Talk:Mexican general election 2006 controversies/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
We're on WikiPedia's Main Page! --A1437053 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

See Also?

Is the 2000 US election included only because it also was a controversial election? It seems that what is happening now in Mexico is of a different scale and type... but I may be wrong. Someone care to qualify the 'see also' or change how it appears? Thanks in advance.

Several articles in the references and further reading links refer to that election, and to some similar irregularities. Someone may need to list some of the similar alleged irregularities claimed. --Timeshifter 02:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I just now noted in the "alleged irregularities" section that similarities were claimed, and I put references to some of the articles.--Timeshifter 06:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Graph

Isn't Image:2006_Mexican_elections_-_President.png a bit misleading? It makes it look like there were huge changes in the vote counts as the night went on... but the actual changes were in the 2% range. That's much more reasonable.

I'm going to change the image caption to better note the limited range. PyTom 04:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to further clarify the caption. I noted also that the image could be clicked to enlarge it.--Timeshifter 06:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

fotos + felicidades

ya están las fotos :-)

y mil felicidades por el post en la página principal de wikipedia :-)

--Ishihara 08:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:DATE and WP:MOS-L are BOTH true. On overlinking.

--Timeshifter 01:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC). It is good to link the dates with internal links. But it is also true that they should not be repeated. It adds a lot of kilobytes to the page, and increases the load time of the page for dialup users. I know this because I am also a webmaster.

It is not necessary to link the year 2006 dozens of times in the article. Nor is it necessary to link a date such as 31 July when it is within a paragraph or two of the last linked occurence.

From the overlinking section of the WP:MOS-L page called "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

START of copied section on overlinking.

On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:

  • more than 10% of the words are contained in links;
  • it has more links than lines;
  • a link is excessively repeated in the same article; however, duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence is appropriate;
  • more than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist; or
  • low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century.

This also applies to tables, considered by themselves.

END of copied section.

From WP:DATE: If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present. Have you see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences? It lets user see dates the way they want, but they have to be linked. I linked those in the article text; delinked those in the references (which I hope is an acceptable compromise). Aille 14:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I just tried that in my preferences. That is really neat. I noticed that it was not necessary to link 2006 for it to work. It worked when just the month and day were linked. It would still order the month and day according to one's preferences. Just not as thoroughly as when all three were linked. This function doesn't fix what I see as a problem, though, with dates. I don't think it works with number-only dates such as 7/8/06. In Europe that would be August 7, 2006. In the USA that represents July 8, 2006. But I accept your compromise since it ends up with less links and kilobytes than before. And it allows the article itself to be read in the format that people use normally concerning dates.--Timeshifter 01:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Claims for and against election irregularities and fraud

--Timeshifter 01:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC). This paragraph below is biased, untrue, and an inaccurate summary of the media article. Go back and read the media article. The part in quotes is not connected in the way that it seems in this paragraph. This paragraph is possibly a deliberate distortion of the article depending on whether it was done with intent to deceive, or through viewing the election with partisan eyes, or other reasons. In any case it does not belong in a Wikipedia article in its present form:

Despite claims that 970,000 party representatives, 25,000 professional monitors, and 639 international observers "judged the elections to have been fair and transparent", López Obrador claimed that he would protest the results, citing electoral irregularities [1].

So I removed it from the article.

Here is the full paragraph from the very biased media article:

On July 2, 970,000 representatives of all political parties, 25,000 professional monitors and 639 international observers from the EU and elsewhere watched the casting and counting of ballots. Overwhelmingly, they judged the elections to have been fair and transparent. Only when the final count showed that the populist Andrés Manuel López Obrador had, contrary to expectations, lost the presidential race by a mere 0.58 per cent margin, did he and his Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) cry foul.

Notice the word "overwhelmingly"

Many party representatives, professional monitors, and international observers made claims of alleged fraud and irregularities. See the external links. Both sides are making sweeping generalizations such as the above paragraph. If you want to put claims for and against fraud from specific groups of party representatives, monitors, and observers, then feel free to do so, but be sure to put citations with links. This is standard Wikipedia practice. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

I suggest putting the claims for and against fraud and irregularities in 2 separate sections in the wikipedia article and links.

The paragraph is full of misinformation. "representatives of all political parties" is completely untrue. Many representatives of the PRD (the party of Andrés Manuel López Obrador) have cited irregularities. Some monitors and observers have also. It is all in the external links to media and other articles. Also, people were exposing irregularities well before the election.

