Talk:Nicaragua/Archive3

Contra Wars

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) 03:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC).

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) (talk • contribs).

1990's and the Post-Sandinista Era

"The FSLN once again instigated havoc, chaos and violent protest against the Bolaños administration primarily on the streets of Managua." I have removed this statement because it is not verified by the source cited. I would also raise serious bias concerns with regard to several sections of this article; I don't believe that the article should be a battleground of politics, and so I haven't removed anything else, but I am compelled by the blatant nature of the inaccuracy of this sentence to erase it. This is my first contribution to wikipedia, so forgive any failures please.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.163.204.26 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

History section

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

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

This is not a question of whether or not Chomsky is reliable, this is a fact. Anyone interested in International Affairs and is old enough to remember the incident knows this has happened. The fact that this does not show on the History tab of Nicaragua just proves the point of many that fight against US policies and against History being written by the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

This is a grave mistake and indeed shows how the world is evolving. Do we want to leave a historical legacy rewritten by US policy makers or do we want our children and our children's children to learn from our mistakes.

This is the best example anyone can give when trying to prove the propaganda effect in a US-lead world. We live in the electronic era and if things were difficult to prove in the past when destroying evidence was a physical exercise, making it very difficult to destroy all evidence, imagine what will happen in a society evolving to a paperless, electronic only communication... this is scary as any attempt to lie can be rectified, if needed, or just made eternal if unquestioned. We cannot forget that the US also leads and controls the Internet making it easier to happen.

Even if the case Nicaragua vs. US were not proved, it should be mentioned in its history. A country taking another country to the World Court only happened a few times and if this is the respect given to a country that followed the right legal procedures to fight "unlawful use of force" what are the options left if a country is fighting for freedom from the illegal US economic interests pursuit?

This is a US centered version only. Saying that it is an overstatement to refer to this as Western-centric version of the facts, is, in itself, a complete understatement. After the World Court, Nicaragua took the case to the UN Security Council and then to the General Assembly that issued a resolution supported by the whole world, ex US and Israel.

Not reporting this is a moral crime, on top of the crime itself that was committed and internationally recognized and Nicaragua should still pursuit payment for this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaCunha (talk • contribs) 19:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Anon changes

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

Soulja Slim

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

Motto

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

I moved this from my talk page:

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

Brusegadi 06:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wonder--I honestly don't think the motto is published on the Nicaraguan Cordoba...at least not from what I remember. I have looked over some of the country's past currency and I think the motto is actually something what I call a "political party attribution." Then again, maybe that's just me. Although I have seen a lot of shirts saying something like "Dios Patria Libertad" around Buaco. It sounds Dominican, but I'll see if I can confirm any mottos.--Mbhskid520 02:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

History of Nicaragua

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

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

---

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

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

Hanek45 16:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Humanitarian Aid

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

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

NPOV Dispute

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

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

History - William Walker

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

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

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

Abortion

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

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

Pluriform?

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

Somoza photos

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

Water

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

Hugely biased

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

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)

Proposed WikiProject

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

calling ortega a dictator ???

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

Ortega a dictator? Gaddafi Communistic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

crime

• 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

There's one thing that we have to take in mind. People in this area are very supportive and patrotic. Sure they can put the information, but it's our job to make it less biased. It's like the journalism field: a point of view can be stressed, only hidden through what is written in it's context. It's not a problem--we're editors. We try to create something better than what is intended. And from what I know, Nicaragua is one of the safest nations in the Americas. Now let me find my support.--Mbhskid520 02:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideologically driven article

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

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

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

Safety Section

The English version seems to bear no relation to the version in French. I too suspect that the English version is too pro-American and I am disappointed as this is the first time I seem to have witnessed non-objective, 'biased' reporting on Wikpedia.84.100.62.211 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swastika flag

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

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

CRIME

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not appreciate the fact that Bacanaleranica seems to be calling the Nicaraguan people as barbarians. They do not approve of gay marriage in the country because it goes against the doctrines of their religion. Thus it is my theory that the nation has seen a rise in people joining the protestant faith.

If you are submitting resources, make sure they are not outdated. What is the definition of outdated? Things that happen overnight. The nation is changing rapidly because of new European and American interest in the nation; especially for retirement purposes.

As for Nicaraguans migrating to Costa Rica--that can be a subsection. Although quite frankly if you're talking illegal immigration: I don't think someone has their facts right. But anywho, I'll explain why none of those "requests" are possible: they're not major issues. Other nations have different issues. Must that be such a problem?

