Talk:Alberto Fujimori/Archive 3

legacy: privatizations

AF's privatization program is controversial partly because it didn't put into place mechanisms to ensure that the terms of the sale were enforced. In other words, AF sold off enterprises to companies which promised to make investments in them. Did this always happen? No, and here is a good example:

The situation at Doe Run's smelter at La Oroya, in Peru's central Andean region, is even worse. Pollution at La Oroya is so intense it has precipitated an emergency situation in which, according to Peruvian government figures, 90% of children in the city have blood-lead levels above acceptable international standards; nearly 20% have lead levels that should require hospitalization. Emissions of sulfur dioxide, cadmium, arsenic and lead all greatly exceed World Health Organization standards -- according to the company's own data. Long term exposure to these substances can have potentially fatal impacts on human health.

Contamination levels at La Oroya have increased dramatically since Doe Run bought the Doe Run operation from the Peruvian government in 1997. When Doe Run purchased the complex, it agreed to undertake an investment program to modernize the plant and equipment and to meet the requirements of the Environmental Management and Remediation Plan (PAMA in Spanish, a legal requirement in Peru).

However, because of the decline in the prices of most metals since 1997 and the company's desire to pay for its investment program from income generated by the refinery itself, it has decided to delay until the end of the period of the PAMA (2006) the largest single investment: scrubbers to reduce SO2 emissions from the smoke stack.[1]

In this more recent news item, from this week, the company appears to be using economic blackmail to backslide on its commitments and apparently it will not have the scrubbers installed until 2011:

Under Peru's environmental laws, the Missouri-based company was required to build a $100 million sulfuric acid plant to cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 2007. But Doe Run said it needed until 2011 or it would be in default on bank loans and be forced to pull out of Peru. [2]

This is part of Fujimori's legacy and I think it needs to be mentioned in the legacy section, but I am not sure how. Any ideas? -- Viajero 12:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Viajero, I actually don't think that this deserves a lot of coverage in a biographical article. We certainly mention here that there were problems with privatization; the privatization probably deserves an article of its own, linked from here, but I wouldn't want to see it take over what is mainly supposed to be a biographical article. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:36, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. At the same time, if it isn't belaboring the obvious, an article on a politician will inevitably be a lot more than survey of his personal life. It seems that most contemporary political leaders have very long articles dedicated to them, and if you look at, for example, Silvio Berlusconi, you'll see little strictly biographical information, and substantial sections on the policies of his administration and his legal problems. Comparing the Fujimori text to that of Tony Blair, it could certainly be argued that the sections Fujimori's first two terms could be substantially expanded with detailed information about his policies. From what I understand, it is customary to let the articles expand as long as necessary, and then once the material is more or less stable, refactor sections, such as Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration.

Concerning privatization, I would suggest that done to the extent Fujimori undertook it, it represents a major restructuring of a country's economy, and the way in which it was done has long-term repercussions, as do his other neoliberal policies, and it would be useful to examine them more closely in this article. For what it is worth, I am not arguing for government ownership in the abstract; it is also obvious that a number of the nationalizations done during the Velasco and García years were also badly managed. -- Viajero 10:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The topic certainly belongs here, with indication that it was controversial, but since the experience of privatization in Peru wasn't so different from in quite a few other countries, I think it just merits one or two balanced paragraphs in the article making it clear that the matter was controversial, and a see also linking to an article where we can go on at length about privatization in Peru, which certainly merits an article of its own. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:47, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Background information on tax revenue from mining

For AAAAA:

Today, Toledo’s government argues that the country is dependent on foreign investment in extractive sectors to raise the country out of poverty, which affects nearly half the country’s 27 million people. Half of the country’s exports are from the mining sector, and government officials say mining export revenues are needed to help pay off the country’s 30 billion foreign debt, a debt that eats up about a quarter of the government budget each year. But multinationals and foreign investors can and are freely transferring most of the profits abroad as well as given excessive tax breaks. According to one Peruvian economist, the government collects only about $300 million a year in taxes from mining companies, a relatively small portion of the nation’s $7 billion in tax revenue collected annually, especially when considering the emphasis the government places on the sector. Local communities receive little of the taxes that are collected. In 2001, U.S.-based Newmont Mining Corporation paid $50 million in taxes for its gold mine near Cajamarca, one of the most profitable in the world. Meanwhile, there is no limit on the amount of natural resources extracted, environmental woes mount with the nation’s lax enforcement of environmental laws, and there is little investment of monies in other, more sustainable industries. [3]

If the information is true, then the fault should also fall under the Toledo and Paniagua Administration, since they don't bother to modify those numbers. Here the problem is not the laws, but who allow them to continue. Messhermit 15:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For a Bio Article, this debate it's too long. Why another article can be created that can deal with this? or at least expand the Economy of Peru article. Economic figures are important, but a much detailed and accurate debate can be stated on an article that could deal with this. Messhermit 15:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-- Viajero 12:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

first person of Asian descent to become head of state of a non-Asian nation

I think that is incorrect. The first one was pres Arthur Chung of Guyana. http://www.gina.gov.gy/natprofile/formerpresidents.html

Arthur Chang was a titular president having no executive authority. I'm not sure if this qualifies. Kelly Martin 04:57, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Probably worth mentioning, as a technicality, but little more than a historical footnote. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:43, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions

In response to User:Messhermit's request that I give some input on this article, I will mention a few things. First, I will say that I was previously unaware of this part of Peru's history (which is somewhat embarrasing) and as such, I have little knowledge of the topic beyond what I read in this article and what I found in the Encarta Encyclopedia Standard 2004 (CD-ROM) entry. My views are as follows:

