Jump to content

Talk:Pink tide/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

In the 1980s in New York and New Jersey, "pink tide" had no association with politics. We used it to refer to the flushed--and-become-flotsam plastic tampon applicators which floated down the Hudson and accumulated in startling numbers on northern New Jersey beaches, as well as choking sea turtles which mistook the applicators as jellyfish, a normal food source.

I can't imagine that this was an isolated use of the phrase "pink tide"-- should we not have a new page describing that older, other use of the phrase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethnessatwikipedia (talk • contribs) 03:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anybody will really care for that older use of the term. Go to urbandictionary if you really want that to be known. Since I'm an aspie faggot, I read that site all the time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgassman3 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Pink tide → Turn to the left – According to the very article, "Pink Tide" is derogatory and less used. Google results seem to confirm it: 3.570.000 for "Turn to the left" and "South America", and only 15.300 for "Pink tide" and "South America". Google books show 2.240 and 145 for similar terms. Cambalachero (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The Google results are extremely weak. Many of the "turn to the left" hits, especially from Google Books, have nothing to do with the topic. —  AjaxSmack  02:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Hugo Chávez was often seen as a threat to his own people"

He was seen as threat by whom? And did all people from his country saw him as threat? And of what period time we're talking about? I don't have access to the given source but, with the due respect for the one wrote it, this is obviously a partial truth. He is often considered a popular leader; BBC says he had "charisma that has sustained (his) popularity for many years", and Reuters call him "immensely popular". Of course he can be considered a threat and popular at the same time, and of course his popularity decreased as time passed; but how it's written now is just disproportionate. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I see ‎ZiaLater is the main contributor to this page so I'm pinging him/her as he/she must be interested on this. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
@Gabriel Yuji: Hopefully I clarified it. It says in the article that the US government let Chávez make his own bed, letting his own actions be his downfall. The author is the one who states "that Chávez was a threat to his own people but not to the United States".--ZiaLater (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see. It's much better now, ZiaLater. Thanks, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pink tide. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of Pink tide

The pink tide is often stated as beginning in the late 1990s or in 1998 with Hugo Chávez. I will change the timeline accordingly since it stretches too far back to 1990.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits - November 2016

Just created this so there is no potential edit warring occurring. Lede has been updated with new sources so hopefully its better.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not know what the new source says, but I suggest you to drop the (already stated as conflictive) source (a crappy editorial without author anyways) because it doesn't fully supporting the claim. It didn't before. And (after you've added another source and not changed the text), it doesn't now.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I did change the wording. The authors are the members of The Chicago Tribune editorial board. The other source states, "the populace of Latin America are voting in the Pink Tide governments that struggle with reform while being prone to populism and authoritarianism". I can provide more sources if you would like.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The members of The Chicago Tribune editorial board. Oh, I am impressed. I see you only think about sourcing. It's fantastic. But you also could read again the already cited sources and find out that, for example Castañeda (not precisely a friend of the Pink Tide but more of a basher of it) confirms authoritarianism is not a defining common feature of the so-called Pink Tide.--Asqueladd (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Others have made it a defining feature. Castaneda, however, focuses on the economic aspect as he is talking about why the Pink tide failed. He also states that "While several leftist governments — in Chile, Brazil, Uruguay and, up to a point, Bolivia — resisted authoritarian temptations, many did not entirely. Some muzzled the press, stacked the judiciary, harassed opposition leaders and tampered with electoral systems. Others failed to deal with growing crime and violence.". So, he is saying that three, possibly four countries out of over a dozen have "resisted" authoritarianism. So, 3 of let's say 15 countries. He says several but does not seem like he can go into depth about it, especially since he is focusing mainly on economics in this article. For sure authoritarianism is not why these governments failed, its part of the reason why the Bolivarian government Venezuela still holds on according to some sources.
Anyways, the other sources, however, state that authoritarianism and populism are a quality of Pink tide governments. I would assume that this includes Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela and others that lean toward authoritarianism. I tried to be neutral by stating that the governments were "authoritarian-leaning".--ZiaLater (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Another one. Peter H. Smith defines the concept (page 15) and neglects authoritarianism as defining feature (page 16).[1].--Asqueladd (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this old discussion, I’ve been reviewing some of the sources, and the one who says that “half a dozen” of these governments became authoritarian is Michael Read from Foreign Affairs, and he at no point specifies which are these alleged “six”. He only name specifically Venezuela and Cuba. Now, the math doesn’t really fits: Let’s say that Cuba, Venezuela and I will add Nicaragua are objectively authoritarian, and even ZiaLater acknowledges that Chile, Brazil, Uruguay and Bolivia aren’t… then what’s left? Of these 15 countries which one are authoritarian to be “half a dozen”? Costa Rica obviously isn’t, nor El Salvador, of the ones having former left-wing governments Argentina and Peru clearly couldn’t be the case as free elections were held to the point their governments changed, in Honduras and Paraguay the coup was orchestrated by the right which ended with truly authoritarian and ethically questionable Conservative presidents like Hernández and Cartes. So, even if we put (although is arguable) Ecuador in the mix of the authoritarians, heck even if we put Bolivia, the numbers still don’t get to six. --TV Guy (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Dereck

If you have any questions on why your content is innapropriate, let's have a discussion here. Cheers. Holy Goo (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I have a few, the most important; is this article about the Pink Tide or about Venezuela? Because it has 15 countries included among the left and center-left governments of the region but seems focus in Venezuela, let's see:
  • "Analysts have pointed out additional anti-American,[1] populist,[3][4][5][6] and authoritarian-leaning traits in those governments." I get this is the case of Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua, but how are anti-American and authoritarian Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Urugay and how were during their tenures the presidents of Argentina, Guatemala, Paraguay and Peru (this one and active member of the Pacific Alliance, by-the way). So is Michelle Bachelet authoritarian and anti-American? or is Luis Guillermo Solís?
  • "Leftist governments in Latin America became ensnarled in corruption" and then mentions 4 (of 15) countries and protest not always related to corruption (some of them are for other issues like environmental protests). In fact the only of those cases were protests were for corruption were Brazil. So, if, and I quote "Leftist governments in Latin America became ensnarled in corruption" which were the corruption cases and massive protests in Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Perú, Paraguay and Urugay?
For the rest, the text is a little bit more neutral now, yet still have some problems. I would like to point out that if favorable opinions from scholars are not allow, then critical opinions from scholar should not be allowed either, same in the case of quotes. That breaks Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. Whether you admit pro-Pink Tide quotes alongside or no quotes at all. In similar venue if the negative results of countries like Venezuela are mentioned, then the positive results from countries like Chile, Uruguay and Costa Rica should be mentioned (the three richest countries of Latin America by-the-way). Is not like the pink tide nations are 15 Venezuelas, Venezuela is the exception, not the rule. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Argentina was quite authoritarian too under president Cristina. Also, keep in mind that the text says "authoritarian-leaning", which doesn't mean necessarily that it is authoritarian.
  • The section about corruption needs expansion and more references. That's just it. You can't just delete or hide the entire section like you did. And yes, corruption got much worse during the pink tide.
  • I personally don't like quotes in articles. But the quotes that alreaedy are in the article are not extremely biased and radical like the quote you wanted to add. You tried to add this:
"(Some scholars point that the victories of Left-leaning governments comes as a general reaction after decades of right-wing Neo-liberal policies that, in many cases, produced an increase in poverty and inequality in the region and the failure of the Washington Consensus)"
Do you realize that this is very controversial and radical? What bothers me is that people like you nowadays don't even try to hide their biases anymore. You were turning the article into a socialist manifesto.
I have a proposal for you: How about we move/add ALL of the quotes in the article (including yours) in the "Reactions" section? Holy Goo (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
"Argentina was quite authoritarian too under president Cristina. Also, keep in mind that the text says "authoritarian-leaning", which doesn't mean necessarily that it is authoritarian." Even authoritarian-leaning is still a fake statement. How is Bachelet government even remotely "authoritarian leaning"? or Guillermo Solís or Mujica?
"The section about corruption needs expansion and more references. That's just it. You can't just delete or hide the entire section like you did. And yes, corruption got much worse during the pink tide." Accordinding to Wikipedia policies non-referencied information can be remove without the need of discussion. And I guess you don't live in Latin America and you have no idea the level of corruption that right-wing government had here, which was one of the reasons why this government won, most of them promise to fight corruption, and most of them did. Do you want a comparison of corruption scandals under the right-wing governments and the left-wing? I'll be glad to ilustrate you on that.
"Do you realize that this is very controversial and radical? What bothers me is that people like you nowadays don't even try to hide their biases anymore. You were turning the article into a socialist manifesto." The article is already biased, and it looks like Republican Party propaganda. Don't try to hid this, is not going to work. You want to make think that all pink tide governments are corrupt, authoritarian and caused ecomic collapse, and only one or two of them could be consider like that. You have not answer me; were is the economic harships happening in Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Bolivia? How are Bachelet, Solís, Mujica, Vazquez, Funes, etc. anti-American and authoritarian?
In any case if you have any doubt on the bias how about we call some admins for an intervention see what they think?
"I have a proposal for you: How about we move/add ALL of the quotes in the article (including yours) in the "Reactions" section? " I agree. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That the article is biased is obvious but, to some extent, something to expect on the English Wikipedia as many Americans would have a natural hostility toward these processes for historical and cultural reasons, but other than that is obvious that the article in its current form would never pass the basic review for a normal Wikipedia article as the neutrality requirement is almost non-existent. In any case, my suggestions to solve this to some degree are:

