Talk:Andrés Manuel López Obrador/Archive 1

2000 vote figures

User:Ruiz just posted the IEDF link of the 2000 election results here and on w:es, where I'd just corrected the reference. The IEDF link says that the vote breakdown between the PAN, PRI, & PRD was 33.4, 22.8, & 34.5 (= 90.7%). Quite correct. However, AMLO was running as the candidato común of the 'Alliance for Mexico City', including the PRD and a bunch of micropartidos: PT, Convergencia, etc: see here, page 13. So, on the IEDF results table, his actual share of the vote is the one in the column labelled "Total de votos obtenidos por el candidato común": 38.3. This is borne out by the maths: 33.4, 22.8, & 38.3 = 94.5% (+3.28 for Tere Vale, +1.8 for blancos & nulos = 99.58%). (The IEDF table is stupidly and badly done.) AMLO's figs in a back-then news report: 39%. And my copy of Todo México 2001 (p.252) says, "L.O. obtuvo cerca de 39%... frente a Creel, que alcanzó 34%. I stand by my edit, y aprovecho para mandarle un saludo a Ruiz, que hacía tiempo que no nos veíamos por acá. –Hajor 20:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's right folks, my mistake. That IEDF table is just awful and I totally forgot about the Alliance back in 2000. Kudos to Hajor! Ruiz 02:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Translation conventions

Jefe de Gobierno

I would like suggestions about how to translate Jefe de Gobierno (I use Head of Government). I think the article has too many spanish words and that could deter readers, and I believe Mayor is too inexact. Same for desafuero, which appears as part of a section's name. I thought impeachment but that would be incorrect. Asereje 15:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not easy: "Head of Government" is more precise, but unwieldy; "mayor" is nippy and easy (and used passim by the international press) but technically inaccurate. I've been writing Head of Government ("mayor of Mexico City"), and have no strong objection to referring to the office as a mayor on second reference. (The BBC Spanish-language service has been calling him the alcalde, which I find harder to swallow.) Desafuero? "Lifting of executive immunity", "suspension of immunity". But once you've explained what it is, don't be too reluctant to call it desafuero subsequently. My take, –Hajor 16:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Desafuero

Wouldn't "disqualification" be a good translation of "desafuero"? Also as verb e.g. "they tried to disqualify him from running for office". 130.18.89.110 01:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)User: El Rob 8:33, 15 Jun 2006

Actually, it is a little bit more complicated than that. A desafuero is not a disqualication from running for office. Every single person, except elected officials, lack "fuero". The "desafuero" is a process by which the "fuero" is removed from an elected official so he can be prosecuted. The process does not disqualify you from office, but being prosecuted does. If the candidate resigns his post, his "fuero" is immediately removed, and that does not disqualify him from running for office.

What is the "fuero"? The "fuero" is a political immunity, similar to the diplomatic immunity that diplomats have in foreign countries. This means that all elected officials in Mexico, from mayors to governors to the President, and local legislators to the Senators of the Republic are protected by law from prosecution of any crime. The reason to have it is because, in the ages of Porfirio Diaz, the official party would accuse the opposition of any crime and throw elected officials in jail simply because they where of the opposition, under any ridiculous accusation. During the revolution, a protection against this abuse was instituted, which is the "fuero". So, the only way a common citizen can bring an abusive elected official to justice is through a "desafuero" process.

In the case of Mr. Lopez Obrador, a common citizen waited 5 years for the desafuero process against AMLO to begin. A "desafuero" process does not imply that the accused official is guilty of any charge, merely that there is enough juridical basis to think that he (or she) should stand trial. The main issue in the "desafuero" is not wheather or not Mr. Lopez Obrador was guilty or not of the crime he was accused of, but that the political timing to execute the process was coincidental with the legal requirements to compete for the Presidency. Mr. Lopez Obrador could have followed the "desafuero" a long time before 2005, and he would have stood trial, and then, if found innocent (as most intellectuals think he would have been found), he could have run for President without problems.

So, as you can see, a "desafuero" process does not disqualify you from running for office. A judicial process does. In the case of Mr. Lopez Obrador, the "Encino" judicial process and the "desafuero" where used politically to prevent him from running for President. Fortunately for Mexico, President Fox decided not to follow through it and Mr. Lopez Obrador had indeed his "fuero" removed, but was not prosecuted, and so, he was able to run for President. So, as you can see, the "desafuero" did not disqualify him from running. Apparently, it gave him the contrary: a lead start in the opinion polls.

Hari Seldon 08:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Structure

The article is a mess again. I restructured it a few months ago, but it's been slowly sliding towards total disorder again. First of all, the desafuero section is way too long, skips around in time, repeats things several times, and has paragraphs that are at least twice as long as they should be. Also, it seems a lot of unneccessary and rather non-NPOV details are creeping in. For instance, it's now hinted that the reason there are traffic problems in Mexico City is that there are so many demonstrations that are untouched by police! This is, pardon my expression, ridiculous, as well as being a swipe at AMLO, since many demonstrations are in support of him, or leftist causes, so the article's hinting that he's only solving problems that he's created himself, while the reality is that Mexico City traffic infrastructure is seriously lacking in relation to the number of cars in the city.

There needs to be another major restructuring of this article, I'm giving notice that I'll be doing it as soon as I have time, and I will probably remove some of these minor details that fudge up the flow of the text. Also, the English in the article in general is less than great at the moment, I'll be looking at that too.

Comments? JZ 17:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Go for it! DanKeshet 23:25, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Also, you might want to separate out the desafuero into its own article, or maybe two--one for the constitutional process, one as it was applied in AMLO's case. DanKeshet 01:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

The concise version: this article is a work in progress about current events and unless a single person (and only him/her) works full time on it, redundancies and lack of structure will appear. And please note: by definition, that single author will never exist, so I'd prefer we reached an agreement here instead of having due notices every month or so. :-] Asereje 07:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The not-so-concise version: (Insert concise version). Some points made by Joakim Ziegler are OK with me. (BTW, I'd prefer you signed with your full username to make it easier to remember you from the logs but do as you like).

1. English is not my native language and I'll agree it might be understable but unnatural. Fix it, as simple as that. I don't see why anyone would oppose this kind of editing or bother to announce it.
2. Yes, the 'desafuero' section has grown a lot in an unorderly fashion. That's normal when something new happens every hour and when new content is added. Suggestions like DanKeshet's about how to split the article are really useful. I hope other contributors get a reasonable chance (a few days, perhaps) to make theirs. I'd say it would be a good time to reorganize the full article, perhaps with a Posts held section (I know it's an awful title, change it) with every post held having his own subsection in chronological order. Two or three paragraphs giving an overview of what happened. I'm in favor of sections having only english in their names; in this page there's a different thread about translation conventions. Later sections would give more detail.
3. Which brings to the point of detail. I prefer to err on the excess side -trimming is easier than adding. I don't know if there's an official policy about level of detail. Sometimes an incident gets its own article (like Bill Clinton's intern scandal).
4. NPOV issues will never be solved by notices. I suggest we all read Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial and agree on wording and similar issues. The comment about traffic in Mexico City (which was mine) was because the previous text said improvement was noticeable "in the city"; I qualified "in parts of". My comment about protester's immunity (incidents of 40 or less persons blocking a major avenue are incredibly common) was to qualify what I believe is a rosy picture of the situation. The facts that many of these protests are leftist (which I didn't put in the article, BTW), that they are indeed untouched by police and that they screw all traffic for hours in parts of the city are important in itselves. The existing infrastructure is inadequate and blocking it won't help. BTW, the upper levels are incomplete -only one direction was made. Drivers save time when using them only to get stuck when they leave to join the lower level at an unchanged lacking street. If someone feels AMLO should look better that person might add the fact such immunity was common during at least one non-leftist government (Oscar Espinoza's) and the fact blockings are not the only cause of bad traffic. The fact the marchs are leftist can't be changed however, but I don't feel obliged to include it in the article but I can only speak for myself.
5. We really need to define what are minor details. I couldn't care less for the kind of car AMLO uses, but apparently their supporters (and himself, as he has made a point of it) think it's important is an old car. I only fixed the wrong (and in this particular context not-so-minor) detail that AMLO's doesn't drive it himself but he has a chauffeur. If the identity of the person driving the car is important (whether is AMLO or any other person) you might as well point out the driver earns USD$5,600 a month, an outrageous salary by mexican standards and quite a high one for the position he officially has (Coordinator of Logistics). Why I care so much about details? Among other reasons, because they justify an argument. If there's a false fact stating AMLO "swiftly/quickly" responded to gambling with city funds (Ponce) and receiving probably illegal donations (Bejarano) and you fix it only by replacing with "slowly/unconvicingly" it will be branded as vandalism or as a swipe at AMLO and deleted. I would be concerned if a previously important detail which I didn't introduce were deleted when it turns out it doesn't make AMLO look as good.
6. For reorganization, I suggest a kind of dual structure. An overview first and lots of detail in later sections. Some redundancy will occur. Perhaps the Posts held section mentioned earlier could begin with a list of AMLO's posts with a one or two paragraph summary of each followed by a subsection written as if it were a full subarticle (including detail). The idea is a reader could skim faster. Perhaps we could find an stable article that could serve as an example.

There is a lot of innacurate data both in the spanish and english languages regarding mexican politicians. Once I read in a major US news site Salinas was an escapee of justice in Mexico and that's why he had left for Ireland. Detail helps the reader search for itself. This events are too recent to make quick characterizations, specially for a man who could become the next mexican president. A final note: some of my edits are deliberately provocative (the list of acts justifying the comparison among Chavez and AMLO probably the bolder). A good editor would shape them into something better (perhaps completely different); a bad editor will pretend they never existed. Those parts, about how supporters/critics (weasel words, BTW) compare AMLO with Chavez, I think is a good example of collaborative editing. I'd say a first general step could be removing adjectives while retaining content. I don't think I will log again for at least a week or so (now that AMLO lost immunity I don't feel a need for daily updates and I'm afraid I devoted too much time to the article) so this post was very long to compensate. Bye and happy editing. Asereje 07:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article needs significant updating

a ver This article needs significant updating to reflect the end of the "ongoing news event" and the resolution of the political crisis earlier this year that dominates this article. The BBC reports that the Mexican government dropped charges against Obrador on May 4. I'll do the update within the next few days if no one else gets around to it. mennonot 11:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the end of current status, however the article you mention is inexact. The government's new stance is that is unclear the punishment for AMLO's offense is applicable to him because of the wording of the relevant article. This stance was that of AMLO's defense. The previous attorney general as well as several experts contended there's jurisprudence it is legal to apply such punishment to him, as it is *not* punishment by analogy (once again, his unique post poses some legal issues). The government can't drop charges as AMLO was sued by a private company, the most it can do is to say there's no way to apply the law to him, but such an argument must be decided in court, as the accusser has stated he will follow to suit. I think the issue will follow for some months and AMLO isn't off the hook yet.

Why not simply Lopez?

On my last edit I used Lopez several times to refer to AMLO, but it was expanded to "Lopez Obrador" and I was wondering why he should be treated differently from all other mexican politicians which are referred by their first surname only (Fox, Salinas, Zedillo) in their corresponding articles. As far as I know there's no relevant current politician also a Lopez, and in his own article if should be clear who we are referring to. Besides, Lopez Obrador everywhere is tiring. Asereje 03:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

There have been several Lopezes as noted politicians and presidents in Mexico, three of them presidents: Lopez de Santa Ana, Lopez Mateos, and Lopez Portillo. It's not particularly unusual for Mexican persons with very common paternal surnames to be referred to by their less common maternal surnames to distinguish them, even in the English language: Lopez de Santa Ana is typically referred to as "Santa Anna". In the English language, celebrities with common or hard to remember first or last names often emphasize their middle names as they don't use maternal surnames, eg: Jennifer Love Hewitt or Louise Madonna Ciccione. Tubezone 11:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Because Lopez is such a common name in Spanish speaking countries that often the second name is used to distinguish the individual from others. This occurs with other surnames like Garcia and Rodriguez. On the other hand, Vicente Fox is rarely referred to as Vicente Fox Quesada, because Fox is not a common surname in Mexico. Should Wikipedia refer to Carlos Salinas de Gortari and Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon in all articles about them?