I think sweeping generalizations should be avoided. There was an August 20, 2006 election in Chiapas after the July 2, 2006 presidential election. In the Chiapas governor election there was fraud claimed by the party opposing the PRD. See these articles:

So the tables have turned. There is now much fraud and many major irregularities claimed by both of the major parties in 2 close elections where the preliminary results did not favor them. So sweeping generalizations make no sense now. Citable specifics are what Wikipedia requires. There are plenty of them from both of the major parties, and from many others. See Google News on Mexico election fraud. Sorted by:

Also regular Google:

Mexico has a long and bitter history of election fraud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico --Timeshifter 03:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-working link in Re-Count section

--Timeshifter 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC). I removed this non-working link:

It was at the end of this paragraph:

On Saturday, August 5, the TEPJF met in public session to decide the outcome of López Obrador's request for a recount. The seven magistrates voted unanimously that there is sufficient legal justification to order the recount of only 11,839 ballot boxes in 155 districts (9.2% of the total), thus rejecting López Obrador's public demand that all votes and ballot boxes be recounted.

Does anybody have a working link?--Timeshifter 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That paragrpah was sourced with a note from "El Universal"... I wonder when and why was it replaced with a La Jornada link? --15:40, 2 September 2006 Hseldon10
I don't know, but can you or others post the "El Universal" link at the end of the paragraph. And/or other links that back up the paragraph? Also, please use your signature on notes to talk pages. I added your name and time of post to your above remark. From the history list for this talk page.--Timeshifter 16:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Im sorry about not signing. I just forgot. I'll see what I can do about the link. Hari Seldon 17:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/366854.html --Timeshifter 22:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-working link in Protests section

--Timeshifter 22:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC). I removed this non-working link from the end of the Sept. 1 entry:

September 1: Seized the podium of Congress, blocking Vicente Fox's State of the Nation address.

Anybody have a relevant working link?--Timeshifter 22:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

2 non-working links in "Acts of civil disobedience" section

It seems that the bad links found so far below and in the above sections have all been La Jornada links.

Aug. 9 link removed:

August 9: Briefly surrounded and blocked the offices of foreign-owned banks: Citigroup's (United States) Banamex; BBVA's (Spain) Bancomer; and Britain's HSBC.

Aug. 9 link removed:

August 9: Initiated a march towards Mexico City's Benito Juárez International Airport, that was dispersed by federal forces.

Anybody have relevant working links?--Timeshifter 23:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced article?

According to wikipedia guidelines on NPOV: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority).

According to recent polls, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and his movement is only supported by 30% of Mexicans. This is a minority, but not a small minority.

In my opinion, the article, as it stands at September 4, 2006, is unfairly balanced having the minority viewpoint greatly advantaged. There is PLENTY of sources stating the truth on what is going on in Mexicco and with Mr. Lopez Obrador. My suggestion is that we start adding sourced content on how the general public, and not only pro-AMLO supporters, actually percieve the post-electoral controversies. Hopefully, this will aid in having the "balance" tag removed.

