Talk:Nicaragua

Suggest changing Post-War section

Despite growing fears of autocracy and the increasing governmental powers of Ortega's wife Rosario Murillo (m.1979)[108] as his vice president, Ortega is still popular among many Nicaraguans. This is largely due to the fact that under his presidency, gang violence has diminished, poverty levels have fallen, and Nicaraguan economic growth has surpassed other Latin American countries.[109]

I would suggest changing this in light of the recent events in Nicaragua. Riot police, traffic police, regular police, plainclothes shock troops have been filmed murdering peacefully assembling Nicaraguan citizens. Over 100 students were arrested and there are still several unaccounted for. Several media outlets have been blocked and during the chaos police have been filmed looting. The FSLN party has lost any shred of legitimacy it may have retained. A massive march of an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 people was held on Monday April 23rd in which the population displayed its opposition to the regime's barbarity.

• • • I am an english-speaking Nicaraguan new to wikipedia. Please someone help me update this article, it is no longer accurate *** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silveriocruz (talk • contribs) 05:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

socialism in Nicaragua

Article 4 The State recognizes the individual, the family, and the community as the origin and the end of its activity, and is organized to achieve the common good, assuming the task of promoting the human development of each and every Nicaraguan, inspired by Christian values, socialist ideals, practices based on solidarity, democracy and humanism, as universal and general values, as well as the values and ideals of Nicaraguan culture and identity. Article 5 Liberty, justice, respect for the dignity of the human person, political and social pluralism, the recognition of the distinct identity of the indigenous peoples and those of African descent within the framework of a unitary and indivisible state, the recognition of different forms of property, free international cooperation and respect for the free self-determination of peoples, Christian values, socialist ideals, and practices based on solidarity, and the values and ideals of the Nicaraguan culture and identity, are the principles of the Nicaraguan nation. Political pluralism ensures the free organization and participation of all political parties in the electoral processes established in the Constitution and the laws; and their participation in the political, economic and social affairs of the country. Christian values ensure brotherly love, the reconciliation between the members of the Nicaraguan family, the respect for individual diversity without any discrimination, the respect for and equal rights of persons with disabilities, and the preference for the poor. The socialist ideals promote the common good over individual egoism, seeking to create an ever more inclusive, just and fair society, promoting an economic democracy which redistributes national wealth and eliminates exploitation among human beings.

https://constituteproject.org/constitution/Nicaragua_2014?lang=en this is their constitution Gorgonopsi (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

And? As @Sjö: pointed out on your talk page, mentioning socialism in the constitution does not define the government type as socialist. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The proposed constitutional reforms will make this a reality, declaring a revolutionary socialist state. Cnscrptr (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Biased Description of Government

the infobox claims that it’s “authoritarian” which is both an incredibly nebulous term and essentially meaningless (The FSLN has won every election it has won free and fairly). I think we should remove this and replace it with something like “Dominated by the FLSN” or the like. Describing a country as authoritarian is a very politically charged statement and we should adjust the language for neutrality 201.192.183.72 (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but we go with a summary of the views of the majority of reliable sources, and not with what editors at Wikipedia believe. If you can put together some reliable sources that support the wording you would like to use, overriding by their numbers the reliable source that is there now, then you can add your wording, along with citations to those sources. Mathglot (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it a question of whether the authoritarian leadership style of the current head of government, as attested by reliable sources, is an intrinsic part of the country's form of government, or merely a description of the current office holder's approach? If, in the next election, the current tyrant is replaced by an easygoing person who subsequently doesn't bother much with having regulations enforced or with getting anything done, do we change our description of the government to "unitary presidential republic under an ineffective nincompoop" even if reliable sources call him an ineffective nincompoop? Largoplazo (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

If what you are saying is attempting to draw a separation between the characterization of the government as constitutionally described (even if not entirely observed in practice) on the one hand, and the nature of the current leader on the other, that is a fair question (although I'd prefer a contrast with past presidents rather than future ones, per WP:CRYSTAL). But be that as it may, how is this handled in Infoboxes for other countries? The first example of an authoritarian dictatorship that came to mind was Russia, so I had a look over there, and they do it similarly to here. The second one was North Korea; ditto, and that's as far as I went. Your argument would change all three, and it's a reasonable point (if my assumption above was correct) and that's a discussion worth having, but not here. I wonder if we should bump it to a more centralized forum like WT:COUNTRIES (or WT:WPINFOBOX) for how this might apply more generally? Mathglot (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Besides having reverted this one here recently, I think I've seen this come up in a couple of other articles. While of course I think that, based purely on Wikipedia principles, I'm right, I can see there's bona fide sentiment in the other direction and I do think it would be valuable to raise the question somewhere central. I won't cry if the tide goes against me on this one. Largoplazo (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it wouldn't go your way, and wouldn't be disgruntled if it did, I just would like to see a good consensus based on our WP:P&G. I'd be happy to join the discussion should you or IP 201 decide to start one. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This is why it is described as "Unitary presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship" rather than "Unitary authoritarian presidential republic". It is not an intrinsic part of the country's constitution and government, but rather the de facto nature of the current leadership. Cnscrptr (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We should go with what the sources say.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. You'll find most of the articles are biased here 151.213.111.89 (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

