in II and III from getting too dense, or growing too large.

Finally, there will definitely be people who demand a section outlining what sort of relationship Sandinista groups have had to Communism, the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc. So it's probably best to start worrying about that now rather than putting it off 'til later. Stone put to sky 17:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your structure, but we need to have something about Sandino's ideological roots and influences. He is after all the "father" of this movement.

The EDSN was the Ejército Defensor de la Soberania Nacional (Army in Defense of the National Sovereignty); Sandino's Army. Remember that Sandino was a Liberal, but he split from them after the Espino Negro Agreements: he was the only General of the Liberals that didn't surrender. And that's the origin of the EDSN whose main goal was to drive the marines out of Nicaragua.

On the other hand, I've included III.D) Sandinism vs. Socialism, in order to comment that the Sandinista revolution was heading towards Socialism, according to some of its leaders in 1989... If it was a Socialism like Cuba, or the Soviet Union, or a new kind of Socialism, a hybrid, we didn't have the chance to know because of the FSLN defeat in the 1990 elections. --Magicartpro 18:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the strikeout? I totally agree that we need to treat the subject of what Sandino and his (original) movement advocated. There's no problem from me on that, and i'd imagined that would come out naturally in the "Sandino vs Somocism" portion. I can't imagine that we'd be able to describe the differences between those two powers without also touching on the huge differences in their political and social goals. Stone put to sky 09:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

@ Abe Froman -- how do we make a "sandbox", as you call it? And what is it, exactly? Stone put to sky 09:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the strikeout?

You already have: III The Sandinista Ideology ---> A) Sandino's ideological roots and Legacy. --Magicartpro 17:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)