Hari Seldon 03:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There were 3 main parties in the presidential election. So 100% divided by 3 equals 33%. So if he still has 30% support then that is pretty good. Also the majority of the residents of Mexico City believed there was fraud and that there should be a recount. The article is about the claimed election irregularites and the huge protests. That is what the title of the article implies. Also there are people on both the right and the left who claim election irregularities and the article states that. So I fail to see what the problem is. I am not Mexican and so I don't know of the character of the candidates. That is not what the article is about. If you have more info that is relevant to the article, then by all means put it in the article. Please source your info so that it can be verified. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability --Timeshifter 04:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Timeshifter: Your arguments fail to convince me because they are misleading. There are more than 3 political parties in Mexico, there are 8. 100% divided by 8% equals 12.5%. But since Lopez Obrador is backed by 3 parties, then 12.5% * 3 = 37.5%, which means he isn't doing that great...
Unless, of course, we cease using misleading arguments and recognize that not all parties have the same weight. The PAN and the PRD got close to 40% of the election results each, so having now 30% means that Lopez Obrador is losing popularity.
By the way, may I remind you that Mexico is a very very big country, and that Mexico City accounts for a lot less than half of the population, so, although what they feel is important, does not necessarily mean it is the complete picture of Mexico. By the way, the decline in AMLO's popularity is mainly because his popularity is declining in Mexico City.
There are many sources (quoted in this and other articles) about the polls. However, Reuters publishes this article: [2] on tomorrow's ruling of the electoral court in Mexico. A paragraph says, "30% or more ... still believe he (Calderón) stole the election". Granted, polls vary according to who applies them, but they are within the 30% margin. Either way, that means at least 55% does not agree with Mr. Lopez Obrador, which means that his views are in the minority. Hari Seldon 06:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages are not supposed to be forums for political discussion. See: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. But let us get back to your original NPOV point about fairly representing the viewpoints: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Well this is an article about the July 2, 2006 election controversies in Mexico, and not about the shifting political popularity of various parties and candidates afterwards according to polls. Polls are notoriously unreliable anyways. And that is one reason we have elections with stricter standards theoretically than polls. Those election standards are what are in question, not polls. According to the presidential election results so far, as I said the 3 main parties (or alliances of parties) divided most of the vote: 35.89%, 35.31%, 22.26%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_general_election%2C_2006
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/f5f557c999f5542985d42b1e2b19e440.png
Nearly all the parties filed claims of irregularities concerning the presidential election. I still don't see specifically what you see is the problem with the article. If it needs more info, then please feel free to add more relevant NPOV info that relates to the topic of the article.--Timeshifter 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I don't see a problem with the article. Bu i found that someone had added the "balance" tag to the article and the only possible explanation to me was that the majority viewpoint was not being proportionally represented in the article. If else, then I don't understand it. Hari Seldon 18:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If you mean Calderon's viewpoint concerning irregularities in the July 2, 2006 presidential election, then you are incorrect. Calderon won a plurality of the votes, not a majority of the votes. Also his party claimed there were election irregularities in the August 20, 2006 Chiapas state election. So in a 2 month period there was a large majority opinion that there were election irregularities. Even in the presidential election Calderon's coalition filed claims of election irregularities. --Timeshifter 21:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean Calderon's viewpoints. I mean the viewpoint of the majority of Mexicans. The Chiapas election is irrelevant to this article, which discusses the Federal election. The filing of irregularities is also irrelevant. The majority viewpoint in Mexico is that, regardless of the irregularities, the forms and manners of the protests are unjustified, and that Lopez Obrador lost the election farily, according to polls. I agree that polls have margins of error and may not be entirely reliable, but they are the best we've got to measure social phenomenon. Marketeers tend to be very succesful in business by applying and interpreting polls in the correct manner. So, though imperfect, polls are a perfectly valid way of measuring social movements, in this case, the majority viewpoint in Mexico about the elections. To be more precise: by majority I am referring to 50% plus one of all mexicans residing in Mexico (country, not city) who have the right to vote, regardless of political affiliation or participation. Hari Seldon 00:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to post polls with sources. People can decide for themselves whether the polls are accurate or not. Just like they can decide for themselves whether the courts ignored many of the irregularities or not. Which many informed people believe according to the many articles I have read. The Chiapas election has been referred to in media articles as being a mirror of the presidential elections. Therefore it is not irrelevant. In the end it is not important what you or I believe. It is what is verifiable. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability. That is wikipedia policy. It is NPOV. It lets people decide for themselves from the available sources. We just put the available info out there in a NPOV way, and with sources so people can verify how credible the sources are. Many media articles point out that many Mexicans are poorly informed about the many claims of fraud and irregularities because the media is not reporting them in detail, and leave most of them out. So in the end polling is not important to many people, and polls are discounted because polling misinformed people yields little. So people who do not see all the info could be expected to be against all the protests because they don't see the full reasons for them. The NPOV guidelines say that all significant viewpoints should be represented, and not that wikipedia articles should state how much each viewpoint is correct or not. And especially not according to which viewpoint is currently in the majority at this time. The majority can be ignorant. The majority is fickle. The majority is constantly shifting over the years. Wikipedia is not about conformism. It is about NPOV info for all significant viewpoints. See: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Timeshifter 02:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Listen, I agree with verifiability and NPOV, however, I feel that not enough work is being done to show all points of view. In my opinion, pro-AMLO views are over represented. For example, you state that the court ignored many of the irregularities of the election. In fact, they didn't and a proof is that they ordered a recount of the election (not a general one, but a legal one). Moreover, two months ago courts representatives declared that annuling the election would be impossible because the PRD did not followed the proper legal procedures in time to act accordingly... Also, you claim that "many media articles" talk about mis-information against Lopez Obrador. I challenge that. Only pro-AMLO supporters state that claim. I frequently read AP, AFP, EFE, Reuters, Notimex, Reforma, and El Universal, and it seems to me that ample coverage has been given to all alegations. Unfortunately for Mr. Lopez Obrador, the truth is not with him and that is why he claims "mis-information". So, again, I say that the viewpoint of the majority, a very significan viewpoint, is not properly represented. Further, pro-AMLO viewpoint is also over-represented in this article, and that IS a form of mis-information, and contributes to "ignorant majorities".
I also blame myself. I am too busy to search for free sources to share in this article.Hari Seldon 02:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