  • Making a section for Criticism and a section for Answers to Criticism were negative opinions/quotes and positive opinions/quotes can be presented respectively. Most articles with controversial topics do that.
  • Make sure of not doing generalizations by making sections for each of the countries traditionally included in the "pink tide". A section for Venezuela, a section for Brazil, a section for Chile, a section for Uruguay, etc. And maybe a section for others for countries that have too few information about the subject to have their own section (Guatemala, Peru, El Salvador for example). In that way there's no risk for generalizations.

The "pink tide" is a very complex international phenomenon and even a very subjective term. Each country has a very unique and different process with very unique and different historical, political and cultural background. To mix all together is a mistake anyway. Here you have things like the oldest democracy in Latin America coming out from a two-party system choosing a moderate centre-left social-democrat who graduate from a USA university (Costa Rica) in the same place of the first democratic government of a centre-left coalition after a brutal far-right dictatorship supported by the USA (Chile), a Libertarian Socialist socially liberal president like Mujica (Uruguay) and a far-left populist in one of the most complicated political background of the world with Maduro (Venezuela). Is not rocket science that all this countries are very different and have very different background and should not be all mixed-up. --TV Guy (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dereck Camacho: You keep talking about Chile and other pink tide countries that are not in an economic crisis or are not corrupt. I understand that Chile and Uruguay are doing fine overall. I'm not saying all of them are corrupt or authoritarian. The correct thing that you should have done is change a few words. Maybe add "some countries" before "authoritarian-leaning", for example. But you decided to delete a lot of valid content and added a bunch of quotes from far-left scholars, among other things. That's why you were reverted. That's what happens when people get too radical Holy Goo (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Holy Goo: your definition of "far-left" is very far-fetched to say the least. The two directors of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation are Social-Democrats as the Foundation is. You know, Social Democrats like the Labour Party in Britain, the PSOE in Spain, the SDP in Germany, etc. And Jared Abbot is from the Democratic Socialists USA, another social-democratic group. I don't think anyone would considered Social-Democrats far-left no where in the world. And although I do agree that ZiaLater changes do make the redaction a little more neutral I think is obvious that the article is biased in many ways, and the "valid" content can easily be disputed. And is not just me, I think is obvious that several users (most of us Latin American curiously) disagree with the current status of the article. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Guys, and this is for ZiaLater and Holy Goo. You have to collaborate here. I am trying to achieve some sort of consent among different views. It is obvious that the article is not neutral. Other users already show good faith and were willing to let some of their edits go until further discussion is achieve, you should do the same. And let's be honest, there's no neutrality in saying "populist policies", you are taking a stand there and affirming something, which in a Encyclopedia has no place, same with "corruption and protests", everyone is innocent until proven guilty if this cases ever get convicted we can talk about corruption. Not before. Again, a sample of good faith on your behalf please. --TV Guy (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I was adding to this article as you guys were discussing on here, have a look. I made the edits since I saw that there was a conflict occurring. Hopefully this helps some and I'm looking to expand some more.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

In any case, TV Guy's suggestion of having different sections for the different countries is the best. I agree that mixing them all together is part of the problem, and a big part. I can tell you first hand that in some countries is quite the opposite regarding the populist policies, in Costa Rica it was the right-wing parties the ones using social welfare for decades as a populist mechanism and the centre-left PAC the one that stop it (which is the main reason why right-wing parties are more popular among low income people and PAC, albeit left-wing, is popular among the middle and high class, as paradogical as it can sound). This is the kind of things that makes this article so complex, each country is very different. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think part of the problem with all due respect is that some of you are messuaring Latin America with American eyes. All Latin American countries have social welfare programs, and for decades. The use of social welfare for populist reasons is common from both the right and left, especially in Central America, if anything some of these governments change the social welfare recipients for them to be more broad and not just people loyal to the ruling party at the time (some just did the same that the right-wing parties did for decades). If the article is divided in sub-sections for each country it will be easily to handle and even users from the respective countries may have discussions about the content in a easier way. --TV Guy (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a good suggestion, but we would have to put information from a lot of countries or it will look unbalanced (though it is right now too). We can create the section on one of my sandboxes, I'll make a quick outline.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest the more representative: Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay and Venezuela, and one for Central America that encompasses Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala (which are very similar as the switch was very tame and from moderates, whilst Nicaragua is more similar to Venezuela). --TV Guy (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You can all work on this in one of my sandboxes if you'd like. I'm not sure if there is a policy against editing users sandboxes, but it's fine with me in this case. I'll try not to touch it too much so you can place what you think should be in the article.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Zia. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pink tide. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Dereck Camacho: Please refrain from edit warring. I have not finished edits and you are already reverting them. Please bring your concerns here.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not doing edit warring, I'm nor even reverting your edits, just making sure they are neutral and not incredibly biased. You are the one doing blanking and other stuffs that can be considered vandalism. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Dereck Camacho: I was not done moving things around. Some of the country material (such as Nicaragua) was removed since it was in the protest sections. I was looking for better sources than Venezuela's TeleSUR and Iran's HispanTV, but saw that there were some separate supporting sources.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to know when in such politically charged article this kind of changes are not discussed before on the talk page. By the way, it's interesting that alternative sources are disputed just because they are link to Venezuela and Iran but sources coming from the United States, a country that has a historical and political hostility toward these governments, are "allowed". Whether we eliminate all sources from partialize countries or we allow all. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Telesur is not an unreliable source just because of being from Venezuela, but because it is a propaganda network with a reputation of distorting facts to serve the needs of the Chavist propaganda. That's in conflict with our policy on reliable sources. That's not the case with US media, as the US government does not impose the tight controls over the press' contents used by Maduro. --Cambalachero (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
So Telesur and HispanTV are not allowed but US-media like the New York Times is? I don't get that Doublethink either. A lot of US media is historicallly and culturally biased against left-wing governments. And whether the US goernment does not impose tight control over the press... well that's open to discussion. Whether we admit all media or we do not admit media from countries that are too involved in the issue, and that includes the US. --TV Guy (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
The New York Times does not have a reputation of distorting facts like Telesur. Their cases are not the same. --Cambalachero (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, in some countries CNN has that reputation, and Telesur or RT are the ones that people go for alternative information not distorted by American interests. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I personally have no sympathy for Venezuela’s or Iran’s governments, nor for any authoritarian government (including the US, that is an oligarchy and not a democracy, and some of his closest allies like Honduras, Paraguay and let's not forget Saudi Arabia). I’m a Libertarian. But I do find hypocritical, or at the very least naïve at best, that some people think the US media is not as biased and partialized and do not respond to some powerful interests whether from the US government of the big corporations (that is the same). In any case, I was able to find information from many other sources for the edits I wanted. --TV Guy (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Each country subsection

