Talk:Nicaragua/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Were the Sandinistas socialist or just leftist? How does one discern? What did they call themselves?

Yes, it's a fair question, complicated by the variety of views represented in the FSLN as it grew from a small Marxist core into something more like a mass movement. There were certainly important Sandinistas who didn't see themselves as socialist (or perhaps even particularly leftist), and there wasn't much in the way of transformation to a socialist system in the FSLN's government programmes. The FSLN considered itself revolutionary rather than socialist, and its tolerance of private enterprise was at odds with the ideals of Marxists who mostly supported it. I think "socialist" is factually inappropriate, though it certainly applies to individual founding Sandinista leaders: "leftist" is fair comment for the FSLN as a whole, though I preferred the word "radicalism" in that particular location in the article because it conveys also an element of ideological unpredictability (and possible adventurism) which I think has some validity in that context and which perhaps alarmed Washington more than any ideologically pure content on the part of a core minority. David Parker

Motto

The German page says the motto was "Pro Mundi Beneficio." Is "In god we trust" not something from the US? Get-back-world-respect 15:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

"Pro Mundi Beneficio" is the Latin translation of "for the benefit of the world".

R. Garcia, 17 Nov 2005.

I'm totally amazed that this article completely ignores the tragic war which occured between the Sandanistas and so-called US-backed 'Contras' in the mid- to late-eighties, and the suffering inflicted on the people of Nicaragua.

As far as I can see there is no link to any article mentioning this very important phase in the country's recent history.

Should there not be at least some mention of this? Granted, it will be hard to do this from a NPOV, but its inclusion is surely merited.

Agendum 23:32, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Helpful

Your page has been very helpful. I was unable to find any famous people in other sites but here I was able to easily find them.

Important Nicaraguans???

You rightfully have Ruben Dario at the top of the list but I don't see how you can say that Arlen Siu, and other 9 or 10 on your list can be "Important Nicaraguans". 11 of the 15 on the list are Sandinistas that because the damage they did to the country they are somehow "important", the inclusion of Daniel Ortega is enough, the rest of them are minor guerrilla men and women.

You could have Salomon De La Selva who composed the National Anthem. Andres Castro who with just a rock initiated the defeat of the American Southern filibuster William Walker. Rafaela herrera who led the defense of the Rivas Fort against the Spanish after her father got killed. Augusto Cesar Sandino who fought the American invasion.

In sports:

Alexis Arguello the first boxer to conquer 3 different weight titles. Denis Martinez one of only 12 perfect games pitcher in the Big Leagues. Jaime Bone Billiard (pool) champion.

And that's only a few really "Important Nicaraguans"

MS

Hi, where is the list of important Nicaraguans? was it removed altogether? can we have it back reflecting the names mentioned above? Thanks

R. Garcia

Proposed changes

KEITH is spamming in his photos and making some truly terrible edits, and breaking 3RR I think. What is to be done? --SqueakBox 05:23, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Can KEITH please bring any proposed changes here; otherwise they are likely to be reverted (the same ones he has given us so far anyway). A statement like Nicaragua is the safest country in the Americas is not only untrue (it's less safe than Costa Rica) it is also hopelessly POV. While some of the photos are nice we cannot allow one person's photos to dominate the page, and the photos of students are totally inappropriate, I think, --SqueakBox 15:24, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

We need to source that nicaragua is one of the safest Am countries before putting it in the text, and even then not in the first line-it sounds like a tourist ad for Nicaragua-which we cannot have for being hopelessly POV, --SqueakBox 19:47, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I´m actualy making studies of latin america economy, I´m from Canada. I found that some articles about Nicaraguas was realy wrong. Nicaragua is the safest country in Central America. Please visit http://www.pronicaragua.org/safety_investment.html and you will find too other sources (Interamerican Development Bank, CIA Factbook, etc) where you´ll find the same information. I visited Nicaragua and I found that the reality in this country has changed A LOT since I was there 15 years ago. Sorry if I haven´t explain this before. I invite you to actualize about this county. Costa Rica is not yet the safest country in Central America (did you know how many touris are killed or asaulted by day? visit the page of the USA State Department about Costa Rica) however is not so unsure as El Salvador.

Actualize Information

I´m actualy making studies of latin america economy, I´m from Canada. I found that some articles about Nicaraguas was realy wrong. Nicaragua is the safest country in Central America. Please visit http://www.pronicaragua.org/safety_investment.html and you will find too other sources (Interamerican Development Bank, CIA Factbook, etc) where you´ll find the same information. I visited Nicaragua and I found that the reality in this country has changed A LOT since I was there 15 years ago. Sorry if I haven´t explain this before. I invite you to actualize about this county. Costa Rica is not yet the safest country in Central America (did you know how many touris are killed or asaulted by day? visit the page of the USA State Department about Costa Rica http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1093.html) however is not so unsure as El Salvador. By.

Yeah okay, but not in the first paragraph, somewhere not in the opening. It doesn't feel appropriate there because it doesn't really fit in with how the other countries opening paragraphs are in wikipedia. I think Nicaragua is too poor to be really safe, and it wasn't my experience of the country. An underresourced police force is never a great sign of security. Lulling people into a false sense of security is not a good idea about anywhere in latin America, and not in Nicaragua. besides which we are not trying to sell the country to people, we are trying to write an encyclopedic article about it, --SqueakBox 22:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I can't see that it's really necessary to include info about safety in this way. It changes quickly and is very subjective and variable. I am sure Managua is not as safe as San José, for example. As SqueakBox says, we're not a travel guide. Wikitravel may be interested in this info though. Worldtraveller 22:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I respect your poit of view, but we have to be evidence based. We have to show to the world people´s the reality about the countries, no a superficial vision or our point of view without review the facts. 10 years ago I used to think that China was a poor country and in 5 years the reality has changed. 8 years ago Europe was not a nation. 40 years ago my Grandphater did thi--SqueakBox 15:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)nk that Japan and Israel wont progress, and than Argentina become the richest country in the south hemisphere. Probably the same happened two centuries ago with USA: nobody think that this unsure and poor county of America will become a great nation. Our minds have to see that the world changes.

I must have missed something here... when did Europe become a nation? Haven't seen anything in any newspapers the last 8 years about my country (Sweden) being dissolved and absorbed into the European Union... but the newspapers in the US might have another view on the issue? /Nilzzon 21:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

We have to use secondary sources, and not do our own original research. See Wikipedia:No original research + Wikipedia:Verifiability. We should not proactively try to influence events, --SqueakBox 23:08, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Allway we have to use secundary high evidence level (1 or 2a,b or c) sorces: that´s the evidence based principle, our point of view must be only an documented analysis of the reality. I agree absolutely with you.

Wordtraver is changing the editions desmesurately. He does not take in acount the fact and the information. He put only what he think by himself that is correct. It does not matter that this is wrong.

A biot like how you edits here, --SqueakBox 15:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I AGREE WITH KEITH THE INFORMATION MUST TO BE ACTUALIZED BUT THE ACTITUDE OF WORLDTRAVELLER IS NOT ADECUATE OR POLITE, NEITHER SCIENTIST. WILKIPEDIA IS A ENCICOCLOPEDIA NO A POINT OF VIEW OF WORDLTRAVELLER. MIKE SMITH, CALIFORNIA.

