Talk:2006 Oaxaca protests

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

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ejones24 (article contribs).

Organized Labour tag[edit]

Ever since the SNTE backed off and the APPO entered, and was later revealed that the APPO leadership was linked to the PRD, I think that the 2006 Oaxaca Protests have less to do with "organized labour" than with political interests and traditional pressure mechanism that political groups that used to be part of the government and now are in opposition use to stop the initiatives of those who replaced them. There is a great deal of evidence to this, and the proper context should be noted in this article and not mislead the reader into thinking that this is a normal labour conflict. Hari Seldon 06:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is fairly old, and was made relatively shortly after the events. If someone feels house keeping is in order I'm all for removing both of our comments, but: This is entirely a labour issue. It became the self-organization of labour, and because of that it may not fit the pre-conceived idea that unions are the only form of organized labour.--Taboo Tongue (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I think these sources are not fully neutral, given that the shot reporter used to work for Indymedia. Could there be a way of balancing the article towards the POV of an informed outsider? I live in Mexico but would rather not analyze since my oppinion is pretty biased :P makeyourself 10:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think indymedia even meets WP:RS. It can be used in a few instances as long as it's attributed to Indymedia, but it shouldn't be used as a source to prove whether something did or didn't happen. So I agree. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IM is in my experience fairly often a reliable source for whether something did or didn't happen (and usually, the tone of articles makes it easy to recognize when it is) - not much less reliable than corporate media at face value; as much of their news is otherwise underreported, it is not easy to compare though -, but to be taken with a generous dose of NaCl as for how things happened. Dysmorodrepanis 22:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it isn't reliable, I'm saying it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for a reliable source, which are two entirely different monsters. I have friend involved with indymedia, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't meet wiki's reliability standards. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 02:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree as well - having lived in Oaxaca for 5 months (though not currently) I am fairly familiar with the way the people think. After reading over some of the Indymedia stories and sites that quickly post them (narconews.com for example) I'd say they are extremely leftist and slanted. I wouldn't call them reliable.WocitJC 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Five entire months, huh? I can see how you would know just what the Oaxacans were thinking better than, say, a representative of the APPO posting a story to the Indymedia newswire would.
Exactly--APPO supporters and representatives are the ones posting to indymedia. It's a biased source and has little fact-checking mechanisms as far as I know. It's not an acceptable source. Please understand that I have no big problems with it personally, but it can't be used here. Indymedia clearly slants left and is not really what can be called reliable based on wiki's standards. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 22:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"as far as I know" All news has biases, how much do we know about Fox's fact checking, or CNN's, or any news source?Aindriahhn (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! Silly me, I should have expounded for you...I lived for 5 months at a school with 20 kids. The couple who owns the school have visited Oaxaca for at least 20+ YEARS and we talked quite frequently about the indigenous people and their gripes. So, yes, 5 months more than qualifies me to describe what the people are feeling and thinking - far better than a biased reporter whose only desire is to stir up Marxist feelings and revolt. Next time, sign your post so we can respond to by name. WocitJC 00:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WocitJC said: we talked quite frequently about the indigenous people and their gripes. - Well, that's finally getting to one of the (few) substantial differences between wikipedia/wikinews and indymedia: whether the indigenous people get to report themselves - as first-hand sources - or whether elites with better internet access and English-language skills get to talk about them. There's no magic simple solution - and after all, if you go there with a camera to report you might get shot dead by the local politicians, as what happened to Bradley Roland Will. As for the WP:RS discussion, it's meaningless to make a general statement about whether or not "indymedia" in general is a WP:RS. Indymedia is a broad, loose network aiming to get grassroots reporting. The websites typically (but not always) have a mix between openly published articles (followed by comments - this is essentially a primitive wiki method of editorial oversight and fact-correction), and centre column articles which are fact-corrected and editorially-overseen-by-consensus in either face-to-face, public meetings or mailing lists or irc or some mix of all of these. This probably is just as much, if not more, fact-checking than BBC/NYTimes/WashingonPost/Guardian etc., since in those organisations, the fact-checking and editorial oversight are secretive and hierarchical. So making blanket statements about "indymedia" as a reliable source is IMHO bound to be inaccurate. People should look at individual articles, see what comments are below them, see if they are feature articles or not, and study that individual indymedia collective to decide how close the group is to first-hand information (observations), and how much other fact-checking and editorial oversight occurs. Boud 21:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be a little more careful about sourcing here. We can't assume that indymedia is biased but mainstream sources are fine. I would especially flag Associated Press articles as generally poor quality filled with inaccuracies. Also, Mexican papers are often contradictory usually depending on their political position regarding APPO. Also, Narconews has several reporters in Oaxaca and most of their stories do not come from indymedia, although it may be the otherway around. While sites like Narconews have a lot of good, accurate info. they are sometimes incorrect simply because there are a lot of intentional and unintential rumors and misinformation going around. But I would generally trust outlets with reporters in Oaxaca rather than the foreign or international press that may have someone reporting from Mexico City at best.--Cwhalvor 02:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience, the closest to neutral sources for Mexican press are El Universal, Reforma, and Milenio. Other papers like "La Cronica", "La Jornada", "Excelsior", or "El Financiero" are too far to the right, to the left, or grossly incomplete to even be sourced. Because of its coverage, and because it is free, I have found it preferable to use El Universal as a source. Hari Seldon 08:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain that most of the sources you listed actually can be used, and probably ought to. In fact, an amalgation of all of them would bring one closer to NPOV than just using El Universal (mainstream papers always have their own agendas, just like any paper). Keep in mind, not everyone speaks spanish (i read some, but French, German, and English are the only ones i'm truly fluent in), so we either have to go on bad translations or English sources. And i don't actually see anything wrong with using Indymedia as "first-hand accounts," as long as there are other first-hand accounts to show the other views. Of course, it's hard to verify veracity on Indymedia, but it's equally hard to verify that any particular american or mexican newspaper isn't trying to spin things to support their own agenda, either. --Chalyres 08:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke! When corporate media outlets report on something from their headquarters in Washington, it's totally acceptable an "unbiased". When the people who actually live in Oaxaca report it must be biased! Those damn evil leftist Indians! Redflagflying 18:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reforma, El Universal, or Milenio are not headquartered in Washington. In any case, they all have reporters on the street of Oaxaca. Want more street coverage, visit "Diario Noticias de Oaxaca". The point with sources is not that they are unbiased, is that they are "reliable" because the claims are usually backed up with recordings. "Unbiased" writing can never be achieved because we all have a point of view, but I think that it is important that all views are documented with reliable sources. Blogs are not reliable sources, they are outlets for opinions... Plus, when did you see a indigenous mexican with access to a blog writing in English? Indigenous groups are not inherently leftist, they are made that way by the leaders who exploit them through unreliable, biased coverage. Or are you going to argue that Marcos, or Flavio Sosa, are indian? This is why independent sourcing, and global POV research is important for this article. Hari Seldon 20:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 6th bombings/attempted bombings[edit]

