Talk:Arnoldo Alemán/Archive 1

Pro-Castro? Sandinism is not Castrism

"(pro-Castro)" association referred to Daniel Ortega is not necessary, nor very encyclopedic. It's a personal and simplicist association. This politician's ideologic and politic positions and evolution are some wider, than just "supporting Castro", besides, these kinds of conclussions are up to reader, not to author. He is Sandinist, not Castrist. Thus, I will remove "such statement", if nobody has a reasonable reason against. DeepQuasar 17:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Aleman 1980 Arrest by the Sandinistas

The statement that Aleman was arrested "on trumped-up charges" I think is innaporpriate here. What were the trumped up charges? The soveriegn Sandinista Government felt they were valid.--Agrofe 14:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference to the "sovereign Sandinista Government" here by user Agrofe is inaccurate. To be more precise, the allegations were from the Bolanos government, which is labeled "Conservative". Spartanad 20:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User Agrofe refers to the accusations that jailed Aleman during the 80s and not the recent episode. Thus, he is right because the Sandinistas jailed him during the 80s and you are right because given your assumption about time period. Brusegadi 07:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Transparency International List

To place him on the list, Transparency International references data on Alemán gleaned from the charges brought against him by the government of Enrique Bolaños. The country of Nicaragua is governed by a system of Napoleanic Law. This means that individuals accused of a crime are considered guilty until proven innocent. In order to refute the claims against him (and referenced by Transparency International), the burden of proving his innocence falls to Alemán.

Corrected: Berlin (Alt Moabit) was, the last time I checked, still German and not yet British. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

"Napoleonic Law", probably he means Napoleonic Code, is a law tradition in continental europe. From the wikipedia article, Louisiana also uses it. However:

This means that individuals accused of a crime are considered guilty until proven innocent.

is Bullshit. I don't know who introduced this sentence or why, but rest assured that even in France you are innocent until proven guilty. I don't even need an "citation needed"-button to dismiss this.

Obviously the (profane) individual above has never been to Nicaragua or is ignorant of la ley Nicaraguense. Whatever you wished to call it, in Nicaragua an individual is guilty until proven innocent! Reference the case of Eric Volz as one of the many proofs of this or just go look at the Constitution. Spartanad 17:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Transparency international may reference data from a process against him, but the claim they took unverified data seems to me very dubious in light of the wrong edits listed here so far. --85.181.26.166 02:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Stubbing

Would the editors to this article spend some time reading WP:BLP, WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. The upshot is that negative information (of which this article had quite a bit) on living people added to Wikipedia must be properly sourced. This article failed that condition miserably, hence the stubbing. Please resolve the current conflict and, upon the protection's expiry in a week, build the page up again in accordance with the above linked policies. – Steel 23:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias

There is subjectivity in this article. Saying "extensive" economic recovery is subjective. Also, he was not charged with "alleged" corruption. He was charged with corruption. Thus, there IS an allegation that he was corrupt. Finally, his ranking amongst the most corrupt officials is sourced, so removing with text that lacks a source is not good editing. Brusegadi 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The only bias I've seen so far seems to belong to Brusegadi and Notmyrealname. Almost all of your edits and revisions seem hell-bent on smearing Mr. Alemán, as well as his family. Please keep your information factual, not inflammatory.Idpounder 19:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Civility, No personal attacks, and Assume good faith. All of my edits have been properly sourced. Please discuss any particular edits you feel do not conform to Wikipedia policy rather than making blanket accusations. Notmyrealname 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Also see WP:SOCK. Sorry, I know I have to assume good faith, but just in case. I dont want the user to lose both accounts if she is doing that, thus, a friendly warning is good.Brusegadi 19:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I can hardly find any evidence of incivility or personal attacks, unless you consider my stating what appear to be obvious conclusions based on the post history here to be such. Your 'concern' is duly noted, Brusegadi, but I am quite my own person, thank you. Or is it simply that after what appears to be many months of unrelenting attacks upon the reputation of Mr. Alemán and his family by several users here, it is suddenly uncomfortable or inappropriate to be confronted by additional users who refuse to let an apparent smear campaign pass unchallenged? Idpounder 20:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it oddly revealing about you, Brusegadi, that when another person challenges your continues POV'ing that you accuse me of WP:SOCK. Why, it must be "Spartanad" with a dup account, right? Maybe it is you that should rethink their position? Spartanad 20:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If Idpounder, Spartanad, and Kageki are not sockpuppets, then why are they all making identical edits, including these: [1] [2] [3]? Notmyrealname 20:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

TI

Transparency International is based in Berlin, according to the link. Brusegadi 15:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)