And please, for the future: use correct punctuation. Your comments are hard to read. Thanks --Mbhskid520 02:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just discovered something an "encyclopedia" is not supposed to have a section about Tourism, or Crime, or Abortion, an encyclopedia is strictly written for Factual purposes such as history, economy, geography, etc... Or what kind of encyclopedia is this!? Bacanaleranica

Hi Bacanaleranica, none of us are expert here and none of us (inlcuding you) knows all the rules that Wikipedia has. We are all doing our best to creat an objective article about Nicaragua. Let's focus on that. Please try to stay on point and come up with objecive points to add to the article. The vitriol and patronizing language is not productive here. I respect your viewpoints, please respect others viewpoints as well. Let's collaborate on making a thorough and objective article about Nicaragua. It will be the first place in the world where there is one.--Agrofe 15:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is an educational project so our goal is to create an educationally informative article about Nicaragua. I dont believe the policies we have define whether or not we shoul;d ahve a crime or tourist section but we musnt paint too negative (crime) or too positive (tourism) view of the country, see WP:NPOV, SqueakBox 15:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

nobody else makes discussions

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

I want to give my two cents here. I realize you haven't been getting much feedback Bacanaleranica. But I want you to keep on contributing and being a part of Wikipedia!!!

I agree that it is very important to have the "truth" out in this encyclopedia, but the truth is not always objective. The "truth" is not always obvious. And for these reasons, Wikipedia must cite its sources AND whenever possible give the most balanced perspective possible on issues. This is the reason that other users want sections on crime in articles on other Central American countries. You are right that there is crime in Nicaragua; I have seen it myself in the two months I spent there. But we need to make sure we give a balanced (and thus NPOV) perspective on this subject.

On that note, a source from "the government" (which I assume means the United States government?) does not mean it is NPOV. Even the government has its perspective and spin on the "truth" (look at the reasons for going to war with Iraq; I think there is consensus that the US government was wrong [please do not use this point to start a debate]). In terms of citing the State Department's website about travel advisories, their bias and point of view is this: to protect and provide from US citizens outside the country. This means they may be overly cautious in the way they see things, seeing more dangers than actually exist. For the purposes of their website, they would rather err on the side of caution (does the logic I am using make sense? if not let me know!). But my point is not that you shouldn't add info about crime in Nicaragua or that you shouldn't use the US government as a source. In fact I think both of these are amazing, great ideas. I just ask that you use the State Department's website and travel advisories to provide one viewpoint on the "truth" and to make it obvious this is only one viewpoint. This means stating that "According to the United States State Department . . ." or something like that, but also it means not adding so much as to counter the rest of the Nicaragua article. The article needs to be balanced across all aspects of Nicaragua. I could write a book about crime in Nicaragua--just for Wikipedia--but that doesn't make it appropriate to post, even if it is accurate and well cited. Articles need to be balanced in size and portion of sections. For that reason, if you want to do further editing to this article, we should include sources mentioned by User:Agrofe and others, sources such as Amnesty International and Interpol. Let's get the "full" truth from as many perspectives as possible.

Also, I don't think information about what to do and what not to do as a traveler can ever be NPOV. These choices (such as whether to carry two wallets, whether to carry a slash proof backpack, or whatever--I am just trying to give examples here) are up to a traveler's POV, and different people would suggest different ways to stay safe. The State Department simply has their ideas and suggestions, which are inherently POV (though that doesn't make them necessarily "bad"! just inappropriate for wikipedia; this sort of information is better at a site like [4]). If a scientific study said it was safer to carry two wallets in Nicaragua, based on statistical analysis and peer-reviewed study, then I think the information might be more appropriate (whether such advise is "common sense" is irrelevant). Does that make sense? Am I coming through alright?

So how about this for a solution to this issue. Let's post some text here on the talk page and work through it? I would be happy to help. I think we can come to some compromise and everyone can be relatively happy! How about you write a draft version of what you want to see? Thanks! Hope to hear from you soon! JeffreyN 03:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, a quick favor Bacanaleranica, can you sign your posts by inserting four ~'s at the end of each one? Then the date shows up which is useful for others. Thanks JeffreyN 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

an encyclopedia is NOT supposed to have a crime section or a tourism section or an abortion section if you take a look at other encyclopedias they are alot more professional looking than this one. I know this may offend you but if you lok around an encyclopedia is obviously not supposed to look like this all the volunteers have made it there own personal website were they put in whatever they want a real encyclpopedia doesnt contain half the stuff posted on hereBacanaleranica 04:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