Another reason is that in México the name is normally: first Name, father's last Name and mother's last name. Many mexicans don't even have a second name, so using the mother's last name becomes important to differenciate people with a common last name such as López. --Threner 22:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

A paragraph with ambiguous subjects

AMLO's posture was that he would never send the police against the crowd for any motive, even if they were holding law enforcement agents, as that would inevitably provoke a massacre. For this incident President Fox fired the city's head of police Marcelo Ebrard (a constitutional power) when/[after] AMLO made it clear he would support him. AMLO [then] appointed Ebrard as Secretary of Social Development, a post only he can revoke.

Does "him" refer to Fox or Ebrard? Ground 28 June 2005 14:42 (UTC)

It refers to Ebrard, fixed it.

POV Addition (More Critisism)

I deleted the following addition as it is heavily POV and unproved:

More Criticism

Lopez Obrador comes from the Old PRI school but he did not had a good background (well-done relatives and friends). The Mexican and political elite requires very high profile either in his own family or at least very good political conections in order to ascend and endure in the political posts. In this case, Lopez Obrador did not had a good profile and he assumed very low profile jobs inside the Public Administration in his early profesional career. This probably made him very reaccionary and he moved to a more marxist-leninist view in search for a political post. He left the PRI and entered the PRD where he was more successful, and used the old-days tactics from the PRI to manipulate the public opinion, control the poor and disgusted low-middle class, invade rich people or government land, block any government initiative or investment, etc. Once in office in Mexico City Government, he paid the "campesinos" (mexican farmers) of Texcoco town to block and mess the construction for a new and modern international airport. In this case, the Federal Government canceled the project in order to avoid violence. As we see, Lopez Obrador uses the same old-fashined PRI tactics and has a very subjective view of things. He justifes himself in the name of the poor, but he also nows how to use violence and the public budget in his own benefit.

For example, let's see what about his goals:

1. The minimum-security penal colony in the Islas Marías may be and ecological reserve but never a "wonderland" for children because is too far. The problem is that once the penal colony is close there would be less patrol on the pacific waters and the sovereingty on those island will diffuse. (Remember what happened to Cyprus). It may be a better idea to make it an international turist resort and it may be profitable.

2. He would construct a high-speed train (like the Japanese 'shinkansen') crossing the country from the capital to the north border. But Mexico do not offer the standars for security and manteinance for a 280 km/hr train (half the speed of an Boeing or Airbus). An accident of such a train would be a big blow for his credibility. The entire investment is soo high that a train ticket Mexico-Monterrey may not be so competitive as the air ticket is in the fist decade.

3. He would live in the National Palace on Mexico City's Zócalo. Maybe he is just trying to impress about his humility, but this may damage the entire historical building more.

4. He would lower his salary as president to a level slightly higher than what he currently receives as mayor, and make it the maximum salary for an official. But as every Mexican knows, the prize for a mexican politician is not his salary but the budget he controls. Is well known that Mexican politicians use the public revenue for their own benefit either in the form of direct misappropiation or through bribes and manipulation of public contracts. High political posts may render thousands of millions of dollars for a few individuals, and the salary may represent just an small percentage of their entire income. In the case of Lopez Obrador is well know that he did not autorized a law for public transparency in order to avoid public disclosure of his Government accounts. As any other PRI and PRD politician He knows how to misappropiate government funds and distract the public opinion with speaches, books, parades, protests, conference, music concerts and threats.

Any comments? thanks --Threner 22:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Obviously fine to delete, it's not generally a useful addition, a lot of it is just opinion, and the author seems to have misunderstood the point of a section titled "Criticism" to be a place where users can add their criticism, rather than sum up existing criticism. Good call. Also, welcome, and thanks for editing the article, I think it's far from as NPOV as it could be, and that's not surprising, given that we've only been a couple of people making substantial edits. I'm sure that'll work itself out better when more people work on it. JZ 12:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of this adition. It clearly states only hearsay, and it is more an opinion than proven facts.

Neutrality

Hello

There has been a lot of back and forth durng these first days of April. My perception is that this article is written and guarded by AMLO supporters with little or no willingness to include other POV's. This is sad as it reflects intolerance and to some extent what people fear most of AMLO. In other words, that by definition people with a different perspective are wrong.

Hello person above. I couldn't disagree with you more. If you read AMLO's Wikepedia entry, you will see plenty of negative data on AMLO. From his position on the March for Peace, to his Eumex scandal (which AMLO supporters did not want in the entry, but which AMLO detractors insisted be included), to the spate of kidnappings, to the lynchings, and many other regrettable incidents during his tenure as Mayor. I believe that AMLO's entry is the MOST FAIR AND BALANCED of all the candidate's pages. I challenge you to dispute that assertion. In fact, whenever anyone wants to describe Calderon's attempt to give himself a 400K peso "autoprestamo", it is immediately deleted. That's intolerance for you.

Also (I think it was u), I'd like to explain why I deleted your reference to the El Universal poll you cited. I called up the URL, and ascertained it was a self-selecting internet poll. Therefore, it's not valid. I believe that El Universal has another scientific poll coming up within the next week. If it shows that AMLO is no longer perceived as the most honest, we can change it then. Thank you. [[[User:65.42.88.127|65.42.88.127]]]

Hi!....my first time in discussion I live in Mexico City, and Im a sympathiser of AMLO. Though I am willing to be impartial on the article. On a quick read I think this article is biased against him, and is very focused on the critical aspects and barely mentions some more positive aspects. For example, in the Public Image section, almost everything is a critic. This is just nonsense for a public person who has like 75% of the city's population on his side, and around 40% of the country's. His public image is in the first place a good one, so the the good views should come first, then all the critics. , or that section is incorporated into the criticism area or counterbalanced with positive views. Other important flaw is this fragment: “...make his critics believe he might, if he becomes President, take actions like taking to himself the legislative powers of Congress or shutting down TV stations, all in name of the "People", like Chávez, even though he (unlike Chávez) has never been a member of the military or attempted a coup d'état." Well one can input whatever personal opinion only by atruibuting to “the critics”. Well how bout: ”critics believe that he will wear the socks in his head when he becomes president”, well I said it, Im a critic, it goes into the Wikipedia! Theres no substantial reason to believe that he will close TV channels. There's freedom of expresion for anyone, even for him, so if he thinks he is being unfairly accused he can say it, that doesnt imply him shuting down anything. Or “taking to himself congress”, is just equally unfounded. Its just a prediction, a biased one, without facts, and not even a common one, Ive never heard the two claims before, and I live in Mex. City. The part: “4. His occasional complaints about media coverage of news important to him, as when he complained on April 2, 2005 that Mexican TV gave more coverage to the dying Pope than to his political fate, which had suffered an especially important blow the previous day”. This is so insihgnificant it doesnt belong in this sort of article, it is just reason to believe every little thing is being used to try to give a bad image of him. Other thing is the begining, it goes directly to the Encino case , as if it would be the single most important event in his life. The dispute only lasted somo months and is well in the past, its just one more event of many, should be moved from there. Also it may be good to create a separate article for the “desafuero”, as it just saturates the article with info on an event in which a lot of people were involved, not just him. Furthermore, each time the desafuero is named it should be stated that there were ALLEGED charges, for it was never concluded those charges were true, it all was inconcluse due to the Presidential iniciative to stop the whole process. Im sure there are a LOT of other imparcialities, I will keep posting. Man, is just sad to see how this article appears to be written by his worst enemies.....

I agree with you. I attempted to post some more objective facts, but they were almost immedieately deleted. For example, I stated that the last El Universal poll had AMLO ahead by 11 points. Deleted almost immediately. I made note of the fact that the Instructora vote was Party-Line, as was the vote in the Diputados chamber. Also deleted. Posted that Mitofsky gave him an 84% approval rating as he left his post(unheard of for a politician of a major city). Also deleted.

I also agree. I tried to clarify the "Videoscandals" reference to say (with citation) that Obrador was never linked to the bribery scandal, and it was deleted within seconds. I believe Obrador's opponents are monitoring this page very closely.

On content deletion and fact checking

User:Joakim Ziegler, please check the facts before deleting material (I'm referring to your edit on 02:25, 28 November 2005). I'm not interested in a revert war and I don't mind if someone edits my contributions, but it is irresponsible to delete material just because you think it's baseless. For the record, I wrote the material on AMLO's support of expropiation in favor of private companies and on deciding issues like abortion and gay marriage based on public consultation. I didn't log in as User:Asereje (a meaningless name, BTW) because material on the Wikipedia is suppossed to be retained or deleted on its factual value and relevancy, not because someone has the gut feeling it's baseless (if you have a source backing that claim please put it here). I hope the ten or so links I provided (an horrible practice but necessary to deal with carelessness in fact checking) are enough to give you pause before deleting my two, three hours work. In general, I prefer to avoid too much references but it seems they are needed to prevent careless editing or at least to give future editors some insurance against irresponsible editing -fact checking is a lot harder than simply saying it's unbased and deleting it. If you think is non NPOV by all means fix it, if you think it's irrelevant it could be downplayed or rewritten, but please, please do fact checking before labeling it as unbased. Asereje 07:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

PS: If a bona fide editor deletes some or all of the links and details like dates and places it's OK with me, I wanted to have them in the main article to make the facts known and harder to dismiss. Also because finding the primary source --an obscure state forum organized by a local diary-- was a real pain. Asereje 07:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I will mostly note two things here: First, the content you've written now is much better than what you had written before. You originally had "issues like abortion and euthanasia would be decided by telephone polls", which was obviously a partial truth taken out of context, and chosen to make AMLO look like a foolish populist. What you have now is much more nuanced, stating that thorny issues should be subject to referendum or plebiscite. It's a huge difference. If you're going to state something like that, you need to cite sources, if it's not common knowledge. I live in Mexico and follow political news, I hadn't heard of it.

Secondly, you restored a part that's almost word for word identical to another part of the article (The non-interventionist, will never use police against a crowd thing), which I deleted because it was redundant. If you're going to edit in stuff like that, at least remove it from the other part of the article, this article is hugely long already. I'm going to either remove that part, or remove the original part, to avoid redundancy. Which do you prefer? It might be more relevant under political platform, I think.

Also, it would be very good if you took some more time to work on your content, not just fact checking (fact checking looks very good, by the way, I'll be reading it carefully), because sometimes your sentences are hard to understand. JZ 05:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Just chiming in: it is considered bad practice to have information repeated throughout the article (other than the lead or an infobox). So whatever information is repeated should be left only in the most appropriate section. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Joakim, as I said I don't mind editing. It is just that we are not supposed to delete and label as unbased what we think is "obviously a partial truth taken out of context". A Google search of "AMLO aborto eutanasia" will show as first result basically what I first wrote (as of December 1, 2005, at least). This declaration was quite publicized because it is about AMLO's only one on these matters. Regarding the phone polls, my mistake: it should have been phone voting (there's debate on whether this practice is a plesbiscite at all). I put referendum now because that was his exact word, but AMLO's idea of referendum is debatable. The "Polemic and thorny" part is a quote of AMLO; personally I don't think it makes much difference, put it as an indirect source (so you can search the web for the phrase).

Common knowledge. Some parts of the article say AMLO enjoys a reputation of honesty (I edited/accepted that phrase) -does he? If I find a respectable poll saying most people think he did know about the corruption in his government, can I write he is thought of as either corrupt or an incompetent pigeon? I don't want to debate that right now, I want to make the point there really is no such a thing as common knowledge (and it is usually wrong :-) ), that's why a few minutes of fact checking should be done before deleting.

