Talk:Felipe Calderón

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mexico Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Peer review Felipe Calderón has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Felipe Calderón article.
Article policies
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

"His official residence is Los Pinos."

It is not his official residence. It is the official residence of the President of the Mexican United States. And I honestly don't see how this is relevant at the introduction of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.187.161 (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Misc

He is remembered because he backed the controversial financial rescue of banks Fobaproa. This an extremely unbiased statement, trying to relate him to a negative event. He might have backed Fobaproa as a deputy, but he is "remembered" for a lot of more improtant things, like opossing Fox and resigning to his cabinet position. --J.Alonso 03:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Why POV? Because some persons are using this article to make political prozelytism. that's why. Please consult earlier V3RSI0N5 KK

of this article.

(Heclam 02:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

Some people are using this forum to place propaganda. Placing "La Jornada" as a source is almost as objective as placing the PRD's website... It is common knowledge that the political inclination of "La Jornada" is pro-PRD. Please, if you are going to place opinions about FOBAPROA, use a better source. Hari Seldon 23:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I must disagree with this. La Jornada is a respected newspaper of the left. Instead, people in the right should counter links to La Jornada to links to right-wing newspapers.

--Hugo Estrada 08:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I just restored the intro article. Someone posted a very biased rewrite about Calderon. I invite the writer to document his claim that Calderon belongs to the far right within PAN, and include that under the criticism section in its own subheading. --Hugo Estrada 08:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I had to clean up some biased parts of the article as well, unfortunately, it seems this will keep happening for a while.

[edit] Criticism

I´ve deleted this because for the Wikipedia comunity and purposes, there was no important information there. Juan Lopez

As I had discussed before, this information WAS imporant. In any case, these type of changes should be discussed before making them. Hari Seldon 05:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that LA JORNADA is a left paper to the service of PRD. This media could not be considered as a democratic newspaper since is used only to support one party.

[edit] Calderon

I think you are not well informed. I am not with any party or with any religion. The polical campaing via the TV is full of lies. You know what did the Nazis don´t you? I will tell you. If you tell a lie to many times it will become the truth. This is what the Nazis did and Calderon and the PAN are doing this via TV, I´d like you could see at least one spot of him.

Maybe you would like to read: [1].

Hitler extended his rationalizations into a religious doctrine, underpinned by his criticism of traditional Catholicism. In particular, and closely related to Positive Christianity, Hitler objected to Catholicism's ungrounded and international character - that is, it did not pertain to an exclusive race and national culture. At the same time, and somewhat contradictorily, the Nazis combined elements of Germany's Lutheran community tradition with its Northern European, organic pagan past. Elements of militarism found their way into Hitler's own theology, as he preached that his was a "true" or "master" religion, because it would "create mastery" and avoid comforting lies. Those who preached love and tolerance, "in contravention to the facts", were said to be "slave" or "false" religions. The man who recognized these "truths", Hitler continued, was said to be a "natural leader", and those who denied it were said to be "natural slaves". "Slaves" – especially intelligent ones, he claimed – were always attempting to hinder their masters by promoting false religious and political doctrines. [2].

Regards User:Juanlopez
1) Please learn how to use Talk Pages. You are discussing this issue in my user page. The user page is not a place to discuss issues.
2) Incredible coincidence you find out about the FOBAPROA immediately after the PRD start their mediatic campaign highlighting the issue. Maybe what Hitler says is true, if anyone repeats a lie enough times it becomes the truth, for example, if the PRD repeats the FOBAPROA lie it becomes the truth.
3) The FOBAPROA is in itself a controversial issue. Many educated economists believe that the FOBAPROA was the financial mechanism that saved Mexico after the 1994 economic collapse, also known as "Error de Diciembre". In any case, Calderon did not propose the FOBAPROA act, and did not executed the FOBAPROA. Both things where done by President Zedillo. Calderón merely voted in favor of using the FOBAPROA funds to rescue all the banks in Mexico, which would otherwise had gone bankrupt. (FOBAPROA was not created in 1994).
4) Get your sources right, and stop using weasel words. If you don't, then your "contributions" are merely vandalic acts with a political agenda. You may not support directly a party, but it is clear that you despise the PAN and Calderón. However, distorting the truth without adequate sources does not constitue "spreading reality".
5) See Mexican general election, 2006 for some sourced polls that give Calderón an advantage, or a tie with AMLO (which is a form of leadership over the other 3 candidates). Their methodology is listed in the citations in case you want to argue, like AMLO does, that the independent polling agencies recieve the polls directly from the Presidential office.
Hari Seldon 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup requested

This is so confusing I don't know what to make of it:

"Calderón took protest like candidate in December 2005, and o'clock took its the campaign on 19 January, 2006 to the 12:00 a.m., date in which finished the electoral truce. Later it made a political act in Iztapalapa and in the evening it made another act in Toreo of Four Ways, in Naucalpan, State of Mexico"

This section is very important, as the Mexican presidential election is three months away and this man is quite possibly the winning candidate.

--Andrew Phelps 16:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This part shows very not neutral content: "Now, for the Presidential campaign, Felipe Calderon is the main one who commands the fear campaing, full of lies, against the Goverment of Andrés Manuel López Obrador and his Alternative Project of Nation." Remember content has to be verifiable. "Fear campaign" and "full of lies" are individual opinions and very condemnatory statements.

Daveiec 20:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This was added today by an anonymous vandal. This page has been subject to political campaigning and vandalism. I have reverted the edit. Hari Seldon 20:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is outdated, has some mistakes and need more sources. It should be cleaned up.--192.88.212.44 18:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major changes

Several users ( notably user talk:Kique ) have contributed nothing but personal opinions and unsubstantiated claims. Notable examples include: "Most of the Mexicans believe that Andres Manuel Lopez is paying for most of the polls aided by the richest business man in Mexico, Carlos Slim, also the third wealthiest man on earth. Carlos Slim was also said to be the favourite businessman of the former president Carlos Salinas and now is a very close friend of Andres Manuel Lopez. I deleted that entire paragraph because a) it was all personal opinion; and b) it added nothing of encyclopedic value to the article. Another such example is the claim that Calderón is running a campaign based on proposals rather than personal attacks, as that is clearly a biased statement, since Calderón himself has stated that his strategy to beat Obrador is based on a "marketing campaign" that highlights the risks of voting for AMLO. In addition to this, his party's television ads have been challenged before the Federal Electoral Institute due to their confrontational nature. However, I can see how including that bit of info in the article could be seen as non-objective, which is why I decided to simply delete that section. As it is right now, the article is readable (previous versions have been plagued by grammar and syntax errors) but could benefit from expansion. I am reluctant to expand the article myself, as I am still new to Wikipedia, but rest assured I will be keeping a very close eye on this article and will try to make it as neutral and encyclopedic as possible. Any comments, suggestions, or objections are welcome. Azogue 23:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Azogue

0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0--

Trying not to be partisan but....does this entry really belong to the Wikipedia at all? I would understand if he made president but the issue is still pretty much in the air...Next we'll see Mr López Obrador wiki entry, Mr. Madrazo's entry, Mr. Campa's, Mrs. Mercado's...I think the Wikipedia space deserves better use...

216.115.162.100 20:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)SAR

Mr. Carlosr Chill is very anxois to make appear this article person as the ultimate mesiah in Mexico's history. I Strictly recommend investigate mr. Carlosr Chill about his reasons to waste Wikipedia Space in personal or partial points of view. Specially with characters who hasn´t contribuited to World Wide and human knowledge in a meanningful manner. Heclam 02:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Heclam,

I can assure you that my intention is just to inform about a candidate participating in a current and very important election, especially about one with so many probabilities of winning. Now, by the way you express yourself (a very orthographically mistaken way, just so you know), your political preferences are more than obvious. The difference between me and you, a pejefan, is that I don't think that my favorite candidate, Felipe Calderón, is as you say "the ultimate messiah". Of course he's not perfect, as no one is (sorry if this is a surprise for you but no, AMLO is not a messiah either, no matter what any fanatic doctrine says). The only thing I did was an attempt to make more neutral (but true, even if the truth hurts you so much) the paragraph about the first debate. If you think that information is false, I invite you to read the newspapers articles about the debate. But don't worry if you can't, I'm conscious about the fact that reading is not a common habit between pejefans or in el peje himself (still being a fossil from the UNAM and all that. Who's got time to read when there are so many adversaries to insult, polls to disqualify, lies to tell, people to fool and extort, private lands to invade, nonsense second floors to build, a city's debt to enlarge...? And the list goes on and on and you must be already exhausted from reading). So please, try to be more informed when you make this kind of accusations, or at least write them right. Carlosr chill 22:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Chill

I might be a pejefan, (i don't know what the hell you are talking about), but to be fair enouhg, you're no trying to inform about Mr. Madrazo o Mr. Campa Cifrian or Mrs. Mercado vs. mr. Calderon in your coments; everyting concentrates on that guy called Andres Manuel, in a matter that not all users of wikipedia are interested on. The actual state of this articule may be considered correct( May 6th, 2006). It is only you, middle-to-upper-class mexicans (like you may be), that cares about a person that HAS NOT CONTRIBUITED TO HUMAN KNOLEDGE. Outside your political affiliates, nobody cares who the hell Who Felipe Calderon is or he wins a Star on his cheek. And if you think I make ortoghrapical mistakes, well I don't care, YOU'VE GOT THE MESSAGE.(Heclam 01:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

Dear Mr. Heclam:
I am not trying to defend Mr. Chill, however I do believe that this article deserves to be here. The Mexican General Election is a current event, one that influences 110 million people in Mexico, and the economy of its trading partners, including most of South America, The Asia-Pacific Region, Canada, and the United States. At the very least, this article provides a profile of what type of candidate Mr. Calderón is, which I think is very relevant for world politics. After all, Mexico is one of the largest economies in the world (#14), and one of the biggest and most populated countries.
If Calderon loses the election, then it might be appropriate to erase the article (provided that the election finishes in peace and Calderon has no further part in Mexican politics). However, as of today, May 7th 2006, he is the favorite (though this may change)... If candidates from other countries, such as Canada, England, and the USA deserve wikipedia pages, why is it that Mexican candidates do not deserve them? Besides, there ARE pages for Madrazo and López Obrador, so I think that a page for Calderón is more than appropriate. I think there are people other than "middle-to-upper-class mexicans" who care about this elections, particularly after what is going on in Peru and Venezuela... (Hari Seldon 07:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC))

´

snip "I can assure you that my intention is just to inform about a candidate participating in a current and very important election..." snip...

