Talk:Nicaragua
|
|
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
| Contents |
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)
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
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.
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
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/costa_rica.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 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/5/newsid_2538000/2538379.stm)
- 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)
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)