Talk:2018–2022 Nicaraguan protests/Archive 1

Archive 1

Renaming page?

Editors following this page are invited to join the conversation at Talk:2014–2018 Nicaraguan protests to discuss the possible renaming of that page as well as this one. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Nicaraguan Political Uprising Of April 19, 2018. Civil Desobedience and Protests

Death toll sources

Please, check the footnote in the Spanish article for more accurate data on the death toll. Putting "63+" is misleading. Latest number from Cenidh was 42 confirmed plus 3 unconfirmed (April 29th), from ANPDH it was 54 (April 29th), from CPDH it was 63 (April 26th). So the infobox should display a range, rather than using the maximum reported as minimum. Also note that CPDH accounting seems unreliable, since they "confirm" way higher death tolls than Cenidh and ANPDH even days before, when less data has been gathered by all parties. --MarioGom (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Latest number by Cenidh is 45, updated today: [2] --MarioGom (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I put the 45 back in. The Miami Herald states "at least 63", so I put 45-63+ as the range. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Note that Miami Herald states "at least 63" just because. There is no backing data for that statement other than the 63 figure from CPDH, which is ok, but the "at least" is just an addition from the reporter without evidence. --MarioGom (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

IMHO we should defer for now to the Miami Herald's judgement that the 63 may be an undercount; it's quite plausible to me that some deaths have not yet been counted. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Plausibility is not enough for an encyclopedic text. I would suggest to add a footnote detailing the different counts, the organization that gave them and in which date. I suggest including the last (old) Government one, CPDH's, ANPDH's and Cenidh's. In that footnote, we can also add «Miami Herald suggest that there could be more than 63». That way, that claim is clearly attributed, which is a requirement for a claim that has unclear backing evidence and does not match any of the sources that might be considered as authoritative. --MarioGom (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The NYTimes gives a specific example of a person whose name "does not appear on the official list of the dead that rights groups have compiled". I don't know about "unclear backing evidence" (there's no requirement that an WP:RS such as the Miami Herald explain its methodology in order to be able to be included in Wikipedia), but a footnote and/or further explanation in the body of the article sounds reasonable. If there's no reports of additional casualties by, say, 9 May (a week after the Miami Herald's 2 May publication), we should probably drop the Miami Herald report anyway and cap the estimate at 63. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. --MarioGom (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, the criteria of highest death toll number by any source, even in the presence of contradictory numbers seems to prevail in this article, which is plain wrong, since each of the organizations working on the ground report slightly different numbers simultaneously. For example, ANPDH reported 168 on June 13th while CENIDH reported 164 on June 14th. Even higher divergences have been reported in earlier stages of the conflict. I suggest to use ranges of the latest reported numbers by CPDH, CENIDH and ANPDH, and other organizations if it turns out they start verifying with direct sources in Nicaragua. This, however, is not acceptable, since it just reports 200 according to varied sources, but it does not reveal which sources. It does not make sense to use that piece of reporting for death toll when we have CPDH/CENIDH/ANPDH reports. --MarioGom (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Note that ANPDH has, indeed, updated its estimate to 200 death between April 18th and June 14th. --MarioGom (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Updated death toll to include a range again. Yeenosaurus: please, check my comments in this thread. A single source cannot be used for death toll because there are five organizations (ANPDH, CPDH, CENIDH, CIDH and the parliament comission) reporting death toll from the ground and each of them report different figures. All of them should be included in a range. Wikipedia cannot decide which of these figures is the right one at a given point in time. --MarioGom (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I did not understand this, thought I was just cleaning up after the death toll was updated. Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 20:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I updated again with a range with CIDH and ANPDH death estimates. Please, remember that it is not ok to just pick the lowest or the highest number. --MarioGom (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm be very cautious about using the Miami Herald as a source for total deaths as it tends to not be the least neutral about Nicaragua. Total deaths from political violence on both sides is generally accepted by people in Nicaragua to be around 350 (through the Ortega government pacification of the events in September 2018).MizOre (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Parties to the civil conflict

There are some missing parties at the protester side:

• Frente Amplio por la Democracia who called for the first protest in the morning of April 18th.
• Consejo Superior de la Empresa Privada who also called for some later protests.
• Catholic Church in Nicaragua who gave logistic support to the protests in Managua.
• Movimiento Universitario 19 de Abril created on April 25th in UPOLI.

