Talk:Nicaragua

Archives
Archive1 Archive2

History section

"During the years the Sandinitas had govermental control, the major US news papers never once wrote a story on the horrific atrocities caused by the US funded contras [Necessary Illusions, Noam Choamsky]."

Now disregarding whether Chomsky is a reputable source, I really can't see why this should be in the article. It has nothing to do with the History of Nicaragua any more than whether Pravda put out an issue about Sandinistan perseuction of indiginous indians. What this is an example of, and I find this REALLY offensive, is westerners with political axes to grind using other people's countries as proxies to fight their pathetic 'your side is EVIL!' wars. This is NOT an article about the rights and wrongs of the American media, it is about Nicaragua. Frankly both the people of Nicaragua and Wikipedia deserve better than this westocentric bull. 80.4.199.101 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon changes

I reverted the changes by the anon user because besides being a broad makeover that should not take place at once, it was heavily biased for Somoza. That type of changes should be discussed first. A wikipedia article should not be used to ramble for or against any politician. Please, stick to NPOV. Finally, some of the changes made were factually incorrect. Brusegadi 02:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Soulja Slim

Just irrelevant. I dont know if that person exists but please, even if she does, she does mnot belong in this article. Thanks, Brusegadi 04:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Motto

I will add the motto when someone provides the correct one. I will research it if I have the time tomorrow. Brusegadi 06:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved this from my talk page:

Pro Mundi Beneficio is Panama's motto, not Nicaragua's. I can't find any official proof of that the motto you say is correct. --Magicartpro 05:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Brusegadi 06:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know the phrase in Latin? In deo Speramus?

I can't find any reference to that motto, at least not an official one. In my case, I've seen and heard the motto in Spanish En Dios Confiamos many times, never in Latin. Cheers!

--Magicartpro 15:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought they had to be in Latin. If not, then I changed it. If anyone wants to take a look at that it would be cool. Thanks, Brusegadi 16:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Nicaragua don't have any official motto. En Dios Confiamos is used unofficially in coins and bills since Somoza. The only official national symbols are these: [1] according to the Nica governments website. --Magicartpro 17:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If it does not have an official motto then we should maybe remove it? Now, about the coins, I recall that during the violeta administration we did not have that (the cents were made of paper, and we had no metal coins) and then, metal coins were re-introduced with Arnoldo and they carried the phrase 'En Dios Confiamos.' I would also bet that the Sandinistas did not have that. Thus, the phrase appears in Somoza and post-Aleman governments. Let me know what you think. Brusegadi 18:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, those "monopoly bills" from Violeta's period didn't have the phrase En Dios Confiamos. In the Sandinista era, there was a new motto for new every year, like 1984: "A Cincuenta Años Sandino Vive" or 1990: "Año de la Paz y la Reconciliación", but more than a motto it was a catchy slogan for the masses. I suggest that you remove the motto, we don't have enough info on this issue. --Magicartpro 20:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Motto removed! A pleasure to edit with you. Also, the Sandinistas did a lot of printing... Now, I have tried to make the article as neutral as possible. You know, neither against Somoza nor against the Sandinistas. Yet, there is some more work to be done. Please, take a look at the dates and names and if you catch any mispelling or erroneous dates, feel free to change them. The article is getting a little too big so we should try to describe as much as possible in the sub articles. Also, if you think there is something wrong but are not sure, just discuss it on the talk page. I am particulary worried that Dario is not even mentioned on this page... Have fun, Brusegadi 20:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

History of Nicaragua

The article is way too long. I will take some time, revise it and edit it (in the future). I know many users have taken long to contribute to the article, but this is supposed to be an introductory one so I think its important to cut most of it and leave the information bits to the Main Article.

Also, I've re-edited the structure of some the articles. Hope everyone agrees and understands the new distribution.

---

ok... I edited the article to a shorter one but someone said that I didnt consult... which I did.

The previous article is way too long. On the other hand, the Main Article isn't as good as that one and is even longer. I suggest we replace the Main article for the one on the Nicaragua page and then leave the shorter one I edited.