Anyone have any idea why Scotiabank was targeted in the bombings? Already posted this same event in Scotiabank entry (see Recent Events). While i've got a few ideas why they would have been targeted, I can't find the official statement from the five groups as to why they chose Scotiabank. See my comments on the Scotiabank entry for more. If anyone can point me to the text of the statement or even mexican news speculation, that'd help complete both pages. Canadian newspapers seem pretty baffled by the whole thing, and here is not to go into my own opinions of "corporate innocence" tendencies in major canadian dailies, but i think some sort of clarification would be really, really useful. --Chalyres 07:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Miguel Angel Granados Chapa, it is just a modus operandi of these groups to target banks. Perhaps Scotiabank was most vulnerable. Also, President Elect Calderón used to work for the bank that was bought by Scotiabank to expand in Mexico. Hari Seldon 07:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up remarks[edit]

I've undertaken a few clean-up edits and figured i ought to explain them here since there seems to be quite a bit of conflict already going on.

First off, i added more about the bombings on Nov 6th, including clarifying that the five groups who took responsibility did so jointly.

Also, i removed the "before brad will, media coverage was minimal." while brad's death did increase awareness (and became an unfortunate excuse for fox to send in soldiers), i see no proof that previously the coverage was "minimal." A quick search through BBC archives (where i've been following the story since the strike began) would argue otherwise.

Perhaps a little concerned that the extensive attention to Brad Will actually might overshadow the rest of the events. Certainly he's one of the reasons many people even know what has been happening there, but the extensive attention to his death really does obscure all the other deaths there.

I'm not sure what kind of official category something like that would fit in Wikijargon, but another page devoted to him exists. --Chalyres 08:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--i've made some similar edits as well, mostly pretty minor. I added a sentence to the bombing section about APPO's denial of involvement. The way it read seemed to imply that the guerrilla groups and appo were working together, when there is no evidence of this.

