Talk:Arnoldo Alemán

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Revisions[edit]

Please discuss changes in talk page. Also, I do not know what inflammatory adjectives you are referring to. Brusegadi 19:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that I am not the only one reverting your changes; thus, that should make you wonder if you are pushing POV. Brusegadi 19:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I noticed that you included several more sources, all of which are the same. That is, they relate to the established fact that Aleman was convicted on several charges in 2002. However, you continue to ignore my requests related to sources to support the sentence, "Alemán and other members of his family were formally charged with corruption in December 2002, and on 7 December 2003 he was sentenced to a 20-year prison term for a string of crimes including money laundering, embezzlement and corruption." You have not produced any source material to support what is now your assault on the Aleman family. That is why I am being kind when I ask if your motivation for this is political. If it is not, you are a libeler and are demeaning Wikipedia in the process. Either produce sources to back up your assertions or quit using this page to perpetuate your POV. Spartanad 17:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to look for a source that shows that what you are trying to introduce is indeed true. I left that statement per WP:BLP but I do not think the statement is true. Find a reliable source and back it up. Finally, discussing does not mean writing something here and then going and reverting the change completely. I have added stuff to this article and invested time in it and it foes not feel good when you come and at the push of one button revert it back to you heavily POV version. Please provide reliable sources so that other stuff can be included. Brusegadi 18:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have it wrong. In order to say that members of Aleman's family have been indicted on any crimes, you MUST site references to support it. Your assertion is circular in that it asks me to provide evidence that something is not true when, in fact, the incident did not happen! It's like me writing, "Brusegadi is a puffy, purple toad" and then asking you to cite sources to disprove. Proving the non-existence of evidence that does not exist is a circular logical argument. Wikipedia is not an attack forum and you are knowing demeaning it by knowingly perpetuating harmful lies. I have changed parts of my edits to eliminate POVs. You, however, are proving to be completely intractable. Spartanad 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not what I said. I said that if you want me to find evidence that Aleman has been 'absolved' that I cannot find such evidence and that you will have to look for it. If you look on the article, I have removed mentions of his family unless supported by a source.Brusegadi 21:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more sources, as you can see, one source does mention the participation of members of his family, so I left one mention of that. I also did research on the presumption of innocence in Nicaragua, and I found one source. I believe that in order to be a member of the OAS Nicaragua must guarantee such things, but I am not sure. Brusegadi 22:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article (dated to 2002) that you reference as referring to a member of Aleman's family is POV from the original author. It says that the daughter, Maria Dolores Aleman, was part of a "scheme", as were "a brother and sister". Whatever the "scheme" was, it did not yield charges against *any* member of Aleman's family. This is a negative POV smear and was removed. I reverted the document but am amenable to leaving in the part about Aleman's minister since that is a verified fact. The source you used to change the writing that states how Nicaragua operates under Napoleonic Code relates not to the judicial system but to the rules governing *Special Tribunals*, and is WRONG. Your source is a description of how the special tribunals worked in Nicaragua during the trials of former members of the Somoza regime. Please, please, please read the material that you use as a source and understand it beforehand. Here are a few quotes, albeit out of context, from your source:

