Talk:Nicaragua

Archives
Archive1

Coverage of Sandinistas and Civil War in 1980's

This article is heavy with the 1980's. Nicaragua has had many civil wars and occupations, and even plenty of peaceful history, too. I believe the pre-80's history section needs to be drastically expanded, and the 1980's information mentioned prominently, but hived off into a separate "Nicaragua in the 1980's" article. This 80's article could cover the Sandinistas and Contras in the detail it deserves, and leave the Nicaragua country page more balanced. Comments? Abe Froman 23:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think encyclopedias need articles about the history of certain countries in certain decades. Articles about the history altogether are sufficient. Get-back-world-respect 00:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Traditional encyclopaedias face restrictions (length of the article, editorial line, etc). Happily, Wikipedia is not "traditional" and is able to grow as much as we can feed her. Let the article grow. Should it grow too much, let's split it so that only the highlights of certain stages of Nicaragua's history appear on the main article and further development of a specific subject gets its own article. --Srperez 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Make it about the 1979-1984 civil war, then. Then improve the article on the Contras. But keep the national page clearer. Mention the Sandinistas and Contras, but let Wikipedians follow the links if they choose. Visiting this page today, one would think Nicaragua is still on fire. Abe Froman 00:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ten Dead Chickens is up to deletions without discussion again. Ugh. Deal with it tomorrow. Abe Froman 04:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Look more closely, I am adding information that was previously deleted, citing it, and adding tags; no wholsale deletions. Ten Dead Chickens 04:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This article should contain about the influences of the United States. In good(?) or bad meaning, it was very great. The judge of the International Court of Justice for American actions on Nicaragua was the U.S. should stop that actions, but the U.S. neglected (as usual). But we do not need to neclect too. User:Love Ron

I concur with the last statement, and believe that this section requires some discipline when creating edits. Nica is a country that has had a dramatic past that continues to raise heated discussions. There are plenty of facts that can be thrown around, but in keeping with the pillar of NPOV, an expansion of history should be closely monitored. Srice13 04:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not forget to sign your comments to make discussion easier to follow. I concur, the article has had extreme POV at times, and it is easy to fall into such POV since the events are recent (Ortega still trying to become president...) Brusegadi 04:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My bad Srice13 04:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Carlos Fonseca

Are there any documents that actually prove that Carlos Fonseca was a KGB agent? Cited is a book, but what evidence is the book basing this statement on? Managuense 10:39am 2/14/06

Carlos Fonseca, Codename GIDROLOG, KGB archival material and documents.

Christopher Andrew, Vasili Mitrokhin. The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World, Basic Books, 2005, pg 41

Christopher Andrew, Vasili Mitrokhin. The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB, Basic Books, 2000, pg 363

Ten Dead Chickens 16:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Article portrays Nicaragua as Soviet satellite

This article has a tendency to portray Nicaragua as a Soviet satellite, which is misleading. In fact, Nicaragua was very active in the Non-Aligned Movement. The Sandinistas originally tried to buy arms from the US, and only went to the USSR after being rejected. To say that the FSLN triumphed with "large scale Soviet and Cuban aid" obscures the fact that the movement had wide support throughout the world. The Sandinistas received aid from Costa Rica, Panama, and Mexico, among others. Throughout the decade of the 1980s, Nicaragua received aid from many western European countries. True, aid did come from the USSR and Cuba, but the USSR did not invest in Nicaragua anywhere near as much as it had in Cuba, spending its money and resources instead on the war in Afghanistan. Moreover, Nicaragua had a mixed public and private economy, which certainly was not the Soviet economic model. This is discussed in various sources relating to Nicaragua, such as Walter LeFeber´s "Inevitable Revolutions" or William Leogande´s "In Our Own Backyard" or Thomas Walker´s "Nicaragua." Specific information on the role of Panama and Cuba can also be found in Gioconda Belli´s autobiography.

