Talk:Vicente Fox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

Vicente Fox was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 9 September 2006

[edit] NPOV dispute over section on Fox's racist comments

Even though Fox's comments vis-a-vis African Americans are considered racist by most people's standards, including my own, I find that, in keeping with NPOV, it would be better if the article were amended to include a more neutral reference to his comments, calling them "allegedly racist" or instead stating that there was a "controversy over comments he made about African Americans" rather than outright accusing him of Racism. A small issue, but, I think that calling someone racist, even if they appear to be racist, is not NPOV and should thusly be avoided in a neutral encyclopedia. In my view, references to Fox's comments should only state that there was a controversy over what he said, quote what he said, and mention that "some consider it racist". The article itself should not call him racist; that should be left to the reader's own judgement. --RichNYC87 04:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fox's "racism"

I think someone should include a portion about Fox's racism.

Nobody know's if there is such, but the events that have lead some people to believe he is, have been written about in the article. (to sign posts type --~~~~ --Vizcarra 23:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I added some information concerning his alleged racist comments concernign African Americans and of Reverand Al Sharpton requesting a formal apology. Bnguyen 22:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I corrected spelling errors in this section (It's spelled "Reverend", with an "e"). --RichNYC87 03:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes section

Since the quotes section only contained the quote Fox made that was considered racist, I moved that quote to the 'racist' section since it fits better there. Singling it out as the only quote in the entire quotes section is a violation of NPOV. --RichNYC87 04:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I wish i could be president

I mean seriously.. if I could be born to a wealthy family, i sure as hell know I wouldn't be driving a cocacola truck. But if that lands me the job as president as the united states......--Cyberman 23:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

to this article should be useful to mention that many Mexicans see Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador as a Hugo Chavez II, some one that thinks "mobs gives rights" and that politicians should be over the law, a populist, a demagogue.

[edit] How many is many?

It is clear for me that the person who wrote the paragraph above belongs to those mexicans he/she refers. I think that refering to Mr. Lopez Obrador as Hugo Chavez is only a way to demonize him.

It should be useful to mention that Mr. Lopez Obrador is the polititian with most popularity in Mexico, this is shown by poll results before the publication this comment. Mr. Lopez Obrador was the only mexican mayor finalist in the Wolrd Mayor Constest in 2004 [1]. He is also nominated for year 2005 [2]. (correction, he is the most popular in central Mexico; he holds no populartiuy in the north or south, or even in EdoMex.

I confess that I will vote for Mr. Lopez Obrador, in case he becomes candidate.

Mexico is a democracy, and people can prefer the polititician they want, although the candidate belongs to a left or conservative party. The latter was the case of Vicente Fox. Mexican people is dissapointed, so the results of the preference will be shown in the elections in 2006. Mexican people have the right to elect the politician they prefer and to have a left goverment. Will they be dissapointed? Fortunately Mexican people can express their preference in the next elections and vote for another candidate.

That is also your POV. Articles should remain neutral. Also why was the president order number removed? It took me a lot of time to put it under every mexican president. -Alan MB

I removed those, a few months ago, when the template was changed. It's not something we do with our presidents -- particularly with the various periods of anarchy / invasion /civil war in the 19th century, when numbering them 1-2-3 gives an inappropriate idea of continuity. Maybe there could be a case for numbering those who've held sequential office under the 1917 Constitution, since Carranza, although that's not something you see very often either. Would you care to discuss it? –Hajor 13:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hajor is right -numbering our presidents is a really strange idea. I don´t think Fox himself knows or cares which President he is. If you have a numbered list, perhaps it could be used in its own article (lists of mexican presidents) or something related to history. Asereje 03:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article is absolutely riddled with POV statements. Does anyone want to take a crack at making it less POV?

The previous paragraph was written anonymously; it seems it was Wikilord who added a NPOV template to the article. Since there isn't an specific issue with Fox or the article currently discussed (not that it couldn't) I removed it; policy suggests there should be an ongoing discussion (or at least a previous list of specific issues) before such a template is used. Asereje 03:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't take much to point out the POV statements. "After an aggressive campaign, full of now self accepted demagogic promises and statements" "In a country ruled for 70 years by the same party, often subordinated to the president, change needed more than politic skill and diplomacy, and Fox had little of both." "stating that they caused Mexico 72 'lost years of development' (referring, inaccurately, to the time they held the presidency)" (clearly malicious). "Always a promoter of gender-equality in his speeches, addressing the audience as 'mexicanos and mexicanas', Fox's legal and extended cabinet is formed by 53 people, only four of whom are women." It seems like nothing but potshot after potshot. Imagine if the Bush article was riddled with nothing but attacks on his rhetoric and conservatism. magicOgre 20:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Solving POV would take a lot of work. However, Fox is a controversial president, particularly by his unique position of being the first oppposition president in 70 years, and Mexico having three strong political parties. I am actually quite surprised this article is not more POVed. Reaching a consensus of his legacy will be difficult because reality can be interpreted in many ways, particularly in such a complex country such as Mexico:

- How to measure poverty reduction?

- Is the Mexican Foreign Policy good or bad? (he changed 70 years of foreign policy doctrine making it more active, this is despised by some, and loved by some other... how to judge it objectively if he is still president and the full spectrum of results are not here yet?)

- How to validate what is written in the article? Most wikipedia articles just use sourcing. However, sourcing Mexican newspapers is not a good way to validate what is written because most Mexican papers are themselves biased (particularly La Jornada, and Excelsior). Is there any other way?

As you can see, this article has a lot of problems, not only in its content, but also in the ability of wikipedians to elevate his quality. However, doing it is necessary. Vicente Fox is a historical figure, and supporters and detractors alike agree that his actions are and will be greatly influential in the 11th most populated country of the planet (Mexico) (Hari Seldon 18:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Infobox

Can we please, please modify (or simply get rid of) the dreadful infobox giving the category "Nationality:Not American"? This is absurd and offensive. -- Infrogmation 11:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] President No. nn

Opinions, please, regarding the inclusion of the presidential "order" number on Template talk:Infobox MexicanPresident. Tnx. –Hajor 6 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)

Which is Fox continually referred to, his government that is, as a "regime"? THat word carries a negative connotation, makes it sound like a dictatorship. That should be edited out.

[edit] Height

Somewhere it should be added that he is known for being a tall president. I have heard that he is either 6'4" or 6'5". I would have added the information myself but wasn't sure where it belongs. --MateoP 17:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TV spots

Before and after his 5th Government Inform in September 1st, 2005, there have been numerous TV and radio spots with President Fox promoting himself as the "most democratic president in Mexico´s history" and the one that has had "most demands". These commercials have caused also controversy because of the exagerations and "marketing campaign style"

If you really look at the context behind it all, you would see he is right.-- Foxista.

[edit] NPOV

Although Fox does not have the best track record, this article seems anti-Fox, and someone should correct this.

I corrected some of the wording. Some of the "negative" aspectes are not necessarily POV, but public or expert opinion. If any of these are challenged, sources may be provided, or at least a note explaining it is an opinion. Could someone else check on this? --Vizcarra 19:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It is unbelievable that this article doesn't deal with al the issues that have made the Fox administration one of the most chaotics in the history of Mexico. It is completely biased--tequendamia 08:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV 2: The Sequel

This article cannot be biased for being too "negative" or not enough "negative" at the same time. Please discuss specific issues first. --Vizcarra 17:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronouncing Fox's name

As Fox has an Anglo surname, I wonder how it is pronounced: as "Fox" is in English, or differently? I was hoping wikipedia could tell me this. -- Kalimac, 14 November 2005

As the article explains, he is of Irish-American ancestry. "Fox" is an English word. So it should be pronounced as it is in English. In the Spanish-speaking word it is pronounced as it reads in Spanish F + oh + X. --Vizcarra 17:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

How is that different from the English? where we also pronounce it F + oh + X. I would say it is pronounced exactly the same, and by all means put this in the article Kalimac, SqueakBox 18:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, in English it is pronounced Focks, in spanigh "o" as in "ohhhh". So, different. --Vizcarra 18:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It may well be different in the States, especially in somewhere like Alabama, than how it is in the south of England, where we definitely do not dipthong the o in fox, as it would sound like folks. Dipthonging words in a different way is a fundamental difference between American and British English. On the other hand I believe you give any pronounciation instructions to a Spanish speaker who doesn't speak English and vice-versa and they will come up with very different sounds, which is why it is so difficult for even fluent adult speakers to rid themselves of their foreign accent, SqueakBox 18:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the dipthong thing, but it sounds weird to me. The "h" has no sound by itself; writing "ohhhh" with lots of "h" simply means to pronounce a single o for a long time, without interruptions. Saying Fox with a long, single "o" is really weird; saying Fox with two o's, in two syllables, is wrong in Mexico and probably also in the US. Writing "oh" with a single "h" doesn't really change the sound but the tone, it's just a writing device to differentiate between "?Oh, estas ocupado?" (Oh, are you busy?) and "?O estas ocupado?" (Or are you busy?). From the Mexican point of view, U.S. people pronounce the o using two vowels: they read "o", the say "ou". So, a Mexican "o" is just the first half of a U.S. "o". BTW, I'm Mexican. Asereje 06:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"Oh" instead of "o" is used to differentiate betwen the o in "auto" and the o in "home". --Vizcarra 22:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure about that example as the final o is subtly dipthonged, we English speakers do that automatically and find the undipthonged o at the end of a word difficult and something we need to learn if we learn Spanish. But the o in question is within a word. The different sounds are more like the difference between home and hospital, with Fox being very much like hospital, SqueakBox 23:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you are trying to describe dipthonging which is the difference between an English no which is pronounced as if it ends in a w (rhymes with snow) and a Spanish o which even if extended just makes the simple o sound. I am a bit lost by ou. By writing oh I certainly did not mean an extended ooooo as in a long Spanish no sound but an o ending in a subtle dipthonged h as found in English words like folk, bloke, etc, and for which there is no equivalent in Spanish, as indeed there is no equivalent to the o sound ending in what sounds like a w, as in blow, which rhymes with no in English. We should get an audio pronounciation (by a Mexican) of his name, this discussion certainly justifies it and I believe it is technically easy to do, SqueakBox 13:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

///// In Mexico, and in all the spanish speaking countries, we pronounce the "o" in Fox the same as the "o" in "No" or the sound as in Door, or the "o" in "Short".

