Talk:Nicaragua

Archives
Archive1 Archive2

History section

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

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

Anon changes

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

Soulja Slim

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

Motto

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

I moved this from my talk page:

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

Brusegadi 06:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History of Nicaragua

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

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

---

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

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

Hanek45 16:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Humanitarian Aid

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

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

NPOV Dispute

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

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

History - William Walker

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

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

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

Abortion

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

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

Pluriform?

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

Somoza photos

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

Water

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

Hugely biased

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

Proposed WikiProject

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

calling ortega a dictator ???

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

Ortega a dictator? Gaddafi Communistic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demographics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

crime

• Not to be biased or anything, but no offense... its more than a fact that Nicaragua is a safe country. There is absolutely no viloence culutre in the country. Look at the facts mate... I smell some ignorance here...Hanek45 02:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Hanek45" you have probably never been outside of wherever you are from "mate" because obviously you are the most ignorant person on this site nicaragua has violence they have gangs they have thiefs extorsions and more robberies than you can count read the newspaper and i have family from that country so i would know because they all want to leave because its extremely poor there is no jobs they dont trust the police the crime is increasing and if you think im still being ignorant looking it up yourself on their website laprensa.com.niBacanaleranica

? I know this isn't supposed to be a forum, chatroom or anything... I will post some round figures later (from LA PRENSA and others), but I am more than sure that crime is being handled or even, decreased. I cant be arsed to do so at the moment but as far as I know, the only page that provides that kind of news in La Prensa is the "Sucesos" page... which is purely "amarillismo". And just for the fact, in 18 years of life, I've lived in 4 countries. 2 of them in central america... (guess where in central america!)Hanek45 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• • User Bacanaleranica, please refrain from attacking other members on the discussion page. From what I've read you're not to familiar with how wikipedia works. Some members have referred several pages for you to read to get more acquainted with this site, i suggest you take a look a them. It is not right to delete large portions of text like you do. This discussion was started for you to talk about what you wish to change but so far all you come to do on the Nicaragua article is to personally insult other members who are trying to help you, vandalize and not talk about the section you want to change. LaNicoya 09:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Thanks for the response. Good input, however your bias shows through. You may be passing judgement without have=ing any first hand knowledge of just how Nicaragua is. Having lived and traveled throughout Nicaragua and Central America my experience is entirely different than the one you posit here. I have felt unsafe in every other country in Central America but never in Nicaragua. Also, you are incorrect, there is a great deal of acurate information about Nicaragua's police and crime statistics. I think you will find if you research that Nicaragua's police force is perhaps the least violent and least corrupt in all of Central America. Please check the Interpol website for more information. Also, check with Amnesty International and you will find you arguments defeated there. A recent study by the Inter-American Institute on Human Rights and a survey of police forces in the Americas show that Nicaragua is the safest country in Central America and one of the safest countries in the world. Recent studies also point to Nicaragua's low reported crime rate -- lower than in Germany, France or the U.S. Perhaps you find this hard to believe or do not like it personally but the facts speak for themselves. Thanks again for the input. Lets keep the dialogue flowing. Also, please sign your comments. --Agrofe 23:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• As far as im concerned the wikipedia rules state that "sources" must come from a neutral point of view it does not say "agrofe" and his experiences. Also that website you provided promotes tourism the wikipedia rule says source must not promote tourism, it also cant be from a personal point of view. It says it has to be from a newspaper and i have provided newspapers as a source but it looks like the wikipedia workers or supervisors don't follow their own rules. Is there anybody else incharege of wikipedia? somebody that is a professional that would be great... A owner of the site maybe? i have read the honduras, nicaragua, guatemala, costa rica, belize, panama, and el salvador articles and they are filled with nothing but inaccurate information! this website is not good. Anybody can put their own point of view in this site and the real thruth they reject i see that wikipedia is a web full of racism and descrimination something i do not take lightly, if proper actions arent taken to improve and put some thruth in these articles i will find out who owns this site and will have whoever themselves see what a mess this site really isBacanaleranica

That comment is difficult to read. Please use puncuation and normal upper/lowercase. Thanks. El_C 02:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Bacanaleranica - It is probably worth noting that the editors of the articles you have been reading don't work for Wikipedia. It might be helpful to read the Wikipedia article, in order to gain some perspective on what is happening here and why your input is being subjected to the scrutiny of others. SRICE_{13 (TALK | EDITS)} 05:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideologically driven article

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

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

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

Safety Section

I have revised this section to remove the direct copy from the Australian governments travel site. It is worth noting that the recommendation on travel to the US is only slightly less condeming. http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/United_States_of_America. I plan on working this section a bit more to provide some balance and context to it.

user:Bacanaleranica - Your previous edits have drawn criticism and prompted reverts from myself and others. I can appreciate your objections to portions of this article, but I encourage you to participate in a discussion at this page before making large changes. I think we all share a common goal: Create an article that is NPOV, thorough and stable. The best way to reach that objective is through the development of consensus. SRICE_{13 (TALK | EDITS)} 00:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick check of the Australian site shows that similar warnings have been issued for Mexico, Belize, Cost Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama. None of these countries is on two special lists maintained by Australia (Destinations for which we advise you NOT TO TRAVEL

and Destinations for which we advise you to RECONSIDER YOUR NEED TO TRAVEL) SRICE_{13 (TALK | EDITS)} 00:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