New paragraph starting to the left this time since the paragraph indentations are getting extreme. I have read many, many media articles. Many completely ignore specifics about the allegations of fraud and irregularities.

I don't think the wikipedia article is too pro-AMLO. To the contrary. There is much pro-AMLO info that could be added to the article if somebody gets the time. The wikipedia article is actually not representative enough of the pro-AMLO allegations. In fact I don't think any of the specific allegations are currently in the article. I, like you, have not had the time to put all this info in the article, and to source it.

Also, there are articles that point out the many AMLO claims ignored by the courts, and/or decided by the courts in a partisan way. There are other articles that point out the biases of the court members, and the lack of fair represention of all parties in the court. Other articles point out that many of the court members will be out of a job soon, and may be inclined to support the parties in power in order to maintain future jobs. This is commonly called the revolving door policy of courts, business, government, etc. sharing jobs. Or scratch my back, and I will scratch yours. All this info is sourced and relevant to the wiki page.

About the info in the wiki page concerning the Chiapas election being a mirror of the presidential election: That info in effect is supporting the alliance that included Calderon's party in that election. Because Calderon's party is making major claims of fraud and allegation in the Chiapas election. So that info could be construed as pro-Calderon, or his party.

Back to polls. It is common knowledge that poll results can be easily twisted by changing who is polled. The pollers can poll only rich people for the most part. Or mostly poor people. And get completely different poll results. --Timeshifter 06:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I took one look at the references and further reading sections to conclude that this article is biased towards AMLO since most of the links come from sites such as La Jornada, alternet, Dailykos, or epluribus, Narconews or other "leftist" sites that have been consistently anti-Calderon. Or there was an instance when Diario Reforma is cited as Conservative, but the daily is considered as centrist. La Cronica de Hoy is a conservative newspaper. There is a report by "Global Exchange" which states there were irregularities and "fraud" instances when international community observers, including the EU say this was a clean election, but there was no mention of this in the article.

Although I think it's very difficult to find neutral references because the truth can be subjective, we should try to balance it. I will add some references, which will change the story somewhat, including accusing everyone who is against him of conspiring against the people. There accusations from La Cronica accusing PRD of ordering elderly people receiving aid from the city government to attend the marches or risk losing subsidies and threatening city employees with firing if they don't support the cause finacially and physically or even paying protesters from other states 250 pesos a day to camp along Ave. Reforma. There was a photo of people lined up waiting to have their voters' card cross checked against a database. I'll try to find the article. Edu76 17:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

These mainstream media are also used as sources in the references and further reading sections: Several Mexican newspapers, CBC News, KGBT-TV, The Dallas Morning News, Los Angeles Times, Newsday, New York Times, CNN, Malaysia Sun, Taipei Times, and The Washington Post.--Timeshifter 17:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I'm a mexican citizen who voted on July 2. It's true that the article could contain more AMLO-sided information. However, we should have in mind that this is the article about the elections, not about whether the fraud was real or not. We should focus in submitting the information that comes from both AMLO and Calderon. About the polls... well, I can tell you that one of the biggest problems in Mexico is the HUGE differences between the socio-economic layers, so if any poll can be twisted, in Mexico's population it can be Incredibly twisted just by changing your polled people's place by 60 Km. Polls here are NOT a true reference. I just wanted to establish that fact. {Unsigned comment Sept. 6, 2006 from Andycyca}


Just wanted to point out as a un-biased 3rd party that this article seems very PRO-AMLO, definitely agree that it needs to be balanced, it's quite a bit biased.