Also, I corrected an error that said the original police raid in June resulted in three days of street fighting. This may have been meant to say three hours, but I changed it to several hours because I'm not sure about the exact length or how we would want to measure it. But the fighting only lasted until late morning/early afternoon of June 14, not three days. I added a little bit of context to the sentences about burning tires and barricades to explain why barricades were set up. Again, the lack of context made it seem that they are just acting in a destructive manner with little rationale.

I am also going to add some info since there is a big hole between June activities and Brad Will's death that needs to be filled. --Cwhalvor 02:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I added a section on July developments, including the Mexican elections and the boycott of the Guelagetza. These seem to me to big the largest issues more July, but please add more. I'll start working on a section for August to include the escalation of violence. It's a shame that there is so little written prior to the death of a gringo and that it all focuses on violence, which is only one part of what has been happening in Oaxaca, and not even the most important part. --Cwhalvor 06:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a very good summary with adequate context (and pretty neutral)[edit]

you'll find it here, check it out: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3688

This article is incomplete and biased[edit]

Evidently, the teacher demonstrations where can opener, for all the problems that the state has had for the last decades are now unraveling. Ulises Ruiz has been unpopular since before his "election" and it seems to me that the teacher protests where the excuse for others to take action. Indeed, the conflict address social and political issues that have hunderds of years of history... So how come none of this context is provided in this page?

Furthermore, the article's writing style is amazingly poor. It looks more like a journal than an encyclopedic article. The article is poorly sourced, and at times it seems that the wording tries to advance an hypothesis by appearing to not doing it.... Look at this sentence:

On October 27, 2006, Bradley Roland Will, a U.S. Indymedia journalist from New York who had entered the country under a tourist visa, Professor Emilio Alonso Fabián and Esteban López Zurita, both Mexican protesters, were killed in what Associated Press has claimed was a "shootout" between protestors and a group of armed men, but which protestors claim was a shooting by a group of armed men against unarmed protestors.

So what if the guy was under a tourist visa? This is not an uncommon practice in Mexico! The associated press does not "claim", they report and that is their job. Finally, where is the source saying that protesters (not protestors) claim that it was a "shooting by a group of armed men against unarmed protesters"?, and What difference does it make? There is no context and there are no sources! This article is a shame!

Why is it not mentioned that the Federal Police was ordered to take the state capital unarmed, and that the President claims there where no casualties? And why is only the University incident mentioned, and not the Zocalo incidents or the fact that the APPO responded with explosives against the police?

The article also mentiones that "There are no known ties between guerrilla groups and Oaxacan protestors, and APPO members denied any involvement in or knowledge of the bombings.", but it doesnt mention that the guerrilla groups claimed that they committed their attacks in support of the APPO. The article doesn't mention that the Federal Prosecutor (PGR) supports the hypothesis that EPR and ERPI are behind the attacks.

Why was Acteal massacre in the "See also"? This is so unrelated that I simply had to change it! Acteal corresponds to a completely different conflict with a completely different context. I replaced it with Ulises Ruiz, who is directly inolved in the Oaxaca conflict.

There are people in Mexico who also don't like the APPO. Just today Sergio Sarmiento advanced the hypothesis, based on claims by Jose Murat, that the group started this conflict because Ulises Ruiz stopped their government funding worth $400 million pesos. I don't know how valid this claim is, but considering that Jose Murat was governor of the State before Ruiz, I think it deserves to be mentioned, to honor neutrality. Also, I find it interesting how Ruiz is rarely mentioned in the article. Please remember this is a local state conflict that has gotten out of hand and has gone national. But the protesters main demand still is and has been that Ulises Ruiz leaves its position as governor. This article seems to be focused as a "protesters versus government" situation, when in reality local government and federal government aren't even the same thing. They are not from the same party, they don't share the same values, and are not very collaborative. This week, the Secretary of the Interior (Federal) said that Ulises Ruiz had to resign, or negotiate a deal with the APPO, and that he was responsible for the conflict. The Senate and other parts of the Federal government have also expressed their desire that Ruiz resigns. It is evident that, even though the Federal Police may be in Oaxaca, their interests are not to protect Ruiz. This should also be documented.

I understand that there may be a lot of point of views to this issue. This article should address most of them, be complete and fair and as unbiased as possible. Right now it is the opposite of what a good article should be. It needs a lot of work, not only for neutrality issues, but also for style and scope issues.

It makes me sad to see that such an important issue for modern Mexican history is so poorly documented in wikipedia. Unfortunately, i don't have the time to work on this article, if not, I would. Please, editors, follow guidelines and research from all points of view. I hope someone can improve on the quality of this article.