Soviet satellite is not 100% accurate, it was more of a Cuban satellite. While it is true that Nicaragua made a public attempt to "appear" non-aligned, its leadership and organization were very much in the pocket of the USSR and Cuba. The fact that the FSLN did have considerable support globally means little. While I would agree that a revolution in Nicaragua was inevitable, the dominance that the FSLN came to play in the revolution and post revolutionary government had more to do with the large covert aid they received from Havana and Moscow than any popular sentiment. Fonseca was a KGB agent, and along with the Cuban’s they poured billions of dollars ensuring the success of the FSLN. The FSLN modeled its security apparatus after the Cubans, with Cuban assistance naturally. The FSLN modeled its support of revolutionary movements like the Salvadoran FMLN on Cuba’s earlier support of the FSLN. The CDR’s were direct copies of Cuban CDR’s. This is no longer an issue of significant question. The proof is in, they were puppets. Ten Dead Chickens 17:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Guys. Red Dawn was just a movie.  ;-) Abe Froman 19:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

K ? Ten Dead Chickens 19:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe the Sandinista's were merely Cuban puppets. I've spent time in Nicaragua, and I found most former Sandinista's are unfamiliar with what Marxism is. The war was a dispute between landless peasants and an entrenched colonial-descended oligarchy, in my opinion. I would love to see a citation claiming the Sandinista's were puppets of the Cubans. I do not think merely accepting aid from Cuba made them automatic puppets. We give aid to Iraq, and no one calls them "liberal democratic" puppets. Abe Froman 21:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

They are unfamiliar with what Marxism is because the literary rates are so low! The revolution was not an intellectual movement, you are right, it was a bunch of landless peasants and people in general that were angry at Somoza. Yet, to say that the Sandinistas were not a mini Cuba is crazy. Silvio Rodriguez, a Cuban composer, wrote "an urgent song" to Nicaragua immediatly after the FSLN took over. In the song he says " Se ha prendido la hierba, dentro del continente, las fronteras se besan, y se ponen ardientes" The grass was lit within the continent, borders kiss and get hot... Does that seem like they were expecting something to start spreading within the continent? Ortega is till very close to Castro. To say that the Sandinistas were not initially alligned is somehow credible. Yet, to say that they remained that way reflects unfamiliarity with Cuba and Nicaragua. Brusegadi 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What motivated rank and file Nicaragans and thier leadership is the distinction. Its like with the CPUSA, although most CPUSA members knew nothing about the links to the KGB, it was a significant enough force in the organization to define its goals and manipulate its members. Ten Dead Chickens 01:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ten Dead Chickens is misinformed. The former Soviets undermined and laughed off groups like CPUSA, and eventually the Sandinistas too. The Father of Containment, George Kennan, wrote his famous long telegram describing the Soviet view of organizations like CPUSA 50 years ago. Read it. [1] Abe Froman 00:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Misinformed? Have you read about Venona? The CPUSA was ass deep in recruitment for the KGB, and the party was well paid for it. The USSR only cut Ortega free when they could no longer afford it in 1989. Once again, pick up a copy of Mitrokihn, it puts all to bed all doubts about who was in control of most Latin American revolutionary movements. Ten Dead Chickens 01:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

lol. If Ten Dead Chickens wants to believe an ex KGB officer who feathers his bed with fiction sold to nodding dittoheads, then that is part of what makes America great. I'll stick to the father of containment, George Kennan's, opinion on the Soviet's demonstrable disdain for outfits like CPUSA. George Kennan turned out to be right. Abe Froman

Thats the great thing about Mitrokin and his detractors. He has solid evidence from the KGB archives, and they have what .. exactly? Oh thats right, they have nothing. Even the hardest revisionist has given him his props, even while taking a snide shot at him. Oh well, what are you going to do. As for the meat, I have presented a solid gold source that no one of any serious credentials has refuted, if you can refute it, then by all means please do so . Ten Dead Chickens 04:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

From George Kennan's long telegram [2]:

"1. Inner central core of Communist Parties in other countries. While many of persons who compose this category may also appear and act in unrelated public capacities, they are in reality working closely together as an underground operating directorate of world communism, a concealed Comintern tightly coordinated and directed by Moscow. It is important to remember that this inner core is actually working on underground lines, despite legality of parties with which it is associated."

