Talk:Nicaragua

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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!

—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)

Nope. Nicaraguans look like...Nicaraguans! Lets put it in context. Argentinians to me are 'white.' Nicaraguans are mostly Mestizo. The above statements that "80% of the population is caucatian and mestizo" is correct but misleading. If you breakdown that 80% you will get that at MOST 10% is caucatian and the rest Mestizo. Historically this happens because the climate in Argentina is better for European settlement than the climate in Nicaragua. Thus, most native Indians in Argentina were killed and replaced by Europeans whereas in Nicaragua the natives were enslaved (encomienda system) for harsh labour and very few Europeans settled there (only the few that controlled the slaves.) Thus, now the RICH in Nicaragua tend to be white and the poor and middle class tend to be Mestizo (like myself) or indigenous. Also, the claim that Nicaragua's dishes are similar to those in Argentina is BS. Thus, "Nicaraguan look, speak, have dishes and behaviors like Uruguayan and Argentinean." is false. Brusegadi 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly people, take it from me because I'm a Canadian-born Nicaraguan that visits Nicaragua like every 2 years. The majority of Nicaragua is not white! Sure, Nicaragua may not be entirely indigenous, white, black or mestizo; that's where they key element comes in. Nicaragua is so diverse that not even the nation or it's people are ready to embrace the multicultural aspect. The PNUD book even addresses this issue. I don't know why people insist on misinforming people that Nicaragua is like an Argentina or Uruguay. Neither is Costa Rica. There is this mentality in Central America that everything from the U.S. or Europe is sophisticated and superior. This is bigoted if you ask me. Statistically Nicaragua is mostly Mestizo. I myself am Mestizo, but here in North America most people think Mestizo means brown skin and indigenous looks. People are Mestizos to varying degrees and some posses negroid, indigenous or caucasoid features. I myself have Subtiava (Nicaraguan Indigenous), Armenian and Spanish heritage. That makes me mestizo and despite the fact that I may have fair skin and a non typical stereotyped Latin American look does not make me white (I look mostly Armenian because of my dad) but I'm still mestizo. Just so you know white people in Nicaragua and Costa Rica are people like Jennifer Lopez or Ricky Martin. Go take a peek at Nicaragua and even Costa Rica and tell me how many whites you count. Nicaragua is beautiful and multicultural. If you're from there embrace it because that only makes a country more beautiful. I wasn't even born in Nicaragua, but I love it despite all it's problems because my parents left the country for Canada in the 1980's. So in the end, Nicaragua is not Argentina, Uruguay, or Spain. IT'S NICARAGUA!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.0.133 (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This article does not claim that the majority of its people are white. Also, it does not claim that it demographically like Argentina, Uruguay or Spain. Even if those countries are primarily white they shouldn't be labeled as such. All countries posses people of different a different race, not just one. This article gives equal information about all classified races in its census: mestizo, white, black and Amerindian, as well as minorities.-- LaNicoya  •Talk•  05:46, 22 December 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holand (talk • contribs)

I see no reason at all to seperate the tourism article from the Economy article since both are closely linked. Hanek45 02:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The tourism section needs to be updated and changed, i read the sources and none of them say anything half as close as what is written on there. no where did i find nicaragua has grown 394% or any of that all that is written there in the section is false. In a recent article published by the nicaraguan newspaper says the country and intur has no idea of how many people visited the country, and instead of making money they are loosing money and tourists here is up to date info use it. dont contain the information posted. recent articles are needed to keep an up to date information of tourism in nicaragua.

http://www.laprensagrafica.com/economia/826622.asp

This link is about loss of investment but not necessarily loss of profit. If risk increases investment may become more profitable, the risk premium (thus, it depends on your risk aversion) Brusegadi 23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www-usa.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2007/julio/27/noticias/economia/205617.shtml

This link refers to the GDP and not tourism. El PIB (Producto interno Bruto) is not tourism. Brusegadi 23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2007/julio/05/noticias/economia/201316.shtml

This article says that the data is missing for the first semester of 2007. The figure in the article that you try to remove refers to 394% growth over a much longer period of time! Brusegadi 23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www-usa.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2007/julio/24/noticias/ultimahora/205159.shtml

This is irrelevant. It says nothing about tourism. The country may need this aide because other sectors (particularly the government) are not doing well.

