Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Contras

Contras

request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 02:01, June 8 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

1. Student7 (talk · contribs), filing party
2. Groggy Dice (talk · contribs)
3. Annoynmous (talk · contribs), red linked but has user page
4. Jpineda84 (talk · contribs), red linked but has user page
5. MarkB2 (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Contras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• WP:POV - most editors seem to believe article is biased. This is a general comment. Editors believe that others are slanting their remarks. Disagreement seem to focus around the following two general questions:
  • Should the results of the 1985 election be listed? In what way? (Were they completely fair with all sides being given a fair crack at the electorate?)
  • Who was enrolled as members of the Contras?:
    • Should the Milpistas be listed as a separate section?
    • Were many members of the old Guard were involved in forming early groups like the 15th of September Legion"?
    • were they Former somozans
    • were they mercenaries from argentina or other central american country?
    • were they peasants?
    • Are all anti-Sandinista National Liberation Front (i.e. Sandinista) groups called "Contras" (automatically)?
      • Are there (rogue) military groups that opposed the Sandinistas that should not be called "Contras"?
    • Was Jaime Irving Steidel the FDN's field commander?
    • Should there be an "atrocities/human rights" section? What should go in it?
  • Is the Iran-Contra affair germane to this article? Should it be summarized here?
  • How can the Sandinistas be characterized?
    • Can they be called "Soviet aligned"?
• WP:Foot - footnotes are infrequently used on disputed material
• WP:RELY - when footnotes are given, editors dispute scholarliness of source. This is a very key point. There are two sources that were debated:
  • Robert Kagan, A Twilight Struggle and
  • Timothy C. Brown, The Real Contra War. No current editor seems to have a copy of Brown, but this calls into question all the previous footnotes which can't now be checked by anyone and over which othere editors may have inserted their own opinion. Two editors believe both Brown and Kagan to be "too right wing" and therefore (QED) untrustworthy.
  • Is Arturo Cruz, Jr. a reliable source?
  • Is Gary Webb a reliable source?
• WP:FAITH - Three editors are not assuming that other editors are doing their best. This and attacking others are preventing any productive discussion.
• WP:ATTACK - Three editors are attacking and responding to each other on the article discussion page. Discussions are not productive.

Mediation

Opening comments from Dweller

Hello everyone. Thank you for agreeing to my mediation. I'll do my best to help you reach a version that everyone is (at least) reasonably content with. It's useful to try to keep discussion centralised, so I propose to keep it all here, rather than at various talk pages. Please help me with this.

I need to do some background reading to get my head round the basics of the dispute. I plan to return here with a childish, simplified version of what I understand to be the most essential elements. With your help, once I've got it right, we'll be able to move forward. Please watch this space for now. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Simplified version of the problem

Below, please find my simplified version of the problem. As stated above, it is no more than an extremely brief skeleton of what is a much more complex reality. Please read my version and then in your own space, either agree or disagree with my statement.

Important: If you disagree, please only disagree with me and not with comments added by others.

1. A number of detailed issues within the article are the subject of disagreement, notably regarding how to describe the Contras
2. Furthermore, there are fundamental disagreements over the inclusion of the Iran-Contra affair and the inclusion of the 1985 election results
3. Some editors dispute the reliability of some sources others consider to be WP:RS
4. Controversial material has been added that is uncited
5. Some of the discussion has crossed the line into incivility etc

Please respond in your own area, below. --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Student7's area

• Agree with summary.11:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Groggy Dice's area