Some of you can say we pronounce it wrong, but every body pronounces foreing words with the rules of their own language. For example, eventhough the name of the city "Los Angeles" is Spanish, it is pronounced with the english rule. Or my name, for that matter, is an spanish name and no american can pronounce it right "Mauricio". //////

In central mexican spanish it would be /foks/ using the IPA alphabet. However, since everyone will pronounce it the way they can, according to their mother tongues and accents, I believe it not to be really important.

Actually it's not an Anglo surname, rather it's an Irish surname, but please continue...

[edit] Employment policy

Fox employment and jobs policy strongly relies on workers migration quotas to the US. Now that the US plans to build a wall along the border this policy looks doomed. This issue needs to be addressed in this article.--tequendamia 00:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Tequendamia: how about addressing it while providing the tons of evidence and verifable non-pov sources you surely have? (Hari Seldon 18:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] I heard he was born in 1952

The article does not talk about his early life.

[edit] Castro and Chavez

I think the reference to the controversy with Fidel Castro should be under "foreign policy", and be more widely commented, since it was quite important. Also, there is no reference to the more recent one with Hugo Chávez. Both lead to the withdrawal of mexican embassadors, in Cuba for a couple of months (being then changed) and in Venezuela to this day.

[edit] Height?

How tall is Sr Fox? In the the photo [Image:Fox-Bush_in_Crawford_TX.jpg] he appears to be quite tall. (Photo appears on page Laura Bush) -- Writtenonsand 17:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive rant

No need to put your offensive rant here. Your comments could be construed as vandalism and wont gain yiou the support of admins. Desist, SqueakBox 14:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] his surname

why does he go by vicente fox if his surname is quesada? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doriandixon (talk • contribs).

See Iberian naming customs. --Nlu (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You ask the same about Carlos Slim Helu. It's just the way Spanish people take last names. John wesley 19:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

thats not true about the spanish surnames. i went to school in a predominantly mexican school and most people went by their fathers surname.

In Spanish, or at least in Mexico, people have two surnames, the one of its father and the one of its mother. For more doubts please write your message here. Perdonen mi pésimo inglés. Saludos. Cesarhvr

[edit] my edit is not vandalism

nor will it ever be vandalism. further moreif you block me I will be unable to post any more messages till the block is lifted.

132.241.246.111 02:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We would not want to miss your messages. Speaking of which, why not get a username, so "you" can have a specific identity. Sometimes we may have to block a user who isn't you, but who appears to be you because of the IP. Regarding vandalism, use the edit summary to properly explain why your edit isn't vandalism. As for this article, you (or this IP) seems to be adding material that is not so much biographical as attacking. Is this bill, which he has not even signed yet, truly an important biographical detail? Maybe, but as an encyclopedia we should not be in a hurry to decide. -Will Beback 08:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First lady

"even the title "First Lady" does not officially exist"

Nor does it in the US, and quite possibly it doesn't exist anywhere. So is there an unofficial title like in the US or not?

[edit] NPOV

The article glorifies unnecessarily Vicente Fox's administration. Statements such as the following seem to disregard his use of the state's machine to attempt keeping Andrés Manuel López Obrador from appearing in the 2006 ballots:

"As President, Fox began to show his democratic spirit by fighting the long standing corruption within the federal government, by limiting his power to the Constitutional limits and granting more power to the state and municipal governments. In the international framework, he began to position Mexico as a leading democratic country in the hemisphere and gave priority to subjects such as international commerce, economic integration, migratory policies, defense of democracy and human rights, as well as fight against drug trafficking. On September, 2001, the National Endowment for Democracy granted him the Democracy Award 2001 and pointed him as a “hero of democracy”."

Not to mention the overall loss of jobs in the country, as well as a number of International scandals, such as the one with Cuba.

In my opinion, this article should not glorify this administration (or demean it), but if statements saying Fox has a democratic spirit and has managed to combar poverty keep appearing, there should be a "controversy" section attached as well.

RE: Please sign your comments. Apart from the "democratic spirit" phrase, what else do you see POV? The overall loss of jobs in the country, and the international scandals are menctioned in their respective sections. The truth is that Fox is a President that has shown a democratic spirit and has made a lot of mistakes as well. He has allowed protests and the organization of local governments to an extent never seen before. I don't think the paragrah 'glorifies' Fox, because such things are exactly what happened, even thouth the Cuba scandal and the overal loss of jobs also happened... Hari Seldon 21:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The article does not "glorify" President Vicente Fox "unnecessarily". On the contrary, I believe it gives a right measure of his administration. He did some good things, and he screwed up a lot as well...

There are no evidence about his supposed "use of state machine to attempt keeping AMLO from appearing in ballots". He pardoned the guy after a near unanimous congress had convicted him!

The problems I see with the article as it stands now is only the absence of the Cuban situation, which I will add right now, and then I'll eliminate the NPOV tag.

Read the "economy" section and you'll see it CLEARLY states that he delivered mixed results. According to statistics from international and recognized organizations, President Fox's administration reduced poverty and lost 180,000 jobs. Both facts are stated. Where is the POV issue?

Hari Seldon 03:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It does glorify him, very much so. What is "Democratic spirit"? Its just an empty positive emotive word to make fox look better. What are "good things" and what are "mistakes" are not for us to judge, and niether is it for us to judge the"mesure" of his administration. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper and it would be best for us to simply report the facts (and the controversy over those facts) without attaching useless emotive baggage to people. This artical also refers to the EZLN as a "problem" from this perspective it portrays the EZLN as bad and Fox is good. We should emphazize the conflict between the two without judging either as "good" or evil. It may also help to have a few words describing what the EZLN is (simply calling them "guerrilas" doesn't exactly help the average wiki reader) and the reasons for the conflict between them. Also "its and granting more power to the state and municipal governments. In the international framework, he began to position Mexico as a leading democratic country in the hemisphere and gave priority to subjects such as international commerce, economic integration, migratory policies, defense of democracy and human rights, as well as fight against drug trafficking." is very POV. Firstly it says that mexico is "a leading democratic country in the hemisphere". So now we make a random judgement call mesuring Mexicos democracy. What exactly IS democracy and how does one go a bbout mesuring it? Anyone got a democracy ruler? And then it goes on to connect "democracy" which we still can t define to "international commerce, economic integration, migratory policies, defense of democracy and human rights, as well as fight against drug trafficking." Whose to say that drug trafficing is or is not democratic? Whose to say that international commerce is Democratic? Many despotic rejimes have fought drug trafficing and also participated in international trade. Economic integration, migratoy policies and defense of Democracy (whatever that is) it goes on and on with one BS assumtion after another. The problem with this artical in terms of POV is not in its treatment of the man himself but that the whole artical is slanted towards the right.

--Reallybadtrip 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Democratic spirit" means "respect for the ideals of democracy". Those ideals are free elections, freedom of the press, and freedom of association. Fox has allowed free elections, in the federal and local arenas, and has respected the outcome of all of them, eventhough throughout his adminsitration, he lost most of them. Measuring free speech is difficult, but arguably, Fox's administration is the one that carried the most criticism against the Presidential institution than all previous administration's combined. Freedom of association can be seen by walking Paseo de la Reforma in DF. Nobody is arresting the PRD-led protests, because it is their right to associate.

I agree the EZLN can have a better description, but lets keep it short. This article is about Vicente Fox, not about the EZLN.

I don't think that the phrase you cite is POV. It is a summary of what Fox attempted to do. The article also cites criticsm in every subject he prioritized (such as, in the "democratic country in the hemisphere", there is criticism to how he conducted the OAS election candidacy, and in the "fight against drug trafficking" there is criticsm on how the cartels are fighting back).

International Commerce is not necessarily democratic, I agree. But that is why they are treated as different areas of work during Fox's administration. He favored democracy AND commerce, as two separate activities.

I don't believe that the article is "slanted towards the right". There is ample evidence to suggest that Vicente Fox did as described in the article: it contains its actions, its accomplishments, and its failures, all neatly organized. Fox is not a tyrant, he got to power through elections, and he respected ALL electoral processes and allowed them to be conducted in a fair way (at least, most analysts agree on this. Only pro-PRD press claims that the 2006 Federal Election -and only the presidential ballots, but not the legislative ballots- where tainted)...