Hari Seldon 07:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give us sources for the above things, particularly
  • The police being sent in unarmed
  • The secretary of the interior's statement
  • Sergio Sarmiento's statement/Jose Murat
You seem very knowledgeable and opinionated about the conflict, and sources would help those of us who just began editing the article (like myself) make it better. It is poorly written, and as you can see above, i've made many stylistic changes already. Please consider editing as well as commenting. --Chalyres 08:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to do the changes myself, however, I would suggest you take the initiative.
I hope this is useful. Hari Seldon 22:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More about Ruiz[edit]

Giving a street-level blow-by-blow while ignoring the root of the conflict (and the various legal and political positions on removing Ruiz by the national parties, etc.) may or may not be biased, but it is clearly shortsighted. --Homunq 15:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly. What about the possibility of including a brief introduction above the table of contents that gives the article more context before jumping into details. Many other pages have this, and it might be a good way of giving a broad explanation of the conflict that you don't get the sense of just by reading the chronology. What do people think about this idea? --Cwhalvor 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ideas are great, however, execution matters too. I have explained that I do not have time to do the changes myself, but would definitely like to see some work done here ASAP. Hari Seldon 20:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion[edit]

Noticed Cwhalvor reverted Hseldon's deletion of "peaceful" under the late november entry, and I support that reversion unless Hseldon can precisely explain why the sources listed do not support the assertion that the march was peaceful. There is nothing on either side that i have found that suggests otherwise, and the opposite of violent is peaceful. Unless the march was violent before it arrived, it can truly be called "peaceful" up to that point regardless of assumed or purported intentions.

I'm posting this not necessarily in support of one person's editorial views versus another's, but i'm afraid that deleting a statement with just a comment of opinion is asking for the beginning of a revert-war, which i'd really, really rather not see on this page.

Hseldon, can you provide a source that counters the claim that it was peaceful? Can i also suggest that everybody consider fully explaining their reasons for edits on the discussion page?