You are in Mexioc City not California. I don't for a second believe there is more than one person here, ie you are KEITH, and I believe you are a native Spanish speaker, not English (ie you are not from Canada either). Can you source that your pics are not from Mexico? Don't take the people here as fools, --SqueakBox 16:42, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

No English native speaker would write actitude; the English is attitude and the Spanish actitud, --SqueakBox 16:45, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Pretending to be 2 people to bolster support for a point of view is called Wikipedia:Sockpuppet, --SqueakBox 16:49, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Your mind are a little bit closed Mr. Inquisition of Science and Mr. DAP (Delirium Allucination Paraniod). I was thinking that is BETTER writing Mexico than Mexioc; what is your native langaje?.... Sorry If I tell you where I`m from and a question: where are you from are you living? Thank Mr. DAP

Hi everyone, I am of Latin American background but currently live in Canada. I have previously lived both in Nicaragua and Costa Rica and I'd like to say that although we might diverge in opinion from current statistics and facts, the different research bodies have taken to the trouble of thoroughly investigating and stating that Nicaragua is in fact the safest country in Central America... to make a statement otherwise would be strictly a personal POV and contrary to reality whether we like it or not.

A good example of a one-sided POV (point-of-view) scenario could be Costa Rica's claim that over 90% of their population is "white", if you have lived or even visited that country for a short period you'd immediately realize that it has been immensely exaggerated and that in fact they are rather a minority the same as most other Central American republics. The case might be that their "mestizo" population is simply a slightly "lighter shade of brown" but for them to claim Iberian (ie. Spain/Portugal) purity is naive and delusional as they have a sizeable Afro-Amerindian stock in their population. It is important to stick to facts and statistics when making statements, specially when posting to an encyclopaedic medium such as Wikipedia.

We cannot simply disregard the thoroughly proven fact that Nicaragua is in deed safer than even Costa Rica (I should know as I have lived in both countries) and it would be biased and unethical of anhone not to allow this information on Wikipedia. That country's economy has changed over the last two decades and although it's still considered a poor country by comparison, things can rapidly change and they already have been specially with a U.S. free-trade agreement (DR-CAFTA)... let's not forget that just over 30 years ago Costa Rica could only dream to have as strong an economy as Nicaragua did back then, even Taiwan had a lower GDP per capita than Nicaragua but look where they are now!!! things change and that is a fact, learn to deal with it and accept it.

R. García

Political neutrality

The politics is kind of scewed here. Though the Sandanista's were no angels, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and Oxfam all praised Nicaragua for making incredible progress in raising the living standard and comended the governments social programs. As for the incredible wealth that the Somoza family presided over in Nicaragua, it should be noted that the wealth was highly concentrated while most of the country lived in poverty. This article seems to be biased and somewhat justifies the US supported dictatorships as good for wealth and stability and condemns the Sandanista's as tyrinnical while briefly mentioning that they were put in government DEMOCRATICALLY. Yes we may not like all they did but democracy is a government for and of the people, thus we can't expect every democracy to fall in line in taking orders from the United States. This article should go into the CIA supported contra's which hit what the US called "soft targets"....which was mostly schools, hospitals and community centers. Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, numerous other organizations have great information regarding Nicaragua. The brutalities of the Somoza dictatorships should not be ignored.

Be aware that we have an NPOV policy, and that your edits can be edited mercilessly, and go for it. Your edits on this matter would be very welcome. You may well be right about the article being too pro the USA. BTW we have a Contras article, but yes, bring material here to the page, by all means, --SqueakBox 15:30, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

A statement

I don´t know why Worldtraveller is changing all the people contributions for Wikipedia. It´s an unpolite and obsesive way (I think he shoud think seriously about an obsesive compulsive disorder). I have been searching about him. He vissited for a few days central america (5 years ago) and specifically in Nicaragua he only visited Ometepe Island (an indigenous comunity), Granada (european city in Nicaragua) and Masaya (higly mestizo)and Leon (this is a shortly proportion of Nicaragua) He didn´t visited most of the country Granada Island, Carazo, San Juan del Sur, pacific and Atlantic beaches, cental region, etc, etc, etc. The point of view of worldtraveler about the region is very limmited. He has a poorly edition of history, culture, domographics, people, etc, about this region. I think he nedd to actualize a lot. The editions he has made are realy uncomplete or are not according the reaality and history. Worldtraveler I´m goin to invite you to read more scientist articles and to be more objective. The principle of the investigator (if you are a investigator) is EVIDENCE BASED PRINCIPLES. And the people must be informed accuracely. Worldtraveller.org please start by reading, http://www.bjmjr.com/afromestizo/nicaragua.htm, http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_985.html, ttp://www.granada.com.ni/intro/intro.html, http://www.pronicaragua.org/safety_investment.html,http://www.intur.gob.ni/, http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1093.html May be that this pages actualize a little bit Wordltraveller information about Nicaragua y about the photos that he has erased and other people has unerased, are of my own. I did take the pics when I made a study about nicaragua

Engaging in personal attacks towards other users doesn't make you credible, nor does claiming to be from Canada or California. You have photos that could be of Mexico, and that in the case of the students could be seen as vanity photos. You write in bad English, contradicting statistics without sourcing, removing the bit about black people in the north, etc. The first time I noticed you you were deleting photos from Nicaragua and the demographics pages, to then replace them a bit later with your own photos in a very spam like way. --SqueakBox 00:30, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Good to see you doing some research, KEITH. Hope you enjoyed reading about my Central American travels. Read more scientist articles? Hm, well, I do have a PhD in astronomy, so I feel I have plenty enough experience of reading scientific articles and basing my work on evidence! The point here is you're continually re-adding information, which is being removed by me and others for perfectly valid reasons. First, it expresses a strong point of view. Second, your images seem to lack source information, making them potentially copyright violations. Third, you're breaking the three revert rule by reverting repeatedly to your own version. And fourth, you seem to be not even remotely interested in finding a consensus - a crucial thing in producing a neutral encyclopaedia. Your behaviour is verging on vandalism, and if it continues, you're likely to be blocked from editing. Discussing proposed changes on the talk page here would be a good way to start contributing positively towards this article, if you're interested in doing that. Worldtraveller 08:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Persons have to respect the evidence based contributions

The Worltravell (and related usernames) attitude and words does not seem coming from a researcher. However I have meet colleges whose attitude is not so ethical. You have to change your attitude. I can see that you are not so busy and yours “RESEARCH” time is used to maintain only your point of view, not taking in account the facts. If you look the talking the one impolite person here is you. You are changing all the time the articles evidence based and that is not the attitude of a research (a researcher must to add sources not opinion). My contributions and the other people contribution’s to wikipedia will be ever here. It does not matter that a not busy person like you change whit out a source the evidence based contributions of people, that is a a realy contradiction to point of view, consensus and is a vandalism, and if you don´t support your changes with a high evidence level information your changes will be change to the previos evidence level. I have no seen any science contribution of you. I can show you at least more than then articles published by me in impact reviews, and other in other kind of reviews. Some are new contributions. But I prefer don’t enter in unnecessary conflicts. I hope you to take a real researcher attitude and you to use more time in investigate some troubles no yet resolved in astronomy (if really you are a researcher) and I hope you to improve your attitude and don’t look like a amateur. I hope that my contribution and other people contributions only be changed by other evidence but no just by opinion. This is not a scientist attitude. Try to suport your information before changing.

KEITH - are you interested in finding a consensus and positively engaging to improve this article? It seems to me you are not; repeatedly reverting, now probably about 20 times over a couple of weeks, to re-insert edits which do not have a consensus, is extremely disruptive, and can be considered vandalism. If it continues you are likely to become the subject of a request for comment or request for arbitration, and possibly an eventual ban on editing. To work productively on this, you really need to discuss changes here. At least three people have been reverting your edits, indicating that you have a great deal to do to convince people of the merits of your changes. Simply re-inserting them is never going to do that. Worldtraveller 16:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

KEITH, signing your edits with 4 of these:~ would be great, as would refraining from engaging in attacks on Worldtraveller (none of us know how busy he actually is, nor do I personally care). I endorse the above Worldtraveller statement, SqueakBox 16:49, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Worldtraveller (and related usernames or nicknames “SqueakBox”) has this page looked for new contributions.