Well I did, as long ago spoken, the subsection for each of the countries, with Central America grouped together. I think that gives enough context for the complex historical and cultural reasons that brought these left-wing governments into power, which was not a coincidence. Is a similar pattern: Democratically elected governments that are not Washington favorite for some reason are attacked by economic warring and/or CIA-endorsed violent coups that end in long-lasting far-right dictatorships sustain by the US-government (really, after investigating about these issues I was disgusted, I knew the US had some involvement but didn’t knew how much, to the point of having Nixon congratulating Stroessner in person or sending American advisors to torture centers). The dictatorships were followed by democratic, yet right-wing, governments that apply Washington-guided neoliberal economic policies, poverty and inequality go rampant whether because of these policies or at the very least because they couldn’t prevent this from happening, and of course an anti-American sentiment was fed after so many years of bad governments followed by questioning if capitalism even works. It’s kind of natural that this was gonna happen. Is similar on how in Eastern Europe the peoples there are staunchly anti-Communists after decades of similar situation with authoritarian governments and bad economies during the political control of the USSR. Anyway, I think the article is much more neutral now.

But I do think the corruption section should be split among the different countries that they mention. If not, then a similar context should be given with precedents and an understanding of the historical problem of corruption in the subcontinent. --TV Guy (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems that you got a case of Confirmation bias, as things were not the way you describe them. The conflict decades ago was not between democracies and dictatorships, nor between Latin America and US imperialism. It was a proxy war of the Cold War, between the US and the URRS, with both of them trying to influence things in each country and drive away the other's influence. This conflict was above, and remained during both democracies and dictatorships alike. You seem to have overlooked the dictatorship in Cuba, or the one that Che Guevara tried to install in Bolivia. And then, when the cold war ceased, you misunderstood things again. The US did not impose the right-wing national policies, the Latin American countries themselves did so, with local consensus for doing so. A consensus that later turned to the left, and nowadays turns back to the right. It seems meandering, but that's because it is. As those democracies are still young, public opinion is highly volatile, and the concept of long-term policies is a bit difficult to be embraced. Take for instance Argentina: there was a right-wing government during one decade, and a left-wing the next... and both ones by the same political party, featuring in broad strokes the same politicians.
Besides, this article is about the Pink tide, and must stay focused in it. You may be interested to work with History of Latin America, if you want a broader historical scope. --Cambalachero (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Cambalachero refrain from vandalism. Even if you disagree with the changes made by TV Guy, they were agreed in this talk page itself a couple of sections above you can see it. Besides that doesn't explain why you revert my change on the obviously biased description of "characterized them as being anti-American, populist, and authoritarian-leaning." which is obviously non-neutral and contrary to Wikipedia's policies on neutrality. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
That aside, I would like to ping @Asqueladd: who also had some important observations about the article in the past btw. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Camblachero: If you want to add a section for Cuba, be my guest. Same if you want to add information about the USSR involvement in Latin America and their support of certain groups and parties, I have no objection. But even if we take away the precedents about the Cold War and its impact in the culture and politics of the region, that still doesn’t explain why you blanked the information about, for example, Macris corruption scandals and involvement in the Panama Papers, or the whole sections regarding Central America and Paraguay including Lugo’s social reform and of course the critical information about right-wing authoritarian governments like Cartes’ and Hernandez’, or the corruption scandals regarding Michel Temer and Renan Cahleiros, to name some of the information unrelated to the Cold War. It’s almost like if no critical information about the right-wing was allowed in this article and only critical information that presents the left-wing in bad light is permitted but of course as that’s incredibly biased and completely contrary to Wikipedia’s policies about neutral point of view I will presume good faith and guess that you blanked non Cold War related information by mistake.
Now, whether the failed right-wing politics in Latin America were not push by the US, it might be truth, but that’s something I put in the talk page, it was already in the article long ago (even your massive blanking did not took it away) and has its own references, if you have references that say otherwise I suggest you to add them.
Nevertheless it is important to know that in most of these countries the far-right dictatorships did played an important role in the post-dictatorship politics and the way how they move. Chile is an obvious example as one of the reason the Concertación is so big there is because it was the opposition to Pinochet’s regime, so this background is indeed important to understand the phenomenon.
Now I would ask you to be, at the very least, more measured in your edits because, even if we reach a consensus that the Cold War period should not go on the article, you blanked information that was about the politics and economics of the 90s pre-pink tide governments and of some of the current post-pink tide governments, so unless you also object that information for some reason, your blanking of the data from those periods made no sense. --TV Guy (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem with the current version is that each country section says next to nothing about the governments that should be the focus of this article. For example, in "Argentina" we have 6 paragraphs, but the only thing said about the Kirchners is that they won elections at X and Y years. The dirty war is pointless here, it ended 20 years before, and by 2003 the military had long faded from Argentine politics. The crisis in the 1980s is not just a consequence of the economic policies of the military (by the way, there was no Washington Consensus before 1989), but a result of the Latin American debt crisis. There is no mention to the presidency of Menem and the convertibility plan, which led to the 2001 crisis. Macri is not part of the Pink tide, so the scandals are out of place here (and, by the way, he has been acquited of the Panama papers scandal, see here). --Cambalachero (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who added Macri to begin with, I just expanded the information about his government. The dirty may have ended 20 years ago but it certainly affected Argentinean politics and is behind the anti-American and anti-right sentiment many Argentinians gave. This is the complexity of the subject, when did the Pink Tide really starts? Can the Concertación government really be considered part of the Pink Tide? Why not Alfonsín's center-left government then? Also context is important, the article tend to overlook how, at least in Latin America, the right-wing governments are not that different and in some cases they might be by far worst (like in Paraguay). That's why I'm suggesting a minimalistic approach, limiting the article to just mention the origin of the term, its basic meaning and the list of presidents. --TV Guy (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

New proposal

The big issue here is that this article derailed at some point. If you check the same article in other languages, most notably Spanish and Portuguese that are the languages of origin of these governments, they are incredibly small. They limit themselves to just inform about what the term means and list the governments that encompasses it.

But at some point here, some users, probably politically motivated, thought that it was a good idea to show that these were horrific tyrannical corrupt governments that broke their economies and caused massive protests. Of course this is only true in the case of a couple of them, like Venezuela, certainly not truth in Uruguay, Chile, Costa Rica, etc., so obviously editors from those countries felt it was fair to counterbalance the content and now we have this; a huge article with lots and lots of information because each side wants to counter the other one. And Wikipedia's policies do require as such. As far as the article is biased toward one side the other side has the right to counter.

As said in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

(...) A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

(...)Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

Now this policies have clearly not been followed in this version of the article.

The more salomonic option will be to just translate the Spanish article (or the Portuguese, they are essentially identical) and leave there. In case you wonder, what it says in a quick translation is this:

Pink tide, sometimes also turned to the left, is a term used in political analyzes in the twenty-first century to describe the perception that the ideology of the left in general, and the The political left in particular has an increasing influence in Latin America.

In 2005, the BBC reported that of the 350 million South Americans, three quarters lived in countries with "presidents who lean to the left, elected during the previous six years. According to the BBC," another common element of the 'pink tide' is the clear break with the Washington Consensus of the early 1990s, the mix of open markets and privatizations driven by the United States.

