Talk:Nicaragua/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Were the Sandinistas socialist or just leftist? How does one discern? What did they call themselves?

Yes, it's a fair question, complicated by the variety of views represented in the FSLN as it grew from a small Marxist core into something more like a mass movement. There were certainly important Sandinistas who didn't see themselves as socialist (or perhaps even particularly leftist), and there wasn't much in the way of transformation to a socialist system in the FSLN's government programmes. The FSLN considered itself revolutionary rather than socialist, and its tolerance of private enterprise was at odds with the ideals of Marxists who mostly supported it. I think "socialist" is factually inappropriate, though it certainly applies to individual founding Sandinista leaders: "leftist" is fair comment for the FSLN as a whole, though I preferred the word "radicalism" in that particular location in the article because it conveys also an element of ideological unpredictability (and possible adventurism) which I think has some validity in that context and which perhaps alarmed Washington more than any ideologically pure content on the part of a core minority. David Parker

Contents

Motto

The German page says the motto was "Pro Mundi Beneficio." Is "In god we trust" not something from the US? Get-back-world-respect 15:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

"Pro Mundi Beneficio" is the Latin translation of "for the benefit of the world".

R. Garcia, 17 Nov 2005.

I'm totally amazed that this article completely ignores the tragic war which occured between the Sandanistas and so-called US-backed 'Contras' in the mid- to late-eighties, and the suffering inflicted on the people of Nicaragua.

As far as I can see there is no link to any article mentioning this very important phase in the country's recent history.

Should there not be at least some mention of this? Granted, it will be hard to do this from a NPOV, but its inclusion is surely merited.

Agendum 23:32, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Helpful

Your page has been very helpful. I was unable to find any famous people in other sites but here I was able to easily find them.

Important Nicaraguans???

You rightfully have Ruben Dario at the top of the list but I don't see how you can say that Arlen Siu, and other 9 or 10 on your list can be "Important Nicaraguans". 11 of the 15 on the list are Sandinistas that because the damage they did to the country they are somehow "important", the inclusion of Daniel Ortega is enough, the rest of them are minor guerrilla men and women.

You could have Salomon De La Selva who composed the National Anthem. Andres Castro who with just a rock initiated the defeat of the American Southern filibuster William Walker. Rafaela herrera who led the defense of the Rivas Fort against the Spanish after her father got killed. Augusto Cesar Sandino who fought the American invasion.

In sports:

Alexis Arguello the first boxer to conquer 3 different weight titles. Denis Martinez one of only 12 perfect games pitcher in the Big Leagues. Jaime Bone Billiard (pool) champion.

And that's only a few really "Important Nicaraguans"

MS

Hi, where is the list of important Nicaraguans? was it removed altogether? can we have it back reflecting the names mentioned above? Thanks

R. Garcia

Proposed changes

KEITH is spamming in his photos and making some truly terrible edits, and breaking 3RR I think. What is to be done? --SqueakBox 05:23, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Can KEITH please bring any proposed changes here; otherwise they are likely to be reverted (the same ones he has given us so far anyway). A statement like Nicaragua is the safest country in the Americas is not only untrue (it's less safe than Costa Rica) it is also hopelessly POV. While some of the photos are nice we cannot allow one person's photos to dominate the page, and the photos of students are totally inappropriate, I think, --SqueakBox 15:24, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
We need to source that nicaragua is one of the safest Am countries before putting it in the text, and even then not in the first line-it sounds like a tourist ad for Nicaragua-which we cannot have for being hopelessly POV, --SqueakBox 19:47, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I´m actualy making studies of latin america economy, I´m from Canada. I found that some articles about Nicaraguas was realy wrong. Nicaragua is the safest country in Central America. Please visit http://www.pronicaragua.org/safety_investment.html and you will find too other sources (Interamerican Development Bank, CIA Factbook, etc) where you´ll find the same information. I visited Nicaragua and I found that the reality in this country has changed A LOT since I was there 15 years ago. Sorry if I haven´t explain this before. I invite you to actualize about this county. Costa Rica is not yet the safest country in Central America (did you know how many touris are killed or asaulted by day? visit the page of the USA State Department about Costa Rica) however is not so unsure as El Salvador.

