This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Costa Rica Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Costa Rica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Costa Rica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Costa RicaWikipedia:WikiProject Costa RicaTemplate:WikiProject Costa RicaCosta Rica Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

I was hoping to find information about the Bank Raid in Santa Elena, March 8 2005. This will be the subject of a C4 documentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.240.121 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• section added =) --T0rek 08:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• a nicaraguan member called LaNicoya just deleted the requested Bank Raid section, just because he didn't like the fact that a Nicaraguan guy commiting those horrible acts? I added it again, it should not be deleted in the future, I'll be watching this... --T0rek 09:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My race has nothing to do with me removing the section. Wikipedia is not a place for "breaking news", the section was also unsourced. I would've deleted it no matter what country those people who were involved with came from.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 09:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What_wikipedia_is_not states: "Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source."  LaNicoya  •TALK• 09:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please define breaking news here... The ban raid happened on 2005, an it was one of the most dark pages of costarrican recent history, it should remain there. I am currently looking for sources and the seccion will be there again, if you are complaining that it doesn't have any sources --T0rek 09:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "dark pages of costarrican recent history", its not recent, it happened in 2005 right? And "one of the most dark pages" according to who? That is POV. The section is not to be re-added, it is irrelevant. I am not complaining, simply pointing out to you that the section is POV, OR and irrelevant.  LaNicoya  •TALK• 09:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added the section again, having problems with formating but I'm adding sources...

Section finished with sources, even a BBC News one, is that enough? --T0rek 10:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came here due to a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. In my opinion, the bank raid is a notable enough event to warrant inclusion in the article, it isn't late-breaking news, and the version as written (right now) contains acceptably neutral language. The only problem I see is the quotation at the end of the paragraph. Quotations must be cited. Fix that please, or delete the quotation. -Amatulic 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mmm, the quotation is from the second source, maybe moving the citation to the end of the sentence? --T0rek 01:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major page overhaul, hope this is enough AdrianMasters (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotourism is mentioned several times in this article but it doesn't really give any information about it. How many people go there? What are the impacts? How successful is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.211.117 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

link added I believe the butterfly garden link would help know more about Monteverde sorry, first time here Trender (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting this link. Please read carefully Wikipedia:External links. Commercial travel and tourism sites shouldn't be in Wikipedia articles, because there are so many of them, and highlighting one of them amounts to advertising. Also, if you are associated with the site, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before adding any more links. Thanks. -Amatulić (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that enough info? Good bank coverage, prehistory, agriculture, improved demographics, tourism...can we unflag this page now? AdrianMasters (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to expand the section about the 1950s and forward. I recently interviewed a man who was part of the original settlement and he was able to provide a lot of info directly from the settlement. Many of the original settlers wrote memoirs, and they self published a "Monteverde Family Album" to distribute in honor of the 50th anniversary.

An image used in this article, File:Monteverde entrance.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Monteverde entrance.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history section starts off with a claim that Clovis Indians farmed there. The Clovis culture was a hunting-gathering culture that did not farm. I tried to check the citation, which seems to refer to p. 1 of the cited book. I don't have access to the book itself, but in both Google books and Amazon, p. 1 is either absent or "intentionally left blank," with no indication of a discussion of prehistoric occupation. A cursory search of the Internet did not turn up any Clovis reference for Monteverde, Costa Rica. Perhaps this is a mistaken interpretation of the famous site in Chile. If there are no objections with a reasonable amount of time, I will remove the Clovis sentence.Kdammers (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As this article deals mostly with history and activities of the Monte Verde district of Puntarenas canton, I added information about the district and also used the official name for it (Monte Verde) according to División Territorial Administrativa and added a link to the biological reserve on top for disambiguation purposes. And due to Wikipedia policy of using the popular name, I decided to keep Monteverde article title instead of moving it to Monte Verde, Puntarenas.

However I had to revert some edits changing the Monte Verde text to Monteverde. If the difference between the district and the biological reserve isn't clear, maybe the Monte Verde, Puntarenas should be created instead? --Roqz (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]