The redundancy of non-intervention. The lynching event might be covered in detail in the Marcelo Ebrard article. My opinion is: A small paragraph should appear in the Mexico City section -it was national news, he picked a fight with Fox, so on. A one or two liner should appear in the policy, referring the reader to other sections/articles. I think this small repetition is warranted; after all his pension programs appear in both places (being both policies and events). Asereje 05:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I forgot: was there a valid reason for deleting the paragraph on Pascual? It made the headlines, AMLO himself and several PRD members talked about it, it had dates, the Supreme Court was involved... A mistery to me. Asereje 07:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Because he Pascual thing, if I'm not mistaken, should go to in the Pascual Boing article. The fact that AMLO talked about is not sufficient reason to include it here. This article should not try to document everything he says (since politicians talk a lot in general) just things he says that have a wide impact on public opinion or help to define better his political views (and not just confirm them). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 11:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, the Pascual thing is mentioned earlier in the article, so it's redundant. It's arguably incorrect, expropriation of private property isn't part of AMLO's political platform just because his party supported it in one (admittedly much publicized) case. The political platform of a presidential candidate is basically what the candidate declares will be his policy if he's elected. Also, the wording is non-NPOV, a list of progressively more outrageous statements ending with "and then they even did this!" is not a neutral way to describe events.

Additionally, the repetition of the pension programs is a red herring. It's not really a repetition, since one talks about the pension programs as they were instated in Distrito Federal, while the other talks about the expansion of these pension programs to all of Mexico as part of his political platform should he be elected president.JZ 03:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was a Pascual Boing article, otherwise I would have pointed to it. I'd say AMLO *does* support expropriation in favor of private companies, since he actually expropriated land in favor of one, and personally criticized the Supreme Court for saying he shouldn't have. I didn't put Pascual because AMLO talked about it, but because AMLO actually did it, as you know. He did not, specifically, said he supports it (he only *did* it), probably because AMLO and PRD's don't think of Pascual as a private company, as it is collectively owned (cooperativa). The wording criticized as NPOV was, if I remember correctly, added in the reinstated version, to prevent "unbased" labels. As far as I know this is the only fact on AMLO posture in this topic, so in my view it is worth mentioning. Whether it confirms or not your opinion (I don't mind saying it does for me) should be irrelevant -it is a fact. I want to emphasize this: I don't mind editing/rewriting. I started this thread because I didn't agree to the way the original content was deleted and labeled as unbased (repetition was mentioned, but without specifying which was which).

Perhaps I didn't explained myself properly. I agree pensions should appear in both places, for the same reasons as Joakim. For these same reasons, the no-police-intervention/lynching and expropriation-for-private-gain/Pascual should appear in both places, redacted differently.

Maybe the problem is we are mixing policies with precedents with obscure things like "focus in culture". I'll try and disentangle this, not by deleting content but by rewriting into categories. I argue for precedents (mostly Pascual) because they show an stronger commitment like promises. Asereje 19:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I Would like to know why to put a cartoon on spanish? furthermore, why to put a cartoon no one else but mexicans understand? I' referring to that cartoon which only steals space and bytes to wikipedia about this character in mexican politics.Heclam 23:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I INSIST WHY SPANISH-LANGUAGED CARTOONS? Each "Character" Partisans are using this free-based encyclopedia to proselytize for their own purposes and use it as a billboard. Can I do that here in wikipedia (the billboard) how much for it?????

I agree with you, user above, but I've done all I can with respect to the cartoon. No other Wiki entry includes a cartoon comparing the subject of the entry to Hitler. Then again, as you can see by the comments on this page, it is difficult to achieve a "fair and balanced" view of AMLO. In the Calderon entry, any reference to his autoprestamo is automatically deleted. The man would have been encarcerated for that crime in the United Stated, but the Calderon "Kool Aid" drinkers simply delete the reference. His blind followers see this election as some type of religious crusade, regrettably........ 64 [[[User:66.73.165.2|66.73.165.2]] 13:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)] Nota Bene. The plural of POV is not POVs, it's PsOV.

Dewikification by 66.73.197.42

From 00:52, 24 December 2005 to 02:52, 24 December 2005 user 66.73.197.42 made 24 edits in which he or she dewikified the bulk of the article. See dif page for cumulative differences. There was no explanation give.

I've restored the wiki links using an the version of the article last edited by Vizcarra, modifying it to reflect a few minor edits that have taken place since the last edit by 66.73.197.42. mennonot 13:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for my "dewification". I was a newbie, and was not well versed in Wiki.

I would like to ask the people in this discussion board why my changes to the AMLO board are changed again and again.

I called the PRD a center-left Party, much like the Democratic Party in the US. Is this not correct? Have some Reuters notes not begun to refer to AMLO as a center-left politician? Are they wrong?

Also, why was my reference to the latest El Universal poll removed, which showed AMLO with a 11 point lead?

I also changed the wording from Manifesto to Political Platform. How is that a POV?

How is the fact that the Comision Instructora voted along party lines "subjective"?

How is C. Cardenas statement that he would not run if his internal polling did not suggest a competitive contest "subjective".

How is AMLO's promise to the Financial Times and Bloomberg that he would value MacroEconomic stability above all else, because inflation mostly impacts the middle class and lower class, "subjective".

How is the fact that AMLO used his police forces to remove squatters from a land tract, "subjective".

How is informing the public that the Desafuero is equivalent to Impeachment, POV?

I claim that AMLO is perceived as more honest than his competitors. Is this not polls by El Universal and Mitosfky have yielded. Why was that fact deleted?

I will repost my changes, and hope that they remain.

Again, I apologize for my earlier "dewification".

Thank you.

Thanks for the apology. No harm done. And welcome to Wikipedia! You might consider getting a username so people can more easily leave you messages and respond to your questions more consistently. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for more good reasons to sign up.

I don't know about the reversion of the specific edits you're talking about, but my suggestion would be to cite the sources for the facts you're adding to the article. This is an issue for everyone contributing to this article as there is currently citation system or footnotes. With the upcoming elections, this article will undoubtedly recieve more and more attention and it will be very important to have sources to backup the assertions being made. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more. mennonot 12:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Specific points I think need attention are: the claim Felipe Calderón had anything to do with the payment of López' bail. Is there a source on this? A politician's accusation on a newspaper hardly counts as a source, but the accusation itself might be noted. Regarding your questions:

Just because López SAYS he is center-left is not enough to say the PRD is. As you might know the PRD is a very diverse lot, and some analysts think this center-left pose is mostly to put some distance to more radical sectors. The PRD's website is probably a source for this.

There are several polls, and while all respectable ones give López the lead, picking the one with the highest distance is hardly neutral. Other polls give single-digit distances, and others are too close they are a stalemate. Polls change, in any case. I don't know if you wrote the date of the polls.

A Desafuero *is not* the same as Impeachment. An explanation can be found in the Desafuero article.

You shouldn't assume all of your edits were POV just because they were reverted, but if the ratio of POV is too great and the ocurrences too scattered it is far easier to revert the whole article once than to spend hours editing it. BTW, I just edited the Desafuero section to include latest developments and took away some POV/unsourced things. Specifically, I want to comment on the removal of Los Angeles Times as a source for attendance on López' March. Foreign media presumably uses national media as a source. You didn't say if the estimate used by LA was official or not, as I suspect it was. If it was official and thus of AMLO's own government, it is certainly suspect, and laundering it through the LA Times to give it an independent sounding origin is even more suspect. 200.39.231.146 19:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the January 3 posts by 200.39.231.146 are mine. Now that I read the version by 66.73.197.42 (I only skimmed it) I can say it is vandalism. After deleting sourced facts like AMLO's expensive Tiffany watch and bothersome issues like the corruption scandals and replacing them with AMLO propaganda and misleading items (see Los Angeles Times and choosing the most advantageous poll, above) a complaint on the reversal of "facts" is absurd. About the only valid point he made was on AMLO's use of police force against squatters in one instance, which is why the current text says policy (general guidelines). In any case the removal of the lynching, on which AMLO was quite vocal, is unexplained and unwarranted. This kind of vandalism disguised as bona-fide editing will probably become more common as the election nears. Asereje 02:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Regrettably, my posts were once again vandalized. There is no other word for it. AMLO is a center-left politician, to the dismay of so many of you. El Univeral DID place AMLO over 10 points ahead of his nearest opponent. For others in this board to continue to vandalize my posts is unaccpetable.

AMLO has repeatedly stated that he will, above all, ensure macroeconomic stablity.

El Universal (very late November poll) had AMLO ahead by 11 points. A IMO had him ahead by even more. When the polls change, we'll change the figures. Ultimately, I imagine we will have a composite comprised of Mitosfky, Heras, El Universal, Reforma, and Instituto Mercadotecnia y Opinion.

With respect to the Impeachment, I was shocked that none of you had ascribed political motives to the process. Why didn't you note that the vote in the Instructora and the House were both PartyLine, with the PRI and the PAN voting for, and the PRD against. Don't you think that is relevant. Again, vandalism by omission.

The vandalism on this site is overwhelming. I do hope it stops. Thank you.

To all regular editors, including those living in "lavish abodes", please say something. A revert war seems useless. In my view, the worst POV offenders are the public image and presidential campaign sections, and the selection of polls -Mitofsky says stalemate, but the only mention of them is to say AMLO was popular as Mayor. Mentions to the US Democratic Party and the nascent democracies in Europe, whatever they are, seem out of place. I worry little tiny edits like deleting all mentions of Ahumada and Tiffany's and so on accumulate to make this a cheap piece of propaganda without anyone noticing. Also, I think all editors should know how to sign their posts. Asereje 08:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My two cents:

1. I wouldn't use the results of polls for this particular election because results are not being consistent and some think highly manipulated as well. Read this article in la Jornada for more. IFE has gone as far as regulating how polls have to be done in order to get rid of all the poll insanity that's been going on [1]
2. Mentioning voting along party lines is pointless. PRD and PRI do vote together whenever they want to stop initiatives coming from PAN (cf. Reforma Fiscal). It is expected that parties will rally together against laws that go against their interests.
3. I always thought the mentioning of the Tiffany watch was a bit of editorializing. Is the toallagate mentioned in Fox's article, for instance? Or the fact that he uses designer suits? Or Marta's travel budget? I hope you're starting to see my point.
4. I have to agree with the desafuero as being politically motivated. It was more than evident when Fox opted for a "political solution" instead of carrying on in the Courts as it should have been. Whether you like it or not, due process is due process.
5. Comparing the PRD with the US Democratic party or any leftist party in Europe is not correct. Political parties in Mexico are still going through a process of defining their niche in national politics. PRD is a leftist party, don't get me wrong, but how far to the left is still on the air. Did you know, for instance, that PRI defines itself as being a "socialist" party? Would you consider it so?
6. The Ahumada thing has to be in the article, of course.

-- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts....

1. I believe that the entire impeachment process was politically motivated; as such, I believe that we must emphasize the party-line vote. No one can honestly believe that had the PRD comprised a majority in the Seccion Instructora or the House, that AMLO would have been impeached. No one in the PRD believed that the alleged transgression rose to the level of an impeachable offense. In a country whose laws allowed Fox to remain President despite the foreign financing of his campaign, to single out AMLO for an alleged minor violatioon of law was preposterous.

2. I believe that the PRD / Demoratic Party comparison is valid. Both parties are Center Left, and both parties have been historically aligned with the disenfranchised and the middle classes. Please recall Roosevelt program in the 30s, the Social Security program. Roosevelt faced the same criticism from the Right that AMLO faces today as a result of his pensiones para los ancianos. In fact, to this day, the Republicans have not forgiven Roosevelt for introducing "Big Government". Also, please note that both the PRD and the Democratic Party favor progressive fiscal codes, and believe that the affluent have an obligation to fund a larger proportion of government than middle- and lower-income classes. Finally, both the PRD and the Democratic Party believe in the power of government; they both believe that government can accomplish great things, and that the economy needs government direction to function smoothly. 66.73.197.42 18:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed the poll numbers from El Universal. In the near future, will place the composite poll numbers from Mitosfky, Heras, El Universal, Reforma, and Instituto Mercadotecnia y Opinion. (66.73.197.42 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

Appreciated -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

AMLO left the Mayoralty with an 84% approval rating. How can anyone argue that his tenure was "controversial". If a public official with an 84% approval rating can be described as "controversial", then, my question is, how high an approval rating must a politician receive to be considered "popular". (66.73.197.42 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

His tenure was controversial (videoscandals, desafuero, the issue with his driver, pensions for the old, rejecting the Seguro popular in Mexico City, segundos pisos, to name a few) his approval rating not. Whether or not his decisions were correct, they generated a lot of debate in the media and that is very definition of controversial. People in Mexico City do like him, but that doesn't make his tenure any less controversial.