If you want the article to be less POV, it would be best to FIRST dispose of your own POV...

If I have made a POV contribution to wikipedia then I would appreciate it if you would show it to me. I have my own personal POV as does everyone but wikipedia is not the place for that and if I have made POV contributions then I sincerely apologize for that

That said I still think that the artical is slanted at parts not so much in facts but in tone. For example (I have changed this) it talks about cuba and venezuala as "extreme" left governments. These governments are certianly left but they are no more "extreme" left than Mexico's policies are "extreme" right. Also the artical talks about "Castro's Cuba" and "Chavez's Venezuala" as though these are not the rightfull rulers of cuba and Venezuala. We don't talk about "bush's America" so why the double standard now?

As for "spirit of democracy" i've never heard of anything specific like that and cannot get a definative answer from google so I have to assume that you just made this up, it would be better to ditch it because:

1)It is positive and emotive 2)We don't know what it means or where it came from 3)It adds absolutely nothing to the artical

I like how the part on the EZLN is though, good job whoever did that.

--Reallybadtrip 17:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just as an example, would someone please explain how:

"The incident generated criticism for President Fox and Castro for their lack of ethics in International Relations."

Is POV because it was reverted once now. The incedint certainly generated critisism for both rulers and I think that saying "you eat and you leave" is a pretty unethical thing to say (not saying that what castro did was nessasarily any better but this is why they should both be included in this sentance.)

--Reallybadtrip 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss before editing. I've reverted your edits not because I want to block them, but because I think we should discuss them before.

First, let me apologize, I wasn't implying you made a POV contribution. I just thought that saying that the WHOLE article was "slanted towards the right" seemed very POVed, when the article contains a lot of criticism against Fox. I agree that some parts of the article are slanted towards the right, but not the WHOLE article...

I see your point on the "Relations with Latin American countries" section. Let me explain the reasons for the original wording:

1) Fox does not pick a fight with ALL Left governments. For example, Lula's government in Brazil is left, and Fox has not picked a fight with him, nor with Rodriguez Zapatero's government in Spain. The "extreme" was added to indicate that Fox had verbal fights with leaders of overtly communists countries, in this case Cuba and Venezuela.

2) "Castro's Cuba" and "Chavez's Venezuela" where added to indicate that the discrepancies where specifically with the government's leader, and not with the country in general. It would be more accurate to simply leave "Castro and Chavez" instead of "Cuba and Venezuela"...

I didn't add the "spirit of democracy", and I agree to remove the phrase. I can't seem to find the phrase anywhere on the text, so I can't remove it myself.

I did the EZLN part. I am glad you liked it.

About "the incident" you quote, it is simple:

The left critizied Fox for his lack of experience in dealing with foreign countries and for insulting Cuba, and newspapers around the world criticized Castro for taping foreign Presidents and blackmailing them (well, the blackmail part was said by the right, but it is still a criticism). For me, it is obvious that Casto was criticized for his lack of ethics and Fox for his lack of experience. The sentence should be split, though I agree that a rewording is required, but a more precise one.

I appreciate you working on this article. However, I think that discussion is important, and I would suggest you made a list of phrases you think are POV, and propose changes here. We can then discuss them and, when a consensus is reached, we can make the edit. What do you think? Hari Seldon 22:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I disliked the usage of the word "extreme" because

1) Extreme carries a negative emotive connotation (ie extremist) and thus is not as NPOV as I would like it,

and on an entierely different tangent

2)I thought that "extreme left" sounded like a synonome (pardon the spelling) for "Ultra left" a description that I dont think fits Cuba or Venezuala.

I have since found that "extreme left" directs to "far-left" which is both more nuetral and is more widely known then "extreme left" I think that we should change extreme to far; do you disagree?

--Reallybadtrip 03:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree at all. I've done the change. Hari Seldon 18:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fox Candidates issues

As I expected long ago, the 2006 Presidential campaign is hitting this article. Some vandal is claiming that Felipe Calderón qualifies as a "Fox Candidate" (see section), and is also claiming that he is failing. I would ask that vandal to take into the account the following:

Fox obstructed Calderon's candidacty, and Calderón was participant in making Fox REAL candidate, Santiago Creel, to fail in his Presidential ambitions. Fox can't have it both ways, either he failed with Creel, or he won with Calderon (won in the PAN primaries)...
Calderón is not failing. Calderón is currently technically tied, with polls giving insignificant leads to himself, or his main opponent. Please see polls.

Because of the above, Calderón cannot be considered a "Fox Candidate", and has no place in the article, except to explain how he made Creel lose.

Hari Seldon 05:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Successor

I've seen vandalism all over the internet now, including Wikipedia. Yesterday (Thursday June 29), the wikipedia sites of Felipe Calderon, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, and Vicente Fox where vandalized proclaiming AMLO the winner of the election to take place on Sunday July 2.

Since the election is clear to be very close, I suggest that we as wikipedians try to prevent declaring a winner before the IFE does so. The official winner will be announced on Wednesday, so I think that the following conditions of valid editing to proclaim the winner should be met before declaring a winner in wikipedia:

1) If all seeminly losing candidates accept their defeat, then we can proclaim a winner. 2) If the IFE declares a winner on July 2 at night with more than 2% of difference and more than 90% of the ballots counted, then we can proclaim a winner. 3) If none of the above is met, then we should wait until Wednesday until the IFE proclaims an official winner.

What do you think?

Hari Seldon 15:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I still see that somebody has taken the roll as the Electoral Tribunal in Mexico, and ended Vicente Fox Term before the proper date. Felipe Calderon, to the date, has not been recognized as Elected President, and Most of all, Vicente Fox Still is President of Mexico. That Means he remains incumbet as President of MExico. Please. Do not go forward before time. As We respect U.S. Election in 2000.I see also that if moderatos would be doing their jobs in here, I wouldn¿t be changing anyhting.

Heclam 20:10, September 1st. 2006 (CST)

Felipe Calderon Hinojosa is not yet been appointed by the Electoral College Court as the next president of Mexico. Furthermore, Vicente Fox has not yet finished its term as president of mexico. (unsigned)

The proper name of the court is "Electoral Tribunal of the Judicial Power of the Federation", not "Electoral College Court". The reason why this precision is important is so that readers are not confused with the Electoral College system of the United States. In Mexico, the popular vote is the only vote that counts, and the work of the Tribunal is only to qualify weather the election was trustworty or not. If it was trustworthy, then the results that the IFE has given will be validated. If the election was not trustworthy, the court can ask for a re-count in specific voting stations, or a global recount in extreme cases, or a complete annulation of the election and order the election to be re-done. This last extreme case is seen as unlikely. Basically, considering the evidence that has been put forward (including the qualification of International observers from the UN, EU, and USA), it seems that the court will validate the election. However, I agree that anything may still happen, and that it is too early to declare Felipe Calderón a winner in the Wikipedia, even though he virtually is.

I agree. For this reason, I am taking the successor box out that shows Calderon as the successor of Fox. Wikipedia should remain impartial and not give the impression that it is legitimazing preemptively the victory of Calderon. Even though I agree that the chances of Felipe Calderon being declared the winner are very high, we can wait until it is official.

I believe that wiki can be impartial on this issue until the Tribunal declares an official winner.

--Hugo Estrada 18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. However, vandalism is hard to fight

Today, the court has ruled that Felipe Calderón is the President Elect of Mexico [3]. I think that now that the ruling has been issued, this page can show Mr. Calderón as Fox's succesor.

[edit] Main portrait

Image:Bush Fox Harper.jpg isn't a good picture - it's hard to tell who is who, and it shows the pyramid better then the subjects. Didn't we have a clear portrait before, with just Fox? That'd be preferable. The pyramid picture certainly deserves a place in the article, but not as the introductory image. -Will Beback 03:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

- I agree. I thought the picture of Fox in front of the Mexican flag was very good. Mikeeilbacher 23:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  - Ive just added a better image off the wikimedia commons but the original image would be better, why was it deleted?--Ruddyell 16:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes

Today, a user called "Ya ya ya ya ya ya" deleted all major parts of the article that were unsourced. I did my best to salvage the article, as "Ya ya ya ya ya ya" refused to let me restore it to its original quality.

Right now, some pieces of the article make no sense at all, as some paragraphs have been logically cut. However, I've done my best to get as many sources as possible to restore the most important information the article possessed. Since I've followed Fox closely, I know that EVERYTHING that the previous version of the article contained was true and accurate, however, finding the sources is nearly impossible. Please help wikipedia gathering more sources. "Ya ya ya ya ya ya" has threatened to erase any addition to the article that is unsourced.

Presently, the article is a logical and informational disgrace: it contains very few useful information, and it is poorly organized. Your help is needed. We've worked so hard to keep this article current, up to date, and accurate. It is fair to also make it wikipedia-complaint by adding sources. Please help. Hari Seldon 05:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you re-add unsourced criticism to this page again your edit will be regarded and treated as vandalism. You have been warned and directed to WP:BLP. Do not try my patience or you will be reported to WP:AN/I. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 21:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the version you recently erased was not my latest version! Joseph Solis decided to bring back the older version. Please consider my version with sources.