http://www.prensalatina.com.mx/Article.asp?ID=%7B71A559C1-D60D-4DC9-A0EF-52B36E9F43B6%7D&language=ES

This links to an article about the energy crisis in Nicaragua. As far as I know, it has no data on tourism. Granted, this affects all industry, but it is not a good source to support deleting everything the editors have done for this article.Brusegadi 23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally, before making massive edits you should discuss unless it is to remove vandalism. Brusegadi 23:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

First, don't forget to sign your posts. Second, the sources back what is written. The source for the 394% growth OVER 12 YEARS is not currently working but that is no reason to erase the whole section as you did. The source has been cross-checked many times before, the site is down and it has been concluded that if it is not up and working in a bit it will be removed. I read the sources you provided and find many problems with most. One states that INTUR doesn't know yet how many tourists have visited in the first half of the year. Another one says nothing about tourism. And another states "proyectó ayer que la economía de Nicaragua logrará un crecimiento del 4.2 por ciento este año,", but it won't be legit until we actually know the exact %. Also, one mentions poverty, the section is about tourism, not poverty.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 23:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources do not back up what is written, many dont read spanish and ofcourse they are easily fooled but i can read and write spanish and honey what has been written in the tourism section has no source nothing. what you have provided talks about tourism but it doesnt say "Tourism in Nicaragua has grown 394%" you have no source and obviously there is no statistics yet. Nicaragua still isnt the second largest tourism industry its what they thought, in central america the top destinations have always been costa rica, panama, guatemala, honduras, nicaragua and el salvador are the last choices. people dont care if nicaragua is cheaper they rather go to costa rica pay a couple more bucks and be in a safer nicer place. Tourism in Nicaragua has gone down and the paper doesnt say they are expecting growth it says they have lost 4.2% of tourism to other countries. The electricity deficit is affecting tourism in many ways why would you want to visit a country where you may be spending your vacation in the dark? there is no fun in that! i can get sources from la prensa and other newspapers. Do reconsider making a new tourism section the one you have now isnt accurate its more from a personal point of view and what you see it as, im from colombia and i can tell you the place to me is beautiful but tourism there is not as good as it could be either because of the war.

so be more realistic tourist go on these pages to get accurate information and up to date not from 3 to 4 years ago many things change over the years. and the information that the person above may not be all good for the tourim section but economy then use that for that section all sources provided are good sources and can help in different sections. Changing that section is recommended.Cartagenagirl 21:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cartagenagirl, we have addressed all of these issues in the talk page. Basically, the page for the 394% is down. I took off those numbers but then I had a conversation with another editor and she reminded me that it is wikipedia policy to NOT REMOVE information when a source goes down. Rather, we should try to find a new source. The other editor has agreed that we will remove that information if the sources do not come back up soon. Concerning the factual problems you mention, I too read Spanish, and I have read the sources and can vow to their validity. Basically, I noticed some confusion in your criticism. For example, when the article says that Tourism is the second largest industry, it is not comparing it to other countries as you seem to believe, it merely says that it is the second largest industry IN Nicaragua. Thanks for your input. Ciao Brusegadi 22:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

i found a 2007 source from the nicaraguense newspaper that says that nicaraguan tourism is the one with the lowest ranks unbelieveable or not but honduras and el salvador are at a higher ranking than nicaragua along with guatemala read it im sure if your spanish is good you will understand it there is many articles that dont back up what is written here is two of them and that is coming from a nicaraguan newspaper not from an american one. other newspapers an articles like the ones that have been provided in the current section are more opinions than actual newspaper facts, my newspaper facts are more reliable than an internet note that was written on what they expect. expectations are very far from all actuality and nicaraguas reality. here is my sources they are good sources for that section surely we will use them. when i get time i will put some of what is in that article into your tourism section. [1]