• This article is not too long for a biography entry – there are many biography articles longer than this one; including many American presidents (see Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush). So there's no problem with length. The fact that the articles on presidents of Latin American countries are generally so much shorter than those of the presidents of the U.S. is an issue of systemic bias – because most wikipedians are from the U.S. and few are from Latin America, U.S. topics get more coverage. It may be true that particular issues of his presidential term should get their own articles (see Impeachment of Bill Clinton), but all those topics deserve extensive coverage on the main page.
• More information is necessary that relates to his early life and education – there should be at least a short section (several paragraphs) on his pre-political life and early-political life. Right now there are about 4 lines.
• His first presidential campaign should be separated into a separate section, and many more details should be given. According to Encarta, Llosa beat him in the general election by a 34-29% margin, but Fujimori came back and beat him soundly in the run-off.
• The first term section sounds somewhat POV to me because it fails to mention the fundamental reasons for all the reform. Reform here comes off as bad sounding, and it certainly might have had a bad effect on the country, but that's only visible in retrospect. Why did he make all those reforms? To combat high inflation (according to Encarta). Did it work? Some evidence suggests it did - 12% economic growth in 1994. That stuff needs to be mentioned.
• No mention is made of Fujimori attempting to strengthen relationships with Japan in order to get foreign aid (found in Encarta).
• "At the time, Fujimori's bold and risky economic reforms (the "Fujishock") appeared to be working." sounds POV. According to who? It sounds ominous - like they only "appeared" to be working, but were setting up for a major crash. That might be true, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia in my mind.
• The whole "auto-coup" section is really negative. It gives the idea that Fujimori was a power crazy maniac and that peruvians are docile idiots. Why did he take those actions? According to Encarta he thought it was necessary for economic improvement and combatting corruption. That would explain why the peruvians trusted him - they felt that those problems were important enough for drastic government change.
• What about the runoff in the 2000 election? And the fact that Toledo boycotted the runoff?
• Finally, I do not think that it a problem that this article focuses largely on negative things. That's life – this president was not respected for his policies and his government turned against him at the end of his term. While more mention needs to be made of some of the positive things that occured during his presidency, it is unrealistic to expect that this article be 50% positive and 50% negative. The article should simply record the facts, regardless of who they favor, and when all is said and done, chances are that there will be more negative than positive.

I'll continue watching this discussion and hope to be of some service, but like I said, I'm largely unfamiliar with this issue. I hope that my comments are helpful. --Spangineer ∞ 18:51, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Spangineer, you have made some useful points, but I must question your analysis of our coverage of the auto-coup. As dedicated as we are to the philosophy of NPOV, most editors here are "skewered" by Enlightenment ideals, albeit vague, of freedom and democracy. While more attention could be paid to the precedents, Fujimori's auto-coup will, in all likliehood, never be cast in a wholly positive light on Wikipedia; it was after all, an assault on the democratic system, as flawed as it may have been, and Fujimori's advocates here have yet to make a convincing case that it was either indispensible or unavoidable. That being said, there is certainly room for interpretation as to its effects, both in the short- and long-term. -- Viajero 19:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Viajero, I agree with you, and I don't think that the section should be portrayed in a positive light. That's partly what I was referring to in the last bullet point above. I just felt that that part fails to adequately address the reasons for the auto-coup and as a result tends to portray him as a stereotypical evil dictator who takes power for power's sake. I'm not sure that that's what happened here – are there examples of things that Fujimori wanted to change but could not because he was limited by the opposition? What were they? Why were the peruvians ok with this? --Spangineer ∞ 19:24, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Spangineer bout the stuff of the Auto-coup. If we look closely on why the Peruvian People approved the coup, it could be said (at least in my fair oppinion) a punishment to the already stablished political class. Fujimori did won the Presidency, but most of the authority (according to the 1979 Constitution) lied on Parlament (and its most important Chamber, the Senate). It is stated that APRA (led by Ex-President Garcia) and FREDEMO (a loose aliance of right-wing parties) will not cooperate with Fujimori, since the first was looking for inmunity by the corruption and crimes of its own regime and he second a much more dramatic economic reform. So, it could be said that in Parlament, things were at a stalemate.

Also, Peruvian Democracy was restored in 1993, with the approval of the 1993 Constitution. A threat to it was an attempted coup on November 1992: supported by the Righ-wing political class, a group of Military officers attempted to overthrown Fujimori and prevent the electionf for the Contitutional Democratic Congress. Fujimori was alerted of this by Vladimiro Montesinos (who, after this, would gain Fujimori's Trust)

For the Constitutional Democratic Congress, FREDEMO was dissolved and several political parties were involved in the draft of the 1993 Constitution.

Also, he won the 1995 National Elections, wich were considerated fair and accurate by most International Observers. He beat Javier Perez de Cuellar (wich acknwonledge its loss) by 65% against 35% I believe.

My point here is state that, although he wasn't the savior of Peru, he did positive things. The whole thing of "Dictatorship" and other was used only after the 2000 Elections. Ironic to say, but the two other Presidents have made little effort to correct the "mistakes" that he was accused for. Hope This will help ! Messhermit 11:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spangineer, I don't know which particular "stereotypical evil dictators" you have in mind, but often times they are driven by complex set of motives, partly ideological, partly pragmatic. I think we do need to explain more carefully in the text what Fujimori's justification was for the auto-coup but also determine whether in fact everyone agreed it was justified. We report that he received approval ratings after the fact of 80% or whatever; at the same time, it is worth asking, would he have received the same support if it was known that he, Montesinos, and others were at the same time setting up a vast criminal network to enrich themselves? This isn't an academic question, because people do now ask that question. Alan García, supposedly the cause of the problems Fujimori inherited in 1990 which necessitated the auto-coup, was nearly re-elected in 2001, receiving 48 percent of the vote and is the leading candidate for 2006, whereas Fujimori now has a support rating of around 12%. Is that a judgment on the auto-coup and Fujimori's government in general? In a way, I think it is. -- Viajero 13:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It appears that Viajero is forgetting that Alan Garcia IS a politician and a Gifted Speaker. Also, 2/3 of the Peruvian Electorade in 2001 was under 20, and don't remember (or didn't care much) about what type of Government Garcia exercise. He was defeated becouse there is still people that remember his failed government. Also, even for the 2006 elections, he is not able to shake the bad image of his government

About his approving rates, don't you think that with the monumental campaing launched by the Toledo Administration to trown all its mistakes to Fujimori, his public image is tarnished? You can talk the same about Gorbachyev, who is glorify in the West, but has a extremely low publicity in Russia. 5 years have past and none of the accusations have prospered. About Montesinos, it is proved already by Peruvian Congress that he spyed on everyone, including Fujimori. There are several tapes and recordings that show this. Also, once again, Vast Criminial Network is your opinion. Unfortunately, this is the only POV that is allowed in the article and also the one about Stereotipical Dictator is being pushed by you.

He was not a bad or good president, and definetely not a ruthless Dictator. If you want some definitions for that category, please look at articles like Duvalier in Haiti, Pinochet in Chile or Trujillo in Dominican Rep. Messhermit 22:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Viajero, I agree with you that we need to better explain Fujimori's justification and also the stuff about the "vast criminal network". As the paragraph stands, it sounds like the peruvians were ok with Fujimori's power grab, and as a reader of the article, I want to know why – was it because he lied to them and/or because they liked his plans? That's tough to determine, but both possibilities (and any others that exist) should probably be included. Nor do I have any problem with the Peruvians' current opinions (based on new information and in retrospect) being mentioned. I'm not trying to push an opinion that Fujimori was a good guy or was justified in his actions, but just trying to get a better understanding of all the stuff that went on behind the scenes and what caused public opinion to be so positive then and now so negative. Spangineer ∞ 16:32, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Politicians are politicians, that is a fact. In the same way that some people agree or disagree in Russia about the legacy of Gorbachyev, same is in Peru with Fujimori. About Lies to the People, what Government does actually tell ALL the Truth to its citizens? Right or wrong, not even in the USA are so democratic in theis one. About popularity, those are more political moves. "A Lie told 1000 times becomes truth", so in the case of Fujimori, at least in the last 5 years that appear to become true. Anyways, I'm just trying to prevent this President for being demonized. Thanks Messhermit 22:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

mramirez: several questions

Several days ago you added this paragraph:

President Alejandro Toledo has, from the beginning of his presidency, taken up the case against Fujimori as his own, requesting that Japan return "the criminal Fujimori" to Peru. He has arranged meetings with other powers in Peru, such as the Supreme Court and tax authorities, in order to "coordinate the joint efforts to bring the criminal Fujimori from Japan".