I agree about the importance of sourcing, but the previous version was created after months work and the participation of many editors. We have agreed in consensus and to the best of our knowledge that such version represented the most accurate description of the President of Mexico. Perhaps you could be a little bit more understanding and allow us to look for sources for that material... Hari Seldon 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't. WP:BLP is quite clear. Unsourced criticism is removed. Discussion on this point is not necessary. I suggest you read the policy. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 21:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here is a source about Vicente Fox racist comment

Reported by CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/14/fox.jackson/

Mexican leader criticized for comment on blacks

CNN) -- The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Saturday criticized Mexican President Vicente Fox's comment that Mexican immigrants to the United States take jobs "that not even blacks want to do."

Jackson called the remark "a spurious comparison" with "ominous racial overtones."

The Mexican president's office issued a statement late Saturday disputing the negative interpretation of his comments, saying Fox has "enormous respect to minorities whatever their racial, ethnic, or religious origin may be."

A Mexican official defended Fox later in the day, saying his description was not meant as an insult.

"The president didn't make a declaration in the racist sense; of course there are those who interpret it in that way," Foreign Relations Secretary Luis Derbez told a reporter in the Mexican state of Jalisco.

According to Derbez, Fox was making the point that "Mexican migrants are making great contributions in the United States and that their role is a positive role."

"They've been able to improve the conditions of life not just for themselves but also for the communities in which they settle and, by the same token, the president made the comment in this context to say that a large quantity of the jobs taken by Mexicans are jobs that in the U.S. society aren't being filled."

"I think that what we have to be very clear about is that the statement made by the president was in no way motivated by racism."

'Most poor Americans are ... white' But Jackson told CNN in a telephone interview that Fox "should not confuse the need for sound legal immigration policy between the two countries, which is important, and the border disputes between the two countries, with a spurious comparison."

"The comparison is diversionary from the issue of a workable immigration policy between the U.S. and Mexico."

Jackson, who said he has never met Fox, planned to call the Mexican president.

Fox made the controversial comment Friday to a group of Texas businessmen meeting in Mexico. He criticized recent steps the United States has taken that the Bush administration said were aimed at curbing illegal immigration.

Fox discussed the role that many Mexican immigrants occupy in the U.S. economy.

Speaking in Spanish, he said, "There is no doubt that Mexicans, filled with dignity, willingness and ability to work, are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do there in the United States."

A State Department spokesman who asked not to be named, read CNN a statement saying, "That level of dialogue doesn't merit comment."

The spokesman also said, "President Bush's commitment to immigration reform that is rational, legal, common sense, decent and compassionate is well-documented."

Jackson said he has worked "for the citizenship rights of immigrants and Mexican Americans" and wants steps taken to avoid making the United States "hostile toward immigration policy."

He said Fox's comment about "blacks" seemed to be about a stereotype. "Most poor Americans are not black, they're white," he added.

But Jackson stopped short of saying Fox should apologize.

"I don't know about that," he said, adding that the comment was "unwitting, unnecessary, and inappropriate."

Bnguyen 08:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vicente Fox Angers Black Americans With Racist

Vicente Fox Angers Black Americans With Racist

It's been two days since Mexico's President Vicente Fox made the infamous remark about how Mexican (nationals) men and women are doing the work in the United States that "not even blacks want to do"

From this side of the Rio Grande, the remark is insensitive, not to mention politically incorrect.

Yet, when Fox and his Administration played dumb about the impact of the comment - I have to believe them. I've seen firsthand how blacks are pretty much an invisible segment of their society, even in this 21st Century.

The history of Afro-Mexicans is largely forgotten or relegated to that time in history that many Mexicans still resent when Spaniards came and ravaged their homeland. To help them with their many needs, the Spaniards brought African slaves with them. Thus is the origin of blacks in Mexico.

It's not unusual for Mexican comics to dress in blackface and elicit howls of laughter from audiences.

When our embassy in Mexico City first protested Fox's remarks, el presidente's damage control staff went into high gear "re-explaining" what Fox meant.

Sound familiar?

Anyway, Fox's office now realizes that if they want sympathy from the politicians that can help them the most for their cause on this side of the border, they're going to not only have to watch what they say but stop defending remarks that should be just as offensive to Mexican blacks as U.S. blacks.

On Sunday, Fox's office issued a statement saying that Fox "conveys his utmost respect to all minorities regardless of their racial, ethnic or religious background, and thus, regrets and expresses his disagreement with the interpretations that described (his) statements as racist."

I just hope his respect for all minorities extends throughout his own country, as well as, a gesture to mend fences/borders.

Link http://latinalista.blogspot.com/2005/05/vicente-fox-angers-black-americans.html

Bnguyen 08:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article does not have a neutral point of view, at least in the beginning, in which there are comments made by individual not listed, and are therefore presented as facts. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 03:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

To what comments are you referring to? Now, I find it unfair that you add an NPOV tag after you erased months of work on this article. I've been doing my best to recover some of the information that was available, both of Fox accomplisments as of the criticism against him. Why add an NPOV tag after you erased over 70% of the article? Hari Seldon 03:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to add uncited, POV, OR nonsense to Wikipedia you will be blocked. Consider this your final warning. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 01:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ever since you started editing this article, I have been contributing only sourced material. Hari Seldon 01:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Sourced"? 90% of your links were broken. The other 10% did not support the content that you added. . Ya ya ya ya ya ya 02:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The links are not broken, I just tried them out 1 minute ago, they work! I challenge you. Also, the sources DO support the content I added. I read it throughly. Plus, you erased links because they where in spanish! I find this amazing considering that the politican being researched is President of a spanish-speaking country and most of the information concerning him would be in spanish! It is common to source material from different languages when english material is not available. Plus! some of the links you erased because "they are in spanish" where actually in english... Further, it is common in the Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, Felipe Calderon, Mexican general election, 2006, Mexico (etc...) pages and I don't see you being this passionate about them as you are here! In my opinion, you are just here destroying content. This page took months to create, it took me hours to find these sources, read them, digest them, and try to write this as NPOV as possible.

I agree that I am not perfect and I may make mistakes, but talking about them is a better way to solve them than barging into an article you haven't been working on, destroying it, offering no advice on how to improve it, and acting as dictator of wikipedia. If you want to make this article better, I appreciate it. I also want to make this article better. But use of threates and undiscriminated destruction of content is no way of doing it. Hari Seldon 02:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have several points

First of all most of the earlier links were broken because you sourced primarily to Reuters articles. Reuters is a news aggregate and is never accepted as a long-term source because all Reuters links are temporary.
The genuine sources you or other users provided only now support the content because I changed it to accurately reflect what was in those sources. There were numerous unsourced assertions, that you added, in the previous versions, which have never been sourced, properly or improperly.
It is acceptable to source content to foreign language sources only when English sources are not easily available. In this case, English sources are easily available. As you said, he is the President of a major nation.
Thank you for pointing out those pages. I will be getting to all of those promptly, with the same level of passion.
Calling me a dictator of Wikipedia, along with all of your other personal attacks, are violations of WP:NPA. Please read this policy thoroughly. I have not threatened you, I have told you repeatedly to properly source the content you add. If you choose not to follow Wikipedia policy, then you choose to face the consequences. If you think I'm being unfair or violating policy, then get another opinion. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 03:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing foreign-language links are allowed. There is no hard rule saying they are disallowed if English sources are available. Please also assume good faith and stop threatening to get others blocked. I have restored the bit about President Fox's personal life. If there are further content disputes, please get a third opinion or request informal or formal mediation. Cheers, – Ch acor 13:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, your attempt to misinterpret policy do not amuse me. If you can not edit responsibly, do not edit at all.

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Sources in languages other than English, "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources (assuming equal quality and reliability). For example, do not use a foreign-language newspaper as a source unless there is no equivalent article in an English-language newspaper. However, foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources."

All of this content should be able to be sourced to English language sources as Fox is a major public figure. If there are not English language source equivalents to the Spanish sources, then the Spanish-language sources provided are unreliable. Your suggestion to assume good faith is amusing. I cited Wikipedia policy and treated this as a content dispute, even though it is not. Hseldon10 responded by calling me a "dictator of Wikipedia." You suggested, labeling this a "content dispute," that I seek a third opinion. If you had actually read my statement directly above yours, you would have seen I suggested Hseldon try this. He has thus far decided against it... I wonder why? Spamming my talkpage is annoying, but ineffective. Desist. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 18:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a nonsense interpretation, it says no such thing as if its a major public figure only english sources are considered reliable. --pgk 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The content you're repeatedly removing does not show a living person in a negative light, which the the relevant portion of WP:BLP. In addition, your assertion that a lack of English-language sources about a Mexican leader means that the Spanish-language sources are unreliable is hard to support. I'd expect that Spanish language sources about the leader of a Spanish-speaking country would tend to be more reliable than English-langauge ones. Certainly, if sources in English can be found they should be cited instead of the Spanish citations, but that's not a justifcation for removing content against consensus. Geoffrey Spear 18:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't decided against seeking a third party, yet... However, I am trying to find sources to add more content and pass them through you first. For me, consensus is more important than winning... Finally, I find it interesting that I am not alone in criticising your destruction of this article. As I said, this was the work of a lot of editors who had reached consensus on this content. I believe that if our concern is the quality of the article, contributing to discussion and consensus is more important than destruction of content without talking first. Hari Seldon 19:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yyyyy is displaying the traits very often found in people who violate WP:OWN. Mediation probably won't be a good idea; get an WP:RFC. – Ch acor 01:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

An excellent idea. Perhaps I'll start one on your spamming of my talkpage and encouraging personal attacks. I think that's pretty solid ground for desysopping. "Cheers", Ya ya ya ya ya ya 02:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not a sysop. Secondly, this diff made in five edits can hardly be considered spamming. An RFC will most definitely be welcomed here. – Ch acor 02:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ya ya ya ya ya ya has been indefinitely blocked. Where do we go from here? – Ch acor 04:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted

I've reverted this article to its original state. The one it had before Ya ya ya ya ya ya destroyed months of work by multiple editors. I will be requesting mediation on this matter.