Actualize Information

I´m actualy making studies of latin america economy, I´m from Canada. I found that some articles about Nicaraguas was realy wrong. Nicaragua is the safest country in Central America. Please visit http://www.pronicaragua.org/safety_investment.html and you will find too other sources (Interamerican Development Bank, CIA Factbook, etc) where you´ll find the same information. I visited Nicaragua and I found that the reality in this country has changed A LOT since I was there 15 years ago. Sorry if I haven´t explain this before. I invite you to actualize about this county. Costa Rica is not yet the safest country in Central America (did you know how many touris are killed or asaulted by day? visit the page of the USA State Department about Costa Rica http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1093.html) however is not so unsure as El Salvador. By.

Yeah okay, but not in the first paragraph, somewhere not in the opening. It doesn't feel appropriate there because it doesn't really fit in with how the other countries opening paragraphs are in wikipedia. I think Nicaragua is too poor to be really safe, and it wasn't my experience of the country. An underresourced police force is never a great sign of security. Lulling people into a false sense of security is not a good idea about anywhere in latin America, and not in Nicaragua. besides which we are not trying to sell the country to people, we are trying to write an encyclopedic article about it, --SqueakBox 22:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I can't see that it's really necessary to include info about safety in this way. It changes quickly and is very subjective and variable. I am sure Managua is not as safe as San José, for example. As SqueakBox says, we're not a travel guide. Wikitravel may be interested in this info though. Worldtraveller 22:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I respect your poit of view, but we have to be evidence based. We have to show to the world people´s the reality about the countries, no a superficial vision or our point of view without review the facts. 10 years ago I used to think that China was a poor country and in 5 years the reality has changed. 8 years ago Europe was not a nation. 40 years ago my Grandphater did thi--SqueakBox 15:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)nk that Japan and Israel wont progress, and than Argentina become the richest country in the south hemisphere. Probably the same happened two centuries ago with USA: nobody think that this unsure and poor county of America will become a great nation. Our minds have to see that the world changes.

I must have missed something here... when did Europe become a nation? Haven't seen anything in any newspapers the last 8 years about my country (Sweden) being dissolved and absorbed into the European Union... but the newspapers in the US might have another view on the issue? /Nilzzon 21:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

We have to use secondary sources, and not do our own original research. See Wikipedia:No original research + Wikipedia:Verifiability. We should not proactively try to influence events, --SqueakBox 23:08, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Allway we have to use secundary high evidence level (1 or 2a,b or c) sorces: that´s the evidence based principle, our point of view must be only an documented analysis of the reality. I agree absolutely with you.

Wordtraver is changing the editions desmesurately. He does not take in acount the fact and the information. He put only what he think by himself that is correct. It does not matter that this is wrong.

A biot like how you edits here, --SqueakBox 15:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I AGREE WITH KEITH THE INFORMATION MUST TO BE ACTUALIZED BUT THE ACTITUDE OF WORLDTRAVELLER IS NOT ADECUATE OR POLITE, NEITHER SCIENTIST. WILKIPEDIA IS A ENCICOCLOPEDIA NO A POINT OF VIEW OF WORDLTRAVELLER. MIKE SMITH, CALIFORNIA.

You are in Mexioc City not California. I don't for a second believe there is more than one person here, ie you are KEITH, and I believe you are a native Spanish speaker, not English (ie you are not from Canada either). Can you source that your pics are not from Mexico? Don't take the people here as fools, --SqueakBox 16:42, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

No English native speaker would write actitude; the English is attitude and the Spanish actitud, --SqueakBox 16:45, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Pretending to be 2 people to bolster support for a point of view is called Wikipedia:Sockpuppet, --SqueakBox 16:49, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Your mind are a little bit closed Mr. Inquisition of Science and Mr. DAP (Delirium Allucination Paraniod). I was thinking that is BETTER writing Mexico than Mexioc; what is your native langaje?.... Sorry If I tell you where I`m from and a question: where are you from are you living? Thank Mr. DAP

Hi everyone, I am of Latin American background but currently live in Canada. I have previously lived both in Nicaragua and Costa Rica and I'd like to say that although we might diverge in opinion from current statistics and facts, the different research bodies have taken to the trouble of thoroughly investigating and stating that Nicaragua is in fact the safest country in Central America... to make a statement otherwise would be strictly a personal POV and contrary to reality whether we like it or not.