I am curious: in what way has a "meeting" with the Supreme Court effected the case against Fujimori? Can you cite any evidence that the Court has been subverted in any way? Have there been any decisions by the Court which have been clearly partisan against of Fujimori? For the one case I know of, that of the "Chavín de Huantar" commandos, the outcome was largely favorable to Fujimori.

Also, you added "citing Toledo's involvement" to the following paragraph:

Undaunted by the accusations and the judicial proceedings underway against him, which, citing Toledo's involvement, he dismissed as "politically motivated"

I don't understand this: in what way does Toledo's involvement make the issue "politically motivated"? Toledo is ineligible to run for re-election in 2006, no? His party, unlike APRA, has little cohesion and doesn't appear to have a suitable candidate who can compete with Alan. So how is it possible to dismiss his "involvement" as solely political machinations? -- Viajero 19:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you understand how Toledo's involvement makes the issue "politically motivated". All that matters is that Fujimori (or his supporters) claim that it is politically motivated. It is not necessary to prove the claims of the parties to include them in the article, only to prove that they are the claims of the parties. Please keep this in mind when editing. Kelly Martin 23:38, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

The assertion that Fujimori's opponents are "politically motivatated" has been included in the text as long as I can remember, and to the best of my recollection, it has never been the subject of controversy. However, I find the recent addition about "meetings" with the Supreme Court troubling. Peru, in theory at least, has an independent judiciary, and this statement implies that Toledo is manipulating it in some way. I would like mramirez to clarify this if possible. -- Viajero 10:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Under the Toledo Administration it is widely known that most of the Peruvian Judiciary is controled by him and some of his political allies (not by his party). That is why, if we look closely, Former President Alan Garcia is free walking on the streets of Lima even after the widespread evidence of Human Right Violations (that in his article are barely mentioned) and corruption. At far as I known, that is call "political bargain". Messhermit 11:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First person of Asian descent to become head of state of a South American nation

In response to User:Viajero's edit summary, you did not include the "South American nation" in your 20:05, 11 Apr 2005 edit (and I, on my part, did not read the discussion page). In any event, you should have included the "South American nation" right on the 20:05, 11 Apr 2005 edit, instead of removing the whole sentence and only replacing it with whatever he was credited with. Greetings, --Dynamax 23:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Use of statistics in a wrong way

Facts:

• Studies by INEI, the national statistics bureau[17] (http://www.yachay.com.pe/especiales/internet/index1.htm) show that Peruvians living in poverty increased dramatically (from 41.6% to 55%) during Alan Garcia's term.
• Same studies show that they actually decreased a bit (from 55% to 54%) during Fujimori's term.

Accusation:

• Sociologist Pedro Francke, former head of the Fondo Nacional de Compensación y Desarrollo Social (Foncodes) and Gilberto Moncada, head of the INEI, the Fujimori government tried to hide the increase of poverty from 42.7% to 48.4% between 1997 and 2000, insisting that the poverty rate was only 37.7%. (It is currently thought to be between 54% and 55%)

I don't see the relevancy of the accusation, if what is important is the start and the end. If Alan Garcia started with 41.6% poverty and ended with 55% poverty, that is not important for User:Viajero. But if Fujimori started with 55%, then went down in 1997 to 42.7% and up to 48.4% in 2000 and then up to 54% in 2001, then it is important to state the accusation. Why? I don't see the point. I think that this accusation should be taken out. It is NOT RELEVANT.--AAAAA 16:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. The document you cite, [4], states only thing, as far as I can see, that poverty rose from "41.6% en 1986 a 54.1% en el 2000". It does not support the contention that poverty "actually decreased a bit (from 55% to 54%) during Fujimori's term" as you now have the text read.

Are you BLIND or what? According to the table shown there, it was 41.6% in 1986 and 55% in 1991. You cannot blame Fujimori for what happened in ALAN GARCIA's term!!!--AAAAA 02:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While the La República piece I cited has slightly different numbers, namely that poverty increased "entre 1997 y el 2000 de 42,7% a 48,4%." and later "después del '98 y '99, se deterioraron, es decir, se incrementó de 15% a 18%, aproximadamente." the same general direction is apparent.

So, with Fujimori povery started at 55%, then went down to 42.7%, then up to 48.4%. So what is your point? If we take the start and the end, poverty, according to this study, remained the same.--AAAAA 02:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another document, a UN report, "Globalisation consolidated poverty and increased inequality", also has slightly different numbers, but likewise points the same direction. Here is an excerpt:

The official 1993 document, Strategy for the struggle against poverty, maintained that economic recovery based on stabilisation and liberalisation is crucial for attacking poverty. In 1996, Peru established the goal of cutting extreme poverty in half -- from 18% to 9% -- by the year 2000. Total social spending grew from 24.6% of the budget in 1993 to 44.6% in 1998. The amount allocated for basic social services is unknown because of the lack of transparency. Between 1993 and 2000, the total spending on social programs can be estimated at approximately USD 13 billion. For specific programs on poverty relief, an estimated USD 5.2 billion was spent in the same period Nevertheless, total poverty grew from 51.1% in 1997 to 54.1% in 2000. Currently, 14.8% of the population lives in extreme poverty. [5]