Er...really? Is there not enough info about mr. Calderón in his party web site? Was there something left out from his website felipecalderon.org? Is there in your entry anything not yet shown by any of the major TV networks or the mexican media for that case? I mean...come on, you're pushing your political agenda, and no point in denying it. Not bad per se if you ask me, but using as valuable space as Wikipedia's real estate...

Same goes for the other people pushing their candidates in Wikipedia. Er..I mean, same goes for people intending to inform the public about candidates participating in a major election...

N. Macchiavelli 15:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)N. Macchiavelli (I've been told someone else shares my name)

I'm really sorry if you're so frustrated with your ideals that you have to think that anyone who contributes with a politician article is just "pushing his candidate" or whatever. You say that we only waste valuable space, but it looks like you haven't done anything in Wikipedia but complain with nonsense arguments. You ask if there's not enough information about politicians in other sources. The answer is yes, there is as much information as there is for the Sun, the French Revolution or any other important article. I mean, if the reason to stop somebody from contributing to Wikipedia is that there is already "enough information" about the topic in other sources, there wouldn't be a single article in Wikipedia at all! Come on, surprise us and think for once. But the truth is no one is asking you. Carlosr chill 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Carlosr chill: You might want to consider being nicer. Constructive criticism can help anyone. I think that having a Calderon page is valid because there are pages for candidates of other countries, and other Mexican candidates do have pages. However, lets try to keep it as NPOV as possible. I see that there are occassional vandalism by pejistas, and on other occassions, Calderonistas exaggerate the virtues of his candidate. I think we can all find common ground, don't you (Hari Seldon 03:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC))

Oh...well, seems I've overlooked very important issues here. Wikipedia was really *not* complete without this entry and no political agenda is being pushed at all. And of course I should have met your approval first and beforehand. By the look of it seems you been looking around for a sample of my penmanship and finding none but, despair no more! I'm writing a piece on "El Yunque". Hope you'll find it interesting and informative. Cheeri-o

[edit] Lacking information

This article is quite lacking in depth and multiple viewpoints. At the very least, it needs a "Criticism" section, which should at least briefly cover such things as accusations of being far right, FOBAPROA, and the "autoprestamo" (there might possibly be more, but those are the most high-profile ones. Obviously, all these should be sourced and NPOV. I'm going to start collecting material for such a section. If people have pointers to sources (especially sources in English, as they are more useful to the English Wikipedia), please let me know here. I'll try to get this section in place within a few days. JZ 16:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polls

I'm seeing some reverting back and forth on the wording of the "recent polls". Can we actually cite some polls? Also, it's important to consider the margin of error on the polls. If the difference between Calderon and AMLO in the polls in general (in the majority of polls, for instance) is smaller than the margin of error, then "tied" would be the correct wording, regardless of a larger actual number. JZ 21:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be easier to simply link to the Mexican general election, 2006 page, where most polls are listed and sourced.
"Tied" is not a tendency that most current polls show. Only a couple show this "tied" tendency. I would wait until there are a bit more with this tendency to modify the paragraph, since most recent polls show Calderon to be leading. In any case, Calderon is leading the election, tied to Lopez Obrador in those two recent polls. Besides, the polls might still be affected by the debate, so I think it would be wiser to see what happens.
Hari Seldon 15:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand. A "lead" within the margin of error is still statistically a tie. Please read up on the meaning of margin of error. In addition, two of the most recent polls show an actual tie, regardless of the margin of error. I've made several corrections and cleanups now, and also streamlined some quite non-NPOV material that was added, to the point where it's fairly NPOV, and at least should serve as the basis for good information on the topics (the autoprestamo and the brother in law issue). JZ 01:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, I believe that the brother in law issue should be presented in this article until Lopez Obrador, or the proper authorities, presents proof of the statement he made in the debate. As far as the authorities are concerned, the Secretariat of Energy and the Transparency ombudsman have stated that the brother in law issue is nothing but a lie. Of course, the historical and judicial truth is yet to be discovered, but until it is, why hurry up and post it here? If it is going to be added here without public, undeniable proof, then why not add the Mexico City public debt rumors (and other rumors) to AMLO's page?
Finally, I agree with your edits, however, this page is subject to too much vandalism. Lets protect it somehow.
Hari Seldon 21:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
You say you agree with my edits, but you delete large parts of them without even writing an edit summary?
I'm trying to keep this to the facts. AMLO did accuse Calderon of having a brother in law who had gotten large contracts while Calderon was secretary of energy. Calderon categorically denied that, both in the debate and in the Televisa phone interview afterwards. Yesterday, the headline of Reforma, la Jornada, and most other newspapers was that such contracts existed. These are facts, not rumors. If there are more facts that clarify this, you should add them, not delete my edits.
Also, in the poll issue, will you please read up on margin of error? Most recent polls do not show Calderon to be in the lead outside the margin of error, and the most recent two polls, one of them from Mitofsky, perhaps the most respected pollster, shows him to be in a numerical tie with AMLO, without even taking into consideration the margin of error. In light of this, your revert of my edits back to "recent polls show him to be in the lead" are very misleading, and look like vandalism.
I will now revert the relevant parts of your deletes (excluding the vandalism that I missed earlier). Please do not delete without actually presenting some arguments for why facts, and facts that are doubtlessly influencing the campaign, and thus are highly relevant, should be deleted from this article. JZ 21:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry for deleting your edits. When I arrived to make changes, the page had been substantially edited and my action was simply a revert to the closest NPOV version (in my opinion) I found. I'm sorry to have missed your version.
The contradictions you refer two are being exploited by both parties. The PAN accuses the PRD of presenting "proof that are no proof" (documents that do not link Calderón), and the PRD accuses Calderón's brother in law of admiting based on a statement taken out of context. The only facts I am aware of is that this is an ongoing issue and that the information out there doesn't tell us for sure what's going on. One of the two, or AMLO, or Calderón, is lying. Until we don't find out FOR SURE who is lying, I suggest we don't add this to our article pages. Because up to this point, we have no facts, we only have parts of the truth manipulated by both parties to fit their agenda. Saying anything about this issue, in favor or against it, would be POV.
I agree with your wording on polls and everything else.
Hari Seldon 00:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with this wording:
"however, as of June 9, media were reporting that such contracts did indeed exist. The illegality of the contracts is still under dispute."
Media information around this issue is not congruent in this version. Contracts exist with the company to unrelated government projects that do not necesarily link the company with Calderón. Further, the company is not only owned by Calderóns brother in law, he is a minority investor. Further, these types of contracts rarely go to only one company, so it is incredibly incorrect to say that the contracts where "assigned" or that the company "was given"... The illegality of the contracts is not the only thing under dispute, but also their nature, and their relevance to Calderon. Until it is decided, I suggest we don't include this information here, or at the very least explain that the matter is so confusing as of now to draw any proper conclusion. This isn't a straight-forward issue.
Hari Seldon 06:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
What about this poll:http://matt.org/Welcome/PRESIDENCIALMEXICO/tabid/328/Default.aspx I´ve put it yesterday and it was deleted. Please see the methodology that was used in this poll. It seems with hight confidence to be very representative.Juan Lopez
The main reason I deleted it is because matt is not easily recognizable. I don't doubt the methodology, but Reforma and Milenio already where cited as sources and confirmed the tendency. Milenio and Reforma are very recognizable and respected sources, so there is no need to be redundant and say the same thing with an unknown, and possible doubtful source. However, if consensus among other participants is that it should be returned, I won't have a problem with it. Hari Seldon 05:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Felipe Calderón real name

Felipe Calderón real name is Felipe del Sagrado Corazón de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa, why not use it? I´ve added that a couple of times and user Hseldon10 always changes it back, it is not a political agenda or something like that putting his real name, right? (unsigned comment by User:200.78.60.149)

It's not a problem to write that if it is indeed his real name. I personally do not know if it is or not. Do you have a source or reference to show that you are correct? Oh, and it's nice if you register a username. JZ 05:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of sites showing that, even at the Justice Council there are lots of notes regarding him with his real name. I´ll register user name soon, thanks for reminding me :-)
Well, if you can come up with one good, neutral source on the web that shows that, I'll support your edits. I don't honestly know what his real name is, but I'm open to the change. JZ 21:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, you must source when making the change, not make the change and then find the source later.
Second, I don't think it is necessary to show the long and complete name of Felipe Calderón. Evidently, he doesn't use the part you are trying to add, and so I find it irrelevant to the article
I think that adding the long name to the article, if you prove it to be his real name, is not a useful contribution. Further, I also believe that adding just stresses Calderon's religious up-bringing, which is also irrelevant in his political actions. We know that the PAN is a Christian Democratic party.
So, the main issue here should be, what is the use of adding Calderon's complete name to the article?
Hari Seldon 21:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines for biographies state that one should use the most commonly used name of the person as the article title, and then list the full given name, as well as honorary titles, etc., in the first paragraph. For a relevant example, see Fidel Castro. Noone calls Fidel Castro anything but Fidel Castro, but the article lists his full given name. The same is the case with François Mitterrand, who has a much longer, not used name (as is common in France, and is similar to typical Mexican naming). After all, it's very likely that someone comes to an encyclopedia with the question "What's this person's full given name?"
As for whether or not it's the case that this is really his name, I'm still not 100% sure. A quick Google search doesn't come up with that much, although it does come up with one hit that seems to use that name for him in an official context, namely on the site of the San Luis Potosi government, where he's listed as a guest: Congreso SLP link
Now, that, as well as the usage in media (mostly la Jornada, granted) makes it look to me like that might indeed be his full name, but I'd be more comfortable with it if there's a better source somewhere. Here are some other more or less relevant sources I've found (do the Google search yourselves, it's easy):
Diario de Mexico
Tropico de Cancer
Criterios
Eleccion 2006 (as part of an article congratulating him on winning a debate
Now, I've also found this, which is a transcript from the Mexican Senate. I don't know what party the speakin senator is from, but I'd be surprised if he were using an incorrect name for a presidential candidate: [3] Mexican Senate transcript]
In general, I'm personally 99% of the way to considering these good enough sources that that's his real name, but I'd love to see some even better sources. I'm sure both of you, in the interest of a neutral and correct article, could help with that.
Oh, both of you should beware that what you're doing is dangerously close to breaching Wikipedia policy, see the Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule. You should not just revert back and forth, you should discuss here and then revert when consensus is reached. Note that this goes for both of you; it's less important what version stands while we discuss, than it is that consensus is reached. JZ 21:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I´m sorry, I made a change before reading just what you wrote, I´m really sorry I did the change, but, as I now was to verify, I started looking at the site you mentioned [4] and yes, the written text is a transcript from an speech by Inti Muñoz, a PRD representative, so maybe he was being sarcastic about the name of Felipe Calderón.
I went to this page [5] from the Chamber of deputies and the name listed there is Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa.
That must be his real name, because it is an official federal goverment website. Even more, I went to the spanish version of wikipedia and found out at the discussion page, that according to the editors, his real name is Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa, the sources from those editors are his thesis record at the Escuela Libre de Derecho and the website from the chamber of deputies, the thesis record it´s here [6] but it is not accesible, now, for a consensus to be reached I propose to let the name Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa, his real name only at the first paragraph, Hari Seldon, what do you think?
I'm fine with that, at least for now. It's odd that the "sagrado corazon" thing turns up in a few official sources too, though, we should probably investigate further, but for now, the "de Jesus" part at least seems confirmed. JZ 16:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon

Some one added a controversial cartoon ridiculizing Felipe Calderón. This goes against the article's NPOV. I have removed the cartoon. Hari Seldon 06:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: Apparently, the Felip Calderon.jpg image was vandalized. I hope this doesn't happen again, or happens with other candidates. The situation in Mexico is hard enough, and it shouldn't affect the Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to make political campaign, and one thing is an honest mistake, and another quite different is purposeful vandalism with political motivation.Hari Seldon 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Was it vandalized? Are you talking about the change in the picture? I think the old one was better, since it's a close-up that shows more what he actually looks like, instead of the current medium shot, but it's hard to say that any of them is "vandalism". Or are you talking about something else? JZ 19:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday night, I don't know for how long a time, the picture called "Felipe Calderon.jpg" did not show the picture of Felipe Calderon we see, but a cartoon about Calderón and the issue of his brother in law. I don't know what happened, I assumed the picture file was vandalized, but it has been resolved for the time being. Hari Seldon 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Should we consider going back to the old photo, though? (Flip back a few revisions to see it). I liked it better, it's a close-up, and a more natural, less posed picture. JZ 21:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Done Hari Seldon 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fobaproa

I just reverted some vandalism. One of the things the vandal added was in relation to Fobaproa. I think we should probably mention Fobaproa in this article. The Fobaproa article is luckily quite good, and we can redirect the reader's attention there for more in-detail information. So, what are the facts regarding Fobaproa and Felipe Calderón? What things can we agree are the facts regarding this? I'm not going to write any here, I'd like people to come up with a list of facts that are unbiased and with sources, so we can incorporate them into the article. At the very minimum, it should be mentioned as something he has been accused of by his political opponents, but I'd like to get a bit more than that. JZ 22:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with you on this one. The FOBAPROA was an action by the Federal Government, and it is complicated to get facts indicating the precise actions of Calderon in the FOBAPROA. Worse yet, the PRD see the FOBAPROA as a crime, most of Mexico don't know what it is, and many economists see FOBAPROA as the thing that saved Mexico from a worsening crisis... This makes the FOBAPROA an impossible thing to treat in a paragraph or too...
1) The PRD treat FOBAPROA as a crime and say Calderón was complicit in it.
2) Economists treat FOBAPROA as a net that saved Mexico from a fall, and don't give credit to the legislative branch. The executive branch designed and executed FOBAPROA, while the legislative only approved the executive's design. In any case, the role that Calderón could have had is so minor that it surely is irrelevant.
3) This is a political issue that is being used against Calderon during the 2006 Election campaign. It was irrelevant before the election, and regardless of who wins, it will be irrelevant after the election. Should we add the paragraph so that it lasts only three weeks? I think not.
For these reasons, I don't agree that we should mention the FOBAPROA at all. As you said, the FOBAPROA article is in itself very well written and theres no need to duplicate information in this article. This is similar to what was done with the "Videoscandals" and the AMLO page.
Hari Seldon 22:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually, I'm saying that we shouldn't explain Fobaproa here, since the actual article works well. I agree with your parallel to the videoscandals and the AMLO page, but you'll notice that the AMLO page indeed mentions them and links to them; I'd like something similar here.
It should be mentioned because it's one of the major criticisms against Calderón during the campaign. It won't "last only three weeks", the section on the presidential campaign will remain after the elections, and will then describe a historical event, probably the most important event in Calderón's political career. If he wins, it'll be despite these criticisms, if he loses, it might be because of them. They are highly relevant.
Now, I'd like to ask again: What role did Calderón play in Fobaproa? Fobaproa itself and whether or not it was a bad thing can be left to the Fobaproa article, what I'd like to have here is something like "Calderón has been criticised by political opponents for his role in the controversial Fobaproa case. Calderón DESCRIPTION OF HIS ROLE HERE" What his involvement was must be a case of public record; as I've seen, what happened was that he acted as political whip in the chamber of deputies to encourage PAN deputies to vote along the party line in the vote that converted the Fobaproa bank debt to public debt in 1998. Is that a correct evaluation of what happened, in your opinion? If not, what did happen? Sources are most welcome. JZ 23:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you say here. My first disagreement is that the FOBAPROA was not a conversion of bank debt into public debt. The FOBAPROA was a banking industry rescue. To explain, the FOBAPROA did not convert one bank debt into public debt, rather, it converted the whole banking industry debt into public debt. The important thing to remember is that the banks did not go bankrupt because of internal corruption or other form of mismanagement, rather that the bank debt rescued by FOBAPROA was generated by outstanding debt by banking cosumers (people like you or me) who were unable to meet THEIR obligations with the bank due to the economic crisis of 1994-1995, most commonly known as "the december mistake".
Yes, Calderon's role in the FOBAPROA must be in record, but I still want to note that the Legislative branch in those days is not what it is today. It cannot be compared! Because of this, the article must state that Calderon's role, if any, was marginal on the event, because it was mostly an action by the Executive branch (President Zedillo).
Finally, if we are going to list the criticism against Calderón, then we should create a sub-section called "criticism" in the Political Campaign section (I heard no criticism against Calderon before the political campaign), and then list the FOBAPROA criticism, the Hildebrando criticism as is worded right now, and the BANOBRAS criticism as is worded right now. This is because it should be clear to the reader that these things are what critics say about Calderón, and do not necessarily represent the most important actions of the person described, this is also in parallel to what happens in the AMLO page.
Do you agree with me in this proposals? Hari Seldon 23:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I think a Criticisms section is a good idea, I'm slightly uncertain if it should be a part of the campaign section, I agree that most of the criticisms have shown up during the campaign, but that's not suprising, and tends to be the way things are.
The main point is that Fobaproa converted bank debt (all banks, sure, but still banks) into public debt. I think most of these specification belong on the Fobaproa page. I'd like to limit what's on this page specifically to Calderón's involvement, and a max one sentence summary of what Fobaproa is, most likely with the word "controversial", since I think we can all agree that it is.
It may be that the legislative branch was not so independent in 1998 as it is today, but it's still an independent branch of government, and the PAN is not the same party as the PRI. The PAN did not have to vote for the Fobaproa proposal as it stood, indeed, the third largest party in the chamber of deputies, the PRD, voted against it, as far as I can see. Calderón was president of the PAN at the time, and instructed the deputies of the PAN to vote for the creation of the IPAB, and thus the conversion of private debt into public. As president of one of the three largest parties, and acting as whip in this matter, it seems to me his involvement was not "marginal". If the chamber of deputies had not voted in favor, the conversion would not have happened, at least not in the suggested form.
Now, for the actual text, I suggest something like this:
Political opponents have criticized Calderón for his role in the controversion Fobaproa affair, in which more than 550 billion pesos of outstanding bank debt was converted into public debt. Calderón was president of his party at the time, and instructed party representatives in the Chamber of Deputies to vote for the proposal.
Ideas for additions/changes/etc.? I think that's a fairly neutral paragraph. JZ 23:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions for additions and changes:
*"controversial" instead of "controversion".
*Why not use today's equivalent in US dollars instead of saying "550 billion pesos", which is unclear how much is that really worth considering the 1998, 1999 devaluation of the peso...
*Add, the FOBAPROA did convert bank debt into public debt, but also add why it was done: to prevent the loss of savings of millions of Mexican, and to prevent a deepening crisis. Indeed showing the causes would make the paragraph more neutral.
*Obviously, I would like to see a source saying that Calderón "instructed" his party representative to vote for the proposal. The PAN is distinguished for treating its members with respect to independent and democratic decisions. Unlike other parties in Mexico, having a PAN leader influence the vote of party members is frowned upon at the least. Remember that that was the explanation many analysts gave to the surprise win of Manuel Espino in his election as party president. PAN members don't like the elite telling them what to do. I think it would be more accurate to say that Calderón influence the decision or campaigned in favor of it. In any case, a source would help a lot.
*I wouldn't call the FOBAPROA an "affair". It was merely a government act, and the PRD's lonely criticism made it an "affair". I don't recall the FOBAPROA being so important in national politics until this election. Perhaps it would be best if it was called simply "controversial government act" (paragraph would say, "...for his role in the FOBAPROA, a controversial government act").
What do you think of these proposals?
Finally, I'd like to say that it is true that criticism tends to appear during political campaigns, but they are not exclusive of them. AMLO has been criticized in all his 6 years of government. He has been criticized from the right and from the left. Fox has been critized as well and he isn't on campaign (that he admits, anyway)... President Bush, for example, had not been criticized (as much) during his 2000 election campaign until after the controversial election took place! On the other hand, Calderón had not been criticized UNTIL the campaign and that is significant. That is why I think that the criticism sub section should be in the "political campaign" section, because it is criticism that appeared during the campaign, and not before.
Hari Seldon 04:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I meant that to be "controversial". I'm not sure Fobaproa is an "act", it's more of an "affair", since it consists of several parts that are distributed in time: The actual bailout of the banks, the 1998 passing of the act that created the IPAB and converted the debt, and the later evaluation of part of the debt which converted that part too into public debt.
If we use today's dollars, should we compensate for inflation? US inflation or Mexican inflation? That is, convert to 1998 dollars first, and then to today's dollars, or convert to today's pesos first and then to dollars? It seems complicated to me, I wonder if there's any guideline for this. Maybe we should state both.
I think the reasons for Fobaproa should be left largely to the Fobaproa article. It might be appropriate to say "the controversial Fobaproa affair, in which more than 550 billion pesos of outstanding bank debt was converted into public debt, in order to avert a financial crisis", but at least not more than that.
As for Calderón instructing party members, I don't have a direct source, it's what I've surmised from different sources, take a look at this, where it's actually stated that the PAN didn't merely approve of the PRI's suggested act, but rejected it and substituted their own, which was what was eventually passed, something which seems to implicate Calderón more, since he was the president of the party. Also, he's called leader of the PAN faction in the chamber of deputies in addition to being president of the party. In this interview, an advisor to the IPAB, says that "Felipe Calderón, como presidente del PAN, instruye y pide a sus diputados". But no, I don't have direct sources, and this would probably be difficult to prove directly, since it would be an internal party matter that party members would hardly be inclined to speak about. The part about the IPAB and the act that passed the Chamber of Deputies being a PAN initiative that was an alternative to the PRI one is quite interesting, though, we should see how we succinctly work that in.
As for criticism, Calderon's position is hardly comparable, Fox is the sitting president, and AMLO was the jefe de gobierno of the largest city in the country, while Calderon was hardly on the political radar at all, briefly being secretary of energy, and being director of Banobras. Party leaders aren't really high-profile politicians. JZ 05:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I think Calderón involment in Fobaproa was not marginal, as you can see in the votes of the deputies for approving the creation of the IPAB, he instructed the section of deputies he controlled to vote in favor of FOBAPROA, I don´t know if you know this but there was a lot of discussion in radio and press at this time because AMLO was president of the PRD and CAlderón was the chief of the PAN deputies in congress at the time, there a lot of recording of it in the media online, AMLO asked Calderón to not vote it and first investigate and punish those who wanted it to become public debt.
One important thing about FOBAPROA is that you are not taking into consideration who was benefited from the debt becoming public, 4% of the debt was people like you and me (unless you are the owner of a bank or corporation) and 96% of that debt was for the huge savers, that means, that the poor would have to pay that 96% of debt too which means poor and middle class people paying for the rich´s debt, which in the eye of a country where unequality is common, this is cause of controversy because the benefits of the wealth in Mexico is not for everyone, you see??? (signed by anonymous)
Why not call the FOBAPROA a government program instead of an "affair". An "affair" is a word with negative connotations. My intent is to keep this neutral, the FOBAPROA was negative for some, but positive for others...
I have an idea: don't include how much money was converted to public debt. Just state "converting baking industry private debt into public debt, to prevent a worsening crisis". The crisis was already there and was not going to be prevented. These where preventive measures to avoid the crisis from becoming even worse.
I don't disagree in saying that Calderón played a role (saying he "was implicated" sounds like he comitted a crime, and I remind you, not everyone sees the FOBAPROA as a crime). However, I must say that until we find a sure-shot source about the extent of that role, we shouldn't include it here. Obviously, a quote from Calderon's political opponent is hardly neutral. The IPAB president quote you provide also says that he asked and lobbied, but he didn't order the PAN, so yes, he had a significant role, but it wasn't himself alone. Also, please clear that eventhough he played a significant role in the legislative branch, the legislative branch was not very significant in government in those days.
AMLO was "jefe de gobierno" of the largest city in the country, but Fox was governor of the 4th (or 5th) most populated state in Mexico, Guanajuato, yet we didn't hear criticism about his tenure until he became President. It is true that Political Party leaders aren't very significant in the spotlight, but Calderón was also deputy and Senator. Madrazo WAS a party leader for the PRI and earned his share of criticism. Granted, the Madrazo case was a special case, but still, it is evident that when a person does something that earns criticism, he gets it no matter what his position is. Calderón, instead, only knew criticism until he became Presidential Candidate. THAT is significant.
To anonymous user: opinions have no place in the article page, merely stating neutral facts. I am not perfect, but at least, that is my goal in this article and in others I am participating (except UANL Tigres, because I am Tigres fan, I admit). Who benefitted of the FOBAPROA is a matter of opinion; for the PRD it was "the rich bankers". For many respected economists, the benefactors of the FOBAPROA was the Mexican economy, Mexican capital (people like you and me who saved our money or invested in Mexican banks), and Mexican bank debtors. It is obvious that the "benefited" part of the FOBAPROA is so controversial that it isn't wise to include it in this article. There is an article about the FOBAPROA where such things can be documented with neutrality.
Hari Seldon 15:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "Affair" might not be the perfect word, but it's a complex of happenings, several years apart, and I can think of no better word. Also, if you see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/affair , that seems to be a good fit, nothing there implies a negative connotation, the closest you get is "A matter causing public scandal and controversy: the Dreyfus affair", and Fobaproa has certainly done that.
I don't see any problem with mentioning the amount. It's a very large amount, which is why it's important to mention it. The Fobaproa article says "550 billion dollars", why don't we just use that, and change it in this article if it changes there? That should take the problem off our hands.
I'm sure there are better words than "implicated", suggestions? With all due respect, you're wrong when you say that the IPAB interview doesn't say that he ordered, it says "instructed and requested", and "instructed" implies giving an order, not asking nicely. You keep insisting on the unimportance of the legislative branch, but as I've mentioned before, the Fobaproa/IPAB proposal that was passed was not the one the PRI government sent to the chamber of deputies; the PAN rejected that one and proposed their own, which was the one that was ultimately passed. So, the Chamber of Deputies, and thus the legislative branch, was the power that created and shaped this particular bill.
I agree that the discussion of who benefitted from Fobaproa shouldn't be mentioned here, but kept to the Fobaproa page. What I want on this page is a concise description of the fact that Calderon has been criticised for it, and what his role was. JZ 18:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-campaign website