1. Agree
2. Partially agree While "there are fundamental disagreements over the inclusion" of some matters, I wouldn't say those two are good examples. I don't know who is opposing inclusion of the Iran-contra affair, and annoynmous has stated his willingness to compromise on the 1984 election.
3. Agree
4. Mostly agree There are many real controversies, some are pseudo-controversies. But both could use some citations.
5. Partially agree True, "some of the discussion has crossed the line into incivility," but I wouldn't say that there has been so much of that as to be a major issue. The discussion has been frustrating, but for reasons other than outright incivility.
6. For the record, I'd like to state that while most of the existing discussion has revolved around the issues annoynmous has had with my edits, I have plenty of problems with his version. Not understanding that there are unenumerated differences would give a false picture of the full breadth of issues in dispute. 15:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on responding to any of the comments at this stage, but I thought it important to note that I've taken on board your number 6 and understand why you'd want to mention it. Having said that, I hope you'll agree that it is not an issue that needs to be resolved, as with the other five. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Annoynmous' area

• Agree with summary.22:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jpineda84's area

1. Agree 2. Partially Agree – I wouldn’t consider this one of the main obstacles 3. Agree – However, it seems, using the example of Timothy Brown, disagreements on this issue are based on ideological grounds rather than on the respectability of the scholarly work. 4. Mostly Agree 5. Partially Agree – There is definite frustration between editors. Jpineda84 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

If the two missing participants aren't able to join in soon, we'll sadly have to move on without them. This would be a pity, as it jeopardises the chances of a successful resolution. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

MarkB2 and this process

Regrettably, MarkB2 hasn't been able to respond to my messages at his talk page or by email. On review, his contributions seem quite patchy and he may these days be just an occassional contributor (See Special:Contributions/MarkB2). I am prepared to move ahead without him. If anyone dissents from this, please post to my talk page. If MarkB2 returns, he will be welcome to participate in the process. While it may be hard to unpick consensus established in his absence, it may be perfectly possible to accommodate his views without problem. I maintain an open mind and would welcome his return. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The five issues

We'll be tackling the five issues I listed above, one by one, but not necessarily in order. I appreciate that not everyone has fully agreed to my summary - returning to it is not me stating that it is right, but merely a signpost for getting into the disagreements. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

First issue - civility

We can and will crack these problems, but only by discussion. Heated argument is unhelpful. Incivility is damaging in the extreme. This is how I propose we work. I won't demean anyone by asking you to sign up to this, but I will ask everyone to bear it in mind.

1. No incivility. No comments about other users, no name-calling. Please go to extreme lengths to avoid even an impression of incivility.
2. No heat in this discussion. We'll need to get into some nitty gritty arguments. If you feel upset or annoyed about something, please don't comment here, or to other users' talk pages, or article talk. Just post to my user talk. Editing when irritated usually makes things worse.
3. Keep the discussion centralised. Other than the exception I just mentioned, please keep all the debate here, not at the article talk and definitely not by editing the article with "explanatory" edit summaries.
4. I will try to keep the debate flowing through me, at least initially, so that if you need to disagree with someone it's with an uninvolved party that's hard to get annoyed with. Please respect this and follow my requests for how to feed back.

That's it. Thanks for not feeling patronised (!). This one was easy; I'm looking forward to solving the other issues with you. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Second issue - RS

Please list in this section any source that you would like to challenge. Please follow the suggested format and please do not debate others' inclusions at this stage. We will discuss each one separately. --Dweller (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• William Blum - not a Nicaragua specialist; obviously the template used to create human rights section

• Catholic Institute for International Relations - Right to Survive is an apologia for the Sandinistas

• The Guardian - provokes each side to try to "out-atrocity" the other, rather than sober analysis

• Gary Webb - especially not without rebuttal

• National Security Archive - not their primary documents, but the "spin" put on them

• Americas Watch - probably will be included, but still not objective

• Brody Report - ditto, pretty much

• The Real Contra War - having skimmed parts of it through Google Books, I agree it needs to be used with caution

Groggy Dice T | C 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree fully with this list and see no reason why they should not be included in the article. These are all reliale sources and just because groggy dice doesn't like there conclusions doesn't mean he can just arbritrally delete them.annoynmous 14:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Annoynmous. It's fine to disagree - that's what the next subsection is dealing with. Everyone's come here because they're happy to find a consensus, so no-one will be arbitrarily doing anything. --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

RS Discussion and updates

Discussion of the various RS listed by parties above will take place at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Contras/RS.