Once again, you are taking 1997 and 2000. Why don't you take 1990 and 2000? So you like to take ONLY what suits your "needs"? Why? That is not appropriate!!!--AAAAA 02:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In short, I find nothing to support your assertion that Fujimori "started with 55%" and that poverty later decreased; to the contrary, the evidence supports my contention that his neoliberal policies had a detrimental effect on poverty, that they acerbated the already serious problems he inherited from AG. If you have other evidence that suggests a different conclusion, let's see it; otherwise, it is primarily a matter of agreeing how we phrase this in the "Legacy" section. -- Viajero 00:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once again...ARE YOU BLIND? The second table[6] clearly shows that in 1991 poverty was at 55%. Or is it that you are "blind" to whatever you don't like?--AAAAA 02:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It appears that we have Garcia appologist doing some perfect work by defending his terrible government, both economicaly and socialy. Indeed the poverty rate was extremely high during his term. Messhermit 02:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. Perhaps this is asking too much, but would it be possible to be able to discuss these matters here without SHOUTING at each other and lapsing into all-too-predicatable Peruvian partisan politics?
2. Ok, I see where you got the 55% figure in the second table now. In my browser (Firefox), the columns in this table don't align properly and I was hitherto unable to read it properly. -- Viajero 16:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disregarding other opinions is not a discussion. Messhermit 17:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

fujimoriextraditable.com.pe

The following external link was removed: "Fujimori Extraditable, website of the Peruvian National Coordinator of Human Rights (CNDDHH) and its campaign to extradite Fujimori (in English, Spanish, and Japanese)." Looks relevant to me, why removed? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ijust tried it and it doesn't seem to be working (broken link...system down or whatever)--AAAAA 02:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed it because it has been inaccessible for the longest now, unless its only me who can't access it? --Dynamax 02:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's a good reason. Sorry, I hadn't noticed or hadn't understood the edit summary. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:26, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The lik should be removed for two reasons:

1. That link should be removed because it portrays Fujimori as guilty of all charges and assumes Fujimori has been convicted.

Fujimori still has not gone to trial, therefore he could not be "assumed" to be guilty.

2. The process of extraditing Fujimori is driven by political charges. The book submitted for extradition shows that there are no real wrongdoings commited by Fujimori, however the political arm is weigting on the judicial system to push for his extradition.

Before making any conclusions on this topic it is required to read the paper submitted by the Peruvian government to the Japanese governement so you can get a clear idea of what the illarious charges are.

thanks, -Peruvian Emilio

• What link are you saying should be removed? I don't follow. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:28, May 14, 2005 (UTC) (clarified by movement of that comment and this. - JM)

UDoN't!wAn*'s edits

I believe that the insertion of "which many believe is wildly exaggerated" is pushing a POV and should be removed. "Many" is here used as a weasel word; if there are people who believe this is exaggerated, identify them and cite to their statements. Kelly Martin 22:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly Martin. Indeed there is somo POV in the last modifications. Messhermit 02:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I actually removed it before looking at the talk page. Obviously, I agree. A cited demurral would be welcome, but this is just POV. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:14, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sloppy info on the autogolpe

Because the APRA and FREDEMO parties controlled both chambers (the Chamber of Deputies and Senate) of Congress, thereby hampering his ability to legislate...

Fujimori's job as the president of the country was to legislate? President's don't leigislate, they dictate. If Fujimori ruled by his dictate, he was a dictator. Of course the Peruvian constitution didn't allow that.

However, two weeks after the auto-coup, the Bush administration changed their position and officially recognised Fujimori as the legitimate leader of Peru.

Two weeks after the auto-coup, Bush was in power? Check your US history. Bush took power in 2001, much more than two weeks after the auto-coup.

Descendall 11:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re Bush -- April 1992, George H.W. Bush; Daddy Bush. Re legislation: perhaps reword as "his ability to get the legislation he wanted onto the statute books", or similar. –Hajor 13:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Hajor in this one. Messhermit 17:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm an idiot. Sorry, wasn't thinking. -- Descendall 01:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fujimori formally declared his resignation to power to let the democratic process fall to the next inline. The congress was more interested on avenging Fujimori's accomplisments by rejecting his resignation so they could ban him from running for office during the next elections.

thanks, -peruvian Emilio

Resignation

There was some suggestion that it [Fujimori's resignation] might not be accepted, but eventually was.

I was under the impression that the resignation was rejected, and the Congress then voted to declare Fujimori morally unfit to lead the nation. Am I wrong? -- Descendall 11:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The vote was messy on congress that time, it was something like mixing two votes at the time: "vote NO to deny the resignation and YES for declare him unable to rule". There was a mess and sudenly declare Valentín Paniagua Corazao as President. I think that was the way. Messhermit 17:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I watched the vote take place live on TV, and truth is that the resignation was rejected, and Fujimori was declared morally unfit for the presidency. The idea that the vote 'was a mess' is highly subjective. All said and done, Fujimori did not resign, he was given the boot. It should also be mentioned that Fujimori lost his control of Congress due to massive resignations amongst his party, including that of Francisco Tudela, first vice-president and member of congress. --129.21.144.243 18:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Guerrilla changed to Insurgent

Trivial matter of lexical choice, but flagging the change as "fix typo" was surely a mistake, wasn't it? –Hajor 16:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Insurgent is much more accurate than "Guerrilla". Messhermit 16:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Insurgent" focuses more on the goals sought; "guerrilla", on the tactics. But the accuracy of one term over the other wasn't the issue. –Hajor 16:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sendero Luminoso did not exclude any possible way to achieve its goals: Political and Military. Just like the Insurgency in Iraq, they can't be labeled as "Guerrillas". If the accuracy wasn't the issue, then what was it? Messhermit 16:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calling the change from "guerrilla" to "insurgent" a typo fix. I might be a lousy typist, but I don't normally stray that far from teh word I'm aiming for. –Hajor 16:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just change that word in order to prevent Sendero Luminoso some sort of political legality. I usually used that expresion when I do some modification. In any case, I still believe that Insurgent is much more appropiate than guerrilla Messhermit 16:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Messhermit, I think Hajor's issue is not the content of your edit, it's the wording of your edit summary. "Typo" means that someone probably made a typographical error, a mistake while typing, such as "guerrrilla" or "insungent". It suggests an absolutely uncontroversial edit, just fixing an obvious mistake. That wasn't the nature of your edit. For what it's worth I think your edit was probably a good one; I don't know what Hajor thinks about that; but your summary was (I assume accidentally) misleading. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Then I believe I used the wrong word to name my modification. Thanks, and I will make sure that I will not use that expresion once again. Messhermit 23:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Jmabel for facilitating communication, and to Messhermit for the solemn undertaking. –Hajor 23:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Messhermit wrote:

Sendero Luminoso did not exclude any possible way to achieve its goals: Political and Military.

Sorry, I don't understand this; what are you trying to say? I am not convinced that SL is categorically not a "guerrilla" movement. Why shouldn't we refer to them both ways for the sake of stylistic variation? -- Viajero | Talk 22:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sendero Luminoso IS an Insurgent organization. At this point, they don{t even have a clear political agenda. Also, as (I believe) Hajor said once, Guerrilla is more used as a military tactic. Messhermit 23:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I need to update my Newspeak dictionaries. I would always have placed "insurgents" three or four notches above "guerrillas" on the legitimate / honorable scale, but I now suspect my gut reaction to the word has been overtaken by recent shifts in usage. I found Messhermit's (paraphrasing) "you can't call the Iraqi insurgents guerrillas", "guerrillas would give them some sort of political legality" (implicitly echoed by Jmabel?) particularly interesting, from a lexical point of view. Noted for future reference. If I'm reading you guys correctly, that is. –Hajor 00:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The definition of insurgent that Wikipedia provides is this one:

An insurgency is an armed rebellion by any irregular armed force that rises up against an established authority, government, or administration. Those carrying out an insurgency are “insurgents”. Insurgents conduct sabotage and harassment. Insurgents usually are in opposition to a civil authority or government primarily in the hope of improving their condition.