User:lanicoya why are you trying to make me really mad saying im creating multiple accounts when on this very site someone posted on the "help" desk about you being known for creating multiple accounts on yahoo answers warning wikipedia about you and that you are known for harrasing and insulting people now that i read your comments about me i will say be more professional just because you do those things that doesnt mean everybody else does, Im not the only person on wikipedia that has problems and believes this is pretty much a joke encyclopedia any person in their right mind knows that a real encyclopedia isnt supposed to look this way so i will advice you dont talk about me and get me started with you because your making the nicaragua article all about your opinion what you think not the truth so dont talk about what you dont know talk what you know. And please tell me who else am i "jujube" "agrofe" please dont be rediculous. That girl was right about you maybe i will do my search on you in yahoo answersBacanaleranica 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

by the way with the account i have i can get my point across i dont need 10 thousand for what so i can forget who the heck i am on the other 5 thousand of them. Obviously i am getting my point across and i dont need no other accounts like i said what i have read in these discussions are only making realize on what kind of site this is and on how wikipedia just allows whoever to join the team as long as you have 250 edits your in a serial killer and a racist can do that and be allowed in so by having someone like "lanicoya" that just insults people she doesnt know i highly doubt this site will make it farBacanaleranica 04:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there again! Thanks for signing the post :)

True, many other encyclopedia might be more professional in some ways, but the power of Wikipedia is that we, the people of the internet, can edit it. Of course this is a double edged sword, in that this power also opens up Wikipedia to any person's point of view (as you point out!). But on the other hand, you or anyone has the power to try and fix POV edits, to make Wikipedia better. Don't worry, what you say doesn't offend me. Like any encyclopedia or information resource or anything in life for that matter, there are pro's and con's to Wikipedia.

So in the case of a "crime section", the awesome thing about Wikipedia is that there is no "supposed to have" or "supposed to be". We can make Wikipedia what we want it to be. I think that information on crime in Nicaragua is important and relevant to this article. Perhaps it is not in other encyclopedias, perhaps we don't need a "crime section", perhaps we only need one or two sentences, but I think the more information on this encyclopedia the better (as long as it is presented in a fair, NPOV way i.e. representing diverse viewpoints and based on credible sources). I love Wikipedia BECAUSE it has information that other encyclopedias don't. That's why I come here and don't use other encyclopedia in searches for information both well-known and obscure. In fact lately, that's why I come here before Google!

What I am trying to say is that if you feel that this article or any others are no good, I urge you to change them, to make them more "professional". That is the amazing you cannot do with other encyclopedias. So let's talk about how we can improve this article democratically and fairly! :) I hope to hear from you soon

Also, can I please ask that we remain civil here? I know that it can be hard to remain cool when people attack you, when people push your buttons. Believe me, I know! But attacking back will only cause more problems and more attacks. Its a never ending cycle . . . so let's be nice, even if we can't agree! Thank you!!! JeffreyN 04:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Bacanalaera, stick to the subject at hand, see wp:point, don't personally attack other members, see Wp:npa. I like JeffreyNs suggestion, a crime section from a NPOV be posted here, revised and then put on the Main Nicaragua article, i also propose the same for all pages in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Central America project.
  LaNicoya 05:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

LaNicoya You were the one that personally attacked me for starters and if you dont want to admit to it i urge everyone to look at your "talk" with the administrator were you falsely accuse me, that is why i dont consider a good idea to have teens be a part of projects that only a serious adult can do. If you consider trying to get my account closed an advantage to you doing whatever you want with this article you are very wrong i will be present until this article is completed so get used to it and like you say "don't personally attack other members, see Wp:npa." corruption might be another great section on the article too since Nicaragua is known for having some of the most corrupt governments. Also another great thing would be for their to be a section about Nicaraguans imigrating to costa rica and el salvador for a better future. The interesting things is thought el salvador doesnt have the best reputation because of the civil war and their gang, hondurans,guatemalans, and nicaraguans all leave their country to go live there to leave extreme poverty and to look for more opportunities. I think that is very ironic people refer to el salvador as a bad place when in reality only the people living there know the truth, but with everything said about that country nicaraguans still choose to move to el salvador rather than stay in nicaragua. I consider el salvador and costa rica not be overlooked and it would be nice to have a section about these two countries that help and allow Nicaraguans to work and live in their country its a reality and it is interesting. here is a couple of articles: http://mondediplo.com/2007/01/12nicaragua http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/13/AR2006051300879.html?nav=rss_world/centralamerica Bacanaleranica 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicaragua Edits Discussion (Moved here from Agrofe talk page)

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)

• Hi Lanicoya, Thanks for the comments. I think you mean that Nicaragua might not be the second poorest after Haiti anymore? You could be correct as I have seen some conflicting figures. I wonder if anyone really knows?... Does the World Bank have these statistics? By the way, I am a bit concerned that this article is second rate because of some of the ongoing conflict and constant reediting by some users. What do you think?--Agrofe 01:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi! Yes, thats what i meant. When i updated the statistics on the Economy of Nicaragua article i noticed Honduras ranked right after Nicaragua, and I've seen other sources say Bolivia and Honduras (including Haiti on both points) ranked under Nicaragua. I could get you the pages if you wish.