Current status:

• Groggy Dice - open
• Student7 - none listed currently
• Annoynmous - none listed currently
• Jpineda84 - none listed currently

Third issue - Topic inclusions

I noted dissent surrounding the inclusion of two topics, the Iran-Contra affair and a set of election results. Subsequent comments lead me to believe consensus might be easily achieved. Here's hoping. Please indicate below whether you think they should be included or excluded.

• Groggy Dice - yes no

As I've stated, I don't know who wants to exclude Iran-Contra entirely. Disagreements may develop over what to say or how much to say, but I'm not against inclusion.

As for the elections: imagine that the Viet Cong article led off by stating that they "continued their campaign despite fully democratic South Vietnamese elections in 1967 in which 5/6ths of the electorate voted." Not only would many people dispute that characterization of the 1967 elections, putting it at the top of the article would suggest that this was a vital point in the study of the Viet Cong. Would the problem be solved by presenting a variety of opinions about the fairness of the 1967 elections? No, the extended treatment of the elections, even if itself objective, would only magnify the impression that the fairness of the 1967 elections was an issue of burning importance for the Viet Cong article. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Student7 - yes. yes

Agree with Groggy dice on Iran-Contra.

Think (so far) that election should be included. This was the Sandanistas claim to power. It would be up to me, as a nay-sayer, to demonstrate that it was kind of like the last election in Iran. Therefore the Sandanistas did not merit slavish loyalty from anyone (including Contras, of course!)

• Annoynmous -
• Jpineda84 - I don't oppose the inclusion of Iran-Contra or elections, as long as it remains relevant to the domestic resistance. Jpineda84 (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Progress of this mediation

I am unhappy that, having lost one participant pretty much at the start, we now seem to have lost another. Annoynmous hasn't edited at all for 12 days now and we are down to just three of the original five participants.

Groggy, Student and JPineda, do you think that continuing the mediation will lead to a meaningful result? Would you rather abandon it, pause and wait for Annoynmous' return or keep it going? Happy for this to be an open debate, below. Please ensure your email is enabled, with a valid email address, so we can avoid some of the communication problems I'm having with Annoynmous. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we resolve any disagreements between Groggy Dice and JPineda? Are they similiar? I agree that Annoynmous disappearance is a serious loss to the mediation. Student7 (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Your question is ambiguous, so I'll reply both ways. If you mean "is it possible to" (...resolve the disagreements), well, we're in the early stages, but I believe so. They seem reasonable and open to good argument and willing to find a compromise. If you mean "Could we just" (...resolve the disagreements) the answer is more complex. There's no formal insistence within the mediation mechanics that would prevent it continuing, it's just that I'm concerned about how meaningful a mediation it's becoming. Hence, I opened this discussion up, to find out what the remaining three of you think. Do you think that there is good value in finding common ground between the three of you, if Annoynmous is missing? --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I was planning on continuing with some comments in the RS section on Blum and The Guardian, and I might go ahead with that. However, I do think that it would be a good idea to suspend the creation of any new sections of the mediation while awaiting Annoynmous' return. While it's true that Jpineda and I have differences, both of us share pro-contra sympathies. If we were to resolve our differences before Annoynmous got back to the mediation, it could make him feel that he was facing a united front. It would also give him a daunting amount of material to catch up on, and reply to. I don't know how long we should wait to see if Annoynmous' absence is permanent. The mediation, I suppose, can be put on ice indefinitely, but the article is still out there. I think it would be a good idea to continue to refrain from editing the article, for at least a week. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think many of the issues, especially the human rights section which I am not a contributor, would require the contribution of the others. My main concern is the inclusion of the milpistas and other smaller Contra groups as well as the definition of Contra. However, that seems to be a more marginal issue compared to the human rights section which I have no strong opinion. Jpineda84 (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