And I believe that matchs the situation of Sendero Luminoso. Messhermit 00:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree.. Insurgents sounds better than Guerrillad. Just a thought. --Dynamax 01:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Viajero, I didn't make any judgement that one of these words gives more or less "legitimacy", I just think they are better described as "insurgents" than "guerrillas". The former refers to being in rebellion against an established government; the latter refers to a specific set of military tactics. The first clearly applies; the second did in the past (certainly in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Sendero used mostly guerrilla tactics), but it's not so clear that it is a large part of what they are doing now. I would say that "insurgent" has applied to them at all times; "guerrilla" wouldn't be actively wrong, but if we are going to use one word, I'd opt for "insurgent". -- Jmabel | Talk 06:33, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Revisit NPOV

I just went to this article from the NPOV site. I'm actually quite impressed by its current state. There's still some possibly contentious stuff in the legacy and the first presidency section, but it definitely does not have any blatant stuff anymore. So how would people feel about removing the NPOV tag? If I don't hear anything to the contrary, I'll remove it in a weak, i.e. August 14th. Great work! bastel 05:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Further discussion does it really worth?

Is it really relevant to keep arguing about Fujimori's term?. He had made so many things that any other president in Peru haven't done, at least he did more for national universities then that guy Toledo, he's a shame as a statesman.HappyApple 05:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

More dubious material

Recent edits by User:220.101.125.86 appear to me, at a quick read, to be nothing but a lot of uncited pro-Fujimori POV. But I'm headed for bed right now. I strongly encourage someone else to get a good, close look at these. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Just let me give it a look on it, so I can see if some parts of the modifications made by this IP User actualy add something important to the article. Messhermit 02:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the edit: [7]. Since no one is promptly dealing with this, and since it is clearly mostly POV and bad writing (and removes some relevant material), I am reverting it. Someone still may want to go through this and see if something is worth salvaging; I haven't the patience. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

This has been restored, presumably by the same anonymous editor. I really wish someone else would also help out here: surely passages like "the true will remain that is in his period that the peoples of Peru started to defeat terrorism, in the long path of Peru and its people to fulfill their destiny of equality, peace, positive economic, and social growth" does not belong in Wikipedia. I guess I'll do my best to see if anything here is salvageable, but surely someone who know more than I do about Peru should chime in here. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Some of this was pure POV (or incomprehensible) and I have cut that. I edited one passage down to the following (by chopping out POV and leading statements); I'm not at all sure that what is left is all true, would someone please have a look at this: "At the end of his term he left reserves of US$10 billion, a smaller state bureaucracy and reduced government expenses (in contrast to a past where each party in power added to the bureaucracy in government ministries and state-run companies), independent and technical-minded administration of public entities like SUNAT, a large number of new schools (not only in Lima but in the small towns of Peru), more roads and highways, and new and upgraded communications infrastructure. These improvement led to the revival of tourism, agroexport, and fisheries.[8]

[9]"

Another passage, also after similar edits, referring to the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: "According to the report, the great percentage of deaths caused by the armed forces occurred during the Belaunde and Garcia governments. During the Fujimori period the numbers decrease, with a shift in tactics away from general butchery and toward isolating support for the terrorists, with Army engineers building rural roads and schools." Can someone cite more specifically for these than just "the report"? Also "the great percentage of deaths" is very vague, I assume the report gave at least approximate numbers, can we get something more substantive? If this is accurate, at what point in Fujimori's reign did the number of killings by the military begin to decrease? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm the user that intorduced the "dubious material" I have quickly read your editing, and agree with some of it, I've in the process also tried to learn what is the "wiki spirit" in a crash course. In regards of the statistics to back the statements I made: Number of casualties, is extracted from "Anexo-3 Compendio estadistico" http://www.cverdad.org.pe/ingles/ifinal/index.php, the data graphics per year can be downloaded from there. About the economic data it can be obtained from the international organizations (IDB, IMF, world bank, etc), as well as the government agencies, (http://www.proinversion.gob.pe/english/default.asp, Reserve bank). About reduced bureaucracy? I could back up this data by stating the explosion on the number of extra combis (minibus), taxi drivers, internet cabins at the end of the 90's, and the growth of the informal economy, product of the "forced" retrenchments, however, I can only back this part based in my own previous reading, and my experience. I'm also trying to learn, about what really happened in those years, I do not claim to know it for sure, but I intend to put and share just the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amaru (talk • contribs) 22 Sept 2005.

Welcome aboard. As I'm sure you can imagine, it will be easier to collaborate actively now that you have a user name and have made your presence known on the talk page.

I'm actually about to go on a break for several days, so I'm glad I caught you before that. You might want to take a look at Talk:Alberto_Fujimori/Archive02#APOYO_reference_needs_citation and the section that follows it (despite some really rather unpleasant back-and-forth between some of the participants). What it comes down to, though, is that some of the economic numbers fo the Fujimori era are heavily disputed, and that it is sometimes very hard to tell whether two particular sources that seem to back each other up are actually independent of one another in where their numbers came from.

One other remark on why I removed much of what I removed: while discussion on the talk pages can get very heated, the articles should not. One of the key goals is to write the article from a neutral point of view. It is fine to describe or quote the opinions of a well-cited, significant source (a respected scholar, an international institution, etc.) but not to write opinion directly into the narrative voice of the article, or to quote your own opinions, or those a random web site/blogger. When someone is writing about a rock band, we sometimes cut some slack on this, but not on a significant contemporary political figure.

Hope that's helpful. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed some blatant vandalism, sorry, no username yet. 1200, Nov 7th CST

Perhaps it's just me, but "the long path of Peru and its people to fulfill their destiny of equality, peace, positive economic, and social growth" sounds a lot like something that Abimael Guzmán would write. Descendall 05:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like something any politician of leftist persuasions would write, defintiely vague enough, and a bit hard to label as Shining Path, SqueakBox 05:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Poll numbers: discrepancy

This edit radically revises downward the claims of popularity for Sí Cumple in opinion polls. Since neither version gives a citation, I am just noting the discrepancy. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

He never did anything for Peru, he just stole anything he could and ran away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.201.163.236 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 7 November 2005.