and [2] many expected nicaragua to be what has been written on the current section but here are the sources that if you carefully read state that they are far from accomplishing it.Cartagenagirl 23:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cartagenagirl, you should take plenty of time and read through the main tourism page. I don't think you comprehend it quite well. The tourism section doesn't say that Nicaragua is the most "liked" or "visited" place in Central America, it says the tourist industry OF Nicaragua is the second largest IN NICARAGUA. No where is is comparing it to other countries in the region. As a matter of fact, if you read the main article, Tourism in Nicaragua, you will notice that it states "least visited country in the region." meaning that Nicaragua is actually the least visited country in Central America. And again, the 394% growth figure is OVER 12 YEARS not just one, please keep that in mind. As Brusegadi mentioned, the source is currently not working and will be removed if it does not come back in a bit. The sources you mention are irrelevant, this one [3] mentions that Nicaraguas beaches are not being visited much. And this one [4] that mentions Nicaragua is the least visited in Central America isn't really needed because that fact is already written on the main tourism page and backed by 2 sources.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 02:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the 394% growth figure source is down and many people have a problem with it, i removed it and added "over the last 7 years tourism has grown 70% nationwide at a rate of 10% annually" with a working source.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 03:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

hello i back i read all comments and additions made i consider that it would be good to write that it is the least visited country i mean its relevant to the article, lets not just cherry pick the facts wether you like it or not is a fact and that is what we want this section a factual section with a source and that is one and that information should be put in there.66.161.18.212 19:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The "factual section" is well sourced. Please use punctuation and normal upper/lowercase, your post is hard to read. The fact that it is the least visited nation in the region is properly addressed, as i mentioned earlier, with 2 sources.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 20:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your addition to the tourism section, you deleted the link to the main article as well as the estimated 60,000 figure. You added:

Nicaragua according to their most famous newspaper la prensa it's the least visited country in the region ranking below Honduras and El salvador other neighboring countries.

...it was expected to become the first largest industry in 2007 but due to some deficits and problems the country faces Nicaragua seems to be far from the expectations.

The first addition was biased, had errors and additional information that was not needed. If Nicaragua is the least visited in the region there isn't really a need to add "below Honduras and El salvador other neighboring countries". There are many punctual errors also and the wikilink should be directed to La Prensa (Managua). Another thing, La Prensa is not the "most famous" newspaper. As for the second addition, the industry is growing 10% annually, not far from "expectations". And expectations of who exactly?

I reverted your addition and added "Despite the positive growth throughout the last decade, Nicaragua remains the least visited nation in the region." with 2 sources, simple, sourced, and to the point.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 20:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicaragua as nominally catholic

cite your sources please or read this wiki piece Demographics of Nicaragua 2005 Census indicates 58% of the population as catholic—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paleocon (talk • contribs) 19:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

Nicaragua according to this source has at least 83 percent. Most of Wikipedia's sources have a pretty good correlation +- 5 percent or so. 25 percent is not reasonable. http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/scni1.html

Included are per parish breakdown for those curious as to the distribution of the Catholic population in Nicaragua.Benkenobi18 01:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The source lists those who are above 5 years of age answering the religious question. This means all the children under 5 baptised are not going to count and it means you are comparing apples to oranges. If all the children under 5 are Catholic, since evangelicals don't do pedobaptism, then your statistics are going to undercount Catholics, and overcount evangelicals.Benkenobi18 01:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicaragua Education

The section about Education, seems to be completely biased to the Sandinitas, I believe that section should be removed and revised to be fair and balanced. I believe that people with an agenda are contributing too much to most of this Wikipedia description of Nicaragua. Most of the information under education is completely unfounded and simply propaganda.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.161.120.51 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

I think that it is biased, but mostly in terms of its time frame. The cute little poster also adds to the bias feeling, but once you read the article you see that statements seem to be well sourced. Besides, anything done by the current government will inevitably bear the name FSLN, so might as well get used to it. I definitively would not advocate removing it. Adding some current info (as of now, it looks like a history book, with stuff from the 80s and 70s only) would suffice. Brusegadi 16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed

I removed the information (in bold). Did these two bills get passed on the same day? It needs a source, if not it could be added in its appropriate section in its own sentence. Maybe with a wiki link to Gay rights in Nicaragua.

Before the general elections on 5 November 2006, the National Assembly passed a bill criminalizing homosexuality and further restricting abortion in Nicaragua 52-0 (9 abstaining, 29 absent).  LaNicoya  •TALK• 21:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

90% in the pacific lowlands?

The claim "The Pacific lowlands region is the most populous, about 90% of the nation's population lives in and around Managua and in the Pacific lowlands.[36]" is incorrect. It relies on a source that probably counts the inhabitants of the north-central region (Matagalpa, Jinotepa, Estelí and Baco) as inhabitants of the pacific lowlands.