He has referred to the Latin American countries belonging to this ideological trend as "Pink Tide nations". "

Despite being relatively new, the term "pink tide" has been used prominently in contemporary discussions of Latin American politics. The origin of the term goes back to a phrase of Larry Rohter, a New York Times reporter in Montevideo, who characterized the election of Tabaré Vázquez as president of Uruguay as "not so much a red tide ... rather a pink one." the term seems to be a play on words based on replacing the red - color associated with communism - in "red tide" by the softer "pink" tone, to indicate the increase in forces of more moderate progressive and socialist ideas.

Then comes the list of presidents. I spare the references that it has out of practicality. But here you can see it.

Thus, althoug parts of the text may change, the more practical will be to just mention what the term means, who invented it and the list of governments, as almost all other languages do in order to avoid endless discussions and potential edit warrings. --TV Guy (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the lead has improved a bit since the last time I edited this entry. I felt then a sense of POV pushing or maybe just careless wording. While Venezuela and other countries can not escape from the "authoritarian leaning labeling" surely they are not the norm, and there are also reliable sources explicitly disavowing the label as defining feature of this loose continent-wide "trend". Following TV Guy's reasoning, when expanding the entry beyond what the term means, the featured "pink" governments, and the origin of the term, the danger of falling into a WP:POVFORK (or rather a WP:POVCLUSTERFUCK) pops up.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The article looks better. I'm going to go through the sources over time since this is a lot of new information. I'm just cleaning up some grammar and English translations mistakes.--ZiaLater (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, that's very constructive. --TV Guy (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Several observations

A couple of things before we continue.

First, there is any Wikipedia policy that forbids or precludes the use of Iranian or any other country’s sources. If a media is from one particular country that’s not reason to exclude it and there’s not policy that allows it.

I’m not American nor Iranian, why should I think that the Iranian source is propaganda but the US sources aren’t? for me both countries are the same; foreign countries. I have no reasons to think that one is good and the other is evil, or that one has a nice government and the other has an evil one, or that the media in one is more neutral and objective or less manipulated that the media in the other. Of course, Iran never invaded my country, nor supported coups against our democratically elected presidents, so I may not understand exactly why an Iranian media is “bad” as a source, but unless there’s a policy that say so there’s no possible justification in excluding them.

So unless ZiaLater or any other user can justify with some specific Wikipedia policy why we can’t use a source from a media that is connected to Iran or any other country that is not the US I politely ask you to refrain from excluding media based on racial or national origin or I would have to take this to the noticeboards.

Second, the article is indeed bigger than normal. Much more than the versions in all other languages, particularly the Spanish and Portuguese versions. I suggested to make the article minimal and just translate the Spanish version and I present the option once again. But the length of the article is not coincidence, and let be honest here; there is a conscious effort to make the left-wing governments involved look as bad as possible on behalf of some users (in some cases is even funny because Humala for example is considered one of the most capitalist-friendly and pro-free market presidents Peru ever had, embracing the Pacific Alliance and making more liberal reforms that his predecessor García, he was leftist in name only and the bashing of him kind of backfires for the right).

Although this shouldn’t be the function of an Encyclopedia and more of an academic or opinion article, is the way it is now. But in order to keep with Wikipedia’s policy of neutral point of view (that was long lost in this article) then positive information about these governments has to be included as well as critical information of their rivals (though I’m thinking in doing an article about the New Right in Latin America that may help transferring some of the information). The thing is, whether keep adding everything bad that is related to these governments, and then the good, and so on in crescendo to never end, or we settle with certain limits of how much information is going to be added.

Similarly I mention again that the corruption section should be split among the countries that have it, is already repetitive, and yes I know you want to show that this governments are corrupt and having a whole section for the matter is an important part on that, but it’s still strange to have a whole section about cases that not only are mentioned in more detail later but also include only some of the countries and not all in an article about several countries. It's like having a corruption section about the OAS mentioning cases in Mexico and Colombia. If the section is not split at least should be rephrase to be a general discussion about corruption in the region with no specific cases. --TV Guy (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

We could always use better sources than PressTV, it is fairly biased. Adding the paragraphs about the backgrounds of each individual country is what makes this article so long. This could all be summed up in the "Background" section with Operation Condor, etc. Also, in the case of the "Argentina" section, we do not need so much about Macri. This is about the pink tide, not so much about Macri. In a neutral point of view standpoint, I do not see how right-wing death purges equals left-wing economic incompetence. Having the background about terrible regimes of the past seems to be enough to counterbalance any other potential POV issues. When it comes to the individual country sections, if a right-wing candidate takes over, we can keep information about them short and to the point.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so my recent edit showed how much of this background could possibly be removed. Like I said above, Operation Condor and other information in the "Background" section provides enough backstory to why Latin America turned away from US-led policies and such. We do not need a list of every atrocity of the past one-hundred years since this article primarily focuses on turn to the left in the 21st century. Possibly anything before the 1970s/80s should not be in this article with the exception to maybe a few Central American countries.
To sum this up: "Background" (terrible things of past governments) → "Turn to left" (what leftist leaders did to cause the turn) → "Decline" (what caused the decline) → "By country" (brief history, main body is recent developments). Hope this makes sense.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I need more than your word that PressTV is biased, maybe some third party account or report on media bias or something.
The article was already long before the adding of background, it has huge unnecessary sections about economics, corruption, decline and the like. But curious how the first thing you suggest to remove is the one that puts the right-wing governments and/or the US in a bad light. How about we short the article by removing the corruption section? For example.
The background part was already discussed. The turn to the left was not casual, it was produced by decades long US-endorsed brutal dictatorship followed by US-endorsed incompetent and corrupt right-wing governments. It clearly shows a pattern and gives a historical context. History is not something that happens just out of nothing, there’s always a complex process of decades if not centuries that causes social and political change, would be too simplistic to think that the Pink Tide is just a couple of left-wing governments winning in the 21 first century.
And I disagree with your edits and oppose them, sorry. I’m not in favor of cutting those parts of the article. The only way I would agree with cutting those parts if is other parts are also cut or reduced like reception and decline. --TV Guy (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
PD: And then I suggest again (you have not express your view on that), why not just use the Spanish article as base and limit ourselves to a couple of paragraphs with the most basic and minimalistic aproach? what would be the problem about that? No subjective, borderline original research information about decline, economics, corruption, background, rise of the left, comodity prices, Chinese economy and so many other things that one can argue are not about the subject. --TV Guy (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
If you actually read what I put, you would see that all of the things that "puts the right-wing governments and/or the US in a bad light" can be placed in the background where it belongs. We do not need to remove the "Corruption" section since it is talking about the pink tide. Placing lists of things that happened over 50 years ago in sections that should be dedicated to the pink tide is nothing but fluff. Anyways, it can all stay if you disagree.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that the Pink Tide is about economics according to you? So how come corruption is also a subject? --TV Guy (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
In any case I have to go for a couple of hours, but I would like to see what other users think about the proposal of reducing the article to the Spanish translation, and we may be able to vote on the matter. Greetings. --TV Guy (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Sisgeo, User:Holy Goo, User:El Ayudante, User:Dereck Camacho, User:Cambalachero , User:Asqueladd you have been active on the article recently. What's your opinion on reducing the article to the lenghts it has in the other languages, particularly Spanish and Portuguese. The possible end result will be something like this:

Pink tide, sometimes also turned to the left, is a term used in political analyzes in the twenty-first century to describe the perception that the ideology of the left in general, and the The political left in particular has an increasing influence in Latin America.

In 2005, the BBC reported that of the 350 million South Americans, three quarters lived in countries with "presidents who lean to the left, elected during the previous six years. According to the BBC," another common element of the 'pink tide' is the clear break with the Washington Consensus of the early 1990s, the mix of open markets and privatizations driven by the United States.