Can you source that? SqueakBox 22:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see that the other part of the title was erased. We should be aware that more of this type of contributions could arrive due to the presence of this article in the frontpage. Messhermit 01:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rascism is never acceptable on wikipedia and should always be removed. It appeares that if he did run away he has returned to face the music rather than face a tranquil, comfortable retirement in Tokyo, SqueakBox 03:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously those comentaries were BIASED, please cite your sources and stop accusing people without arguments.HappyApple 04:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

well, in south america there is a different type of racism, here it is quite common to calle a black man "negro" (wich means black), instead of calling him afro-american, like it is used in the U.S.. Mainly this is because there has never been mayor racial issues in here (no KKK, for example), if an indian wants to marry a white girl, no one really says anything (as many of us are really mongrels, such as myself, even though i look very white). There are several racists in both of these countries, usually they are right-wing people with a very narrow view on things, and usually they have very little voice and saying in both of the goverments. Yet comments such as the tittle, have no place in wikipedia, as someone else already sayd. As for Fujimori, i hope he gets trialed for his crimes against peru, for his corruption cases (wich are countless, from the bribing of all tv station owners, thus controling all of the media to all of the corruption from his goverment), for the death squads he assembled, and particulary for how he left Peru in a deep third world country status. To end this, i must say that Fujimori did not ran away, he was at japan (conviniently) and there the arrest warrant was imposed on him, so he didnt really faced the music. Now he has come back to use both the chile-peru pre-war situation (there wont really be any war, none of the 2 goverments wants it, but the media is selling a lot more now that that the tensions have grew, mainly no one can really understand the current situation, so people like to say that Peru is stealing our sea... when in fact what peru has done is just to settle his international waters law, i dont really see why there should be a war there...) and he is here to use the low popularity of Toledo in his favor. In a way, Toledo has a low popularity mainly for how Fujimori left the country after he left. Fujimori would had not returned unless he would actually had something to win, and in this case, Fujimori might return to office.

Quite frankly, this "TE AGARRARON %#^#^&^" should have been removed since it was posted in the first place. The idiot that posted it had the clear intention of using profanity in the most personal way, which doesn't fit in this talk page. Moreover, we don't need to state what everyone already knows about Fujimori and all the information this article has. I suggest this "Te agarron" discussion be duly removed. --Dynamax 02:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should preserve what is here as a record. It is quite clear that a lot of editors don't think badly of Fujimori, and this conversation does thus seem to have value for the article. I have changed the title to "Discussion" and left the alleged accusations of the Florida based anon. If an admin were reading this I think removing this anon's 12.46 November 2nd edit from the history would be a much more useful way to ensure that rascism is not a part of Wikipedia. See Talk:Simon Wiesenthal#Article about vandalism of this article in The Age (Australia) for as similar case of a vandalistic rascist insert that did get wider press coverage and was removed from the record, SqueakBox 03:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ironic to say that the IP anon that write that lenghty essay is actually getting out of the topic by stating things like the current diplomatic situation between Peru and Chile. Wikipedia must not become a heaven for racism. Messhermit 18:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You mean haven? While (from my Central American perspective) it clearly is possible to call someone Chino or Negro affectionately this was clearly and obviously not the case here. While one is left wondering whether Fujimori would have gone to Chile without these tensions, and indeed I find it curious that he chose that moment to return to SA because of the danger of becoming a a part of a deal by Peru to drop the sovereignty claims in exchange for his return, any speculation is definitely outsider our remit as encyclopedia editors, SqueakBox 18:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, about the so called deal with Chile, from my peruvian perspective, would be political suicide, and Fujimori would not risk that. Also, Chile is schedule to have national elections in 2006, so who knows if this was a fabricated in Chile? Well, that's politics, and for the sake of a NPOV article, I will not go further than that. Messhermit 22:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Legacy of Anti-Terrorism

What would the U.S. have done if a guerilla terrorist movement had successfully captured Congress? Fujimori showed "cajones". If Peru decides to punish Fujimori now, they will deserve it when terrorists take over their government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.24.93.219 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 10 November 2005.

He showed dresser drawers? Perhaps you mean cojones? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

That word on spanish is an equivalent to swearing, please avoid using it in this forum.HappyApple 21:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess we'll never know what would happen if guerrillas captured the US Congress. For that matter, we'll never know what would happen if guerrillas capture the Peruvian one, either. Descendall 05:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well lets hope we'll never know at any rate, SqueakBox 05:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Fujimori in Chile

I have made some minor changes to this part of the article. Introducing the Fujimori's lawyer (Cesar Nakasaki) and some other points, that actually are only seen here in Peru. mramirez500 19:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

"Fujimori Fujimori"

Why do I often see "Fujimori" doubled? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TML1988 (talk • contribs) 23 December 2005.

Both his father and mother have the same last name. In Peru, it is mandatory to state both last names in any official document. Messhermit 05:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Name in Japanese?

If the man is Peruvian, born and raised, then why are we writing his name in Japanese script as well? Does anybody else also think it would be better to only have the name in Latin alphabet and remove the Japanese characters?--Sonjaaa 04:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Totally unnaceptable, he is a foreign born japanese, despite he has born and raised as peruvian his japanese name follows conventions on japanese alphabet, and i dont see any problem to remove it from the article, to do so, it will decrease the quality of the article. HappyApple 04:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that he has now lived a significant portion of his life in Japan (and is probably wishing right now that he had stayed a bit longer). -- Jmabel | Talk 08:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, your last comment was not asked. I believe that personal opinions only add more controversy to the topic itself. Messhermit 15:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Wikipedia does not have a ban on humor on talk pages, nor does NPOV apply to signed comments on talk pages. I have been very careful to keep my personal opinion of Fujimori out of the article, as you can easily see by examining the edit history. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It is highly uncalled for to suggest the Fujimori wishes that he was still in Japan. Who wouldn't enjoy a vacation in beautiful Santiago de Chile. From what I hear, his hotel is free, too. --Descendall 15:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I know about the history of this article, and I agree that so far you have avoided to gave any personal opinion, but your last comment (at least the way that I look at it) didn't seem to be just a plain joke. Just to let you now that this is still a controvertial topic. Maybe if we avoid these things for now, everything would be ok, don't you think? Messhermit 19:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! That answers the question then! I guess he is really bi-cultural. --Sonjaaa 12:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Foreign-born Japanese. Is that a rascist perjorative? He was born and raised in Peru, which makes him Peruvian regardless of the colour of his skin or his ancestry. Anything else is rascism, which will not be tolerated on wikipedia. Please take care. I must say I don't agree with Jmabel, I don't believe he does regret returning to South America, and realistically it would be too early for regrets being in his shoes. Lets see what happens first, as I imagine he is doing. But Jmabel's comments seemed entirely appropriate, I wish I could say the same about HappyApple's comments, but he does have Japanese parents, speaks Japanese and he was recently there for 5 years so I am not objecting to his name being in Japanes as well, SqueakBox 14:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not being rascist, what kind of arguments are you using for state that?, should i take your words as some kind of warning or threat?. I have just said Fujimori is a Foreign-born Japanese and as he raised and born in Peru this doesn't mean he forgot his ancestry, hence his name follows the conventions of japanese alphabet.HappyApple 20:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, SqueakBox 22:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Fall of Fujimori