A good example of a one-sided POV (point-of-view) scenario could be Costa Rica's claim that over 90% of their population is "white", if you have lived or even visited that country for a short period you'd immediately realize that it has been immensely exaggerated and that in fact they are rather a minority the same as most other Central American republics. The case might be that their "mestizo" population is simply a slightly "lighter shade of brown" but for them to claim Iberian (ie. Spain/Portugal) purity is naive and delusional as they have a sizeable Afro-Amerindian stock in their population. It is important to stick to facts and statistics when making statements, specially when posting to an encyclopaedic medium such as Wikipedia.

We cannot simply disregard the thoroughly proven fact that Nicaragua is in deed safer than even Costa Rica (I should know as I have lived in both countries) and it would be biased and unethical of anhone not to allow this information on Wikipedia. That country's economy has changed over the last two decades and although it's still considered a poor country by comparison, things can rapidly change and they already have been specially with a U.S. free-trade agreement (DR-CAFTA)... let's not forget that just over 30 years ago Costa Rica could only dream to have as strong an economy as Nicaragua did back then, even Taiwan had a lower GDP per capita than Nicaragua but look where they are now!!! things change and that is a fact, learn to deal with it and accept it.

R. García

Political neutrality

The politics is kind of scewed here. Though the Sandanista's were no angels, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and Oxfam all praised Nicaragua for making incredible progress in raising the living standard and comended the governments social programs. As for the incredible wealth that the Somoza family presided over in Nicaragua, it should be noted that the wealth was highly concentrated while most of the country lived in poverty. This article seems to be biased and somewhat justifies the US supported dictatorships as good for wealth and stability and condemns the Sandanista's as tyrinnical while briefly mentioning that they were put in government DEMOCRATICALLY. Yes we may not like all they did but democracy is a government for and of the people, thus we can't expect every democracy to fall in line in taking orders from the United States. This article should go into the CIA supported contra's which hit what the US called "soft targets"....which was mostly schools, hospitals and community centers. Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, numerous other organizations have great information regarding Nicaragua. The brutalities of the Somoza dictatorships should not be ignored.

Be aware that we have an NPOV policy, and that your edits can be edited mercilessly, and go for it. Your edits on this matter would be very welcome. You may well be right about the article being too pro the USA. BTW we have a Contras article, but yes, bring material here to the page, by all means, --SqueakBox 15:30, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

A statement

I don´t know why Worldtraveller is changing all the people contributions for Wikipedia. It´s an unpolite and obsesive way (I think he shoud think seriously about an obsesive compulsive disorder). I have been searching about him. He vissited for a few days central america (5 years ago) and specifically in Nicaragua he only visited Ometepe Island (an indigenous comunity), Granada (european city in Nicaragua) and Masaya (higly mestizo)and Leon (this is a shortly proportion of Nicaragua) He didn´t visited most of the country Granada Island, Carazo, San Juan del Sur, pacific and Atlantic beaches, cental region, etc, etc, etc. The point of view of worldtraveler about the region is very limmited. He has a poorly edition of history, culture, domographics, people, etc, about this region. I think he nedd to actualize a lot. The editions he has made are realy uncomplete or are not according the reaality and history. Worldtraveler I´m goin to invite you to read more scientist articles and to be more objective. The principle of the investigator (if you are a investigator) is EVIDENCE BASED PRINCIPLES. And the people must be informed accuracely. Worldtraveller.org please start by reading, http://www.bjmjr.com/afromestizo/nicaragua.htm, http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_985.html, ttp://www.granada.com.ni/intro/intro.html, http://www.pronicaragua.org/safety_investment.html,http://www.intur.gob.ni/, http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1093.html May be that this pages actualize a little bit Wordltraveller information about Nicaragua y about the photos that he has erased and other people has unerased, are of my own. I did take the pics when I made a study about nicaragua

