Talk:2021 Nicaraguan general election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neutrality

Sources are all western media making claims without any cited evidence. When citations are made, most cite the same source, a sketchy European (Lithuanian) org called "Urnas Abiertas." UA has no affiliation to neutral international vote observation orgs such as the UN. UA's claims of "suppression" includes things like volunteers canvassing to see if people have voted yet and offering rides to polls—hardly something you could call evidence that an election is a "sham." Claims of "arrest" are not actually mentioned in the citations—only that "opponents fled, fearing arrest." This article reeks of bias. If there is evidence of the claims being made about the elections, they need to be directly backed up with clear citations. This is a basic standard of Wikipedia. (Quick clarification: I'm not disputing the possibility of these claims being true, just pointing out that the citations included do not provide evidence and as such are not good citations—I am adding NPOV to the article rather than remove the entire section). Asaturn (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The text in the lead regarding the arrests is supported in the Pre-campaign section. Also, characterizing references in the article as "Western media" seems to be a misrepresentation, and they should be judged on their reliability. If there are doubts about the reliability of any of the sources, they should be judged in an ad hoc fashion, but the fact that at least seven potential candidates were arrested seems to be undisputed. Until then, the tag placed in the article should be removed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

When I say "western media" I mean CNN etc. All the sources are US or European, and none had reporters in Nicaragua or cite any independent verifiable 3rd parties. There are no Nicaraguan news agencies cited. All of the talk of "sham election" comes from a single dubious source. This is not the standard set by Wikipedia for sourcing information. Asaturn (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what's the problem with using sources from Europe or US, the most respected news sources come from there. They didn't had reporters in Nicaragua because the Nicaraguan governement has denied acess to foreign media according to France24 and there are no Nicaraguan news sources because Nicaragua has almost no freedom of press, it is dangerous for media to report information that can damage Ortega's reputation as you can see in the reports of independent organization like Freedom House and RSF press freedom ranking.--Lucasdmca (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not a neutral point of view. Please use news outlets that are not biased and are citing a source other than an anti-Ortega campaign. To your point about no foreign press being allowed in Nicaragua: this is not true; no mainstream US press was allowed. RT was there (Caleb Maupin of RT reported, https://twitter.com/calebmaupin/status/1457929655575584773) as was indenepdent American journalist Ben Norton (https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/1458219379687047171). Big shocker: both of them reported no voter suppression and high voter turnout with video evidence to back it up.

PERSONALLY: I AM NOT EVEN A FAN OF ORTEGA! But this article is garbage being vandalized by people who are echoing US State Department talking points. It is an embarrassment and does in no way meet the standards of Wikipedia. Students looking for information on the election, such as the number of ballots cast, have to wade through paragraphs of misinformation and half-truths about what happened months before the election even took place. Citing articles that called the election a sham days before the election even took place are clearly, to any sane rational person, not trustworthy sources. Asaturn (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It is very suspicious to deny acess to any news agency, if they have nothing to hide they should have allowed every journalist to enter the country and report what was happening there like every normal democratic country, not just their supporters like these ones that you mentioned.