"2. Rank and file of Communist Parties. Note distinction is drawn between those and persons defined in paragraph 1. This distinction has become much sharper in recent years. Whereas formerly foreign Communist Parties represented a curious (and from Moscow's standpoint often inconvenient) mixture of conspiracy and legitimate activity, now the conspiratorial element has been neatly concentrated in inner circle and ordered underground, while rank and file--no longer even taken into confidence about realities of movement--are thrust forward as bona fide internal partisans of certain political tendencies within their respective countries, genuinely innocent of conspiratorial connection with foreign states."

The Soviets would use the controllable KGB as their offshore party. The CPUSA was cannon fodder, as far as they were concerned. I'll take the word of a Nobel Prize winner over a former KGB huckster any day. And where is this KGB archive material?

Abe Froman 04:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not disagree that the CPUSA were cannon fodder, but they were all to willing to sacrifec their lives as well as thier reputations to serve their masters. And as far as Kennan is concerned, what does that have to do with this article or the fact, not speculation or opinion at this point, that Ortega, Fonseca, and the FSNL were in the pockets of the Soviets. I can tell I am going to have some fun with these articles over the next few weeks. All KGB archival material is footnoted in the book. Pick up a copy and enlighten yourself, if you can handle it. Ten Dead Chickens 04:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Overestimating the importance of CPUSA is as bad as underestimating. As Kennan said, CPUSA by 1949 was "no longer even taken into confidence" by the Russians and were "genuinely innocent of conspiratorial connection with foreign states." [3] Disagree with their politics, but accuse those actually working with the KGB of treason. The Sandinistas were never trusted by the Soviets for the same reason as CPUSA. Unless the overseas group was completely controlled by the KGB and the Soviets, then the Russians wanted no part of it. Their system did not brook competing Marxist power centers. It was one party to rule them all. See George Kennan and the Sino-Soviet Split. Abe Froman 04:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As much as I respect Kennan, it is obvious that he was very much out of the loop. Dont beleive me, thats ok, because there is a mountain of evidence proving otherwise. That iunless you beleive that all the VENONA material was faked. And while part of your statement is valid, that is the Soviets were weary of their Latin American agents because of their Moaist influences, they still shoveled billions into the pockets of Ortega, Castro, Allende (didn't know about that, did you) etcetera. Keep digging though, you might just get there. Ten Dead Chickens 04:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please cite this KGB huckster's material. You keep referring to it. Abe Froman 04:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What would you like me to cite? Please be specific as I will give you anything you need. Page numbers, document numbers, footnotes .. its all good. You know, I only wish Regan was alive to see this day, to see KGB material coming out that verified all of his statements about the FSLN and El Salvador, it enough to make Michael Moore cry. Just think, the nation Magazine will have to issue a special 1500 page edition for all the corrections! HA, what a fucking hoot! Ten Dead Chickens 04:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please cite page numbers and passages describing how Soviet Russia directly supported the Sandinistas revolution as a front in their expansion. And it must be Soviet support. The Cubans did have their own money to spend on their pet causes. I am skeptical of their support before the revolution because, according to Yuri Pavlov:

" Well actually the Soviet Union started to support Sandinistas only after they had taken power, there were practically no contacts with the Sandinista revolutionaries before that happened, one reason being that the Nicaraguan Communist party a very small, entity, group of people were actually not in a position by they did not support the Sandinistas revolutionary struggle, considering it was kind of a blanket way of trying to seize power, that it would not work." [4]

Abe Froman 04:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

<-----------------

A brief primer on how the KGB directly supported the Sandinistas revolution as a front in their expansion

His (Aleksandr Shelepin) visaged creating a second anti-American bridgehead in Nicaragua where the newly founded FSLN was dedicated to following the the example of the Cuban revolution and overthrowing the brutal pro-American dictatorship of the Somoza Dynasty.... Shelepin proposed that the KGB secretly co-ordinate a 'revolutionary front' in Central America in collaboration with the Cubans and Sandinistans. On August1 (1960), with only minor amendments, his (Shelepin's) grand strategy was approved by the Central Comitee Directive. pg 40

The FSLN leader, Carlos Fonseca Amador, codenamed GIDRO- LOG ('Hydrologist'), was a trusted KGB agent pg 41

Shelepin reported to Krushchev in July 1961:

• In Nicaragua ... at the present time - Via KGB agents and confidential contacts PIMEN, GIDROLOG and LOT, the KGB is influencing and providing financial aid to the Sandino (Sandinista) Revolutionary Front and three partisan detachments which belong to the Internal Revolutionary Resistance Front, which works in co-ordination with its (Cuban and Soviet bloc intelegence services). In order to obtain weapons and ammunition, it is proposed that and additional $10,000 be allocated to these detachments from KGB funds. pg 42

BTW PIMEN=Edelberto Torres Espinosa and LOT is unidentified.