"1. Every accused person shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in equality of conditions: a. That his guilt shall not be presumed until a formal sentence of imprisonment has been pronounced against him" "2. A number of legal systems admit that, under certain circumstances, the benefit of the presumption of innocence is waived, and as a result, the burden of proof reverts to the accused, if certain circumstantial evidence is present. The legal notion, “circumstantial evidence”, overrides the presumption of innocence; it inverts the burden of proof because of the overwhelming coincidence of inculpating evidence against the person accused. According to this view, whenever such circumstantial evidence exists, the accused is presumed guilty." Spartanad 23:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Danish document stays. The citation does not say that his family was charged, it says that they were involved, which is different. Since it is quoted, you have really no reason to deleted. Of course that, you seem to believe that anything that says something bad about Aleman is POV. I also reverted back to the nonsensical Napoleonic code (really meaninig civil code) but notice in your statement above that it is not in general that the accused is considered guilty as the Aleman article makes believe. As soon as I find a better source I will rewrite that. Brusegadi 01:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brusegadi - you are hopeless. When I read the article there are many things that do not paint Aleman in a favorable light that I do not object to. Rather, I think that you have a need to flame both the ex-president and his family. If someone argues against slander of Aleman, such as me, by your flawed logic that means I am an Arnoldista. There is no question that he has been convicted of criminal activities but not his family. As your writing and comments show, you are also very unversed in Nicaraguan law. Spartanad 02:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting sourced info. Those edits are not constructive. Brusegadi 02:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny that these revisions insist on referring to "alleged health problemss" when the article "Why the Caged Bird Sings" actually says, quote/unquote, "Clean bill of health? Not exactly. At 61, Alemán is obese and reportedly in frail health, suffering from ten different chronic illnesses." Both authors are not neutral; "sources" are questionable opinion pieces. Spartanad 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making these large-scale revisions of properly sourced material. Go ahead and make changes to individual passages if they are not properly sourced. You can also insert additional information if it is sourced, but not if it is just your opinion or original research. There is plenty of room for improvement on this article, but do not engage in edit warring. The Time article goes on to counter the "reportedly in good health" statement with the following: "But the hawkish Alemán, who speaks wistfully of the repressive days of the Somoza dictatorship (which Ortega overthrew as leader of the Sandinista insurgents), was never a typical prisoner. He has spent more of his jail sentence in a hospital bed recovering from a minor finger surgery (three months to be exact) than he spent behind bars. And now that full freedom appears to be just around the corner, he has valiantly cast aside concerns for his own health for the good of his party's.
"Seeing the landscape of my country is better than any aspirin or pills," Alemán said. "Seeing the clear eyes and holding the calloused hands of the hardworking farmers is what gives me health. So why do I need medicine?" (A calloused handshake is not exactly a typical treatment for diabetes, hypertension and heart problems.)" There is no justification for removing this article from the bibliography. Notmyrealname 16:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a BIOGRAPHY page, yet the major portion of the content is dedicated to "CORRUPTION". Aleman is not a universally hated figure in Nicaragua or elsewhere. Every "edit" that I have seen, especially recently, is a smear. Some "edits" rely exclusively on articles such as "Why the Caged Bird Sings", which within itself has no citations to back up its POV pieces. What you are so adamantly referring to as "properly sourced material" seems to me as cherry-picked opinion pieces (except for the Transparency Intl piece that I have left untouched) that "support" your efforts to smear the individual on his own biography page. Spartanad 18:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Time Magazine piece is a perfectly valid reliable source. Magazines and newspapers do not generally cite sources. If the information is properly sourced and cited, it is not a "smear." See WP:BLP and you will see that including negative information, if it is sourced, is perfectly acceptable. You are more than welcome to include other, more positive information, if it is properly sourced. You may not, however, simply remove properly sourced information that you dislike. Notmyrealname 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every public figure of significance has negative press written about him/her. That does not make such material a legitimate piece of their Biography. Therefore, the negative information that you have included (and I have exhaustively highlighted above) does indeed constitute a "smear" and does not belong here, nor will it be tolerated. Spartanad 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be unclear on Wikipedia policy. Public figures is very clear that "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." Further, charges of Aleman's corruption, and his conviction on these charges, is a very important part of his notoriety. The items on this page are all properly sourced, except the part about his relatives, which should be removed, unless other sources can be provided. In your blanket revisions, you are also removing valid sources such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Time Magazine. This is vandalism and will be treated as such. Please confine your edits to questions of fact and sourcing. Notmyrealname 18:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars[edit]

Two editors here are involved in a classic edit war. WP:AGF means that you should operate under the assumption that everyone is trying to improve the article here. WP:RS means that you have to pick reliable sources and back up the edits you make. Reverting each others' edits back and forth does not help anything, and will likely lead to the article being protected and one or both of you blocked for violating WP:3RR. Also note that WP:BLP means that we have to be especially careful to only include information that can be properly sourced, especially if it defamatory. There is plenty written on Aleman in reliable sources so that this should not be a problem. If you need to pull other people in here, try posting a note on the WP:BLPN.

Regarding the Danish source, it doesn't look to me like a reliable source. It appears to be an NGO rather than an independent news service. If the information about Aleman's family is correct, please find another source to back it up.