Review all contributions in the history: Worldtraveller has changed and rejected every contribution of all people. He has violated the NPOV Neutral point of view. This is vandalism Wikipedia:Vandalism. He never cite the sources of his changes Citing your sources only change it.

1. He changes all the evidence based contribution with his own point of view 2. He uses two usernames in order to make the same changes 3. He uses a impolite vocabulary with all contributors 4. He does not support his changes 5. He has never supported with verifiable bibliography the discussion

Dear Worltraveller (and related usernames "SkeakBox" that wrote the same day, at consecutive hours, from the same URL in UK, and has the same photo in Internet) please if you want to make changes start by:

1. Making your changes citing a updated information 2. Allow other people updating the page (not only your poit of view) 3. Do not erase other contributions if you do not support your contributions

I hope that every time you want to edit some article you support this change in the discussion.

Thank you and I hope you enjoy contributing in a better way to Wikipedia. Keith

KEITH remove your sockpuppet allegations and apologidse to both worldtraveller and I if you wish to avoid an Rfc, SqueakBox 22:58, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Name change

As nicaragua is called Nicaragua, and as long as it remains called Nicaragua, we must call it Nicaragua. Any name changes to a name that is not Nicaragua will be reverted immediately without explannation, SqueakBox 23:23, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpupetry

I strongly suspect that Granada (talk · contribs) is KEITH (talk · contribs), SqueakBox 03:42, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I've asked nicely for him to stop messing up this page, but it seems like this has gone on a lot longer than I thought. I've blocked Granada. CryptoDerk 03:46, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

KEITH has access to several IP's in rapid succession, and thus can easily avoid simple blocks, SqueakBox 04:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

1984 elections observed

According to the BBC

Approximately 400 independent foreign observers, including a number of Americans, were in Nicaragua to monitor proceedings. The unofficial British election observer, Lord Chitnis, said proceedings were not perfect but he had no doubt the elections were fair.

It seems wrong to say that the election was only monitored by "Western NGOs allowed into the country by the Sandinistas." It is usually NGOs that monitor elections and the implication is that some were not allowed in. In which case please give some evidence. My recollection was that the government was keen to have as many monitors as they could to add legitimacy to their election. Billlion 11:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above statement is definately true. Declassified documents have shown that the US in fact urged opposition candidates to boycott the election in an attempt to make it seem illegitimate. This is shown play by play by William LeoGrande in "In Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992." I don´t know why the person who wrote the Nicaragua section keeps changing it back to their story, which is quite skewed. -KS

Declassified documents show many things:

The FSLN leadership had firmly decided to carry out the transformation of the FSLN into a Marxist Leninist Party, including within other leftist parties and groups on an individual basis. The centrist and bourgeois mini-parties already existing in the country would be kept only because they presented no danger and served as a convient facade for the outside world. -Alexei Leonov’s notes from a three day meeting in late 1983 between himself Ortega and Borge.

Ten Dead Chickens 15:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

10 Dead Chickens, why are you deleting my comments? KS

I don’t believe I have deleted any of your comments from the talk page.Ten Dead Chickens 16:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, declassified documents from the US government do show many things. Where is your quote from? Is the implication you are trying to make that if there had been a broad based opposition party, the FSLN would have crushed it? That is a very hypothetical assumption. At the time of the 1984 elections, Nicaragua did not have a well-developed party system, as it was a country emerging from over 40 years of dictatorship. The FSLN was the first real organized and mass party in Nicaraguan history, and remains the most organized political party in the country. And the policies of the Sandinistas were far from Marxist-Leninist. It was a mixed public and private economy. To call the Sandinistas Marxists-Leninist is to adopt dated and disproved Reaganite Cold War rhetoric that reveals nothing about what was actually going on. -KS 10:08am, 2/15/2006

My quote is from Mitrokhin. His notes and documents are very clear that while the FSLN put up a democratic front, it was just that, a front, and opposition parties were allowed to participate just so long as they posed no real threat to Ortega’s power. Mitrokhin’s documents also show that the FSLN was doctrinarian in its Marxist-Leninist outlook, but could not be as open about it due to US suspicions. Ten Dead Chickens 16:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you define as a Marxist-Leninist outlook? Managuense 11:09am 2/15/2006

I suppose Wikipedia's definition of Marxist-Leninist is as good as any. But I must be clear here, the Marxist-Leninist label applied to the FSLN is not mine persay, but the label the Ortega, Moscow and Havana used. Ten Dead Chickens 17:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Nice One, deleting my article about The US's Involvement in the 1990 Nicaraguan Elections, patriotic Americans and disinformation seem to go hand in hand. NickK

What are you talking about, SqueakBox 14:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board

I would like to announce the establishment of the Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. Anyone with an interest in the Caribbean is welcome to join in. Guettarda 1 July 2005 04:09 (UTC)

Comment moved from article page

I have looked around and been unable to find any evidence supporting the claim that William J. Casey encouraged attacks on "soft targets," though I don't doubt the possibility. My concern is that the writer has been reading too much Z magazine and is skipping over more important evidence of CIA wrongdoing, such as the involvement of cocaine in the support the Contra army [which has been well-documented] in favor of hearsay that will only serve to discredit an otherwise well-written article.

note to Wiki editors - the [edit] button is unclear as to which section it belongs to; the one above or the one below; and I meant for the above note to be written above. Thanks, -Brandon Kirk

(posted by User:210.3.33.150 - Worldtraveller 09:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

Thank you Worldtraveller

Your most recent edit finally got the 1990 election section under control. Clearly the 1990 election has, and will continue to spark stark disagreements between those with an interest in Nicaragua, but I think your most recent edits put it back in it's place of being a notable event in Nicaragua history, but not worthy of nearly 1/2 of all the text in the Nicaragua article...

Article on Nicaragua

I lived in Nicaragua during the times of war, Sandinistas, and Violeta Chamorro. I am absolutely amazed and insulted that this article on Nicaragua ignores the history leading to the war. Anyone reading this article please go somewhere else because history was erased here.

C.

Like a lot of people here, I'd love to read about this part of Nicaraguan history...but it needs to be written yet. Perhaps you're up to the task? I see a great deal of this is covered at History of Nicaragua, a separate article, well linked-to from the main article. Tom e r ^talk 03:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a section about the death of Pedro Joaquin Chamorro and its importance in gaining support for the Sandinistas. This is not a particularly controversial point. Has the person who deleted this part ever been to Nicaragua or actually read any books about the historical process of the revolution? I am a historian who lives and works in Nicaragua, and I can assure you that anyone here would point to the assasination of PJC as one of the most pivotal moments in Nicaraguan history. Why is this person so dogmatic about their version of Nicaraguan history? The 1972 earthquake was important, but to put that as the main causal factor or event that pushed the revolution forward while ignoring other key moments is ridiculous. -KS 10am 15 Feb, 2006

Exilees

Someone had entered the following information: as it is estimated that approximately 2 million people were in exile as of early 1980's of which a great many are now returning. If there is truth in it we should include it somehow. Get-back-world-respect 00:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicaragua Vs the US

