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)

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)

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