I'm also concerned. I don't consider myself anything superior to anyone which is how that user makes me seem. I do know there is crime and corruption, but then again, thats everywhere regardless of how much GDP a country has, am i right? Because the article is part of the Central American project i don't think there should be a crime section for only 1 country, and if someone decides to put their time in, i suggest all countrys have one. I thought it was unfair for Nicaragua to be the only one with a tourism section (which is not longer there) so im working on one for Honduras right now, and Nicaragua also.
LaNicoya 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

nicaragua is still amongs the poorest its haiti, honduras, nicaragua, bolivia check the cia world fact book they are accurateBacanaleranica 04:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

an encyclopedia isnt suppose to have a tourism section, a crime section, or an abortion section use as an example other encyclopedias that were made by real professionals none of them contain things that volunteers want to post. You want to make this a good encyclopedia then use others as an example so it can be good a nd reliable because right now i wouldnt recommend this encyclopedia to anyone so lets all be professional about this lets not play favorites on countries just because volunteers are from nicaragua and colombia those articles will be the best and el salvador and costa rica the worst wich by the way need alot of work el salvador needs improvement more things about tourism with good sources like a tourism website like the one used for nicaragua and costa rica its the tourist capital of central america it defenetly needs a tourism section if we are going to all break the encyclopedia rules we might as well put in a tourism section even though a real encyclopedia isnt supposed to have oneBacanaleranica 04:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Bacanaleranica, thanks for the comments. So we don't take up too much space or upset anyone can we try to stay focused? Perhaps we should look at a well established article like the USA or Germany to get some ideas of what the contents and sections should be? You are correct that the CIA Fact Book shows that Nicaragua is the third poorest country in the western Hemisphere after Honduras & Haiti. SHould we amend the economy section to show this? I look forwatd to your feedback. --Agrofe 14:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I did some random checking arou ndand Costa Rica, East Timor, France, Germany and Kenya do not have tourism sections. Namibia and Finland do have tourism sections. None of the above have crime sections. Brazil has a section called "Social Issues" that has a subsection called Poverty and Inequality". Most seem to have a culture section. Does tourism belong here?

Also, I do not see any issues with tackling articles one at a time. Why can't we all put our heads together to come up with a common ground. I have moved this conversation to the talk page in the Nicaragua article so eveyone can participate.--Agrofe 14:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• You know, making a section on here regarding social issues would be a really good idea. Maybe it could focus somewhat on homosexuality in Nicaragua, but not abortion, Abortion in Nicaragua already exists.

There could be a number of facets; - Homosexuality - Seperation of Wealth - Crime - Oligarchy

Then we could add a tourism section as well. Or perhaps torusim falls under Culture?. We are not resticted as to what other article have or do not have. And, as mentioned by JeffreyN we are not bound to conventional rules of encyclopedia's and that is what make Wikipedia great. --Agrofe 16:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new Wikiproject for Nicaragua/New Portal

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)

Erupting Volcano on Postage Stamp

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)

Copy Vio

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).

Value Judgments

"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).

Title of Article

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

No.

Nicaragua is spelled Nicaragua in both english and spanish. You probably got confused with *Nicarag*ü*enses* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.62.116.2 (talk • contribs) 03:54, March 15, 2007 (UTC)

External link to nicaliving.com

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)

Peter, the "they" that attacked you were many members of NicaLiving.com. While some now ex-members of NicaLiving.com were unhappy with content restrictions, I can assure you that deletions are only made if then content has nothing to do with Nicaragua (very common), is commercial in nature, or in extremely poor taste where that has included suggesting violent action against elected officials or using prejudicial names. We (it was three of us) refused to remove your posts because there were many comments to them. You, however, elected to delete the content yourself leaving "hanging comments". Any site, Wikipedia being a good example, needs to try to balance content to be useful. Since a handful of people left NicaLiving because of alleged censorship, the number of complaints to the administrators about inappropriate content has dropped from close to one a day to less than one a month. Nicafyl 02:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Phil Hughes

surprising lack of NPOV in this article

The entire late history section of this article reads like an anti-Sandanista rant: right down to the parsing of the last election results to make it look like Ortega somehow cheated to win the election. I am surprised that such obvious bias is allowed to slip into a major article. I propose major NPOV surgery. jackbrown

Further reading

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)

Sounds good to me--Agrofe 19:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

External links hidden

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)

Featured list nomination

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)

Hello

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)

Unbalanced Tag

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)

The Sandanistas were not supported by the catholic church

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) 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC).

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) 00:44, 20 June 2007.

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) 18:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

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)

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. [5]

and [6] 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 [7] mentions that Nicaraguas beaches are not being visited much. And this one [8] 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.[9] 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)