Regarding the statement that Aleman was absolved of all but one of the charges against him, I removed this, as it was unsourced and I couldn't find anything to back it up. In fact, the Time Magazine article indicates that he is currently serving a twenty year sentence, although it is has been reduced due to political machinations. Further, there is no cause to remove the Time Magazine article from the bibliography. Notmyrealname 04:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was previously an unsourced statement about Aleman being in his 'private ranch.' I changed it to house because it sounds less extravagant and it is a better term per BLP and NPOV. But, I found this. I think the source is reliable and it contains much information. What do you think? I am only asking because I will attempt to refrain from major changes until tomorrow. I will do this, but please do not revert back to the previous Aleman POV version. I will also look into the Danish source replacement. Brusegadi 05:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, here is another source that can substitute or back up the Danish source. Please see under August 2002. Brusegadi 05:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both these sources seem to qualify as reliable sources. I still don't see other mentions of charges against Aleman's family, although the Washington Post article mentions that his wife also made charges on the credit cards. There is definitely more useful info in these two articles that should be included here. As for the second source, since it is not a newspaper or magazine, we should be careful to identify it in the text (perhaps as something like, "Global Integrity, Washington-based non-profit anti-corruption organization, reports that ..." Notmyrealname 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although you two (Brusegadi, Notmyrealname) are complaining about my edits and reverts, my opinion is as valid as yours. IMO, you are using this biography page as an attack medium against Aleman. As mentioned in the "Revisions" section, the main category that you have created in the page is called "CORRUPTION"! The purpose of a biography page is to give a neutral look at the life of somebody. I have left alone the source material about the Transparency International rankings. However, you two are bringing in other members of Aleman's family in order to smear them when they have had no charges pressed against them. It would be exactly similar to calling Nixon's wife a crook! One of those you reference is Aleman's sister Amelia, who died of cancer in 2002. Why does she belong in this article at all?? As long as the smear campaign continues there can be no end to my revisions/reverts of the material. I am trying to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. Spartanad 18:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aleman is a living person so we must not smear him. In this case it is particularly important as according to his suporters his opponents are indeed smearing him. We musnt smear him or take sides. having said that edit warring never achieved anything and it is much better to discuss each point here. You dont protect teh integrity of wikipedia by edit warring is generally considered to be true but we must protect the integrity of Aleman as well, SqueakBox 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I started editing this article there was some serious bias against him. What I did was to remove charged statements (eg. he is in house arrest because of 'health' problems) and much unsourced stuff. Then I proceeded to add sources to the accusations. I have not removed unsourced positive stuff per BLP. Spartanad accusses me of POV pushing, I dont think I am. I have sourced everything, including the accusations on his family members. Is it important to mention his family? Well, the sources thought it was important! I recall that we tend to establish notability via reliable sources. I am sure that if Mrs. Nixon had had anything to do with Watergate she would have an entire section in wikipedia devoted to it. Finally, Spartanad simply tends to simply revert everything, including improvements on grammar. I think that is why we eneded up in an edit war. It is really hard to be constructive when someone says 'i dont like the last sentence' and then reverts the entire article. Finally, please read the articles I have referenced and decide for your self how biased the article is. Brusegadi 18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have tidied things u[p a bit which I hope puts an end tot he edit warring. An NPOV tag may be appropriate though I think not myself. A better presentation of the Aleman side of the corruption case and a better presentation to the opposition to the Presidency itself wopuld be appropriate, SqueakBox 18:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your 'tidying up' seemed to amount to little more than re-introducing the smear campaign elements, with slightly changed wording and grammar. You seem to overlook the fact that the entire case around Mr. Alemán was built on charges leveled by Bolanos, and that these charges have since been almost entirely refuted. They are the basis, sadly, for much of the world's perceptions, however.Idpounder 19:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I am sympathetic to Aleman (being basically a conservative living in Central America). I am not overlooking the case and its refutal and would welcome some sourced statements (in Spanish is fine) to add this stuff. Notmy name is trigth that we shouldnt removed ref'd material so we need some good ref'd material supporting the Aleman case re the charges, SqueakBox 21:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its hard to find recent 'good things' about Aleman. Both major Nicaraguan newspapers, La Prensa (conservative) and El Nuevo Diario (slight left), recently turned against him. The US also does not support him because they feel that he gave Ortega the presidency. Even the US ambassador got involved in saying something... If you read those newspapers I mentioned, you will see that there is some evidence that even his party is turning its back on him. I have lost all faith in politicians back home. Herty Lewites was the guy I kinda liked, but he died before the elections, his replacement, Edmundo Jarquín was not popular enough. Also, with these guys you never know. Aleman, for example, was a very good mayor. There were some allegations of corruption but they were minor and the benefits of having him really outweighed the 'costs' (it is detailed in one of the sources in the article.) But when he got to the presidency he went all out. It is really interesting how these guys play chess, so if you like following this sort of thing let me know and I'll see if I can find a detailed account. Concerning the article, I think the best shot at positive reliable sources are the 1994 to around 1998 years. It was at around the time of the Mitch Hurricane that people began to turn back mainly because of the first pacto and the alleged corruption surrounding Humanitarian aid. He had a good image in the earlier years. Finally, I would go against Spanish sources because the only one to say positive current things are most likely to be very small once-a-week type of newspaper that is more like propaganda. If you allow the bigger ones, like La Prensa, then you would open the door to include some of the bad things they write; and believe me, those guys go at him. When it comes to reporting on Ortega and Arnoldo, even the big papers sound propaganda like. Brusegadi 21:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its almost 4 years since I was last in Nicaragua and I was then struck by the very strong visible support for Aleman (through billboards/graffiti etc) so even if there is no support for him now there clearly was, and there was outrage about him having to serve time, all of which can be sourced. Personally I am not surprised that the US are not happy with him because it does look as if his manouverings to save his own skin let Ortega into power. I am sure we can come up with some good refs re his activities from the late nineties and early years of this decade, including the support he received, and at the end of the day we have to respond to our NPOV policies but also give our readers a good idea of how he is perceived and it strikes me that you as much as Spartanad need to get some good sources for now he is perceived right now in 2007. Cheers, SqueakBox 21:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of Nicaragua were you in? I am from the capital, and there I dont recall seeing positive graffitti for him. I recall some offensive stuff while I was in high school (I finished in 2003, so in the vecinity of that year.) You may see that in some of the central region where he is very strong and on the RAAN (or the RAAS, not sure) I think he is strong since they managed to stay out of the CPCs. I'll try to look for something on his years as mayor and also, please take a look at some of the sources I posted above. I will refrain for adding them until some talk about them AND until some positive stuff has been properly placed. Ciao, Brusegadi 00:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was Dec 03 and I went from Choluteca (Honduras) via Leon to San Juan del sur (where Eric Volz got into trouble and where I spent a fortnight), and then I went back via Esteli, where I spent Christmas (navidad), and volvio to Honduras again. It was looking out of the bus window on my bus journeys that I saw all the graffiti, and not in the places I was staying but I basically went from one end of Nicaragua to the other and back agin (dando la vuelta). Your ideas sound cool and I am happy to collaborate (as I say I am a conservative but conservative and Aleman supporter appear not to be the same thing in Nicaragua). Regards, SqueakBox 00:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption heading[edit]