On the pro-government side:

• Trade unions: Frente Nacional de los Trabajadores and Unión Nacional de Empleados
• Unión Nacional de Estudiantes de Nicaragua (UNEN)
• Juventud Sandinista (as part of FSLN)

You can find sources for all of them here. --MarioGom (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

In most cases I agree with you, and support a WP:DIY approach in adding this material with the accompanying sources you mention. Additionally, it would be very welcome if you were interested in creating stubs for some of these redlinks (though please note for en.wikipedia, they will need to be translated into English, and indeed some of them already have English pages begun, for instance the Superior Council for Private Enterprise).

That said, I'm not sure it's so clear that COSEP or the Catholic Church (I see ZiaLater just made a similar point below) are on "the protester side". I've seen at least one source (cite TK) accusing business leaders and the Church of effectively supporting the regime by agreeing to dialogues. Therefore I would suggest those particular cases are better discussed in prose in the body of the entry, which would allow room to describe these complexities, rather than in infobox where it's either one or the other.

In any case, I fully support describing all of these topics in the entry, which needs a great deal more development. That is why there's already a template requesting the entry be expanded from the corresponding entry on es.wikipedia.

For my own part, I would love to see expansion of the "Background" section because (even though I wrote most of it) I'm coming to feel like it puts too much emphasis on environmental activism as the only precipitating events, and fails to discuss broader political and constitutional background. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The military is distinct from the National Police and has announced in La Prensa that it's not taking part in suppressing demonstrations. No verifiable proof that it has been involved, though people urging US citizen involvement are claiming this. I'll try to find the reference in . National Police have at least three branches, including riot police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MizOre (talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

MizOre, you are right. Some military units were deployed on April 21th to protect some strategic public buildings such as the Augusto C. Sandino International Airport. It seems that all claims about army being involved are some kind of interpretation of the deployment on that day, but I have not found reliable sources about military actually participating in riot control or being directly involved in suppressing demonstrations in any way. I am changing this both in the English and Spanish article. Thanks. -MarioGom (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done [3] --MarioGom (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Neutrality concerns

I have concerns that this article does not abide to a neutral point of view. In general, any claim against the Government by any source seems to be added as a fact, regardless of realibility of the source, and without attribution when multiple sources dispute some claims (WP:BALANCE). Then there is a bias by omission of relevant facts. Some issues I found:

• The summary of parties to the civil conflict in the infobox lacks most parties. This leads to confussion since it might lead to oversimplifying the conflict as a «Government against The People». Reality is, of course, more complex. There are a few well-known parties on both sides. On the protested side, in addition to multiple student groups, there is a major opposition coalition (FAD), the main employer's organization (Cosep), and the Catholic Church. On the Government side, there is the FSLN, its youth arm (Sandinist Youth), two major trade unions of the country (FNT-UNE) and one the major student organizations (UNEN). See specific discussion thread about this.
• 18 April: misses the first FAD protest against the INSS reform.
• 19-21 April: misses the use of violence by protester groups in many cities, including barricades, molotov cocktails and homemade mortars. This has been reported multiple sources, including Reuters ([4]).
• 4 May: paramilitary groups? There is a single original source (La Prensa) calling these paramilitary ([5], accompanied by a video that does not depict anything like paras). Other sources on the ground such as El Nuevo Diario do not describe the same groups as paramilitary. Honestly, it looks just as the usual click-bait often used online.

Best, --MarioGom (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Catholic Church being on the protesting side, there are some priests who have welcomed protesters and events, though most have been trying to play a mediating role. I will look at the other concerns as well.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Right. The Catholic Church as a party to the conflict probably needs qualification. For example, while Cardinal Brenes has called for non-violence since the very beginning, he has supported the protests and provided logistic support to the initial protests in Managua. He also claimed to have an agreement at Arquidiócesis de Managua (including Masaya and Carazo) on supporting the protests (source). Bishop Baez also supported the protests since early days (example) On the other hand, the church at large (Episcopal Conference of Nicaragua) remained kind of neutral initially and later offered itself as a mediator. --MarioGom (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