According the 2005 population census, 54% of the population lived in the pacific lowlands, 32% in the center and 14% in the Atlantic lowlands.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.45.107 (talk)

This is what i wrote on the Demographics of Nicaragua page; over 4.4 million inhabitants live in the Pacific, Central and North regions, 2.7 in the Pacific region alone, while inhabitants in the Atlantic region only reach an estimated 700,000.[5] My source was the 2005 census. The sentence is obviously wrong so feel free to change and correct it.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 15:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead link for the 394 figure

The 394 figure is dead. I think we either find another one or get rid of the figure, as it will give the impression of a business oriented article which wiki does not like. WP:NOT Brusegadi 01:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its a good idea. The source was working up until now, that doesn't mean the growth figure is not real. The growth figure appeared on wikipedia's main page in the Did you know section meaning someone cross-checked the webpage. The page will probably be up or fixed soon. If it is not up after a bit then it will be ok to delete it. I also don't see how the growth figure gives the page a "business oriented" impression.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 01:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Same as tourism. Ciao Brusegadi 01:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Infrastructure

I think we need to add and infrastructure section (i.e., rail, roadways, ports, power, refineries, airports, etc...) Anybody disagree?--Agrofe 16:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Departments and municipalities

Does anyone know exactly how many municipalities are in Nicaragua? I get different numbers when i google it. Some say Nicaragua has 17 departments with 140 municipalities, other say 17 departments with 143 municipalities. Anyone know?  LaNicoya  •TALK• 22:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, a current news article on La Prensa mentioned there are 153 municipalities.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 07:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on archiving this talk page

This talk page is very very long, almost 3 times as long as the previous archives. A fellow contributor pointed out the Help:Archiving a talk page and it mentioned the best way to find out when to archive a talk page is made according to the Wikipedia policy of consensus among the editors. So does anyone think it is time to archive? Are there any previous discussions that should stay on the talk page? Any thoughts are welcomed.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 07:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets archive topics that are older than some measure, say, one month? Brusegadi 07:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Anymore suggestions/thoughts from anyone? I'll archive on Thursday to give it a bit more time.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 02:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Extended until Saturday, Archiving is done. I left any sections that has a response up to a month ago.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 04:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, the 80s?

Am I crazy or do we go from Somoza's assassination in 1980 straight to the 1990 elections? I recall a couple important things going on during the decade in between--contras and some nastiness from Ronald Reagan accusing the Sandinistas of providing aid to the FMLN in El Salvador. Could someone who knows better than me please fill in some details please? --WH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.136.211 (talk) 15:36, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

I know right? Its all on the main History of Nicaragua page but it needs to be included here, it was a major part of Nicaragua that has shaped it today. I'm trying to work on maybe shortening each section of the main history of nicaragua page to two paragraphs for the History section here but its hard. It would be nice for it to look sort of like Colombia's history section. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  23:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I did what i could, the new sections need to be copy-edited, some info added, some removed, ect. I'll work on finding sources. Hopefully if other editors pitch in we can have the page neutral without pov. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  02:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Balance Tag

I am removing the balance tag. I see some little things in the article that might be called "unbalanced" by some by I really do not see the need for the tag. In addition, there has been no discussion on the talk page about what would have to be done to remove the tag. So, since there is no discussion and no major reason to have the tag in place, I will go ahead and assume that someone just forgot to remove it. Thank you, Brusegadi 01:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Laughable. I see that Brusegadi has been busy adding back the Left's spin to this article while removing dissenting views. He accused me of not only violating NPOV but also of "vandalism" when I earlier noted that the false claim by Senator Kerry that the CIA was running drugs to support the Contras was a political accusation, but sees no NPOV problems with the original repeated references in this article to those bold-faced lies. I guess an article is "balanced" if it includes any lie that supports the left, and "unbalanced" if someone notes that those lies are disputed.