One of my concerns is that the article not include so much material on the smaller groups, that it loses sight of the fact that the FDN outnumbered all those other groups combined. On the other hand, a flaw of the human rights section (among others) is that it speaks of "the Contras" as a single entity, when some groups came under more criticism than others. We three could likely resolve our differences (and even if we couldn't, I doubt that I'd be upset enough with their edits to revert-war with them). But I'm worried about the effect that moving forward with only the contra sympathizers could have on mediation dynamics. A stable article will require NPOV buy-in from anti-contra editors, not just pro-contra ones, so I don't want to take steps that could make it likelier that Annoynmous (and MarkB2, if he comes back) will drop out, or dig in their heels. --Groggy Dice T | C 21:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I, too am pro-contra, so will defer to what everyone else thinks. Clearly we can't get very far without annonymous.

Not to get into it too far, I did notice that Brown early on says that the name "Contras" was applied by the Sandanistas as an insulting term, lumping together five separate groups. Like calling people "Antis." As in "anti-abortion" or "anti-life!" Student7 (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've invited the mediation committee to review this discussion and, pending their comments, I'll be right back here. --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that the article be semi-protected for "a time". There needs to be some downside to not showing up! Forcing an editor to register, doesn't seem that much of an imposition in this case. Further, the article will seldom benefit from random unregistered users anyway. Student7 (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

??? Both Annoynmous and MarkB2 are both registered users, so semi-protection would have no effect on them. Nor have they been editing the article in the past couple of weeks. Plus, mediation is supposed to be an entirely voluntary process, not one with a coercive "downside" for not participating. --Groggy Dice T | C 15:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's disruption at the article, you can request semi or full protection through the usual channels. The mediation protocols are strict that I'm not to fall into the trap of being a policeman. It makes sense - it'd make my role as an intermediary, facilitating dialogue and compromise utterly impossible, as I'd alienate at least one side. --Dweller (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Annonymous is supposedly "back" whatever that means for him. He reverted an edit on the Contras article. How you get his attention here on a regular basis, I don't know. Student7 (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long for me to respond, I thought we were still waiting for some people sign off on aspects of the mdiation process. I guess I lost track and didn't check in as much as I should have.

Anyway as I've said before my main complaint has always been groggy dice using certain very highly biased sources and stating them as fact. If he wants to include them that's fine, but he has to state them as the authors opinion, not absolute fact. I there are also certain sources that groggy considers biased the other way. If he feels anything attributed to those sources is stated as absolute fact and not as opinion he is free to change them as well. That has been the compromise I've been arguing for some time now along with the complete restoration of the human rights section.

Also the opening language has a lot of hyperbole language like "the rebels proclaimed democratic goals" that needs to be changed.annoynmous 06:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(Dweller on break. Maybe back 8/3?).Student7 (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I would appreciate it if we could avoid editing the article until then and make sure the compromise version is maintained.annoynmous 17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on the Contra page is progessing slightly smoother than before. The problem is that it "covers the map" far too quickly. We can't home in on the discussion and we really (IMO) need someone to guide the discussion so we stick to the point and get it settled in some way. With two editors, the discussion page might work out eventually. But with three or four with pronounced opinions, we just aren't getting anyplace. So I would appreciate a restart (start?) of mediation here. Student7 (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I would rather see the discussion continue here rather than the Contra talk page. I think we need a "guide" to keep discussion focused on one issue until it is either solved or temporarily shelved by mutual consent. The tendency on the Contra discussion page is to evolve to all points at once which makes it difficult or impossible to make progress.Student7 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Annoynmous, if Groggy is using "highly biased sources" please list them at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Contras#Second_issue_-_RS. I also encourage you to come to the subpage and join the discussion of the sources Groggy has listed as non RS. --Dweller (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Look I'm not arguing for taking out any sources. Groggy Dice can have any source he wants, my only condition is that he has to state them as opinion and not absolute fact. I happen to think that a lot of them are biased, but that's my opinion. Just like it's only groggy's opinion that the sights he listed above are biased. I cannot except any removal of the human rights section or the drug smuggling sections and I'm sorry I am just not going to budge on that point.