Why not use a Counter campaign website? there´s people who don´t want him to become president, if you can put a campaign website (that is political proselitism too) and a very biased website is the Calderón´s website for presidential election, then I think it is important to see people don´t like him and have reasons for not like him. Don´t you think?

This page is not about the campaign or the conter-campaign. This page does not intend to be political proselitism. This page does not care wheather or not there are people who want him or don't want him to become president.
Based on that, I say that a counter-campaign website is totally out of order. It is a websited dedicated to spread undocumented opinions and criticism against Calderón, instead of hard-facts (which, as you can see, are little available).
In any case, what should happen is that the campaign website be removed. But, this is an option I wouldn't execute until we have an alternative website that show us who Calderón really is. The campaign website provides speeches by Calderón, his proposals, and his answer to criticism, it is a good place to see hard facts about how Calderón thinks, it tells us more about the character. The counter-campaign website doesn't tell us any hard facts about the character, instead, it just provides opinions against him.
If you can find pages that do not provide opinions, rather only neutral hard facts, then I think that can go there. If you can find a page that shows accurately how Calderón reacts, what are his proposals, and what are his actions (all, positive and negative), then I think this hypthetical page link should substitute the current link to the Campaign website. Until then, I don't see why it is so wrong to provide a link to a website where Calderón IS ACTING online. I also don't see a need to provide links to pages that spread opinions but provide no facts.
Hari Seldon 15:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is to be neutral by presenting the conflicting viewpoints. Given that, I'm not sure a link to a (maybe the main) critical website is out of place. See for instance the Tony Blair article, which lists a link to a campaign to impeach Tony Blair, or the TomDeLay article, which has a whole subsection of external links to "Citizen groups critical of DeLay" (as well as a subsection of links to "Citizen groups supporting DeLay".
Removing the campaign website link would be totally useless. We need more external links, not fewer. I think the countercampaign website link should stay, as per above, and be complemented by more links to sites, both pro- and anti-Calderon. JZ 18:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with JZ, for you the opinions on the counter-campaign website are undocumented, but for me they are documented, and for you the campaign website is documented but for me they aren´t or at least they only present Calderón as someone who does all good and wins all the polls and all that, so I think if this is to be neutral we should include both websites, or at least those two and even more.
We can't put that counter campaign website here. The same thing happened with the AML article because there're lots and lots of websites against him and, as you can see now, none of them is in the external links. Also, that website is anything but serious. If you find a website that shows the bad things along with the good things seriously, feel free to include it. By the way someone should fix the last paragraphs, they have a lot of OR, they're kind of bias and have some ortographic mistakes. Carlosr chill 18:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC) (Everybody should sign their comments)
Well, then the campaign website is a biased site too, should I take it out? I´ll add it again as it is being discussed here, Calderón campaign website is very biased too, don´t you think?
My examples from other articles seem to be ignored. As per Wikipedia policy and common practice, both pro- and contra links should be included, and marked as such. JZ 01:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel very comfortable with this. Of course, I believe that we should try and keep wikipedia as un-biased as possible, and I take your word, Joakim, that if this practice is common in other pages, then it should be done here as well... However, I find it extremely weird that the desire to post such site here would appear only a few weeks before the election, as if the main purpose was not to keep the article unbiased, but to attack this candidate. So, I feel that following policy is safe, but what about when policy may have an impact, negative or positive, on the person described in the article? I would feel better if, for neturality's sake, both pages where removed from the article until the election, and then posted back in. Perhaps this could also happen in all other article pages for the other candidates. Wikipedia is not a place to campaign, and I don't think its intent is influence the vote. However, having the site links here seems to have the purpose of doing just that. If our goal is to just inform, then I am sure we can agree that this information is already freely available to the public, and need not be here for now. After the elections, the impact of the links will be completely neutral. At least, that's the way I feel, and wanted to have it on record here. Hari Seldon 08:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree on keeping anti-Calderon campaign links out, and I don't even like him. Putting them on will probably spark a feud of vandalism.

