Jump to content

Talk:History of Nicaragua

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

pineapples & plantains

[edit]

"and pineapples were the staple foods." Hi, I am a new user....Just read this about pre-colombian nicaragua and I always thought that pineapples were introduced from Hawaii as a cash crop in the 20th century....

That would be much the opposite. Pineapples were introduced to Hawai'i in the mid- to late 19th century. Pineapple is native to the South American mainland (it's a bromeliad), and was a long-established pre-Columbian food staple as far north as what is now Mexico. [1]... However, plantains are native to Indomalaya and Australasia, which means the pre-Columbian natives very likely could not have eaten plantains as sustenance. Nimbvs (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Morton, J (1987). "Pineapple". NewCROP. pp. 18–28. Retrieved 4 September 2015.
[edit]

Which terrorists? Which groups or countries? Does anyone know? Mr. Jones 14:52, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC) Terroists??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manbearpig444 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Americans overuse the word "terrorists"! Nicaragua was influenced by Cuba's government. The fact is that Nicaragua followed a communist idealogy during the 1980's until 1990 when they moved towards Socialism!

The Sandinista movement was influenced by the communist movement during the cold war in the mid 20th century. Today, the FSLN has evolved from a communist to more of a socialist movement. The opposition party in Nicaragua is the Constitutionalist Liberal Party. They want to follow responsible democratic capitalism like the Republicans and Democrats do in the United States. The Sandinistas have trouble conforming with that idea because of the history of the United States' occupation and involvment in Nicaragua the past century, as well as Somoza's irresponsible nondemocratic capitalist practices. Both parties in Nicaragua do want a true democracy though, whether it's socialism or capitalism.

Daniel Ortega was influenced by the Cuban Government when he lived in Cuba for seven years. He helped overthrow the Somoza regime in the late 1970's and he has been the leader of the FSLN ever since.

I have visited the rural areas of Nicaragua and have befriended a family who once were called the "wealthy land owners" in the 1970's. This family had worked very hard and spent many years with much dedication to build a successful coffee plantation, only to be pushed out by the Sandinistas in 1981. Their home, land, and all of their possessions were confiscated by the Government and divided up between the other people. Their home was tranformed into a Government building and hospital in the 1980s. Their once profitable coffee business was now run by the other citizens of the community who had no experience with the business practices. They basically ran the business into the ground, and it was not profitable. Nicaragua's GDP dropped dramatically in the 1980's. The FSLN did change their way of thinking in 1990, when the opposing party won office. Daniel Ortega was still a big influence in the politics though! He won back his Presidency in 2006 and has been there ever since. He will never let go of his power.

The family that I mentioned above fled for their lives to Miami in 1981. They then moved to Montreal, Canada where they opened up a profitable small family store for 10+ years. In that time the family had rebuilt some of their wealth. Ironically, they took the money that they had earned in Canada and returned to Nicaragua. The government was nice enough to give them their old house back. 76.121.99.198 (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

1984 election

[edit]

An anon has twice inserted a statement that the opposition refused to participate in the election. If this assertion is properly sourced, I have no problem with including it, and there may be pro and con POV's about why (they knew the election was rigged versus they knew that they'd get stomped fairly). What's clearly POV, though, is to insert it as an implicit counterargument to the certification of the election as fair. The phrasing that I'm again deleting implies the POV that the international observers should have judged the election unfair because of the opposition's attitude. JamesMLane 01:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here's your reference

[edit]

[1]

Scroll down to the 6th paragraph under the heading "E. The Sandanista Revolution"

de-Sandinistization

[edit]

I have edited some POV wording and inserted additional sources in the section Sandinista Period. It previously read, "The fears of opposition groups were apparently well founded, as it was later discovered that the FSLN had, in fact, been actively suppressing right-wing opposition parties while leaving moderate parties alone, with Ortega claiming that the moderates "presented no danger and served as a convenient facade to the outside world." --Surcer (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De-Sandinistization continues... Mike Del Sol

This article needs some serious editing to eliminate its Sandanista bias. I have made a start. Mike Del Sol

Your edits are not consistent with the NPOV policy. For example, you wrote: "While critics of U.S. policy claimed that the rebels were extremely unpopular and that their military command was almost exclusively dominated by ex-National Guardsmen, in reality a wide variety of disaffected elements of Nicaraguan society eventually join different Contra fronts . . . ." This presentation is manifestly biased, in that one side "claimed" something, but "in reality" the opposite was true. With regard to the 1984 election, you've removed the objective fact that international observers validated its fairness, but you assert as a fact the unattributed opinion that there was "widespread government-sponsored violence". If you have a reference for some right-wing leader or CIA operative or whoever making this charge about the election, we can include the opinion, properly attributed to the person holding that opinion, with a citation. Otherwise, please remember that we do not take sides in such controversies. JamesMLane 00:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article has degenerated into another "he said she said" mess; Kagan (Reaganite) says this, Chomsky (far-left) says that. It needs to be cleaned up. NPOV does not mean "some guy says this, but another guy says that," it means providing objective material. 64.7.89.54 04:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"[...]according to the vast majority of independent observers, the 1984 elections were perhaps the freest and fairest in Nicaraguan history. A report by an Irish parliamentary delegation stated: "The electoral process was carried out with total integrity. The seven parties participating in the elections represented a broad spectrum of political ideologies." The general counsel of New York's Human Rights Commission described the election as "free, fair and hotly contested." A study by the U.S. Latin American Studies Association (LASA) concluded that the FSLN (Sandinista Front) "did little more to take advantage of its incumbency than incumbent parties everywhere (including the U.S.) routinely do."