Hanek45 16:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Humanitarian Aid

If you want to add a subsection about humanitarian aid, I think you should expand and make it more general and not just on one program since it looks like propaganda. You may want to write a sub-article on it but I defenetly feel that for such a section to be there, it needs to prove that it is significant enough to be relevant, and such proof may only be achieved by being more general. Brusegadi 04:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and will keep a watch on this. You might as well add a sectuion on corporate investment (which IMO is actually far more helpful) so you need to keep it general and prove it is significant,SqueakBox 18:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

I have added a nuetrality dispute the history section of this article. There are several assertions that (are tagged with citation needed) that are not consistent with other points of view. There seems to be a strong Chomorro bias in portions of this article. I have specific issues with the notion that the assassination of Pedro Joaquin Chamorro was a more pivital event in the downfall of Samoza than the 1972 earthquake. Thomas Borge (a founding member of the FSLN; and perhaps source that carries some bias as well) describes in his book a resentment that formed in Samozas middle class supporters when their homes where destroyed and they found themselves: "eating Samoza bananas and drinking Samoza coffee, in a kitchen repaired with Samoza concrete, with a loan from Samoza bank". The truth will never be known, but at the very least these POVs should be reconciled. Srice13 04:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel that neither are fundamental reasons. Honestly, if Somoza had been a reasonable leader, he would not have had so much opposition and he would have allowed more economic equality after the earthquake. So, fundamentally, Somoza overthrew himself. What allows for Somoza's bad characteristics to matter was probably the earthquake and the decline in the price of cotton that followed in approx. 1976. Yet, events such as the murder of Chamorro are important in the sense that they can spark unrest. I dont think all are mutually exclusive. Perhaps this needs some clarification, but I do not think it warrants a POV tag, since the views are not necessarily opposing. Brusegadi 02:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

History - William Walker

The Statement "Walker was executed in neighbouring Honduras in 1861 by repeated blows to the head." is not consistent with other sources which state he was executed on September 12, 1860 by firing squad ("Fusilado" on his grave marker). James J. Peterka 04:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree, and I think it was Guatemala and not Honduras. (I will check somewhere else.)Brusegadi 05:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I replaced 'citation needed' with an external reference to a web site describing Walker's death together with a picture of his grave marker. J. Peterka 20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Abortion

Ok, the statement removed should be placed under some other category. It could even be under elections since this is indeed a highly controversial topic brought up because elections are coming. Now, I had another problem with the statement. I dont think it should include anything about the society being "conservative" under international standards. Most laws in Nicaragua are passed right before the elections. That law is being passed to get a tiny group of religious fanatics to vote. Most people are so apathetic about politics that politicians try to attract those that are most likely to jump about something. Once the law is passed, abortion will be illegal but people will still do it as if it were not; it will just be more expensive... It is precisely because of corruption that laws in most third world countries are a poor reflection of moral standards. In addition, I would not be surprised if an element of this new law has to do with looking good in the eyes of the current US governing party to gain some support ($$) during elections. Dont get me wrong, I think that in general the government should not intervene in these things but I also dislike it even more because it discriminates against poor women; they will be the only ones unable to get an abortion once the law is passed. At least a safe one. Brusegadi 04:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the best place is under "Politics".--Atavi 08:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Pluriform?

In the politics section of this article, someone used the word 'pluriform.' According to Merriam Webster Unabridged, that isn't a word. Since I don't know what they are referring do, I've left it, but someone might want to consider changing it.

Somoza photos

This is an article about Nicaragua, not Somoza, so lets keep (potentially copyrighted) excessive photos off... They make the article look bad, and unacademic. If you really want to add them, I suggest you discuss them here first and try to get some consensus form the other editors, but I defenetly vote against it. Its not about Somoza, excessive pictures of anything make the article look like an 8th grade project. Brusegadi 04:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Water

According to the CIA factbook, Nicaragua has 9240 sq km water, 120254 sq km land for a total of 129,494 sq km. The article says, in the little box on the beginning that its area is 14% water. But, if we divide Water/Total we get 9240/129494 = 0.07135... which is half of 14%. What am I doing wrong? Brusegadi 23:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hugely biased

IMO, the parts about Somoza are hugely biased. As for the "brazen corruption" part, he was accused of it, but nothing was ever proven. In fact, the U.S. State Department launched several (28, in fact) investigations, and none of them proved anything. Moreover, Managua wasn't "not rebuilt," it just wasn't rebuilt in the same area, which makes sense considering how earthquake-prone that area was. And contrary to what the article says, the economy of Nicaragua did very well under Somoza in the 1970s. If needed, I can provide sources.