I urge all to compare my changes and decide if it is malicious "vandalism" or actually an attempt to introduce more balance, by noting that some of what is claimed is in dispute and highly political. In fact the serious charge of "vandalism" when not appropriate is in itself a heavy-handed tactic to silence dissenting views. 98.199.74.31 02:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC) 98.199.74.31

I have not made any significant edits to this article other than reverting obvious vandalism (such as this and this) and removing the tag that had been left there. Can you point to one of this edits. Give me a recent dif and I'll be happy. If you cant find one, thought, I suggest you be more careful when accusing people. Brusegadi 02:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what the term "dif" means, could you spell it out? As to pointing to one of the edits, sure:

03:45, 4 September 2007 Brusegadi (Talk | contribs) (87,335 bytes) (Reverted 2 edits by 98.199.74.31 to last revision by LaNicoya; POV pushing. using TW)

Made within minutes of my original edit on Sept 4th, similar to your response within minutes to my post on this "discussion" page. Do you hover over this article?

And what exactly is "obvious vandalism?" That I added the qualifier "politically-motivated conclusion" to the statement that a Democrat investigative panel made the (unsubstantiated) accusation the Republican executive branch had used the CIA to illegally import drugs to the US? Had that been proven the President would have been impeached, so clearly there is a political aspect to the accusation. That I changed "Panama's drug lord" to "Panama's dictator?" The latter is not a flattering term, but it does denote that he was the country's ruler at the time. More accurate, but it also isn't a term that aids the conspiracy theory as easily as "drug lord." That I changed "continued to stir controversy" to the more specific and accurate "was a source for political attacks by the US Left?" That adds more info to those not familiar with US politics in the 80's, and the Contra issue was a very stark left/right divide. That I changed the term "linked" to "attempted to link" to the charge made by a book author that the CIA introduced crack cocaine into California? Since such a conspiracy has never come close to being proven and highly controversial, wouldn't it violate NPOV to leave it as is? OK, that's just halfway through, need I waste space going over the rest? Is there a way to appeal to other Wiki editors? It is one thing to be of the opinion that NPOV has or has not been violated, but to accuse me of "obvious vandalism" is overkill and serious, since it can lead to banning. Hence my vigorous defense. 98.199.74.31 03:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)98.199.74.31|98.199.74.31

Ok, here are your changes. In particular, I like the part where you change 'concluded' to 'made the politically-motivated accusation.' Please read WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. Again, also read WP:AGF. Have a good day, Brusegadi 02:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that there was a response while I was typing, so some questions have been answered and all can easily follow the link he kindly provided to see what is in dispute. Thanks for allowing me to defend against the charge of "vandalism." 98.199.74.31 03:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)98.199.74.31

"That I added the qualifier "politically-motivated conclusion" to the statement" - Yes, such qualifiers should not be added without a proper reliable source. One edit like that alone would be reverted in good faith. Yet, we both know that you have more experience here then your edit history shows so you KNOW better than adding spin. Saying that the 'left' did this or the 'right' did this is not ok without proper reliable sources. The one place where it seems you have a point is on the drug-lord dictator change. I think your that change is necessary, unless the term "drug-lord" can be attibuted to a reliable source. I will see if it is. If it is, I will leave it; otherwise I will change it for dictator. Ciao, Brusegadi 03:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning what has helped or not helped the economy

Hello, I removed the statement "The reduction in inflation, economic growth and privatization has not helped with Nicaragua's many social issues." Just because certain policies where implemented and nothing happened does not mean that we can tell if the polices themselves had a good effect, a bad effect, or no effect. The policies could have had a good effect but the effects where overwhelmed by the negative effects of other things such as corruption. I recommend leaving that statement out since it is highly political/ideological. Many people disagree about the effectiveness of such policies. There is also the question of whether the policies were truly implemented (it could be that privatization was not done through a mechanism that seeks efficiency but through one that seeks profits for the friends and family of government...) So, lets stick to the numbers and lets leave out speculation. Ciao, Brusegadi 19:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hague

Do you think we should add stuff about the recent resolution in The Hague about the ocean frontier between Nicaragua and Honduras? Thanks, Brusegadi 04:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering it took the ICJ 8 years to set a valid maritime border i think it should be briefly mentioned here going into specifics in the Territorial disputes of Nicaragua article. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  04:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

