Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I removed the quote The United States did not want to control Nicaragua or the other nations in the region, but it also did not want to allow [economic] developments to get out of control. It wanted Nicaraguans to act independently, except when doing so would affect U.S. interests adversely since it was deliberately twisted by using brackets ([economic]) to change it's meaning. Even if that was the correct meaning, the quote was from a Carter administration official and is thus irrelevant.
Regarding Oxfam, I read through the entire piece and nowhere did it suggest any particular motive for United States policy. The use of Oxfam is thus another distortion.
Regarding the strategy involved the whole point of the Contra mission was to force the Sandinistas to make diplomatic and political concessions during various negotiations that took place in the 1980s. Forcing them to divert resources was part of that strategy, as has been noted. It was not and end in and of itself.
CJK (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
This is the reason I wrote out the background section this way:
From the outset, the Sandinistas had begun transitioning to a "mixed economy" that they said was based on development being governed by the "logic of the majority".[1] In the early 1980s, the World Bank privately noted that their projects were "extraordinarily successful in some sectors, better than anywhere else in the world".[2] The Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) similarly observed in 1983 that Nicaragua was "laying a solid foundation for long-term socio-economic development". As a result, Nicaragua's social reforms were deemed as a "threat of a good example" by the United States. The phrase was coined as the title of a report on Nicaragua by the charitable development agency Oxfam, which observed that "from Oxfam's experience of working in seventy-six developing countries, Nicaragua was to prove exceptional in the strength of that Government's commitment...to improving the condition of the people and encouraging their active participation in the development process".[3] This noted progress was the basis for Washington to regard the Nicaraguan model as a destabilizing influence for the entire region. Secretary of State George Shultz warned, in March 1986, that if the Sandinistas "succeed in consolidating their power," then "all the countries in Latin America, who all face serious internal economic problems, will see radical forces emboldened to exploit these problems".[4] "Nicaragua is the cancer, and we must cut it out," he said.[5] Shultz described the cancer as an "alien ideology".[6]
General John Galvin, leader of U.S. Southern Command, said the threat from Nicaragua was "ideological subversion", which would spread throughout Central America and beyond.[7] There was also concern that Nicaragua could cause political instability for it's neighbors by training radical union and peasant leaders.[8] From 1983-1987, the U.S. military tried to deter social reform in Nicaragua by conducting routine "shows of force" maneuvers in neighboring Honduras and the Caribbean.[9] In 1987, the Honduran president's chief of staff complained there wasn't a wall that could stop the "virus" from encouraging left-wing populism across borders. But "things could be worse", observed Wall Street Journal correspondent, Clifford Krauss. "Fortunately for the neighbors", the political left in Central America were on the decline since the early 1980's.[10][11] By 1985, the death squads in Guatemala and El Salvador had wiped out the trade unions and "popular" organizations that emerged in the late 1970's and early 80's.[12] To that end, the United States became content with trying to stop the "cancer" from spreading by forcing the Sandinistas to divert scarce resources to the military and away from social programs.[13][14][15]
And by the way, the TITLE of Oxfam's book is "Nicaragua: the threat of a good example?"--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Nah, I already said it's "absolutely false". Read inside the book and you explain what you think he's talking about. Don't be throwing words around like "maliciously". You're deletions of solidly sourced reports are questionable at best. All you have to do is read the citations. It's right there displayed for you.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Again I provided solid reports showing that the administration became satisfied with just wrecking the economy to teach others that social reform will not be tolerated. It's all their within this edit page. I'm sure you're familiar with the free trade agenda and all that. That's what this is related to, pre-free trade agreement. Why would the administration care if Nicaragua was supporting the Salvadoran rebels? Because they didn't want the rebels to win. Why? They were fighting against a terror state and the overall leader chosen by the members was hostile to the Soviet Union and Cuba. Well, the answer is obvious. They were also hostile to the "Washington Consensus". They would not accept free trade programs which has very little to do with trade and more to do with "locking in" pro market reforms. Nicaragua and Salvador don't have any vital raw materials but the threat is that the domino could eventually make it's way to countries with vast resources such as Venezuela and the whole system could unravel.