User Ya ya ya ya ya ya, please refrain from vandalizing this article any further until we have resolved our differences. If your interest is in bettering this article, I am sure we will be able to sort all of this out. Hari Seldon 07:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm here from WP:3O and I'd like to help break the deadlock on this article and maybe help us all come to a reasonable conclusion. It looks like this is a fairly complex content dispute - could you all help me out by summarizing briefly the terms of the dispute - what is being removed, what each "side"'s position is? Also, as a note: it's very unhelpful for anyone to characterize a good faith edit as vandalism. Even if it is vandalism, calling it that can needlessly inflame tempers. So, it would be helpful if we can stick strictly to content, not to behavior. Anyway, I'd really like to help out; a brief summary, maybe with a few helpful diffs to point me in the right direction, will help shed some light on the matter and maybe lead everyone to a reappraisal of their own positions. Captainktainer * Talk 11:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Captainktainer, sorry for stepping into your efforts at mediation, but for the moment I have reverted and protected this page. While acknowledging that it is a major no-no for admins to protect a page they have edited I felt it was required in this instance. Unbelievably, this article had completely unsourced statements accusing Fox of racism and Wikipedia itself (not someone else) saying that Fox frequently makes comments which "...demonstrate his inexperience or lack of culture." This is completely against WP:BLP and I considered just deleting the article in full as suggested by that page. Hopefully using this cut down version instead will be a preferable compromise to deletion until we can get this sorted out. --CBD 14:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have, accordingly, failed Vicente Fox as a GA-nom until this is solved. Criteria failed is editing stability. – Ch acor 14:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone might want to put the {{protect}} tag. Green caterpillar 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree that the article is not perfect. Our purpose is to try to make it better and I agree. But, why delete the parts about his economic and foreign policy legacy too? Those are sourced and true. Finally, many things in the article that are not sourced are so because finding sources online is extremely difficult. That does not mean the statements are not true. I have followed Fox closely for the duration of his Presidential campaign and his administration, consequently, I know where to find printed (but not online) sources for some of this information. Examples of these statements include: "At the end of Salinas' term, the 82nd article of the Mexican constitution was modified to allow Mexicans born to a non-Mexican parent to run for the presidency.", "Fox found himself with a minority in Congress, dominated by parties he had portrayed as either ineffective or corrupt. He lacked the full support of the PAN because his candidacy was driven more by his popularity than the internal support of his party.", "President Vicente Fox has favoured a contractionist economic policy that favors financial stability over inflationary growth. As a consequence, it has produced mixed results, and so analysts are not in agreement about the quality of his achievements.", "Supporters, both domestic and from overseas, commend President Fox for producing the lowest inflation in decades, which was also single-digit, a novelty in Mexico", "This doctrine is still widely accepted among Mexican intellectuals. However, it had earned its criticism as an excuse by then dictatorial Mexican regimes to avoid any sort of criticism. It was a "don't judge me and I won't judge you" implicit agreement.", and many many many others... I recognize some of the content is POVed, but that does not mean that deleting is the best way to fix the article. I never saw any comments on this talk page about specific POV or unsourced complaints. I only saw deletion of content against general consensus of the regular editors. I don't think this is very practical, or very nice... Hari Seldon 17:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The simple answer for the extent of reversion is that I saw clear examples of WP:BLP problems which had been restored even after they were pointed out and did not want to leave those in place while researching which of various other things might also be problems, but less obviously so. Unfortunately, 'finding sources is difficult' is not an excuse when it comes to WP:BLP. I encourage you to read that page. When it comes to living people if it is clearly negative commentary (e.g. 'this person is accused of racism') you have to reference a reliable source or it doesn't go in the article. Period. However, it doesn't have to be an "online source"... print newspapers, books, radio broadcasts, et cetera are all perfectly acceptable so long as there is some way to verify them. On the whole 'foreign language references' thing... the reliable sources policy allows them but only if an English language source is not available, their reliability can be confirmed, and the untranslated text backing up the claim is included in the reference so that the translation can be confirmed by people who know the language. Generally you are better off getting an English language source if you can. I've heard those accusations about Fox (and I don't speak Spanish) so it's not like you are just making this stuff up, but when it is included in the article without references it puts Wikipedia in the position of saying 'this is what this guy is all about'... as opposed to referenced materials where it is, 'these other people (not us) say this is what this guy is all about'. I agree these issues can be worked out and actually saw some progress in that regards. It is unfortunate that personality issues got in the way of just doing that work... but they did and WP:BLP doesn't allow for 'oh the negative commentary is only a little unreferenced' or 'only for a while'. Ya ya ya ya ya ya could have been nicer about it, but he had a point with alot of these issues. I'd suggest looking through the history to find one of the longer versions which is fairly clean (the racism section actually was referenced for a while), identify and clean up any remaining problems, and expand from there. --CBD 18:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand. With so many versions of the article now existing in the history, I think that the best approach would be to take the original article (previous to this event) and add parts of that article to this one as sources become available. I would also propose that nothing is added until it has been discussed here, for POV purposes. At least until this issue has been resolved. I suggest we start with those sections of the article which where deleted despite being sourced. Hari Seldon 19:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I sort of expected the page protect. For me, it was like trying to save a puppy from an oncoming bullet train - you know you're not going to get there first, and you know the puppy was really dumb for getting onto the tracks, but you try to make the attempt anyway. But looking at the [4] immediately prior to the page protect, I can definitely see the problems.

The controversial statements section is true - it filled the airwaves at the time - but, being unsourced, it clearly doesn't belong under BLP. There should be plenty of source material; the fact that there aren't direct citations for the quotations is problematic. The version that's up now with the Fox News citation should probably stay. Sourcing needed
The first statement of the "Employment" section isn't verified, but the rest of the section is verified by the accompanying source (I just checked). Partial sourcing needed
I can't verify anything in the Law Enforcement section using the sources provided. Even the major article wikilinked from that section has no references. Stable copies of sources needed, partial sourcing needed
Same thing for Health. Sourcing needed
Same for Housing. Sourcing needed
The section about foreign policy is also very weakly sourced. The only salvageable bits are the first paragraph and the third paragraph; the commentary isn't sourced and thus needs to go. Mostly sourcing needed
The economy section is filled with commentary, especially towards the end. A Spanish-speaking editor would have to examine the sources in the article to see whether they support the claims made that aren't making a value judgement about Fox' policy. Translation needed, some sourcing needed, POV removal needed
Legacy section is unsourced. Some of the claims should be trivial to source, others (particularly the "critics claim" bits) will be harder to source than perhaps it's worth. Partial sourcing needed, some POV removal needed.
Can't find a source for the Day of Democracy bit in the article or in any of the wikilinked articles. Sourcing needed
Fox candidates - with the exception of Creel, everything in this section needs sourcing. There are no sources in any of the wikilinked articles or in related articles. Sourcing needed
Relations with Latin American countries - It looks fine as it currently is, although expansion is needed once the other problems are solved. Nothing to see here
Relations with Congress - CBD was, clearly, correct in blanking this portion. No sources except for the most recent bit. Sourcing needed
Presidency - Completely unsourced. The only thing that might stay is that democracy award thing - indirect sourcing through the wikilinked article makes that barely OK. Sourcing needed
Presidential candidacy - No sources. Sourcing needed
Early political career - Badly sourced. CBD's early life stub is all that will work. Sourcing needed
Marriage - This section, for a private individual, would be begging for a lawsuit. Filled with POV, as well. The section CBD has is good, though. Partial sourcing needed
Early life - It's fine, though more robust sourcing would be nice so we can be sure we're getting an NPOV. Sourcing generally okay
Introduction - Best in the version CBD has.

So that's the current state of affairs. Thoughts? Comments? Additional sources? Captainktainer * Talk 20:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Alot of good thoughts and plans for going forward. I've unprotected the article again and think you guys are on the right track. Disagreements are inevitable, but don't let yourself get 'polarized' into warring camps... in most instances there is some validity to the arguments of both sides (e.g. 'BLP' really does require removal of unreferenced negatives... yet foreign language sources are acceptable in some cases). --CBD 22:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is my proposal for the "Foreign Policy" section... I wish for your comments before placing this in the article. I would like a consensus edit. Meanwhile, I will continue to look for sources on other sections of the article: Hari Seldon 23:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. The links all work and seem to back up the statements they are attached to. The only thing I might suggest is for the spanish language references you might want to include the original wording in the reference as described at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English. You are here paraphrasing the original rather than providing a translated quotation, but the rationale is the same. Using something like, '<ref>http://sepiensa.org.mx/contenidos/h_mexicanas/s.xx/estrada/estrada1.htm ***Quotation of relevant Spanish sentence(s) here*** </ref>', would allow at least spanish speakers to more easily verify that what you have said is an accurate translation/paraphrase of the original. --CBD 16:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made the modifications. Please, verify if it is better, and lets consider posting it.