Spratt_ 12:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also a citizen of Mexico City and agree with the post just before the one over this (he should have put a signature...), what about those TONS of photographs, its unnecessary to have all of them here, just a few examples could be enough, it's obvious that many Pro-AMLO wikipedians keep posting such material in this article to strenghthen their point of view, we need more balance and more opinions from other points-of-view, those pics will never show the true public opinion of the entire country. --189.135.65.241 04:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Article needs specific claims of irregularities, fraud, bias.

I agree that the article is unbalanced. It does not currently list any of the many specific claims and filings of AMLO's alliance concerning election irregularities and fraud. Also the many claims of irregularities made by the opposing parties in the presidential election. Also the many claims made by non-party observers. Also the claims of bias and conflicts of interest concerning the members of the court. --Timeshifter 03:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does not currently list the specific claims and filings of Mr. Lopez Obrador's Party, and further, it doesn't list how these claims have been proven to be false, or have been proven to have no judicial value. Furthermore, it doesn't list the many times that Felipe Calderón has proposed a negotiation to create a coalition government, an offering that mr. Lopez Obrador has refused. The article also doesn't claim how one party in Mr. Lopez Obrador's alliance has judged his actions to be improper and has decided to separate from the alliance. Hari Seldon 14:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The article also does not list the claims ignored by the courts, and why.--Timeshifter 17:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, the WHY is the important issue here, and the WHY was declared by the courts two months ago to be: "because the PRD did not presented them in a proper and timely fashion". This is quoted in one of the "El Universal" sources in the article. Hari Seldon 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
From my reading of articles the courts ignored other claims even after they were properly submitted. And the redress of the grievances that were properly submitted was inadequate according to many. So there are many details from all viewpoints that need to be addressed in the article. --Timeshifter 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
"According to many", according to whom? What specific claims can you source as being ignored? Hari Seldon 21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I could ask the same for all the things you have said. It is a legitimate question. And when either of us gets more time and motivation we can start filling in all these details and putting sources for them. I was too busy finding the many articles and trying to get a big picture. Others may have to help put the specific info into wikipedia. The info is in the references and further reading sections. The details are important. Because here in the USA during the 2000 presidential election Al Gore lost the election when the vote was counted one way using only a partial recount of Florida votes. But long after the election the media paid for a full recount of Florida votes, and Al Gore won. So people worldwide have less and less trust in the election process in the USA, and the fairness of its courts in ruling on those elections. And so people are very curious about the details of the election process in Mexico, the USA's neighbor. In recent months in the USA there was a very detailed analysis of the vote in Ohio during the 2004 presidential election by Robert Kennedy. It showed many more details of fraud and irregularities. So people are digging a lot deeper into the details.--Timeshifter 21:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
In my case it is simple: according to the courts, and according to major media sources. In the time we've been discussing i've provided to the article with three sources. The big picture is: the election was acceptably fair, specially considered to what they used to be in Mexico, and there is a clear, validated winner of the election, and there is no justification for blocking streets, congress, or claiming unsourced, undocumented fraud, particularly when your "evidence" has been proven to be bogus by the many institutions and NGOs that monitored the election. Obviously, changes in the way votes are counted, specially with such a small difference, can cause reversible results, and that is what Mr. Lopez Obrador was hoping for. However, the rules are set in law, and I think that the best solution is stop arguing, any of the parties can (and was) wronged by irregularities in the process. The goal here is not to get a hold of a position of power, but to make the country better, and I see no other way of doing it than by having these two characters using their political capital to negotiate a strong coalition government. So far, mr. Lopez Obrador has refused to do this, and instead has alienated the more than 60% of voters who did not vote for him. I've sourced this previously. Hari Seldon 01:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to no indentation for this paragraph. Now you are having a political discussion about what AMLO should or should not do, and your personal opinion of political candidates. That is not allowed on wikipedia talk pages. See: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. Also it is almost a personal attack on me when you refer to evidence being mine, or being undocumented. I pointed to the references. Read them. Personal attacks are not allowed in wikipedia pages. See: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. What you just said is a vast generalization similar to the paragraph discussed in the above section titled "Claims for and against election irregularities and fraud." --Timeshifter 02:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What about non-PRD protests and meetings?

