This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I've done some significant reworking of this article, focusing on moving toward a NPOV. A few thoughts:
See the " President" article, and I think you will agree that the term can apply to a head of state regardless of how the leader came to power. Almost any source you can look at agrees that Ortega was President of Nicaragua. Calling Ortega “dictator” ESPECIALLY while calling Somoza “president”, expresses a clear POV.
Criticisms of broad Sandinista policies like land reform would fit better in articles like " Sandinista National Liberation Front" and " Contra".
Discussion of the pact definitely seems relevant, but the stuff I'm reading online is unclear and I'm having trouble understanding exactly how it effects Ortega (and Bolaños). I've left it pretty vague for now but I'm concerned this aspect still might not be very NPOV yet.
I think this is a significant improvement, but I look forward to seeing where this article goes from here! -- Brian Z 04:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I cut the name of María José Bravo from the main article because she was mudered by a liberal politician, during the provincial election of 2004, and not because any critic position against Ortega.
17.09.2006 -- The sentence where you removed her name no longer makes any sense. It needs to be fixed.
-- Pkondrat 02:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree that the old version was a little uncritical, but this just swings WAY too far in the other direction. To call this new version NPOV is absurd. I'm going to leave it alone because I'm about to go to bed and don't want simply revert to the old version... There are obviously very different ways reasonable people can interpret the facts here; let's make a good faith effort at balance and objectivity ASAP.-- Brian Z 07:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
to everyking: Ortega is a dictator. that election in the 1980's was a sham. the opposition could not participate because they were jailed in the infamous chipote prison in managua. of course this will not appear in books written by leftist american academics...........
Perhaps this is a matter of opinion, but the 2nd paragraph seems to say that the Sadinistas were voted out just because of their own shortcomings, and not that the people knew voting them out was the price of the US stopping the terrorism against them.
What definitely doesn't qualify as a valid point to leave to matters of opinion is that the US-funded Contra army's actions amounted to "harassment"; the deaths of thirty thousand people cannot be described with the same term that applies to prank phone calls.
A couple of points:
-- Sheldon Rampton 17:52, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It is a non context opinion: You have this article indexed as "Saavedra", that, because your english name logic: First Name, Middle Name, Last Name. The problem with this is that in the Spanish Language, we don´t give much importance to the middle name as you don´t give it to the "Mother`s name", the fact is that "Ortega" is not the middle name but the First (Or father, whatever you want to call it) Name and "Saavedra" is the "Mother`s" Name. I don`t expect this opinion of mine remains in this topic, it is just for your information.
Some of them are good, but I have to object to "allegations of." The junta (post-1984 the "elected cabinet") did suppress dissent, it officially suspended civil liberties after a Contra group blew up some bridge in 1982 (and yes, their advocates always excused "no dissent" as a wartime measure, which can be noted.) and Marxism-Leninism was always the official Sandinista ideology. maybe it received sympathy from some social democracies in Western and Northern Europe but it was hardly "democratic" except that it had elections in 1984 and allowed some token opposition that got harassed. J. Parker Stone 06:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I've revised a sentence that previously read as follows:
The problems with this sentence include the following:
-- Sheldon Rampton 16:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see some citations for the allegations that Daniel Ortega is corrupt
19.09.2006 -- In the same vein, the characterization of the Contra as "various anti-Sandinista guerilla movements" is not at all substantiated. There is ample historical agreement at this point that the Contra were created by the US, first covertly, then overtly. They were an arm of US policy. And they were not a "guerilla movement" so much as a terrorist force, attacking the symbols of Sandinista policy, things like farm collectives, schools, and health clinics. The article also does not say anything about the admission of the Bush Administration (the first one) that they funnelled millions of dollars into Chamorro's campaign, in violation of specific provisions put in place by the US Congress. That seems a significant little detail to mention about 1990. -- Pkondrat 02:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Where should we put the allegations that Ms. America (funny...) has annouced against Ortega. Should it be simply placed on the last part of the article or should it be treated with a little more detail and be devoted a section? I mean, a rape allegatiojn is serious, so treatment of both sides should be considered. Let me know what you think. Brusegadi 02:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Go for it. El Rojo 02:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted Ana Fodor's edits today because they are massive, unsupported, and biased. They should defenetly be discussed first. Brusegadi 07:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The opening line currently reads that Ortega is the president-elect of Nicaragua. This is false. A president-elect is someone who has already been elected, but has yet to take office. The election is currently underway, so he is not the president-elect but simply a presidential candidate. JF Mephisto 17:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think when discussing the CIA's funding of the Contras under President Reagan, one should mention Oliver North and the Iran Contra Affair which was one of the biggest scandals of the 80's. Ivygohnair 23:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Go for it! SqueakBox 00:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I dont think that just writing "See Oliver North and the I ran Contra Affair." does the article any good. I say you go for it, but as long as you expand on it. Otherwise, it is better to just keep the hypelink to the contras, since the contras article contains all the relevant info. So, for readability, reduction of redundance, and aesthetic reasons, I am removing that note. Brusegadi 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. I have expanded it and integrated it in a readable, aesthetic and unredundant way into the text. It is not only unredundant but such an important part of the Contra affair that I feel strongly that if Wikipedia is to be an objective encyclopedia and not a platform for partisan views, this should NOT be deleted by anyone. Please do not start an unnecessary polemic war here. Ivygohnair 10:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks good now. I agree with you, but things needed to be done correctly. Good work, Brusegadi 23:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why this qoute "A Fitting Quote: 'So this is how freedom dies with people giving the death a standing ovation'--Obi Wan appears in artcle but I can't find it to edit. I'm a little rusty around here but this seems like some kind of tricky vandilsim. I refreshed my browser but it still appears. -- Edivorce 01:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Its not there now, SqueakBox 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
any reasons that the rape or abuse allegations by his step daughter were taken out? seems notable enough, propose to put them back. trueblood 10:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
In the Sandinista Revolution section, paragraph 3, the following statement appears: "...many opposition parties boycotted it, under pressure from U.S. embassy officials"
This is commentary and should be referenced or otherwise relegated to the discussion page with other commentaries. Origen
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I've done some significant reworking of this article, focusing on moving toward a NPOV. A few thoughts:
See the " President" article, and I think you will agree that the term can apply to a head of state regardless of how the leader came to power. Almost any source you can look at agrees that Ortega was President of Nicaragua. Calling Ortega “dictator” ESPECIALLY while calling Somoza “president”, expresses a clear POV.
Criticisms of broad Sandinista policies like land reform would fit better in articles like " Sandinista National Liberation Front" and " Contra".
Discussion of the pact definitely seems relevant, but the stuff I'm reading online is unclear and I'm having trouble understanding exactly how it effects Ortega (and Bolaños). I've left it pretty vague for now but I'm concerned this aspect still might not be very NPOV yet.
I think this is a significant improvement, but I look forward to seeing where this article goes from here! -- Brian Z 04:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I cut the name of María José Bravo from the main article because she was mudered by a liberal politician, during the provincial election of 2004, and not because any critic position against Ortega.
17.09.2006 -- The sentence where you removed her name no longer makes any sense. It needs to be fixed.
-- Pkondrat 02:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree that the old version was a little uncritical, but this just swings WAY too far in the other direction. To call this new version NPOV is absurd. I'm going to leave it alone because I'm about to go to bed and don't want simply revert to the old version... There are obviously very different ways reasonable people can interpret the facts here; let's make a good faith effort at balance and objectivity ASAP.-- Brian Z 07:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
to everyking: Ortega is a dictator. that election in the 1980's was a sham. the opposition could not participate because they were jailed in the infamous chipote prison in managua. of course this will not appear in books written by leftist american academics...........
Perhaps this is a matter of opinion, but the 2nd paragraph seems to say that the Sadinistas were voted out just because of their own shortcomings, and not that the people knew voting them out was the price of the US stopping the terrorism against them.
What definitely doesn't qualify as a valid point to leave to matters of opinion is that the US-funded Contra army's actions amounted to "harassment"; the deaths of thirty thousand people cannot be described with the same term that applies to prank phone calls.