Engaging in personal attacks towards other users doesn't make you credible, nor does claiming to be from Canada or California. You have photos that could be of Mexico, and that in the case of the students could be seen as vanity photos. You write in bad English, contradicting statistics without sourcing, removing the bit about black people in the north, etc. The first time I noticed you you were deleting photos from Nicaragua and the demographics pages, to then replace them a bit later with your own photos in a very spam like way. --SqueakBox 00:30, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Good to see you doing some research, KEITH. Hope you enjoyed reading about my Central American travels. Read more scientist articles? Hm, well, I do have a PhD in astronomy, so I feel I have plenty enough experience of reading scientific articles and basing my work on evidence! The point here is you're continually re-adding information, which is being removed by me and others for perfectly valid reasons. First, it expresses a strong point of view. Second, your images seem to lack source information, making them potentially copyright violations. Third, you're breaking the three revert rule by reverting repeatedly to your own version. And fourth, you seem to be not even remotely interested in finding a consensus - a crucial thing in producing a neutral encyclopaedia. Your behaviour is verging on vandalism, and if it continues, you're likely to be blocked from editing. Discussing proposed changes on the talk page here would be a good way to start contributing positively towards this article, if you're interested in doing that. Worldtraveller 08:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Persons have to respect the evidence based contributions

The Worltravell (and related usernames) attitude and words does not seem coming from a researcher. However I have meet colleges whose attitude is not so ethical. You have to change your attitude. I can see that you are not so busy and yours “RESEARCH” time is used to maintain only your point of view, not taking in account the facts. If you look the talking the one impolite person here is you. You are changing all the time the articles evidence based and that is not the attitude of a research (a researcher must to add sources not opinion). My contributions and the other people contribution’s to wikipedia will be ever here. It does not matter that a not busy person like you change whit out a source the evidence based contributions of people, that is a a realy contradiction to point of view, consensus and is a vandalism, and if you don´t support your changes with a high evidence level information your changes will be change to the previos evidence level. I have no seen any science contribution of you. I can show you at least more than then articles published by me in impact reviews, and other in other kind of reviews. Some are new contributions. But I prefer don’t enter in unnecessary conflicts. I hope you to take a real researcher attitude and you to use more time in investigate some troubles no yet resolved in astronomy (if really you are a researcher) and I hope you to improve your attitude and don’t look like a amateur. I hope that my contribution and other people contributions only be changed by other evidence but no just by opinion. This is not a scientist attitude. Try to suport your information before changing.

KEITH - are you interested in finding a consensus and positively engaging to improve this article? It seems to me you are not; repeatedly reverting, now probably about 20 times over a couple of weeks, to re-insert edits which do not have a consensus, is extremely disruptive, and can be considered vandalism. If it continues you are likely to become the subject of a request for comment or request for arbitration, and possibly an eventual ban on editing. To work productively on this, you really need to discuss changes here. At least three people have been reverting your edits, indicating that you have a great deal to do to convince people of the merits of your changes. Simply re-inserting them is never going to do that. Worldtraveller 16:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
KEITH, signing your edits with 4 of these:~ would be great, as would refraining from engaging in attacks on Worldtraveller (none of us know how busy he actually is, nor do I personally care). I endorse the above Worldtraveller statement, SqueakBox 16:49, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Worldtraveller (and related usernames or nicknames “SqueakBox”) has this page looked for new contributions.

Review all contributions in the history: Worldtraveller has changed and rejected every contribution of all people. He has violated the NPOV Neutral point of view. This is vandalism Wikipedia:Vandalism. He never cite the sources of his changes Citing your sources only change it.

1. He changes all the evidence based contribution with his own point of view 2. He uses two usernames in order to make the same changes 3. He uses a impolite vocabulary with all contributors 4. He does not support his changes 5. He has never supported with verifiable bibliography the discussion

Dear Worltraveller (and related usernames "SkeakBox" that wrote the same day, at consecutive hours, from the same URL in UK, and has the same photo in Internet) please if you want to make changes start by:

1. Making your changes citing a updated information 2. Allow other people updating the page (not only your poit of view) 3. Do not erase other contributions if you do not support your contributions

I hope that every time you want to edit some article you support this change in the discussion.