--Chalyres 05:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Police are under orders not to attack the APPO unless they start a fight. Saying that the protest was peacful implies that the police attacked without provocation, even if afterwards you say that no one knows who started the violence. The implication is already there. Now, if the Federal Police did indeed started the violence, then they comitted a crime, and we should not use wikipedia to baselesly accuse anyone of crimes. Now, there are documented cases of violations of human rights, and I think that if it is documented, then posting it here is worthwhile. But if a source does not specifically document that the Federal Police committed a crime here by disobeying orders, then I don't see why we should run the risk of implying it.
This is a heated issue and it is very easy to get carried away and take sides. Lets avoid that. No one is purely good or purely evil here, but we should post accusations only if they are sourced, regardless of our feelings in the matter. I make it clear, I am not against accusing the police of documented crimes, but I am totally against implying they comitted crimes when there is no documentation on that..
Now, having said that, I await consensus and will trust you editors do the right thing (which is either source that the demonstration was originally peacful, and write clearly what actually happen and not leave the paragraph open ended implying that it is possible that the Federal Police, or the APPO, started the fight, stress the fact that it unknown who started and make sure our wording does not imply anything else, or delete it all together). I will not edit that paragraph any longer. Hari Seldon 05:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the paragraph as it stands does not indict the pfp, and I think that, on the contrary, the whole section actually leans against the APPO. To me this simply states that the march was not violent until it reached its destination and then clearly says in the next sentence that there is no consensus on who instigated the violence. If you think this can be misinterpreted, please do not refrain from editing that section to make it clearer. (To make it more complicated we could also include the claim by some APPO supporters that it was plainclothes PRI that started the fighting. I don't have a published source on that yet, though.) I will neither a priori assume that the police were following orders and what those orders were, nor will I claim that APPO supporters never engage in violent acts. They may be a largely non-violent mov't, but that doesn't make them all pacifists.--Cwhalvor 05:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stand makes an implication that the Federal Police acted with force against peaceful protesters. From what I've read in other sources, the Federal Police did not act UNTIL the protesters tried to take the Zocalo, knowing full well that the Federal Police would be there. This is asking for a fight and I don't see anything peaceful about it. Nevertheless, lets assume that indeed the protest started peacefully. Why write the Federal Police actions first? This implies that the Federal Police acted first, when in fact, we do not know. And sure, it states that there is no consensus about who started the fight, but after two sentences stressing the "peacefulness" of the APPO and the initiative of the PFP, it looks like a contradictory statement. At the very least, the paragraph needs rephrasing.
Finally, if you do find a sourced quote on the APPO's claim that the plainclothes PRI started the fight, please add it. This version seems to emerge from the APPO every time there is violence, and I think it is very important to document the views of the APPO, it adds a lot of context. Personally, I feel this article is treated as a people vs. government issue when in fact, the protesters are divided and so is the government. There are so many factions involved here that documenting everything with proper context requires a full re-write of the article. But, we can talk about that later... Hari Seldon 06:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, last comment from me on this (at least I'm saying that now). I agree will your final points here. This is a multi-faceted conflict, and neither this article nor the APPO article really gets at the full story. One thing, amongst many others, that we need to do is better differentiate between the state government, the federal governments, and political parties. As for your first comments, I would disagree. Those sentences do not read that way to me, but please rephrase them to fix any contradiction. Also, I don't think they were "asking" for violence, even if the possibility is always present. They never attempted to take or enter the zócalo, the stated intention prior to the march was to surround the zócalo, and I have seen no information that says this is not what they attempted to do. I do not see this as asking for a fight - throwing rocks at the cops might be, but marching through the streets of your own city in a political demonstration calling for an end to an occuption is not. Even the hotel association isn't happy with the current situation, they exchanged a zócalo occupied by teachers and street venders for one occupied by armed police, who have harrased pedestrians, not detered any petty crime and have sexually assualted women. Which is most likely to scare away tourists? While I will attempt to be as neutral as possible here, I will be honest and say that I will also never give police the benefit of the doubt, especially when they are fighting against civilians, and I will also not automatically condemn all use of violence on the part of protestors. --Cwhalvor 07:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever been to Oaxaca? That Zocalo is so small that I don't think the police and the protestors would be comfortable sharing that space. Plus, it is impossible to "circle it" without "occupying" some of it. Anyway, I stated it was an opinion, and in opinions we can disagree... Finally, I don't consider the APPO civilians. They have known links with guerrilla, with terrorist who planted bombs in Mexico City buildings, and with the political parties. Anyways, we'll talk later about re-writing this article. I will not touch that paragraph in discussion again. Hari Seldon 17:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I think we had agreed that Indymedia was not a reliable source, and that we would strive on using reliable, preferably local sources. I am sure Diario Noticias de Oaxaca, which openly supports APPO, may quote the demonstration to be originally peaceful. Remember also that we need to present facts neutrally. Whenever possible, lets look for multiple points of view instead of one. Hari Seldon 05:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. So that means an article written by the same person in El Universal and in Indymedia are at different levels of reliability? That seems strange to me, especially considering that there are other cites of indymedia in wikipedia. Now, I wouldn't use indymedia to report deaths, but a noncontroversial fact supported by photographic evidence and a timeline (as with the fact that the march began peacefully, and violence only occurred at the end of the march, when it reached the zócalo) seems justified to me, especially when we have AP reports continually being cited despite pretty consitent errors in the reporting of AP's correspondent since the beginning of this conflict. But I understand the wariness of some people w/ indymedia, even if i do not agree with it. I merely tried to balance that with the desire that has been expressed for english language sources. --Cwhalvor 05:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to disqualify a source. I simply think that there is more reliability in a source that doesn't have a conflict of interest (i.e. is biased because one of their news reporters was killed in the conflict), or one that is not indigenous to the conflict and may have POV issues because of that. Now, if for some reason we find an article written published exactly the same in Indymedia and El Universal, I don't see why it should matter that we use El Universal instead of Indymedia. Personally, I have no issues against Indymedia, but believe that a local source is better.
Finally, Spanish language sources are used actively in MANY articles throughout wikipedia. I don't see why we shouldn't allow them here. After all, electronic translators do exist, and I don't see why language should be a limitant on the enjoyment of sourced material. Hari Seldon 06:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When was it decided that Indymedia is not local? The way i understand it, Indymedia is merely a posting site for first-hand accounts and journalists, not a editorialising site. In fact, the only editorial decisions made are which accounts to post on the main page. You could, from where you are now, post any first-hand account onto any of the sites (the main, the seattle, the jerusalem, etc.). I have my own personal problems with Indymedia (i worked with them for awhile in Seattle, and will NEVER do so again), but the one thing i do not criticise them for bias as far as "first-hand" and "local" reporting goes. I do agree with you on the need for multiple points of view, and we should include as many of those as possible. I have a suggestion that might work well for all sides. This isn't normal wikipedia format, but what if we had a point/counterpoint subheading under each date that listed facts according to their source. It would look something like this:
November 25-26
According to (indymedia):
According to (el Universal)
According to (official police account):
Etc. I know this would take A LOT more time, but this would also free everyone from feeling like each edit will need to be reverted, undoing each other's work all the time. Does this make sense? Also, Hari, can you recommend a better Spanish-English translator than Babelfish? The words i don't understand never get translated (its dictionary is pretty limited). --Chalyres 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC) (this i suggest just as a temporary fix only).[reply]