Here is my proposal to groggy for a compromise since that is the point of this mediation. We get to keep everything we want and we can't take anything out. However, we both have to make sure that our sources are stated as opinion and not as absolute fact. We make sure the language of the entire article is as neutral as possible. Neither of us will probably be completely happy with the end result, but it will be sufficient enough to stop us from edit warring. That is my proposal.annoynmous 11:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(Not sure where these arguments should go. Dweller - please feel free to move mine). This is a good high level policy. "Brown said that in 1981 that... However, the UN Human Rights committee said in 1982 that...." So it is opinion met with answers. We have to understand that not all points will be equally answered. Some answers may be lame. Some accusations may be lame! We need some mechanism to control references. We've talked over the top ones we use. What about others that someone has "just found"? Anyway, are all mentioned usable?Student7 (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time during your RfB to return to this mediation, and congratulations, Dweller.

I appreciate Annoynmous' step towards compromise, but I don't think his deal on sourcing would result in a good article, and if attempted will break down in practice. For example, in the past he has suggested that he would be willing to let in the claim that peasants comprised the majority of the contras, but only if it was attributed as Brown's opinion. However, this would falsely give the impression that this was just one biased observer's opinion, when all informed observers agree on this point. Even Edgar Chamorro, the liberal Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus, and the FSLN itself accept this. And if a source ever turned up claiming that most contras were foreign mercenaries, it shouldn't be introduced as a counterpoint to "Brown's" opinion; instead, that would be evidence that the source doesn't know what it's talking about, and should be thrown out entirely. So I still foresee disputes arising over what could be stated as fact, and what had to be framed as opinion.

It's taking longer to organize my thoughts than I thought it would, so I will return later. --Groggy Dice T | C 07:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well not all informed observers agree on this point. In fact I would say that very few people agree with that. With all due respect you haven't provided one bit of credible evidence to support this claim. However that's my opinion.

Look neither of us is going to be completely happy with the article the way it ultimately turns out, I'm just suggesting a compromise so that we can both get on with our lives. The article will reflect both our points of view an reflect a neutral point of view. We can either waste more time trying to slant the article to our own particular viewpoint or we can end this with something that satisfies both our needs.

I'm trying to be high minded hear. Groggy gets what he wants and I get what I want by having both our sources stated as opinion and not fact. I am not going to acccept dubious claims stated as fact and I am not going to accept relevant information taked out because Groggy considers them biased. I'm trying to come up with a way for us to end this in a dignified way and I hope you will reconsider an embrace it.annoynmous 13:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"...so that we can both get on with our lives." I do think that this comment reflects a major reason you haven't joined in the reliable sources discussion. You think you have more productive things to do with your time than to read "highly biased sources" like Kagan and Brown. You already know these sources are biased, just from who wrote them - so biased that they're not worth reading. You've already got the real story from people like William Blum and Gary Webb. So why should you wade through a lot of right-wing dreck you normally wouldn't waste your time reading, just to participate in a detailed discussion of the sources' merits - when any sensible person already knows that anything written by these authors would be uselessly biased, without needing to turn a single page? [That's how it seems to me, but I don't want to put words in your mouth; you might characterize your thoughts differently.]

I've taken another approach. Because so much of a fuss was being made over Timothy Brown, I went to Google Books to see what I could find out, and concluded that there were indeed grounds for reservations. I was not familiar with William Blum, so I checked out the Thirdworldtraveler link, and found that the human rights section models him almost to the point of plagiarism. In order to discuss Right to Survive, I found a webpage with large excerpts. Rather than trusting the National Security Archive to interpret the Kerry Report, I looked up their quote, and found it was being taken out of context. To me, it appears that you're not willing to put in the same amount of legwork, yet you want a major say in how the article turns out. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was trying to propose a compromise so that we could reach some common ground. I reason I said "so we can get on with our lives" is that we've spent almost 3 months on this article and I was trying to make a gesture of good faith.