As I say in the section above, I agree that the entry is missing a lot, but I don't think I agree it so clearly tilts one way or another. For instance, as you point out MarioGom, the JS appears nowhere in this entry--despite widely reported allegations, including in the es.wikipedia entry, of the group participating in repression. If anything, I think the cleanup tag saying "All significant perspectives may not be represented" is closer to the issue, but even that I think is not quite right--right now I think the entry's just missing a lot of information. I would suggest we remove the neutrality tag and instead tag sections that need expansion--I'll start with the "Background" section, because it's my hobbyhorse... (And of course, just going ahead and actually adding missing material is better yet!) Innisfree987 (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Innisfree987: There is some lack of information here that affects neutral point of view. Particularly with the use of violence and firearms. Both in the initial April summary and in the Firearms section, there are mentions to deaths by firearms together with the claim that Police used live ammunition, omitting that there were repeated reports of protesters carrying firearms (example) and two of the dead were police agents allegedly shot in the head. IMHO, this goes beyond lack of representation of significant perspectives and affects NPOV significantly and the tag should stay at the moment. --MarioGom (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This isn't really responsive to my point that there are gaps in coverage on many sides here. One could just as easily argue the entry is unduly pro-government because it fails to describe the JS, as already discussed; significantly underdescribes reported criticism of the Vice President; leaves out completely the long background of criticism of the Administration over the last 11 years; etc.

Additionally, at some point the neutrality tag will come off just because of en.wikipedia policy that it only stays as long as there's active work being done to address any such issues; it's specifically not a tag that can be left indefinitely. So I really encourage you to add what you see as missing. I can't stress enough that there are very considerable gaps in all of English Wikipedia's coverage of the country; thanks especially to ZiaLater's hard work, this is actually one of the more thorough en.wiki Nicaragua entries. See by contrast the very meager stubs I have begun on COSEP, INSS, and CENIDH, created because as of last month, there was nothing at all there (I've already tag-bombed two of the three myself, and the last one is so very short, I considered tags unnecessary because it felt self-evident that much more information was needed.). So I think it's really a mistake to suspect omissions are neutrality violations, when the gaps are innumerable and span across so many different points of view, and we are frankly a bit desperate for assistance filling them in. Your help would be very much appreciated. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to make your proposed tag change, I don't really hold a so strong opinion on it. I don't expect the tag to stay indefinitely and I will contribute to the article. I haven't been very active contributing here yet since I'm more focused on the Spanish article and reading most sources as I can currently consumes most of my time. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with all these reservations and I lived through the mess in 2018 as a foreign permanent resident of Nicaragua. The active strife is pretty much over and was pretty much over by the failure of the last call for a national strike in the fall of 2018. The Catholic Church had some people who wanted to work for reconciliation, but putting a 22 year old up as the first opposition speaker who demanded Ortega's resignation rather wrecked that dialogue. Ortega apparently pulled the police into barracks with an understanding that the barricades would come down, but they didn't. Social media agitation had a large number of people terrified that small shops and businesses would be looted by FSLN supporters. Something similar happened with the recent actions of police against anti-FSLN priests, but nobody was shot and no barricades went up from anything I can find on line. Reuters photographers who posted Alamy stock agency were very one sided at first, but recent searches show that they're now more aware of both sides having dangerous weapons. The mortaros made it risky for police to use non-lethal riot controls like batons and teargas (also a black powder weapon), and the opposition did have regular rifles and may have had sniper rifles. The Army didn't come out until it became obvious that one side or the other had to win to bring peace back to Nicaragua and wrecking the roads could be considered attacks on public property, which the Army said early that it would protect though it wouldn't go after demonstrators who weren't attacking public property.

One of the untold stories is of the Waslala FSLN mayor who keep his city from its own internal riots and organized the roadblocks against outsiders. Both dominant local parties worked together on this, switching off guarding the barricades/tranques. From what I've read, 22 policemen were killed with firearms. The claim of a student being killed by the police on April 18 had been disputed, but the killing of a policeman, a Sandinista youth, and a bystander on April 19 appear to be true (Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch list the three deaths but blame them on government forces. Killing cops anywhere tends to make cops more aggressive.

I did research on tear gas launchers and found out they had to use black powder charges to keep the gas canister from exploding in the launcher or just in front of it. The canisters are fired to bounce off pavement in front of the target group. Putting the black powder mortaros in the mix made it hazardous to get too close to the riot. Only one death was due to mortaros, but a mortaro fight in my neighborhood resulted in four ambulance trips to the local hospital. Cops had tear gas launchers (I saw one close up) but didn't appear to use them. The claim that all the deaths were of peaceful non-violent student protestors is just wrong. Nicaragua now has been basically calm except for the events around two cathedrals in Matagalpa and Sebaco. People where I live began continuing construction projects about two years ago and on, so feel optimistic enough to put money into houses and businesses.