Unfortunately for Mr Pavlov, the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing.

Does the sausage king of Chicago desire more? Because if you do, there is a boat load more. Ten Dead Chickens 15:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Shelepin's laughable "master plot" thought of in 1961 in support of the Sandinistas amounted to "10,000 American dollars," of support. [5] No evidence I can find says this money was ever delivered. But lets assume it was. Spread over 20 years, does Ten Dead Chickens expect us to believe the Sandinista revolution ran on $500 a year? Were these magic dollars? Shelepin fell from power in 1975. The Sandinistas began their revolution 4 years later. Was this $500 dollar a year bargain revolution also on Shelepin's remote control from his retirement dacha? I believe Shelepin is following in the footsteps of many former, impoverished, KGB agents and feathering his bed with ghost-written fantasy sold to needy dittoheads in the States'. Show us the money.

The questionable integrity of Shelepin's undocumented allegations aside, Ten Dead Chickens allegations support George Kennan's 1949 conclusions. As described above, the KGB used local groups as cannon fodder, preferring to instead focus on individuals who the KGB could completely control. In Nicaragua's case, they supported some local politicians. But real support? Get real. How many Mig fighters were delivered to Managua? Zero, as I recall. Soviet support for Nicaragua was token at best, especially because the Cubans already were present. [6] The Soviets did not like ideological competition, even from members of the same, ostensibly happy, Communist family. Abe Froman 16:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That little primer was not enough for you then? You desire more lashings? Ten Dead Chickens 16:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As proven above, your star source, Shelepin, was not in government due to forced retirement four years prior to the Sandinista revolution. He is hardly a reed to stand on. Abe Froman 16:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You asked "Please cite page numbers and passages describing how Soviet Russia directly supported the Sandinistas revolution as a front in their expansion. And it must be Soviet support. The Cubans did have their own money to spend on their pet causes. I am skeptical of their support before the revolution because, according to Yuri Pavlov", and I provided the information that Shelepin began supporting the FSLN in 1961, and that support continued all the way till 1989. And just becasue Shelepin retired before 1979, does not mean KGB support for the FSLN ended. Ten Dead Chickens 16:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I gotta tell you, you just dont know when to quit do you. Shelepin is not the source, these are his memos that Mitrokihn copied and smuggled out of the country. Mitrokihn smuggled tens of thousands of KGB documents out of Russia in 1992, these are not as you continue to say, undocumented allegations, but the real deal.

Aside from the money given to the FSLN, which you dismiss as small, there were other much larger cash payouts to the FSLN (pg53), KGB recruitment and training in Moscow and Havana of its members (Fonseca and others), arms transfers, organization efforts and propaganda fronts (pgs 44-70) which appears to have worked on people like you.

But by the mid 1960's the KGB saw its efforts as futile and used its FSLN trained monkeys for other purposes (speaking of Red Dawn).

During the later 1960's the Center was more interested in using FSLN guerillas in operations to reconnoiter sabotage targets in the Southern United States than in helping them prepare gfor revolution in Nacaragua. In 1966 a KGB sabotage and intlegence group (DRG) based on ISKRA guerilla group was formed on the Mexican -US border with support bases in the area of Juarez, Tijuana and Ensenada. Its leader, Andara y Ubeda (PRIM) traveled to Moscow for training in Line F operations. Among the chief targets were American military bases, missile sites, radar instalations and the oil popelin which ran from El Paso to Cota Mesa Ca. A support group codenamed SATURN was tasked with using the movements of migrant workers (braceros) to conceal the transfer of agents and munitions across the border. pg 89

ISKRA was the core FSLN group that the KGB trained.