A blanket comparison with the US Democratic Party is misleading. The US Democratic Party of the 1930s is different from the modern one. Recently the party has been advocating things like the Third way, which is not a socialist policy at all. If you followed the American press after the two most recent presidential elections you'd have noticed a lot of criticism of both Democratic and Republican parties of becoming "center" parties with a bit of "leftist" or "rightist" rethoric to appease the party base. I'm looking for some proper articles on the issue right now.

Moreover, internal strife and factional divisions within the PRD prevent the party from presenting a coherent stand, which doesn't allow for any meaningful comparison with the ideologies of other parties. Even worst, the Mexican left, in general, is highly fragmented; see [2] [3] for a start.

All I'm saying is that we really, really, need to be careful when adding material. This is a controversial subject (and I should probably tag the article as such). The fact that this is election year and the article is bound to get more attention doesn't help things either. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

1. If one believes that AMLO is controversial, then who isn't? For example, would one be able to describe Calderon is an extremely controversial and polarizing figure? Is Fox a very controversial president?

2. With respect to the Demcoratic Party, please note that the Democrats, within the past year, united against Bush's attempt to introduce private accounts and thereby dismantle the Social Security program. Also, please note that it is the Democratic Party that has stood united against Bush's attempts to render US fiscal policy more regressive. They have adamantly opposed Bush's attempts to eliminate the estate tax. Moreover, please remember that is was Clinton who significantly raised the top ISR rate, from 31% to 39%. Recently, Clinton also stated that Bush's tax cuts for the affluent are hurting the US economy, and that the wealthy in that country, including himself, have an obligation to fund a larger proportion of government. I ask you, which candidate, AMLO, or the other two, represents Democratic fiscal policy? (66.73.197.42 20:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

Pretty much any politician that makes it to the mainstream media is controversial. Above I gave you several examples of why AMLO is a controversial character. I could dig out more: he has been called authoritarian [4], Demetrio Sodi (a PRD senator) said in early 2005 that Lopez Obrador "[...] no cree en las instituciones, no cree en la ley" ("... [He] doesn't believe in institutions, doesn't believe in the law"). AMLO is controversial even within his own party.

On the other hand, Fox is quite controversial himself. He has been regarded as a weak President unable to curtail the growing power of his wife, inept in negotiating with Congress and a general servant of foreign interests. Others argue that it was Congress at fault for wrecking the path of reform, that his wife does more good an evil and that "serving foreign interests" is creating the proper conditions for foreign investment in the country. Should I go on?

The point is, there are two very obvious ways one can look at AMLO. Both have to be mentioned in the article if we are to stick to the Neutral Point of View policy of this site. We cannot endorse either of them as being true because truth is in the eye of the beholder. I have many friends who live in the north of Mexico who believe AMLO will be the next Hugo Chávez. I have many friends in Mexico City who believe AMLO will be the next Benito Juárez. Obviously both can't be right, but it is NOT the purpose of this article to decide it. That is left to reader after reading a (hopefully) balanced and neutral text.

About the US Democratic party, I strongly encourage you to read the article on the Democratic Party first. My objections to the comparison were based on long-term observed trends in US politics. You're basing your objection in a spat of recent votes. See [5] for an example. The fact is that the Democrats are also highly divided and can only agree on the most extreme ideological cases (tax cuts being an obvious one). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hola. You say that almost any major politician is controversial. If so, why even describe him/her as such. Instead, why not merely indicate the acts that are "controversial". In AMLO's case, we have described the Ahumada affair. The Ebrard affair is also recounted (although I believe it has no place in the entry.)

I went to the Calderon page, and I couldn't find the adjective "controversial" anywhere. Clearly, his fiscal policy is much more radical than anything proposed by AMLO (referring to the flat tax). Would I be wrong to describe him as a "very controversial and polarizing candidate" on his page because of his flat tax proposal?

With respect to the Democratic Party, I believe that the points you make support my analogy. Like the PRD, the Democratic Party is splintered. The PRD had extremist legislators that accompanied the VZ ambassador to the airport as he left; the Democratic Party had Senator Pat Murray who defended Bin Laden shortly after the 911 attacks. The Democratic Party also has Representative (in the House) that have supported Castro and Chavez.

What unites the two parties, the PRD and the Democratic Party, however, is the belief in the power of government to do great things. Unlike the PAN and its aversion to government, the PRD and AMLO believe that government policy, both social and economic, can effect great positive change. Let's look at economic policy.

The PRD and the Democratic Party both believe in ameliorating the concentration of wealth. The Democrats under Clinton raised the top tax bracket to 39%. States controlled by Democratic legislatures have more progressive tax codes than those that don't. Currently, the Democratic Party is fighting to undo Bush's tax cuts, and to revert the tax code to that under Clinton. The Democratic Party has also pronounced itself in favor of the estate tax, which it sees as instrumental in ensuring the redistribution of income.

In social policy, I'd argue that the PRD is to the Right of the Democratic Party. While Clinton signed legislation that effectively allowed gays into the military, I don't believe that AMLO would ever do so. Democratic Senators and Representatives have also pronounced themselves in favor of gay marriage, which I don't see the AMLO or PRD candidates for Senate or House doing. Last year, Kerry said he was in favor of civil unions.

For these reason, and others that I'm sure I'll think of later, I do believe that the comparison between AMLO/PRD and the Democratic Party is valid. (66.73.197.42 01:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC))

66.73.197.42, I have to remind you this article is about Mexican politics, more specifically about a Mexican politician and I frankly see neither point or need in including the US Democratic Party. I really wonder if AMLO or the PRD would consider themselves similar to, say, Bill Clinton, and the US Democractic Party. Also, I checked and the PRD describes itself as a "plural left" party. I don't know how the US DP describes itself, but politics being so different in both countries I really think is pointless and a waste of the reader's time since he probably don't cares and in any case would like to decide for himself if it is so.

Regarding polls, mentioning the accumulate is probably incorrect since they presumably have differente metodologies, dates and population. I'd go for general tendencies, currently a slight advantage to AMLO which some pollsters believe is a draw due to the error margin.

Regarding party-line vote: I think that is the *expected* thing, so it's not worth mentioning.

Regarding AMLO's Tiffany's and etc., I put them in the article with the naive hope propagandists would think twice before putting blanket assertions that AMLO enjoys a reputation of honesty. AMLO himself made a point of his cheap tailor suits and then we have a photograph of him wearing a Hugo Boss. I would agree to leaving them out if the assertion of AMLO's reputation of moderation is removed. I think the toallate and Martha's expenses should be in their respective articles, I don't know if that is the case.

For what is worth, the spanish version of the article was (or is) locked, due to similar issues as those placed here. Asereje 06:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I just made some edits, not all commented. Partly because I assume given the current discussion all people would read the diff despite what the comments say. Mostly I deleted all mentions to US politics, condensed sentences by removing extra words but hopefully preserving the main idea, and some editing.

66.73.197.42, if you are interested in this topic you might want to create a user account. You'll find it is easier to track articles you are interested in and helps people recognize you, should you want to go on to other articles. Also because we have been assuming all along you are the same person, which might not be the case.

I think the article should focus on AMLO, mentioning his party as little as needed. Comparisons to other countries are probably unhelpful, since the reader could conceivably come from other, not mentioned countries. I for one don't have a clear idea of what the Democrats stand for. I understand the conservative Republican party was founded to support slavery abolishment (!).

My personal insistence on having specific facts like the Tiffany's watch is because blanket assertions, whichever they are, are harder to prove/disprove. In my last edit I left the apartment and Tsurito (though the apartment's zone is hardly my idea of cheap) and Tiffany's and Hugo Boss, so both opinions are shown and the reader can decide for himself. Asereje 08:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the polls, only a "propagandist" would believe that the race is technically a toss-up. If the election were held today, AMLO would comfortably win. To believe otherwise is to..........

Then I assume you won't be using Mitofsky in your edits, as that is their official possition as of January 3, 2006 and presumably until their next poll. Asereje 06:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see how many of you who attack my comparison between AMLO and the Democratic Party, felt about the comparson that many of you made between AMLO and the extremist parties and politicians of Latin America. I do believe that the comparison is valid, for contextual reasons. (66.73.197.42 20:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

Venezuela's government, if not Chavez himself, has been vocal in their support of AMLO. A Venezuelan ambassador had to leave for this. I'm unsure if the comparisons you mention are still in the article. In any case, they are made, and if the article has them they shouldn't be taken as absolute truth and comparisons to him to Chile's left can also be included not as replacement but complement. I don't know of a single analyst, politician or group who believes AMLO and the DP have anything in common. If you can find a source to that to a reasonably representative group (if not in numbers in authority, say a known politician or union) I would support a mention to it. I tried and couldn't find if the DP thinks of itself as center-left, which would be critical if your comparison holds. Even if it did, I still think there shouldn't be any details or figures that probably have nothing to do with Mexico's reality. Asereje 06:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. AMLO tends to be compared more with other Latin-American presidents (mostly Lula and Chavez). Now that I think of it a comparison with the DP may as well be original research if no one has made the comparison before. In any case, I still think people should read the DP entry in this very encyclopedia to see why the modern DP has little to do with an European or Latin American-style left-of-center party. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The AMLO/Democraic Party comparison is valid, for all the reasons I've otlined above. Also, recall that Villaraigosa invited AMLO, not the PRI or PAN, to LA. Also, please note that when the Democratic Party reps (some House members + Dean) came to Mexico City, they gave their press conference in AMLO's campaign headquarters. What is the stance of the Democratic Party on taxes, and please compare that to the PRI/PAN. Do any of you know what President Clinton said of people who are for the regressive flat taxes; he called the the same kind of people what wold argue that the world is flat. Finally, which party believes in the power of government. Which party has stated that goverment is essential for the wellbeing of its citizens, as the Democratic Party has said. Think about it.

Conducted a quick search, and came up with the following. Others are also making the comparison. The PRD is the center-left party of Mexico, as the Democratic Party is in the US. Source: Initially, AMLO sounds like FDR. Express-News Mexico City Bureau.. [6]

The background of the Supreme Court is essential to understanding politics in Mexico. The Supreme Court is a very controversial entity that has not sided with the disenfranchised.

The race is not a toss-up.

Let's strive for a fair and balanced view on AMLO. Regrettably, I'm coming to the conclusion that many of you are merely trying to undermine his candidacy. I went to the Fox website. No mention of the many homes that he suddeny owns throughout Mexico. No mention of how Martha's sons have gone from rags to riches. No mention of the Fonden scandal. Called p the Calderon site. No mention of his two violations of the Rule of Law, in December, when he ignored the IFE. Please, let's be fair and balanced with AMLO. There is far more criticism against AMLO on his site than in that of Calderon or Fox on their site.

Martha's statements regarding AMLO were made about one year ago, and cited in a Reforma (certainly no friend of AMLO, did any of you see the headline the day after he declared his candidacy for President, about one month ago. "No dice Como" We all know that the editorial board of Reforma is very much to the Right, but they can at least remain objective on their news pages. Since when did editorial comments make their way to the headlines of papers?) shortly thereafter. Frankly, I'm surprised that any of would challenge me on Martha's view regarding AMLO. (66.73.197.42 01:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC))

It's late at night here were I leave so I'll be brief: if you're reverting somebody's changes please explicitly say so in your edit summary, even if you're adding some more material. I'll reply more thoroughly when I have more time, which may not happen until the weekend. I also wanted to make clear that the Supreme Court has absolutely no obligation to side with anyone. Even if there's a perceived bias in its rulings. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 02:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I give up. It's not worth my time. It's a pity the morons of the world outnumber the reasonable people. I really miss User:Joakim Ziegler. So long, and thanks for all the fish. Asereje 04:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never said that the Supreme Court has an obligation to side with anyone. Rather, what I'd like to make clear is that the Supreme Court has a clear bias against the disenfranchised. How is it possible that the public officials that perpetrated genocide in the 60s and 70s have not been brought to justice? It is also important that the reader know that Azuela has a clear bias against AMLO, and discussed impeachment with Fox well before the process began.