The heading "Corruption" was recently changed to "Corruption charges." Given the fact that he was convicted and not merely charged, I think this should at the least be altered to "Corruption charges and conviction" or "Corruption charges, trial, and conviction". Notmyrealname 18:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its too long for a section title but I dont strongly object to "Corruption charges and conviction", SqueakBox 18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem with that. I do think simply putting "corruption charges" gives the false impression that the case only proceeded to the stage of accusation. Notmyrealname 19:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, SqueakBox 19:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as everything is clear in the section it self, it should be fine. Brusegadi 19:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section lacks ref'd material from his supporters and hope Spartanad will add something along those lines, Aleman doesnt lack for supporters, SqueakBox 19:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a shout out to Bresegadi, Notmyrealname, and Squeakbox - check out the "capstone" on the Alemán page that I posted today! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartanad (talk • contribs) 20:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this does not turn into an edit war with Brusegadi. The current version is a statement of fact with no bias. Brusegadi is introducing POV (albeit sourced) to slant article back into negative against Alemán. He was aquitted and freed, that's it, end of story. At this point negative bias becomes POV. Spartanad (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is not a place to attack or accuse other editors. Notmyrealname (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed the previous comment. That done, please tell me why the version that is being repeatedly reverted by Brusegadi is "biased". It seems that Brusegadi's version is the one that is violating WP:NPOV. Spartanad (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected[edit]

The page is now protected as a result of recent edit warring. Things have degenerated to a point where it appears likely that sockpuppetry is being used to evade the three-revert rule. The protection can be lifted earlier if consensus is reached here, or if other administrative actions render the protection unnecessary. Raymond Arritt 20:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be possible to unprotect the page now. I'd do it myself, but this case is complicated enough that it would be best to have another admin involved. You can request unprotection at WP:RFPP (it's called "requests for page protection" but works for unprotection as well). Raymond Arritt 21:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think mayb be a week is a little too loong but the basic protecting for a couple of days is good. I ma not happy my edits got eaten up in this edit war and intend to stay with this article myself. Any sock allegations should be reported to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. When pages get locked because people obsessively edit war tot he poiint of introducing socks it means the article is in trouble, SqueakBox 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll cut the protection back to 48 hr if at least one other editor on this article concurs. Raymond Arritt 21:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before you did this I asked for unprotection, you can oppose if you wish, I'll leave it in others hands but intend to edit to try and get this article balanced whenever it becomes unprotected. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concurred in your request at WP:RFPP; see my comments there. Raymond Arritt 21:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to semi-protected, for 1 month, following advice at WP:RFPP. - Nabla 13:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page Progression[edit]

It has been interesting to watch the progression of this page over the past nine months. There seems to be an ongoing trend for this article to become more and more critical of Alemán. An interesting comparison might be for one to visit the Wikipedia pages of "Adolf Hitler", "Pol Pot", or "Ferdinand Marcos". Though the three aforementioned individuals were some of the most despicable characters of the 20th century, their pages are very well written, balanced, and neutral. Alemán's page, which should be a biographical sketch of his life, reads more like an article from Variety. Readers are cautioned to remember the words, "Caveat emptor!", when viewing this page. Tteppupkcos 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aleman was convicted of stealing over $100 million while president, and sentenced to 20 years in jail. It is logical that the article makes note of this. If there are specific passages that are incorrect and not properly sourced, please point them out or delete them. If you have properly sourced information with a different viewpoint, please go ahead and add it. It is much better to be specific than to lob general complaints. Notmyrealname 16:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is also important to note that we are trying to find some information from reliable sources on earlier years about Aleman. As you can see, I have provided a list of earlier NYT articles that might give us some information about Aleman's period as mayor, during which he was highly regarded. I will look up other major English sources. I have also made the argument of not relying on the Nicaraguan media since it tends to be biased. I think we will get there and care to join us if you will. Brusegadi 06:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have access to the NYtimes members section? I found a couple of articles about his years as mayor but I am unable to access them. I think it all about getting an account so if no one has one I'll just get one so that I can read them and post some info about that here. Brusegadi 21:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here are the NYT articles that are from earlier years. We may found some good stuff there. I'll see if I can go further back. Brusegadi 19:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced[edit]

I noticed that very little has been done to find info concerning Aleman's period as mayor. Most of those who claim POV issues in this article spend more time trying to delete sourced material then looking for new positive material. I think that we should all work in both directions so I have a list of things that we should do:

  • Find more information about Aleman's years as Managua's mayor. Done!Brusegadi 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find information about what Aleman says about the corruption scandals. Feel free to find some more, but I feel alright with it. Brusegadi 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a respectable source with the info, simply add it to the article. If you find a source that may not be very respactable, place it here and we can discuss it. If we reach a concensus we cann add the info to the main article for the sake of WP:BLP and neutrality. I will add the appropriate tag and I suggest we keep it there until we have met at least those two points. Thanks, Brusegadi 22:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something from 1997. It is supposed to be from the economist. If someone has access, please look for a good quote since the article seems to be optimistic about Aleman. Brusegadi 03:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ok guys, I found one site that looks promising. The site is definitely not the best of sources so I dont think that we should allow this to override many of the other sources that we have. Yet, I think that for the sake of WP:BLP we should add some of the info contained inhere to balnce the article. I will do so. I also oppose Spanish pages because English-only readers cannot read them and this is the English wiki, but again, we seem to have no alternative. This is the site.Brusegadi 16:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Arnoldistas doth protest too much[edit]

