Talk:Contras - Misplaced Pages

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Contras article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Government Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Cold War Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nicaragua Top‑importance

	Nicaragua portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nicaragua, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nicaragua on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NicaraguaWikipedia:WikiProject NicaraguaTemplate:WikiProject NicaraguaNicaragua
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Military history: North America / Cold War / Post-Cold War C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
	Post-Cold War task force

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Page views of this article over the last 90 days:

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

Please observe the bias found in wording like "white propaganda."

Although various direct facts might support a sweeping label of the character of any individual, group or country, some phrases incite possible emotional responses while downplaying rational observation and discourse.

Read this definition: “White propaganda is propaganda that does not hide its origin or nature.” Based on your edits, it seems you assumed this phrase to be referring to “propaganda made by white people” however, that is not the case. Pythagimedes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Section: In popular culture

i am unsure if there is a wiki policy applicable to this, but i feel the whole section as such inappropriate.

i mean what the list of examples of commercialization of a historical controversy has to do with the encyclopedical discussion of the historical event?

why would arcade games and TV serials belong into an article about a war - a political, historical event? i feel undue weight is given to popular culture reflections about the historical event - imho actually zero weight would be more appropriate. i am not very familiar with the WP guidances relating to this, but i think this article (and potentially any other article that is not particularly about pop culture) would be better, more to the point without unnecessary inclusion of pop culture references. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC).

See: Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Death squads

They were death squads. They are, in many instances, the go to example of US funded death squads. 72.28.60.42 (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Further, removing the sources is against the npov rule:

"Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process"

It should at least be mentioned that they are commonly considered death squads — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.60.42 (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The whole thing is a problem on multiple levels. First off, of the 2 sources added, only one is RS (The NY Times; The Intercept is considered biased according to our RS list ). And the one RS says nothing about Death Squads. The next big issue is the fact this is not developed in the article, ergo it's a issue as far as our polices for LEAD. We already have many sources detailing the Contras human rights abuses. The are also issues here as far as LABEL and so on. But I guess we can keep the sources.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

If you look at that list, the intercept is quite clearly marked as a reliable source, so both sources are WP:RS. I don't like to seem glib, but that's what the big green tick with the text "generally reliable" signifies. Bias and reliability are not the same thing, in fact most reliable sources have bias. For opinion and analysis, the intercept should generally be used with attribution, for factual claims, not - I'll let you be the judge of which is more appropriate here. You can read a breakdown of the consensus on the reliability of the intercept here (linked in WP:RS also by the way)

As for WP:LABEL though, I agree with you, there are definitely some issues there Tomatoswoop (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Our RS list says this about The Intercept: "Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed." Since the particular article cited is a opinion piece....it most likely falls into the category of needing attribution. (And the NY Times article discussed above says nothing about "death squads".) But that aside, it still has a few other issues (as noted). And-if I follow you correctly- you agree with the LABEL issue yourself. And there are still even more issues. For one, with a single source calling them this, it probably just warrants-if it was included, and I still don't think it should be- a brief mention in the main body....such a brief mention in a decent sized article (with such a source) probably doesn't warrant a mention in the LEAD. So yes, this is problematic on multiple levels.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Potential bias in language

The use of the term "right-wing" makes no sense and is at risk for creating a bias as the group is not related to right-wing in terms of economic policies at all. Melledelle (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Categories: