Jump to content

Talk:Nicaragua

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SonCR (talk | contribs) at 04:51, 17 September 2009 (→Poverty). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Poverty

According to the definition of the Western Hemisphere linked in the article, and the numbers, Nicaragua is by far _not_ the second poorest country in the western hemisphere. On what information is the information that it is so build? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.237.237 (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tecnichally you're correct, because the Western Hemisphere also includes countries (such as Sierra Leone or Mauritania) poorer than Haiti and Nicaragua. But normally speak, the Western Hemisphere is only the Americas, and therefore Nicaragua is the second poorest in America (after Haiti). I'll change the word "Western Hemisphere" by "the Americas". I don't think that somebody has doubts about the rank of Nicaragua among the poorest countries in America, everybody knows that it's the second --SonCR (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaraguan Imigrants

In th Nicaragua imigration section why isn't there any true intformation on there? There is well over half a million of Nicaraguans that live in costa rica and around 50,000 that live in El Salvador. All because these two countries have jobs something that Nicaragua doesn't have. plus many leave the extreme poverty in Nicaragua. Here is some articles that information needs to be on there any costa rican, salvadoran or central american person that comes across this article will ofcourse imediately know that it is very untrue.

http://www.facesofcostarica.com/economics/gonzalez.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15218365

http://mondediplo.com/2007/01/12nicaragua

http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2007/12/03/nicaraguans_find_usa_in_booming_costa_rica/Isaiah's Mom (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you understand the point of the section. On articles about countries, under immigration, the major discussion is about people coming into the country. Take a look at other articles that have immigration sections and you will see that the same format is followed. Brusegadi (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Immigration refers to people entering a country. Emigration refers to people leaving a country. Plazak (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, i understand it may not belong in that specific section but for sure it has something to do with the countries economy. And may i ask why is El Salvador and Nicaragua the only two latin countries with a crime section? If the rest of them don't have it like honduras and guatemala where crime is slightly higher than that of El Salvador.Isaiah's Mom (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one has written them. I know that Guatemala and El Salvador have very high crime rates (high enough that Saca ran on a 'Mano Dura' platform...) I dont know about Honduras, but you are probably right in that it has high crime rates. If someone adds a well-sourced piece I am sure that it will stay since it probably carries enough weight. Brusegadi (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A freer economy

The section about Economy talks about Nicaragua being the "61st freest economy" and says the privatization of 350 enterprises reduced inflation "from 13,500% to 9,6%". These allegations are not neutral. The idea of a "free" economy is heavily loaded, and it doesn't say a lot about the subject. Compare the health systems in the USA and in Canada: it's "freer" in the USA, but it's "better" in Canada. For instance, the infant death rate is 4.63 in Canada and 6.37 in the US (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html). It's the same problem with the alleged relationship between privatizations and inflation. We need a verifiable reference to support this allegation. As far as I know, privatizations often cause prices to increase. Pierre Jaquet (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That statement already has a source. [1] -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  15:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the US is arguably the worst enemy of Sandinistas (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=nus&case=70&k=66&lang=en), which means the US Department of State is not a reliable reference. Pierre Jaquet (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Free means that it is less regulated and it is useful information. There is no good or bad attached to it. Concerning inflation and privatization, that does need a source and I will see if I can find one. I doubt they are related because the high inflation in Nicaragua was caused by excessive Cordoba printing during the 80s. It could be that the excessive printing was done to maintain these institutions but it probably was not. Brusegadi (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was in two minds, but, after all, I think it's useful to answer your remark. Depending on your political opinion, there is much good or much bad attached to the word "free", and N.A.F.T.A. is an good example (see Noam CHOMSKY, Understanding Power, The New Press, NY, 2002, pp. 280-284). To put it bluntly, I think the Economy section is not neutral, and the Economía section in Spanish is better. Maybe it could be used as a model for the English version---but I do admit that this is a heavily loaded opinion. Pierre Jaquet (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the judgment of good or bad is left to the reader (depending on her political opinion, as you said), there is no problem about saying 'its a free economy.' The reader decides if this is good or bad. It would be different if we made that choice for her. Brusegadi (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GDP and HDI

I changed the statistics of GDP and HDI. I put the actual statistics as of 2009 according to the FMI and the UN. --SonCR (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ref 30

I dont think this: "History of Nicaragua: The Beginning of the End", American Nicaraguan School. Retrieved on 2007-08-04. is a good reference. It very likely fails to meet WP:RS. I will see if I can find something better. (Lets leave it for now) Brusegadi (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Union

Following passage can't be correct: 'U.S. support for this Nicaraguan insurgency continued in spite of the fact that impartial observers from international groupings such as the European Union, religious groups sent to monitor the election and observers from democratic nations such as Canada and the Republic of Ireland concluded that the Nicaraguan general elections of 1984 were completely free and fair. The Reagan administration disputed these results however, despite the fact that the government of the United States never had any observers in Nicaragua at the time.'