In addition, Wikipedia consesus is that France 24 is reliable, and RT is considered unreliable and has been deprecated.Lucasdmca (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, lucky for Nicaragua, they don't use the "consensus" of the most obsessive American Wikipedia editors to decide who can and can't enter their country. Their basis for banning certain news outlets (like CNN and NBC) is a history of propaganda from them that is used as a basis for hurting the people of Nicaragua (but don't take my word for it—look up articles about the Contras and Somoza). You said no foreign press was allowed, I gave you two examples of American journalists who were allowed in and documented their stories for everyone to see. This is totally irrelevant to the fact that this article is being continuously defaced with NPOV violations and off-topic rants about "pre-election" drama. This article is about the election, not the people who were banned from even registering as candidates because of their criminal backgrounds, and certainly not opinions being pushed by the US State Department as pretext for another South American coup attempt. Asaturn (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Asaturn: I don't want to get involved in this, but if the problems which make an election unfair occurred occurred days or weeks before the election, then of course it's entirely reasonable to say the election is not going to be free and fair days before the election. To give an easy example, you could probably already find sources saying the next North Korean election is unlikely to be free or fair. I don't know when this election is, it might be years away, but these sources aren't automatically discredited because they offer such speculation, they are simply offering a reasonable prediction based on the current situation and the very low likelihood it will improve. In this case, there was a series of widely criticised arrests targeting political opponents which occurred weeks before the election. Given these arrests it was widely acknowledged that the election wasn't going to be free and fair. The only way the situation could be resolved would be to delay the election, release those subject to arbitrary arrest and reform the government so those involved in such arbitrary arrests are no longer in government and cannot interfere in the election or intimidate those involved. It may very well be the case that some of those arrested should have been arrested, but this needs to be decided by a police force and court system committed to the rule of law for all parties, not just whoever happens to be in government at the time; which it's widely accepted wasn't the case hence why only political opponents were arrested. Since none of this happened, the predictions about the election seem to have been widely accepted. Whether the election results themselves aren't even reflective of how people voted, I don't know, in most situations where the system so fucked up that opponents are subject to arbitrary arrest it tends to be difficult to know anyway. Socialist, communist, capitalist, whatever, in a free and fair democracy opponents aren't subject to arbitrary arrest. (P.S. One of the reason I don't want to get involved is because I hate South American politics. Yes the US's continual interference is often more harmful than helpful, but whenever any side gets in power, instead of developing a system of government which is relatively fair to everyone and free of corruption, they just solidify power around themselves. And continue a corrupt unfair system of governance using whatever lame excuse they can come up with like the need to fight communists or the need to fight the evil imperialists/US or whatever other lameness and in doing so ensure their country remains an absolute mess whatever the merits of their policies.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Right. Without getting super political, it's often a fight between different "regimes" that are fighting a battle between both their own internal struggle and external influence. Whether they are "good or bad" isn't my place to decide and isn't really a material question, but an idealistic one. I'm not doubting that there is turmoil, but editors inserting their own sort of things like "to help Ortega win" without a citation isn't helpful. If something was done to help someone else win, it needs to be cited. People going around the internet and quote-sniping opinion articles that fit their own POV isn't helpful in terms of an educational resource. I'm 100% not disputing the "issues" with the election, but when I came here looking for something as simple as voter turnout, it wasn't even included at the time (but paragraphs upon paragraphs of speculation was). That's maybe a quality issue? Hope you see my point. Asaturn (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Also if you read the citations on arrests, these people were arrested by federal agents because of a court order. There's no citation saying Ortega ordered the arrests. It's propaganda to say it has anything to do with him or his election campaign. Asaturn (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said previously, I'm not discounting that some claims are possibly true, simply that the cited articles do not back up the claims made in this article. Asaturn (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Quick note: I edited the content of this article to more accurately reflect what is actually said in the citations. For example, "government arrested" was changed to "police arrested" (as "government" implies Ortega's administration carried out the arrests when in fact they were carried out by police following a court order which disqualified some candidates). I have also specifically cited that Urnas Abiertas is the only organization disputing the official election tally. I'm happy to leave the article full of the claims of "sham" if this is the way it can be worded—this is what neutral tone looks like! Asaturn (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Missed your "pre campaign" reply. These "arrests" were made following court orders. Ortega does not run the country's court systems; to imply he personally is responsible for the arrests or that they are politically motivated violates NPOV and is not verifiable. These people were arrested, but the arrests were carried out by police following court orders. Ortega still had 5 opponents in the election and still managed to win 75% of the vote with roughly 65% voter turnout. Please report verifiable facts, not opinion or speculation. Asaturn (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"Urnas Abiertas"

The organization "Urnas Abiertas" (Open Ballot Boxes) is being used to insert dubious claims into this article. Urnas Abiertas is a European organization hosted by a Lithuanian web hosting company. They did not even exist prior to May 2021. They have no affiliation with well-known neutral election observation orgs like the UN or OAS. This is not a reliable source as it appears to be politically motivated. I have removed one of the most dubious claims that there was "only 18% turnout" — the math for this claim simply does not make any sense when you compare to the official results released by Consejo Supremo Electoral de Nicaragua (https://twitter.com/cse_nicaragua) — the official government elections organization in Nicaragua tasked with running and overseeing all elections. CSE reported 2,860,559 votes (https://twitter.com/cse_nicaragua/status/1457805908692672512) and the Demographics article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Nicaragua) says 70.5% of the 6.625 million residents are of voting age, which means roughly a 61.25% turnout by my own rough math. The official number released by CSE was 65.3%. Asaturn (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Urnas Abiertas' trustworthiness should probably be evaluated on its coverage by reliable sources, and Urnas Abiertas has received vast coverage on this claim (Deutsche Welle, EFE, El Mundo, ABC, La Razón, Amnesty International, Confidencial), to name some). The same goes for the statement that was removed from the article.

