790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 26:
Line 26: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
:::Wikiinterpreter, after that entry, "democratically elected Sandinistas" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicaragua&diff=prev&oldid=42427], conventiently neglecting the lapse of five years between the Sandanistas violent removal of Somoza and the election it finally held, actions like that do absolutley zero to build credibility with other editors. Sorry, but you must now provide sources for any claim whatsoever on this subject; we simply don't have the time to chase after blatantly false distortions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:23, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Wikiinterpreter, after that entry, "democratically elected Sandinistas" [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicaragua&diff=prev&oldid=42427], conventiently neglecting the lapse of five years between the Sandanistas violent removal of Somoza and the election it finally held, actions like that do absolutley zero to build credibility with other editors. Sorry, but you must now provide sources for any claim whatsoever on this subject; we simply don't have the time to chase after blatantly false distortions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:23, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: This debate should really happen in the other link, but if you want to pursue it here, then fine:
'conventiently neglecting the lapse of five years between the Sandanistas violent removal of Somoza and the election it finally held'
The Sandinistas held an election five years after fighting against Somoza started -
'http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4293535-103677,00.html' - some evidence.
The UN, among others, backed them up, saying it was a free election.
Thus, it would seem fairly obvious to me that when the Contras forced them from power, the Sandanistas were 'democratically elected'. I don't see any other interpretation. Would you say that, for example, Iraq's new government wasn't 'democratically elected' - because it wasn't installed immediately after Saddam Hussein was toppled?
'actions like that do absolutley zero to build credibility with other editors'
Yes, I've always found that happens when I violently remove Somoza and hold elections five years later :).
'you must now provide sources for any claim whatsoever on this subject'
I'm not perfect - given enough time, I could cite all that stuff. Does this mean that I can delete any article that doesn't give citations? Because I think most of Conservapedia's '6500 clean, safe and encyclopedic' articles would disappear in that case, and other solutions reek of double standards.
'blatantly false distortions'
No ad hominem attacks, please. Anyway, I've found some sources - if you want to call them blatantly false distortions (some examples would be helpful), the burden of proof is with you to provide contrary evidence. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]