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Central America at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Central America whose scope would include Nicaragua. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

calling ortega a dictator ???

this article is totally biased. and why not calling somoza a democratic leader then ?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.220.159.140 (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Ortega a dictator? Gaddafi Communistic?

This article is a shame. Ortega and the FSLN won a democratic election in 1984, and contested another one in 1990, when they lost and left the power peacefully. And Gaddafi has never been a Communist, only a short-time USSR's ally, which it is not the same that be a Communist or Communistic. In the 20th century the Soviet Union was one of the two main super-powers and had many allies in the post-colonial world.

--72.187.115.31 22:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)I would also like to know why Hiberniantears considers changing the subtitle under the Gaddafi photo from Dictator to Leader as Vandalism. He reverted it back to dicatator. What is his definition of dicator? I belive it carries a negative conotation that could be considered unjustified. Perhaps we could resolve this one by changing the phot to one with a leader from politics in the US? Also, many consider the Somoza's to have been Dictators, particularly the last one.

Gaddafi should not be called a dictator and it is wrong to claim someone who removes that is committing vandalsim. Please read our policy on vandalism Wikipedia:Vandalism. I dont think we wnat a pic of an American (why?) and support having the pic of Gaddafi but as it is right now without mention of the word dictator, SqueakBox 23:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

--Agrofe 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)My point was olny that perhaps Hiberniantears would be more compfortable with a photo of Ortega with an American leader. There is already a photo of Ortega in the article with and Fidel Castro so Hibernatears might feel that the article is more balanced to have a shot of Daniel with a more conservative USA figure. I don't know why he would call it vandalism when I removed the word dictator and replaced it with leader.

Well I hope he wont again. How about a pic of him and his great friend Chavez? BTW you should sign at the end of your comment not at the beginning, SqueakBox 23:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am only commenting on this because Agrofe decided it was neccesary to bring it up on my talk page. Clearly, Somozo and Gaddafi should both be listed -at the very least- as caudillos/strong men. That said, I have no investment in this article, and was merely reverting an edit that appeared to have been made without discussion. If there is a general consensus that mid-level military officers who seize power through violence, and then retain it through a cult of personality for decades are simply "leaders", then so be it. Most of what I do these days on Wikipedia is revert vandalism, and if it quacks like a vandal, and looks like a vandal, my experience suggests it probably is. Leader/dictator, call it what you want. Hiberniantears 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As I am new to this I thought it might be proper ediquette to bring it up on the talk page since you changed it twice and called it vandalism. Your quacks, looks analogy is quite frankly, wrong. Vandalism (even for a novice like me) would look like vulagarity, slander (dictator is closer to slander than leader) or incorrect information, etc... Leader falls into none of these categories. I apologize if it was incorrect to put it on your discussion page incorrectly (can we erase it?) as I do not understand the downside to it.--Agrofe 14:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone has again reverted both Ortega and Gaddafi to the term "Dictator" without any discussion. Any thought from anyone? --Agrofe 16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

Nicaraguan population is practically entirely zambo, see Afro-Latin American and their Spanish have nothing to do with Galician or "argentinian" Spanish as the Demographics of Nicaragua article says. I really don't know why this article try to present Nicaragua like an european country or like Argentina and Uruguay that have many european emigrants decendants, and don't present a country proud of their true roots, being zambo or mestizo is not a shame, why they have to write things like this:

"According to the 2005 census, Nicaragua has a population of 5,483,400, an increase of 20% on the 1995 census figure of 4,357,099. Caucasians and Mestizos make up the majority (86%) of the population of Nicaragua"

or like: "In the 1800s Nicaragua experienced a wave of immigration, primarily from Europe. In particular, families from Germany, Italy, Spain, France and Belgium generally moved to Nicaragua to set up businesses..." I mean their decendants are like 1% of there population but for them talking about this is so important, they are racist with their own people!