Likewise, the contrary should also be analyzed: are there reliable sources that state that Urnas Abiertas is making dubious claims? As of this date, there apparently aren't. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The org did not even exist until May of 2021 and had nobody on the ground to observe the election. Where did they get their numbers? They seem to be completely made up. Their website does not offer any detail on the numbers. It's basically just a random Twitter account set up in May by someone in Europe! Simply being cited by news media does not make them a trustworthy source. For example, if CNN cites France24 which cites The Guardian which cites "Urnas Abiertas," that isn't "reliable," it's a single dubious source. When you look at the official turnout numbers compared with numbers I was able to find by using Wikipedia itself, they're nearly identical. "Urnas Abiertas" looks to be a political campaign with the goal of spreading anti-Ortega propaganda, not a neutral 3rd party (look at the header image of their Twitter https://twitter.com/UrnasAbiertas). They have zero data released to back up their numbers. Is this really the standard for Wikipedia, a Twitter account with 1,200 followers? Also perhaps more than one random "actually you're wrong" is required before reverting the edits and dubious tags on all of the claims in this article. Please find one neutral 3rd party source that isn't an anti-Ortega campaign that shows the turnout wasn't what the official election agency reported. Asaturn (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, if Urnas Abiertas is "trustworthy" enough to be used as the sole source for the claims of election fraud in a Wikipedia article covering Nicaraguan elections, why are they not notable enough to have their very own Wikipedia article? For example, the article on CNN cites many 3rd party sources. Can you find any 3rd party sources backing up the claim that Urnas Abiertas is an internationally recognized and independent election observation organization? This is a good faith question. I cannot find any sources that show Urnas Abiertas is anything but an anti-Ortega campaign founded in May 2021. The only sources of information are their website (https://urnasabiertas.com/) and their Twitter (https://twitter.com/UrnasAbiertas) Asaturn (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I was able to find one source of independent information regarding this org: their 2 founders gave a talk at DC based think tank Wilson Center (funded by US Congress). This is also assocaited with https://idea.int, a globally recognized election observation organization. If references to Wilson Center must be removed, please understand that the 18.5% figure should really be removed then, as it isn't a verifiable claim since the only citation is first party. I am adding this in an attempt to lend credibility to the lower turnout estimate. Asaturn (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Simply being cited by news media does not make them a trustworthy source. In fact, isn't that pretty much how Wikipedia determines a reliable source, WP:USEBYOTHERS? However, we're not citing the NGO, we're citing the reliable sources who quote them (DW, El Mundo, ABC, etc). It remains unclear if they are notable enough to have their own article, but for the purposes of including them here, i.e. are they noteworthy in relation to the elections, we can see they are considered noteworthy by a number of reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

OK I'm confused. So if I go invent a Twitter account, and make a claim, it isn't reliable. But if I get RT'd by CNN, I'm now (as if by magic) making a verifiable claim? This is like money laundering. Not disagreeing, just an odd standard for an encyclopedia. All it would take to have "verified" citations would be to get major news networks to quote you, right?

That said, where is it stated that Urnas Arbiertas is an NGO? They seem to quite literally be associated with International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance and Wilson Center. Does it not seem relevant to include this information, since it bolsters their claims? I am trying to just provide some context here. Without it, we're literally quoting a CNN article that quotes a Twitter account with 1,200 followers.

I understand YouTube can't be linked to now (thanks). But why can't we reference the orgs that are clearly cited in the links I had provided to Wilson Center? The talk given by Urnas Abiertas was "in partnership" with IDEA. Asaturn (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Asaturn, you may find it helpful to read WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I still don't see where Urnas Abiertas is cited as "an NGO" and I don't understand why citations from their talk at Wilson Center aren't reputable sources (Wilson Center is a US Congressional sponsored think tank - basically part of US Government) or why their partnership with https://IDEA.int isn't relevant (it is cited on their own website and in the videos in their blog - IDEA is an internationally recognized vote supervision organization). This isn't "original research," it's cited on both of their respective websites. Asaturn (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm late to comment this, but I essentially wanted to comment that Urnas Abiertas does not appear to be just a random group that popped up this year, it has its own website, has published several reports and worked with reputable institutions; the coverage by reliable sources back this up. Possibly the most important thing is that since you're the one questioning the organization, Asaturn, the onus is on you to demonstrate why it isn't trustworthy and back it up with other realible references, and so far you have not done that. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