Cool. Even with my very limited knowledge of Spanish I was able to follow those and confirm that they said what the article indicates. --CBD 19:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Then, with your approval, I will now add this to the article page. Hari Seldon 20:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now added the text on the article page. I have now deleted it from my talk page, and will now begin work on the economy section. Hari Seldon 20:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More about Fox surname

By coincidence Vicente's anglo/germanic surname is similar to certain Iberian surnames: Palafox, Foch, Foix, so visually and phonetically it would not necessarily strike a Mexican as "foreign." Also, there are a fair number of Irish family names that have become Spanish after hundreds of years of existence in Spain: e.g. O'Gorman, O'Higgins, etc...

[edit] Apologies

I wish to apologise for some of the things that I said during this misunderstanding on the editing of the Vicente Fox page. Specifically, I regret calling user yayayayaya a "Dictator of Wikipedia". If it is his wish to remove the comment from this discussion board, please allow him to. If else, let this statement stand that I did not really mean it, that I was angry at the moment at my impotence, and that I am really sorry I said it. Hari Seldon 03:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Immigration and science during Fox's government

This article has no mention of the fact that Fox failed miserably to reach a migratory agreement with the US, as he kept promising during his government*[5]. Also, it is not mentioned that more Mexicans migrated to the US than with any other president in Mexico. Migration grew in a way not even comparable to growth of the population, furthermore, in public and non official statements, - in a complete lack of self respect and respect for his goverment - he recognized the dependance of Mexico on immigrants to sustain itself (ironically, he should have made Mexico self sufficient and not dependent on the money sent by the people that had to migrate to find a job).

Fox has been continually criticized by the US conservative media because a migratory agreement should include better opportunities for people in Mexico, rather than their going to the US to be employed, an issue that has not been addressed by Fox's government. Finally no other president has neglected science and technology as Fox has.... I have been talking with people on the UNAM (one of the few places in Mexico that has Howard Hughes Scholars in it's faculty and that has high impact factor scientifical publications) for sources for this statements. I will gladly provide them in the future. Thanks. Andres lopez 18:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can find sources, please add. Hari Seldon 18:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is my proposal for the article, please review it and make your comments. Thanks Andres lopez 08:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is a little biased, for you have neglected to source and represent all viewpoints in your writing, but it is ok. However, I would recommend some changes to lessen POV:

The phrase " Fox has "proudly" acknowledged the importance", should not have the word "proudly", that is just pure POV...
The phrase "Due to the pressure imposed on Mexico to backup the U.S., Mexico's representative to the UN Adolfo Aguilar Zinser called Mexico "the backyard of the United States". This generated tensions between the U.S. and Mexico until Fox asked Aguilar for his resignation as Mexico's representative to the UN." The sources you cite do not back up that Adolfo Aguilar Zinser said the phrase because of the pressure imposed on Mexico. Actually, the letter gives a quite different view... Plus, the phrase "This generated tensions between the U.S. and Mexico until Fox asked Aguilar for his resignation as Mexico's representative to the UN ", should be reworded, for the tensions originated before the comment and continued after the comment. Again, your sources do not support the claim of the tensions... If you eliminate both the "cause" and "consequence" that, though unsupported by your sources, you claim to be true, then the only relevant fact of this addition is Aguilar Zinser's phrase. Ask, is this relevant to Fox's article, or to Aguilar Zinser's article? Perhaps this shouldn't be included in the article all together.
The phrase "Liberal media and think tanks like COHA, have heavily criticized Mexico's new foreign policy for being overtly submissive to the U.S.", should be more specific. Who is this liberal media? Source that claim, or do not include "Liberal Media" in the sentence. Finally, how do you define "liberal"?...

Hari Seldon 15:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you ask me, I would say that the article was biased to start with, it lacked these facts (ironic that you call them points of view).

Responding to your critiques:

I added the word “proudly” because Fox said that he was proud of the people that had migrated to the U.S. It is my opinion, that any president in their right mind would be ashamed that his fellow countrymen had to emigrate in search of better opportunities. This is not the point though, I have modified the sentence and provided a citation to back up the statement.
As a gesture of good will I have deleted the paragraph about Zinser, but I believe it deserves to be mentioned in the article. I will work on a stronger argument (with citations) and write a draft for your review (and others). [6]
I have added citations to the statement about the press.

Here is the new proposal, hope this one is "OK" too.

Please let me know your comments Andres lopez 07:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So, the crime of being ignorant of these "facts" makes the editors of this page POVed? Interesting, that anyone who does not view the world as you do is ignorant and you call yourself unbiased... It is not ironic that I call them points of view. The facts that you state rise to a conclusion, but that conclusion is incomplete without more facts and the equal representation of your opponents Point of View. For example, how much research was done by the private sector? Is research a purpose of government? Is this part of Fox's political stance? Wikipedia is not a place to judge weather such things are good or bad...

I've read your proposal and I find it almost completely ok. The issues are as follow:

"liberal media". Your sources are not specific enough to explicitly say what you are writing in the article. Perhaps you can find a more precise source that explicitly says "liberal media accuse Fox of ...", or, you can say "The Washington Post and La Jornada accuse Fox's government...", which is more precise.

"Proud". The way it is written, it seems to say that Fox is proud that immigrants are going to the US ilegally. This is not the case. Either add context, or eliminate the adjective. Adding context would add too much words to the article and very little substance. I think it would be best to eliminate the phrase. However, I leave this up to you.

Hari Seldon 14:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hari,

I apologize for my belated reply.

I do not think that I have provided biased information; I have used a few editorials that in all honesty are not proper sources of information. However, these editorials are based on news events and situations that actually occurred (believe me, I did not pulled them out of my hat). You claim to have followed Fox closely, all of these things should be known to you, and hence accounted for in the article.

The article still has flaws, for example, you have provided the name of some Mexican lawyer (which quite frankly I’ve never heard of) that states that Fox has done a magnificent job because the inflation and the peso remained stable through his term: Fox should thank a number of things for this, including the record high prices of oil and the tremendous amount of remittances sent to the country. Where is this stated in the article? Where is the opinion of the economists of ITAM or Colegio de Mexico, the opinion leaders in Mexico for these areas?

Also he speaks of the incredible press freedom on Fox’s government, I invite you to read the reports on Mexico from the International Press Institute,[7] and Amnesty International [8]that don’t seem to agree with the version portrayed on this article.

On this same note, the article claims the openness of Fox’s government and the transparency. Here is a link, with statements from the Editor in chief of Reforma (the only newspaper that you seem to trust) that says otherwise. [9]

Who is this individual, what are his credentials? Why should we believe what we say? He is an editorialist for a website made in ENGLISH about Mexico? Why do you feel is proper to cite him in an article about the Mexican president? Further research should be done, include the evaluations of the World Bank or other sources.

You say: “how much research was done by the private sector? Is research a purpose of government? Is this part of Fox's political stance?”

According to the World Bank “Science and technology have been central in the progress made to date in the fight against poverty and in stimulating economic growth”.[10] I would think that research should be high on the priorities of a government.

In 2001 after Fox assumed the presidency, when the national development plan for science and technology was presented, Jaime Parada Avila, director of CONACYT said: “Without science and technology, it would impossible to achieve and maintain the wellbeing that we expect for everyone; furthermore, without science and technology the future development of the nation would be unthinkable”, “The generation and application of scientific knowledge, are key elements to solve the relevant problems of society” [11] (Do you think that this is enough proof of Fox's stance on this?)

Research done by the private sector alone has little meaning for the overall scientific performance of a country, considering that the purpose of this research is not to train scientists, unless it is done in conjunction with academic institutions. Furthermore, research sponsored by private corporations (not by individuals) most of the time is applied research rather than basic science.

Drucker is a controversial, outspoken individual, however, whether people like it or not, he is the head of basic science research in the place that does the most research in Mexico. His opinion is relevant, at least on this matter. These things should be known to you, since you have followed Fox closely.

I will work on a final draft (for this section) for your final review and/or a senior editor so I can post it to the article. I will as I make time available work on the other sections of the article.Andres lopez 03:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More about Fox surname

By coincidence Vicente's anglo/germanic surname is similar to certain Iberian and Pyrenean surnames: Palafox, Foch, Foix, so visually and phonetically it would not necessarily strike a Mexican as "foreign." Also, there are a fair number of Irish family names that have become Spanish after hundreds of years of existence in Spain: e.g. O'Gorman, O'Higgins, etc...