It seems clear that a small group of people with Admin power have used it to perpetuate a very biased, negative view of a currently living individual. All I had to do was look at the veritable avalanche of posts used to bury any dissent against the biased slant to understand the agenda. The page is protected to ensure that nobody but those who share the realpolitik of anti-Arnoldo can play. Long live the greatness of wikiWorld! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.164.121.86 (talk) 06:03, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this article contains numerous errors in grammar, tense, and fact. One only has to read about his child(ren) with Maria Fernanda Flores to note that the sources used are poor and/or out of date. Aleman has three children with her - two daughters and a son. The son is the youngest and is over two years of age! Spend less time on the corruption charges and more time making the article readable and correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.164.121.86 (talk)

Thanks for the info. I have been unable to find a more updated bio. If you have one please provide it. I have also been having trouble finding info on what he claims really happened. If you have a nice source for that, please provide it. The best I could do is already in the article; it is a defense of one particular case but not a general defense against the corruption charges. Thanks, Brusegadi 06:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the allegations of POV, I had the same view so I added a balance tag. After making the changes I thought were needed, I removed the tag. I think that the article now has no major issues. All negative info is properly sourced and I have added much positive info (pretty much everything I could find.) I have looked for a summury of his defense but I fail to find something that may help his image since most of the things I have found do not involve him saying 'I did not do that' but rather dirty tricks such as his lawyer saying" "This happened when my client was president so he should be tried as such..." I really dont think that adding that weak defense will help his persona nor the article. If you have any source where Aleman explains his views I will be more than happy to ADD it and give it its proper weight per WP:BLP. Finally, please do not be so general in your comments and point to specific problems in the article. I have tried to clean up some of the grammar, I will do some more soon. Ciao, Brusegadi 06:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that the user above is offering to "ADD" any information that would make the article more correct. Since Wikipedia is based upon the principle of mass collaboration I was going to make the changes myself. But the page seems to be locked, so that mass collaboration here is limited to a multitude of apparently three. It is hard to avoid suspicion of bias when an open site is apparently closed to the public. From the history page of the article there does not appear to be much tolerance of much other than a certain perspective. If you want to prove to us that this is not the case, unlock the page! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.164.121.86 (talk)
Only admins can do that. They locked it because some people were being destructive. However, if you as an anon user have good sources please copy them here on the talk and, as I said before, I'll add the needed info. Note that with what we have its good, but I would really like a more general statement from Aleman. Brusegadi 06:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice non-answer answer. It appears that this page is restricted to a limited point of view. I agree with the anonymous guy above.12.100.205.238 15:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is only "semi-protected," which means that you can't edit it from an anonymous IP address. Any registered users with accounts that are more than five days old can edit the article. Perhaps it is time to lift the status. This was instituted to prevent violations of wikipedia rules by a user and his/her sock puppets. It is slated to be removed on September 7, 2007. Please see my note below about not making general accusations, and of the importance of assuming good faith. Notmyrealname 15:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before making blanket charges of bias, it would be helpful to review WP:BLP#Well known public figures, which states:
"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."
He was not merely "charged" with corruption. He was convicted and sentenced. He was the only president of Nicaragua to have been convicted, sentenced, and serve time. He is one of the few world leaders to have done so. It is quite natural for this issue to occupy a substantial part of his biography. If information is included in the article that is incorrect, it should be corrected. If it is properly sourced, it should remain.
Users should also review assume good faith. This is a fundamental policy in Wikipedia. You should assume that all editors are trying to improve the quality of the article. Also, please sign all posts with four tildes. Notmyrealname 15:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aleman acquital[edit]

I think this was a controversial decision to say the least. To site a few well respected international sources:

The New York Times Associated Press The Economist Latin American Herald

We probably should incorporate material from all these sources, since each one adds something (the economist speaks of the rule of law in Nica, but that may be too far.) Finally, given the controversy, I have taken the most read (NYT, I think) of these sources and quoted it word for word, I include what the opposition says and what Aleman says. Why is this biased? You on the other hand, want to elaborate on Aleman's account of the story alone. I understand that this is a WP:BLP but there is sufficient evidence in highly regarded sources in the English language to warrant inclusion of the other side as well. Thanks, Brusegadi (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would beg to differ that my version is written from an "Arnoldista" point of view. In fact, it is completely neutral, states only fact, and is properly sourced. If you dispute this, please point specifically to any pro-Arnoldo verbiage in my version! Spartanad (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Including sourced material from reliable sources is not a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:BLP as long as the information is presented accurately and in context. There is most certainly a controversy about this and this page should reflect that.Notmyrealname (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brusegadi should assume good faith from other contributors. As said in previous sections, the Discussion page is not a forum for attacking other editors. I do not consider NYT to be a reliable source for matters related to Aleman or much else. See below Spartanad (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • Gray Lady Turns A Deathly Shade Of Pale****

Arthur Ochs "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. has driven the proudest institution in journalism to the doorstep of ruin, its corporate debt earning the humiliating label of "junk" from Moody's Investors Services. And it wasn't just a slide over the line, the company tumbled three steps below investment grade.