Where in the decision does it state that the US was "found guilty of supporting terrorism", because I have reviewed the material in question and it makes no such statement. Ten Dead Chickens 16:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what page may I find that? CJK 20:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How would you call supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities, attacks, laying mines, producing a manual entitled 'Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas', and disseminating it to Contra forces when our article says "The Contras were considered terrorists by the Sandinistas because many of their attacks targeted civilians."? Get-back-world-respect 20:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Its not what we would call it, that’s not up for us to decide. So again, where, and please take note here, specifically does the charge that the US was "found guilty of supporting terrorism" appear in the courts decision? If its not in the decision you are citing than, I don’t see how the information can stay in its present form. And, as a side note, if US funding of the Contras is "terrorism" is Cuba guilty of "terrorism" for their role in aiding the Sandinistas during the 70's, or would Nicaragua be guilty for its funding and training of the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front? Just curious. Ten Dead Chickens 21:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, so editors have to decide how best to summarize. I would say found guilty of supporting terrorism is a good summary of what the court decided. If you disagree, please explain. Please note that this article is about Nicaragua, not Cuba, but if you find an ICJ case saying Cuba did similar things I would agree that it found Cuba guilty of supporting terrorism. Get-back-world-respect 22:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You are basing the use of the phrase “supporting terrorism” off of your own biased interpretation, not on the decision rendered by the court. Terrorism has been deemed by Wikipedia as a word to avoid unless it can be properly attributed:

The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism]

Now since this phrase proceeds the ICJ, clearly the sentence implies that the ICJ considered it terrorism, and the only opinion cited is your own summarization.

Take it out. Ten Dead Chickens 22:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TDC. CJK 00:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Violated international law is completely empty. It only says they lost some case, it does not say what it was about. If you know better wording, go ahead, just delete information is not useful. Terrorism is a pretty concise summary of military and paramilitary activities, attacks, laying mines, producing a manual entitled 'Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas', and disseminating it to forces were considered terrorists because many of their attacks targeted civilians. Get-back-world-respect 00:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Violation of int'l law is what the ICJ ruled on. If you are trying to aviod the "words to aviod" policy, and it is policy, then the onus is on you to demonstrate this with a source. Ten Dead Chickens 04:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian says:The [[ICJ] ruled on the following issues in Nicaragua vs. United States on 27 June 1986. Their decisions are rendered verbatim below: [1] 10:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

(3) By twelve votes to three,

"Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State;"

(4) By twelve votes to three,

"Decides that the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State;"

(5) By twelve votes to three,

"Decides that the United States of America, by directing or authorizing over Rights of Nicaraguan territory, and by the acts imputable to the United States referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to violate the sovereignty of another State;"

(6) By twelve votes to three,

"Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;"

(8) By fourteen votes to one,

"Decides that the United States of America, by failing to make known the existence and location of the mines laid by it, referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof, has acted in breach of its obligations under customary international law in this respect;" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian@popflux.com (talk • contribs) .

And as we need to summarize this in the article I chose the words "supported terrorism". If someone is found guilty of something we need to write what, violation of law can be anything. Get-back-world-respect 12:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The IJC never used the term "terrorism", and as a word to avoid[2] should not be used in this context. Ten Dead Chickens 18:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian says: The ICJ never used the term "terrorism", because the United States is a sovereign state. But take subsection 6 & 8 from above, for example. If Al Qaeda mined New York Harbor, would it be called a "violation of US sovereignty," or "terrorism?" I think it would be called terrorism. How is the mining of Nicaragua's harbor qualitatively different? I would add the word "terrorism," but qualify it heavily, indicating a sovereign state was the actor and the mining was done under dubious Executive authority with zero congressional oversight ( see Iran-Contra ). This places the blame where it belongs. Not on the entire American people, but on the rogue operators at the NSC who defied Legislative oversight and misled the Executive branch ( see Oliver North). 18:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If Al Qaeda mined New York Harbor, would it be called a "violation of US sovereignty," or "terrorism?" I think it would be called terrorism. It does not matter what you think. The World Court did not call it terrorism, so we should not act like it did. CJK 19:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian says: The ICJ does not seek to define the English language, and we are still free to ask the salient question: Outside a state of war between two nations, how is the mining of a harbor, whether hypothetically in the USA or in reality as in Nicaragua, not terrorism? It is terrorism. But the blame rests with the aformentioned rogue operators from Iran-Contra, not with the entire country. 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

First, it was not directly aimed at civilians. Second, the previous wording makes it look like the ICJ declared it terroris. CJK 22:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

One thing I really do not like about wikipedia is that in discussions it is frequently ignored what others say. Some people just to stick to their opinion without taking into account what replies they get. As I said above: "guilty of supporting terrorism" is a good summary of what the court decided. Better wording welcome. Just picking one crime (mining harbors) is not a summary of the whole decision, it strongly understates the whole exent of the crimes. The contras did target civilians, as our own article says and as was already copied here. Get-back-world-respect 23:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Mr. Respect, but it is not your business to interpret ICJ decisions or what "terrorism" is. The fact is that "terrorism" is not mentioned at all in the ICJ decision. Furthermore, it makes no sense to focus such huge amounts of space just to this court case. CJK 00:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Abe Froman says: Pardon the vernacular, but the trawlers that hit the hidden mines in the harbor were sunk by a violation of sovereignty, not terrorism? No state of war existed between the US and Nicaragua at the time of the mining. Congress had no idea this was going on (see Iran-Contra ). Call a spade a spade and also let it be known, inline with the claim, that the perpetrators from the NSC were illegally outside Legislative and Executive oversight. Abe Froman 00:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

CJK, I completely agree that no such huge amounts of space should be consumed, that is why I suggested a concise summary: convicted of having supported terrorism. You oppose this and suggest convicted of having violated international obligations, which I oppose as this gives no information given that when you get convicted by an international courts it is of course always because of violations of international obligations. They placed mines and attacked while not at war, why is this not terrorism? Get-back-world-respect 00:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

We should avoid the word terrorism - how about "ICJ ruled that (American...) had carried out illegal military operations against a sovereign state" Jameswilson 02:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with James. There is nothing in the ICJ ruling implying terrorism, thus do not portray it like that. CJK 22:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It was already outlined why the word terrorism was a good summary. If you have a better one, suggest it. Get-back-world-respect 23:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

GDP and HDI

I changed the statistics of GDP and HDI. I put the actual statistics as of 2009 according to the FMI and the UN. --SonCR (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

European Union

Following passage can't be correct: 'U.S. support for this Nicaraguan insurgency continued in spite of the fact that impartial observers from international groupings such as the European Union, religious groups sent to monitor the election and observers from democratic nations such as Canada and the Republic of Ireland concluded that the Nicaraguan general elections of 1984 were completely free and fair. The Reagan administration disputed these results however, despite the fact that the government of the United States never had any observers in Nicaragua at the time.'

The EU cannot possibly have monitored the elections in 1984. The EU was created by the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. Did you mean European States or Council of Europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.1.66 (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess they refer to what now is the EU. You are right, thought, it should be changed. Brusegadi (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Source?

Nicaragua's tropical east coast is very different from the rest of the country. The climate is predominantly tropical, with high temperature and high humidity. Around the area's principal city of Bluefields, English is widely spoken along with the official Spanish and the population more closely resembles that found in many typical Caribbean ports than the rest of Nicaragua.
A great variety of birds can be observed including eagles, turkeys, toucans, parakeets and macaws. Animal life in the area includes different species of monkeys, ant-eaters, white-tailed deer and tapirs.