[edit] Term End

There is an edit conflict on when Fox's term ended. Technically speaking, Felipe Calderón took office on December 1, which means Vicente Fox's term expired on November 30. This is consistent with Mexican law. However, since the President can only, constitutionally, transfer power before congress on December 1, then it can be interpreted that Fox's term expired on December 1 at 8:40 am, when Calderon took the oath of office. I don't know how to resolve this issue, but seek help and opinions to do so. I would also ask anyone to refrain from editing until a consensual solution has been obtained. Hari Seldon 21:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracy

Claims he is the second of 59 children. I am not sure how many siblings he had, but I am quite certain it is not 59. 15:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)PT

This page, like that of many other politicians, has been subject to a ridiculous amount of vandalism...

At different points in time, former President Fox has been Chente Fucks, President of Burrito Land, and an american wetback in Mexico... As you can see, it is hard to keep up. We, the editors of this page, are doing our best to prevent this from happening, but sometimes, we are not perfect... More editors wouldn't hurt... Hari Seldon 15:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also Francisco I madero was notr president until 1911 when Dias quitted, the revolution started in 1910 but Madero was not president yet.

[edit] Controversial Comments

This section is getting rather large. Wouldn't it be enough to menction that the man was not an able public speaker, and port the rest to wikiquote? Hari Seldon 13:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freeedom of speech

For quite a time now the article has stated that "Andrade also credited the Fox administration with increasing respect for freedom of speech, as well as access to public information." Who's this guy Andrade? Is he an expert on the subject? Why do the international organisms have a different opinion of his?. Both the prosecution of Lydia Cacho and the still unsolved murder of Digna Ochoa both occurred during Fox's term do not honor these statements. Only Iraq supersedes Mexico in terms of journalists murdered during 2006 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/31/AR2007033101359.html?hpid=artslot). Keep in mind that Iraq is in War!. I propose a major edit of this section with citations from proven and reliable sources. I will work on a proposal and paste it here for review before placing it on the article. Andy Rosenthal 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Lydia Cacho was prosecuted in Puebla by the PRI-government of Mario Marín, and Digna Ochoa occured in Mexico City, if I am not mistaken, also under the local jurisdiction of PRD-government of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Added to this, assasination of reporters at the hands of drug dealers have also increased. The question is, however, weather these reporters were murdered by the government, on account of the government, or due to incompetence of the government, and also, of which government? Any proposal that does not take into account that there are three levels of government responsible for the security of their citizens (including reporters), and not taking into account the differences between government-approved media of previous administratios (i.e, Jacobo Zabludowsky's "Hoy fue un día soleado") vs. the free criticism of the federal government of the Fox administration (i.e., "México, lo que todo mexicano quisiera -no- saber de su patria", by Denise Dresser), would be an incomplete proposal.

Hari Seldon 00:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Added to this, the role of government should be considered. Is the President responsbile of prosecuting the Governor of Puebla, or is that the role of Congress? Who dominated Congress then? What about the role of the judicial system?

In any case, it is clear that the Mexican government is far from perfect, but a CLEAR description of responsibilities makes better criticism than just blaming the President with everything that is wrong.

Hari Seldon 00:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's ironic you said that because Fox said just the same thing "It's just another murder of the many that occur in Mexico city". (Imagine a president saying that on such a high profile case, In any other country he would have gotten so much heat from the press that the word impeachment would have been heard, but we should not hold it against him, perhaps he was just trying to do his usual vituperation of the City's government). It is worth noting, that Fox was asked to intervene in the murder of Ochoa http://www.fidh.org/article.php3?id_article=1436) and Fox promised justice for the crime (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/27/149240) yet he failed to provide the resources he was supposed to commit to the investigation. I am not sure who to blame, but I was using this as an example of the prevalence of injustice in Mexico. I will not go on with Cacho's case that it is equally unsettling.

Be it as it may Federation or not, local, state or federal. Who in God's name is Andrade?, It seems that Amnesty International or The International press institute both disagree with him. I am sure Fox's mother can say that he is very well intentioned too, does it matter?. Even Reforma has sharply criticized the censorship and lack of openness that Fox had. Do you think it is fair to say that freedom of speech exists or these six years were characterized for openness freedom of speech where the country that has the second highest rate of journalists murdered worldwide? I just think including the opinion of a nobody as a fact when this contradicts the research of international organizations of such prestige as Amnesty International (who say that those six years were full of repression and fear for reporters and journalists) is neither fair nor accurate. Andy Rosenthal 02:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your analysis is incomplete. First of all, I don't think that the President's words could be interpreted maliciously, as we know, he never got how to talk to the media. He was just stupid. In any case, the investigation should be responsibility of the Attorney General, who depends on the President, but who has been known to act independently, particularly Rafael Macedo de la Concha, former PRI-member. Indeed, Rafael Macedo de la Concha was a far-from-exemplary official, but that does not mean that Fox murdered Digna Ochoa. If he was incompetent, it should be noted, but be careful of taking the accusation too far. In any case, it should also be noted that protecting that citizen WAS the responsbility of the Government of Mexico City, which was also incompetent. I am not arguing that one was better than the other, I am just pointing that it would be unfair to blame one without noting the responsibility of the other. In any case, wikipedia is not a place to distribute blame. If you have reputable sources go ahead and post them, but remember about NPOV. Andrade seems to be a business analyst for private companies (i.e., business lawyer), in any case, I agree his source is not the best that can be found, but before removing it, there is some aknowledgement that, from a point of view (the one comparing Fox with "No pago para que me peguen" former governments), freedom of speech has improved. At least, allow the editors of this page to look for a more reliable source before replacing it. And finally, at state levels, I've seen countless repression of free speech, particularly in PRI-controlled localities, like Puebla and Oaxaca. As for the Federal level, I loved criticizing Fox, I loved "La Parodia", and all programs that made fun of him, I loved countless of newspapers cover page with Fox's stupid remarks, editorials about their criticism and I love how criticism of the Federal government, though widespread, was not persecuted. I am not saying that Fox's government was perfect, or that Mexico has no issues with free speech, but it would be ridiculous to blame it on Fox. Yes, I do feel that his government allowed for more free speech, despite other factors that are not the Federal Goverment preventing it to develop fully. Again, I am not saying that Fox was perfect, but surely he wasn't a repressive maniac! True, those six years where full of repression and fear: by PRI-led state governments and drug gangs, but not by the Federal government. And I think that this is the main difference between Fox's government and the previous governments. Before, it was a perverse government silencing reporters, and with Fox it was an incompetent government allowing state governors and drug gangs to silence reporters. On the other hand, also note that persecuting state governors is the task of Congress, and Fox cannot be held accountable for a task that, legally, he cannot and should not perform. Hari Seldon 03:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your last comment is emotive to say the least. I never planned to use Ochoa's or Cacho's cases on Fox's article but i wanted to use them as examples of situations that occurred during his term. However, there can't be any questioning of the accuracy or validity of the AI's and IPI's reports. Neither can there be any of Washington post article I included on my first comment.

I want you to notice the number of times that you say "I" in your reply. I also want you to realize that while you acknowledge that Andrade's is just a point of view, you are asking me not include any points of view ("If you have reputable sources go ahead and post them, but remember about NPOV"). Why would Andrade's point of view would be better than any other? It is in fact a point of view (from someone that " seems to be a business analyst")

This is what you should do: 1) Find reputable and reliable sources on the improvement of freedom of speech in Fox's term 2) Document that local authorities are to blame for harassment and murder of journalists and 3) Document your allegations that drug enforcement is not a responsibility of the federal government (last I heard the Army is in charge of it and the army is under jurisdiction of the federal government). This last point is irrelevant to the article, but it will be used to support your other claims. Otherwise I will delete that sentence from Andrade. Andy Rosenthal 07:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You misread me. I am not asking you to refrain from including any point of view. I am simply asking you to put it in the proper context. About "documentation" that local authorities are to blame for "harassment and murder of journalists", well, simply take a look at the laws pertaining civil protection. The Constitution guarantees right of free speech and free press, but it gives states soverignty, which means that the responsibility of protecting citizens living in said states is the responsibility of the State government. In the case of persecution of drug dealers that intimidate reporters, one only has to look at the track record of President Fox fighting organized crime. How many detentions/prosecutions were made during his term? Indeed, you are right, fighting organized crime is an attribution of the Federal Government, but remember that organized crime existed since BEFORE Fox became President. Much of the problem was inherited, and this should be noted. By the way, it is not only the Army that is charged with battling organized crime, but also the Federal Police Agencies (PFP and AFI, the latter created during Fox). As for punishing controversial State Governors (like, Mario Marín), look into the constitution, and you'll see that these public officials are protected by immunity ("fuero") which has to be removed by congress. If I am not mistaken, Fox's party asked for a removal of immunity against Mario Marín... What was the response of the PRI? Consider the Desafuero case vs. Lopez Obrador. The Attorney General did not prosecute Lopez Obrador immediately after the Encino scandal arouse; they had to build a case and then convince Congress to remove Lopez Obrador from immunity. The same process would have applied to Mario Marín in the Lydia Cacho case. Please be patient. I have an exam tomorrow and several homeworks to hand in during the week. Please give me or other editors until Friday to present a proposal. Work on yours, and lets discuss it. In essence, I agree that Fox's term was not perfect, but I wouldn't like for any particular opinion to prevail when all can be presented in the proper context. Again, I don't want to stop you from helping create a better article, I am merely saying that all information needs to be presented NPOV. And yes, I say "I" a lot. In talk pages, I present my arguments on how this article can be better served, and hopefully, the sum of all our contributions create a higher quality, neutral article. And for the record, yes ther can be a questioning of the validity of AI, IPI, and WP, if for no other reasons, because all organizations are corruptible and liable to having an Agenda (in fact, I have a teacher that preaches the "well known fact" that AI has indeed an agenda towards the extreme left). And, wikipedia documents in The Washington Post that "Conservatives often cite the Post, along with The New York Times, as exemplars of "liberal media bias." In any case, no source is incorruptible or absolute, they simply are documentations of reality from a certain point of view. Hari Seldon 09:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What is a teacher from a business school located in the red state that houses the minute man project supposed to say? I am sure Ann Coulter, and Dennis Miller agree with him. Who is this guy? Did he watch this on the O'Rielly factor? AI is an independent pro bono Nobel Prize winning organization (Is not a business, one more reason to dislike them), please feel free to fill me in what their agenda is, I guess they want to take over the world too eh? a conspiracy theory?