Ahora, cual es la fijación de los nicaraguenses con las oleadas de "....inmigrantes provenientes de Europa, principalmente de Alemania e Italia", por que no se sienten orgullosos de sus raíces indígenas, africanas y zambas, que como anotan estudios del mismo Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (ver Afro-Latin American en la wiki en inglés) componen más del 80% de su población. Esto se refleja también en la sección de Demografía donde mencionan primero el porcentaje minoritario de población blanca, mientras que de la zamba y meztiza no mencionan el porcentaje....en la página en inglés esto es todavía más ridículo queriendo dar una imagen de país de imigrantes como Chile, Canadá, Argentina y Uruguay cuando basta caminar por cualquier calle de Granada, León, o Managua para constatar que prácticamente toda la población es zamba, cosa que no es una ofenza y de la que no hay que avergonzarce

Obtenido de "http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusi%C3%B3n:Nicaragua" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.10.0.121 (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Entirely zambo? African roots is almost exclusive to the caribbean coast which is sparsely populated in comparison to the Pacific and Northern regions. Entirely zambo is incorrect, the page you reference, Afro-Latin American, supports this, did you even read it? The reason Nicaraguan spanish is compared to Galician and Argentinian spanish is because of the wide use of "vos" instead of "tu". The majority of Latin American countries use "tu" much more than "vos". Where are you getting your information from?68.38.196.174 09:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Zambo in Nicaragua ??? Impossible ¡¡¡¡. When I visited Central America (Nicaragua and Costa Rica) and I (by my sef) saw a majority of caucasian and mestizo in Nicaragua except in the Caribbean coast (an unpopulated zone), where predominates Afro-American and indoamerican, and in the northern zone where there are many German descendants. The Costa Rican are mostly caucasian and mestizo in San Jose, however the majority are Afro-American and zambos in the Atlantic (Limon), mestizos and indoamerican in the northern, southern and eastern region. Nicaraguan look, speak, have dishes and behaviors like Uruguayan and Argentinean. Costa Rican look and speak like Colombian.--201.163.187.51 02:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

crime

nicaragua is known to be most violent but what people have failed to say here is that cime is increasing in that country according to their very famous newspaper laprensa.com.ni recently theres been taxis getting robbed with the people in it tourist have been getting robbed and attacked in managua and at the beaches and on the buses there was an article i read saying the european tourists couldnt believe that they hadnt been warned of such dangers the thiefs took their money including their shoes!

Interpol has recently rated Nicaragua as the safest country in Latin America--Agrofe 22:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the crime in Nicaragua is that they dont have any infrastructure and thus they dont have acurate statistics, the crime in Nicaragua is very common and violent but there are few reports sice the police is even more corrupt and violent, and at the end this is not reflected in the international rates! I mean wich country after decades of civil war, easy acces to arms, a "macho" violent culture, and the lowest education and standard of livingin Latin America can be rated as the "safest country in Latin America", but even if nicaraguan repeat and repeat this kind of lies....the travelers that have been there have posted another story in many forms and there is a word in mouth telling how dangerous can be here!!

well im sure if any of you are from nicaragua or have traveled there then you speak spanish so tell me did i make this up and write it too?

http://laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2007/enero/08/noticias/nacionales/166119.shtml and http://www.unfpa.org/focus/nicaragua/newclass.htm http://mondediplo.com/2007/01/12nicaragua http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Nicaragua http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=52623 since "agrofe" thinks this is my personal opinion review all of these very carefully including the chart from laprensa.com.ni i know it must be hard but truth isnt always what we want to hear

Ideologically driven article

"This atrocious administration of the Sandinista government initiated an uprising"

This statement, apart from being factually questionable, is a complete value-judgement obviously based on the author's political views. It discredits the whole article that such ideologically-driven statements are portayed as fact. The article needs some serious editing in order to be more neutral.

• Comment - I agree. There is a great deal of bias in this entire article. Perhaps this section could read more like; "Due to the transitioning..." or "Due to the entirely new form of government many issues were encountered in the administration...". Let's face it, there was more argument (and proof of voter/election fraud/manipulation) prior to and after the Sandinista administrations. There is a great deal of work that needs to be done on this article.--Agrofe 01:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Swastika flag

Why is the flag replaced with a german 1993 flag? --Doomguy0505 07:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That was a case of vandalism that was reverted around 40 minutes after it appeared. SRICE_{13 (TALK | EDITS)} 22:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)