So if the institutions they work with add to their reputation why was my citation removed? You can't say that they're a real org and then refuse to allow evidence proving it. Also, every single one of their "reports" is anonymous and does not cite any data or specific figures, and all of their information only goes back to May 2021. They literally appeared out of nowhere this year. Asaturn (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit/Undo war

I am making GOOD FAITH EDITS. I am not contesting that some sources claim the election was a "sham," but simply requesting that specifically who is making these claims be mentioned as to not imply that MOST or MANY are claiming this. Urnas Abiertas is not an internationally recognized independent election observer, they are a partisan campaign created in May of this year (according to their website and Twitter). These are verifiable facts. Wikipedia requires verifiable facts, not opinion or biased wording. Please make good faith edits. This article is not your personal platform for political views. See above discussions for specific topics. Asaturn (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Please keep in mind the policy of WP:No original research. If a reliable secondary source characterizes them differently, please cite that. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

There are no secondary sources on Urnas Abiertas. I am not using any original research, I simply can't find anything out there. If anyone can find information about the org that verifies they're not just 2 bloggers, I'd be happy to see it added to this article. As of right now, the only official election information comes from CSE (the government elections agency), and in my opinion, that's what this factual informational article should be based around, as that's what most people coming here are trying to find. If people want speculation, rumors, etc, they can go to any news website and read for themselves. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Asaturn (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

good faith edits: general cleanup, addressing redundancy, re-organizing for clarity

I've tried my best to make good faith re-structuring and major edit/rewrite of this entire article. There are many redundancies regarding arrests, disqualified candidates, and inviduals who never qualified. Most of this has been moved around while maintaining the facts and citations - I am not attempting to erase relevant facts surrounding the election, just make this article easier to follow and separate the official election information from the surrounding controversy. Please let me know if you have suggestions for improvement, as I am a bit of a novice at the editing system for Wikipedia. Asaturn (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You completely vandalized the article. No major election article has a one sentence lead. Just check [1] for one single example. It mentions the accusations of fraud and intimidation in addition to the disqualified candidates. I don't know how you thought that removing all of the criticisms of the authoritarian communist regime would make it less biased, but clearly you just made it into some Ortega fanfare. I don't care about your political views, there were numerous cited sources that you erased, i.e. vandalism. Bill Williams 02:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Number 57 sorry to bother, but I checked the edit history of the article and saw you were the most recent sysop or person with rollback privileges to edit the article. Can you please revert this vandalism? I know he didn't intend to damage the article, but he erased large amounts of important and sourced information. Bill Williams 02:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said I'm attempting to make good faith edits. Please move the relevant information that isn't already included in the article to the controversy section and make good faith UN BIASED edits. Calling Nicaragua an "authoritarian communist regime" (what? lol) is not a neutral point of view, and completely undoing my edits without specific explanation is not a good faith edit. Number 57: please step in to this... I have been attempting to clean up a mess of garbage that does not clearly explain the relevant FACTS OF AN ELECTION. If people want to include the months of pre-election controversy (including every random person who was not qualified to run) then they need to be included in a relevant footnote section, not in the first paragraph. Asaturn (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've made a mess of the article, ruining the good work of several editors, including my work. All to make it fit your ideology. Thanks for nothing. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Look at the edit history. I'm not the one making a mess. Is Wikipedia a part of the US State Department? Because that's the only point of view being presented in this article. People coming looking for information on the election are forced to wade through paragraphs upon paragraphs of tabloid speculation about individuals under investigation for things like terrorism before they get to the point. This article has been a mess since day one. That's why it's tagged NPOV. Asaturn (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I looked at your contributions on various supposed American socialists. Even they trust the sources we cited here, which are left-wing (e.g. NYT, WaPo, CNN) but not far-left communist propaganda like what you are adding to the article. We are not adding American propaganda, but reliably sourced information from various news sources and agreed upon by multiple European and Latin American nations. Bill Williams 00:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Once again you're just making stuff up. I have no idea what you're talking about re: "I looked at your contributions on various supposed American socialists." What are you talking about? And what does this have to do with this article? It sounds like YOU have a neutrality problem and should not be editing this article. Nothing I've added is pushing any non neutral point of view, and I used sources that meet WP guidelines OR WERE ALREADY ADDED BY OTHER USERS. I did not add any "far left" sources, what are you talking about??? I have used the citations on this page to provide context for the arrests of "pre-candidates" and other events leading up to the election. To mention the arrests but imply that they were bogus, or to mention specific individuals but fail to mention why they were arrested, is pushing a POV. For example, see my talk on the user page for Innisfree987 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Innisfree987#your_edits/reverts_of_my_edits_on_2021_Nicaraguan_presidential_election), where we mostly agreed on context. You will see that the VP candidate who was arrested was arrested based on a law passed that made it illegal to promote a repeat of the 2018 coup (which she specifically called for, as quoted in an article cited by someone else—not me!) Leaving out context is de-facto NPOV violation. Repeatedly removing edits made by MULTIPLE GOOD FAITH EDITORS is vandalism. This isn't a place to argue about communism or socialism. As stated elsewhere, I'm not even a fan of Ortega, I just think this article is blatant propaganda. You are lying about the actions taken by myself and other editors to paint a picture that we're the ones breaking the rules when it's you and others who have some sort of problem with "communism" or whatever. Nothing I've added here is pro-communist. You don't even know my personal ideology (and you shouldn't). Asaturn (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