Yes I think Brown and kagan are biased, but maybe you didn't read my full proposal in that despite that your free to include them as sources as long as there claims are stated as opinion, not fact. I will also ackowledge that Blum and Webb are biased and that there claims should be stated as opinion as well. That has always been my proposal even before the mediation page began.

All I was saying that sources should not be deleted because you and I think there biased. Call me crazy, but I thought that was pretty reasonable proposal.

Also speaking of plagarism, this seems a funny charge seeing as before I came along the entire first half of the article was all from Browns book.annoynmous 21:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(I looked at Brown on Google and was kind of impressed. I'll defer to Groggy Dice's judgment here).Student7 (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what are you impressed by. The only thing I found was a brief text of Browns book on the google books section. Outside of that there's almost nothing on him so where is the idea come from that he's scholarly.

As I've said I'm fine with his opinion being stated as long as it isn't stated as fact.annoynmous 22:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I had trouble until I allowed my browser to accept Google's cookies. --Groggy Dice T | C 22:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've checked and as I've said all I found was the text from his book on the contras. Outside of that I haven't found anything on him.

Anyway, that doesn't really matter sense I already agreed to having his viewpoints in the article as long as there stated as opinion, not fact. If we can both agree to that for both our sources than I feel we can reach a compromise that addresses both our needs.annoynmous 05:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Annoynmous, how about working on an exact wording you would like to see for this? Would something like "according to Foo, xxxx happened" cut the mustard for you? --Dweller (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought I already did, but I guess I can state it again.

It would be things like according to Brown and Kagan and to Show I'm fair it would also state according to Blum and Webb. Basically just like you said Dweller.

It's funny that Groggy Dice accuses me of being arrogant in my belief that only my sources are credible and his are not when he writes statements like this.

"However, this would falsely give the impression that this was just one biased observer's opinion, when all informed observers agree on this point. Even Edgar Chamorro, the liberal Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus, and the FSLN itself accept this. And if a source ever turned up claiming that most contras were foreign mercenaries, it shouldn't be introduced as a counterpoint to "Brown's" opinion; instead, that would be evidence that the source doesn't know what it's talking about, and should be thrown out entirely."

Basically groggy thinks his personal point is accepted by all based on the selective sources he chooses to read. As I said I'm not objecting to any source groggy wants to include as long as they are stated as "according too" or "this author says" insead of being stated as absolute fact.

Look I'm not saying this is a final compromise for this article. If someone comes along with additional information they should by all means add it. What I propose is just an agreement to settle the disagreements between me and groggy, at least for now. It seems clear to me that the contra issue is a very contested issue with a lot of people on both sides with strong arguments. I realized that any further arguing between me and groggy would just be the two of us fighting for our own viewpoints. I think both of us would agree that were not experts on the issue and that were basing our opinions on politics and books we've read. All I'm suggesting is that instead of wasting another 3 months fighting over every little detail of the article we come to a compromise to satisfy both our needs, at least for now. Neither of us will be completely happy, but at least the article will be tolerable for both of us.annoynmous 20:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RS Proposal

Please sign below if you're happy with using variations of this wording to help some of the RS issues:

According to Foo, xxxxxxxxxx

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Reject. Technically, this might be appropriate for "some of the RS issues," but as a general approach it's a bad idea. --Groggy Dice T | C 18:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Partially accept. This sounds okay for some stuff but this is probably too superficial to say that this can be universally used. This would mean that the article says very little while providing an forum for a number of opinions some of which may be preposterous to one side or the other. I think what we have "decided" on is that no author (reference) is universally accepted by both sides. Student7 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said I'm not proposing this as a permanent solution to the article. I'm not even saying that this should serve as a template for how we should deal with disputes over the the article.