So I just wrote my senior thesis on the foreign policy orientation of Nicaragua. Most of it is well sourced, but if I wanted to use quotes from my own researched sections (which is unpublished) could I simply put my research somewhere on the web and link to it, or is that insufficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.42.186 (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Insufficient. We need reliable sources, as such, it's unlikely your thesis has undergone peer review since you've only recently completed it. El_C 11:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The speed with which you have responded is somewhat scary, hehe. So, a fundamental problem with that is that a senior thesis is an unlikely piece of work to receive peer review, although agreed it would be nice. Yet, the thesis may contain some valid points to consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.42.186 (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It may, you never know (I'm trying to be encouraging here!). It may well be valid, but it needs to be accepted elsewhere before it is added to Wikipedia (i.e. it cannot get its exposure here, it must enjoy some scholarly acceptance elsewhere). El_C 11:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me offer a somewhat different take. If the student is willing to contribute his own text to the Wikipedia under the appropriate license (if the existing terms of his senior thesis allow this), and the text he or she provides comes complete with references up to the existing Wikipedia standards (in practice, somewhat of a double standard as the vast majority of articles presently fall short), and the style of prose is suitably encyclopedic, then there is no reason selected textual fragments could not be contributed. However, the senior thesis would not itself count as a valid reference, so the selections would need to be carefully chosen. I encourage contribution if material up to these standards exists. MaxEnt 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I registered, but I am the student that started this discussion. I am going to look at my options for publishing the paper, but will also take MaxEnt's suggestion of looking for highly relevant pieces of information that are well sourced which could be put in to increase the knowledge of this particular wiki. I'm sure if they are found to be not up to par then someone will take them out. Thanks for your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchman (talk • contribs) 08:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Synthetic cotton

In 1976, a synthetic brand of cotton, which was one of Nicaragua's economic pillars, was developed. This caused the price of cotton to decrease, placing the economy in great trouble.

From http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4420099.html

Recently synthetic cotton materials have been developed which permit the generation of an aseptic cotton substitute upon demand.

I can find no other reference to synthetic cotton, and my edits to cotton place the impact of polyester a decade earlier. MaxEnt 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Overthrown

... and the de facto military dictator of Panama from 1983 to 1989 when quoi? was overthrown and [he was?] captured by a U.S. invading force. MaxEnt 00:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Error in literature section

Hi,

"Nicaraguan literature has historically been an important source of poetry in the Spanish-speaking world, with internationally renowned contributors such as Rubén Darío who is regarded as the most important literary figure in Nicaragua, referred to as the "Father of Modernism" for leading the modernismo literary movement at the end of the 19th century.[80] Also included in this group are writers Ernesto Cardenal, Gioconda Belli, and Jose Coronel Urtecho."

I think that this paragraph is quite misleading. I can't claim to be an expert in Nica Literature, but I don't think that Ernesto Cardenal and Gioconda Belli are part of the same movement as Ruben Dario. Dario wrote at the end of the 19th century. Cardenal and Belli are still alive. Anyone with more knowledge on this? 68.163.135.123 10:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Nuria

Hi Nuria, i can see how that is misleading as none of those writers were alive at the time Dario was. I'll change it to read so that it says: "Other literary figures include Ernesto Cardenal, ect. ect.". -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  13:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct, they are not modernist; so should not be included with Dario. Brusegadi 21:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ometepe

Aunque Ometepe es una isla que me fascina, no estoy tan seguro que sea la isla volcánica (en un lago de agua dulce) más grande del mundo. Creo que la Isla Royale en el Lago Superior es más grande, pues tiene 45 millas de largo por 9 de ancho según puede leerse en http://www.shannontech.com/ParkVision/IsleRoyale/IsleRoyale.html a ver quien quiere revisar esto

This page states that Ometepe is "the largest fresh-water volcanic island in the world", not the largest volcanic island in the world. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  12:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Bueno, el Lago Superior es un lago de agua dulce (freshwater lake). Saludos ----

A Visit to Nicaragua

I will be going to Nicaragua in the near future with a group of optometrists. We are going to set up clinics and give free eye exams and eyeglasses to the Nicaraguans. I know only a very little bit of Spanish; I am about one half through a first year Spanish book for high school. Are there any important things that I should know when visiting Nicaragua and being in close contact with the people? I want to do the best job that I can. Thank you in advance for any good advice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.10.168 (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sandino didn't force anybody!

"The revolt finally forced the United States to compromise and leave the country"

POV and untrue. The marines left only after the election results. Sandino had suffered defeat after defeat. The only problem they had was capturing him. He didn't force out anybody. This should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.208.156 (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NI C$100 2002.JPG

Image:NI C$100 2002.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2008 (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)

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)