And I don't think any of these sources qualify as "tabloid speculation," while you repeatedly added of made up crimes by the communist government that all reliable sources state to be politically motivated accusations with no factual backing. Bill Williams 00:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, see above comments. These are cited from the sources added by other users as citations for the arrests themselves. Did you even read the articles? I'm not the one being politically motivated here. When I say "tabloid" I am referring to the fact that you and other editors are only adding some parts of the cited articles but leaving out important context. I am also referring to a single source used in the articles claiming 18% turnout, which doesn't seem to be a reliable 2nd or 3rd party source (all seem to come from https://twitter.com/UrnasAbiertas). I have created a notice on the COI noticeboard requesting an admin intervene since this article is full of badjacketing and personal attacks. You continuously accuse me of adding "far left" or "communist" sources when I have not added a single citation that violates WP rules on sources. This is getting pathetic and you are insulting. Asaturn (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Bill: I undid your blanket removal of context for arrests (why would you remove this?) but left your claim that "critics" say the arrests were to secure Ortega's victory (since your source does have this clearly cited). Admin and COI discussion should help clear up this mess. Asaturn (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

"pre-candidate"

Rather than start another edit war with yet another politically-motivated editor, I'd like a neutral 3rd party to please review the revisions made by Innisfree987 in re-instating the mention of "pre-candidates" to describe individuals who were not qualified to register as candidates due to their criminal backgrounds or other violations of law. I cannot find the term "pre-candidate" on any official government/elections website for Nicaragua. This term is only used in opinion pieces critical of the election. The terms appears to be used to imply these individuals were in some form "official" and "about to be candidates," when in fact they were never qualified and never added to the ballot. Using this term is meaningless in terms of factual neutral point of view about an election. It is a biased phrase. "Pre-candidate" should just be replaced with "individual," as anyone who isn't yet a candidate is a pre-candidate. This was my original edit and I believe it should stand. Asaturn (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"Pre-candidate" is a weird phrase in English. Unless it corresponds to a specific term used conventionally in Nicaragua, then it might be better replaced with "aspiring candidate", "presidential hopeful", "potential candidate", "would-be candidate" or "expected candidate", "possible challenger", "presidential contender", which are terms widely used by RSs.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] What is indisputable is that a number of such people were arrested and that this was found noteworthy by multiple reliable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I also think a more clear distinction needs to be made. There were multiple individuals who were "not qualified" (legally) to run for various reasons: some had criminal investigations already opened prior to the start of the elections, some were arrested and charged with various crimes, and others dropped out or refused to participate. Others left the country. Specifics on these are really needed to bring clarity to the events leading up to the election and why so many people were not qualified to run. Editors who keep adding biased wording like "Ortega ordered the arrests so he could win" are not adding helpful information. Additionally, speculating on the "legitimacy" of alleged crimes and the arrests and official charges, in my opinion, violates the BLP standards (we shouldn't assume guilty or innocent or speculate on the "legitimacy" of charges—just report the facts as cited in the news articles linked as sources). I would suggest someone with editing skills better than mine add a new section or modify the controversy section to outline specific individuals and why they were not on the ballot. Asaturn (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I would not object to more specificity about what laws arrests were made under etc. Meanwhile, looking at Spanish-language sources, it seems "pre-candidate" is actually a real term - meaning something akin to a primary candidate. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you link me to a source that says pre-candidate? I couldn't find one (was this your own translation?) From what I could tell, "pre-candidate" is a made-up term being used to describe individuals who were barred from even registering to run. They don't have primaries in Nicaragua. So using the term "pre-candidate" inserts bias and implies individuals were somehow "official" (as you said, like primary candidates) when in fact they were not. I would like the information on the alleged acts behind the arrests added back to the article again. I have added it 3 or 4 times now and people keep removing it without reason (again, inserting bias, implying the arrests were not legitimate or were at the direction of the president). The 5 candidates who were on the ballot are conservative. The people who were arrested were far-right candidates under investigation for crimes like terrorism and inciting violence (one called for a repeat of the 2018 coup attempt). I don't understand why this information is seen as "unimportant" when it's in the same citations used to talk about the arrests. Asaturn (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