While the people taking US money have had their outlets closed in Nicaragua, Nicaragua has not censored the internet (the opposition is all over Twitter, for example), and both sides use public opinion survey companies that do very much appear to deliver the results their patrons paid for. La Prensa was always dishonest about Ortega. And 100% Noticias had an owner who was given amnesty but broke it and was subsequently arrested. During the 2018 events, he tried to or did incite violence against Radio Ya (a FSLN radio station burned after Mora claimed (falsely) that his t.v. station was being attacked by FSLN supporters. Mora tried to incite a mob to attack Ortega's offices and kill him, but nobody took him up on that. Social media had some fake news that was quickly disproven -- tank in the streets of Leon, summary executions with bodies dumped in a ravine near Jinotega (Mexican photos, actually), and no real examples of protestors who'd disappeared. One that seemed like that turned out to be a kid had mental problems.

Nicaraguan prisons are rough, but none of the US assets ever agitated for general prison reform.

I wish there was disinterested journalism about the events, and about who did what when. None of the media outlets closed were disinterested. MizOre (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed.ApolloCarmb (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Struck content from confirmed sockpuppet, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE

@ApolloCarmb:, there has been no discussion regarding the censorship of the media or the closure of the outlets. There's no need to change the wording because it is an uncontested fact. If you consider this is POV, you could consider adding sources to your edits. Thanks in advance. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Saying so does not make it so.ApolloCarmb (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Struck content from confirmed sockpuppet, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE

While I agree that the temporary interruption of TV airing of some channels during some hours in April 19th is widely reported by all kinds of media and uncontested, note that, to the best of my knowledge, no media outlet has been closed. --MarioGom (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Although no media outlet has officially been closed, on April 20, 2018, Radio Darío in the city of León was burned down. Government supporters and a congressman from the FSLN, Filiberto Rodríguez, were among the persons accused by its owner, Aníbal Toruño. [6]. At what point are actions performed by pro-Ortega groups are deemed to be Government-affiliated? --eni2dad (talk)

At least one TV channel, 100% Noticias de Nicaragua, was blocked from transmitting from April 19th to April 25th.[7] --eni2dad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That 100% Noticias edit was nice. It is good to clear that up because I was not sure if they were back on air or not either.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, no media sources were permanently shut down until 2020. La Prensa was available almost all the time of the unrest as was 100% Noticias. There was an excellent news site run by people at the Jesuit University which did close in 2018 but apparently of its own will, and its archive is on line. Radio Dario may have been burned as retaliation for the earlier attack on Radio Ya. 100% Noticias de Nicaragua wasn't kicked permanently off the air until some time after the events. I watched it a lot during spring and summer 2018. The owner of 100% Noticias told an American left wing interviewer that he wanted the US to invade Nicaragua. One evangelical station was off the air briefly but was back on the air when I heard an announcer read a translation of Biden's condemnation of the Nicaraguan election and the imposition of sanctions. There are a few other non-government Nicaraguan stations, and Claro still carries Fox News, Fox Latin, BBC, and CNN (one Nicaraguan friend complained about that lying), and some Italian and French stations. China and Russia both have channels, too, in Spanish.

Is there a Wikipedia article on the USAid RAIN Project? MizOre (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Timeline article

@Jamez42:, @YuriNikolai:, @186.75.36.178: We now have a Timeline of the 2018 Nicaraguan protests article! If you would please decide which major events should stay in this article, the rest will be removed since this article is growing rapidly. Thank you ----ZiaLater (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Timeline section has been reduced to major events. Any additional timeline edits should be placed in Timeline of the 2018 Nicaraguan protests.----ZiaLater (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Outdated?

As far as I know, Masaya's recapture by the government was an important event during the protests, but it happened over a month ago and recently I haven't seen more notices regarding the protests. Are the demonstrations still ongoing in a small scale? Is the article outdated? --Jamez42 (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Protests are still going on in some cities, specially in León. It looke like at smaller scale. [8] [9] --MarioGom (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Nicaragua's Political Uprising of April 19, 2018: Civil Desobedience And Protests — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luistotoalfaro (talk • contribs) 08:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• No a la censura (41701310552).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Funeral of Ernesto Cardenal POV issue

That section seems to be a huge smear of the FSLN and paints their supporters as illogical and unnecessarily brutal. Their point of view on the incident is absent; only the point of view of the opposition is presented. All the sources are in Spanish and I can't verify them. Mottezen (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)