We are supposed to make it more objective… 2601:248:5181:5C70:98E9:E3F4:34E2:FA49 (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The description given is not biased. It is rather accurate considering the facts and nature of the country's government. Cnscrptr (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

In fact, new changes are happening that will turn the country into a Unitary (possibly One-Party) Socialist Republic under an Authoritarian or possibly Totalitarian Dictatorship. Cnscrptr (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

References

I updated the population and added a reference, but the reference number was [13], despite it being the first one on the page. I believe this is because the table is defined first, and has references of its own. Is there a way to change that, or is it better to just not have references at all for population? Thanks! Loymdayddaud (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

If you look you'll see that after you removed it, the next first note on the page became note 13. This is because the footnotes in the infobox, which appears above the article's body in the source, are numbered first. Restore your footnote, it's going to read [13] because the first 12 footnotes are in the infobox. It's fine. I restored it for you. Largoplazo (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

That's what I assumed. Thanks! Loymdayddaud (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Dispute: Nicaragua Government form in the Infobox

There has been a dispute regarding the Infobox Government section. Amid constitutional reforms addressed in the Government Section, reversals have taken place often disregarding the socialist and revolutionary nature of the state (this clause has been passed) as well as the de facto government (note: authoritarian/totalitarian ≠ bad; there are various good authoritarian/totalitarian regimes like Oman and Gaddafi's Libya).

Furthermore, glaring problems of perceived biased language must be addressed as brought up in Talk:Nicaragua#Biased Description of Government. Hence, I've removed references to "dictatorship" or "regime" in the infobox, replaced by the neutral "authoritarian government".

We can further discuss this matter here.

People it may concern: @Cnscrptr, @Nikkimaria, @SchroCat Cnscrptr (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, the result of this discussion could also set a precedent for government infoboxes in other articles, particularly Russia and North Korea. Cnscrptr (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Request: change authoritarian government to totalitarian government.

In practice the state has been totalitarian, especially in preparation for the "Partial reform to the Constitution"; it expelled all nuns in 17 Dec [1], passed laws that give the state sweeping control over banks (including the ability to remove staff and surveil transactions) [2], and the constitutional reforms allow the government to shut down any religious practice, remove citizenship from "traitors to the homeland", and censor any speech that is considered "inaccurate" or "distorted" (Spanish: "información falsa y tergiversada") while monitoring media to get rid of "foreign influence" or "false news" that 'violate the rights of the people', stating "El Estado vigilará que los medios de comunicación social no sean sometidos a intereses extranjeros ni divulguen noticias falsas que atenten contra los derechos del pueblo. La ley regulará esta materia" (English: The state will keep watch to make sure means of social communication are not compromised by foreign interests nor divulge false news that violate the rights of the people. The law will regulate this material.), [3].

Hence, given the charismatic leadership of the government, the officialization of a revolutionary ideology, increased economic controls, and control over all aspects of society (religion, education, business, the economy, and communication, among others), it is safe to say the government is totalitarian.

All these totalitarian measures, of course, have been taken for the security of the state which has been threatened by external conflict for over 7 years, hence the need for a 'paternalist' "Government of Peace and Reconciliation" that employs these measures to safeguard the nation from instability and damaging foreign influence. Cnscrptr (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a big heap of WP:OR. We follow the sources, we do not apply our own preconceptions to label governments. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Accusing me of WP:OR is a serious and hasty accusation.

Other sources have indeed criticized Nicaragua's government as totalitarian [4] [5], and the rest of the sources have stated the presence of measures that do qualify as totalitarian, hence there is no improper synth, since the sources do not deny such conclusion but, in the contrary, imply a repressive system of government. You might want to check out Wikipedia:These are not original research

The only problem is that many sources have used the term "authoritarian" while others have used "totalitarian". Hence, we must compare the sources and see whether this conclusion is accurate (so far, none of the sources are denying this conclusion, not even those that have used the term "authoritarian" because totalitarianism qualifies as authoritarian).

If this is an issue, it might be necessary to do away with the "totalitarian" category entirely (including in the other articles I mentioned) as it is incendiary and rare in usage except in exceptional cases like North Korea, if at all.

We cannot do away with a de facto description of government alongside de-jure, as keeping only the de jure system in the infobox presents an inaccurate picture, especially since the infobox is the front of the article. I hold that the infobox must contain both de jure and de facto descriptions to present the most accurate picture, albeit in a more simplified manner.

However, we can trim to remove "hereditary" or any other superfluous descriptors in places like North Korea.

So please don't go around leveling accusations or belittling my contributions as a "heap" (as if they were worthless conspiracy theories) or being cynical toward me. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not engaging in squabbles where we disparage each other's work. Cnscrptr (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not belittling anything, but what you posted was WP:OR. If you want to have a description like that in the IB, it needs to be sourced to reliable sources and the information must represent the weight of reliable sources. If you cherry pick sources or use a combination of OR or SYNTH, it'll be taken it out. - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)