It is regrettable that some must resort to name calling. I would hope we can maintain a level of civil discourse.

With respect to kidnapping, do we need to include the names of all the celebrites?

I just called up Felipe Calderon's entry in Wiki. Not one mention of his US$ 400K autoprestamo, which would have prompted immediate dismissal had the Sec. of HUD done so in the US. No mention of his two violations of IFE law in December. No mention of his regressive flat tax proposal, which would result in a tax hike for middle class Mexicans, no mention of the fact that he has never had any Executive (branch) experience. No mention of these and many other shortcomings.

Then go ahead and mention it. It not being mentioned is no reason for hiding verifiable facts here. If you can put references, go ahead and add it too to such entry. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Compare that to AMLO's entry. Criticism after criticism. Please keep in mind that this is a man who left office with an 84% approval rating. How many politicans can say that? Let's try to keep his entry fair and balanced, please.

Thanks. (66.73.197.42 02:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC))

Drini's outside view

I was requested on my page to look up what's going on here about 66.73.197.42. In reverse chronological order:

• [7] I don't see a de-wikification just changing words and phrasings, so this is more likely to fall over content disputes.
• [8] This one worries me since it's removing verifiable facts (the watch etc..) while pushing POV pro-AMLO. We shouldn't hide the bad stuff, both sides should be reported.
• [9] More POV pushing, removing not-so-good stuff about AMLO substituting with good stuff. For instance, one of the fisrt changes:

  AMLO fostered a public image of frugality and relative honesty. He resides in a middle-class apartment near UNAM's main campus and owns an old car. However, the press published photographs of him wearing an expensive Tiffany's watch and an Hugo Boss suit in one of his morning press conferences.

  becames

  AMLO fostered a public image of frugality and relative honesty. He resides in a modest apartment near UNAM's main campus and owns an older compact car. According to all the published polls, López Obrador is considered the most honest of the three primary contendors for the Presidency.

  at least it should be stated up to which date the polls are taken (and I recall some of them telling otherwise. Of course, they're dismissed by pro-AMLO people as unreliable and biased, but that doesn't change the objective fact that not all polls say the same).

• [10] the same. For instance, the paragraph

  He also left the mayoralty of Mexico City with an 84% approval rating according to Mitosfky, a respected pollster. According to recent polls, AMLO is considered the presidential frontrunner.

  needs to qualify recent (as in, date), since as of the time I'm writing this, there are polls that say otherwise. So let's keep things objective, relative statemetns like (highly, recent, etc.. ) should be made precise in order to avoid ambiguity and mantain neutrality.

Well, that's what I see when glancing over the latest edits in the past weeks. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely biased.

Definitely biased. To delete the fact about the corruption of his aids and his anti free market and anti liberalism ideology shows a lot of who is behind this article.

Re: So, you find facts you don't like and delete them? So, someone doesn't agree with you and you know "who is behind" the article? I would suggest to find RESPECTED and NEUTRAL sources to aid into making a better article, instead of just deleting facts you don't like...

On the other hand, I grant you that "his anti free market" and "anti liberalism" ideology are matters of opinion and should not be included. However, the corruption of some of his aids is a well documented fact. Why delete it? I think it is very relevant to the character of Mr. Lopez Obrador. If not for other things, to show how he dealt with the issue: by putting them on trial...

Hari Seldon 05:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I Concur

MOST definitely biased. But, it won't matter after July 2th any more. Or even right now given the turn the polls have taken. Let them have their fun, though. (Just make a little reminder to delete this article after elections) Cheeri-o

The Hitler Cartoon Crusade and Bias

It is regrettable that the cartoon comparing AMLO to Hitler remains on AMLO's page. Again, I challenge any objective Wiki contributor to show such blatant bias on someone elses entry. Anytime anyone makes a reference to Calderon's autoprestamo on his page, it is immediately deleted. Yet, many believe it appropriate to continue to compare AMLO to Hitler on his page. I urge everyone, please, to be more objective, to not see this election as a missionary crusade for the Christian Right, as many of you do. 64 [[[User:66.73.165.2|66.73.165.2]] 13:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)]

Dear ANONYMOUS, if you have read the cartoon it also says that AMLO is NOT like Hitler, he is NOT like Chavez, he is NOT like Jesus. I think that with all the comparisons that have been made between AMLO and many historical characters (many fostered by AMLO himself), the cartoon is a very witty take on his public image. I didn't post the cartoon, but I found it very interesting. I think that the article as it stands, while far from being perfect, is a much nicer piece than the eulogy that I read a few months back. If you read my edits on Calderón, you'll see I'm not favoring any candidate, just trying to make their articles worthy of an encyclopaedia. I, like many others, stand strongly against the christian right, but that doesn't mean voting for AMLO as the only way out. To me it would be akin to aligning myself with Castro-Chavez just because I don't like what Bush has done. If anyone seems to be in a crusade it's definitively AMLO's followers. I mean, the guy irresponsibly used his term as "mayor" of Mexico City as a political campaign, he deserves to loose. That's my honest opinion. Schicchi 14:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Schicchi: I completely agree with you. The cartoon is worthy of remaining because of the witty comparison it makes. However, isn't the cartoon protected by copyright? How is it that it found its way here? Hari Seldon 14:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hari: A user posted it on the site, I have reinstated it several times, but I'm not the original poster. You're right, I doubt the original poster was aware of copyright issues on it. We could contact the cartoonist and I'm sure he would love to see it here, but I don't think it's worth the effort. Want to do the honors?

Schicchi: Sure! I'll try contacting the cartoonist. But I think that Mr. Paco Calderón will not respond to me. In any case, I'll try and see if he'll donate the cartoon to Wikipedia, or if at least, we gives wikipedia permission to use it. Hari Seldon 21:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult for my pals to analyze a cartoon? A comparison is clearly made between AMLO and Hitler, and for any of my friends to deny this comparison is for them to be in denial. The cartoon is CLEARLY a hit piece against AMLO, and works in favor of the Christian Right, which is hoping that AMLO is not elected President. Regrettably, there are many RightWing Christians on this board. The same editors who tolerate such a Hate-laden cartoon against AMLO, refuse to allow a reference to FC's AutoPrestamo to remain on his board. Many times objective editors have put forth a version of his AutoPrestamo on FC's site, only to have it deleted within minutes by FC's Kool-Aid drinkers. That's objectivity for you. I've never seen such hatred for a politician, as that emanating from Christian RightWingers against AMLO on his Wiki entry. Apparently, there are many editors very comfortable with the status quo in Mexico, with an annual growth rate since 1982 of 0.7% GDP/Capita. 64 [[[User:66.73.165.2|66.73.165.2]] 16:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)]

Dear 66.73.165.2: Your username and status as registered user of the wikipedia, as well as your countless unrefutable unbiased sources add greatly to our understanding, and does a great deal to advance your "christian right" hypothesis...

The cartoon IS NOT a piece against AMLO, as stated by other users, such as Schicchi and myself. If you can read spanish, you clearly read the lines "Is he like Hitler? (answer) NO, HITLER KILLED PEOPLE". Evidently, the cartoon CLEARLY STATES IN ITS CONTEXT THAT Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH HITLER. Do you even know how to read?

By the way, the self loan (autoprestamo) you refer to about Felipe Calderón surely is documented. At least, by the ultra-leftwing-biased PRD/UNAM newspaper "La Jornada". I am pretty sure that, at least, that source exists. If you can contribute with a SOURCED statement about the self loan, I will personally see to it that it remains. If, instead, you insist on using hateful language and unsourced opinions, then I will personally delete such vandalism.

I am not comfortable with the status quo in Mexico, but Wikipedia is not the place to advance political agendas, neither in favor nor against any status quo. Please do not use Wikipedia for such matters. By the way, I am an atheist, and I don't appreciate you calling me a "Right Wing Christian"...

Hari Seldon 18:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

i belive the cartoon should be taken out as it represents a personal opinion and disputes the neutrality of the article, the bias in the cartoon is obious when it implies that AMLO does not know how to read but writes books--Peyotiux 18:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: I don't agree. I think this issue is still controversial. I don't think the article implies that AMLO does not know how to read. Why not submit it to a vote? Hari Seldon 21:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the cartoon, since its copyright status is obviously unknown, and it's also pretty clearly a criticism of AMLO (not because of the Hitler comparison, but because of other parts of it, such as the one that says that he's not like Chavez, but implies that he's worse, since at least Chavez is entertaining/has a sense of humor/plays guitar), and it's been included with no caption, no context, and adds nothing to a neutral encyclopedic article about AMLO. If anyone wants to write a section about media criticisms and anti-AMLO cartoons, giving this some context, and a translation to English, since this is indeed the English Wikipedia, and then can get the artist to release the cartoon either into the public domain, or under the GFDL, it would be appropriate to add it back. Until then, it's not. Voting on it will resolve nothing, especially since it's a copyright violation at the moment, and as such explicitly is in breach of Wikipedia policy. So please do not add it back. JZ 06:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree the cartoon is biased. I think that interpreting the cartoon as saying that AMLO is worse than Chavez " since at least Chavez is entertaining/has a sense of humor/plays guitar" is strictly a matter of opinion. I think that the cartoon says just the opposite. However, I do agree on the copyright status, and won't add it back until I get permission from the author. Hari Seldon 17:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In regards to some changes I have made...... (1) How can anyone remove the context of the "confrontations", and argue that the impartiality is maintained? Without the pollution context, the description of the event is misleading. (2) AMLO himself has stated that he is a center-left candidate. Also, the AP and Reuters haver referred to AMLO as center-left in their news stories. (3) We had already arrived at a consensus with respect to AMLO's political platform. Please note that the origininal incarnation was much longer. (4) Why was the Reforma analysis (stating that AMLO kept 80% of his promises) removed? (5) Huerta being a close-friend of FOX needs to be included, as it clearly demonstrates the politically-motivated firing of Ebrard. Both were "implicated", yet only one was fired, the one that did not happen to be Fox's friend. (6) Let's discuss major changes to desafuero section before implementing them. (7) I still can't understand how some of you don't believe that cartoon to be clearly biased. ANYTIME a comparison to Hitler is made, it has negative connatations. For any of you to believe that it's not biased simply b/c the comparison is subsequently discarded is ludicrous. 64 [[[User:66.73.165.2|66.73.165.2]] 20:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)]

Also, please note that confrontations is not a neutral word. Confrontation implies that AMLO was also an agressor, which, as far as I know, he was not. Can't we think of a more suitable word to describe the event. According to some accounts I have read, AMLO was engaging in civil disobedience. Clearly, we can do better than "confrontation." 64 [[[User:66.73.165.2|66.73.165.2]] 20:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)]

PrimEditor, let's please discuss major changes before making them. I've made some points above, regarding the changes I have made. Let's discuss them. Thanks. 64 [[[User:66.73.165.2|66.73.165.2]] 21:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)]

World Mayor Contest

I recall there was a mention of this "contest" in the article, don't recall when or why it was taken out. An anonymous user added it, would be nice to complement it like it used to stand in the article. 201.154.159.90 21:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: What is the validity of this contest? Is it really useful to note that the world's most populated city voted his mayor the best of all? I mean, is it really an indication of how good or bad did Mr. AMLO did his job? Hari Seldon 23:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it was an "open vote" on an internet page, so it really only measures the number of followers that were asked to vote on the page. Do you know when it was deleted? Schicchi 03:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: No, last time I checked, at least the link was still there... Hari Seldon 19:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Madrazo alliance

The statement that Madrazo has declared that he will support AMLO is, as far as I know, false. There is, today, speculation in the media that he will withdraw from the race and support AMLO, but no such thing has been declared. The two Universal links that are cited as references do not state this either, rather, they are about an information sharing agreement between the campaigns of Madrazo and AMLO, since both the PRI and the PRD are accusing the PAN of using public resources, specifically those of president Fox, to support Calderon's campaigning, which is illegal according to Mexican election laws. This sentence must be changed, although I admit I'm not sure how it should be changed. I think possibly the best thing would be to remove it until there's further facts available on the situation. I'll do that for now. JZ 23:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Joaquin, have you read the newspapers today? I think that the "de-facto" alliace is real and there shouldn't be any problem adding it to the article. The "shade of gray" may need adjustments, but it's definitively happening. The way I phrased my sentence doesn't state that they will go to the election as one single candidate, but that they will "join forces" to avoid FC from winning. I think there shouldn't be any problem in adding it to the article like that. Schicchi 13:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no declared alliance, there's an information sharing agreement, regarding the "eleccion del estado", which is independent of any political alliance as such between the PRD and the PRI. The PRD also seems very reluctant to enter into any such alliance with the PRI. My clarifications now in the article reflect the reality of the situation, and are supported by the citations in the same paragraph. By the way, Primeditor for some reason removed my clarifications in an edit that had no summary; I've restored them. Let's keep the treatment of this subject to what's actually supported by the sources, please. JZ 17:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That is what Manuel Camacho, who was previously of the PRI and now is of the PRD, says... However, Barlett who is of the PRI is saying something completely different. Obviously, there is no explicit alliance, but it is worth noting that independent members of both parties are hinting at an alliance that goes beyond simple "information sharing". Barlett is calling for PRI members to vote for former PRI members now in the PRD, such as Andres Manuel López Obrador...