- I know the discussion relates to Nicaragua but perhaps we should try to find a records for the last Kidnappings of Nicaraguan citizens as well as foreigners. I think there are around 500 murders a year in Nicaragua (the lowest in Central America for sure). We should also look at these numbers for both Nicaraguans and Foreigners. US News, Forbes and Interpol all recently issued statistics on crime numbers and cleary it is not as much of a dreadful place as user:Bacanaleranica and the Australians would have us believe. Compare the U.S. State Department's Consular Information Sheets on Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala and then Nicaragua. The people who write these reports have a vested interest in exaggerating on the side of caution (as do the Australians), but even so, compared to other countries where many more tourists travel than in Nicaragua, even these State Department reports show that Nicaragua has much less violent and non-violent crime directed toward foreigners which makes it comparatively rate as the safest Central American country for travelers and students. The Inter-American Institute on Human Rights study is also very credible. --Agrofe 18:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

We certainly could seek comparative data. I'm not sure that any of it really needs to be mentioned in the article. It might also be worth noting that there were 467 murders in the city of Chicago last year.[2] A quick check shows that crime statistics are not readily available for Nicaragua. Many studies are available showing that regional crime stats appear to be what one would expect:higher crime rates in lesser developed countries; Latin America and Africa have higher crime rates than western Europe. That should not come as a surprise to anyone.

I'm surprised that we haven't heard from Bacanaleranica yet, so I would recommend that we hold off on pouring a lot of effort into this area. One of Bacanaleranica's earlier edits [3] mentioned that El Salvador seemed to be the only one of the CA country articles to have a crime section. A simpler remedy might be to remove that section from all of the articles until someone has the time and motivation to give the subject a proper treatment. SRICE_{13 (TALK | EDITS)} 22:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The UN (United Nations Surveys of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/statistics.html) has some data as well as Interpol (Interpol only available to law enforcement personel). Your point about crime rates in lesser developed nations is correct; however, what makes Nicaragua so interesting is that it is an exception to this rule. Probably, really the crux of this discussion on my part is that there are fundamental reasons as to why Nicaragua's crime is so low stemming from the way the Sandinista's structured the Army and Police in the 80s. Most of this structure remains. My gut tells me that Bacanaleranica does not agree with this line of reasoning and is selecting the most frightening sound bites she can find to post. Perhap your remedy is a good one or maybe this stuff belongs elswhere. I think a bit of info on how poverty in Nicaragua is not directly correlated to crime as these two are in most of the world. I am eager to hear anyone's thoughts.

Lastly, I am fairly sure that Bacanaleranica is not so familiar with how to use Wiki too well(much like myself). Please go to my discussion page and you will see a coment she left on my user page that I moved over to my talk page. --Agrofe 23:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can obtain some statistics that are public domain, that would be great. I do have to wonder if Nica's stats are lower do to incomplete reporting? Your logic certainly is compelling, and it may indeed be the case. Until someone finds a good reference to data we can only speculate. I did see that edit. It is fair to move it to your talk page if you would prefer to have there. See Template:Unsigned for some examples of acceptable ways to sign posts from other people. Cheers SRICE_{13 (TALK | EDITS)} 23:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Could be under reporting even though I would not like to admit it. My epxeriences also tell me different; I have lived in Nicaragua and travelled extensively throughout Central Amercia and experientialy for me it has been quite different. Irrelevent here I know. Also, Nicaraguans who have been invloved in the military and governemtnt in Nicaragua use thesame point I bring up and it is very compelling.

What about the Inter-American Institute on Human Rights study that was posted? I would prefer to have nothing now rather than the Australian info there... --Agrofe 00:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Swastika flag

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

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

Tourism

the tourism section does not contain any sources at all. sources must be from a "neutral point of view" i dont think this article should be an exception, it seems to me that it is mostly a personal opinion because there is nothing to back it up. the volunteers on this wiki seem very unprofessional and unaware of the sites rules how unprofessional Holand

CRIME

nicaragua has crime problems like the rest of the world i wonder why wikipedians only accept articles that contain things they like and want to hear things that go with their own personal opinions, this site was created by a man that wants a real encyclopedia not some joke site full of people that just add what they like not the truth this is my sources on crime i have a source from the government wich means no favorites! http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_985.html also nicaragua doesnt like gays and lesbians we should write about that its good fro the tourists to know that if they like people from their same sex to watch out they might get stoned to death in nicaragua.http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR430012006?open&of=ENG-347Bacanaleranica

• Your edits were obviously controversial and a discussion was started for you above. Have you read it?
• LaNicoya 03:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

this is an encyclopedia which means im allowed to let wikipedia that improvements need to be made, if the truth is controversial so be it, it is the truth it is a government article so the government lies too? so they just made up a whole lot of nonsense to write on there? i dont think so i have sources and they are good ones so why cant i post it? is it because you are from nicaragua and you dont want people to know the truth this is not a fairy tale book were everything is nice this is an encyclopedia were things are facts Bacanaleranica

by the way were are your discussions on the changes you have made?Bacanaleranica

• Comment on text not on users, see WP:NPA. I have gave my opinion already, i say the crime section stays off until someone has the time to do it for all of the countries in Central America and i don't mean just copy & paste information that takes up half the page itself. My changes? You mean the grammar and inside links i insert? Check the history page and i left a summary, i trust that if any users see something wrong with it they'll send me a message on my talk page or discuss it here.
  LaNicoya 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

like i said this site is not about your opinion i was looking at your contributions and you want to put a crime section on El Salvador why in El Salvador when like you say all you know is nicaragua, focus on Nicaragua because that is obviously all you know. Why not put a crime section on the Nocaragua article huh? why start with El Salvador? if you have some kind of problem with that country and all you want to do is mess that article up dont touch it at all. As if you dont know Nicaragua is amongs the most corrupt cpuntries why arent you writting about that, why arnt you writting about nicaraguans imigrating to go to costa rica? you just want to paint a fairy tale a bout nicaragua not the truth all countries have crime and your country is no exception. And you talk about copy and paste that is exactly whta you did with the El Salvador crime section that you wanted to post copy and paste.This in an encyclopedia do you know what an encyclopedia is suppossed to look like? they dont have a crime section they dont have things about abortions or gangs search other encyclopediause that as a model and what wikipedia is supposed to look like because right now this is nothing but favoritism if the volunteers are from colombia lets make colombia sound like a paradise instead of the cocaine country it is if the volunteer is from nicaragua no real truth allowed on the article when the whole world knows its corrupt extremely poor and side by side with honduras and you want to make it sound like its perfect when you know it isnt put some truth on that article this is not a story this is about FACTS not personal opinions either Bacanaleranica

this article

this nicaragua article doesnt even have sources and look at all that is posted on there so why cant my crime section get posted when i have a source, have you looked at the tourism section ummm were is the source that says everything written there is actual truth instead of your opinion.Bacanaleranica

• The first part of the tourism section is sourced and includes a source for the part stating how americans donate money to the country. The tourism should not be erased in whole in my opinion. Until other people oppose i suggest it stays there. Tourism does account for a % of money coming into the country anyways.
  LaNicoya 02:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

the first part of the section has a government source that says absolutely nothing about tourism i looked at it and read it. This article is not about your opinion if you want your own opinion make your own site this is about truth and sources, actual facts, not i think, or in my opinion, have you read the rules? since you are so eager to keep it then provide us with a actual source from a neutral point of view that says nicaraguas economy is (whatever) because of tourism i havent seen a single source on there that says the economy is due to tourism! please tell me were i have looked at the whole source provided it has absolutely nothing to do with tourism or economy. About economy it talks about bananas and things like thatBacanaleranica

you are wrong i just looked at this discussion page "holand" doesnt like the tourism section either that makes 2 of us what do you need an army to tell you it doesnt have proper sources? i know its your country and to you its the best thing around but lets not be ignorant the country is not doing well and as a nicaraguan im sure you know thatBacanaleranica

i was just reading in a, newspaper that Americans are afraid to visit nicaragua because of Ortega and that nicaraguans all want to leave i have the newspapers: http://www.counterpunch.org/bail01202007.html scroll down a bit on this one to find the start of the article

Hi All, I have reverted much of what Bacanalera Nica deleted that had references. Bacanalera Nica, please try to avoid knee jerk deletions that remove solid information. We all want to make a great article here and nothing more. I removed the statistics that were not referenced. Do you think it looks better now? --Agrofe 21:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My biggest concern here is that we are all volunteers in this trying to improve this "encyclopedia" that is in real need of improvement, and i have read many discussions one in particular was also about Tourism and "jujube" said that wiki rules are SOURCES MUST COME FROM A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW not a website that is full of personal opinions like THE INTUR WEBSITE PROVIDED wikipedia says that we are not allowed to use as a source a site that promotes tourism in that country like the one used for Nicaragua. Im amazed i thought we all knew the rules! that seriously needs to be taken off no sources from tourism promoting sites allowed on wikipedia i read this on the El Salvador discussion thing i guess somebody did the same thing that is on the Nicaragua tourism section they provided a tourist website and they were told they couldnt use that! so why is this nicaragua article an exception? Bacanaleranica

nobody else makes discussions

why is everybody on here so out to make it impossible for me to contribute??? ummm i havent seen anyones discussions on here and i was looking at the contributions that have been made to nicaragua article and Lanicoya doesnt even have a single discussion on any change that she has made she changed so many things and ummm excuse me! we didnt discuss anything! shouldnt the volunteers be stting the example? if she is allowed to post without discussing i should be too unless wikipedia is playing favorites here Bacanaleranica

Hi... I think that this page needs to have some sports on it, because i have to do a social studies project on this .. and there IS NO SPORTS! HOW REDICULOUS!!! WHOEVER PUT THIS ON THERE, NEEDS TO PUT SPORTS ON THIS!!!!! THANK YOU VERY MUCH -c