Talk:Nicaragua/Archive3

message: I am somewhat surprised that a history of Nicaragua is able to completely avoid all mention of the Contra wars. The effects of this period have dominated much of recent Nicaraguan history. The Iran-Contra affair is certainly included in US history texts, surely it has a place in the history of the country which it affected the most. An accurate account of US-Nicaraguan relations would also probably be relevant. Lastly some mention of CAFTA would not be amiss either.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.41.29.99 (talk • contribs).
Yeah, it's really shocking, but I think its pretty clear that there is considerable bias here generally.  I have a friend whose family lived in Nicaragua for many years and who was born there, I'll have him set this right later.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.163.204.26, 10:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contra Wars 

message: "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)
thread_title:  History section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Anon changes

message: 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)
thread_title: Soulja Slim

message: 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)
thread_title: Motto

message: 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)
thread_title:  History of Nicaragua 

message: 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)
thread_title: Humanitarian Aid

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History - William Walker 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Somoza photos

message: 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)
thread_title: Water

message: 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.
I think that sourcing actual proof of corruption is hard with Somoza.  When you have the control that Somoza had is very easy to get away with "legal" corruption.  Thus, no one can ever prove anything.  Thus, what we have to do is find articles that have information on the way the leader is perceived by academics and Nicaraguans and on the way business was done back then.  For example, evidence of the state being formed around the family is a sign of corruption.  The above applies to the Sandinistas during the 80s.  Everyone knows that messy things happened when power was passed to Chamorro, but it is hard to prove since most of it was "legal." Brusegadi 18:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hugely biased 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject 

message: 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)
thread_title:  calling ortega a dictator ??? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ortega a dictator? Gaddafi Communistic? 

message: * http://www-ni.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2006/septiembre/14/noticias/ultimahora/143843.shtml
It's in spanish. Hope it clarifies some issues about crime and safety in Nicaragua. For those who do not speak spanish, here are the most important figures: 14 homicides per 100.000 citizens. 4 out of 10 Nicaraguans believe that Nicaragua is a really safe country. There are 2,000 (est.) active gang members in Nicaragua. Compared to the rest of the American continent (with a few exeptions), Nicaragua is indeed a safe country.
*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)
replies: text: Yeah, we inherited good police from the 70s and 80s.  I mean, these guys were first trained by the Americans and then by the Eastern European! ;)  Jokes aside, I think the country is safer than most others in Central America.  For example, when driving from panama to San Diego I am most concerned about Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.   Brusegadi 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

text: 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. SRICE13 (TALK | EDITS) 05:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I have read that Nicaragua has a nepotism problem.  "I know the owner of this place, you are going to be in trouble..."  Brusegadi 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  crime 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Ideologically driven article 

message: Why is the flag replaced with a german 1993 flag? --Doomguy0505 07:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a case of vandalism that was reverted around 40 minutes after it appeared. SRICE13 (TALK | EDITS) 22:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swastika flag 

message: 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)
thread_title: CRIME

message: 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)
thread_title: this article

message: Hi, i notice your trying to reach solid grounds with the user and your edits were good but you mentioned Nicaragua was the second poorest country in the western hemisphere, it was, its not anymore. Some sources say that Haiti and Honduras are and others say Honduras, Haiti and Bolivia are.  LaNicoya 01:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicaragua Edits Discussion (Moved here from Agrofe talk page) 

message: So if any of you are intrested, drop by and check it out. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Nicaragua. I also created Portal:Nicaragua so if any of you want to help, please go right ahead, it can use as much help as possible. LaNicoya 14:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed new Wikiproject for Nicaragua/New Portal

message: This edit was recently erased because an anonomous editor thought that is was absurd. Actually this was a well known piece of propoganda used by the Americans to discourage its citizens from supporting a canal in Nicaragua. Even though it was politicaly motivated and had nothing to do with Geology. There is a book called the "Nicaraguan Route" that discusses this in detail.--Agrofe 02:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erupting Volcano on Postage Stamp

message: Just want to let you guys know that all of the images in this article look like a copyright violation. They all appear to have been uploaded by the same user. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oliverhenriquez for more info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.92.235.176 (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy Vio 

message: "This ruling, however, ingnored the fact that the Nicaraguan people were being opppressed by an anti-democratic and repressive government, just as in every other communist state, and was essentially a puppet of Cuban and Soviet tyrants."
There seem to be a few value judgements. The phrase that "every other communist state [is repressive]" is unnecessary. This is not a forum to discuss the merits of communism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.224.40.96 (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value Judgments 

message: Why is it titled Nicaragua? Shouldn't it be Nicaragüa? LaNicoya 00:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of Article

message: This external website is maintained by individuals who arrange and delete content based on their ideas about what they want people to believe is nicaragua.  I admittedly have a personal gripe about the website because they both attacked my viewpoints online on their site and also deleted my posts on their website.  Due to the interests of the owners and editors of the site nicaliving.com, it misrepresents the reality of nicaragua.  The site doesn't even openly acknowledge its censorship policy.  I would recommend adding some indication on the "link" saying that the site does not meet wikipedia's criteria for non-neutral points of view, or deleting the link.  But as I say, I have a personal gripe against the website for reasons mentioned so I'm probably not neutral enough to make this modification on wikipedia.  Unfortunately, I can't provide proof of the articles they deleted, because they're deleted.  After that happened I requested that the site owners delete all my posts, but they refused to do that.  They keep your content for their interests, they can modify it as they like, they delete what they like.  And guess what, they have land for sale in nicaragua... gee, what a coincidence. Peterchristopher 14:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External link to nicaliving.com