If Calderon or AMLO become presidents, then it would be okay to include web sites that oppose the president of Mexico, which I think is appropriate. --Hugo Estrada 18:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform. As such, I don't think "it might influence the elections" is a valid reason for not including information that would otherwise be valid to include. Wikipedia should not care about upcoming elections, it should strive to present all relevant viewpoints on an issue, including a relatively large number of links to external information, both pro and contra. I think that the opposite of what you're saying is true, if people want to get good information about Felipe Calderon, they can come here, and from here, they'll get a set of links for further reading, which can be clearly marked as "in favor" (such as the campaign website) and "against" (such as the counter-campaign website). So, I say, leave the links in, and preferably find more links for further information, and let's fairly represent all viewpoints. JZ 07:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, anyone can add that link? (http://www.fecal.org.mx) because someone who has control over it took it out and it has been agreed on leaving it there. Please.
Editors that share the job of mainatining this article page, and that of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador agreed as common consensus that no anti or contra websites should be linked. Why this consensus was agreed, I really don't know, but it did reduce edit violence, edit wars, and vandalism in both sides (see Talk:Andrés Manuel López Obrador). Therefore, the continuing action of editors in both articles has been to just delete them.
If you would like to discuss a new course of action (i.e., adding counter and anti website links to BOTH articles), then you have to convince more than one editor. But, please, start your arguments! Hari Seldon 02:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winner

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 15:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Three hours ago (15:10 UTC-6) I posted Calderón as the winner of the election, after the Noticiero Hechos Meridiano showed the 100% screen, declaring as a winner Calderón, 0.57 points above AMLO. However, AMLO isn't accepting the election. As this result are official is better to keep the article this way until new advice by the IFE --Fluence 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Please remember that it's not IFE's attribution to name a winner; this depends directly on the TEPJF (tribunal electoral del poder judicial federal); they receive the numbers from IFE, give course to any inconformities from any of the political parties, and only after they've been processed (which will happen in late August if I remember correctly) do *they* announce a winner. Whether or not the result holds, the fact remains that IFE's count may be official but their assertion that Calderón is the new president is not; he is not until he has a certificate ("constancia de mayoría") given to him by the TEPJF. I left the article as-is but I thought this information should be reflected at least here. -- Roadmr 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This is true, Calderon is not yet the president elect. If his adversaries decide to challenge the election he will not be oficially pronounced winner of the election until all of the controversies have been settled. --Andres lopez 19:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC).
I second this idea: Calderon is not yet officially president elect. As such, the links that show Calderon as successor of Fox should be disabled, since these are normally understood to be legitimate succesors, and the victory of Calderon is still in the air.
The political atmosphere in Mexico is charged right now, and in the name of impartiality, I would recommend taking the successor boxes out until he is declared winner by TEPJF.
Hugo Estrada, July 22, 2006
I agree. Please do so. Check this page often to fight vandalism. Hari Seldon 01:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

In the part of Criticism "Denisse Dresser" did not linked to the biography of Denisse Dresser, it linked to a web page discussing Felipe Calderon and his political tactics, who did that? That should go in the liinks part of the document, not as a link in the name of Denisse Dresser. Can someone create an article about Denisse Dresser so we can put a link to her name again?

Is Calderon perfect?

Why does any criticism about him seem to be continually erased? I think NPOV extends to include POV by ommision. --Caspere 19:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Caspere

The reason being, I assume that Dr. Dresser´s name is spelled with only one S e.g. DENISE. I have found this error in many articles in Wikipedia.
There are people here with a political agenda that like to use wikipedia as an advertising service and a propaganda machine. These people do not have any regard for honesty or objectivity. I despise that attitude, and I believe that this should be addressed. --Andres lopez 23:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Platform?

There's no mention about his campaign platform. I've heard he favors privatization of Mexico's oil infrastructure. -Amit

Based on the Brozo interview that I saw on the internet, he doesn't want to privatize Mexican oil completely, but to allow private refinement of oil within Mexico.

From a strictly commercial point of view, the proposal makes sense. According to Calderon, Mexico can sell crude oil to anyone in the world, except to private Mexican families with facilities in Mexico.

However, oil in Mexico is a highly complex issue. Part of the reason why there is so much protectionism of the nationalized oil company, PEMEX, is because oil is the main income of the Mexican government, way above from taxes, which are poorly collected.

So privatizing more and more oil sectors will take money away from the Mexican government. In other words, something that looks like an innocent, fair policy could radically change income distribution and the future power of the Mexican government to re-distribute income.

I do not include this in the main article since my source is not an official document from his campaign. --Hugo Estrada 19:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calderon's social platform

He is for universal health insurance, increasing funding to universities and improving education. He also has a poverty fighting program that makes sense.

In fact, his social agenda would be considered liberal in the the U.S.

--Hugo Estrada 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is my humble opinion that what civilized people call "liberal" (in the US, "left"), in Mexico is called "extreme-right"... In Mexico, "center" is socialism, and "left" is communism. Of course, this is only an opinion. But, if this was true, I can only imagine what a Republican-like politican will face in Mexico...
Regarding his platform, his website offers a lot of insight on his proposals, compromises and promises. The two televised debates should also be sources. He made more than 100 promises and proposals, including work reform to benefit younger workers, universal health insurance, easier and lower taxes, judicial system reform, and so on... I'll see what I can find Hari Seldon 01:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I was going to argue with your point, but then, after thinking about it, I have come to agree with it because my disagreement was a matter of small degrees. :)

Just in this description, I find it doubtful that he will be able to do anything. he is planning on spending more in programs as he reduces income to the state. Let's see what happens :) --Hugo Estrada 18:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)--

Yes, Hugo, indeed we'll see what happens. However, wikipedia is not a place to make judgements, I believe that our purpose should be to document his platform, campaign promises and proposals. It is the elected candidate's job to keep them, and ours to document it. Criticism to how he does belong somewhere else (perhaps in your particular blog, or editorial columns)... Hari Seldon 15:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
And that is why such comments are not found in the article. --207.218.96.3 19:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Funny Hari: I just read your old comment about how Jornada articles are PRD propaganda. Perhaps that belongs in your particular blog, or editorial column... ;) Just joking. I guess comments like that show the usefulness of these discussion pages, where these value judgments can be made.

I should also point out, again, that, because of how journalism works in Mexico, it is best to have a "for" and "against" arguments, with supporting references from newspapers on the right and on the left for each argument. People can make their minds up that way.

--Hugo Estrada 08:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information On Policies

Any information on Calderon's campaign platform, political views/philosophy, and positions would be very helpful.

Yours is a very interesting question. As it turns out not much is known about the platform of the candidates. Calderon is extremely conservative, a devote catholic; there are people that state that there was a time in his life that he attended mass daily. He is against abortion and homosexuality, he does not oppose contraception by inhibition of ovulation but thinks that the "day after pill" should be banned if it is proven that it does not allow the implantation of an embryo. Calderon is a firm believer of neoliberalism: tax breaks for the rich and reduction of the state's role as a participant in the economy and active only as a regulator.
Interestingly enough, Calderon, or more likely his team based his campaign in the attacks upon the opposition when no real proposals were made. Throughout the last weeks of the campaign ad's paid by the mexican businessmen compared Lopez Obrador with Hugo Chavez stormed the prime time TV . This was complemented with a series of ad's paid by contributions made by all of the candidates for the senate and the chamber of representatives in favor of Calderon. --Andres lopez 04:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that information on his platform would be useful. The current article is mostly a collection of different accusations. --69.180.13.245 23:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The platform is online at: [7]. It would be easy enough to incorporate some here, as there are no POV issues, since it is a question of what he says he will do. --69.180.13.245 23:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Platform entry: I went to the link, got the platform, and paraphrased his main point as found in the introduction of his platform document. I also translated his five platform points.

I will thank anyone who would check the translations. I am very sleepy right now, and I may have made mistakes.

--Hugo Estrada 19:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the rule on calling Calderon president-elect

It appears we have some opining on both sides? PretzelMan 07:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To me it simply appears the disambig article hasn't been updated. Joffeloff 09:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Even though he officially won the election he is not the "President-elect" of Mexico. The Federal Electoral Tribunal has to officially designate him with that title and they have until September to do so. However, the official declaration of a president-elect must come from the Federal Electoral Tribunal, which has until Sept. 6 to announce. [8]--Jersey Devil 03:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denise Dresser reference

There was just an edit taking out a reference to Denise Dresser criticising Calderon, with the edit summary "(edited reference to Dresser, at her request)". That's not a valid reason for taking out a reference. Either she criticised him, or she didn't. If she did, can we come up with some references, and restore this? Or if she didn't, let's leave it out, either way this seems like a horrible rationale for removing information. JZ 01:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dresser's father was neither a founder nor a member of the PAN. If someone has a cite to an article, it could be included, but is there a reason otherwise to single her out? Cpl itam 03:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that removing a reference per a request is a horrible rationale for removing information. However, there was no source cited (only Dresser was menctioned), and so, I think that there was no reason to be there in the first place. I agree that this should be left out until someone provides a source.

[edit] FC Post electoral tone

Please note that FC's post-electoral attitude is as issue, esp. if some of you believe AMLO's attidude is. FC has pronounced himself President, and President Elect, without having the authority to do so, thereby polarizing society. Even RightWing biz groups have asked him to tone it down. [[[User:65.42.93.23|65.42.93.23]] 18:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)]