Under the external links, the article states that "The Fall of Fujimori is a rather NPOV documentary based on a recent interview of the former President, along with extensive footage from his time in office, and other interviews." I'll be the first to admit that I haven't seen this film. I have talked to a few people who have, and they described it as an apology for Fujimori. I remember reading something in the paper, I think the New York Times, that basically said the same thing. I have seen State of Fear, which concentrates on the human rights abuses by both Fujimori and Sendero, and at the screening the producer and director were there. They both said that they thought The Fall of Fujimori was quite biased in favor of Fujimori, and they seemed to think that the two films were essentially competing versions of what happened in Peru from 1990 - 2000. Bottom line: I'm not so sure that The Fall of Fujimori is "NPOV," and I'm not so sure that calling in NPOV is NPOV. --Descendall 15:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

External links definitely don't need to be to NPOV material and I am sure it is fine to have it there, SqueakBox 17:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My problem isn't that it is linked, my problem is that it is called "rather NPOV." First, I think that this amounts to an endorsement of a movie that is, from what I've heard, very biased. Second, I think that the phrase "rather NPOV" isn't very encycolpediac. --Descendall 20:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree and so have removed the 2 offending words which were indeed opinion, SqueakBox 00:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

In the passage on Toledo's zeal against Fujimori: "His vehemence in this matter had crossed the border of the Peruvian law: forcing the judiciary and legislative system to keep guilty sentences without hearing Fujimori's defense (see "Political Peruvian Constitution" 1993); not providing Fujimori with a lawyer in absence of representation…" I have no idea what '(see "Political Peruvian Constitution" 1993)' might mean. Both passages lack context and effective citation. The item that follows, on removing pro-Fujimori MPs without proof of the charges against them is decently cited.

The main reason I want citations is that this passage is painfully unclear, and I have no chance of clarifying it without a source. - Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Engagement

At a rally with Marth Chavez, Satomi Kataoka announced that she would marry Fujimori before the elections. This probably deserves to be in the article, but I'm not sure where. --Descendall 12:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Not yet, let's wait to see what Alberto Fujimori has to say; after all he is the other person involve. Messhermit 02:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Where was he born?

This article begins with: "Alberto Ken'ya Fujimori (アルベルト・ケンヤ・フジモリ Aruberuto Ken'ya Fujimori, born in Japan on July 28, 1938)..." and then goes on to state: "Alberto Fujimori was born in Lima to Naoichi Fujimori and Mutsue Fujimoria..." Which is correct and can someone in the know edit this article correctly? - thanks. --JoëlAbend--

Was Sr. Fujimori born in Japan or Lima? The first paragraph suggests Japan, the second section suggests Peru 82.24.119.28 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It is apparently a matter of some controversy. See http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9114534?tocId=9114534. Official records show him born in Lima, but Britannica reports that political opponents have questioned that, and hence his eligibility for the Presidency. However, given that they report that his family emigrated in 1934, they are clearly at least skeptical of those opponents' claim. I believe our article should say Lima, but mention that there is controversy. I'll edit accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 18:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"Constitutional President"

Is there a reason that the caption under the photo in the Wikibox calls him "Constitutional President of Peru" rather than just "President of Peru"? - Jmabel | Talk 03:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been four days, no one has explained, I am changing it. - Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Alberto Fujimori, just like Fernando Belaunde in 1980 and Alan García in 1985 assumed the Presidency in democratic elections. In the same way, his reelection on 1995 was considerate fair and cleans by several international organizations. The fact that the 2000 elections were disputed (in the same way of what is happening now regarding the elections in Mexico) does not make him just "President of Peru". The full title of the office is "Constitutional President of the Republic of Peru".

Therefore, as any ex-president that leaves office, he is entitled to be called like that, just like Belaunde, García and Toledo. Messhermit 12:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any source that you have that the full title of the office is "Constitutional President of Peru? The 1993 Constitution seems to say otherwise:

CAPITULO IV PODER EJECUTIVO Artículo 110º El Presidente de la República es el Jefe del Estado y personifica a la Nación. --Descendall 06:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The chapter that you cite only states that the President is the "Head of State" and that he personifies the nation. It does not solve the question regarding the full name of the office. Messhermit 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

By my count, Chapter IV of the Constitution of Peru calls the position "The President of the Republic" 14 times and "The Constitutional President of Peru" zero times. I think that pretty much answer of what the name of the office is. --Descendall 03:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Peruvian Congress use this title ("Constitutional President of the Republic") next to the person holding the office for every speech that they made, and the name is used by the media and history books. I believe that "Constitutional" reinforces the fact that they are elected by popular will. Messhermit 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Peru says "The official name is President of the Republic (Presidente de la República)." --Descendall 17:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Will people please discuss the matter that led to protection? It's not going to get resolved by pretending there is no disagreement to be discussed. - Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The users involved in the disputes leading to protection have decided to undergo informal mediation through WP:MEDCABAL. I will confer to see if it would be ok to hold the mediation session here.--Amerique 07:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hoping for a consensus edit

Citation for parents' 1934 arrival: María Elena Castillo, "En busca de un mejor porvenir: El viaje de Naoichi y Mutsue en el Boyuko Maru", La República, 20 June 2001. Accessed online on the site of the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) 13 June 2006.

Since this is from the site of APRODEH (generally no friend of Fujimori), but bears out that he was indeed Peruvian-born, I would hope this would be an uncontroversial addition. - Jmabel | Talk 05:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

MedCab case

Mediators: Addhoc, Amerique. Involved Parties: Messhermit, Bdean1963, El Rojo, AAAAA, Phil Boswell, Viajero

Would any other interested parties add their name to the list. Thanks, Addhoc 11:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The mediation is going to take place at Talk:Alberto Fujimori/Mediation. Thanks, Addhoc 15:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

Under his probation, Messhermit is banned from editing this article. Since the protection was instituted as a result of that edit warring, I have unprotected it. --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oka, then I will expose my case here in order to balance the neutrality of the article. If someone find my "complains" or "contributions" neutral enough as to be stated in the article, I urge him/her to include them in the article. Messhermit 03:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I commend your cooperative attitude. --Tony Sidaway 03:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Rv to assert facts, including facts about opinions, please don't assert opinions themselves or remove verifiable references, many thanks!.--User talk:Bdean1963 18, September 2006

Bdean, you contradict the article by asking sources for Fujimori's place & date of birth when that issue is already clarify by "Reference #1". If you are smart enough, you will remove the "Verification Needed" tag from that paragraph. Messhermit 14:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Verification Needed" tag now appears to be removed (which is fine, just noting status). - Jmabel | Talk 20:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Telephone waiting period

I've removed this citation of an example:

For example, before privatization, a consumer or business would need to wait up to 10 years to get a local telephone line installed from the monopolistic state-run telephone company. A couple of years after privatization, the wait was reduced to just a few days.