What you propose is a great idea, but in the long run I would like to do something completely different with this article. Right now I don't have much free time to work on this, as I am a student and are in finals. But as soon as I finish that, I will give more time to this article.
I think that overall structure of the article should be:
  • Introduction (brief summary)
  • Background on the actors and situation
  • Description of evolving positions, "battles", terrorist attacks, invasions, etc...
  • End result. Of course, the conflict has not yet ended, but it will, hopefully soon, and we can document that when it happens.
Chalyres, about the question you ask of a better translator than Babelfish, I don't have that information at the moment, but will be happy to look for it. Hari Seldon 01:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hseldon, i'd like that format eventually, too. I noticed, also, that the Brad Will photo was put on speedy deletion, and then noticed a new deletion of that by someone else. i think it'd be REALLY HELPFUL if people explain their reasoning (on either side) so tempers don't flare. I rather don't like Brad Will's photo being the ONLY photo on the page (read my reasoning in an earlier discussion on this page), but i only think it ought to be deleted IF no other photos are found. Also, i tend to think that the photo is symbolic of the polarisation of the views: if Will's photo is what you see on the page, if you have a different editorial view than what Will did, than you might automatically view the article as biased. --Chalyres 03:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the photos. Where would be a good source for photos that we can post here? Indymedia should have a good number of pics, and I'm pretty sure they can be used freely on wikipedia, but correct me if i'm wrong.
Also, I don't know if I agree with listing each section by sources. It wouldn't make for smooth reading, and I don't really think it's a long term solution for creating a quality article here. hseldon's format seems good for a basic structure for what the page should eventually look like. I think our efforts should go towards that rather than quick fixes that we'll have to change later anyway. As for your four subcategories, I'm assuming the "Description of evolving positions" section would incorporate most of what is currently on the page, maybe in a shortened form. As for the background section, we have a stub on Ulises started which we could use. Beyond that, how much history would we want? We could give a brief account of the history of the teachers' movement, maybe more on Oaxaca, the PRI there, indigenous politics. Maybe we could divide this section into an antecedents subsection and then a section on the contemporary context of the situation. I'm currently swamped too, but can take little bits at a time. --Cwhalvor 05:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the pictures in the media are copyrighted. It will do a lot if someone in Oaxaca took pictures. I have some pictures taken when I was in Oaxaca, and of course, have some copyrighted pictures I used elsewhere. As for where would be a good place to find them, I don't know, but I agree that it is not good to have only one picture on the page.
Cwhalovr, yes, the "description of evolving positions" would incorporate most what is currently on the page, but in a better organized form.
I think that we just need enough context to make this protest logical. It didn't spawn out of nowhere. Of course, Ulises Ruiz is central, but other actors should include Flavio Sosa, leader of the APPO, Elba Esther Gordillo, leader of the National Union of Teachers, and whomever is representing the teachers in this conflict in Oaxaca, and the Federal Government. Lets also remember that this was an election year and that political parties have taken sides. In fact, some political analysts in Mexico have pointed that the conflict has destroyed possibilities of PAN-PRI alliance in Congress to help President-elect Calderón counter the protests of loser candidate Lopez Obrador. It is no surprise that the APPO and Lopez Obrador's coalition have collaborated in protests in Mexico City as well. Notice how Lopez Obrador added "asking the removal of Ulises Ruiz from office" as a demand to the government after the elections. This is a very important conflict because its results permeate into national politics as well. I understand the grief and polarization of all those concerned with the death of Indymedia's reporter, but this conflict is about a lot more than that, and it should be documented accordingly. Hari Seldon 06:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few points:
Why is it important what the Mexican Episcopate Conference thought about the police occupation? Should we give a list of where every organization in Mexico fell on this issue? If not, then what is the justification for including a single Catholic organization?
Elba is important as far as the history of section 22 as a dissident faction of SNTE and for the future of the national union (I believe at one point she threatened to push section 22 out of the SNTE), but she has very little authority and voice in Oaxaca. Sosa, Rueda Pacheco and other leaders are important to mention, but they are more spokespeople for the media, not really that respected w/in the movement. Rueda Pacheco is currently playing hardly any role in APPO and is not trusted by many teachers due to his frequent failure to consult the bases before making decisions. Many are also skeptical of Sosa and he's not really viewed as any sort of motivating leader. To a certain degree, the slogan that this is a movement of the bases and not of leaders is actually true, although not completely.