All I'm saying is that there are two versions of the article: the one I like and the one Groggy likes. Instead of endlessly arguing over who's version is more accurate I simply suggest we include everything from both articles and avoid stating anything as absolute fact. The fact of the matter is that most information on this subject comes from sources with a strong political view. Neither Groggy or I have actually been to nicuaraga so were relying primarily on these sources. What I'm proposing is simply a temporary compromise.annoynmous 20:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that there should be a compromise that involves splitting the difference between the current version and Annoynmous' version. First, the most extreme pro-contra position is represented by editors like Ultramarine and Mike18xx, not me, so a version they favor would be a more apt basis for comparison. Second, I engaged in a lot of rewriting in an attempt to accommodate Annoynmous, during which time his only substantive change was dropping the adjective "notorious." For example, the language in the second paragraph about the role of former Guardsmen is stronger than I would prefer. So in fact, there is a lot of compromise baked into the current version. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

First off the opening paragraph is still heavily biased with lines like "The rebels professes democratic goals" or "they worked to remove former guardsmen from there ranks" neither of which has any solid evidence to back them up. Also you have removed vital information from the human rights section and you have completely deleted any reference to gary webb. His research deserves to at least be mentioned.

Look, I'm offering you everything you want. There's no source I'm saying can't be included, it just has to be stated as opinion and not absolute fact. This isn't splitting the difference, this a temporary agreement to reconcile both our versions of the article. If there's language you feel is too strong than go ahead an change it to something you feel is more neutral. All I'm asking for is a little mutual understanding, we both agree to state our sources as opinion and in return we both get all the sources we want. It seems to me like a reasonable solution.

As I said this isn't meant to be a permanent solution. If someone else comes along with more information they should add it. My proposal is simply reconciliation of what's already in the article and how it should be structured. It's not like this version would be my dream version of the article either, but I'm willing to compromise for now.annoynmous 21:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We've had "the rebels professed to have democratic goals" discussions before, so perhaps we should try a fresh angle. What goals do you believe they professed to have? --Groggy Dice T | C 22:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Both sides "professed to have democratic goals" so maybe that is a throwaway statement. It would be news if one of the sides did not.

It seems to me that the displacement of Somoza people by democratic peasants needs to be footnoted. And maybe this goes back to the original "Aardvark claims that the democratic peasants displaced the Somozan supporters. However ZZvarK says this never happened."

I really don't care what goals they professed, they were a dangerous terrorist who committed rape and murder and just because they give themselves nice sounding names doesn't mean they proclaimed democratic goals. Outside of Robert Kagan you have know objective evidence to back this claim up.

I feel the opening paragraph should be reduced to very generic description that doesn't offend either of us.annoynmous 01:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So you offer no alternate explanation of what their professed goals were, but still disagree. But it's hard to actually claim that the rebels did not profess to have democratic goals. Look at the quote from the Catholic Institute for International Relations you want in the article: "The record of the contras in the field, as opposed to their official professions of democratic faith, is one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping." Is the CIIR a polemical pro-contra source, because it talks about them "professing democratic faith?" Of course not.

On the other hand, you propose that that paragraph "be reduced to very generic description that doesn't offend either of us." If you could come up with a specific version of how you want the second paragraph to read, I could look at it.

With all this talk of human rights, this might be a good time to go into the second point. You contend that I "have removed vital information from the human rights section." But when I look at that section, I see Americas Watch, the Brody Report, the Catholic Institute for International Relations, and The Guardian, all still there. To me, it seems like the heart of your version of the human rights section survives. What is the "vital information" that you feel has been removed? --Groggy Dice T | C 03:06, 11

September 2008 (UTC)

The point I was making was in response to your original defense of the statement. When I first brought this point up your response was that they were democratic because they gave themselves democratic names. I pointed out that this logic was absurd. Many fascist organizations give themselves democratic sounding names. Also the "Professions of democratic faith" wasn't hyphenated and it seems to me your taking that statement a little too literally. The perception that's given with this statement is that the contras were simply rebelling against the sandinistas and that they didn't want to restore the old somoza order. The statement biases the article and it has to go.

I think the opening paragraph is fine except this paragraph.