How often do I have to rteiterate this to you: this information comes from a KGB agent who smuggled the relevant documents to the UK. This is no longer the realm of specualtion, or hearsay. If you want to dismiss this all as some kind of "ditto head" conspiracy to make the FSLN look bad, then so be it, but as of yet you have provided nothing but rhetoric to counter any of Mitrokihn's information. You are in a hole here, please stop digging. Ten Dead Chickens 16:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Above your fiction writer Shelepin noted "Among the chief targets were American military bases, missile sites, radar instalations and the oil popelin which ran from El Paso to Cota Mesa Ca." I said it once, I'll say it again. Ten Dead Chickens thinks the movie Red Dawn was real. Get real. This Shelepin character was in no position to help or smuggle documents about the Sandinistas. He left government in 1975. Abe Froman 15:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

UGGH, Say it with me, the source of the information is Vasili Mitrokhin. It was Mitrokhin who took the documents out of the Soviet Union, and some of these documents were authored by Shelepin. Have you even bothered to look at the book? Ten Dead Chickens 15:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ten Dead Chickens argument about 1980's Nicaraguans invading the US just happens to follow the basic plot of the 1980's Patrick Swayze movie Red Dawn. You should be sued for plagiarism.  :-) I can't believe you fell for this repackaged 1980's conspiracy theory, Ten Dead Chickens . On second thought... Wait, yes I can. Abe Froman 16:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, where to begin! First, after juxtaposing, who wrote what "Shelepin is a liar, oh wait no, Mitrokhin a lair, oh wait anyone who says something I wish were not true is a liar", offering no factual substance to back anythink you have said here you top is off by claiming that Mitrokhin (Christopher Andrew wrote the book) should be sued for plagarism. That hole just keeps getting deeper. Now, take a breath, and explain to me, without the use of highly flamable strawmen, that Mitrokhin is bogus. Kepping in mind though, that since the information is reputably source, it will not be removed from the article. Ten Dead Chickens 17:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ten Dead Chickens can begin by ending this proven-false line of conspiracy theory in the article. Mitrokhin was an archivist, not an author. So the KGB wrote some pretty plans in the 1960's, so what? The Pentagon also maintains war plans against Canada. Bureaucracy's find all kinds of fun uses for their time. As Pavlov above was quoted, the Soviets did not help the Sandinistas in any material way until after the 1979 revolution was over. And even then, the help was grudging, because Cuba got there first. Finally, from the quotations Ten Dead Chickens cites from the Mitrokhin book, it is clear that Ten Dead Chickens has internalized the Hollywood movie Red Dawn and reacts to any material supporting the conspiracy theory that Nicaragua was some secret base for a 1980's US invasion. Get real.

This quote puts the issue to rest. From Yuri Pavlov, Former Head of the Latin American Division for the Soviet Foreign Office:

"The Soviet Union started to support Sandinistas only after they had taken power, there were practically no contacts with the Sandinista revolutionaries before that happened, one reason being that the Nicaraguan Communist party a very small, entity, group of people were actually not in a position by they did not support the Sandinistas revolutionary struggle, considering it was kind of a blanket way of trying to seize power, that it would not work." [7]

Pavlov was there, in power and what he says is clear. As for uncorroborated conspiracy theories Ten Dead Chickens keeps shopping, absence of evidence is not evidence of some super plot.

Abe Froman 17:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry chief Shelepin's directive and the actions that flowed from it either means that Pavlov did not know about the covert methods, or that he was lying in the interview, either way more recenet information negates Pavlovs statements.

Shelepin reported to Krushchev in July 1961:

*In Nicaragua ... at the present time - Via KGB agents and confidential contacts PIMEN, GIDROLOG and LOT, the KGB is influencing and providing financial aid to the Sandino (Sandinista) Revolutionary Front and three partisan detachments which belong to the Internal Revolutionary Resistance Front, which works in co-ordination with its (Cuban and Soviet bloc intelegence services). In order to obtain weapons and ammunition, it is proposed that and additional $10,000 be allocated to these detachments from KGB funds. pg 42