It has referred to the Latin American countries belonging to this ideological trend as "Pink Tide nations". "

Despite being relatively new, the term "pink tide" has been used prominently in contemporary discussions of Latin American politics. The origin of the term goes back to a phrase of Larry Rohter, a New York Times reporter in Montevideo, who characterized the election of Tabaré Vázquez as president of Uruguay as "not so much a red tide ... rather a pink one." the term seems to be a play on words based on replacing the red - color associated with communism - in "red tide" by the softer "pink" tone, to indicate the increase in forces of more moderate progressive and socialist ideas.

--TV Guy (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, of course. The article is in bad shape, but reducing it to a mere stub is not a solution. Cambalachero (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
In favor, it will certanilly be a good solution. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Un-neutral quotation

I think this paragraph should be reviewed. Is the opinion of an author but is presented as fact in the article, which is one (of many) examples of violation of Wikpedia's neutral point of view policy. It might be use as a quote establishing clearly that is the author's opinion, but as is now having one single author's opinion as fact without a counterpoint violates neutrality. --TV Guy (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The popularity of such leftists governments was helped by their ability to use the commodity boom of the 2000s to initiate populist policies, though according to Daniel Lansberg this resulted in "high public expectations in regard to continuing economic growth, subsidies, and social services".[1] By 2005, the BBC reported that out of 350 million people in South America, three out of four of them lived in countries ruled by "left-leaning presidents" elected during the preceding six years.[2] As the prices of commodities lowered, coupled with overspending with little savings by pink tide governments, policies became unsustainable and supporters became disenchanted, eventually leading to the rejection of leftist governments.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Lansberg-Rodríguez, Daniel (Fall 2016). "Life after Populism? Reforms in the Wake of the Receding Pink Tide". Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. 17 (2). Georgetown University Press: 56–65.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference bbc2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
I could provide all of the sources in the world and you still would not be satisfied... But I will do it in a few minutes.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
First you're breaking the Assume good faith policy with that comment. Second, the issue is not if I'm satisfy or not is that some of the content is clearly bias. Now I would like to ask directly to come clear ZiaLater; do you have a political intention to show the left-wing governments as bad? --TV Guy (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
If you are not going to be constructive about this I'm afraid I would request a meditation and/or bring the issue to one of the noticeboards for further intervention. --TV Guy (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
No. I've dealt with plenty of users like you before. Read my talk page and archives if you are interested in my political leanings (I really have none). What we are focusing on now are the leftist governments. We understand that the right-wing dictatorships in Latin America were trash, that can be said in the background. But the topic, this whole article, is devoted to leftist governments. You cannot just "hide" things you do not personally agree with. These are reliable sources that you are covering up. Find some counter sources if you want to be productive, but do not censor.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Users like me? the ones that apply Wikipedia's policies I pressume. Not only the dictatorships were bad, also most of the right-wing democratic governments, but I do want to avoid another crescendo of counter quotes and counter references which would be easily if we apply Wikipedias policies on neutral point of view, if you think that's censorship then change the policies, do not talk to me. In the meantime the policy is change we will apply them whether you like or not. Thus I take from your words that you have no problem with me escalating the issue to the admin staff. Good. --TV Guy (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Let's keep it how it is for right now (See the section below). I've been here before, that is all I'm saying. All of this is not worth the argument, I'll just say I do not trust either side of the political spectrum. You emphasized how "Not only the dictatorships were bad, also most of the right-wing democratic governments"... Honestly, I did not know there was a difference, that is what I am trying to say. I do not care about your political leanings either even though that quote shows your lack of objectivity. Honestly, I am just editing this to see why Latin America is where it is today under the "pink tide" governments. I let the sources do the work. --ZiaLater (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I consider myself center-left, that's why I did not opposed or care for your edits on Venezuela, which I consider an authoritarian government and I hate all authoritarian governments whether right or left, nevertheless it is kind of interesting to see a non-Latin American who thinks that he can edit about how Latin America is. In any case as your conception of Latin America comes from the sources, maybe you should open your mind to different sources.
In any case I'm going to the noticeboards and probably Arbitrarion on this. Best regards. --TV Guy (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Take a look

We are having some issues here and you are my trusted Latin America/political/neutrality users. Go ahead and take a look Softlavender, Panam2014, Cambalachero and Impru20. I do not want to touch a thing until we can figure some things out.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I had alrady ping them but I would also like to see the opinions of User:Sisgeo, User:El Ayudante, User:Dereck Camacho, and User:Asqueladd --TV Guy (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
My opinion about this article is that it has a severe lack of focus. The pink tide is composed by a number of centre-left of left wing populist governments in Latin America in the last two decades. The article should describe the characteristics of those rulers, how did they establish their populist regimes, the consequences of them, and their ultimate fate. For example, in Argentina that's the governments of Néstor and Cristina Kirchner (2003-2015). And yet, the articles says next to nothing about them, and goes great lengths to talk about older governments (even in the 1970s!) and the later ones. Details about the elections (who run for president, who won, and by how much) is just the prologue.
It is argued that this is done for neutrality issues. That's a mistake. A neutral write will point which aspects of the Kirchner's governments are praised by their supporters and which ones are critizised by their critics. "The Kirchners were bad rulers, but also were the others" is not a correct approach. Cambalachero (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't be better to explain all those things about the Kirchners... I don't know maybe... in the Kirchner's page? Or in an article named "Governmet of Nestor and Cristina Kirchner? Establishing that a government is a "populist regime" from the beginning shows how biased editors are using the article for political agendas. The article should not have any kind of judgement and just present events in a cold statistical fashion. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I think Cambalachero is right. When we began adding every country, it became less focused as the background (from decades ago) for each country was added. Now, that information is useful but can be summarized in the background section. I will explain more about it below.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are not watertight compartments. They relate to each other through interlinking. Stick to specific sources that describe the topic is what I would do (instead of editing through a 6-degrees of separation paradigm-->That mentions this, this is mentioned here, and we "should" mention it here because, c'mon, we can't live without mentioning it here or smth like that). This, in addition to giving prevalence to scholar sources over editorials and news pieces, reduces the POV editing and the original reasearch I have been witnessing in here for a while.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
^ I agree, but is just the tip of the iceberg of the many problems the article has. The overquotation of the article is truly Ludacris, lot of the content is obviously original research and takes editorials and opinion articles as mere facts and even place such opinions as undisputable things which violates several policies on referencing. Truth is the article should focus only in objective data; economic behavior, poverty rates, commodities' prices, election results, maybe popularity polls. Things like "this government is populist" or "this welfare policies are unsustainable" are subjective opinions. As I said before history and political changes do not happen out of the sudden or isolated from the past, they have a context. These are not the first left-wing governments these countries had as some seem to think, except for Paraguay and Uruguay all these countries had them before, is something cyclical. But I do will be willing to cut it shorter or transfer some of the information to a new article if we can agree on absolute objective and neutral content to remain. --TV Guy (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Let's see if we can figure out what the problems of the entry are.
  • Lack of focus
  • Arbitrary inclusion of content (close to violate WP:NOTESSAY, WP:COATRACK and WP:SOAPBOX)
  • Excessive extension
  • Excesive amount of literal quotes (as if editors were adding shiny quotes to score a point)
  • Citation overkill (instead of adding quality sources weighing controversies)
  • POV phrasing formulated without due attribution
--Asqueladd (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I can spot some other problems:
The photo that says “Countries in red indicate left-wing-led governments when the pink tide movement peaked in 2011” is actually an image of countries with Sao Paulo Forum members, and incorrect in that because Panama does not have a FSP party member in power (if ever had) and El Salvador does and both are in the opposite color. Although that can be fix directly in commons.
The corruption section is weird. I have no idea what do Maduro’s narco nephews have to do with Pink Tide governments… were they ministers or something? (rhetorical question). That’s a textbook example of double standard; whilst is argued that precedent right-wing governments have no place on the article family scandals do? In any case most of the corruption-related (and to be fair in both the right and the left) information violates the policies on writing about living people. If corruption is considered needed in the article then only cases with actual convictions should be mentioned and not just arrests, investigations or trials. However, if corruption was something particularly characteristic of Pink Tide government I think it could remain, but as it is actually something equally common with the "Lightblue Tide" governments then it makes no sense to mention it. It has nothing to do with economics or government policies, and non-corrupt governments like in Uruguay, Chile or Bolivia also exists so is not something universal of the phenomenon.
I wouldn’t say that some parts are original research, they are WORST, they’re borderline plagiarism (particularly in sections 2, 3 and 4).
And the decline section is kind of funny too. So if in the future new left-wing party reach power, like Mexico that seems to be almost sure the next in line if polls are to be believe, and other left parties remain and/or recover power is that section going to go or are we going to make a new section call “come back” or “post-decline”? it violates WP:BALL. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Hello. The article in its current summer is anything but neutral. He is too focused on the regimes of the 30s / 40s and he is too complacent to leftist populist politicians. So I think it needs to be updated. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: take a look at Wikipedia:MEAT and Wikipedia:Canvassing which are not allowed, please. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Focus