Both the PRI and the PRD claim that the government is involved illegally. Though this statement may be disputed, I feel it to be POVed at best, and a lie considering that the proper authorities have not pronounced themselves in an institutional manner. IFE has called President Fox to "shut up", but silencing the President is hardly an official reprimand, or an official, judicial, declaration of wrong doing...

In any case, the "illegal involvement of the government" that Madrazo accuses is called by the PRI candidate as a "state election", something that even left-wing intellectuals deny completely. Having the President talking about its social programs when it is not allowed hardly constitutes a "state election". There are no other judicially or mediatically proven involvements from the government in the campaings, so I suggest either clarifying Madrazo's paranoia in the article, or simply delete any reference to it at all. Hari Seldon 17:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The accusation of illegal involvement is a matter of public record, and is what we're reporting, in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on reporting different viewpoints, without taking a standpoint on which ones are correct. The PRD and the PRI have stated this, so it's fine to have in the article.

I've also added Madrazo's statements lately that he's not endorsing another candidate, and that he's not stepping down. Please do not just revert my edits without discussion, especially when they have cites and sources. Thank you. JZ 18:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not calling you a liar, I am calling Madrazo a liar. He is the one who is saying that the government is involved ilegally in a "state election"...

I have reworded your statement to clarify that the PRI and PRD accusations are just opinions, as is supported in the sources you give.

I also removed the statement that said that either party have not given "official statements". That is not true. Just yesterday the PRI president was giving an official statement saying that there would be punishment to anyone who followed through such an alliance. I just need to get the source and I'll add it in. Hari Seldon 18:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, reporting what Madrazo has said regarding the "state election" issue is NPOV, and there's no need to take a standpoint as to whether or not Madrazo is lying: His statement is a matter of public record, and should be reported.

Your rewording created ungrammatical sentences, and the wording regarding the information sharing agreement looks like it's wilfully muddling the issue, using language like "has said" and "is only". The only official statements we have to go on about an alliance is an information sharing agreement, no party has said that there's a further alliance, beyond information sharing. The rest is media speculation.

Also, can you please not just delete stuff because you'll find sources later? If you want to find sources, go and do it, then correct the information to be in accordance with your sources. I'm not casting doubt on you, but it's totally unacceptable to delete stuff just because you promise to find sources later. Oh, and please fix the indenting of your comments here on the talk page, I'm fixing it for you every time I edit here. JZ 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Clean Up

With the structure of the article cleaned up (as Primeditor says to have done), can we remove the "clean-up" tag from the article? Hari Seldon 21:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We could if we can truly keep it cleaned up. Primeditor 21:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I trust in our maturity. I'll eliminate the tag right now. Hari Seldon 03:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

To user with IP 66.73.165.2

Regarding your comment on center-left versus left leaning. There is nothing wrong with being from the left. Ricardo Lagos in Chile and Felipe Gonzalez among other successful statemen have called themselves from the left. The PRD has stated they represent the left in Mexico. Does insisting on using center-left means that to be a true left you have to be "left-left"?. Further, "left leaning" in reality is in a way softer than saying leftist or something of that sort.

Also, I kindly suggest to avoid doing major changes and then highlighting them as "minor" in the comments.

Primeditor 21:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Primeditor, I agree that there is nothing wrong with "leftist", or "left leaning", as there isn't anything wrong with "right" or "right leaning", but AP and Reuters have both referred to the PRD as Center-Left.

Also, with respect to AMLO's platform, we had already abridged it. Why was it deleted? Thanks for your reply. 64 [[[User:66.73.165.2|66.73.165.2]] 21:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)]

Primeditor, please read my contribution above (last three entries in Cartoon section), where I have addressed some of your concerns regarding changes I have made. Again, with respect to AMLO's ideology, please note that for the past 5 months, we have referred to him as Center-left. Reuters and AP refers to the PRD as the Center-left party. Why change today? 64 [[[User:66.73.165.2|66.73.165.2]] 23:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)]

Hello again, Primeditor. With respect to AMLO's policies benefiting the Mexico City middle class, please note that AMLO would not have received a final approval rating of 84% had it not been for support from this segment of society. How did he help them? Please recall the segundo-pisos, for which the left criticized him, as they leveled the charge that it would exclusively help the middle-class car owners, at the expense of the City's poor. Also, please note the tax abatements granted throughout Polanco, which lowered the IRR hurdle rate, which in turn facilitated the construction of many condos targeting the middle-class. 64 [[[User:66.73.165.2|66.73.165.2]] 00:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)]

Dear 66.73.165.2, how come you get references from "Comunicación Social del Gobierno del DF" and refuse to get a Wikipedia ID? Schicchi 14:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ifeito, please note that the other source (whose link has expired) also cited the 80% Reforma number. I imagine that you referenced it, since you did not dispute the figure for the three months during which I cited the number. Please don't remove it. Ifeito, with respect to describing AMLO's political tendencies, let's agree to disagree. Since we can't agree on "left-wing" or "center-left", let's remove both. Please note that Calderon's entry does this. Thanks. 64 [[[User:66.73.165.2|66.73.165.2]] 19:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)]

Dear anonymous, I'm all for using Center-Left to describe AMLO (see my last edit) and I don't have any problem with the 80% analysis done on reforma, I'm not the one deleting it! I only questioned that you had info from the mexico city government and didn't have an account, do you work for Mexico City's government? Your IP could indicate that. BTW, I would love to know what you think of the current events with AMLO and RMP getting together to fight FCH. AMLO doesn't seem to need it, he has been climbing steadily for the last week or so, I think he'll plateau around 32% and FCH around 35%. (http://www.sabaconsultores.com/intencion_archivos/slide0009.htm). An alliance with RMP could shake things up quite a bit. ifeito@fya.com.mx Schicchi 00:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Primeditor, please note that we had already agreed that the link to the 80% figure was valid. In fact, I recall seeing that headling in Reforma. Can't link to direct note b/c Reforma is a paid site. Ifeito never had a problem with the link substantiating the statement. Why do you? Thank you, Primeditor.

Hello again, Primeditor. The original Reforma note can be found by going to Reforma.com, go to search box, type in "promesas", for dates parameters should be between 27 of july, and 29 of july, 2005, you will then find the link to a story entitled, ------- 28-07-2005. ciudad y metropoli. Quedan compromisos pendientes de cumplir (Artículo) ------ Within that article, you will find the 80% figure. I hope that this will put an end to the discussion. Thank you. 64 [[[User:66.73.165.2|66.73.165.2]] 21:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)]

Hello, once again, Primeditor. Found the text of the actual note, as it appeared in Reforma, without the headline (headline included the 80% figure) Please note that the text can be found at the following site, hosted by President Fox. Story is: De los 40 compromisos que el Jefe de Gobierno dijo que cumpliría faltaron ocho y otras tres se encuentran en proceso. Por Manuel Durán y Alejandra Bordon Thank you. [11] 64 [[[User:66.73.165.2|66.73.165.2]] 21:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)]

Hello IP 66.73. Thank you for the productive exchange. Reality is that it is extremely likely that most readers of Wiki in English do not have access to Reforma on line. Thus, reference is of no use. Further, article seems to have been originally an opinion column. We are trying to clean up the AMLO entry by avoiding precisely this kind of entries. Otherwise we will have all sort of one sided links. Thank you

Primeditor 22:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Primeditor. Please read the entire text of the article. It is not an opinion column. It was not found on Reforma's opinion pages. It is found on the news section of Reforma. I've shown you how you can access the entire note, directly from Reforma's site, assuming you pay for access. Also, please note that I have provided a link to a site that includes the ENTIRE TEXT of said story, as it appeared in Reforma. Please note that the site is hosted by gob.mx, and not the Mexico City government. That is, the entire text appears on President Fox's site, not likely to misrepresent a Reformy story. Finally, I linked to another source with the 80% figure. Primeditor, the 80% figure came from Reforma's news pages, and was written by Manuel Durán, a reporter, not a columnist. If you enter "Manuel Durán" in Reforma, and conduct a search, you will see the last stories he has written. Not one of them is an opinion piece, and neither is the one which yields the 80% figure. Thank you. 64 [[[User:66.73.165.2|66.73.165.2]] 23:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)]

Neutrality (again) and recent edits

I'd like to bring up a few issues with recent edits, specifically those by Hari Seldon, but also the tendencies in general. There are specific Wikipedia policies on things like citing sources, neutrality, and not making large changes, especially reverts/deletions, without discussion. Several of those policies have been repeatedly disregarded.

Additionally, there's evidence of what I see as very tendencious editing. Single words and phrases are replaced under the guise of being "clarifications", when they in reality change the meaning subtly, or turn the meaning towards encouraging suspicions. For instance, the phrase "Lopez Obrador has never been directly linked to the scandals" or some such had the word "directly" replaced with "judicially", insinuating that the only thing missing to link him would be a court decision, when in reality, the word "directly" is perfectly appropriate.

Also, there's a tendency towards smearing sources. Newspaper "La Jornada", a leftist Mexico City paper, reported today that Madrazo has discounted any alliance with the PRD. I reported this as "media reported", with a reference to La Jornada. That was changed several times, and ended up as "PRD supporting newspaper La Jornada reported". This smells of smearing the source, and although it's true that La Jornada is a leftist newspaper, it's hardly necessary to specify this here, especially since it's extremely unlikely that the newspaper would directly falsify a direct quote from Madrazo. One of the reasons I cite La Jornada is that it has a lot of political coverage, and has an open archive on the web, as opposed to La Reforma, the other newspaper I'd like to cite. I don't think we really want to start a trend of writing "whatever supporting newspaper Newspapername" in front of each cite, do we? But then again, I get the feeling that this only applies to newspapers the editor happens to disagree with. As it happens, Notimex, by way of El Economista, is also reporting comments from Madrazo, at http://www.eleconomista.com.mx/articulos/2006-05-25-12835

So can we just cut out the partisan stuff here? I'm not even Mexican, although I live in the country, and all I want is fair and unbiased coverage. I already did a major cleanup of this article last year, and I see it's gotten at least as bad one more time. If this continues, I'm afraid we're going to have to bring in admins to resolve the problems, because this is way outside of Wikipedia policy.