But I'm not going to push for changes here anymore. The subject of the page is too limited for all this.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
There, I worded it better. I'll use it later for something else.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Read inside the book and you explain what you think he's talking about.
I did, and the context is even worse than I originally thought. He was talking about the occupation back in the 1920s. It has nothing to do with the Contras or Sandinista policies, and your contention to the contrary is immensely deceitful.
Again I provided solid reports showing that the administration became satisfied with just wrecking the economy to teach others that social reform will not be tolerated.
Your "solid report" was an Oxfam book which I pointed out to you said no such thing. You have yet to respond.
Well, the answer is obvious. They were also hostile to the "Washington Consensus". They would not accept free trade programs which has very little to do with trade and more to do with "locking in" pro market reforms. Nicaragua and Salvador don't have any vital raw materials but the threat is that the domino could eventually make it's way to countries with vast resources such as Venezuela and the whole system could unravel.
What is "obvious" to you is backed up by approximately zero evidence on your part. I have informed you what both the Reagan administration and the Sandinistas had to say about U.S. policy. You felt free to ignore it, which either shows you have done little to no research on this conflict (outside of fraudulent wannabe historians like Chomsky) or you are merely interested in pushing your own original research.
CJK (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You said, "I did, and the context is even worse than I originally thought. He was talking about the occupation back in the 1920s."
Hmm. You're right about that. I'll remove it myself. Still though, it adds historical context.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The sentence On the other hand, as for example Oxfam suspected, the US government saw "the threat of a good example is also a blatant falsehood, because nowhere in the book does Oxfam claim such motivation.
...President Reagan declared a total embargo on trade with Nicaragua, on the grounds that this small and poor Central American country constituted a threat to (US) national security. That is true, a historical fact which has nothing to do with the false interpretation advanced. His statement on the May 1985 embargo said:
The sentence in the article now says "...the US government planned to use the contras as a means to force the Sandinista government to divert scarce resources to the military and away from social and economic programs" and is reliably sourced.
I never really disputed that that was a tactic. But it ignores the fact that the diversion of resources was supposed to compel the Sandinista government to make concessions or eventually surrender power. This is supported both by the Reagan administration and the Sandinista government itself.
As for the other two points, I mentioned them not because they are in the article but to show just how utterly deceptive the edits are in general.
CJK (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
CJK wrote: "The sentence On the other hand, as for example Oxfam suspected, the US government saw "the threat of a good example is also a blatant falsehood, because nowhere in the book does Oxfam claim such motivation." Well, Oxfam's book goes on and on about what a good example Sandinistan Nicaragua was in terms of economic/social policies... it's introduction is mocking the US perceiving small and poor Nicaragua as a threat to national security... And the book's title is "The threat of a good example" - how do you think they meant that? --Mallexikon (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This isn't hard. Oxfam said Nicaragua was a good example. It did not say that that was the motivating factor behind U.S. policy. Your contention to the contrary is therefore a gross misrepresentation. It is also flat-out illogical seeing how the U.S. gave Nicaragua over $100 million in aid and facilitated hundreds of millions of other loans, before they were caught red-handed. None of this is mentioned in your version.
One of your sources says Foreign observers generally reported that the election was fair. Opposition groups, however, said that the FSLN domination of government organs, mass organizations groups, and much of the media created a climate of intimidation that precluded a truly open election. You included the view of foreign observers while ignoring the views of others.
CJK (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
That's not how neutrality works. The views of both parties as well as neutral parties have to represented.
If all you can do is repeat the title of the book I'm afraid that we're not going to get anywhere. If you can't find any support for your position in the actual text then your interpretation of the title is wrong, or at least unsupported.
CJK (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say we should state the opinion of the opposition as a fact. I said their POV should be included.
It really is irrelevant how you or I want to interpret the title. If you can't back up your interpretation with the actual contents of the book then it is not for you to interpret.