The whole article is focused on the disagreement of the PRD supporters. Shouldn't the WHOLE picture of the article be focused on all the sides? I see a lot of photographs and information about PRD protests and nothing about other factions (like the neutral human chain made in Insurgentes, or the PAN Plaza de Toros meeting, included in this article) this article must be redone in orther to respect the NPOV standards. Anyone agrees?

I've removed some pictures, they were redundant. {Unsigned comments Sept. 18, 2006 from 189.135.65.241}

I agree that this article is biased. I would like to point a few things:
  • A controversy means two parties are actively arguing as they have contrary opinions. That means the article should mention only the opinions for which there is contrary one.
  • There can be millions of opinions of people and organizations, only the most important should be mentioned, and probably the general opinion of both sides.
  • Polls of opinions of people should be taken as the opinion of one side, the side in which the publisher is.
  • Marches don't tell anything about controversies, except that they exist, but not what they are about. Are the pepople protesting against the result? Because they think there was fraud? Because they want to open the polls to know if there was fraud? Because they want another election? Or because they want peace? You can't tell.
-- Felipec 09:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ballots in garbage dumps?

I've read that they were proven to be the copies owned by the PRD.

Besides, most of their proofs have been debunked (videos, photos, the PREP argument, etc.) -{Unsigned Sept. 23, 2006 comment by 201.132.242.39}

You are right. Almost all alleged "proof" that the PRD "had" has been disqualified judicially. The claim that there was electoral fraud is as credible as the claim that aliens from outer space are abducting people. However, fanatics never listen to reason. Hari Seldon 03:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
--Timeshifter 12:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC). The last half of your comment is a roundabout personal attack, and if I choose to I have the right to remove it. See the "how to refactor" section of the wikipedia policy page on removing personal attacks. That section, and other sections of that page, explain roundabout personal attacks. I am posting the standard cautioning template {{subst:Npa2}} paragraph concerning personal attacks:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

--Timeshifter 12:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC). In the article I posted claims of journalists (with links to their articles, some with photos of filled-out multi-color ballots, not photocopies). From various sources there have been claims made concerning ballots, election materials, ballot boxes, etc. being found in various trash cans, garbage dumps, etc. in various cities. Some claim that some of the stuff that has been found is photocopies. I have not yet seen an article with the photocopy claim. Feel free to post that source. And post it concerning a specific garbage dump incident, etc..--Timeshifter 12:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not useful information

I'm removing the following line:

There were 673 international election observers for 130,000 polling stations. Most of them were diplomats, and were therefore not allowed to make public comments.

This alone doesn't make any point. It should be mentioned in the context in the point that most election observers claimed the elections where clean.

Also the article states that:

PAN has claimed that the elections were clean because of the presence of international election observers. However, the 673 election observers only oversaw a fraction of the country's 130 thousand polling stations and one of the international observer groups, Global Exchange, has documented possible cases of vote-buying by the PAN and PRI political parties, illegal confiscations of voter ID cards and ballot shortages at certain polling stations.
So why is the majority of the press repeating that the presence of international observers ensured that the election was clean and fair? "It was the electoral tribunal itself that put out that press release about the observer's," Global Exchange President Ted Lewis told me. "We were really annoyed with them when they did that. And about two thirds of the other observers were diplomats who are not allowed to make public comments."

So the reference to this fact is supposed to be something Ted Lewis said. Who is president of Global Exchange, which is left-sided.

-- Felipec 15:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point that the statement about the 673 international election observers does not make as much sense when the controversies are not adequately explained. There was election observer info in a couple places in the article. You may not have seen the info in the old section called "Arguments considering the election fair." So I created a section called "Election observers" and moved the info concerning the election observers to that section. The controversies are clearer now. I deleted the section called "Arguments considering the election fair". All the info in that section was about election observers. All of that info has been moved to the election observers section. --Timeshifter 16:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's better, but could be improved. For starters, the comment is still misleading; I haven't found any reference other than Ted Lewis' comment that two thirds of the observers where diplomats, and where not allowed to make comments. -- Felipec 23:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Your rewrite made it seem like the 673 number and the two thirds number both came from Ted Lewis. The 673 number came from Sophie McNeill's article. She does not say it came from Ted Lewis. I looked at the Global Exchange website articles again, and did not see any total number for international opservers. The two thirds number came from Ted Lewis as reported by Sophie McNeill. So I rewrote it to make it clearer as to where the numbers came from. Both our previous rewrites were confusing on this. Hope this helps. --Timeshifter 01:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
That seems better, but anyway Sophie McNeill wasn't an election observer and doesn't provide any reference to that number. That makes me wonder on the reliability of that reporter. I have seen other articles that say Ted Lewis made those comments, so at least that information is OK. -- Felipec 09:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The wikipedia article states that Sophie McNeill reported that 673 number. So people can decide for themselves on the reliability of that number. There are also some links in the article to show that she really is an Australian TV reporter for SBS Dateline Australia. --Timeshifter 22:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandal left link Sept. 27, 2006