Merely saying he has done such and such is not acceptable. Please cite and source. I know that many people have said that Calderon is President Elect, but I haven't heard anyone so mis informed as to call him "President", nor have I heard Calderón refer to himself in such manner. If you have citations, please contribute to wikipedia. If not, then refrain from publishing opinions. Hari Seldon 19:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted it because it was not NPOV. He certainly hasn't claimed he is President either, only Fox can be President till December, no dispute there. TVGH (formerly TV Genius) 19:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please note that according to Mitofsky, the race was tied.
http://www.consulta.com.mx/interiores/99_pdfs/11_elecciones_pdf/20060702_ExitPoll_PerfilVotante.pdf
Yes, I deleted the reference and added source. I think it would be best if we discussed the changes before implementing them. Hari Seldon 20:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The citation "http://mx.invertia.com/noticias/noticia.aspx?idNoticia=200607262009_INF_345943&idtel=" is being used to say that Calderón has proclaimed himself President-elect. This is what the controversial speech says:
Como candidato ganador de la elección, como Presidente electo, después; y sobre todo como Presidente de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, me comprometo y comprometeré a hacer mi prioridad la atención de la salud de todos los mexicanos para que podamos superar la pobreza...
A rough translation, judging punctuation, would have Calderón say: "As winner of the election, as president-elect, later; and above all as President of the Mexican United States, I commit and will commit to make my priority the attention of health for all Mexicans so we can overcome poverty..."
This translation will have him say: "I am winner, will be President elect, and will be President"... Therefore he has not called himself President Elect, he is saying he will be president elect. Hari Seldon 20:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Hseldon,
I saw a video clip of what Calderon said. He said, and I quote from the invertia note,
"As the winning candidate of the election, as President-Elect, later; and finally, and finally, above all, as President of the......."
Hseldon, how can you not concede that he is indeed calling himself President-Elect.
Is there a third-party that can mediate this dispute?
[[[User:65.42.93.23|65.42.93.23]] 20:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)]
Hseldon, please review this citation from El Universal, entitled, "Se proclama Felipe Calderón “Presidente electo”"
http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/364845.html
I saw the video clip, and the "despues", refers to the presidency, not to the "presidency-elect".
He clearly called himself, "president-elect"
[[[User:65.42.93.23|65.42.93.23]] 21:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)]
Is not that I don't concede, its that the citation you provided was not completely clear and it could have been misleading. The punctuation in the quote sugessts that he did not call himself "President-elect". In any case, this is irrelevant. AMLO said in Univisión that he was "President of Mexico". Doesn't seem to trouble you enough to add it in the AMLO page, and since it is irrelevant, it doesn't trouble me either. If you insist on placing a sentence in the article saying that Calderón proclaimed himself "President-elect", then you'll have to find a CLEARER citation, perhaps the link to the video. My issue is not against placing the sentence in the article, but about having a proper and clear citation. The sources you've provided are not clear enough. Hari Seldon 22:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
There, I think the changes I've made are a little bit more neutral. What do you think? Hari Seldon 22:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it isnt credible he would claim to be President because he has no gripe with Fox and claiming something that could never legally be the case before December would alientate people and have created huge controversy. Therefore it isnt credible that he claimed to be President elect, the key word being después (later or afterwards). TVGH (formerly TV Genius) 23:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's official

Felipe Calderón will be the next president of mexico. See www.trife.gob.mx User:189.164.67.167 10:20, 5 Sept 2006 (UTC)

“ Three hours ago (15:10 UTC-6) I posted Calderón as the winner of the election, after the Noticiero Hechos Meridiano showed the 100% screen, declaring as a winner Calderón, 0.57 points above AMLO. However, AMLO isn't accepting the election. As this result are official is better to keep the article this way until new advice by the IFE --Fluence 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Please remember that it's not IFE's attribution to name a winner; this depends directly on the TEPJF (tribunal electoral del poder judicial federal); they receive the numbers from IFE, give course to any inconformities from any of the political parties, and only after they've been processed (which will happen in late August if I remember correctly) do *they* announce a winner. Whether or not the result holds, the fact remains that IFE's count may be official but their assertion that Calderón is the new president is not; he is not until he has a certificate ("constancia de mayoría") given to him by the TEPJF. I left the article as-is but I thought this information should be reflected at least here. -- Roadmr 16:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This is true, Calderon is not yet the president elect. If his adversaries decide to challenge the election he will not be oficially pronounced winner of the election until all of the controversies have been settled. --Andres lopez 19:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC).
I second this idea: Calderon is not yet officially president elect. As such, the links that show Calderon as successor of Fox should be disabled, since these are normally understood to be legitimate succesors, and the victory of Calderon is still in the air.

The political atmosphere in Mexico is charged right now, and in the name of impartiality, I would recommend taking the successor boxes out until he is declared winner by TEPJF.

 ”

You all see? I was right--Fluence 23:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Term state date in infobox

Regarding... term_start=<!--Note to future editors: Please abstain yourselves of putting a term start date, although he is now president elect he is not yet President of Mexico. His term starts on December 1, but that date has not yet come. OTHER EDITOR:EXPLAIN WHY, THAT'S NOT A REASON--> ...I'm gathering that's because the text viewers see is "In office since".

While the Federal Electoral Tribunal ruling on his status as president-elect "is final and cannot be appealed", because it is not yet December 1, it would arguably look odd to see a future date for "In office since". And I think it unneeded since the conclusion of the first paragraph is "The term for which he was elected is December 1, 2006 to November 30, 2012." TransUtopian 02:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced? Please specify.

Can the editor who added Template:Balance or anyone be specific on what points of view you feel are neglected? If it's mentioned on this talk page, a pointer and/or summary would help. TransUtopian 03:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

I am thinking for a small article like this, I think the number of pictures could be reduced. I am thinking about the two photos that were just taken (and poorly cropped) from Calderon's website. What do yall think? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've mentioned it to the uploader, User talk:Joseph Solis in Australia, who's still active. I'm ambivalent. I can see the 4 fair use photos bunched up at the top, though illustrating the appropriate sections. The article isn't that short, and it's very likely to get longer. Okay, I'm leaning towards keeping them in, but I'd like to hear other perspectives. TransUtopian 03:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I know it will get longer, but I think we stil could at least debate about the two images that were poorly croped from the election website. Also, I think it is a good time to look up free photos for this man. But thanks for looking into it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed sentence

diff

addition in bold

“ After López Obrador declared that he had won the election, Calderón also announced his victory to his supporters on the night of the election day stating that, according to the initial figures of the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE), he had won the election. [1] Other opinion polls indicated other results. According to the final count of the IFE, Calderón received 14,916,927 votes and Lopez Obrador received 14,683,096 votes, exactly 233,831 votes less. ”

The previous and following sentences mention vote counts and declaring victory, not opinions of a candidate's supporters. If you mean other vote counts counted differently or certain opinion polls believed Obrador or Calderon won, then it should be reworded to see that, mention which counts/polls recorded such results, and/or be referenced. Preferably all three.

If I'm not understanding something, please tell me. TransUtopian 10:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello TransUtupian. No harm done. I had included that sentence b/c I similar sentence was included in the AMLO page. On election night, both camps (AMLO and FC) used exit polls to justify their victory. Since there were (obviously) clashing exit polls, another user and I decided to include the sentence, to convey the fact that there dueling exit polls. Since the sentence has been deleted on this page, I have deleted it from AMLO's page as well. [[[User:65.42.93.124|65.42.93.124]] 11:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)]

[edit] Platform

Just came in here trying to find some information on his platform. I found more here than on the original article. Personally I'm not up on Calderón so I can't add it but if there's somebody that can it might be a good idea.--Jmathies 21:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I transferred this to the bottom because Jmathies added it to the top, likely not aware that most people look at the bottom of talk pages for new subjects. TransUtopian 10:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-life, Same-sex marriage opposition, LGBT rights opposition?

The article references a christian website (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06070608.html) that says Calderon supports this views as proof of this point, while the website itself does not cite any sources or references. I for one never heard of him taking this position during the campaign, can anybody prove me wrong? Furthermore, what Calderon has been saying since the day after the election is that he would include the principles of tolerance of Patricia Mercado (LGBT supporter herself) among those of other competitors. Alan MB 20:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, look no further than the 2007 Abortion debate, President Calderon publicly stated he opposed abortion, though he did also state that he would not interfere with the Federal District's legislation. His wife has also stated to be in the pro-life camp. However, so far there has been no intention to block the Federal District's decriminalization law on abortion. Same goes for the "ley de conviviencia" (legalized same-sex "convivencia" that is, for practical purposes, a marriage. Danixdefcon5 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Calderón is from a party that usually promotes conservative viewpoints. However, Calderón, like his predecessor, knows better than to take a controversial politicizing stand on an issue that is against the will of his constituency. Fox also opposed the day-after píll, but not only did he not outlowed it, his Department of Health promoted it actively! This is a case in which personal positions are different than policy and political positions. Calderón may not like same-sex "convivencia", or abortion, but he isn't interfering in the jurisdiction of Coahuila or DF over these matters...
However, if the matter goes Federal, that may be something else.
If this information will be included in the article, the broad viewpoint of personal opinion vs. policy must be considered. Hari Seldon 21:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Calderón bias?

Under the header "Post-election activities", the text seems to have a definite anti-Calderón slant. I am not well enough informed to make any changes, but the text clearly signals a bias from the writer, through its wording. Someone with more knowledge than I should probably take a look! --193.11.220.45 16:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement about PRD's request for a recount

I have a very serious problem with this paragraph: "On 6 July 2006 the Federal Electoral Institute announced the official vote count in the 2006 presidential election, resulting in a narrow margin of 0.58% for Calderón over his closest contender, PRD candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador. However, López Obrador and his party alleged irregularities in a large number of polling stations and demanded a national recount. Ultimately the TEPJF, in a unanimous vote, declared such recount to be impossible by law, and ordered a recount of about 9% of the votes." The PRD did not request such a recount before the tribunal. Rather, the party asked for a partial recount while, at the same time, demanding the election be invalidated. The national recount was only demanded on the streets.

[edit] About the criticism and post election section

I removed some stuff... striped them to the basics... nobody is blamed, nobody is exalted... just the facts... and also removed annoying stuff from the pro-Calderon pro-Obrador guys... I think wikipedia is not an opinion forum, that is why there are blogs already;) Anonimounanime 23:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] President Number...

I think the presidential numerical ordering should be removed from this and from every article of a former President of Mexico. A discussion was held on this subject a while ago, but apparently someone reinstated the order, which I think is inappropiate for the Mexican presidential system (and an inaccurate numbering, at that). Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_MexicanPresident to see the old discussion. If nobody disagrees, I will remove the the numerical order from the article. Cheers, Alan MB 17:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont object personally but it should be discussed at Talk:President of Mexico not here as that is the only page you can get consensus on the subject, SqueakBox 17:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I just started it. Cheers, All-Bran 16:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update?