message: The further reading section is rather long, i was thinking of making a new page and listing the books along with the ISBN's, List of further reading on Nicaragua. Something identical to List of further reading on Asperger syndrome.
I would like to get started on this but would like to have other people thoughts on it first. LaNicoya 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me--Agrofe 19:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading

message: El Che decided that the external links to Nicaragua discussion sites shouldn't be shown, writing, "notability of websites (especially blogs) needs to be established before unhiding some, or all, of the links listed."  While blogs are expressly discouraged on Wiki "except those written by a recognized authority," there are forum sites (which meet the Wiki definition of a blog) for other countries that are still linked.  I wonder why Nicaragua was singled out to have these sites hidden. 
Can someone tell me what "notability" means?  Can someone explain who has the authority to "establish" this "notability," and when that will take place? 
I added one of the links he hid because the site (which I run) provides "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews," which Wikipedia says "should be linked." Johnreep 00:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links hidden 

message: List of birds of Nicaragua has been listed as a Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Please visit the page and vote/leave comments if you wish.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 23:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured list nomination 

message: Hey, here's something you might do. You could put some hyperlinks at the end of each subline so that way people don't have to scroll all the way up or any of that. Just a thought
Your friend,
Pianoloverizme 01:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello 

message: I noticed that the only history included here is post-colonial.  If I'm not mistaken the world did in fact exist prior to Christopher Columbus's so-called "discovery" of the "New World" and his and countless other Western colonizers' legacy of rape, genocide, theft and destruction that was the beginning of what Edward Said has described as the creation of the "Orient" to justify Imperialism by defining the conquered indigenous peoples as the dangerous or mysterious "other."  This article also fails to take a neutral view in it's description of the FSLN, disregarding documented history of Reagan's "Iran-Contra affair" in which secret support of the Contra death squads have essentially made the now dead "Teflon" (former) president of the U.S. a de-facto war criminal, as well as using hearsay and value judgement/opinion to describe their responses to Colin Powell's actions (alleged?). 
Furthermore, the socio-economic inequality (and all over the world) that exists in Nicaragua due to U.S. intervention and support of Capitalist economics and politicians and so-called "Free-Trade" agreements is completely ignored for the sake of statistics which always fail to paint a picture of what's going on on the ground.  
If someone with expertise who has different views or evidence to counter many of the supposed "facts" in this article please help as I would need to conduct extensive research but am caught up elsewhere.
JuniorMuruin 21:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced Tag 

message: First, there was an 'apparition" witnessed by many people including the Japanese ambassador to Nicaragua. http://www.apparitions.org/Cuapa.martinez.html some of the people attributed the phenomenae to extra-terrestrials. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_de_Cuapa
Secondly Pope John Paul castigated the one priest who was a member of the cabinet.
(the wiki article on this is way too RED to be of any use) 
Thirdly atheists from Cuba were teaching in the schools with the aim of destroying the belief of the faithful.
On the distinction between religion and politics, see Claes G. Ryn, "The Things of Caesar: Notes Toward the Delimitation of Politics," Thought, Vol. 55, No. 219 (December 1980). When John Paul II first visited Nicaragua it still had a Marxist government. He was met on the tarmac by members of the government, including a famous priest. The priest knelt to kiss the Pope’s ring, but the Pope pulled his hand away and waved it over the priest’s head in a scolding fashion, as if saying, "Why have you, a priest, not returned to your role as a priest?"  http://www.nhinet.org/ryn12-2.htm—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.195.108.45 (talk • contribs).
I remember going to church to Las Sierritas de Santo Domingo in the early 80's and Cardenal Obando and Father Eddy Montenegro often referred to "the 9" or Los nueve (the nine commandants Sandinistas that held power) using references of the book of revelations such as... "the dragon has not 7 heads but nine" making references to the Sandinistas as evil creatures like the devil himself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.146.94.76 (talk • contribs).
You are quite right in stating that the Sandinistas were not supported by the Vatican and the upper part of the church hierarchy, but they did receive significant support from priests and lay-leaders- most especially those working among the campesinos.  A change should probably be made to this effect.
The Sandinistas may have been supported by deserted priests but not by true catholic priests in communion with the church.  One important characteristic of the church is that the Catholic church is only One.  Padre Ernesto Cardenal could have been a Communist supporter but he could only do this while he was not officially part of the Catholic Church, hence he was preached in 1983 during the visit of Pope John Paul II to Nicaragua.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.161.120.51 (talk • contribs).
Remember, although liberation theology was rejected by the vatican, its' primary base of support was among catholics in latin america, and it was/is no different in nicaragua. MennoMan 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sandanistas were not supported by the catholic church 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: 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).
: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nicaragua as nominally catholic 

message: 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).
: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)
thread_title:  Nicaragua Education 

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed

message: 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. 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)
thread_title:  90% in the pacific lowlands? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dead link for the 394 figure