In the same day 2 anonymous vandals deleted a lot of stuff from the article. I reverted the vandalism both times. One of the vandals left a Spanish-language link. Maybe someone who reads Spanish might want to check the link left by 189.164.62.242 since I deleted the link not knowing what it was. I don't read Spanish. And normally we are not supposed to leave foreign language links in a wikipedia page unless there is no other source handy. Also the reason for adding the link must be explained.--Timeshifter 05:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please tell me the link, im mexican and ill gladly tell you what's the content. --189.135.66.20 01:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Elecciones 2006 - Quejas sin sustento". By Armando Reyes Vigueras, July 2006. --Timeshifter 02:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This link contains information about the point of view of PAN against PRD allegations of fraud. It has response by response for each fraud statement. As this is a controversy, i don't see why not to leave it. --189.135.60.31 01:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't edit what other people write on a talk page. That is not normally allowed on a talk page. I had the link in the format that is already being used in the external links section of the wikipedia article. You changed it to a different format. You can do so in your posts on a talk page, but please don't change my posts on a talk page. I changed my last post back to what I had before. Feel free to put the link in the wikipedia article. I don't feel comfortable doing it myself since I can't read what it says. Please explain what you just wrote too, since normally Wikipedia doesn't want foreign-language links in an article. Is there an English version of some of that response-by-response info on that site? If so, please put that link too. --Timeshifter 14:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It was my mistake as I dont know what happened when I submitted my comment but all of it was unformatted and i thought some symbol in yours could had caused it, my apologies for that.As for the Spanish-written link, it's not likely to be found in English as it's part of a PAN magazine which as far as i knowdoesn't have an English written edition. --189.135.63.250 02:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the link being put in the article. But I can't read it, so someone else will have to put the link in the article. Maybe the info will get translated into English someday, and that link will also be put in the article.--Timeshifter 22:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What does the pictures have to do with the controversies?

I quote the Wikipedia definition of controversy:

A controversy is an opinion or opinions over which parties are actively arguing. Controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements. Benford's law of controversy, as expressed by science-fiction author Gregory Benford in 1980, states "Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available."

I think photos don't express any argumentation of opinions. The article is not about the issues in the election, so I say the photos should be removed, and maybe placed in the article about the election itself. --{Unsigned comment October 14 from Felipec}

There are photos on many Wikipedia pages. What better and more relevant photos could there be for this article? The photos show that this is about "large scale disagreements". The size of the rallies was historic. The rallies are about the controversies. The main election article is not the place for these photos. The main election article does not have much info about the controversies. This article was started in order to cover the election controversies in detail. Therefore the photos belong here. --Timeshifter 22:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The photos show that there is a disagreement with the status quo ante, but you can't say what that people actually claimed. Some might have thought that there was fraud in the election, some might have wanted a total recount, some might have gone there simply because they didn't have anything better to do. So again, the only thing the photos prove is that there was disagreement, but not why, and the why is the controversies reside.
So one photo documents that there was disagreement in a visual manner, what the other 15 do?
And why aren't there photos of the campings on the main avenues, and the damages made by those. What about the commercials on the TV about the disagreement of the rest of the people whose life where affected? Are there going to be another 16 photos of the commercials?
In my opinion one photo does the job, and a comment about the number of rallies, and the estimate number of people on them would certainly help more than more photos of the same thing. Actually the main article has that precisely, perhaps a photo showing the huge amount of people would be better than the current one with a march in Guanajuato. -- Felipec 04:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
As i had stated it would be fair to include photos not only of PRD protests: there have been others done by PAN supporters and some neutral ones (Insurgentes human cchain for example), again... this is a controversy, all sides must be balanced in order to achieve a concrete article 189.135.73.211 04:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

12.33.138.2 14:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)== Article completely unbalanced ==

The article is definitely, unbalanced.