Hes been formerly been assigned the duty of President of Mexico two hours ago and the article still states that he is president elect --189.135.68.9 17:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your correct, Calderon became President at Mid-night, December 1st, 2006. This fact matter is mute, now that he's taken a second oath, (before the Mexican Congress). GoodDay 18:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drowned cheers

Hello everyone. Can someone please source: "representatives drowning out" in inauguration section. Thank You. [[[User:69.211.20.224|69.211.20.224]] 20:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)]

I wondered myself and have asked for a cite, SqueakBox 20:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the cited source does not support the contention that the PAN drowned out the PRD supporters. Please find a source. [[[User:69.211.20.224|69.211.20.224]] 21:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)]

Hello, 69.211.20.224 ,when posting your IP Adress, do it with just [[ ]]. GoodDay 21:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm from the telly that it was correct that PAN drowned out PRD with "sí se pudo" but its too controversial to have in wikipedia so I reframed it just describing the PAN chants, SqueakBox 20:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obrador's contention vs. officialdom

...raises serious doubts about the notion that there is "only one president in Mexico", especially when both have been sworn in (yes, Obrador staged a swearing-in ceremony attended by a crowd), and while Calderon may occupy Mexico's version of the White House (whatever that version is), Obrador and several of his followers consider Obrador to be the legitimate president of Mexico (and NO, I'm NOT going to put the words referring to a legitimate president in quotes), rather than Calderon. Under such circumstances, I'm not 100% sure that it's NPOV to consider Calderon to be the only President of Mexico. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Every human being has the right to call himself whatever he wants, but in order to be considered President of Mexico in 2006 (particularly in an encyclopedia) you need to win a presidential election, your victory must be validated and you must swear obedience to the law in both chambers of the Mexican Congress. Regarding Andrés Manuel López Obrador, not a single party or institution outside his political coalition has recognized him as winner of the 2 July 2006 Presidential election, his accusations of major fraud in front of the Electoral Tribunal were considered rubbish by every single magistrate (which he and his party elected to office and which have previously ruled against all sorts of political parties, in power or not) and staging a ceremony in front of his own followers doesn't count as swearing obedience to the law in Congress, particularly when you are actively promoting disobedience and destruction of most democratic institutions that took decades to built. --All-Bran 16:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with All-Bran, this has been discussed widely in articles like the Post Election Controversy, in spite of the enormous crowds which Mr. Obrador reunite, the will of ALLthe Mexicans who voted isn't represented in any manner. --189.135.61.75 20:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong agreement with All-Bran. There is clearly only one President of Mexico and for wikipedia to claim otherwise would be gross POV against Mexico. Of course the whole AMLO episode needs treating and is treated in the various articles but to make his claims into something with such validity that he is treated as an alternative President of Mexico is unacceptable, SqueakBox 20:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

Recently one of the leading news casters in Mexico Jose Gutierrez Vivo, made public the statements delivered to him by representatives of Mr. Calderon, stating that his newsprogram (one of the few plural spaces in the radio) would be banned or "punished" until the presidency saw signs of good faith from them, meaning less coverage for critiques of Calderon and more difusion of their work. According to Mr. Gutierrez Vivo, who has been in the news casting business for the last 40 years, never such comments were made to him, nor his program was banned or repressed for not agreeing with the government. This statements I believe deserve a space in this article. What do you think? Andy Rosenthal 08:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that if those statements where indeed made, they should be added to the page. However, we need a more reliable source than the Jose Gutierrez Vivo radio network, who may have something to gain from that (particularly in ratings). Funny that other, more critical of Calderon, media have not expressed the same evidence of harrassment. Hari Seldon 19:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, first of all, there aren't just "a few plural spaces in the [Mexican] radio"; every single radio station criticize the government as much as they want, and most of them are way more critical than José Gutiérrez Vivo. Now, why does a radio broadcaster with "40+ years" of experience does not mention what public official called to make such a threat? who asked for a favorable coverage of the president? Where are the names, their postitions, their relation with Calderón? Isn't it Journalism 101? From wherever you see it, Calderón's presidency is politically weak and his enemies are keeping him, in their own words, "on a short leash"[9]. Would it make sense to call "a leading newscaster" and threat him with an official ban? (something, by the way, that wasn't even done when Radio Universidad was occupied by the APPO in Oaxaca for more than six months[10]). I think you need to discard a publicity stunt, particularly if coming from a radio businessman who publicly announced, barely a few weeks ago (before Calderón was Andy Rosenthal 19:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Andy Rosenthal 10:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)sworn as President) that he is dropping his FM coverage because he has no money to pay for the rent of his radio stations [11]. --All-Bran 21:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
All due respect I do not see the connection between the take over of radio universidad in Oaxaca and this. As much as I want to see it as a political move I also see that Gutierrez Vivo has put his reputation and carreer on the line with such statements. G. Vivo is one of the few newscasters that continued to provide coverage for Lopez Obrador after the elections. Carmen Aristegui, recently had him as a guest, where this story was corroborated. Here are a couple of articles on the subject. http://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/ElFinanciero/Portal/cfpages/contentmgr.cfm?docId=32666&docTipo=1&orderby=docid&sortby=ASC. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/12/07/index.php?section=politica&article=019n1pol
So you can save time here is a quote from one of the articles: "Parecerá increíble lo que voy a expresar, pero estoy muy consciente de lo que estoy diciendo. Nunca me había tocado, en 40 años, que antes de que se tomara posesión de un cargo se mandara un recado diciendo 'están castigados', 'vamos a ver cómo se comportan', 'vamos a ver su conducta', 'no nos importa que transmitan la información de esta oficina de la Presidencia', 'qué pueden hacer', 'y sí se portan bien, en algún momento les dará una audiencia el señor presidente para llegar a un arreglo'". It might be a good idea to add a small section on censorship that includes this and the arguments provided after this comment. I think that as coherent and nice as your interpretation of the events is, it is just POV. Andy Rosenthal 08:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you have been a bit selective with those quotes. I'll provide a few more that cast a different light, and they all come from the link you provided (El Financiero): "Gutiérrez Vivo dejó de transmitir en días pasados por problemas económicos su noticiario en Frecuencia Modulada (FM), pero mantiene la emisión en Amplitud Modulada (AM) y en televisión por el canal 52"..."Gutiérrez Vivó tiene desde hace varios años un pleito legal con el Grupo Radio Centro por los derechos del nombre 'Monitor'"..."Gutiérrez Vivó, sin dar nombres, dijo haber recibido una advertencia de la oficina de la Presidencia de que su medio estaba castigado"..."Admitió que desconoce si el presidente Calderón está al tanto de esta situación"..."'Nada más quiero saber si el mensaje directamente es de él o de alguien más', dijo". There is no proof whatsoever of official censorship. Even if you assume good faith, this last quote is rather clear: he is not even sure who sent it and he doesn't know if Felipe Calderón is the one that should be blamed for it. Where is the link? --All-Bran 10:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. I won't be making any contributions to FC's site until it opens, but I do believe that we must add to the inauguration site, especially in light of what happened on that day, on Televsia and TV Azteca. I urge everyone to read Jorge Ramos' characterization of events, taking both TV and Azteca to task, for censorship.

Calderón: por la puerta de atrás El futuro incierto de los mexicanos http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml;jsessionid=5JFN3MZT1GTRGCWIAA3SFFIKZAAFGIWC?chid=3&schid=160&secid=3117&cid=1033873&pagenum=1

According to Jorge Ramos, depending on where you were sitting, you saw two separate events. One version was directed at the Mexican public, the other to the ROW. Guadalupe, a columnist, also offers a similar account.

http://www.reforma.com/libre/online/envialo/Envia_Amigo.asp?pagina=http://www.reforma.com/editoriales/nacional/715024/default.shtm&md5=c1fd3a4a6945a8d8ddf781e9d9ddcac7

I would not use these sources (as they are columnists - but I will use Ramos own account of what transpired on his own Wiki entry) on FC page, but I do believe that, if true (ie, if Azteca and Televisa refused to show coverage of the melee in the Chamber, or AMLO's march), then this deserves to be mentioned on the "inauguration" section of the page, which currently ends with "At 10:00am CST the official broadcast was over and all other stations resumed their programming."

I don't believe that last sentence conveys what took place on that day. [[[User:69.211.22.176|69.211.22.176]] 22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)]


Another columnist broaches the subject of censorship, claiming that Azteca and Televisa were threatened with having their concessions revoked, if they did not continue with the government TV feed of the day's events.

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/columnas/62279.html

"Si esto no tuviera una correlación con varias acciones que se han venido dando, habría que saludar la medida y congratularnos de ese paso. Sin embargo, las cosas marchan por otro camino. El viernes pasado, por ejemplo, se emplearon las herramientas del viejo sistema político para controlar en la medida máxima de lo posible la transmisión televisiva de la toma de posesión................................................................................................................. Radio, Televisión y Cinematografía, el organismo regulador de medios electrónicos que depende de la Secretaría de Gobernación, transmitió un mensaje ominoso: la empresa televisiva que rompa la cadena nacional del evento correrá el riesgo de que se le revoque su concesión. La cadena nacional pasó ininterrumpida, pese a un par de sucesos que vulneraban por completo el derecho de los ciudadanos a estar informados.................................................................................................................. El primero fue que al entrar la cadena nacional se cortó al convoy de prensa que seguía a Calderón, con lo cual se anuló la posibilidad de que informaran los pormenores del todavía presidente electo. La acción fue estratégica, pues el vehículo de Calderón se dirigió a un acceso no vigilado por el PRD en San Lázaro, y entró sin contratiempos por la puerta de atrás, de acuerdo con la estrategia del Estado Mayor Presidencial. El segundo, muy notorio, fue el guión que leyeron a los conductores de la cadena nacional, el cual decía que la ceremonia transcurría con tranquilidad, cuando la realidad era totalmente distinta. La amenaza pendió sobre los medios televisivos que se tuvieron que someter a la cadena nacional y hacer de lado una cobertura que mantuviera informados a los ciudadanos, que reciben de la televisión más de 90% de su información. ¿Por qué obligar a los medios a una cadena nacional? El resabio es autoritario y contradice por completo el espíritu del libre flujo de información, la libertad de prensa y el derecho al pueblo de estar informado."