The EU cannot possibly have monitored the elections in 1984. The EU was created by the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. Did you mean European States or Council of Europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.1.66 (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they refer to what now is the EU. You are right, thought, it should be changed. Brusegadi (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contras

I would like to point out that the section about Contras and Sandinistas is full of information about the United States and not what happend in Nicaragua, which brings up questions of relevancy and within that potential political bias. There is far more complex history involved from a Nicaraguan perspective in terms of how the Contras began, as noted in the article on Contras in Wikipedia. Political bias risk exists because the Sandinista-Contra is historically a controversial subject widely observed and percieved differently by both conservative and liberal parties worldwide. An overview of the Regan Administration's actions does not give an objective or fair observation of the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.212.27.12 (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions and concrete examples of bias? Thanks, Brusegadi (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaragua in the Dutch Empire

Hello everyone! There is a discussion at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map, because user Red4tribe has made a map of the Dutch Empire (Image:Dutch Empire 4.png) that includes parts of Nicaragua. Would you like to comment? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_Empire_new.PNG (Red4tribe (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Still OR, POV and unsourced (yours is not not a credible source). Please discuss stuff at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map. This was just a request for comment, not a discussion. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.colonialvoyage.com/
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAfrica.html (credible source) (Red4tribe (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Source?

Nicaragua's tropical east coast is very different from the rest of the country. The climate is predominantly tropical, with high temperature and high humidity. Around the area's principal city of Bluefields, English is widely spoken along with the official Spanish and the population more closely resembles that found in many typical Caribbean ports than the rest of Nicaragua.

A great variety of birds can be observed including eagles, turkeys, toucans, parakeets and macaws. Animal life in the area includes different species of monkeys, ant-eaters, white-tailed deer and tapirs.

Is there any chance that whoever posted this would have the source?? Or is it on the site and I just missed it?? Thanks --Chica Loca (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaragua has regions?

There is a claim HERE that Nicaragua has regions. Can anyone verify or negate this? Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is true, never heard of it nor read it in any official site or document. I don't think Nicaraguans are aware of the supposedly use from this Regions. Maybe this are not politicar or administrative divisions, but rather sound to me as Geological divisions or Disaster security divisions.

Lordofsolrac

Yes Nicaragua has two Autonomous Regions. The RAAN (Region Autonoma del Atlantico Norte, in english Autonomous Region of the Northern Atlantic) and the RAAS (Region Autonoma del Atlantico Sur, in englixh Autonomous Region of the Southern Atlantic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.54.165 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link which is supposed to substantiate this claim 1. does not cite any sources and 2. Only mentions that "Somoza is assassinated in Paraguay". Thank you for addressing this false source.08:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Name

Has anyone run into a source for this, which is on the Dutch wiki page for Nicaragua: "De naam van het land is afkomstig van Nicarao, de leider van de inheemse stam die rond het Meer van Nicaragua woonde." (The name of the country originated from "Nicarao", the leader of the native tribe which lived around the Lake of Nicaragua). If there's a source for this, it should also go on the English page, as while many possibilities are mentioned, the name of a tribal leader isn't one of them, currently. 217.166.94.1 (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has added this: http://www.indianerwww.de/indian/staemme_mittelamerika.htm though I'm still looking to see where they got this info from (can't read German well enough to find their sources, if they listed them). Apparently there's a Spanish version somewhere? If it gets posted I can look for the sources. If this is a valid theory, I'm surprised it's not in the English version.

- there's more info here: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Spanish_1/Chapter_9_(Recreation_&_Lifestyle), but it's not referenced, unfortunately. Holdspa (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I sponsor a child in Nicaragua through Compassion International. This is from the information packet I received on the country.

Nicaragua is a word from the Nahualt, an Aztec language. It was used to describe the land occupied by the isthmus between the Pacific Ocean and Nicaragua Lake. It was taken from Chief Nicarao, who ruled the lands during the late 1400s and early 1500s.

I have no idea how to verify this. Any help would be appreciated.--Donethatmovedon (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Specify

In the section that details the civil war of the mid-ninteenth century the article goes onto describe clashes between liberal and conservative ideas. This terminology is too broad. Are we talking about economic liberalism? Social conservatism? Liberal and conservative movements have meant different things at different points in history. All these terms do is label the two sides of a certain issue. What issue are we talking about? Lets be more specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.97.224 (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicaragua&oldid=314478386"