Is there any chance that whoever posted this would have the source?? Or is it on the site and I just missed it?? Thanks --Chica Loca (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead is very long

Some work should be done to make the lead shorter.Parkwells (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

File:ToucanNica.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ToucanNica.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

File:ChamorroRetouched.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ChamorroRetouched.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"The ex-president was convicted...", who? =

Sorry but with all these coups and elections I can't follow anymore who's meant by the ex-president. Thy.--SvenAERTS (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yankees

Yankees de mierda, escuchen una cosa. Respeten a los hermanos nicaraguenses. La Revolucion Bolivariana triunfa y ustedes van a caer.

kk; olha é Tosco o artigo metem a foto de um zambo como negro e depois metem zambos mais negros que esse como zambos naquele outro grupo do leste que falam a lingua nativa com espanhol com ingles quem entende?

não nego que a predominancia nesse zambo é a negroide mas por que as classificações são tão aleatorias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:DA94:730:420:8A7B:1AA2:3641 (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Grana gF.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Grana gF.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nicaragua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090114083119/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/world-leaders-1/world-leaders-n/nicaragua.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/world-leaders-1/world-leaders-n/nicaragua.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on Nicaragua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ref 30

I dont think this: "History of Nicaragua: The Beginning of the End", American Nicaraguan School. Retrieved on 2007-08-04. is a good reference. It very likely fails to meet WP:RS. I will see if I can find something better. (Lets leave it for now) Brusegadi (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A freer economy

The section about Economy talks about Nicaragua being the "61st freest economy" and says the privatization of 350 enterprises reduced inflation "from 13,500% to 9,6%". These allegations are not neutral. The idea of a "free" economy is heavily loaded, and it doesn't say a lot about the subject. Compare the health systems in the USA and in Canada: it's "freer" in the USA, but it's "better" in Canada. For instance, the infant death rate is 4.63 in Canada and 6.37 in the US (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html). It's the same problem with the alleged relationship between privatizations and inflation. We need a verifiable reference to support this allegation. As far as I know, privatizations often cause prices to increase. Pierre Jaquet (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That statement already has a source. [3] -- LaNicoya •Talk• 15:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the US is arguably the worst enemy of Sandinistas (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=nus&case=70&k=66&lang=en), which means the US Department of State is not a reliable reference. Pierre Jaquet (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Free means that it is less regulated and it is useful information. There is no good or bad attached to it. Concerning inflation and privatization, that does need a source and I will see if I can find one. I doubt they are related because the high inflation in Nicaragua was caused by excessive Cordoba printing during the 80s. It could be that the excessive printing was done to maintain these institutions but it probably was not. Brusegadi (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was in two minds, but, after all, I think it's useful to answer your remark. Depending on your political opinion, there is much good or much bad attached to the word "free", and N.A.F.T.A. is an good example (see Noam CHOMSKY, Understanding Power, The New Press, NY, 2002, pp. 280-284). To put it bluntly, I think the Economy section is not neutral, and the Economía section in Spanish is better. Maybe it could be used as a model for the English version---but I do admit that this is a heavily loaded opinion. Pierre Jaquet (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the judgment of good or bad is left to the reader (depending on her political opinion, as you said), there is no problem about saying 'its a free economy.' The reader decides if this is good or bad. It would be different if we made that choice for her. Brusegadi (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nicaragua in the Dutch Empire

Hello everyone! There is a discussion at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map, because user Red4tribe has made a map of the Dutch Empire (Image:Dutch Empire 4.png) that includes parts of Nicaragua. Would you like to comment? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New Map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_Empire_new.PNG (Red4tribe (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Still OR, POV and unsourced (yours is not not a credible source). Please discuss stuff at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map. This was just a request for comment, not a discussion. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.colonialvoyage.com/
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAfrica.html (credible source) (Red4tribe (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Bogus link supporting Allegations that Somoza assasinated by the Argentinian Revolutionary Workers Party

The link which is supposed to substantiate this claim 1. does not cite any sources and 2. Only mentions that "Somoza is assassinated in Paraguay". Thank you for addressing this false source.08:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Name

Has anyone run into a source for this, which is on the Dutch wiki page for Nicaragua: "De naam van het land is afkomstig van Nicarao, de leider van de inheemse stam die rond het Meer van Nicaragua woonde." (The name of the country originated from "Nicarao", the leader of the native tribe which lived around the Lake of Nicaragua). If there's a source for this, it should also go on the English page, as while many possibilities are mentioned, the name of a tribal leader isn't one of them, currently. 217.166.94.1 (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone has added this: http://www.indianerwww.de/indian/staemme_mittelamerika.htm though I'm still looking to see where they got this info from (can't read German well enough to find their sources, if they listed them). Apparently there's a Spanish version somewhere? If it gets posted I can look for the sources. If this is a valid theory, I'm surprised it's not in the English version.

edit, there's a PDF in the es.wikipedia, seems pretty good... might add as source. 217.166.94.1 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

- there's more info here: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Spanish_1/Chapter_9_(Recreation_&_Lifestyle), but it's not referenced, unfortunately. Holdspa (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I sponsor a child in Nicaragua through Compassion International. This is from the information packet I received on the country.

Nicaragua is a word from the Nahualt, an Aztec language. It was used to describe the land occupied by the isthmus between the Pacific Ocean and Nicaragua Lake. It was taken from Chief Nicarao, who ruled the lands during the late 1400s and early 1500s.

I have no idea how to verify this. Any help would be appreciated.--Donethatmovedon (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please Specify

In the section that details the civil war of the mid-ninteenth century the article goes onto describe clashes between liberal and conservative ideas. This terminology is too broad. Are we talking about economic liberalism? Social conservatism? Liberal and conservative movements have meant different things at different points in history. All these terms do is label the two sides of a certain issue. What issue are we talking about? Lets be more specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.97.224 (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 but where is nicaragua located???? -HML  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.137.65 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The clashes were between The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. They adhered to the classic European Liberalism and Conservatism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.30.130.99 (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Pedro Joaquin Chamorro

According to the article, top echelons of the Somoza regime were involved in Chamorro's assassination. However, most sources, even anti-Somoza sources ("Nicaragua: Revolution in the Family" by Shirley Christian; "Somoza" by Bernard Diederich; and "Blood of Brothers" by Stephen Kinzer), admit that it was never conclusively proven that Somoza was involved. (Note: I am not saying Somoza wasn't involved, only that it was never proven.) As Christian herself has written, Chamorro's death was the last thing Somoza wanted. Firstly, because Somoza knew that killing Chamorro would turn the latter into a martyr and unite his opponents against him. Secondly, because Chamorro and La Prensa were useful to Somoza as "proof" that Nicaragua was supposedly a free country with a free press. HOWEVER: Each of these sources state that one of the most likely culprits was the dictator's son, Tacho.

