Talk:Contras

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)