Talk:History of Nicaragua
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Central America, which collaborates on articles related to Central America. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] "links to international terrorists"
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)
[edit] 1984 election
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)
[edit] Here's your reference
Scroll down to the 6th paragraph under the heading "E. The Sandanista Revolution"
[edit] de-Sandinistization
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)
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)
"[...]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)
[edit] Greater Republic of Central America
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)
[edit] Sandinista period
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)
[edit] Comparison with Mexican Army
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)
[edit] Date of the Boland Amendment
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)
[edit] thanks
This is really useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.84.194.209 (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] History of Nicaragua
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)
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)
- 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)
-
- Done! Fixed 'Nicaragua' article too. J. Peterka 23:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