Why don't you find the figures to see what happened in Fox's term with organized crime, it sky rocketed to the point that public executions are an every day occurrence throughout the country. (You are from Monterrey you should know this better than I)

The article from the Washington Post says that Mexico is only second to Iraq in deaths of media related people. I don't see why the orientation of the paper would influence this, perhaps it can be worded differently? I don't see why it matters which political orientation the paper has, it's not even an editorial it is an article!

Does it really matter what the constitution say? How many criminals are brought to justice in the Mexican system? Is the constitution adequately enforced? Impunity is the common occurrence rather than the exception.

Let's also not forget that Fox gave Televisa and TV Azteca full control of the TV waves perpetuating their monopoly, making it iron clad. Wow, Fox really was a defender of freedom of speech. Andy Rosenthal 19:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Andy! Talk about assuming good faith! Actually, I also have a teacher who supports democratic candidate. My former finance teacher was a libertarian, and of course, teachers are free to teach their course in the best way they see fit. What, can't you stand the criticism? The argument he makes is that AI is funded mostly by left-leaning parties and thus that aids in thier bias, and any way, he is not my teacher in this school, he was my teacher at my undergrad school. He, by the way, also criticized the PAN, the Catholic Church, and every single political association claiming they all had bias, including AI... Figures of organized crime skyrocketing are interesting, but the authorities claim that this is due to them being more effective against drug lords, and thus inciting retaliation. The figures of organized crime should be coupled with these arguments and the figures of apprehended criminals compared to previous administrations, so that the reader can judge by himself whether or not the authorities are doing a good job. And Yes, I am from Monterrey, I remember that during Fernando Canales one could walk safely on the street, and now with Natividad Gonzalez one cannot. That is the way I personally see it. Andy, calm down, I am not critizicing your sources. I am just saying that all sources ARE fallible, and that is why we use NPOV, using contrasting sources, so that the reader can get the complete picture and make his own mind. And, actually, it really matters what the constitution says, because it is the most basic law of Mexico. We should judge our governments compared to how they do according to the constitution. If the constitution says that detainees have rights, and the government doesn't grant them for whatever reason, then we could be living in a repressive government. If the constitution says that the Federal Executive has no power of the Local Executive, there is a reason for it, and having a President try to exceed his powers in that instance might indicate that he would try to exceed his powers in other instances; a prelude to dictatorship. You see, the fact that certain laws are not enforced is not an excuse to refrain oneself from enforcing other laws. On the contrary, we should pressure our governments, specially those who ACTUALLY HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY to enforce said laws (i.e., in most cases, local governments). And, no, again, it wasn't Fox who gave "Televisa and TV azteca" a full control of TV waves "perpetuating their monopoly", it was the house and senate. In the house, the vote was unanimous, which means the PRD also gave Televisa and TV Azteca said rights. Finally, please read the law. The law is above conversion technologies and the decision was whether or not all current companies (not just Televisa and TV Azteca, but all that already have transmission rights) should hold the waves they are assigned to, or have to go through a re-assignment process when switching to digital technology. Grupo Reforma (and apparently, no one else, since the whole issue surfaced when Reforma published this in their front page), argued that with digital technologies, these companies would be able to transmit 10 times the content they currently transmit, and so should be liable to a re-assignment that would give them 1/10 th of the capacity, enough to transmit the same content. All parties in congress disagreed. It does not "perpetuate their monopoly", because there is enough wave space so that further competition can surface, if the SCT approves (and as I understand, will start approving in September 2007). So, with the opinions behind us, lets go to the task at hand. What do you think of the outline? Please feel free to add, or subtract from it. Hari Seldon 23:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outline

Here is a proposition of an outline:

Descritpion of articles 6 and 7 of the constitution (freedom of speech and freedom of the press), the extent of the right and, most notably, the controversial limitants to free speech ("en el caso de que ataque a la moral, los derechos de tercero, provoque algún delito o perturbe el orden público", for article 6).
The creation of IFAI as per "el derecho a la información será garantizado por el Estado" of article 6. (IFAI was created during Fox).
Fox's own point of view. (If others will comment on Fox, lets also give him a voice): "Hoy, el gobierno federal no censura, no reprime ni compra a nadie, ya no se dicta línea, amenaza o castiga a quienes ejercen el periodismo, ya no se ofrece el ‘chayote’, tan conocido en el pasado, la libertad de expresión es sin duda una de las más grandes conquistas de nuestra democracia", Fox as reported by esmas.com
Aknowledgement of increased criticism against the Federal government, particularly, aganist Fox, and the lack of persecution of it. (Mexican Intellectuals and Policy Alternation (2000-2004), Review of Policy Research 22 (1), 17–26. "The political and intellectual landscape of Mexico has been changed by two dramatic events: a new democratic experience, with the triumph of Vicente Fox in the presidential elections of the year 2000; and the relevant role that intellectuals are playing in public opinion. Soon, the democratic experience turned from illusion to deception, basically because Mexican political culture still is authoritarian, and this is something Mexican intellectuals could not accept. Their critics point out that democracy in Mexico is as new as it is weak, and Fox's government has been attacked in the media as no other president in recent history.") AND, "Cuánto miedo frente a los calumniadores con credencial de periodistas. Tanto que, pretextando la libertad de expresión, se les otorga una impunidad mayor que la inmunidad diplomática o el fuero legislativo para que ni siquiera pisen la cárcel.", Carlos Marín in Milenio Diario.
Compare with "no pago para que me peguen".
Actions to combat repression of free speech (creation of a specialized attorney for crimes against free speech, as reported by CPJ News, "El presidente de México Vicente Fox anunció hoy que pedirá al Procurador General de la República la designación de un fiscal especial para investigar delitos contra la libertad de expresión, un compromiso asumido luego de una serie de violentos ataques contra periodistas en los estados del norte del país".
Aknowledgement of AI, IPI and Washington Post concerns
Examples in the cases of reporters threatened by drug dealers, but also the cases of Digna Ochoa, Lydia Cacho, and Diario Noticias de Oaxaca.
Lawful limits to the intervention of the Federal Government, and its involvement within those limits in these cases. (I.e., Digna Ochoa, Federal Government could not prevent her death, but was charged with investigatin her murder and did not do so appropriately; Lydia Cacho's unlawful kidnapping by Puebla's police forces and suspected corruption of judges --judicial branch and local executive-- and the process of prosecution, and what Vicente Fox could do about the problem; the Diario Noticias de Oaxaca case, when Organized labor organization affiliated with the PRI --CROC and CTM-- took control of the newspaper, presumably under the orders of PRI governor Ulises Ruiz. How did the Federal Government responded to the attack on the paper's right for Free Press.)
About the cases of organized crime killing/threatening reporters, a reference to a section on actions against organized crime: "Fox focused his early efforts on improving trade relations with the United States, calming civil unrest in such areas as Chiapas, and reducing corruption, crime, and drug trafficking." (Encyclopeadia Britannica).

What do you think of this outline? Hari Seldon 09:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/c/Talk%7EVicente_Fox_e35a.html"

Categories: Biography articles of living people | B-Class biography articles | Biography articles with comments | Former good article nominees

Talk:Vicente Fox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NPOV dispute over section on Fox's racist comments

[edit] Fox's "racism"

[edit] Quotes section

[edit] I wish i could be president

[edit] How many is many?

[edit] POV

[edit] Infobox

[edit] President No. nn

[edit] Height

[edit] TV spots

[edit] NPOV

[edit] NPOV 2: The Sequel

[edit] Pronouncing Fox's name

[edit] Employment policy

[edit] I heard he was born in 1952

[edit] Castro and Chavez

[edit] Height?

[edit] Offensive rant

[edit] his surname

[edit] my edit is not vandalism

[edit] First lady

[edit] NPOV

[edit] Fox Candidates issues

[edit] Successor

[edit] Main portrait

[edit] Recent Changes

[edit] Here is a source about Vicente Fox racist comment

[edit] Vicente Fox Angers Black Americans With Racist

[edit] NPOV

[edit] Reverted

[edit] More about Fox surname

[edit] Apologies

[edit] Immigration and science during Fox's government

[edit] More about Fox surname

[edit] Term End

[edit] Inaccuracy

[edit] Controversial Comments

[edit] Freeedom of speech

[edit] Outline

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search