Therefore, I propose to amend the section to say that "While the identity and motivation of Chamorror's murderer remain unknown, Somoza or his allies were widely believed [insert references here] to have had a hand in the murder." Josh (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Voseo

Hi. Voseo is not a dialect - is is the use of a form of address, like in older English "you" and "thou". In some countries - as in English, the one form completely took over. This phenomenon is happening in a number of laguages, but very significant in the Spanish variants spoken in the Americas. The same can be said for Portuguese in Brazil. In this article the author mixed up the use of this form of address with a dialect. It is not about a dialect. I am sorting out the article. For further reading, please go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93V_distinction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_American_Spanish#Voseo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Nicaragua

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voseo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Spanish

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Howdy there, prior to engaging in an edit war, please view the grammar subsection of Spanish dialects and varieties. The grammar subsection suggests a counterargument to your statements. For the record, I am an author of all the pages you have listed (but not the one I am asking you to consult with). I believe it is dialectal since the conjugations are different. (see voseo article for comparisons). I'm not sure how significant voce and its conjugations are in Brazil, but feel free to include them in your argument. Thanks! Mbhskid520 (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You are the one engaging in edit wars, summarilly undoing hard work and then claiming that there were grammar errors. It is CORRECT to refer to voseo as A dialectical marker - BUT it is NOT a dialect. The page you refer me to clearly explains how the use of tu, vos, usted etc has evolved, which, being fluent in Spanish, Portuguese, French, German and Afrikaans, I fully understand, as this phenomenon is present in all of these language - and that is what it is: a phenomenon, a Register (sociolinguistics) marker, not a dialect. Further, nowhere in the whole Wikipedia or elsewhere does it say that Nicaragua is the epicenter of voseo. Where do you get that from? Where does it say that the Nicaraguan use of voseo has influenced the language in Argentina and elsewhere? And you you trying to use the Spanish Royal Acadamy to whitewash over your claims. Where does the Academy say that voseo is a dialect? What does voseo have to do with what word people use for suitcase in Spanish? So, please, if you disagree, don't merely revert, BUT point out what you believe is wrong and/ or improve on it. But whatever you do, don't call it a dialect! Dialects are named after their specific raison d'etre, such as region (for argumnent's sake, the Nicaraguan southern dialect ) or any other distinguishing feature. I suggest you read up about registers (Register (sociolinguistics)). Now I suggest we leave this alone and allow others to sort it out. Peace Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you are quite emphatic with your statements makes me strongly disagree with your argument. There is no need for caps, as they show your aggression. Wikipedia editors should not be hostile under any circumstances to other editors. I suggest you have a check on your etiquette prior to addressing concerns and issues on this article. For if this is how you edit, I am afraid you are not collaborating in a constructive sort of tone.

To address your arguments:

I question severely your comprehension of the article. Please use the find feature on your browser and type the word "dialect" on the wikipedia article I forwarded to you. You are correct in that it is a phenomenon, but you fail to note that the conjugations are, for lack of better words, different from "standard" Spanish. The same occurs in Italy. Italy has about 220 or so dialects that are extremely similar to the Italian language, but they retain their own vocabulary, conjugations, etc. I am sure you know this, as I do. Being fluent in Spanish, French, Italian and Romanian, I can also agree with you that other places/regions have faced such a phenomenon and have still been able to be mutually intelligible. I do not counter the claim, but rather put it into perspective for a region as large as Latin America and a region that tends to be overlooked as Central America.

To address your concerns on an epicenter, look at File:CAspanish Voseo Analysis.png

Here is where rational thinking and analysis play a role:

A. Nicaragua is the darkest country on the map, consistent with the RAE's publication. Check

B. Nicaragua had a civil war in which many of its citizens left to neighboring countries in the region. Check

C. Since people move and logically take their culture with them, it is logical to assume that such a phenomenon comes from this country.

D. Other countries in the region use tu much more frequently than vos, as indicated by the RAE on this map.

In pairing the facts and the statistical possibilities, it seems quite logical to conclude that this voseo movement in Central America seems to have some sort of connection with Nicaragua. Can it be the region's epicenter or origin point? I would have to say quite possibly yes given the statistical and logical conclusions.

As per your argument of Argentina, I'm not sure where you're pulling that from. The countries are too remote to make a connection, thus your argument seems to be built on unsolid ground. Never once was that mentioned, on the contrary, similarities were pointed out. As such, the word valija which is attributed to the word valigia in Italian. Argentina has had a large wave of immigration from Italy. Perhaps this is the case with Nicaragua, who knows? I am reverting your edits at the present moment due to the fact that your links for lingusitics is great, but I have grave difficultly in understanding why you have pointed this out since I see a lack of reason to include it. However, I will agree with you in the sense that more research should be done. This tends to be a topic that is overlooked.Mbhskid520 (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Voseo turning into an edit war

Hi. User Mbhskid520 keeps reversing an edit of mine that I went to extra trouble to substantiate, claiming that there were grammar errors (he could have simply fixed any, if there were), while in effect what he wants to do is push a personal theory of his that the Nicaraguan diaspora has influenced the Spanish spoken not only in adjoining countries, but even as far as Argentina. You can read about this on his talkpage. The postulation is that the speech form of a address voseo is spreading out from Nicaragua. He further refers to voseo as a "dialect", which is not. I did four years of Linguistics at university. It is quite apparent that the user does not understand the voseo/ tuteo concept, as can be inferred from this statement that he makes on his talk page: "Salvadorians use the word equipaje and malleta, wheras Nicaraguans use the word valija. Valija is also used in the Rio de Plata region in South America; while equipaje and malleta are both common words used in tuteo speech" - i.e., he is using the usage of different words for suitcase and linking each to either the voseo or tuteo forms of address. He is also citing the Spanish Royal Academy, but the links he provides say absolutely nothing to sustain his claims. Please see the notes I left on the voseo talkpage. For further reading, please go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E2%80%93V_distinction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_American_Spanish#Voseo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Nicaragua

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voseo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Spanish

Two related issues, possibly (NPOV issues): 1. The article Nicaraguan Diaspora makes claims about Nicaraguan immigrants in the US that are not supported by articles of reference, eg, Florida (Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Dominicans) and California. 2. Some IP on October 6 at 22:23 went and changed the racial make-up of the country, dropping mestizo from 69% to 50% and pushing up white from 17% to 41%, without leaving any edit comments. Oddly enough this IP has edited other articles to add mentions of Nicaragua (one unsubstantiated, the other falsely attributed a claim to a source that merely mentions a possibility) and he also happens to be from the New York area as is Mbhskid520, according to the WP IP tracking tool. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, this made me laugh since you seemed to have taken my words out of context in order to "validate" your argument. As per the diaspora, please see my previous arguments concerning that. As you can see on my talkpage, I said nothing of that Spanish influencing Argentina. Again, out of context. Please read through the text carefully. The countries and their respective Spanish was compared, not one being the parent of the other.

As for your implied accusations of me editing a page with an IP address, I believe we have grown out of elementary school to be dealing with such nonsense and finger-pointing.

Once more, you cite articles I have helped write. Thus, if you believe I am incorrect, why do you cite the Central American Spanish webpage, the Languages of Nicaragua page, voseo, Nicaraguan Spanish and T-V distiction? Mbhskid520 (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreement on Voseo

Hi Mbhskid520. Ok, let's agree that we are complicating the issue, which actually quite simple. Let me start of by apologising for the caps, they were not meant to indicate any shouting, but rather to highlight. I do a lot of editing, but seldom use anything other than simple text, as that is all that is normally required. So, I could have used bold, but I'd have had to look up how to do it. As for the IP issue, unfortunately I learned that here at the Wikipedia people fight dirty and collect evidence for when others come and try to resolve. Sorry about that, there was no call for that.

From my side, I was correcting calling voseo a dialect, which you agree it is not. Then I removed reference to "the epicenter of voseo". Perhaps we can find a reliable source on the possible impact that the Nicaraguan use of voseo is having among communities where significant communities of members of the Nicaraguan diaspora have taken root. I can give a parallel - In Portugal, there is today a large Brazilian community, especially in the big cities. In common speech, Brazilians use você (with its verb conjugation), whereas the Portuguese use tu (with its verb conjugation). It is quite common to see Portuguese people use the você form when addressing Brazilians, even though in Portugal você is equivalent to usted. They switch between the two forms - and the conjugations - depending on whether they are speaking to fellow Portuguese or to Brazilians. I, an Angolan living in South Africa, do it at home speakig to my Brazilian wife. What I am getting at, it that it is possible that host communities that normally do not use as much voseo as the Nicaraguans, might be using voseo when speaking to Nicaraguans. Does that make sense? That might then be perceived as a shift towards a greater use of voseo. In Portugal, one could easily say that the Portuguese are now using more você if one heard them in public. I just came back from there, where I spent two months on holiday, and therefore right in the middle of Brazilians as many of them work in the tourism business, restaurants, bars, cafes. Back in the offices or at home, they switch, just like swuitching register. In fact, it becomes a register issue, as in fact Portuguese will spice up the conversation with Brazilians by peppering it with the colourful Brazilian slang.