Thirty-three percent of the Nicaraguan voters cast ballots for one of six opposition parties--three to the right of the Sandinistas, three to the left--which had campaigned with the aid of government funds and free TV and radio time. Two conservative parties captured a combined 23 percent of the vote. They held rallies across the country (a few of which were disrupted by FSLN supporters) and blasted the Sandinistas in terms far harsher than Mondale's 1984 critiques of incumbent Reagan. Most foreign and independent observers noted this pluralism in debunking the Reagan administration charge--prominent in the U.S. press--that it was a "Soviet-style sham" election.

The Washington Post (11/6/84) subsequently published portions of a "secret-sensitive" NSC briefing paper which outlined a "wideranging plan to convince Americans [that the] Nicaraguan elections were a 'sham.'" The crux of the U.S. strategy was to focus media attention away from those conservative parties actively campaigning and toward the non-candidacy of Arturo Cruz. Although he had hardly lived in Nicaragua since 1970 and had dubious popular support (LASA study), Cruz was anointed leader of "the democratic opposition" by the White House and the media. A recipient of CIA funds, Cruz was persuaded by Washington to boycott the elections and soon after joined the contras (Wall Street Journal, 4/23/85).

U.S. officials admitted to the New York Times (10/21/84) that the White House "never contemplated letting Cruz stay in the race" because "legitimate" elections would have undercut the contra war. Although the boycott strategy was exposed, it still worked to perfection on leading editorial pages. "An election without [Cruz's] participation will be judged a charade," the Washington Post (9/17/84) predicted. Sure enough, after the balloting, the New York Times (11/7/84) harumphed, "Only the naive believe the election was democratic or legitimizing proof of the Sandinistas' popularity."

La Prensa, the anti-Sandinista newspaper, also opposed the elections. Although its editor admitted he could have published "almost anything regarding politics" during the campaign (Washington Post, 7/30/84), La Prensa refused to mention any candidates running for office or accept ads from political parties. The Democratic Conservative Party, which placed second in the polls, accused La Prensa of "censorship."

Similarly most of the U.S. media boycotted the actual campaign. Leaders of all three right-of-center parties which competed for votes complained to election observers of having been pressured or bribed by the U.S. embassy to quit the race. Conservative presidential aspirant Virgilio Godoy later told the Christian Science Monitor (11/5/84): "If the U.S. administration said that the Guatemalan and Salvadoran elections were valid ones, how can they condemn elections in Nicaragua, when they have been no worse and probably a lot better? The elections here have been much more peaceful. There were no deaths as in the other two countries, where the opposition were often in fear for their lives."" http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2479 --83.227.36.54 08:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Republic of Central America

[edit]

In current article there's no mention of Greater Republic of Central America (1896-1898). How come? --romanm (talk) 16:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sandinista period

[edit]

in this section, the first part of the following sentence makes no sense:

However, the primary opposition candidate was constituted by the US-backed Arturo Cruz, who succumbed to pressure not to take part in the 1984 elections, under heavy pressure from the United States government[1], while other opposition parties such as the Conservative Democratic Party and the Independent Liberal party were both free to denounce the Sandinista government and participate in the elections[2].

Can someone with the facts please fix it. Thanks Hmains 17:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my interviews from the supporters of the Constitutionalist Liberal Party, opposition to the FSLN, the Sandinistas leaned towards communism first in the 1980's before becoming accepted as a socialist party in the 1990's 76.121.99.198 (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wayne S. Smith, "Lies About Nicaragua," Foreign Policy (Summer 1987)
  2. ^ The Electoral Process in Nicaragua: Domestic and International Influences," Latin American Studies Organization

Comparison with Mexican Army

[edit]

I removed the reference to Nicaragua's post-revolution army with 75,000 soldiers being 'larger than that of Mexico' since there was no reference. The page on the Army_of_Mexico states that the Mexican armed forces are notably small for a country of that size and number around 517,000 so the claim is unlikely unless the armed forces were much smaller even than the current levels at the time.Erik Corry 12:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date of the Boland Amendment

[edit]

I corrected the date of the Boland amendment to 1982 from 1987. I would like to add something about the motivation for the amendment if a source can be found. I would also like to correct 'attempted to fund the contras' to 'funded the contras' if a reference can be found.Erik Corry 12:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

[edit]

This is really useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.84.194.209 (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

History of Nicaragua

[edit]

There's something wrong with the introductory statement; it's the 'Canal Zone' which lies in the middle of the Isthmus, not 'Nicaragua'. J. Peterka 04:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not correct. Isthmus of Panama is not geographically connected with Nicaragua. The remainder of the sentence is correct (ref to Central America) and adequate as is. I will revise the sentence if needed. J. Peterka 12:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so =). This article really didn't have an intro so i tried to get something similar to History of the United States's intro, which looked very nice. I just ended copying the first sentence from the main Nicaragua article.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 21:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Fixed 'Nicaragua' article too. J. Peterka 23:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

//a331a150.98.48.232 (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in History of Nicaragua

[edit]

I check hi azalea middle kids 

pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Nicaragua's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CA":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Conquest: dates?

[edit]

"In 1569, the first Spaniards entered the region of what would become known as Nicaragua." ..."In 1524, he established permanent settlements..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green daemon (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Nicaragua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Nicaragua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Years in Nicaragua

[edit]

Template:Years in Nicaragua has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- M2545 (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

[edit]

I propose that Political history of Nicaragua should be merged into this article, as it has many issues and duplicates much of the content in this better article. Thank you, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support that, the political history article is very small, and political history is history anyway, so it should belong in the main article. JMccoy13 (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Anyone willing to do the legwork should honestly go for it. If we're going to fork out topics, I tend to think "Political history" is really going to be one of the last things that makes sense to do; it's inevitably going to be central to the main history entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Nicaragua&oldid=1194088761"