It cites several times the newspaper "La Jornada", known to be a pro-AMLO journal. And known not to be of any credibility for an important sector of the Mexican population. It also cites strange unknonw source "El Machete", which is, by no means, representative of the opinion of the general population (a newspaper that can be considered "Nationwide" in Mexico, and that can be considered to be read widely, is "El Universal", which is also cited in the article, but only once. "El Universal" published plenty of articles both in favor of Lopez Obrador and against him. That is a more "balanced" source of information, but still partial and subjective).

There are plenty of media sources that published demonstrations of why Lopez Obrador's allegations are not properly supported.

The article also depicts all what the PRD and his coallition think about the election. It does not depict what other sectors of the population perceive and say.

At the same time, the article "ignores" the fact that Mexico City is 20% of the nationwide population, and that in many states (mainly in the north of the country) Calderon was much more favored.

The article intends to "hide" its pro-AMLO essence, by citing some facts, out of context, without complete information or without corresponding responses to all the alleged arguments, which were also published in other means (obviously not in La Joranada!).

Also, uses sentences construction that simulates to be "describing" facts, and not really giving an opinion.

The whole article should be re written.

Mckappa 23:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add more facts and claims. But be sure to cite your sources. --Timeshifter 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi timeshifter. As an experienced wikipedian, you can probably answer this: Are you the "owner" of the article? Are wikipedia articles suppossed to be "owned"? Isn't the philosophy of wikipedia to be filled with WW contributions? Sorry not having e-mailed it directly, but not sure how to e-mail to other wikipedians. Mckappa 14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Each user determines whether he wants to put out his email address. I do not do put out my email address. No one owns a wikipedia page. Anybody can edit wikipedia pages. There are wikipedia rules that one must adhere to, though. --Timeshifter 22:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mckapa, this article is indirectly in favor of the PRD point of view. We should redone or balance the article, i dont think there would be an objection to that. Should we start a concensus? --189.135.66.97 05:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with Mckapa, the article is totally unbalanced.
Now, regarding Timeshifter's comment: "Feel free to add more facts and claims. But be sure to cite your sources", why not feel free to remove unnecessary information?. Citing Wikipedia:
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
Also, a key Wikipedia policy is Avoid bias. If we have 10 arguments supporting side A, and 2 arguments supporting side B, and no one is adding side B arguments we should remove the 8 side A arguments in order to be balanced. In first place it would be better if arguments where entered at the same time, the same person should add a n argument for side A with it's sources, and the counter-argument for side B with it's sources.
Also, consensus is a Wikipedia guideline, we should seek it. It has been mentioned a lot of times that this article is biased, and it should be re-done completely, my best guess is that more people want it re-done, than the amount of people that want it the way it is right now. It seems only Timeshifter is against re-doing it, is there anybody else? Maybe we can make a straw poll.
Also, regarding neutrality Wikipedia says: "It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics." El Machete is far from being an authoritative sources, and most of the sources of the article are of this kind.
And finally saying that removing things is vandalism doesn't do any good. Again, Wikipedia says to assume good faith.
-- Felipec 17:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Other than talk page edits you have had a total of 3 edits on wikipedia pages so far. See list here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Felipec

I have almost a thousand edits on wikipedia pages so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Timeshifter

There are very few comments on this talk page from veteran wikipedia editors that have not been resolved for the most part. Also, many sources have been used in the article. See the reference section of the article. There are many mainstream and alternative media sources. This is by far, one of the better-sourced wikipedia pages. No one is stopping anyone from adding more info and sources. --Timeshifter 19:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So, does that gives you the right to decide what stays? Which coincidentally is mostly your editions. And better-sourced is a relative qualification, more is not always better. It's still marked as biased, and that's an important bad thing. -- Felipec 06:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In order to arrive to consensus let's make a straw poll:

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place.

  • The article is OK as it is
  • The article needs more information for the left side
  • The article needs more information for the right side
  • The article should have less information for the left side
  • The article should have less information for the right side
  • The article should be re-done
    • I would like a one on one argumentation, not a bunch of sources -- Felipec 06:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/x/Talk%7EMexican_general_election_2006_controversies_Archive_1_82c5.html"