I don't really think very much info on AMLO or the election is necessary here. He has paid lip service to Oaxaca, but not done that much. The elections in general are not that big of a deal in terms of understanding what's happening in Oaxaca. In the end they didn't even bother the boycott the election. It is important to note the historic loss of the PRI in the state, and that many of the people support the PRD, even if the actual party has not gotten too involved, but that's about it. Following the election, there was relatively little activity in Oaxaca around supporting AMLO's campaign claiming fraud. They had other things to worry about other than supporting a politician that they really didn't trust to give them full support anyway. I do expect that Calderón sooncwill need to be incorporated as he takes office and begins to deal with the conflict. We'll see how that turns out.
I agree completely about Brad Will's death. It should be noted, but currently takes up too much of the spotlight. --Cwhalvor 01:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have a few issues with what was just added. Under "July" you say that APPO began exchanging fire with state police. I was in Oaxaca in July and do not recall this happening. The only violence in July occurred at the end of the month when the homes of several movement leaders and the radio station were attacked with molotov cocktails. These were the first instances of political violence since the June 14 desalojo attempt. In August, bands of plain clothes cops would drive around at night and shoot up the barricades. If you want to call any of these events "exchanges of fire", you'll need some sources, because when only one side had guns it's hardly an exchange. --Cwhalvor 03:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cwhalvor, an organization does not take the government away from a dictator through peaceful means. I am certain that the APPO did not take Radio Universidad by peaceful means either. In any case, though it is true that plain clothes State cops would start much of the violence, in more than one ocassion the APPO responded. And sure, I'll source that.
About your other comments:
  • I don't care about what the Mexican Episcopate Conference says about the movement. I did not add that information. However, the Mexican Episcopate Conference is sort of a rector organism for the Catholic Church, and the APPO did request assylum from the Church. The influence the catholic church has in Mexico is not little.
  • Elba also tried to split Section 22. It is clear that if her involvement had been different, the conflict would have also been different. Elba is also a known enemy of the PRI, particularly the faction that supports Ruiz (lets remember that Ruiz was campaign coordinator for Madrazo). Finally, Elba has been accused of supporting Felipe Calderón.
  • The involvement of the major political characters gives us an idea of how the Oaxaca issue has been used politically, and it also expresses why a compromise is so hard to accomplish.
  • The APPO has marched in Mexico City in favor of AMLO, various times. I don't think that this evidence support your claim that the elections have little to do with Oaxaca. They have everything to do! Any side is just waiting for the other make a mistake and accuse each other! There really is no other explanation why APPO's and Ulises Ruiz's crimes go unpunished.
  • It will be very interesting to see how Calderon deals with the issue. I expect that whatever happens December 1st will influence his approach, particularly after what we saw yesterday in the Chamber of Deputies... Hari Seldon 09:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm looking for sources for clarification about the length and history of the teacher's strike. I've read in other sources and heard from locals that the strike has actually been going on for as long as 31 years. Additionally, I've always been told, by locals in Oaxaca, that the strike lasts the entire month of May. Glibly saying they protest for two weeks, get their raise, and go home, is quite dismissive in tone. Not neutral. I won't make changes unless I can find sources to back up the word of mouth information from Oaxaquenos that I've received on this topic.Carieb 02:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A strike doesn't go on for 31 years. What this refers to is that the teachers' movement is generally dated back to 1980 (26 years, don't know where 31 comes from) when Section 22 joined with the Democratic Magisterial Movement that was especially active in southern Mexico. This was a dissident mov't within the SNTE demanding democratic reforms w/in the union as well as increased funding for education. THe mov't was fairly successful in the 80s, but began to be heavily criticized in the 90s for what you mentioned. They favored annual May strikes over other forms of political activities. These strikes generally lasted 2-3 weeks, with Section 22 rejecting an intial offer, striking, and then receiving a small pay increase. The current conflict is partially a result of a break in that cycle, w/ URO sending in police to break the strike. There has been talk of doing a major overhaul that would include more background, but those of us who have supported this idea do not currently have time for it. If you would like to start incorporating more of this background, please do so. --Cwhalvor 03:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Thought it seemed clear that I was saying I had heard that the strike has been occurring annually, during the month of May, for a length of 31 years. Not that it has lasted continuously for 31 years! If that's what you thought I meant. In general, I'm not sure strike is even the right word to be used. There aren't classes in May. So is it really a strike, if they weren't required to report to work anyway for that month? Anyway, I am very familiar with Oaxaca, the history of this, and have been there during many of the events discussed here. While I haven't had time over the last months to contribute, I do now. I will continue to contribute what I can, especially in the suggested areas, as well as do any cleanups with writing, etc. Carieb 00:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for uploads[edit]