Glad that we have brought forth a discussion. This article has lacked focus ever since each country involved with the pink tide was added. Before we lost focus, this was how streamlined the article was. It was concise, it focused on the pink tide, it was to the point. The "Background" section could have used some expansion explaining what caused the pink tide (right-wings dictatorships, United States involvement, Cold War, etc.) but that was about it.

What I liked about the article when it was smaller like this is that it had a clear focus:

  • Background – Washington consensus, economic issues, turn away from liberal economics, etc. (Still needed more about Cold War, distrust in US, etc.)
  • Reaction – Shared thoughts on the pink tide
  • Decline – Provided information on the struggles facing pink tide governments, the cause of the struggles, the public's role in the matter
  • Political outcome – How to pink tide changed Latin American politics and made it more focused on the people, requiring potential right-wing governments to be more involved with the public. It showed how both sides of the political spectrum had to re-evaluate their practices.

Now this previous article was not perfect. It needed to explain the "why this happened" more while also focusing on the characteristics of pink tide (possibly the addition a "Characteristics" section?). In previous discussions on this talk page it was discussed that not all of these governments are the same. Some governments, and I am using the words of scholarly sources, were more authoritarian and centralized while others were market friendly and transparent. This could be elaborated on in the proposed "Characteristics" section.

I will take the time to made some edits on this article in my sandbox (sandbox2) and invite each of you to take a look. Thanks for the responses!--ZiaLater (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok Softlavender, Panam2014, Cambalachero and Impru20, Sisgeo, El Ayudante, Dereck Camacho, and Asqueladd take a look at this proposal right here. Is it heading in the right direction? I cut down the article by nearly 1/3. Some remaining information in the country sections can be removed since it is already in the "President elected" section, though some of the background could be used for the "Rise of the left" section.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The focus was not lost when the background was added, the focus was lost when all the biased and negative information was added to push a political agenda. I do not like your proposal, it keeps all the basic problems and disregards most of what Asqueladd and me pointed out, it's still incredibly biased, do not take into account nor the neutral point of view, nor the rules about writting about living people nor what User:Asqueladd mentioned about not using editorials and opinion articles as sources and basically just remove big chunks of the background which were the part that we already knew you opposed. So no. All we have to do is follow Wikipedia's rules. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Dereck Camacho, it would be helpful if you tagged what is POV and biased in my sandbox. I believe adding in the "Characteristics" section will balance the POV. I want to know what you would do. You can play around as much in my sandbox if you want too. State specifically what should be improved. I provided an outline above to try to keep this organized.----ZiaLater (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Well I have made some observations of already of sections I feel are not neutral, but I will try to point it directly in the sandbox as soon as possible. But to give you an idea; I think the section of Economy is a good example; is cold, provides data and presents the information in a professional matter with objective sources, whilst sections like "Outcome" and "Corruption" are clearly intended to show the countries in a bad light.
An alternative would be to put as much objective and neutral information all over the article and make a section for "criticism" were opinions against and in favor can be presented and the references could be made of editorials and other subjective sources, that way in case of edit warring at least would be focus in one section. I will make a counter proposal soon. Thanks. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Dereck Camacho, the "Economy" section is a pretty good one, but it should be mentioned that most pink tide governments suffered from the end of the commodities boom and lack of savings. I am reading in the The Paradox of Democracy in Latin America: Ten Country Studies of Division and Resilience that those who identified themselves as being left-of-center did not increase during the period of the pink tide, they just rejected the norm at the time. I also read in the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs that the rejection of pink tide governments is more due to the fact that they can no longer sustain their populist policies.
For the "political outcome" section, I think it is fairly neutral. It shows how right-wing candidates/governments had to become more involved with the people while left-wing governments had to reevaluate their own policies which led to the "ebbing of the tide". I will add something in there soon that will provide a lighter light on the pink tide governments.
The "Corruption" section could use some improvement. Corruption is a large part of why the pink tide has lost some steam, according to sources. This is why this sub-section belongs in the "Decline" section, corruption was partially responsible for this decline.
I know criticism sections are usually discouraged and if we were to do something similar, it could be in the "Reception" section. None of the edits on my part were intentionally intended "to show the countries in a bad light", so thanks for working with me.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes I'm happy to see some advance on mutual understanding too. Alright a couple of observations:

  • Populist is generally considered a derogatory term at least in Latin America, a more neutral term should be use even if the source use it. Although I prefer cold data than subjective analysis.
  • And speaking of more neutral terminology; "decline" is not only subjective it may also be missleading as it depends on each country and there are some possible countries changing; Mexico and Colombia seem to be moving toward left and probably would join the "Pink Tide" as in both countries the frontrunners are left-leaning. I would suggest to change it for "overview".
  • I agree with using "Reaction" instead of "Criticism" but I think it should go at the bottom of the article just above of the timeline as most articles generally have that kind of secions in there, and is logic too. Also I think analysis might be a more suitable title and focus all the scholar sources, editorials and some of the quotes there, both favorable and critical.
  • I still think "Corruption" is been shoehorned in, it feels far-fetched and out of place for the main theme of the article so I still think should be remove, BUT until further discussion on that and a consensus is reached I would insist in using only convictions and only of people holding public office (not relatives) not so much for them but for our own sake, Wikipedia is very restrictive regarding writing about living people.
  • I think your versión of each country subsection in your proposal it’s ok (tho I think lots of what TV Guy wrote should not be wasted and a new article like “US intervention in Latin America” should be created, but that’s another matter.

Any thoughts on all these? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC) PD: Also maybe get rid of all the quotes except a couple in the Reception/Analysis section. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

OK here a counterproposal for discussion: User:ZiaLater/sandbox2#Counterproposal.

Some further observations ZiaLater about yours:

  • This phrase: "The term seems to be a play on words based on "red tide" (a biological phenomenon rather than a political one) with "red" – a color long associated with communism – being replaced with the lighter tone of "pink" to indicate the more moderate communist and socialist ideas that gained strength." it has several things wrong. First there's no such thing as "moderate communism" and second non of the PT governments is communist or has communist ideas. Even Venezuela, maybe the more far-lefted of all is considered right-wing bourgeois for Marxist standards.

I think protests and public support will brought us to edit warring sooner or later and is quite speculative in nature. Protests happen also during the right-wing governments (as we know with Macri) while Public or popular support is hard to measure as for example Morales lost the referendum on re-election but gained a supermajority in Parliament soon after. Opposing one policy is not always opposing the government as such, another case is the mention of Dilma's impeachment but apart from manifestation of support for her Lula (even with a conviction) is currently the most popular political figure in Brazil according to polls and most likely the winner of the next election, so that section is very hard to measure objectively, it's better to leave it behind. I reduce the corruption section to convictions, I think there could be other ones (I think Ecuador's vice president was already convicted, don't know) I don't oppose to add new cases if they have convictions already.