Thank you and I hope you enjoy contributing in a better way to Wikipedia. Keith


KEITH remove your sockpuppet allegations and apologidse to both worldtraveller and I if you wish to avoid an Rfc, SqueakBox 22:58, May 20, 2005 (UTC)


Name change

As nicaragua is called Nicaragua, and as long as it remains called Nicaragua, we must call it Nicaragua. Any name changes to a name that is not Nicaragua will be reverted immediately without explannation, SqueakBox 23:23, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpupetry

I strongly suspect that Granada (talk • contribs) is KEITH (talk • contribs), SqueakBox 03:42, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I've asked nicely for him to stop messing up this page, but it seems like this has gone on a lot longer than I thought. I've blocked Granada. CryptoDerk 03:46, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
KEITH has access to several IP's in rapid succession, and thus can easily avoid simple blocks, SqueakBox 04:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

1984 elections observed

According to the BBC

Approximately 400 independent foreign observers, including a number of Americans, were in Nicaragua to monitor proceedings. The unofficial British election observer, Lord Chitnis, said proceedings were not perfect but he had no doubt the elections were fair.

It seems wrong to say that the election was only monitored by "Western NGOs allowed into the country by the Sandinistas." It is usually NGOs that monitor elections and the implication is that some were not allowed in. In which case please give some evidence. My recollection was that the government was keen to have as many monitors as they could to add legitimacy to their election. Billlion 11:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above statement is definately true. Declassified documents have shown that the US in fact urged opposition candidates to boycott the election in an attempt to make it seem illegitimate. This is shown play by play by William LeoGrande in "In Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992." I don´t know why the person who wrote the Nicaragua section keeps changing it back to their story, which is quite skewed. -KS

Declassified documents show many things:
The FSLN leadership had firmly decided to carry out the transformation of the FSLN into a Marxist Leninist Party, including within other leftist parties and groups on an individual basis. The centrist and bourgeois mini-parties already existing in the country would be kept only because they presented no danger and served as a convient facade for the outside world. -Alexei Leonov’s notes from a three day meeting in late 1983 between himself Ortega and Borge.


Ten Dead Chickens 15:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

10 Dead Chickens, why are you deleting my comments? KS

I don’t believe I have deleted any of your comments from the talk page.Ten Dead Chickens 16:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, declassified documents from the US government do show many things. Where is your quote from? Is the implication you are trying to make that if there had been a broad based opposition party, the FSLN would have crushed it? That is a very hypothetical assumption. At the time of the 1984 elections, Nicaragua did not have a well-developed party system, as it was a country emerging from over 40 years of dictatorship. The FSLN was the first real organized and mass party in Nicaraguan history, and remains the most organized political party in the country. And the policies of the Sandinistas were far from Marxist-Leninist. It was a mixed public and private economy. To call the Sandinistas Marxists-Leninist is to adopt dated and disproved Reaganite Cold War rhetoric that reveals nothing about what was actually going on. -KS 10:08am, 2/15/2006

My quote is from Mitrokhin. His notes and documents are very clear that while the FSLN put up a democratic front, it was just that, a front, and opposition parties were allowed to participate just so long as they posed no real threat to Ortega’s power. Mitrokhin’s documents also show that the FSLN was doctrinarian in its Marxist-Leninist outlook, but could not be as open about it due to US suspicions. Ten Dead Chickens 16:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you define as a Marxist-Leninist outlook? Managuense 11:09am 2/15/2006

I suppose Wikipedia's definition of Marxist-Leninist is as good as any. But I must be clear here, the Marxist-Leninist label applied to the FSLN is not mine persay, but the label the Ortega, Moscow and Havana used. Ten Dead Chickens 17:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Nice One, deleting my article about The US's Involvement in the 1990 Nicaraguan Elections, patriotic Americans and disinformation seem to go hand in hand. NickK

What are you talking about, SqueakBox 14:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board

I would like to announce the establishment of the Wikipedia:Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. Anyone with an interest in the Caribbean is welcome to join in. Guettarda 1 July 2005 04:09 (UTC)

Comment moved from article page

I have looked around and been unable to find any evidence supporting the claim that William J. Casey encouraged attacks on "soft targets," though I don't doubt the possibility. My concern is that the writer has been reading too much Z magazine and is skipping over more important evidence of CIA wrongdoing, such as the involvement of cocaine in the support the Contra army [which has been well-documented] in favor of hearsay that will only serve to discredit an otherwise well-written article.

note to Wiki editors - the [edit] button is unclear as to which section it belongs to; the one above or the one below; and I meant for the above note to be written above. Thanks, -Brandon Kirk

(posted by User:210.3.33.150 - Worldtraveller 09:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

Thank you Worldtraveller

Your most recent edit finally got the 1990 election section under control. Clearly the 1990 election has, and will continue to spark stark disagreements between those with an interest in Nicaragua, but I think your most recent edits put it back in it's place of being a notable event in Nicaragua history, but not worthy of nearly 1/2 of all the text in the Nicaragua article...