the grown-up : Over there is your future.
the kid : I don't see anything.
the grown-up : Exactly.

Hi,

I find the pics in this article awesome ; that's just infortunate they don't have yet gone to Commons, in which I started a place for it : commons:Category:Oaxaca protests, 2006.

So is my request for uploads, pals !

86.208.180.81 00:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

DIY : 17:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I was in Oaxaca on the day that the strike initially turned violent. I was there taking classes at URSE (Universidad Regional del Sureste)and I received a phone call that morning stating that we were to stay in our houses and not go to class that day or we may be injured. I have photos that I took later that day that show some of the destruction created by that first day. If anyone cares to talk to me about it, I'm here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CityCat262 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protests elsewhere on the Istmo and in other states[edit]

The Mexican coverage of these events includes specifics of other blockades and protests, in the state of Oaxaca as well as in Guerrero, Michoacan etc. These were all linked, and in sympathy with APPO, while some were affiliates, such as the blockades of the refineries on the Istmo (at Tehuantepec and ??), also IIRC at Tuxtla Gutierrez in Chiapas; I think also in the state of Tabasco. Are the detentions of the APPO prisoners in distant parts of Mexico also discussed?Skookum1 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

current civil conflict[edit]

This is a request for those with information on the current state of affairs in Oaxaca to add what the deem appropriate. There should be some mention here that Oaxaca is currently in the most deadly period of the conflict, with murders occurring frequently around the state as APPO and PRI backers fight for control of communities, municipios, and schools. I don't have much detailed info here, but it seems pretty vital. The conflict has entered into a different stage, but it is certainly not over. --Cwhalvor 01:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you get your information, but close family of mine living in Oaxaca claim quite the opposite: its the best time since the APPO protests started, kids are back to school, no more shots, less police presence, more order in the protests and in the business environment. This is confirmed by various news sources.
The most deadly? Who is dying? Hari Seldon 02:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The violence seems mostly outside of the city, which is why it may be less visible. There is struggle over control of municipalities (many municipalities declared themselves pro-APPO over the last months) between the appo and pri supporters, control of schools between section 22 and the new section 59 pushed by the priista Consejo Central de Lucha. Only skimmed these articles briefly, but they seem to give a small picture of what's happening.
Por violencia pública, exigen cambiar política de seguridad [1]
Condenan líderes del PRD agresión en San Antonino [2]
Hay tensión y problemas en 250 escuelas [3]
Priiístas disuelven Asamblea: 11 heridos [4]
If anyone has detailed info, or the time to go through news sources, I would ask that they post what they know. --Cwhalvor 00:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, interesting that all your articles come from the same source: Noticias Oaxaca. I am not for discrediting a source a priori, but wasn't Noticias Oaxaca in a personal feud against Ulises Ruiz because the "governor" censored them at the beginning of his term?
In any case, if you have the sources, I don't have any problem with you adding the information to the article, but make it clear that these conflicts are between APPO members and PRI-supporters and that the federal government has little or nothing to do with them anymore.
The PRI and the local government have proven to be one and the same thing (main reason for the conflict is this lack of separation between state and party interests), which means that if you want to menction local government actions, please make it clear that the responsibility is in the local governments.
Also make it clear, like you made it in this talk page, that this violence that you are talking about is ocurring outside the city. The city is struggling as it is to recover economically, and it would be shameful if we contributed to furthering the fear of Oaxaca (city) in this article without cause (i.e., reliable information that the violence in the city continues).
Of course, I don't say this as a defense of either the government or business interests in Oaxaca, but of the citizens who live there, who desperately need the jobs, and who are working hard to recover. Our job as wikipedians is to document reliable information of important topics, and this should not be confused with advancing a view of reality that cannot be verified, and worse even when that view affects third parties. That was my only concern.
Hari Seldon 04:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube[edit]

Brad Will's last footage is on Youtube. Here is the link for it. I don't know how much the other external links have, but this one's seventeen minutes worth.72.78.29.133 (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2006 Oaxaca protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 03:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2006 Oaxaca protests. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 09:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2006 Oaxaca protests. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2006 Oaxaca protests. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Oaxaca_protests&oldid=1196486374"