Also notice how I moved everything that can be considered a subjective opinion to analysis section. Quotes should be converted into text, but we can keep a couple of them. Of course in order to have balance some pro-PT governments quotes and scholar sources should be added.

Oh and something which probably has nothing to do with the body of the article, in the timeline, can we change the colors to represent better the presidents? For example lime for Correa, yellow for Solís, orange for Concertación and so on? Maybe a nitpick but it kind of make sense. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I applaud the effort for co-operation and consensus, and I like a lot what both have propose. I do like the section on Venezuela as is currently thanks to Zia, I would vote for it to stay that way. On the other hand I think sections like “Popular support” and “Protests” would require a lot of effort in constant maintenance as they are constantly changing and updating and then we can end with the same problem of length. In the case of “characteristics” on the first proposal the problem is that is too open to debate and I think we want to move away from debate, as it is it will cause a lot of argument with editors in favor and against of those definitions. I love this quote which I think describes perfectly the complexity of these movements:
"Ultimately, the term "the Pink Tide" is not a useful analytical tool as it encompasses too wide a range of governments and policies. It includes those actively overturning neoliberalism (Chávez and Morales), those reforming neoliberalism (Lula), those attempting a confusing mixture of both (the Kirchners and Correa), those having rhetoric but lacking the ability to accomplish much (Toledo), and those using anti-neoliberal rhetoric to consolidate power through non-democratic mechanisms (Ortega)." --TV Guy (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I like moving the "Reception" section down. I would not necessarily throw everything in that section though. I do not agree with having each country having a section though, that is why I incorporated the quote above. The "Characteristics" section in my proposal is supposed to address some of this "complexity", it is not finished as of now and was proposed framework. I think it is important to explain how some of these countries still relied on neo-liberal policies which could be mentioned in the "Characteristics" section. I will make some changes to my proposal and see where we go.----ZiaLater (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed I sometimes wonder why some of these presidents are included here, as I pointed before Humala for example is probably one of the most right-wing presidents Peru ever has, especially compare to Toledo and García, it has of "left" maybe just the name. I have no problem in eliminating all the country subdivisions (I was against the idea to split Central America for example) but I do must warn that as currently is your proposal of "Characteristics" it needs way more neutrality and balance. --TV Guy (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Let’s split the decisions in non-controversial that can be apply immediately and controversial that would require further discussion:
  • Non-controversial:
    • To change “Decline” for overview. -Applied
    • To move “Reception” to the bottom. -Applied
    • To transfer the whole countries’ subdivisions to another article (but in any case won’t be here). -Hidden for now until another article or sandbox is made.
    • To eliminate all the quotes, most of them can later been use in the reception part or any other section of analysis we choose, most of them would be turn into text which I think the most adequate person to do that is ZiaLatter as he’s the most familiarized with the material. After that I will investigate for some more amicable editorial and scholar sources to give more balance. -Applied the removal of quotes part
    • To move most polemic material (mainly that from opinion articles and editorials) to the analytic sections. -Applied
    • Background, Economy and Rise of the Left would remain mostly as they are. -Applied
    • Change the colors to suit the parties.
^These ones if no one objects I guess we can do in the next days.
  • Controversial
    • The section of characteristics
    • Eliminate corruption section.
^Would require further discussion.
The "Characteristics" section needs more information to balance it out. I just provided framework for it. For the "Corruption" section, it was definitely a cause of the recent decline of popularity. I can see about leaving only the convictions, but the scandals surrounding certain leaders were directly related to their loss of support. I would say if the source correlates the scandal and loss of popularity, it should be included.
I noticed that in your edit, you removed the defining characteristics of pink tide governments (populism, etc.) from the lead. That should stay. Also, I do not see many opinion articles? Would you point out a few of those which may be the most contentious?----ZiaLater (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I could agree to include some of the most notorious scandals even if there's no conviction as far as the rules about living people are respected carefully and is done with moderation. As for the "the defining characteristics of pink tide governments (populism, etc.)", the defining characteristics according to who? Those are subjective judgements from commentors, not objective data. I'm personally a scientist and I think I have a clear image of what is objective epistemic data that can be subject of Falsifiability, Peer review and objective methodology and that that is just a subjective opinion. A good example of an opinion article is Life after Populism? Reforms in the Wake of the Receding Pink Tide of Lansberg. Is not by any mean a scientific article, is the author's personal view and opinion. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok, how do you scientifically determine that a government is populist, authoritarian, etc.? Do you think that this piece was not reviewed before being published in the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, "a semi-annual peer-reviewed foreign policy academic journal"?----ZiaLater (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
If Lansberg article was reviewed I imagine you can provide the name of the reviewers, a common practice on academic articles is inform who made the peer review, generally two scholars. And if you yourself admit that it can't be scientifically determined if a government is populist or authoritarian then that's exactly my point, those are subjective criterias that can't and shouldn't be presented as fact value. Besides other scholars might disagree --most likely left-wing academics-- who would say that they define characteristic is that they are communitarist and direct democracy, which one should we believe? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok so I made some recent bold edits as well. I found a good literature review which covered much of the pink tide. I have more scholarly sources lined up as well for the near future. I like the idea of keeping the country section there for now so we can make later additions.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I still think that everything that is not hard data should go into Reception. I was looking at the Socialism of the 21st century article and I think is a good example to follow. It has a section for criticism were all personal opinions from different thinkers and questioning of the movement is, and is pretty balanced as it also has counterarguments from friendly sources. All the rest of the article is as impartial as it can get with historical information. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Do you understand research? The literature review (and more sources to follow) make this clear. I added "varyingly" to emphasize that not all governments are characterized this way. I'm being as neutral as I can with the sources available. I'm sorry, but I have to replace some of this.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't be snarky, that's unpolite and can be reported. It's still subjective my friend, no matter how much you try to present it, it should go into Reception and not presented as fact value. I will insist on this. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Honestly there was no snark involved, I just wanted to ask if you did understand how research is performed. You asked for a more scientific approach so I provided one. Your reply to actual research was that you are not going to accept it "no matter how much" it is presented. It just does not seem that you like what you asked for, which I why I asked this question and have more now.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
ZiaLater : First you're in violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, second the "you are not going to accept it "no matter how much" it is presented" is a fallacy, I have no problem with the content, just not there which is different. I myself move it to the reception section, which I have no idea why are you so oppose to have it there. Why is so important for you to be in the entrance. I'm nor even disputing the content (although I'm sure there are sources that contradict it) I'm just advocating for placing it in the reception section as is subjective and not fact value and no matter how much you try to push it, will always be subjective because there's no way to meassure that kind of claims. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the timeline

If no one opposes the idea of using representative colors instead of random, I don't know how to change the ones that said rpg, so if anyone volunteers these are the colors generally associated with the parties' in question:

  • Argentina is ok.
  • Bolivia: Blue.
  • Brazil: Red.
  • Chile: Orange.
  • Costa Rica: Gold.
  • DR: Purple.
  • Ecuador: Lime or limegreen.
  • El Salvador: Red.
  • Guatemala: Green.
  • Honduras: Darkred.
  • Nicaragua: Black (it uses both black and red but there are already many reds).
  • Paraguay: Violet.
  • Peru: Red.
  • Uruguay: Yellow.
  • Venezuela is ok.

Naturally those who repeit red can use a different tonality like brown, crimson or pink. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The only issue is when parties change. You cannot have more than one color per country or you have to add another category.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
There are no party changes yet, except in Chile but that's why I'm suggesting using Concertación's color. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC - Inclusion of 2000s commodity boom, unsustainable policies and populism

The consensus is to include the proposed text after incorporating the wording change modifications from Markbassett and TimTempleton.