Article on Nicaragua

I lived in Nicaragua during the times of war, Sandinistas, and Violeta Chamorro. I am absolutely amazed and insulted that this article on Nicaragua ignores the history leading to the war. Anyone reading this article please go somewhere else because history was erased here.

C.

Like a lot of people here, I'd love to read about this part of Nicaraguan history...but it needs to be written yet. Perhaps you're up to the task? I see a great deal of this is covered at History of Nicaragua, a separate article, well linked-to from the main article. Tomertalk 03:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a section about the death of Pedro Joaquin Chamorro and its importance in gaining support for the Sandinistas. This is not a particularly controversial point. Has the person who deleted this part ever been to Nicaragua or actually read any books about the historical process of the revolution? I am a historian who lives and works in Nicaragua, and I can assure you that anyone here would point to the assasination of PJC as one of the most pivotal moments in Nicaraguan history. Why is this person so dogmatic about their version of Nicaraguan history? The 1972 earthquake was important, but to put that as the main causal factor or event that pushed the revolution forward while ignoring other key moments is ridiculous. -KS 10am 15 Feb, 2006

Exilees

Someone had entered the following information: as it is estimated that approximately 2 million people were in exile as of early 1980's of which a great many are now returning. If there is truth in it we should include it somehow. Get-back-world-respect 00:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicaragua Vs the US

Where in the decision does it state that the US was "found guilty of supporting terrorism", because I have reviewed the material in question and it makes no such statement. Ten Dead Chickens 16:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what page may I find that? CJK 20:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
How would you call supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities, attacks, laying mines, producing a manual entitled 'Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas', and disseminating it to Contra forces when our article says "The Contras were considered terrorists by the Sandinistas because many of their attacks targeted civilians."? Get-back-world-respect 20:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Its not what we would call it, that’s not up for us to decide. So again, where, and please take note here, specifically does the charge that the US was "found guilty of supporting terrorism" appear in the courts decision? If its not in the decision you are citing than, I don’t see how the information can stay in its present form. And, as a side note, if US funding of the Contras is "terrorism" is Cuba guilty of "terrorism" for their role in aiding the Sandinistas during the 70's, or would Nicaragua be guilty for its funding and training of the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front? Just curious. Ten Dead Chickens 21:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, so editors have to decide how best to summarize. I would say found guilty of supporting terrorism is a good summary of what the court decided. If you disagree, please explain. Please note that this article is about Nicaragua, not Cuba, but if you find an ICJ case saying Cuba did similar things I would agree that it found Cuba guilty of supporting terrorism. Get-back-world-respect 22:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You are basing the use of the phrase “supporting terrorism” off of your own biased interpretation, not on the decision rendered by the court. Terrorism has been deemed by Wikipedia as a word to avoid unless it can be properly attributed:
The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism]
Now since this phrase proceeds the ICJ, clearly the sentence implies that the ICJ considered it terrorism, and the only opinion cited is your own summarization.
Take it out. Ten Dead Chickens 22:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TDC. CJK 00:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Violated international law is completely empty. It only says they lost some case, it does not say what it was about. If you know better wording, go ahead, just delete information is not useful. Terrorism is a pretty concise summary of military and paramilitary activities, attacks, laying mines, producing a manual entitled 'Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas', and disseminating it to forces were considered terrorists because many of their attacks targeted civilians. Get-back-world-respect 00:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Violation of int'l law is what the ICJ ruled on. If you are trying to aviod the "words to aviod" policy, and it is policy, then the onus is on you to demonstrate this with a source. Ten Dead Chickens 04:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Brian says:The [[ICJ] ruled on the following issues in Nicaragua vs. United States on 27 June 1986. Their decisions are rendered verbatim below: [1] 10:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