Anyway, I have no doubt that we can solve this without resorting to revert, undo. I am certanly open to it. Un abrazo, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For the time being, I guess your edits should remain here. Sorry for not responding. I still have midterms out here!

Regards, Mbhskid520 (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nicaraguan Imigrants

In th Nicaragua imigration section why isn't there any true intformation on there? There is well over half a million of Nicaraguans that live in costa rica and around 50,000 that live in El Salvador. All because these two countries have jobs something that Nicaragua doesn't have. plus many leave the extreme poverty in Nicaragua. Here is some articles that information needs to be on there any costa rican, salvadoran or central american person that comes across this article will ofcourse imediately know that it is very untrue.

http://www.facesofcostarica.com/economics/gonzalez.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15218365

http://mondediplo.com/2007/01/12nicaragua

http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2007/12/03/nicaraguans_find_usa_in_booming_costa_rica/Isaiah's Mom (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont think you understand the point of the section. On articles about countries, under immigration, the major discussion is about people coming into the country. Take a look at other articles that have immigration sections and you will see that the same format is followed. Brusegadi (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Immigration refers to people entering a country. Emigration refers to people leaving a country. Plazak (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, i understand it may not belong in that specific section but for sure it has something to do with the countries economy. And may i ask why is El Salvador and Nicaragua the only two latin countries with a crime section? If the rest of them don't have it like honduras and guatemala where crime is slightly higher than that of El Salvador.Isaiah's Mom (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Because no one has written them. I know that Guatemala and El Salvador have very high crime rates (high enough that Saca ran on a 'Mano Dura' platform...) I dont know about Honduras, but you are probably right in that it has high crime rates. If someone adds a well-sourced piece I am sure that it will stay since it probably carries enough weight. Brusegadi (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The style in Wikipedia regarding emigrants is to cite it under a section/sub section of "diaspora".Microamigo (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

This article ought to include the British English pronunciation of "Nica-RAG-yua". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.32.58 (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead is too long

The lead is too long. It needs to be shorter and more concise, which means some material has to go back into the sections below; not everything is important. Sources for material for the article in the English Wikipedia need to be in English or available in English, per WIKI guidelinesParkwells (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

I agree. The lead reads very much as if it has been written by the Ministry of Tourism as an inducement to attract tourists and international business investment. The lead section needs to be brought into conformity with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). Examples that should be emulated include Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Peru, and Turkey. All of these are featured articles, and not one of these has a lead section exceeding four paragraphs. DiverDave (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Contras

I would like to point out that the section about Contras and Sandinistas is full of information about the United States and not what happend in Nicaragua, which brings up questions of relevancy and within that potential political bias. There is far more complex history involved from a Nicaraguan perspective in terms of how the Contras began, as noted in the article on Contras in Wikipedia. Political bias risk exists because the Sandinista-Contra is historically a controversial subject widely observed and percieved differently by both conservative and liberal parties worldwide. An overview of the Regan Administration's actions does not give an objective or fair observation of the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.212.27.12 (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions and concrete examples of bias? Thanks, Brusegadi (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have "a solution" but it certainly is an issue. Contra history, if you look at the short-term picture, is independent of the US but had the US not decided to get involved, it is extremely unlikely that it would have gone further than any other "I don't like the direction of government" group. Further, without the US involvement, there is a reasonable chance that what became a re-united FSLN against the Contras would have become three political parties. Now, I said "short-term" because if we include US intervention and support of the corrupt Somoza dynasty, we could see the creation of this US vs. Nicaragua situation much earlier in the 20th century.

Thus, what happened in Nicaragua after 1979 is the effect of what the US government did to move one group discontent with the direction of government into an externally-funded, politically-motivated way to exert control over the new government.

However, what the FSLN has morphed into has been a power-hungry machine. While they have thrown out the constitution of Nicargaua and assured thier future without opposition during the past few years, they have become at the same time a "thug-like" government reminicent of the days of Somoza. For years you never heard a good word uttered about Somoza until the FSLN took control again. Suddenly Somoza has started to look pretty good. The FSLN have been part of Hugo Chavez' money laundering scheme called Alba (Albanisa) that has made a very small group of individuals very, very wealthy. The Ortega family passed what took the Pella family 80 years to accumulate in wealth in only 1 year. The politics are similar to the situation in Chicago some 100 years ago...dirty!

So much was made by the anti-Reagan group about the US involvement in the 1980s in Nicaragua. Lets not forget that this involvement came after thousands of political refugees began arriving at the border of the US from Nicaragua asking for help, while fleeing oppression and starvation due to the Sandinistas refusal to feed anyone who wasnt part of thier party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.244.14 (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Nicafyl (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Poverty

According to the definition of the Western Hemisphere linked in the article, and the numbers, Nicaragua is by far _not_ the second poorest country in the western hemisphere. On what information is the information that it is so build? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.237.237 (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Tecnichally you're correct, because the Western Hemisphere also includes countries (such as Sierra Leone or Mauritania) poorer than Haiti and Nicaragua. But normally speak, the Western Hemisphere is only the Americas, and therefore Nicaragua is the second poorest in America (after Haiti). I'll change the word "Western Hemisphere" by "the Americas". I don't think that somebody has doubts about the rank of Nicaragua among the poorest countries in America, everybody knows that it's the second --SonCR (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Should there be a basis of poverty? I know the the section on poverty talks about the GDP and GDP(PPP) but is being the second poorest country in the Americas based on this number. I just feel being second poorest in the Americas should be based on a number. Correct me if I'm wrong.--MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Nicaragua has regions?

There is a claim HERE that Nicaragua has regions. Can anyone verify or negate this? Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is true, never heard of it nor read it in any official site or document. I don't think Nicaraguans are aware of the supposedly use from this Regions. Maybe this are not politicar or administrative divisions, but rather sound to me as Geological divisions or Disaster security divisions.

Lordofsolrac

Yes Nicaragua has two Autonomous Regions. The RAAN (Region Autonoma del Atlantico Norte, in english Autonomous Region of the Northern Atlantic) and the RAAS (Region Autonoma del Atlantico Sur, in englixh Autonomous Region of the Southern Atlantic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.54.165 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicaraguans do have loosely defined regions El Norte o Region Central refers to the coffee growing highlands comprised of Departments Matagalpa, Esteli, Jinotega, Madriz, Nueva Segovia and others. La Costa Atlantica refers to RAAN and RAAS. Occidente is used to refer to Leon and Chinandega. Those do not cover all the departments but are widely used in the news and common conversation. They are not oficial political or clearly defined. I do not have a source, except personal experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.30.130.99 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Nicaragua is made up of regions or departments. Even though there are bigger cities such as Granada and León they are in the departments of Granada and León. I am pretty sure Managua is a departments besides being the capital city. Of course there are areas that have regions in the name, such as those previously stated. Please correct me if I am wrong.--MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I just read information that has said that Nicaragua is formed by four major regions, although I'm not complete sure this is true. I found this website http://www.nicaragua.com/regions/ that gives a list of the regions of Nicaragua, as I originally thought.--MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference improvement

I have begun improving the references in this article. This will involve both expansion and reformatting of existing sources, and replacing questionable sources with reliable sources. I believe refs #1-#18 are acceptable at this point, but much arduous work lies beyond that. DiverDave (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

