Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Contras/RS

I'll be posting sections here from the main mediation page, for nitty gritty discussion.

Please be careful to distinguish whether you are challenging the reliability of a source (per WP:RS) or seeking some kind of balance (per WP:UNDUE) for a source you agree to be "reliable". --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Groggy Dice issues

William Blum - RS

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

Groggy asserts that Blum is not expert enough on Nicaragua to be reliably cited. Does anyone disagree with this? Should Blum be removed, or would it be acceptable to balance his opinion with that of experts? --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Groggy, Blum does not have expertise in or any experience within Nicaragua never mind the Contra movement. I do not think having him as a source is acceptable. Jpineda84 (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• no knowledge.Student7 (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Institute for International Relations - Right to Survive - RS

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

Groggy accuses this source of being apologist. Is it a discredited source? Should it be discarded? Can it be balanced? --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Catholic Institute was an open supporter of Liberation Theology, and thus had always been a sympathizer of the Sandinista Revolution. Unless it is qualified or balanced, this source should not be used as an authority on human rights during the Revolution. Jpineda84 (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides being biased, it's duplicative. Right to Survive justifies its portrayal of the human rights situation by referring back to reports from Americas Watch. The effect is to source-stack the human rights section with an "echo chamber," citing Americas Watch, then piling on anti-contra quotes from others that are themselves relying on Americas Watch. --Groggy Dice T | C 13:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I suspect bias. Liberation theology, BTW, has been specifically discredited by the Catholic Church. So calling themselves "Catholic" is not helpful in this situation. Probably shouldn't be used as reference since it can't be used "automatically" which we would like to do for a truly unbiased source. Student7 (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently, they've already changed their name to Progressio.--Groggy Dice T | C 14:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian - ?

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

Groggy - I'm surprised that you question The Guardian. It's generally accepted as RS across Wikipedia. It does have biases, but so does every source you could possibly find, to a greater or lesser extent. Besides, I'm unsure what your specific problem is here. Can you clarify? --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I can appreciate that it may be left-wing, but I don't see how we can reject all quotes from it out of hand. I suspect we are forced to document attrocities on both sides (but only one side shows up here! Bummer!).Student7 (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary Webb - UNDUE

Gary Webb - especially not without rebuttal

Does anyone have another source to balance Webb with? --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Unfamiliar. My first search turned this up. "The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times .... question some of Mr. Webb's sources" (regarding his accusation of drug running by Contras). If liberal papers are questioning him, I kind of wonder. Student7 (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

National Security Archive - ?

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

Groggy, this doesn't seem to be a question of sources, but a detail issue to be tackled later, as you seem to accept the documents themselves. Please agree or disagree. --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Accept with "spin details to be worked out later." :) Student7 (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the spin the Archive itself puts on the documents, and which edits here have relied on, perhaps moreso than the documents themselves. For instance, its website says:

The Kerry Committee report concluded that "senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems." (See page 41)

The other version of the Contras article reads:

Senator John Kerry's 1988 Committee on Foreign Relations report on Contra drug links concluded that "senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems."[link to Archive webpage, not Kerry Report itself]

The impression is left that these "policy makers" (at the least) condoned smuggling drugs to the US to raise funds for the rebels. But if you actually turn to the PDF of the Kerry Report, which the NSA has helpfully included on its site, that's not the basis for what the Report says:

...Indeed, senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems.

As DEA officials testified last July before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Lt. Col. Oliver North suggested to the DEA in June 1985 that $1.5 million in drug money carried aboard a plane piloted by DEA informant Barry Seal and generated in a sting of the Medellin Cartel and Sandinista officials, be provided to the Contras. While the suggestion was rejected by the DEA, the fact that it was made highlights the potential appeal of drug profits for persons engaged in covert activity.

In context, North wasn't approving of drug-running; he was proposing that money that the DEA would have confiscated (and which the cartel expected to be used to bribe Sandinistas) be instead diverted to the contras. This in itself is pretty flimsy grounds for the Report's claims, but lifting this phrase out of context turns it into a truly misleading insinuation.

So I do not oppose the use of the Archive's document collection as a primary source (though WP:RS discourages primary sources), but rather the use of the NSA's analysis and interpretation as a secondary source (at least on the drug question). That includes relying on the Archive's cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes from the documents. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Americas Watch - UNDUE

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

Does anyone have another source to balance this with? --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Tentatively opposed. Another left-wing bias. I see the problem. Everyone has taken a biased position and you can't find anything unbiased! These folks primary goal is to close Fort Benning. Having taken that position, one wonders how much they care about the truth. I hate to vote against all sources for the opposition, but what are you going to do? (I will probably follow Groggy Dice on this one. If he ultimately accepts, I will). Student7 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Brody Report - UNDUE

Brody Report - ditto, pretty much

Does anyone have another source to balance this with? --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Opposed. For all these, the antis must of course, take incidents from these reports, but have to validate the facts some other way. I've used blogs before for research for articles. I just couldn't quote them! Student7 (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• • This may not be the place, but it does occur to me that (usually) in a prolonged war, both sides attract thugs that perpetrate atrocities. Think Abu Ghraib. That doesn't mean that side liked or condoned it. The response of the command would be useful. If it is just "boys will be boys," then the command (Contras) are responsible. If they can be shown to mete out discipline then maybe the opposite. Of course, if the Contras can be shown to have done this deliberately (the intent of reports of course), that is quite another matter! Student7 (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Real Contra War - ?

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

Is this an UNDUE issue, Groggy? --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Timothy C Brown is an authority on the movement and his book is well documented. Especially when it comes to the Milpista movement his work is very valuable. Yes, he does sympathize with the Contras, however, most sources have anti-contra bias so I do not see the problem. Jpineda84 (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't support condemning Brown without reading him, and his relationship with the Resistance gave him unique access to documents and many interviews. He provides a more detailed treatment of the early MILPAS bands than other sources, so I wish I could agree that he is a fully reliable source. But although I largely share his sympathies, he presents a number of unique theories and claims, such as:

• The contra rebellion should be interpreted in racial/ethnic terms, as a revolt by only superficially assimilated highland Chibcha Indians; centers of contra recruitment correlate with the locations of Indian revolts against Spanish rule.
• The contras were continuing a tradition of resistance not only to the Spanish, but of egalitarian highland Chibchas against the hierarchical Nahuas of the Pacific lowlands. In this interpretation, the Sandinistas were simply the latest and most extreme effort by Pacific-based governments to impose centralized rule over the highlands.
• The FDN organizational structure, with local commanders operating under loose command and control, reflects the Chibcha style of making war.
• The beginnings of the anti-Sandinista MILPAS go back to May 1979, before the Sandinistas even took power.
• Dimas suspected that the Sandinistas arranged for the death of Comandante Danto (suspicions that no other source on the MILPAS that I am aware of mention).
• The killing of Dimas is dated to 1981 (instead of 1980 as other sources do).
• The MILPAS movement numbered 2,000-3,000 fighters by the time it began merging with the FDN in late 1981.
• Census results showing that the Central Highlands contain 36% of Nicaragua's population were rigged; the true figure is more than half.

Some of these theories are interesting, but without agreement from other scholars, I do not believe Brown's views should be presented as definitive. --Groggy Dice T | C 18:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Concur with Groggy Dice. Brown is scholarly and has to be used, but carefully. And I don't know what that means in practical terms except "one source says a was x.(Brown) Another source says a was y.(Green)." Student7 (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)