Even worse is Moody's negative expectation, meaning further downgrades are on the horizon in the next 12-18 months. Moody's has withdrawn its rating for NYTCo commercial paper, its unsecured corporate borrowing. Nobody in his right mind is going to loan the company money that way anymore. The terms of the company's $250 million loan from 2 companies controlled by Carlos Slim Helú, the Mexican billionaire the paper once scorned, force the Times to pay over 14% to borrow money. The added interest cost, especially the 11% that is paid in cash (the other 3% gets added to the debt balance, just like a credit card bill that can't be paid in full), is one factor in Moody's downgrade:

"In Moody's opinion, earnings pressure and higher cash interest costs will limit free cash flow generation in each of the next two years notwithstanding a significant reduction in capital spending, and the recent 74% cut in the dividend." "Earnings pressure" refers to the accelerating pace of revenue decline, and Pinch's inability to cut costs at anywhere near the same pace as the rate of revenue decline. Only recently has the company tightened some rather lavish expense account practices:

  • News staff can no longer take each other out for drinks and charge it to the company! They had a great deal going there, going out with your colleagues for drinks and maybe dinner.
  • New per meal expense limits: $50 for dinner, $30 for lunch, $15 for breakfast. The high end places are now out of bounds. Apparently earlier, they weren't. * And even after the memo announcing expense account cuts was issued, Maureen Dowd wrote a story about "spa guilt" among the rich, deducting the expenses she incurred at a luxury spa.

Shareholders have lost between 80 and 90 percent of their investment in the company's common stock over the last 5 years, while the Times journos have merrily enjoyed the elitist lifestyle bubble on the company dime in Manhattan and capitals around the world...

Rest of article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/the_gray_lady_turns_a_deathly.html

Only a miracle -- a sudden rebound in the economy, the end of the internet, and a brand new mindset in the leadership of the company -- can save the company now. And I wouldn't bet on that trifecta. A "negative outlook" says it all. The handwriting is not just on the wall, it is in the securities rating. 

      ---Thomas Lifson, American Thinker
         January 26, 2009 (End of comment).


It doesn't matter what issues they are having right now, the NYT is still a reliable source. Spartanid, I'm going to revert your edit undoing my edit. If there is a formatting problem, please fix it. I'd even be willing to discuss the section about Aleman's acquittal. But the rest of that section was organized horribly, and that needed to be fixed anyway, even without the previous dispute. Academic Challenger (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting problems in your version are beyond my capabilities to fix. Please make sure that the content you upload is readable, otherwise the page becomes even further compromised. Your assertion about the NYT is POV. My point about the credibility of NYT is referenced as is apparent above. To this point neither you or anyone else has listed any specific problems with my original content. It appears that a truly neutral addition to the section is "biased" if it does not contain any anti-Aleman material? Your edit has been reverted. Spartanad (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth mentioning is that there are multiple other sources reporting this controversy, to be more precise, given that Nicaragua is such a small country, Aleman's notability is mostly due to his corruption scandals! We should not make the article about that, but we definitly have to include it, with the proper respect paid to WP:BLP. Brusegadi (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Making an assertion that Aleman is mostly noted for his "corruption scandals" is POV. You do not live there and thus lack the basic requirements to form a POV based on a "Nicaraguan Perspective". You would know this if you saw the pro-PLC/pro-Arnoldo materials on display throughout Managua and the rest of the country (Obras! No Palabras!) To this point neither you or any other editor reverting my changes has been able to cite specific bias in my edits. If you can show me I will accede. Spartanad (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an editor lives in Nicaragua is absolutely not a requirement for making edits on Nicaragua related pages on Wikipedia. Also, the New York Times and the other sources cited at the top of this section are absolutely, without a doubt reliable sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Please don't delete reliably sourced material.Notmyrealname (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can turn your rant off now, my point is that the NYT is no better a source than the one I am using. I absolutely, without a doubt believe that NYT, while a reliable source, is not THE source of record. Spartanad (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT is a better source. Also, the source you are using seems not to support your language. If it does, it cant be serious. Finally, you are quoting selectively, since last time i checked,, they mention the controversy you fail to mention... Brusegadi (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Asserting that NYT is a "better source" is blatantly POV and does not support your arguments. The part that I have written is perfectly neutral and especially accurate given that this piece is WP:BLP. Please respect Wiki policies. Spartanad (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Notmyrealname. It is worth mentioning that Spartanad is also wrong about where I have lived. As some may know, I have lived most of my life in Nicaragua. Sure, many people were excited about Aleman, but I think that by the end most were dissapointed... If you believe I am an outsider, I could still provide evidence to support this point. Simply pick up La Prensa and read an article about him in 1996. They had a cartoon in their weekly "El Azote" where he was displayed as the hero who was going to defeat "evil" Ortega. He was referred to as "Fatman" in a tone of affection. If you pick up an edition of this weekly publication today, you will note that the way they draw him has changed (they try to make him look evil now, among other things) and now he is one of the villains... Talk about great expectations gone bad! Brusegadi (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Aleman is portrayed by LaPrensa as "evil", it is because the ruling government wishes that portrayal to be so. My original point which none of you have yet addressed is that my material is simply neutral. You continue to insist on perpetuating a negative point of view in violation of WP:BLP and WP:BLP policies. Even if you can source a quote about someone calling the acquittal a sham, it is still only a properly sourced "opinion" and does not belong in the section. Spartanad (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
La Prensa portrays Ortega as "evil" too, does that mean that he wants to be portrayed this way? You are trying to remove all mention of the circumstances behind this acquittal. The pieces we are using are not opinion nor editorial pieces, they are written by journalists so they are perfectly acceptable. You are right, editorials or opinion pieces would not be as good, but the NYT piece was not of this kind. Please understand that. Brusegadi (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your NYT piece does not cover circumstances, just makes allegations from POV that there were nefarious reasons behind Aleman acquittal. Therefore your edits are speculative and violate WP:NPOV. Please refrain from blatant violations of WP:NPOV when dealing with WP:BLPSpartanad (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning "El Pacto"[edit]