A couple of points:
-- Sheldon Rampton 17:52, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It is a non context opinion: You have this article indexed as "Saavedra", that, because your english name logic: First Name, Middle Name, Last Name. The problem with this is that in the Spanish Language, we don´t give much importance to the middle name as you don´t give it to the "Mother`s name", the fact is that "Ortega" is not the middle name but the First (Or father, whatever you want to call it) Name and "Saavedra" is the "Mother`s" Name. I don`t expect this opinion of mine remains in this topic, it is just for your information.
Some of them are good, but I have to object to "allegations of." The junta (post-1984 the "elected cabinet") did suppress dissent, it officially suspended civil liberties after a Contra group blew up some bridge in 1982 (and yes, their advocates always excused "no dissent" as a wartime measure, which can be noted.) and Marxism-Leninism was always the official Sandinista ideology. maybe it received sympathy from some social democracies in Western and Northern Europe but it was hardly "democratic" except that it had elections in 1984 and allowed some token opposition that got harassed. J. Parker Stone 06:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I've revised a sentence that previously read as follows:
The problems with this sentence include the following:
-- Sheldon Rampton 16:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see some citations for the allegations that Daniel Ortega is corrupt
19.09.2006 -- In the same vein, the characterization of the Contra as "various anti-Sandinista guerilla movements" is not at all substantiated. There is ample historical agreement at this point that the Contra were created by the US, first covertly, then overtly. They were an arm of US policy. And they were not a "guerilla movement" so much as a terrorist force, attacking the symbols of Sandinista policy, things like farm collectives, schools, and health clinics. The article also does not say anything about the admission of the Bush Administration (the first one) that they funnelled millions of dollars into Chamorro's campaign, in violation of specific provisions put in place by the US Congress. That seems a significant little detail to mention about 1990. -- Pkondrat 02:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Where should we put the allegations that Ms. America (funny...) has annouced against Ortega. Should it be simply placed on the last part of the article or should it be treated with a little more detail and be devoted a section? I mean, a rape allegatiojn is serious, so treatment of both sides should be considered. Let me know what you think. Brusegadi 02:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Go for it. El Rojo 02:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted Ana Fodor's edits today because they are massive, unsupported, and biased. They should defenetly be discussed first. Brusegadi 07:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The opening line currently reads that Ortega is the president-elect of Nicaragua. This is false. A president-elect is someone who has already been elected, but has yet to take office. The election is currently underway, so he is not the president-elect but simply a presidential candidate. JF Mephisto 17:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think when discussing the CIA's funding of the Contras under President Reagan, one should mention Oliver North and the Iran Contra Affair which was one of the biggest scandals of the 80's. Ivygohnair 23:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Go for it! SqueakBox 00:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I dont think that just writing "See Oliver North and the I ran Contra Affair." does the article any good. I say you go for it, but as long as you expand on it. Otherwise, it is better to just keep the hypelink to the contras, since the contras article contains all the relevant info. So, for readability, reduction of redundance, and aesthetic reasons, I am removing that note. Brusegadi 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. I have expanded it and integrated it in a readable, aesthetic and unredundant way into the text. It is not only unredundant but such an important part of the Contra affair that I feel strongly that if Wikipedia is to be an objective encyclopedia and not a platform for partisan views, this should NOT be deleted by anyone. Please do not start an unnecessary polemic war here. Ivygohnair 10:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks good now. I agree with you, but things needed to be done correctly. Good work, Brusegadi 23:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why this qoute "A Fitting Quote: 'So this is how freedom dies with people giving the death a standing ovation'--Obi Wan appears in artcle but I can't find it to edit. I'm a little rusty around here but this seems like some kind of tricky vandilsim. I refreshed my browser but it still appears. -- Edivorce 01:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Its not there now, SqueakBox 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
any reasons that the rape or abuse allegations by his step daughter were taken out? seems notable enough, propose to put them back. trueblood 10:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
In the Sandinista Revolution section, paragraph 3, the following statement appears: "...many opposition parties boycotted it, under pressure from U.S. embassy officials"
This is commentary and should be referenced or otherwise relegated to the discussion page with other commentaries. Origen
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |