Talk:History of Nicaragua
|
|
| Contents |
"links to international terrorists"
Which terrorists? Which groups or countries? Does anyone know? Mr. Jones 14:52, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
1984 election
An anon has twice inserted a statement that the opposition refused to participate in the election. If this assertion is properly sourced, I have no problem with including it, and there may be pro and con POV's about why (they knew the election was rigged versus they knew that they'd get stomped fairly). What's clearly POV, though, is to insert it as an implicit counterargument to the certification of the election as fair. The phrasing that I'm again deleting implies the POV that the international observers should have judged the election unfair because of the opposition's attitude. JamesMLane 01:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Here's your reference
[1] (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577584_5/Nicaragua.html)
Scroll down to the 6th paragraph under the heading "E. The Sandanista Revolution"
de-Sandinistization
De-Sandinistization continues... Mike Del Sol
This article needs some serious editing to eliminate its Sandanista bias. I have made a start. Mike Del Sol
- Your edits are not consistent with the NPOV policy. For example, you wrote: "While critics of U.S. policy claimed that the rebels were extremely unpopular and that their military command was almost exclusively dominated by ex-National Guardsmen, in reality a wide variety of disaffected elements of Nicaraguan society eventually join different Contra fronts . . . ." This presentation is manifestly biased, in that one side "claimed" something, but "in reality" the opposite was true. With regard to the 1984 election, you've removed the objective fact that international observers validated its fairness, but you assert as a fact the unattributed opinion that there was "widespread government-sponsored violence". If you have a reference for some right-wing leader or CIA operative or whoever making this charge about the election, we can include the opinion, properly attributed to the person holding that opinion, with a citation. Otherwise, please remember that we do not take sides in such controversies. JamesMLane 00:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This article has degenerated into another "he said she said" mess; Kagan (Reaganite) says this, Chomsky (far-left) says that. It needs to be cleaned up. NPOV does not mean "some guy says this, but another guy says that," it means providing objective material. 64.7.89.54 04:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Greater Republic of Central America
In current article there's no mention of Greater Republic of Central America (1896-1898). How come? --romanm (talk) 16:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)