Talk:Conservative wave

Costa Rica

The map of Latin-America depicts Costa Rica as being under a right-wing government, despite the fact they are currently under a social democratic and christian socialist government. Tiberius Jarsve (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the largest party in the country's legislature is a social democratic and liberal centrist party, so considering both the governing and the largest party it makes no sense that Costa Rica is being coloured blue on the map! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Tiberius Jarsve all those considerations you'll have to adress them directly on the image's talk page and/or with the image's author. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Sadly it seems that the person administrating the map has yet to read my comment on the commons-page, as well as realizing that the last conservative government in Costa Rica ended it's term in 2006. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Mexico

Mexico also is shown in blue, but President Enrique Peña is not of right-wing, his party, PRI, is considered centrist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.139.5.63 (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't blue be mentioned in the map caption

It says:

"Latin American countries in 2011. Red represents center-left, left-wing or socialist governments. Right-wing represents center-right, right-wing or conservative governments." Doug Weller talk 17:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Update map

Map should depict bolivia change of government, and maybe uruguay and argentina's presidents-elect, right? Or maybe only bolivia. And also, I changed the list of presidents includind Luis Lacalle, but I wasn't able to add his country, name and status, I'm new at wikipedia editing. If someone could correct it for me, it would be great, thank you.

Suggestions over the map should be adress on commons. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems that this specific map is designed to show the peak of the movement, should I create a new map with the current status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolkesky editor (talk • contribs) 02:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

STOP UPDATING THE MAP

It is supposed to show the peak of the wave. It is not meant to be updated! --Bageense^(disc.) 06:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

Does it really make sense to have a timeline from 2002 if people consider the wave to start (at the earliest) in 2009 after the Honduran coup d'état?Angele201002 (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

True, it could not be a wave if is not after the Pink Tide. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Angele201002, Dereck Camacho That's because we Wikipedians have the bad habit of updating and expanding things that aren't meant to be expanded. So we tend to force the limits.

Buuuuuut. To be honest, I agree with this timeline that starts in 2002. That's a good way of representing graphically the increase of conservative governments in Latin America. All we should do is add a note on top explaining why the timeline begins in 2002, way before the wave. --Bageense^(disc.) 03:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Please copy edit that for me, because since I began studying other languages, English has become unnatural. Hopefully, it's temporary.. --Bageense^(disc.) 04:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Colombia

Exactly of what "wave" is part Colombia? It has never had a left wing government unlike all the others. Even Uribe's predecessor Andrés Pastrana was conservative. --Elector Factor (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Martin Vizcarra (Presidential Portrait) (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Serious sourcing problem

The whole "center-right/right" stuff and names listed at the bottom is based purely on subjective editor opinions and not grounded in reliable sourcing on who is and is not a part of the blue wave. Outright calling Lenín Moreno center-right seems the most suspect to me, but the whole thing needs to be reworked. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Laura Chinchilla

Why is Laura Chinchilla included in the list? She might be mildly conservative socially but she was from a social-democratic party and non of her economic positions were rightwing for Costa Rican standards. --HourZerox (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Michel Temer as centre-right president of Brazil (2016-2019)

I miss Michel Temer (centre-right) from Brazil on both the list of presidents of the conservative wave and the timeline of right-wing presidents between April 2016 and January 1, 2019. He promoted neoliberal policies, such as the 2017 labor reform and the constitutional spending ceiling, was sustained and supported by a conservative Congress, and weakened some progressive policies from Worker's Party's previous mandates. Why wasn't he included? Robfbms (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Rodrigo Chaves Robles

I know he may be described as conservative or liberal but he is not really a move to the right for Costa Rican standards and his cabinet includes members from every party but FA and is generally centrist Braganza (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Nicolás Saldías

Nicolás Saldías is a journalist from The Economist, he's the co-autor of The Economist Democracy Index and political analyst specialized in the region. He has also been published by The Washington Post, Foreign Policy and Americas Quarterly, and interviewed by Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal. He is a noteworthy author to cite, it makes no sense to dismiss him as just "a single economist". We want quality of sources, not just quantity. And his opinion is cited in the way described at Wikipedia:Citing sources#In-text attribution.

As for Kirchnerism being likely to lose the upcoming elections, many more people have said that, including Cristina Kirchner (the very leader of Kirchnerism), who said that they can barely reach a third of the votes and that their greatest hope is to get into the ballotage. In other words, she accepts herself that they are likely to loose, and that they may even end in third place (that's why they can't even take it for granted that they would have a place in the runoff election). Cambalachero (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a talk topic on this. I agree with the point about quality over quantity, my concern here is this is a mix of opinions with more and less of a consensus around them all being posted and attributed to the same (single) source. If many more people are stating some of the points made here then those sources should be added, for example polling for Gabriel Boric. This article already has multiple issues and making claims about three different countries' complex political situations based on a single year-old article reduces the quality of the article further, no matter how trustworthy its author is. EditorOnOccasion (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cambalachero until someone is able to provide such sources, would it be sufficient to move Saldias's attribution to the first or second sentence of the paragraph, noting the entire contribution is sourced from their work? EditorOnOccasion (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

But this is not the article about any of those specific people, it's the article about a political movement that would encompass many of them. So yes, an author that makes group analysis would be better than several authors making individual ones and grouping them ourselves. It helps to prevent WP:SYNTH Cambalachero (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not but this paragraph is making statements about those specific people, as well as the political movement as a whole. That is the reason for my suggestion to move the attribution, to make clear that the article makes a group analysis - the other claims made about specific individuals should then have additional sources, perhaps with an { { Mcn} } tag. EditorOnOccasion (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems clear to me, but a reference can be cited more than once if needed. Cambalachero (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)