Cunard (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting other opinions surrounding the inclusion of the role that the 2000s commodities boom played with pink tide governments, their use of populism and unsustainable policies surrounding the boom. I have provided scholarly sources supporting the inclusion of this information though others have called it "subjective". Looking for a more thorough discussion and oversight on this article.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The whole bloc is this just in case;
  1. ^ a b Reid, Michael (Sep–Oct 2015). "Obama and Latin America: A Promising Day in the Neighborhood". Foreign Affairs. 94 (5): 45–53. ... half a dozen countries, led by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, formed a hard-left anti-American bloc with authoritarian tendencies... {{cite journal}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help)
  2. ^ a b c Lopes, Dawisson Belém; de Faria, Carlos Aurélio Pimenta (Jan–Apr 2016). "When Foreign Policy Meets Social Demands in Latin America". Contexto Internacional (Literature review). 38 (1). Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro: 11–53. The fate of Latin America's left turn has been closely associated with the commodities boom (or supercycle) of the 2000s, largely due to rising demand from emerging markets, notably China.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
  3. ^ a b c Lansberg-Rodríguez, Daniel (Fall 2016). "Life after Populism? Reforms in the Wake of the Receding Pink Tide". Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. 17 (2). Georgetown University Press: 56–65.
I have a question about what constitutes "populist policies" exactly. Because it mentions things like "social services", the United Kingdom and Germany have social services, are those populist policies too or that only applies to Latin America? How do the authors meassure exactly what is populist and what is not? Can they provide some examples? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and I almost forgot, as with the example above, I do not oppose the inclusion of this information, I just think it should be located in the analitics section and not there. Although the wording may use some work to make it less biased. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
When multiple scholarly sources, including the Brazilian literature review of the pink tide phenomena, state that these are characteristics and mechanisms of pink tide governments, it appears to be more than just "reception".----ZiaLater (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
So if someone provides multiple scholarly sources saying otherwise, what would you do? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Think this aspect is reasonable, though the wording needs some tweaking for better clarity. e.g. Meaning of Line 1 "used the promoted democracy" I cannot interpret, and line 2 "populist policies" would be clearer if it then named a few as examples. Other than this, I'd caution to state it as similar bunot identical experiences -- the nations of Venezuela, Bolivia, and Brazil had individual variations of note. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Ok. I will look at the wording and make definitions more clear.----ZiaLater (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Article -- The whole idea that there is something called a "Pink Tide" is not supported by any serious, legitimate references or citations, it appears to be a far right wing anti-Democracy Republican ideology not grounded in reality. The article should be deleted, it is unwarranted belief in a phenomena that exists only in the minds of uneducated Christian Republican right wing extremists. Damotclese (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Interesting proposal of Damotclese, maybe nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is in order. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Summoned by bot. WP:BEFORE [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • OK to include with caveat - summoned by bot. You need to clarify that this is not fact but scholarly conjecture. I recommend your last sentence be changed to:


TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the wording changes recommendations by you and Markbassett. Will look at it further.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Me too. In fact is what I've been saying, that these kind of declarations should be specified as some scholars opinions. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Placing back information...

Looking at the article, there is no new information discussed about the "pink tide" after 2014 since most of his has been removed. I will add back some of the information that was previously here since a lot has changed since 2014...----ZiaLater (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow, never mind. Things were just rearranged in a weird way. I'll take a look.----ZiaLater (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Countries under US government supported dictatorship

The BACKGROUND sections mentions that apart from Costa Rica any other Latinamerican country has endured at least a dictatorship supported by US, Mexico although North America (which normally has to be explained as well) is also Latinamerica. Last dictator of Mexico was Porfirio Diaz who was deposed as consequence of the Mexican Revolution in 1910, no further dictators afterwards. It is arguably that in effect after Mexican revolution the party created as result (PRI) establish itself as the only ruling party for 72 years being in this case a "Party Dictatorship", nevertheless any abuse committed during this period was not of right-wing nature, in fact in concept the party was originally leftish turning quickly to centre.

No militaristic rule and non-related to the after WW2 cold war clash in between the Capitalism and Communism, in any case some sources of would claim intervention of CIA in assisting MExican government in stopping students movements in the 60s and 70s but still the president at the time had been already in power as part of this existing oligarchy.

My suggestion is either to remove the claim "Apart from Costa Rica) for a more generic "almost all Latinamerican countries" or being more detailed and actually produce a comprehensive full list of counries and dictators. CB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:DA0C:B400:1188:27C0:77BE:AF28 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I may agree but, wasn't Diaz a right-wing dictator with US support? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Costa Rica

Given Costa Rica's clear alignment with the United States and the Lima Group, to the point that it condemns Venezuela’s government and it seems that it’s recognizing Guiadó as president same as the US, Canada, Colombia and Peru. Wouldn’t be a good idea to review Costa Rica’s status as Pink Tide? Yes PAC’s government is center-left but that is hardly enough, for that matter Alan García in Peru or Peña Nieto’s in Mexico could be considered similarly part of the long history of social-democratic governments in Latin America (both APRA and PRI are members of the Socialist International like is PAC). Opinions? Dereck Camacho, ZiaLater. --TV Guy (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point there, but that doesn't apply only to Costa Rica, Guatemala is another questionable case with Colom and maybe the same could be say about Chile. @ZiaLater:? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

disputed neutrality

Is still an issue? I personally think the article is already as neutral as it can be with such polemic subject. I will be ok with the removal of the template. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Panama

It makes no sense to include the centrist Laurentino Cortizo as part of this wave, as Martin Torrijos, from the exact same party (PRD) was never included as part of the original one, when he was president between 2004 and 2009. Specially given that Cortizo is openly hostile to Maduro's government: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-panama-election-winner-newsmaker/panamas-next-president-loves-texas-football-seeks-better-u-s-relations-idUSKCN1SC0AO MeneManager (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The same can be said about Lenin Moreno, generally the inclusion is done because of the membership into the Sao Paulo Forum of the party, however the definition is very broad and many groups of the so called Pink Wave are anti-Chavez. However before removing you should at least wait until more users agree with the change as this articles is very controversial and most radical changes should be agreed. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
"Membership into the Sao Paulo Forum of the party". That does not really seem to be the case. Otherwise Martin Torrijos (PRD) would have been added all the way back to 2004, yet he wasn't. In fact, the article makes no mention of the Foro de São Paulo at all, beyond a link in the section at the end. Cortizo is also openly pro-American; making the matters worse, the quoted article for this "resurgence": https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2019/09/05/will-south-americas-pink-tide-return makes no mention of Panama at all, making the inclusion of Panama original research. I am putting "original reseach" and "citation needed" notifications in the places related to Panama, and if no further arguments are made, I will remove Panama again in a few days. -MeneManager (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Whatever is the case you should try to reach whether a consensus or a majority of opinions in favor of the change. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Alvaro Colom

Most of the leaders listed on this article are not hardcore leftists and some of them won election running with conservative allies,Lula da Silva being a case in point.Should former Guatemalan president Mister Alvaro Colom be on the list ? He was really moderate in his leftists stances but by Guatemala's traditionally conservative standarts he sure was a move to the left,he also kept friendly relations with Hugo Chavez.

The Historical Dictionary of Marxism mentions him as part of the Pink Tide 

https://books.google.com.br/books?id=xbmCBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA344&lpg=PA344&dq=alvaro+colom+pink+tide&source=bl&ots=14OKbFGiVI&sig=ACfU3U2pFXTBHAnIA2wXCvzAtJ9Q7SiXwg&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjavNjA5ennAhVsFLkGHa6dAugQ6AEwA3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=alvaro%20colom%20pink%20tide&f=false  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.121.109.78 (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pink_tide/Archive_1&oldid=1189975278"