CJK (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you asking me to read their minds? It doesn't matter what I think or you think. I presume it was just an attempt to mock the Reagan administration's rhetoric. It obviously is not a serious question.
CJK (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Your changes did nothing to address the issue at hand.
CJK (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Your version continues to falsely state On the other hand, as for example Oxfam suspected, Nicaragua posed "the threat of a good example" if the economic restructuring and social reforms undertaken by the Sandinistas in the early eighties (which had already received praise not just by Oxfam, but also by the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank[41]) succeeded.
CJK (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Please provide the page numbers that substantiate the statement.
CJK (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I find absolutely nothing that substantiates Oxfam suspected Nicaragua posed "the threat of a good example" as the reforms undertaken by the Sandinistas in the early eighties to improve the condition of the people... started to succeed.
As has already been pointed out to you, the Oxfam book does not discuss the motivations surrounding the Contra policy, which is what this article is about, not Sandinista reforms.
CJK (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I find it disturbing that you seem to be unaware that the topic at hand is the Contras, and the U.S. policy regarding the contras, not the Sandinista reforms. Oxfam's compliments regarding those reforms are of no relevance to this article.
If you are arguing that it is relevant based on your unsupported interpretation of the title there is not much we can do. That would seem to indicate that you are more interested in pushing Chomskyite propaganda than accurate history. As pointed out to you twice, the book does not seek to address the reasons behind the Contra policy. Implying that it does simply misinforms the reader.
CJK (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you know very well what is "incorrect about this". Your version falsely indicates that Oxfam believed that the U.S. funding for the Contras was motivated by Sandinista domestic policies. In fact, the book does not address the issue of motivation at all. It isn't even about the Contras, so why is it here?
Stop waving the title around like it means something. If it meant what you say it meant the book would just say so. The fact that it doesn't indicates that the title is not to be taken literally. That would be the interpretation of anybody who is not a fan of Chomsky.
20:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
You don't seem to grasp the point I am trying to get across, namely that the Oxfam book is not relevant to the section of the article we are editing. It does not make any assessment of the political background of the Contra war.
21:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
They put it on the cover, but didn't see fit to write about it in the book? What utter nonsense.
So you don't have to wonder: the U.S. "attacked" them because of their support of the FMLN--support that they themselves admitted occurred. Before that the U.S. was sending tens of millions in economic assistance to Nicaragua. I can provide sources for this, since you seem to be unaware of some of the more basic facts that concern the Contra War.
CJK (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Oxfam's report on Sandinista reforms has nothing to do with the political background of the Contra War. Your "argument" is based on your personal interpretation of the title which is wholly unsupported by the ensuing text. As you can see, the title is a question, and the question is not answered--hence it is a rhetorical question and would be read as a rhetorical question by anyone who is not interested in propaganda.
CJK (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Oxfam's report has nothing to do with this article, and thus needs to be removed. Your contention to the contrary is your unsupported interpretation.
CJK (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure why that would help, given that I never argued it was not a reliable source.
What I have said is that you have either intentionally or unintentionally distorted the meaning of the title (a rhetorical question) so that you can act as if the contents of the book are related to the political background of the Contra war, when any plain reading of it would show otherwise.
CJK (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
This section/article is not about Nicaraguan reforms in the early 1980s, so there is no reason for it to be there at all.
CJK (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The title, as has been pointed out to you, is a rhetorical question designed to mock the Reagan administration's rhetoric. As proof, nowhere in the book do you see the title's question answered or commented upon in any way, shape or form. Which should indicate to any fair-minded reader that it is not to be taken literally. The only people who would think otherwise are those who are already predisposed to deeply despise the United States.
The material was inserted by a user who was banned for copyright violations and was not even read by him, as his own admission shows. Rather it was stolen by him from another fraud, Chomsky or someone associated with him. Why exactly are you investing so much time defending it?
CJK (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I said it was referring to the rhetoric employed by the administration as of 1985. It does not discuss the origins aka "background" of said administration's policies.