As far as the "uncorroborated conspiracy theories" by all means, find me one serious critic of Andrew and Mitrokihn. But please, if you want to continue downthis path, I would be more than happy to see this matter settled in mediation,as this current debate is goinf no where in a big freaking hurry. Ten Dead Chickens 19:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't see how this article makes Nicaragua out to be a satelite of anybody, just stating the fact that the USSR and Cuba suported them. CJK 22:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

of course not, propaganda at times states travesties like that, but the sandinistas were a reaction to the herodian-like goverment of Somoza.

yo whoever could crack this code can enter the fbi

[['''''hello little one''''']]

Whether Nicaragua was a "satellite" of Cuba or the USSR is a trivial matter of perspective and semantics. Look at the facts: the Sandinista army was equipped with Soviet toys (MiGs, AK 47, etc.). They may have come from Cuba or from the USSR, who knows. Once the Sandinistas were in power, Soviet gasoline started appearing on the market, as did Soviet vehicles (Lada and Niva). The Soviet influence cannot be denied, and neither can the communist and dictatorial bent of the Sandinistas. In the stage of global politics during the control of the Sandinistas, Cuba and USSR were basically synonymous, and there is no doubt that Cuba was a Soviet satellite. So what was Nicaragua, a Soviet or Cuban satellite? Who cares really, the political leanings of the ruling Sandinistas were clear, and are clear to this day. I know this because I am from Nicaragua and I lived there as these changes were taking place. I vividly recall private homes suddenly ending up in the hands of Soviet and Cuban diplomats, while private citizens of Nicaragua were ceremoniously kicked out of their properties.

(-most of the land involved in redistribution previously belonged to Somoza. most of the weapons used until 1979 came from Czechoslovakia. the economy actually grew at first under the FSLN, up until the process of destabilization began.

at least, this is what i discovered conducting my own research for a thesis in 2005. I knew nothing about this issue previously, and I've studied the late USSR quite extensively. In the war against Somoza, the FSLN was forced to take backing from Cuba, as it was the only solid, guaranteed aid they had coming in. Would you rather them succumb to a violent dictator or establish democracy, as they did in 1979 and continue to.

~AW)

History section

   "Nicaragua offered assistance during World War 2"

Assistance to whom? The Germans? (Im pretty sure this is written by a yank though, either youre with us or against us you know) 129.241.11.201 16:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

They gave assistence to the US. It is interesting to note that Somoza took advantage of the war. He had many German citizens expelled of the country. It sounds somehow crazy. Well, these Germans had land and money. He expelled them and kept much of their belongings. I believed that the territory where Montelimar is was onced German owned. Brusegadi 20:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Needs to go beyond 1945 as well. Richard75 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Offered assistence to the Allies of course. And Somoza also took advantage of the situation to expell or German nationals and take their stuff. I have not citations thought, and I am not about to look for them... 68.0.214.211 04:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicaragua provided assistance to the Allies, specifically, rubber.

Economy section

This could use a bit more critical elaboration. As it is written it sound as if all is rosy and doing well. In fact, the policies implemented since 1990 have been as damaging to the economy as what was done previously (and there has been no significant war since then!) The neoliberal miracles around the world are not working for most, and it is most painfully evident in Nicaragua and Honduras. The problem extends beyond the Sandinista/Somozista, or communist/capitalist dichotomies, to use it as an explanation is a facile dismissal of the reality being lived by the majority of the population. The problems go back well beyond 1979 and they continue today (don't think I reserve my critique only to the right wing ideologues... but I will elaborate more on this at a later time, for the moment it should suffice to say that the assumptions of "progress" is what I critique... something ala Escobar). The current policies have been in place for over 15 years and have resulted in a true economic disaster for most Nicaraguans (albeit there have been many causes beyond the control of the planners of the "neoliberal economic miracle," such as the coffee crises in 1996 and 2002/3 and the current rise in the cost of petroleum). A more critical explanation of the economy is needed for this section, something that goes beyond the tourist information guide concept of a happy banana republic. Guillermo 06:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation

(Spanish: República de Nicarágua, IPA [re'puβlika ðe nika'raɰwa])

Since when does Spanish have voiced dental fricatives [ð]?

External links

With this many external links, they need to be categorized by toics, type of source, etc...--Esprit15d 20:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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: [8] 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)

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!

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.