This unsourced claim had been challenged and now someone is claiming personal experience as the "source" (which would make it original research). The citation of a precise period of this magnitude for installation of a phone line isn't especially incredible, however if it's true it should be reliably sourced. --Tony Sidaway 11:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations have been included now. Furthermore, I resent the actions of the users that removed the information without giving a few days to work on them. VERY UNPOLITE.--AAAAA 12:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm wrong about this, but it was my understanding that this statement had been queried for several days now, and remained unsourced. --Tony Sidaway 12:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No doubt the wait for a phone line was reduced, but that is not the point; telecom privatisations took place all over the world during the 90s and reduced waits happened in many countries, including the one in which I live. There is nothing particular to Peru about this phenomenon, and hence this information doesn't belong in the article. Viajero | Talk 09:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Privatization of the phone system took place in the early 1980s in the UK. I don't think it made any difference to wait times for installation, which were always reasonably short. It may be that the Peruvian phone system was underfunded prior to privatization. I find the wait time of ten years, if it's true, quite extraordinary. --Tony Sidaway 10:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What AAAA is attempting to state is that the privatization of the Peruvian telephone company (ENTEL Peru) in the 90's (we are not talking about the 80's) allowed the population of a service that prior to that, was not available to everybody. I know this because my father used to work for both ENTEL and TELEFONICA DEL PERU. I don't think that because similar cases happened in England (in the 80's) or the rest of the world, this accomplishment should be omitted. Maybe Viajero is interested in removing it because it is something positive from the Fujimori Administration?. It is amazing that now paragraphs WITH SOURCES are deleted because "someone does not like what it" and using lame excuses. Messhermit 13:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no difficulty giving Fujimori credit where credit is due, but my point is that this cannot be construed as an accomplishment particular to his administration because it was a generalised phenomenon. If you look at other telecom privitisations in Latin American, you will find similar results.

Also, I would have been interested in seeing the references AAAAA cited, but they were PowerPoint and Excel documents, and I do not have MS Office installed (I use Linux). I don't know if there are any MoS guidelines concerning the file formats of external citatations, but it seems contrary to the open source/GPL spirit of Wikipedia to cite materials in propreitary formats. Viajero | Talk 10:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Try installing openoffice [10]. Also, because things also happen in other countries does not necessarily mean any particular phenomenon is not notable in any certain country. Dramatic changes in health statistics, for instance, even if consistent elsewhere, could be looked at as a measure of change that took place during an administration, whether or not the administration's policies are directly responsible for it. Best,--Amerique 11:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

We link to PDFs, isn't property of Adobe? Anyway, if it's true that privatization of telephone companies in Latin America always leads to better service, then why not credit Fujimori with the privitization of ENTEL? That being said, anyone who has ever tried to use a public Telefonica Peru phone in Peru knows that probably half the damn things are broken at any given time; I have literally spent hours looking for a working phone in Lima. --Descendall 06:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is called "Vandalism". Go around any Latin American city and you will find the same problem all over again. Heck, I live in Miami and I have the same problem every time that I try to use those phones. Should I blame this to Ronald Reagan? :P Messhermit 02:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh no doubt, I'm not saying it's 100% Telefonica's fault. It's just a little hard to keep your patience when you've spent 20 Soles on phones that have eaten up your change, only to find a working phone just to hear "Telefonica Peru le informe que el numero marcado esta fuera del servicio..." --Descendall 04:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately that's how business is made. I don't think is funny when $5 can only give you 15 minutes to talk if you call a cell phone in Peru. That's how things work. Messhermit 14:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The MoS guidelines for references are tremendously looser about formats than those for the external links section. The issue is mainly that they be, in principle, accessible. For online sources, there is a preference for "free" formats when they are available; there is a somewhat stronger preference for sites that are available to the general public; but nothing stronger than that. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I notice that there is at least 1 link that is nothing more than a personal blog. As far as I know those are not reliable sources, since they might express POV instead of impartial info. Messhermit 02:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This might be a better source for the whole telephone thing. I haven't read it all, but I noticed it does say, "In 1993, Peru’s customers had to wait an average of 118 months for line installation, compared with 17 months for customers in Colombia and 11 months for those in Mexico." It also shows that the waiting period dropped to 1.5 months in 1998. --Descendall 04:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add this. It's a much better reference. --Descendall 23:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

citation 'drift'

Three times in the past week or so I have tried to fix a problem with two external citations being separated from the text to which they pertain. (The two are in the same paragraph as the above-mentioned issue but have nothing to do with it.) The last two times I have done the edit separately to enable other editors to see what I am doing. [11] Twice AAAAA has reverted this in the course or restoring the phone wait text. Rather then fix this problem a fourth time, I would like AAAAA to either fix it himself or explain to me why he objects to it. Thanks. Viajero | Talk 10:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying to clean up the citation mechanism of this article. Along the way (and I'm not finished), I have discovered about ten blind links given as references that lead to dead pages, entirely dead sites, pages that say absolutely nothing about the matter for which they were cited, etc. In some cases I've been able to find appropriate substitutes and have added them. In other cases, though, I have no idea at all what was intended. This is a good illustration of the reason to caption your reference links with cite.php or some such at the time you add them. I'm sure that many of the articles originally linked to are still online some place, but with nothing but a blind link, it is very hard to find an appropriate substitute. - Jmabel | Talk 00:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm basically done for now. This article is at best about half cited, and some of the citations are very weak. For example, while Stanford is a good university, I would hope we could do better than what appears to be an undergraduate student paper (a PDF that, by the way, froze up my browser). There are also other pretty shaky citations: for example, what is claimed to be a February 2005 poll is cited to an undated article with a URL including "enero2004".

There are also three sources floating around in a "References" section; as far as I can tell, no particular facts have been cited from these sources. They might be useful for some uncited facts. On the other hand, Encarta is a pretty dubious source: one might as well cite another Wikipedia article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Criminality

Why is it that when we talk about Fujimori's crimes, we have to note that they are only "alleged," but there is no problem in saying that Toledo "crossed the border of the Peruvian law?" This seems to me to be anti-Toledo bais. --Descendall 18:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)