"The rebels professed to have democratic goals, but the predominance in the FDN military leadership of former members of the National Guard of the overthrown Somoza regime aroused skepticism. In the first years of its activity, the FDN was accused of widespread murder, torture and brutality. Most rebel soldiers were peasants angered by the Sandinistas' collectivisation of their land and other grievances, and over the course of the war, ex-Sandinista and campesino commanders rose through the ranks to displace the ex-Guardsmen.[1]"

The only source for this is Kagan and it doesn't belong at the beginning of the article. If you want to you can put it somewhere else in the article as long as it is stated as opinion.

To show I'm fair if you want you could remove this sentence from the opening as well.

"From an early stage, the rebels received financial and military support from the US through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), initially supplemented by Argentina. At other times the US Congress wished to distance itself and withdrew all support."

This would make the opening just a general description of the contras.

Here's something you deleted from the human rights section:

In 1984 a CIA manual for training the Contras in psychological operations was leaked to the media, entitled "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War".

 +  
 + The manual recommended “selective use of violence for propagandistic effects” and to “neutralize” government officials.

You also completely deleted any reference to Gary webb and whether you like it or not his inveestigation was relevant to this matter.annoynmous 03:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the progress you are making. I would suggest (like Groggy) that you de-emphasize the subjective "being fair" and "meeting halfway" and try to decide what really is a balanced article. We want the final outcome here to have a "center" that can be maintained against all newcomers whether liberal or conservative. (It may amount to the same thing, I confess!  :)

While I don't know why these sentences have to be in the lead, I don't see what is wrong with them either: "The rebels professed to have democratic goals, but the predominance in the FDN military leadership of former members of the National Guard of the overthrown Somoza regime aroused skepticism. In the first years of its activity, the FDN was accused of widespread murder, torture and brutality." I would thing you would agree with that so far. And they are more or less balanced, though I think in favor of the Sandanistas. Student7 (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Progress was looking good, but seems to have slowed to a stop. Please will each of the parties create their own subsection below and briefly outline their current #1 frustration/problem with the article and we can try and keep things moving in a focused manner. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I used Annoynmous' vacation as an opportunity to take my own break from this quagmire, and never returned. I'll look at the article again, and mull it over. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, I appreciate your extreme patience and time. I wonder if we should discontinue mediation at this point. It seems to me that the mediation has been successful to this degree: it has achieved a "cooling off" period which may have been useful. At this point, none of the prime editors engaged in this discussion are editing the article anymore so all the mediation is doing now is sidelining perfectly good editors. Having said that, this is the editors concern and certainly no fault of the mediator!

I'm assuming, that with roughly the same parties we can enter arbitration next time if needed. Also, we would need some kind of statement from the editors that they will not revert to their former behavior of revert wars and would discuss before trying to score points off each other. Each of the major editors has since put up with worse in the article from other editors than what they had to put up with from each other! Student7 (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving to close

Further to a recent conversation with this case's Mediator, and in light of the recent recent inactivity on this page, it is now indented that this case be closed (as an unsuccessful [not-wholly-successful] stale case).

I anticipate, absent future developments, formally closing this case on Monday (8 December 2008) evening.

Regards, AGK 17:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't disagree with the assessment that the case is stale, partly because I've been virtually absent from Wikipedia for the past couple of months. It seems like when I've been online, Annoynmous has usually not been, and vice-versa, frustrating sustained discussion. Since I don't think anyone's mind has been changed on the disputed points, hopefully we've learned how to handle our continued disagreements more calmly. I thank Dweller for his efforts, and Student7 as well for his earlier informal attempt. Groggy Dice T | C 02:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the formal closure has yet taken place. Regretfully, I ask for this to be done. I do think we made some progress, but it's a pity we didn't achieve the goal of gaining complete consensus. The edit warring has diminished, which is of course a good thing. But I do think I failed and will reflect on how I could have done this better. Thanks to you all. --Dweller (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Case now closed.

AGK 12:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)