Talk:La Prensa (Managua)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Central America (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

I wanted to put up something like a cite-sources template, but there doesn't seem to be one. This article needs references to document its contentions. Who is S. Brian Wilson? RickK 22:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the POV header, and it will stay there so long as you continue to use loaded language such as "blatant". Let the article and the references speak for itself and tone down the rhetoric, including your offensive language on Talk pages. RickK 21:21, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

i'd suggest this article be deleted or completely rewritten. this is sick. J. Parker Stone 07:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why exactly? You can check the sources I have given, everything alligns with what I have written. You would be hard pressed to find a source that suggests La Prensa DIDNT recieve CIA funding, considering the Funding from the NED is Official, you can check it out if you like. The US is the World's leading terrorist State.

SHOCK and AWE J. Parker Stone 07:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok American, I am back, and this time I mean business. You will either enter into discussion or you WILL be reported.

Care to explain?[edit]

You reverted my edits without an explanation, the funding detailed does not appear to be an 'estimate', it is taken from official Government records, so you cant name it as such. Anyway - If you do not respond to this next time you revert it I will report you and have you blocked. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.70.254 (talk • contribs) .

Edit wars and so on[edit]

I would appreciate if 86.141.70.254 and TJive could refrain from reverting the article over and over again. Please discuss a middle term agreement, the history page is becomming really ridiculous. Thank you very much in advance. Rama 17:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have explained above that I am willing to discuss in dialogue, he has reverted again and ignored the discussion page. Surely he should be blocked?
Well Rama, this particular anon vandal was most recently blocked for six months as "GreekWarrior" for horrendous assaults on non-Christians. You blocked him once over his personal attacks and other such actions. Perhaps now you'll block me over this one, too? --TJive 14:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware who that is, but in general your accusations are largely irrelevant. What matters is that this page is incredibly POV and MUST be dealt with. I offered you the opportunity for debate, you refused, 3 times now. Now the Mods will deal with it. Good day.

La Prensa[edit]

In the larger world, when one says La Prensa, is it not the Buenos Aires newspaper that the hearer expects? La Prensa should be a redirect to La Prensa (disambiguation), and this newpaper should take its expected place among all the other La Prensa as La Prensa (Managua). --Wetman 06:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC).

Done. And a nasty little stub created for La Prensa (Buenos Aires), too. If there are any sysops reading, perhaps La Prensa (disambiguation) can be moved to La Prensa. Bolivian Unicyclist 20:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there any other source than Freedom House?[edit]

Virtually all the citations come from one study by Freedom House. Surely, given the controversial nature of this subject one can find other sources? Freedom House is hardly an NPOV source. The US was very much an actor in Nicaragua in those years. The article reflects the sourcing bias. Early days are reasonably ok, but the "Sandinistas" section is seriously biased. Here are a few which are glaring:

a) The split between La Prensa and El Nuevo Diario surely must be more important than a rather dismissive last line entry in the "Sandinista" section. Considering that in this split, the editor (brother of the editor murdered earlier) and 80% of the staff left (this is mentioned in the El Nuevo Diario page), it's quite an open question as to which is the real successor of La Prensa.

b) 'Contras' gets one word mention. So does the CIA, prefixed with the rather meaningless "accused of funding". Was it funded by the CIA or not? Considering that the paper identified with the Contras, which was a major sticking point between the US and Nicaragua, one would've thought this theme should've been developed.

c) The whole framework is misleading. The article gives the hostility of the Sandinistas towards La Prensa in a vacuum, with no discussion of contras and so on. For instance, a few days after US Congress voted 100 million dollars in aid to the Contras, La Prensa was suspended. This wasn't an arbitrary decision (whether one agrees with it or not), but a reaction to the US.

I've tried some rather minimal changes, but it requires much more work. Kingsindian (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)