Talk:Pantasma

Dispute
I saw, that somebodey has deleted the "Massacre of Pantasma", which is an important part of the History of that valley. Why ? Should Wikipedia become a US-controlled, political "correct", anticommunist forum?

This is a case of vandalism and censoring! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkowald (talk • contribs)


 * This is not "vandalism". Please see WP:NPOV and WP:V.  --TJive 12:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an English language encyclopedia. Please get English sources instead of German ones.  Also, please read the links I gave earlier.  Your contributions contain biased language and poor sourcing.  --TJive 12:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave an english source from Sam Dillon. The fact of the Massacre of Pantasma is not deniable. It is historical truth. Don't touch the article again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkowald (talk • contribs)


 * This is not your personal page. Any Wikipedia user is allowed to edit it.  Also, please sign your comments with four tildes, like this:  ~ --TJive 12:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not the question. Tha fact is, that you want to delete undeniable facts from the article. If you think, that the information is wrong, try to prove your opinion. You will see, that you are wrong.--Lkowald 12:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see the rule on personal attacks. Such comments are extremely counterproductive and are against policy.  Persistent incivility and violations can get you sanctioned by administrators.  It seems that you are new to Wikipedia.  It would be good that you read a few policies and guidelines before proceeding.  Please read WP:3RR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.  These are important rules that regulate our editing and behavior.  Note first of all that you are not allowed to "revert" (change to a prior version of an article) more than three times in one day.  You have done so three times as of now, already, today.  I strongly recommend, again, viewing these pages.  --TJive 12:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You are argressing the content of the article. It's you who is violent, as you try to wipe out information, that you don't like, not me. What you do, is an act of censoring! --Lkowald 12:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The material you are insistent on adding is not properly sourced. Usually when information like this is introduced into the article, it needs a proper source, and a self published web page is not enough as it violates WP:V. Please find an academic cite for this and reword it in a more NPOV manner if you wish to have it included in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia "Censorship" says: "Sanitization (removal) and whitewashing are almost interchangeable terms that refer to a particular form of censorship via omission, which seeks to "clean up" the portrayal of particular issues and/or facts that are already known, but that may be in conflict with the point of view of the censor." That's it. For documentation puposes I add the sentence here, that "TJive" tries to wipe out: "Sad celebrity attained the place by the Massacre of Pantasma, on which on October 18, 1983 the CONTRA terrorist, who were financed and armed by the USA under president Ronald Reagan against the sandinist government, assassinated 47 men, women and children on an assault on the agricultural cooperatives of the valley.".--Lkowald 14:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a self published website and is not allowed to be used as a source on Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS and find a more suitable source. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

For the "massacre of Pantasma" there are 2 independent sources from Günter Weber and Sam Dillon. I will move my web-source www.pantasma.com from "Sources" to "See also". Ok ? --Lkowald 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Again an individual, who comes with different identities, but the same patriotic-heroic-american personal site, tries to suppress the fact, that in the Pantasma valley had happend a war crime. Over 200 best-armed CONTRAS made in 1983 an assault on nearly unarmed agricultural cooperatives. They killed 7 male and female teachers and many farmers (some of them armed with pistols and rifles for self-defension) and the saleswoman of the local store with her 3 children. It was typical terrorist CONTRA rampage. I will continue to defend the original version against this censor attack. --Lkowald 15:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Urg, this is not a censor attack, you have not provided a valid source for the material you continue to add. Find a valid source and you can add the material in a NPOV way. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a censor attack, and who writes "Pantasma was also the site of one of the first large scale successful military actions by the anti-Sandinistan, Contras. On October 18, 1983, Contra forces cut communications to the town and attacked killing approximately 47 people, mainly local, poorly armed, town militia. It was one of the first and most successful raids by the Contras" makes outs himself as a friend of the CONTRA. Exactly 47 Persons were killed, not "approximately". It is a crime to deny or glorify war crimes (f.i. in Germany it is a crime to deny the Holocaust). Each American should know and acknowledge, what Ronald Reagan and his terrorists have done. Who denies this, prepares for new crimes! The text "mainly local poorly armed town militia" is wrong. The aim of the attack was not to kill militia, but to destroy the school, the shop and the agricultural cooperatives. The original version is neutral, because it only states the basic facts and does not glorify any side. Your version suggests, that it was good to kill the people to fight the sandinists because they were armed. Ugly. --Lkowald 16:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, my version is the only one that can be objectively verified. If you want me prosecuted for denying this "massacre" I suggest you inform you local police that I will be in Germany on business some time this fall. I am not here to justify support to the Contras, which in hindsight was completely justifiable considering that their leadership were recruited by the KGB and trained in Moscow in the late 50’s, but to make sure unverified information does not make its way into the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And FYI, its also against policy to mark your edits as "minor" when they are not. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A last sentence to you: If you think, that it is a "success" to kill 47 humans, I wish you not much success in your further life!--Lkowald 16:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Success is defined by ones goals and how well they are carried out. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Puh!--Lkowald 17:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Lkowald, it appears that you have published your own information on this subject and have a very exclusive and intense personal interest in it. It is not acceptable for Wikipedia editors to edit solely based on self-published sources (whether yours or others'). It is also not acceptable to attempt to control characterizations of the subject simply because you trust in your own material. This sort of behavior, given that you have committed a great number of reverts in the same 24 hour period and are being incredibly uncivil to people giving you suggestions about Wikipedia and this article, would work extremely in your disfavor should this have to be reported to administrators. I am attempting to guide you to policies so that you may better understand the problems with your edits. The sources are poor, as we have explained. There is also a need for English language sourcing; German sources should be extremely limited (and should be marked as being in German. This is a Spanish language subject on an English language encyclopedia.

Your political arguments here are not conducive; the form that they are taking, in accusing others of being complicit in "war crimes" also constitute personal attacks, a further violation of policy. The "Censorship" page that you cite is not policy, and was rejected in part because of the likelihood of its being abused to defend bad, poorly sourced, or irrelevant material. Please reconsider your behavior here and read relevant policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:V, and WP:RS. You have demonstrated that you are either unfamiliar with these policies or are willfully disregarding them. I have been extremely patient with you thus far but I will not hesitate to report further abuses on appropriate administration pages. --TJive 04:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

LmaA --Lkowald 09:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This looks very dubious... Note: The Pantasma valley can not be "triassic" (250 to 200 million years B.C.) because it lies on the caribbean platter, that was formed between 140 and 70 B.C.

Seems to have been added (cur | prev) 11:26, 2 November 2010‎ 95.170.43.172 (talk)‎. . (4,868 bytes) (+240)‎. . (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.227.100 (talk)

user shoka not logged in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.227.100 (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pantasma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060508071058/http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1302/Dillon/Dillon.html to http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1302/Dillon/Dillon.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060426234415/http://www.ineter.gob.ni/Direcciones/Geodesia/SeccionMapas/Mapas.html to http://www.ineter.gob.ni/Direcciones/Geodesia/SeccionMapas/Mapas.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618004941/http://www.wissenschaft-online.de/artikel/831554 to http://www.wissenschaft-online.de/artikel/831554

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Impact crater speculations
Why is this even here? There are no citations to anything in the section, other than one saying that the impact crater speculations are probably wrong. If this section cannot be updated with valid references, I think it should be deleted.KosmicMuffin (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)