I found a time article where they have a good description of the Ortega-Aleman love affair. I recall looking for a descriptive source a year a go describing what was going on at the time but I came up empty handed (regarding the major English language news media, of course.) Aleman's freedom has attracted much attention and provided us with relatively good sources in English. If consensus is that it is good enough we should use it, but to strengthen it we could couple it with a local source as well, but these would be in Spanish, and I try to avoid their use as much as possible. Let me know what your thoughts are on this. Thanks and ciao, Brusegadi (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very interesting (telling?) that your negative sources all seem to come from a one "Tim Rogers". Spartanad (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, did all the pieces pointed to above come from Rogers? Brusegadi (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brusegadi, I believe that this article should be included, and can add more strength to the argument that El Pacto does exist.

Spartanid, please stop reverting until you add some constructive criticism to the version that Brusegadi and I have agreed on. Whether or not you agree with some of the sources, I feel that some of the changes that I made are very important. Furthermore, NPOV does not mean that politicians should not have criticisms in their articles. Academic Challenger (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Challenger, kudos to you for getting the formatting problems fixed. I simply disagree that the changes you have made are integral to the article. There is already plenty of criticism about the individual in the article. In fact, the section is question is labeled "Corruption"! Therefore, I have made no violations of NPOV by keeping any positive or negative POV out of the acquittal materials. I will continue to correct what I consider vandalism of the page from both you and Brusegadi. Spartanad (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just like everything else, you have your own definition of vandalism, your own definition of POV, and your own definition of what makes a good source for something. I thought you lacked experience as an editor but you are just wasting our time. It is ridiculous that the owner of a SPA would accuse someone who has been here for as long as Academic Challenger has of vandalism. I hoped that at some point you would start being constructive, but my hopes were misplaced. Brusegadi (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wiki policy the discussion page of an article is not a proper forum for attacking another editor. I am uncertain what the "SPA" reference is about? I have asked repeatedly for someone to help me understand what specifically is biased or representative of POV in my version. To this point, I have had no responses from you. It is true that Academic Challenger was repeatedly reverting the article to a version that had a massive formatting error in it. Since this was not corrected after the first, second, or even third reverts it did constitute vandalism. I believe you know this because the records show that you are the editor who finally corrected it! It is not a waste of time to ensure that an article has the best, most unbiased material available. Especially in the case of the article being WP:BLP. I would be willing to accept a compromise but will not be bullied out of properly editing this page. Spartanad (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, I thank Brusegadi for fixing the formatting, and Spartanid, I am glad that you acknowledge the good changes that have been made. Now, instead of reverting the entire version, if you have a problem with the paragraph on Aleman's acquittal, please just change that. I am still on Brusegadi's side regarding that paragraph, but if you would stop reverting our entire edits, that would go a long way towards resolving the dispute, although we may still need to go to another dispute resolution process.

I wrote the initial piece on the Aleman acquittal. It was Brusegadi who changed the copy to better reflect his/her own POV on the status of Aleman's character. What I do or do not choose to edit is my business only. Still to this point, none of you have been able to show ANY bias in my original copy after the final edits I made. Show it to me - if you can. Spartanad (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, and you judge what is biased... That sounds like a good deal... Conflicts in wikipedia are resolved through consensus. Through the editing process we reach an agreement, This is impossible to do when you simply hit revert. Brusegadi (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is typical of my interactions with you, Brusegadi. My last piece, which you reverted, was simply an edit. You *still* are refusing to show which parts of my edit are biased. You simply say, "Spartanad is biased!!" over and over like a broken record. You know that my part is neutral and that infuriates you because you *need* this article on Aleman to be a smear piece. You should try some of that consensus that you refer to above. But you won't; just keeping twinkling away. Spartanad (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "SPA" on Wikipedia is an acronym standing for "single purpose account." You are a SPA because you only edit on the topic of Arnoldo Aleman. You were involved in the last major dispute on this page about a year and a half ago, and then didn't come back until now. Brusegadi, on the other hand, edits all kinds of articles about Nicaragua, and even some about other topics, and I edit about topics all around the world. It is not necessarily always bad to be a SPA, but it has made Brusegadi suspicious that you have some connection with Aleman. Whether that is true, it doesn't matter to me, but if it is true, it is certainly impacting your decisions on this dispute. But let's put that aside and try to find a compromise version for that paragraph. Academic Challenger (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be fair, the fix I made is the type of thing that will not show up on the diff window and can be missed if you are only looking at the diff window. So, I can see why no one fixed it before if you are used to making the minor changes form the diff window. As for the term SPA, I did not mean it as a personal attack. Brusegadi (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Trashing of Arnoldo Aleman (or how to violate BLP protocols)[edit]

As a warning to all potential editors of this page, beware if your view of Arnoldo Aleman is anything but negative. As you read the "article" currently posted for Aleman on Wikipedia, it will become evident that this page will never truly reflect a neutral point of view. Over the past several years it has been whittled down from a more robust content to just the "Biography" and "Corruption" sections. How this happened is reflected in the History and Discussion sections. Every time a section is added that does not reflect a certain few editors POV, it is reverted. If you ask for specifics on why neutral content is reverted you will either be greeted with deafening silence or a rote commentary (equaling a circular argument) about how biased *you* are.