(3) By twelve votes to three,

"Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State;"

(4) By twelve votes to three,

"Decides that the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State;"

(5) By twelve votes to three,

"Decides that the United States of America, by directing or authorizing over Rights of Nicaraguan territory, and by the acts imputable to the United States referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to violate the sovereignty of another State;"

(6) By twelve votes to three,

"Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;"

(8) By fourteen votes to one,

"Decides that the United States of America, by failing to make known the existence and location of the mines laid by it, referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof, has acted in breach of its obligations under customary international law in this respect;" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian@popflux.com (talk • contribs) .

And as we need to summarize this in the article I chose the words "supported terrorism". If someone is found guilty of something we need to write what, violation of law can be anything. Get-back-world-respect 12:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The IJC never used the term "terrorism", and as a word to avoid[2] should not be used in this context. Ten Dead Chickens 18:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Brian says: The ICJ never used the term "terrorism", because the United States is a sovereign state. But take subsection 6 & 8 from above, for example. If Al Qaeda mined New York Harbor, would it be called a "violation of US sovereignty," or "terrorism?" I think it would be called terrorism. How is the mining of Nicaragua's harbor qualitatively different? I would add the word "terrorism," but qualify it heavily, indicating a sovereign state was the actor and the mining was done under dubious Executive authority with zero congressional oversight ( see Iran-Contra ). This places the blame where it belongs. Not on the entire American people, but on the rogue operators at the NSC who defied Legislative oversight and misled the Executive branch ( see Oliver North). 18:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If Al Qaeda mined New York Harbor, would it be called a "violation of US sovereignty," or "terrorism?" I think it would be called terrorism. It does not matter what you think. The World Court did not call it terrorism, so we should not act like it did. CJK 19:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian says: The ICJ does not seek to define the English language, and we are still free to ask the salient question: Outside a state of war between two nations, how is the mining of a harbor, whether hypothetically in the USA or in reality as in Nicaragua, not terrorism? It is terrorism. But the blame rests with the aformentioned rogue operators from Iran-Contra, not with the entire country. 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

First, it was not directly aimed at civilians. Second, the previous wording makes it look like the ICJ declared it terroris. CJK 22:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

One thing I really do not like about wikipedia is that in discussions it is frequently ignored what others say. Some people just to stick to their opinion without taking into account what replies they get. As I said above: "guilty of supporting terrorism" is a good summary of what the court decided. Better wording welcome. Just picking one crime (mining harbors) is not a summary of the whole decision, it strongly understates the whole exent of the crimes. The contras did target civilians, as our own article says and as was already copied here. Get-back-world-respect 23:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Mr. Respect, but it is not your business to interpret ICJ decisions or what "terrorism" is. The fact is that "terrorism" is not mentioned at all in the ICJ decision. Furthermore, it makes no sense to focus such huge amounts of space just to this court case. CJK 00:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Abe Froman says: Pardon the vernacular, but the trawlers that hit the hidden mines in the harbor were sunk by a violation of sovereignty, not terrorism? No state of war existed between the US and Nicaragua at the time of the mining. Congress had no idea this was going on (see Iran-Contra ). Call a spade a spade and also let it be known, inline with the claim, that the perpetrators from the NSC were illegally outside Legislative and Executive oversight. Abe Froman 00:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
CJK, I completely agree that no such huge amounts of space should be consumed, that is why I suggested a concise summary: convicted of having supported terrorism. You oppose this and suggest convicted of having violated international obligations, which I oppose as this gives no information given that when you get convicted by an international courts it is of course always because of violations of international obligations. They placed mines and attacked while not at war, why is this not terrorism? Get-back-world-respect 00:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
We should avoid the word terrorism - how about "ICJ ruled that (American...) had carried out illegal military operations against a sovereign state" Jameswilson 02:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with James. There is nothing in the ICJ ruling implying terrorism, thus do not portray it like that. CJK 22:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It was already outlined why the word terrorism was a good summary. If you have a better one, suggest it. Get-back-world-respect 23:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/i/c/Talk%7ENicaragua_Archive1_f2e7.html"