How much progress has been made in this process? I would like to help is possible.MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Nicaragua's Largest Cities

Can someone please delete or edit that table to where there are up to date census figures? It is extremely outdated, the population figures are most likely from the early 1990's. Managua has had a population of over a million for well over a decade now, and Granada most certainly has over 100,000 inhabitants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.135.250 (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nicaragua leaned toward Communism in the 1980's before becoming recognized as Socialist in 1990

The Sandinista movement was influenced by the communist movement during the cold war in the mid 20th century. Today, the FSLN has evolved from a communist to more of a socialist movement. The opposition party in Nicaragua is the Constitutionalist Liberal Party. They want to follow responsible democratic capitalism like the Republicans and Democrats do in the United States. The Sandinistas have trouble conforming with that idea because of the history of the United States' occupation and involvment in Nicaragua the past century, as well as Somoza's irresponsible nondemocratic capitalist practices. Both parties in Nicaragua do want a true democracy though, whether it's socialism or capitalism. 76.121.99.198 (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Ortega was influenced by the Cuban Government when he lived in Cuba for seven years. He helped overthrow the Somoza regime in the late 1970's and he has been the leader of the FSLN ever since.

I have visited the rural areas of Nicaragua and have befriended a family who once were called the "wealthy land owners" in the 1970's. This family had worked very hard and spent many years with much dedication to build a successful coffee plantation, only to be pushed out by the Sandinistas in 1981. Their home, land, and all of their possessions were confiscated by the Government and divided up between the other people. Their home was tranformed into a Government building and hospital in the 1980s. Their once profitable coffee business was now run by the other citizens of the community who had no experience with the business practices. They basically ran the business into the ground, and it was not profitable. Nicaragua's GDP dropped dramatically in the 1980's. The FSLN did change their way of thinking in 1990, when the opposing party won office. Daniel Ortega was still a big influence in the politics though! He won back his Presidency in 2006 and will never let go of his power.

The family that I mentioned above fled for their lives to Miami in 1981. They then moved to Montreal, Canada where they opened up a profitable small family store for 10+ years. In that time the family had rebuilt some of their wealth. Ironically, they took the money that they had earned in Canada and returned to Nicaragua. The government was nice enough to give them their old house back. 76.121.99.198 (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The Statistics in this article are all messed up

Quite frankly, I don't think ANY of the numbers in this article are to be trusted. For example, at one point in the article you read that in 1988 the county's inflation as at 13,000%, then just a couple sentences later we are told it was 33,000% in 1988. At another point we are told the population of Managua is/was 973,087. then in the very next section we are told Managua is a city of 1.8 million people - twice as many people! These are just two examples. The entire article is rife with contradictory information. Todd Carnes (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

About the gastronomy

Hmm...I'm nicaraguan and we don't eat guinea pigs, guinea pigs are not even native of this country, the only way you can have a guinea pig here is buying it at a pet store, and we do not eat our pets. :) 190.212.81.21 (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Article needs updating?

This article appears to be in need of updating. For example, it mentions (as of 20140813) that Daniel Ortega's term as president ends in "2012". Obviously, Ortega is still president so that's a fact that needs revision. konetidy (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Contras in lead

Is there a good reason that the Contras, and the civil war, should not be mentioned in the lead? There is currently only a rather bland mention of the Nicaraguan Revolution. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nicaragua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110511094605/http://www.epn.com.ni/Puerto-mp.aspx to http://www.epn.com.ni/Puerto-mp.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

1974 kidnapping

The 1974 murder and kidnapping was carried out for a political purpose. That meets all of the characteristics of terrorism. So why refer to the "perpetrators of the kidnapping, described by opponents of the kidnapping as "terrorists""? Are there supporters of kidnapping and murder?Royalcourtier (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Revolution

The revolution was not really a process over the 1960's and 70's as suggested. Further more there is no details about the Sandanistas coming to power. There wasn't simply a sudden change from one dictatorship to another.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Updating Health Section

The health subsection under demographics is poorly developed and is not up-to-date. There is no mention of Nicaragua's Health Ministry MINSA, nor anything about Nicaragua's health system or infrastructure. This article should include more information about Nicaragua's broad and heavy disease burden as well as its struggles with coming up with the resources to treat patients with more specialized needs. This article lacks basic fundamental information about Nicaragua's healthcare system, and it is in need of desperate improvement in this regard. I hope to work on developing a special specific page for this topicMtran99 (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to write Healthcare in Nicaragua Wiki Page

I wanted to refer you all to my user page Mtran99 (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC) where I describe the "Healthcare in Nicaragua" Wikipedia article that I propose to create. I am a student from Rice University who is new to Wikipedia and would appreciate any advice about writing for Wikipedia. Feel free to reach out to me, thank you for the support!

Healthcare in Nicaragua

Hello all, I would like to direct you to the Healthcare in Nicaragua page that I started and have added to. I would appreciate any advice or comments on how to improve this article, as well as the healthcare section on this page, which I have recently edited. Thanks so much! Mtran99 (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I recently nominated this page for "Good Article Status" and would appreciate if any of you would like to review it. Please feel free to leave comments on the page's talk page as well. Thanks! Mtran99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Nicaragua. 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/20131513523200/https://www.bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1 to http://bcn.gob.ni/billetes_monedas/index.html?&val=1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510035404/https://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=221286 to http://tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/program.pl?ID=221286
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/652587-1.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/Wal-mart-pay-gap.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607065504/https://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1984401,00.html to http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1984401,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The endless leftist bias of Wikipedia is well demonstrated in this article; take this laughable sentence:

"Somoza granted this, then subsequently sent his national guard out into the countryside to look for the perpetrators of the kidnapping, described by opponents of the kidnapping as "terrorists".[47]"

Ah, yes. Scare quotes, because, you know creeps with guns who kidnap people attending a party, and kill the host, are not terrorists, no, not at all. The people who call them terrorists are the problem. Thus "terrorists". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Lacking important information

I came to this article trying to find 1: The most common languages in Nicaragua and 2: the climate in Nicaragua. I could not find either of these. All the other country articles I went to had this information, but not this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.104.20 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Etymology messed up

The etymology section has no valid sources for the names given. The foot note link does not provide the indicated data, nor is the target website a reliable, well researched source. The Nahuatl word forms need revision. Mexkalātsīntli (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Lacking pre-Columbian cultural history

The lack of information regarding pre-Columbian history and culture of Nicaragua is concerning. There is certainly underrepresentation of native histories and narratives of Nicaragua that should be addressed. By painting an image of Nicaragua as a solely hunter-gatherer society with no cultural complexities or histories, the article as a whole reflects poorly on the accurate history of the country and its indigenous people. Particularly because there seems to be a convergence of Aztec and Maya cultural groups in the area, it would be great to see more relevant research on the pre-colonization cultural history. A historical account of Nicaragua that materially begins with colonization serves to undermine the existence and importance of the natives who inhabited the country prior to conquest. The history of Nicaragua does not begin at colonization. --Brimo1014 (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

You’re right, Brimo1014, in pointing to the very short treatment of pre-colonial Nicaragua. The same is true for the separate "Nicaragua History" page. The reference "hunter-gatherers", however, refers only to the Caribbean Coast cultures. Nicaragua’s characterization as "Intermediate Area, between the Mesoamerican and Andean cultural regions, and within the influence of the Isthmo-Colombian area" actually makes clear that we deal with complex societies and the development of early stages of states. The phrase is correct but too cryptic and needs expansion for sure. Mexkalātsīntli (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)