There is seemingly no way to get the true facts onto this page when the New York Times and/or Time magazine are quoted as literary bibles. Aleman is a *Latin American* official and thus most of the information available on him is in Spanish PRINT DOCUMENTS, not the Internet. As Nicaragua is the second poorest country in the entire western hemisphere ahead of only Haiti, it probably seems incomprehensible to Americans that the Nicaraguense people are not computer savvy. Information on Aleman is found in this format (transcribed from the official circular of the PLC of Nicaragua and excepted to La Prensa):

(Redacted)*copyright violation redacted

This content repeats the directive of the Supreme Court of Nicaragua. It also refers to the decision of the ruling of the 11th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia, that re-affirmed this decision and unfroze all of Aleman's assets in the United States. Since I cannot reference Nicaraguan Court decisions because they are not published on the Internet and I do not have the resources to subscribe to Lexis-Nexis for the U.S. Court rulings, I am bereft of choices for source. So I am continually told that I am biased because I don't quote the New York Times! The information is there for those of you rich enough to pay for access. Because my sources are in Spanish, they are apparently worthless on Wikipedia?

But all of that aside, my arguments have been strong enough that the critics of my work have continually refused to debate them in specifics. So again I warn all future editors, beware if you do not have an anti-Arnoldo viewpoint. Because in the end, if all else fails, your detractors will find an administrator to lock you out. In my case, the actual attempt was to BLOCK me from Wikipedia (see Brusegadi's attempt to surreptitiously blacklist me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diff=268287774&oldid=268283567). Kudos to Master of Puppets for refusing this request. Spartanad (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can an official memo from the political party under Almen's control, and the party to which all the judges that voted to release belong to, serve as a good source to establish anything official??? It does not. It only serves as a source to describe their point of view, the PLC's. If this document repeats the directive from the supreme court, why not cite the directive directly? If we do that, I ask that we quote any statement from the minority opinion of the judges that voted against, if there exists such document.
We are not refusing to "debate you", this is not a place to debate Aleman. He may have never committed any crimes, but numerous highly regarded sources (NYT) state that there was much controversy due to his release. Why should we not describe this controversy in the article? You have not answered this specific question.
On the topic on the article being devoted to corruption, I have tried to find good sources on other aspects of his life, but it is hard because most mentions of Aleman in the international media tend to be about the corruption scandals. Note that not even Spartanad has provided reliable sources to help with other aspects of the biography, and that is probably a task where Spartanad is better fitted to do.
Concerning the block request, I thought you had exceeded three reverts, it would have blocked you for 24 hours and not more. The article was locked because of all of us, and no one in particular. Brusegadi (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I'm back. I agree with Master's decision to protect the page. I thought of protecting it myself, but felt that I was too involved in the dispute. I think the disagreement is really severe and would be hard to compromise, but how about trying to find one of these Spanish language sources, or any other source, of someone who feels that Aleman deserves to be free? If both of you agree to something like that, I may even unlock the page early. Academic Challenger (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If we can find something from his supporters, and present it as such, I would not have a problem with it. However, I think we cannot fail to mention the power games between Aleman and Ortega. Brusegadi (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic section[edit]

Lets begin with something we can all agree on; that the section causing problems is the corruption section. If in agreement, introduce your signature immediately below this line:

I will point out below, in a subsection, the problems I find with the two versions between which the article has been oscillating in the past few days. I plead to focus in content and not formatting, since mankind rarely wages wars in the name of format! (going epic mate) If we all do that, we may ask an uninvolved admin to implement any recommendations that are common to all. Just so that we have appropriate definitions, let version A be A and let version B be B. Brusegadi (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brusegadi's comments[edit]

A[edit]

My biggest problem is the last paragraph on the corruption section, to be precise: "On January 16, 2009, Arnoldo Alemán was found innocent of all corruption charges by the Supreme Court of Nicaragua, and given complete freedom." This sentence is not supported by the reference provided in version A. This is the only problem that I have which is exclusive to version A. Brusegadi (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B[edit]

Under this version I describe problems that are exclusive to version B or common to both sections. We need larger sections on other aspects of his life. I can see why some might think that this is the result of editor bias, but I reason as follows: We have a sample selection bias, that is, Aleman became internationally notorious because of the corruption scandal, thus, most international sources that describe him focus mainly on this particular aspect of Aleman's story. This means that we need help finding sources that focus on the other aspects of the individual. I suggest splitting the Bio subsection into events leading to the presidency. Then discuss the presidency and its aftermath, which would include a section of corruption and the way he has managed to remain one of the most powerful men in Nicaragua. Brusegadi (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Arnoldo Alemán. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arnoldo_Alemán&oldid=1198373516"