clarity needed on "opposition candidates" in intro

There were only 5 official opposition candidates allowed on the ballot after the filing deadline. Every other "potential candidate" was never legally a candidate, either because they didn't file in time, were barred from registering due to a criminal record or criminal investigation, or were otherwise not qualified. The intro section on these candidates (the 2nd paragraph on) needs to be re-worded with specific details. Anyone reading this would be extremely confused about who was an actual candidate appearing on the ballot. In addition, "vice presidential candidates" are mentioned as if they are a separate thing. In Nicaragua, they have "tickets" where the presidential candidate files and includes their VP pick. The VP candidates do not individually file, so they aren't individually disqualified. As of right now, I left the section as-is (including the mention of the disqualification of one VP candidate for making illegal statements). It is still extremely confusing and needs to be re-written! Asaturn (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: I went ahead and tried my best to clean this section up by adding reasons behind arrests with citations for each arrested individual. Please do not simple wipe out this entire section or revert the edit, this is a GOOD FAITH EDIT. Most of the articles are actually critical of Ortega but provide useful context for the alleged criminal acts cited as reason for the arrests. This is important information as it adds context showing that these individuals were allegedly inciting violence and allegedly committing financial crimes. Asaturn (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Once again people are totally changing this section and removing good information. Can an admin please step in again? This is getting comical. The article has gone back and forth and edits are being made with comments that don't explain them. Removing good information that is cited in the linked articles is not good practice on here. Editors need to be leaving comments as to WHY they think that information should be removed. I believe this article needs to be locked as it describes a major current event and editors are continually inserting their own bias. Asaturn (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism

Asaturn please refrain from vandalizing this article further. Your edits have no consensus backing, in fact they have been consistently reverted by other editors. You are adding communist propaganda, such as adding "claims to be" to election observers, which violates Wikipedia neutrality by implying that they are only purportedly election observers, when all reliable sources refer to them as legitimate election observers. Additionally, listing a dozen random crimes that the communist government made up to arrest opposition opponents, and pretending like they were legitimate charges, when all reliable sources state that the charges were politically motivated, is extremely misleading. Furthermore, stating that "critics claim" the detention, disqualification, and intimidation of journalists and opposition candidates was intended to secure Ortega's victory is absurd, because it is not just "critics" within Nicaragua claiming this, but every single reliable source. Stop vandalizing the article with communist propaganda. The only sources that could possibly back you up would be Russian, Cuban, Chinese etc. and are not considered reliable by Wikipedia. Bill Williams 15:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia is full of people with one totally made-up point of view ("random crimes that the communist government made up to arrest opposition opponents") who obsessively revert my good-faith edits (which added a lot of useful context taken from your own citations!) does not mean "consensus." MANY OF THESE EDITS WERE NOT EVEN MADE BY ME (the entire section on "controversey" was someone else's hard work!)

I have clearly stated why I think the article is a mess and users such as Innisfree987 have come to consensus with me on most of the points. Stop bad-jacketing me and accusing me of "vandalism" when I spent hours trying to improve the article and make it more than US State Department propaganda. It's bad enough you people do it about current events, but it's personal when you accuse people of trying to use Wikipedia as a propaganda outlet. This is pure projection on your part. I'm simply trying to make this article about an election ... actually provide election information that is accurate, not tabloid speculation backed up by a single Twitter account run by two individuals who work for a DC Thinktank https://twitter.com/badspaceguy/status/1458198255116984322.

You may think Wikipedia is a place for just your own point of view, but you're wrong. Constantly accusing people you believe that you disagree with politically of "vandalism" is bad faith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith) and violates various behavioral guidelines on this site. If you continue I will not hestitate to get admins involved and block you from editing. If you can't help yourself from continuing to do actual vandalism every time you visit this page, perhaps it's time you took a break or found another topic. Nothing I've added here is in support of the current establishment in Nicaragua! Asaturn (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)