Joaquim (I believe that last edit is yours, right?), I agree with your comments, but I do see a lot of POV edits added from both sides. In the recent cleanup a lot of redundant stuff was removed. For instance, the phrase indicating that AMLO was never directly linked to the videoscandals is superflous, since the original sentence does not imply it. I would use the Videoscandals article to elaborate on that. Also, we don't need a complete history of the CD in AMLO's article. Honestly, we need to keep it short and sweet, this is an encyclopaedia article, not an eulogy (like it once was) or an editorial piece. Are you with me? Schicchi 09:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If a politician's government is involved in a scandal, I think it is important to mention that he personally was never directly linked to them, even if it's not implied in the original sentence. I agree about redundancy in general, though, when redundancy actually means repeated facts, and not just information that someone thinks is implied. Again, I see the tendency to remove things for "redundancy" or "cleanup" where the things removed are things that change nuances or meanings.

Also, this article is not so long that it needs to be agressively trimmed. See Wikipedia policy [[12]]. Be especially careful with using that as an excuse to trim things you otherwise do not like.

And one last thing: Please learn to use : to indent your comments here on the talk page, and start new sections when discussing new subjects. If not, this page gets very hard to read. JZ 16:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I protest about the "directly linked" phrase on the "Videoscandals" section. AMLO was directly linked by the public opinion! As a matter of fact, I wrote an essay for my "Mass Media" class about how "Media Framing" was being used to relate the Videoscandals with Lopez Obrador (remember, the timing of the scandals and the coverage of certain televised media outlets was parallel to the coverage of the "Desafuero" scandal, and some even believed that the two where related!).

In Monterrey, Lopez Obrador gave a conference at the ITESM, and he talked about his actions on cleanliness and lack of corruption in his government and students laughed at him and shouted the names of the people involved in the Videoscandals. It is obvious that, at least in a segment of public opinion, Lopez Obrador has been directly linked with the Videoscandals. I think that it would be more precise to say that he hasn't been directly linked by law or any other proof. I thought judicially would be a precise word, but obviously, I was wrong. What else is suggested?

Also, I think that it would be a good idea to note in this article that the Videoscandals started with a scandal of corruption against a PVEM politician, and that it did not involve the PRD exclusively. The structure of the segment is very fragile to mis-interpretation either way of the political spectrum.

I think that particular piece of the article should be used to say that public opinion has linked Lopez Obrador to the scandals, and then show why he isn't linked. Personally, when I was studying the subject, I was very angry at the way the media didn't even hid their intent of making the Media Framing against Lopez Obrador.

By the way, Joakim, I have a "Reforma" subscription. Conact me at my email hseldon10@yahoo.com So I can lend it to you and help with the citations.

Jornada is a historic supporter of the PRD and its editorial line is well defined towards it. It isn't just a "leftist" newspaper, it is a pro-PRD newspaper, and I have an analisis to prove it (however, it is uncitable, as it hasn't been published, it is also a material I got from school. I studied Communications, you see...

I don't agree with Mr. Obrador's political platform, but that doesn't mean I believe he is the devil. I have followed him and know that, as everyone, he brings qualities both favorable and unfavorable. My intent is to be neutral, but I am still a newbie, and I also have my failures. If my actions at wikipedia do not seem to be of top quality, I apoligize for that.

Hari Seldon 16:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue here is the meaning of "linked directly". In English, and the way the term is commonly used, it means a direct, verifiable link, not something to do with public opinion. For instance, if someone presented proof that AMLO was involved, and that proof was not refutable, then there would be a direct link shown. I think "direct" is the most appropriate word to use, and that it correctly covers situation.

It's probably not a bad idea to mention the PVEM in the videoscandals section. However, it should probably be kept to a minimum, a single sentence mentioning that the videoscandals were not a purely PRD phenomenon should suffice.

La Jornada is indeed a leftist newspaper, and often supports the PRD. I'm not sure I agree with you that it's a pure PRD/AMLO supporting newspaper, however. It also supports people on the left who have been more or less critical of the PRD and AMLO, such as Cardenas and Marcos. In some cases, it also seems to be further to the left than AMLO's platform. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, I don't think it's a tabloid (in the US sense) that just makes up news and quotes; I think that when La Jornada says that "Madrazo says so and so", this is likely to not be a lie. So I think it's completely fine to quote it and use it as a source, although obviously not uncritically.

I believe you when you say that you want to be neutral, and I think your edits have also improved over time. Having a good healthy debate on this discussion page will also help, I think, and it's good to see that there are more people than just me who want this article to be neutral and informative. JZ 17:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Huerta reference

Hello Ifeito. We had already come to a consensus on the Huerta reference. Why did you delete it? Huerta and Ebrard were both implicated in the event. Yet, Fox fired Ebrard and not Huerta. What was the difference between the two men. Well, Huerta worked for the DF, for AMLO, whereas Huerta was a close personal friend of FOX. You don't think this is relevant? Of course it is. Please do not delete. Ifeito, I also have a question for you. Do you condone the wholesale vandalizing on FCalderon's page? Anytime anyone makes reference to the fact that he attempted to loan himself 3.1M pesos, it is deleted. Anytime anyone elaborate on his role in Fobaproa, automatically deleted. Of all the sites of the viable candidates, AMLO's is by far the one with the most negative data. I've never seen the Christian Right get so excited over a candidate since they did so over Bush. 64 [[[User:66.73.165.2|66.73.165.2]] 13:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]

Anonymous, I never agreed to leave the reference to Huerta. It's not about POV, it's about keeping the article brief. Fox fired Ebrard, AMLO hired him again, that's all we should say about those events here in my opinion. Also, how on earth are you calling me (or any of the other editors) christian right wingers? Have you seen my edits on Virgen de Guadalupe? Have you seen my personal page? Most of us aren't even catholic or even christian. I am not. Political surrealism in Mexico has made many educated left-wing atheists vote for what I see as the only option for our next president. You guys honestly think that the director of a bank loaning himself (loaning, not stealing) 3 million pesos is going to impress anyone? That's what, two years salary for el peje's driver Nico? Honestly, if anyone seems to be in a crusade it is AMLO's followers, luckily their numbers are dwindling and I don't think he will be of any concern after July 2nd. So yes, I despise jerks like Abascal and Creel, I wish there was a real left-wing option that I could support, but there isn't. You're candidate monopolized the "left" and there's no way I would vote for such a character to be my president. (I'll remove paragraph after say one week, no need to keep it here) Schicchi 15:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use the brevity argument as a reason for removing information that is otherwise relevant. As I mention above, Wikipedia is not paper, as per policy [13]. If there's a piece of information that several editors think should be left in, it probably should, although with opposing viewpoints also added, as per NPOV policy. Although I don't know the details of the Ebrard/Huerta case, it seems to me that if its a fact that Ebrard was fired (this I know) and Huerta was not, even if both were implicated, and Ebrard worked for the DF government and Huerta for Fox, and was a close friend of Fox, then I think it's quite relevant, and should be added. It's a good example of the sort of favoritism and cronyism that's very common in Mexican politics.

Oh, and can we keep the political debate off this page? It's really not interesting or relevant. If we want to discuss whether or not a fact should be in an article, our personal politics have nothing to do with it. If anyone wants to discuss politics with me personally, please look me up, I'd be happy to, but not here. Discuss the merits of the inclusion/exclusion of information, please. That also includes implicitly calling other editors parts of the "christian right" or whatever.

That said, I do agree that there's a tendency towards editing in a lot of negatives and editing out a lot of positives on the AMLO page, more than on other Mexican politicians' pages. I think this largely echoes the tendency to hate and despise AMLO in Mexican politics and media, and as a neutral encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs to rise above that.

So, can we have rational debate without lots of political smearing and description of personal political standpoints? Please? JZ 16:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ifeito, For the record, I am a God-fearing Catholic who, unlike FC's and Bush's blind followers, values the separation of church and state. That being said, if the head of HUD in the US attempted to do what FC did, he would have been immediately charged. How dare you say that the autoprestamo is a non-issue. If it is, why not inform the public about it? The Christian-Right hovers over that entry (as well as AMLO's) like hawks. I imagine they cheer everytime Calderon cites Scripture in his speeches, in the same way that the Christian Right cheers when Bush does the same.

With respect to Huerta, it is an integral part of the piece. Ifeito, please think this through. Two public servants implicated, yet only one is fired. Why? If Fox really believed that Ebrard was incompetent, why did he not fire the other incompetent bureacrat? Please think it through, Ifeito. 64 [[[User:66.73.165.2|66.73.165.2]] 16:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]

Can you PLEASE use : in front of your edits to indent paragraphs? If you don't, you make this page VERY HARD TO READ. Please do this. And, edits on the Felipe Calderon page are irrelevant to this article. While I agree with you that the Huerta reference should probably included here, don't pull in other candidates' pages as reference. Take that discussion to the talk pages over there. Thank you. JZ 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this a discussion about the reference to Huerta on the article page, or a discussion of weather or not being Christian or not affects viewpoints? Why the discrimination? I am an atheist and that doesn't compell me to vote for AMLO as a left-wing candidate. I personally believe he is using the left as a mask, and he is really from the right. But obviously, this is no place to discuss that, however, I am saying it to clarify that you don't need to be "christian-right" to despise Obrador, and I also know many friends who are "Christian-right" and are crazy about Obrador. Therefore, discrimination of beliefs, political or religious, are irrelevant on subjects about the article.

About Huerta, I too agree that it should be noted that only Ebrar was fired and Huerta kept in his place. However, it should also be noted that Huerta was reprimanded by the President. What I've seen doesn't tell me that Huerta was "forgiven" by Fox because they where friends. I think that , on the other hand, Ebrard was fired because they where enemies. In short: this isn't a case of Fox protecting friends, but of Fox attacking enemies, as no politician or other political commentator asked for any of the two public servants to be removed from their posts. It is evident that the situation, though tragic, did not merit the firing of any of the two servants. Hari Seldon 16:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe Hseldon's POV accurate. Anonymous user insists on making changes without fully discussing.

Primeditor, I have no problem with the Huerta reference as it now stands. I did have a problem when some editors attempted to elminate the comparison between the treatment Huerta and Ebrard received, however. Primeditor, I thought the passage was misleading; it is no longer so.

With respect to the political bent of newspapers, while you may believe that La Jornada is left-leaning, I believe that Reforma is right-leaning. I'll never forget the headline in Reforma in mid-December, after AMLO made his presentation in the Zocalo. I paraphrase, but the headline ran something like, "He says many things, but doesn't say how he'll accomplish them" (No Dice Como!). Not even the New York Times would ever engage in such blatant bias when covering Bush, or The Wall Street Journal when cover Clinton, whom its editorial pages labeled a socialist and communist.

I also agree with Ziegler, that the qualifier re: AMLO and the videos must remain. Otherwise, the reader might leave thinking that he was implicated. Let's try to remain objective.

64[[[User:66.73.165.2|66.73.165.2]] 00:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)]

Anonymous: La Jornada is a declared left-wing newspaper and they take pride in being so. In this discussion board, it has been agreed that being called "left-wing" is nothing wrong, as it isn't to be called right-winged. However, my criticism toward La Jornada is not that they are left-wing, like is the New York Times (by the way), but that they are shamelessly pro-PRD. It is easy to make a content analysis and reach this conclusion.

On the other hand, Reforma has a history of being an independent newspaper. You should review the history of its predecessor from Monterrey El Norte, who where blocked by the government in the 1970s and 1980s for their commitment to free speech. El Norte (now Reforma) has won the Maria Moors Cabot prize and the Mergenthaler Award. I do not work for Reforma, but as a communications student I know very well their commitment to neutrality, their fail-safes against bias (which, as with wikipedia, is not perfect), and about their impact in Mexican journalism in general.

So, I ask you, are you going to judge such an important newspaper simply because of a coverage of reality that is not in agreement with your point of view? The headline you menction, was it lying? A headline must summarize the most important aspects of an event, and I think that it is quite obvious that the most important thing about a Lopez Obrador speech, which basically repeats what he has said (and written in books) a number of times, would be a "HOW" he would accomplish it. Furthermore, public opinion and political analysts where demanding that explanation from the candidate. The headline is in perfect agreement with the rule of highlighting the most important: the most important was that he dissapointed those who expeced that from him.