CJK (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see why Chomsky is an appropriate source. Just because he expresses a number of unique opinions does not mean that his WP:FRINGE view should be inserted in every article.
CJK (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Jim Cummins appears to have no expertise into this matter, so I am not sure why he is relevant either.
CJK (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you are (once again) intervening to obstruct my edits.
Chomsky's views are certainly the definition of fringe, I'm not sure which "mainstream sources" you have in mind that agree with him on this issue.
CJK (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Um, no, per WP:FRINGE the definition is actually A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field. You need to provide evidence that Chomsky's opinion of Nicaragua is broadly supported by said scholarship.
CJK (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, I'm glad you understand. So you need to prove that his theory does not depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view.
CJK (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
How am I supposed to prove a negative, namely that mainstream scholarship does not agree with a fringe argument? The onus is actually on you to prove that mainstream scholarship endorses his position on Nicaragua.
CJK (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a "scientific" issue, and I explained that your author has no expertise into this matter. It has to be supported by scholarship in its field per WP:FRINGE.
CJK (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
If nobody mainstream discusses Chomsky's theory about Nicaragua (because it is fringe), it logically cannot be proven that it is fringe.
As you probably are already aware, Chomsky is a linguist, not a historian. He claims to be an anarchist which is very much a fringe ideology. You need to present the views of historians to demonstrate that his opinion is not fringe.
CJK (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Then please show me where, in "mainstream academic writing", Chomsky's theory about Nicaragua is accepted.
CJK (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
What part of "please show me" was abrasive to you?
As WP:FRINGE states clearly, the theory must be broadly supported by scholarship in its field. Thus far, nothing fulfilling that criteria has been provided.
CJK (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
If we want to let the readers draw their own conclusions, why don't we just state the facts and let them form their own theories?
CJK (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Who cares what he "suspected"? As I said before your source violates WP:FRINGE.
CJK (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
All I'm asking for is evidence that his theory is "broadly supported by scholarship in its field" per WP:FRINGE. If it isn't fringe, you should have no problem producing such evidence.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Contras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi TBTIS, could you explain in more detail precisely why you removed the section on Chomsky/Oxfam? As I see it, that section provided a perspective not covered elsewhere, and it is hardly undue, so it needs to remain. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
That would be my bad, I wasn't maintaining an accusatory silence, I just saw this when I was very busy, and forgot to reply. No, I didn't have anything else at this moment. Thanks for being very responsive; would that every editor were this way. Cheers, friend. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
" After US support was banned by Congress"
I think the congress blocked funding which is by no means the same as banning support. The congress has not the power to ban support.
Jwalter (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I was expecting the History section to tell me who won the war, but unless I missed it, it doesn't cover this. Even if the war is on-going, surely something has happened since 1987.
Short answer is the dictator Ortega won in long term. In the 80s the Contras won militarily which forced Ortega to negotiate and have more or less free elections in 1990 which he lost by a landslide. But that election was only a half victory because Ortega held on to the military and national police force so democracy never stood a chance. Through corruption, murder and a deal on abortion with Cardinal Obando y Bravo Ortega stole the 2006 election with 35% of the vote. All elections since have been accurately condemned as 100% fraudulent by US State Dept and international observers. Campesinos out of desperation have started re-arming and resisting but without outside support it is a desperate, quixotic struggle bordering on suicidal. I haven't visited this page in years, but I agree if the title is "Contras" it needs to cover from 1990 to present. One consolation is those years have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt who was persecuting the campesinos, and who WERE the campesinos. [16]
Tiomono (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Contras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Contras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Contras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
An opinion piece in a news outlet is not subject to the same oversight that a journalistic piece is, and as such is not as reliable. Placing an entire block quote from it is undue weight, unless the author is an authority on Central American history or US foreign policy (of which I see no indication at the moment). Vanamonde (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
How can we call them "rebels" if they became active the same year that the previous government was ousted by actual rebels. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.