Reforma has also published favorable news and pictures about Mr. Lopez Obrador. It was the first newspaper to feature his "indestructible" photo, and even celebrated the finishing of the "second-floor" in periferico with a flash animation at their website. Many of Reforma's editorialists and columnists favor Lopez Obrador. Judging Reforma as "right-wing" simply because Mr. Obrador doesn't like what independent journalism does to his reputation is wrong.

Hari Seldon 04:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that Hari! I routinely read Reforma, El Universal, La Jornada (I even added one of the links to La Jornada) and now Excelsior. Whatever you do you should NEVER read only one newspaper, especially when that newspaper is clearly identified with the interests of a political party! Schicchi 04:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Schicchi: regarding your last edit on the lynching (adding the reference and quote to AMLO's declarations), I think that sentence should not be at the end, since that was an immediate reaction. The firing of Ebrard (and the controversy involved) came later.

I believe adding Huerta's reference to his death in a helicopter accident adds context. After all, it was Huerta who said that Federal Police could not send helicopters to the scene of the lynching as there might be a danger of an accident. Plus, it gives a better perspective of the character of the man involved, and, in my opinion, it adds to the idea that Huerta was not kept in his position because he was Fox's friend. As I said earlier, it should be clear in that paragraph that neither public servant deserved to be removed from their positions, and that Ebrard was fired because Fox was attacking a political enemy. Hari Seldon 15:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the reference to Huerta's death in a helicopter accident adds too much knowledge about his personality, but it's good context, and a common way of mentioning things. I'm not sure we as encyclopedia editors should make the call on whether or not either of them deserved to be removed, but it's good to make the comparison, because there's a big difference in Fox' treatment of the two. I think it's ok to keep as it is. Also, as I've mentioned before, there's no need to look actively for stuff to cut from this article, it's not really that long, compare for instance to George W. Bush, which is another highly polarizing politician. That article is nearly twice as long as this, and doesn't even have the "this article is long, please consider splitting it up" note near the top. Wikipedia is not paper, and space in itself is no limitation. What we do need to do is make the article good and informative to read. JZ 19:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Lynching comments

I think AMLO's comments after the lynchings are highly relevant, but I think the reference we're using now is a pretty bad source. It's an editorial which criticises AMLO for his statements, and is also written in a very odd style (what's with the random bolding of words?) It also doesn't directly quote AMLO, and even less so in context. Can we find a source that contains direct quotes, and preferably with a bit more context that can be summarised for Wikipedia readers? I also think the "uses and customs" term is not a particularly good English translation, but I'd need to see the direct quote in context to provide a better one. JZ 19:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Joaquim, you're right, we need a better reference and a better translation of "usos y costumbres", but I think the reference is important given that it's been brought up by the media. Shall we leave it as it is while we find a better reference and decide about a better translation? I believe AMLO's quote said something like "Esos son usos y costumbres de la gente, y con esos no hay que meterse". Schicchi 01:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes. First, I found better sources. It is from a media outlet, though not one I respect that much. However, I searched in El Universal, in Reforma, in El Porvenir, in Milenio and it was as if they had dissapeared forever. I googled it and those sources are what I found. I believe news, though from a poor source, are better than opinions.

I also found that Lopez Obrador didn't say those words in that case. I know he used them for a previous case, but in the Tlahuác lyinching, the big mouth was Alejandro Encinas.

I have also substitutued "uses and customs" for traditions, which in the general sense, is compatible with the idea expressed in the quote. I also put in parenthesis the phrase in spanish to add context. Hope this is useful!

Hari Seldon 04:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit better now. However, the only sources we have are still lacking the exact quote, and one actually has a PRD senator complaining about the quote being taken out of context, which makes it even more important that we actually find the total statement, with context, so we can know where we stand here. I think at the moment we're getting into totally uncharted territory by quoting third hand sources, etc. Of course, there's also the questions whether it should be mentioned if it wasn't AMLO who said it. As it stands now, it's a bit misleading, it looks like AMLO was primarily criticised because Encinas said that, which is of course not true, AMLO was criticised in general because of the lynchings and the failure of police to intervene; the Encinas statement is largely tangential. JZ 08:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The Encinas quote is part of the government's general reaction. In the end, who was criticized was not Lopez Obrador personally, but the Department of the Government of the Federal District (GDF) as an entity, which was lead by AMLO. It is fair to say that any criticism against the GDF is a criticism that can be related to AMLO.

I haven't been able to find the original quote, however, one of the sources is of an interview with Encinas after the quote, and he says that he is convinced the lynching was part of those "usos y costumbres", however, external agitators where also influential.

Hari Seldon 14:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

A user named Gerochoa has been consistently polluting this article with the following phrase:

"A Left, Populistic, Violent and Demagogic Politician from Mexico, that is willing to kill to get to the Mexican Presidency (ask Mrs. Ahumada). Beware!, the rest of the article seems biased towards him by supporters. Plenty of facts and references giving objectivity to the article are removed often, and the changes showing his true nature removed."

I share his opinions, of course. But I don't believe that this article is a place to post our opinions about Lopez Obrador. Neutrality is a difficult issue for this article and has been for a long time. What can we do to stop the vandals?

Hari Seldon 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AMLO will be a dictator and the peso will devaluate a lot! All the mexicans will be poorer with him as President.

Dear Anonymous user with IP 201.134.255.253:

That is a statement of opinion. In order to keep Wikipedia's articles in neutrality, we must diferentiate proven facts with opinions. Of course, I share your opinion, but that is no reason to pollute wikipedia with it and pass it as fact.

Finally, I ask you to learn to indent your comments, get a username, and sign like this: Hari Seldon 17:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you've been having some fun Hari, what does psychohistory has to say about tonight's debate? Schicchi 21:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Fun is an interesting way of describing it... I think that the debate will not be as forceful as they could have been, mainly because of the recent episode in the Ahumada soap opera... In any case, to me, it is obvious that Felipe Calderón will win. Madrazo has no proposal, AMLO's proposal has serious flaws, and the other two don't count. But it is yet to be seen if Calderón can capitalize his advantage in the debates into poll points. The election contest, though close, seems to be going in favor of Mr. Lopez Obrador, and we are just weeks away from the election. Hari Seldon 21:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hari, you actually believe that AMLO is "Left, Populistic, Violent and Demagogic", as well as willing to kill to reach the presidency, and that he will become a dictator? Are you serious? JZ 22:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Joakim, all politicans have some degree of populism. If they didn't have it, they would not succeed in elections! He is from the left, so yes, I believe he is "left and populistic". Is he violent? He has shown a history of violence, at least in one incident, the one in which he intervened in PEMEX. Is he demgagogic? Without a doubt! Is he willing to kill to reach the presidency? I don't think so. Is he going to become a dictator? Impossible! Regardless, there are worse politicians than Mr. Lopez Obrador in Mexico, for example, Roberto Madrazo, Manuel Barlett, and Ulises Ruiz (who, by the way, is the de facto Dictator of Oaxaca, poor state)... In short, I don't believe Lopez Obrador is the devil. I believe he is a good and able politician who has a lot of cultural tendencies that the Latin American left see as heroic and that I see as dangerous, for example, an unequal application of the law (like in the Ahumada case).

On the other hand, his opposition are no angels either. I have explained to you that I believe Calderón to be the best candidate, but that doesn't make him a personification of virtue. He has some populistic attributes himself, and I am not particularly happy with Christian Democracy as a whole. But his financial proposals seem saner than Lopez Obrador. What I will never forget is the unfair manner in which the Desafuero process was followed. If you ask me, Mr Lopez Obrador should have never been involved in such a thing. It is my understanding that he was sued for actions done in previous governments, so it was ridiculous to follow a judicial process against him for that!

In any case, politics are not perfect, and I think about it when taking electoral decisions (like casting my vote). Lopez Obrador is not a bad politician, but he is definitely Leftist, Demagogic, Populistic, and prone to violence. Calderón is Rightist, Demagogic and populistic, but at least he has good financial advisors. so there it is, that is my excuse for my political behavior.

In any case, you must agree that our personal political views cannot permeate into wikipedia's articles. Can we at least be in agreement on that? Hari Seldon 22:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely agree with you that the Wikipedia articles must be neutral, and I think we've both done good work to make that happen. I was mostly reacting to you saying "I share your opinion" when someone says that AMLO will become a dictator, which I think is a fairly outrageous claim, as well as the "willing to kill claim". I see now that you don't really agree with that, and I'm happy to know that. JZ 22:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

To Hari and Joakim, first I suggest we remove some of our comments, they are getting lenghty and don't really discuss the article. I believe most politicians are willing to kill for their "ideals" (tongue in cheek of course). Joakim, I understand that you would perceive AMLO to be the best option. How old are you? How long have you lived in Mexico? I'm 37 and I've spent most of my life living here. I lived through the governments of Echeverría and Lopez-Portillo. For some reason the mexican people seem to have short term memories, I think most peoples in the world do (peoples, that's right). I hate the right wing movement that comes with the PAN, I abhor religion's control of people. I consider myself left wing in my political beliefs. Still I'm willing to vote for Felipe Calderón just to make sure we don't get the PRI back in Los Pinos. Look at the folks backing AMLO, starting with himself, Camacho, Ebrard, Monreal, Cota. All of those are not part of the original founders of the PRD, they are the folks who fought the PRD from the trenches of the PRI. Wonder why Cárdenas has refused to express his support for AMLO? It will be a very sad day for the Mexican democracy if AMLO wins the election. The PAN has not done a good job in the government, but if voting for them is what it takes to avoid the PRI from returning to power (I know I'm repeating myself), well then so be it. Schicchi 04:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we can probably trim this page quite a bit.

IFeito: Yes, I would likely vote for the PRD if I were eligible to vote (as a foreigner, I'm not, so I have the privilege of being able to comment from the sidelines). I consider AMLO the best of several mediocre to bad options. I'm 29, and I'm coming up on 8 years living in Mexico full-time (this month, actually). I would probably vote for the PRD because their platform is a typical broad left-wing platform, relatively similar to what built the welfare state in my home country, Norway, after the second world war. Norway is today one of the world's richest countries, with the best (or second or third best, I forget) standard of living in the world. It's gotten to that point from being a largely rural, agriculture and fishing based economy coming out of 5 years of German occupation in 1945, and it's largely because of broad, leftist policies of welfare for all, solidarity, and an economic safety net for the poor that it's managed to do that, based on natural resources (oil) that were discovered in the 1950s.

I think the PAN represents the worst option in this case, worse even than the PRI. The PAN is unapologetically market liberal, pro-privatization, and for very close ties to the US, a country that's exploited Mexico to an extreme degree in the past, and would undoubtedly continue doing so. And that's before you start getting into the socially conservative, right-wing catholic aspects of it. Fox's government hasn't done too much, also because Fox represents the moderate wing of the PAN. I'm worried that if Calderón gets elected, the PAN will actually start getting changes done, and the changes will all be negative ones. Calderón is much more in line with the original PAN platform than Fox was.

I'd love to discuss this with you, and anyone else who's interested, but I don't think this is the place. Whoever's interested can email me at jziegler@gmail.com, and I'll be happy to discuss. I think my direct experience with another country's politics, combined with quite a while living in Mexico, makes my viewpoint a valuable one, but obviously I'm interested in discussing. JZ 05:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Joakim, yes, let's take this discussion somewhere else! (sounds like a naughty proposal, doesn't it?). I'll just say that if we had an option for a left wing government like those in Norway or even like that of Chile, I would vote for it now doubt. To me the only thing "left-wing" of AMLO is his campaign, he doesn't represent the left, and I think it will show more and more as the election day arrives. I'm not comparing them, but to me calling AMLO moderate left-wing is equivalent of applying that term to Castro or Chavez. Schicchi 05:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree on taking this debate someplace else Hari Seldon 05:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)