[[[User:69.211.22.176|69.211.22.176]] 22:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)]

Other than Riva Palacio's opinion, there is no sourced material that allows us to safely say there was censorhip. It is undeniable that different media groups decided to ignore Lopez Obrador, but that they did it under government influence is not certain. A media outlet has free speech and has the right to transmit whatever they want, even if that means leaving Lopez Obrador out. By the way, not all media outlets did this... Reforma, an outlet that ironically has been accused by Lopez Obrador of being "a pamphlet for the right", transmitted in its online version an equilibrated account of what was happening. Even, in the video transmission produced by Reforma for the Internet, the correspondant covering Lopez Obrador called him by his fake title, "Legitimate President".
So, it cannot be denied that some media outlets decided to cover Calderon's inaguration partially... but others didn't. Furthermore, there is no substantial evidence of a censorship. Until there is, I don't see why we should add unsourced speculation (even if it is Riva Palacio's speculation) on Wikipedia. Hari Seldon 23:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hseldon, I agree with you, that until there is corroboration, we can't use a columnists opinion as a basis for a modification on teh FC page. (that doesn't mean we can't use Jorge Ramos own statement on his Wiki entry (regarding his claims of censorship)). With respect to the Mexican media, regrettably, very few Mexicans read papers, so almost all of them receive their news from Azteca or Televisa. We don't know whether they acted at the behest of the govt., or on their own, but we do know that for many Mexicans who receive their news from the two networks, all was well. With respect to FC's entry, I am not planning on charging that censorship took place on December 1. But I am planning (one the lock is lifted) on describing the other events of the day, as was done in many articles (NYTimes, LATimes, et al) that covered the event. Obviously, I will source all my edits. [[[User:69.211.22.176|69.211.22.176]] 00:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)]

I'm sorry, I might have missed it, but I did not notice Jorge Ramos stating claims of censorship... Could you provide me with a quote?
I agree that a description of the days events, properly sourced, would be useful. Do you mind working on a proposal in the sandbox so that we can review it together before posting?
About what you say that "many Mexicans receive their news from the two networks", I agree that this is regrettably so, but it still doesn't constitute censorship unless the networks where coerced into their form of coverage.
Hari Seldon 04:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hari, I have provided two sources on the claims made by Gutierrez Vivo. I hope these can reach the proposed section on media coverage as an appendix related to censorship or control of the media. I think it would be very hard to find reliable sources on the coercion exerted on the networks (or their voluntary censorship) to X, Y or Z events. In any case, here is a link to an article that shows exactly what type of people run the TV networks in Mexico (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/business/worldbusiness/06tele.html?em&ex=1165640400&en=b5a068e01b938365&ei=5087%0A), lets also, not forget that according to the infamous "televisa law" the two main broadcasters in Mexico have been provided with unique opportunities for continuing to monopolize the entertainment sector in that country. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/international/features/e3i0801a9d5ffeb0baab71d4354cdc10e45). This obviously creates a conflict of interest and casts doubts on their reliability to mantain neutrality to a govenment that has favored them financially. Andy Rosenthal 09:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess I missed Jorge Ramos' censorship claims as well. He says that both Televisa and TV Azteca were not broadcasting a march of the PRD that afternoon, not that the government forced them to broadcast something else. A march of the PRD was quite predictable, and while not broadcasted live, it was shown in the news. If the networks choose not to do a 3 hours live broadcast a march of the PRD from the moment it starts to the moment it ends, is it official censorship by the government of Felipe Calderón? Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedic entry and is meant to be a biography of Felipe Calderón, it should be focused on his life. In my opinion, the last two sections must be entirely rewritten to avoid this sort of debates; they are way too anecdotal. --All-Bran 09:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess you can believe whatever you want to believe, however, if you personally like Calderon (as I can clearly see) it should not affect this article. Here, we have a unique opportunity to allow all sources of information to convey and present an article that is as close to the truth as possible. Hence, I think that all facts should be accounted for and presented with counter arguments. For example whether Gutierrez Vivo said what he said to gain rating or not, he said it. Its important to point out that one of the major newscasters in Mexico received such threats. You can weight the argument with SOURCES that point out why he would have made such statements to gain personal profit (instead of your personal interpretation of things). But the facts should be stated regardless. It is NOT fair to pick and choose. Same thing with what Ramos said. It is vox populi, that the PRD rally did not get adequate coverage except for Carmen Aristegui. Why do not include a section that says that even though there is no proof (I wonder what kind of proof you want, recordings? checks written to? the televisa law?) its said that the coverage of the opposition has been less than before the elections , etc. This article should present all the facts without bias. I find it totally unacceptable that you or anyone throws away facts just because of personal preference or likeness. Having said this, to me these arguments get old pretty quick, so feel free to do whatever you think is best Andy Rosenthal 10:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello All. All-Bran, it's not that Azteca and Televisa chose not to cover the AMLO march (which the NYT described at 100K strong, while other sources described as much larger - again, once this page opens, I will source my edits), it's that CNN WAS covering the march, and Televisa and Azteca wasn't. Was there censorship? Clearly, Ramos (who left Televisa years ago, due to censorship) believes there was. Whether it was self-imposed, or govt. mandated, is open to question. But again, why would CNN cover the march for its world-wide audience, while Azteca and Televisa didn't. Also, I ask that you all read Guadalupe's account in Reforma, about the day's events.

http://www.reforma.com/libre/online/envialo/Envia_Amigo.asp?pagina=http://www.reforma.com/editoriales/nacional/715024/default.shtm&md5=c1fd3a4a6945a8d8ddf781e9d9ddcac7

She claims that Televisa and Azteca never once broke the government TV feed, and that Diane was describing the event as very calm. Would any objective observer describe the event in this way.

Specifically, she says, "Porque mientras para la televisión oficial no existía el México del Zócalo ni López Obrador ni mucho menos el de los pobres, para CNN era fundamental mostrar las dos realidades de esos momentos. No, para Diane, todo estaba perfecto, todo sucedía con gran armonía y en paz. Todo México estaba feliz por la toma de protesta de Calderón. No había ni un ápice de oposición." [[[User:69.211.22.176|69.211.22.176]] 16:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)]

Hi. I think you are confusing the government TV feed (cadena nacional) with official censorship. Cadena nacional is a stardard procedure followed by the media when a president takes office or when a "State of the Union" speech is given at Congress. I *do* believe is archaic and that it should be gone forever, but it was not implemented by the government of Felipe Calderón, it has been done for ages by every single Mexican president because it's a standard procedure. We may argue about cadena nacional all we want, but not in the bio of Felipe Calderón because he had nothing to do with it.--All-Bran 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Andy, you might be interested in reading this column by Ricardo Aleman, a man who passionately despises AMLO, regarding Gutierrez Vivo. Here's an excerpt. "Se puede decir lo que se quiera de Gutiérrez Vivó: que es un mal empresario; un periodista arrogante que apoyó o no al "legítimo"; uno de los más severos críticos del viejo PRI; autor intelectual de los informativos que abrieron la radio a la crítica y la pluralidad; uno de los constructores, junto con la prensa crítica, de la naciente democracia electoral mexicana; que inauguró las mesas de debates. Lo que se quiera. Pero nadie le puede regatear que cambió la radio, los informativos hablados, que fue un feroz defensor de libertades democráticas fundamentales, como las de prensa y expresión..........................El "pecado" de Gutiérrez Vivó fue liberarse del yugo de los poderosos grupos de la radio y pretender obtener sus propias concesiones; no someterse a las grandes familias de "los intocables" y no rendirse a los dictados del poder en turno, sean del PRI o del PAN. Pero los intentos oficiales y empresariales por "ahorcar" económicamente a Gutiérrez Vivó no son producto de una disputa legal entre particulares o un desencuentro con el poder -escenario que de suyo niega el cacareado estado de derecho-, sino que son una vergonzosa muestra de que los poderes oficiales y fácticos que antaño se negaban a la apertura de los medios y a la democracia mexicana, hoy usan esa democracia para destruir a quienes abrieron los espacios a la pluralidad, la crítica y la libertad de expresión."

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/columnas/62207.html [[[User:69.211.22.176|69.211.22.176]] 16:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)]

But we are still only dealing with opinions and speculations! Gutierrez Vivo's opinion may be very respected, but is still only an opinion. I'd say that if there was no official censorship that can be specifically proven with evidence or referenced, then lets not add speculative content to this encyclopedia.
Again, if we suspect of self-censorhip on account of either Televisa or TV Azteca, then perhaps those paragraphs are more appropriate in the article pages of those two companies, instead of here.
Hari Seldon 17:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Vivo's comments are NOT an opinion, they are not a part of an editorial, they are the account of a factual occurrence. THAT is the difference. It's like asking Bob Woodward to provide evidence. No one can produe the evidence you ask for, the only thing that we have to prove this happened is Vivo's reputation. I wonder as I did before what type of evidence do you want? recordings? Andy Rosenthal 17:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Andy, you really need to read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia is not the right place to put original research. There's no proof whatsoever of official censorship. We are not looking for primary sources such as recordings like you said, what we look for is a third party stating "This public official, Mr. XYZ called us/me/our network on behalf of the government and asked us to do this or stop doing this and that". Period. We can't publish speculations in the biography of a living person. That's clearly against Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The closest you get are some declarations made by Gutierrez Vivo, but using your own links at El Financiero Gutierrez Vivó cleraly states that he is not sure that those threats were made by the government of Felipe Caderón: "'Nada más quiero saber si el mensaje directamente es de él o de alguien más', dijo".[12] Where is your argument? Where are your sources moving us from point A to point B? --All-Bran 19:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Vivo's comments are:
1) Questionably motivated. He may have something to gain from saying something like that.
2) Unproven. He may say whatever he wants. I can say that "Lopez Obrador tried to kill my mother". The fact that I say it doesn't make it true. Where is the evidence?
3) Vivo's reputation is a matter of opinion. I wonder if that is of acceptable encyclopedic value.
That you say that Vivo's comments are an "account of a factual occurence" is an unproven opinion! They may very well be only a lie. Until there is some evidence that indicates that Vivo's comments are one or the other, I don't think Wikipedia should be grounds to advance speculations on either direction. Hari Seldon 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Deja Vu. Did you read what I just wrote? There is a huge language barrier here, are you sure you uderstood my pont? There can't be any evidence. No one can produce it, the only thing we have to prove this is to trust Gutierrez Vivo, who according to your own contribution is one of the most respected journalists in Mexico. My opinion is that you are a fanatic freak, a fact is that you disagree with me. Do you understand the difference? Andy Rosenthal 19:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

All-Bran, while Azteca and Televisa used the government feed, they could also have placed a screen w/i screen, showing the events transpiring outside of Palacio/Auditorio. They could have, as CNN did, but decided not to. Moreover, after reading Guadalupe's account of Diane's description of the day's events, you can't NOT conclude that there was a deliberate effort to NOT report the totality of the day's events. When a CNN viewer in London sees mayhem in the Palacio, and hundreds of thousands next to the tallest building in Mexico City, and a TV and Azteca viewer in Monterrey sees an event transpiring smoothly, there is clearly censorship. [[[User:69.211.22.176|69.211.22.176]] 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)]

First of all, you cannot edit nor interrupt cadena nacional and that has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. If AMLO had been elected president, cadena nacional would have broadcasted exactly in the same way because that's the archaic but standard procedure, it has nothing to do with Calderon nor AMLO. Second, you are clearly making things up. Every human being who watched the coverage of the ceremony inside Mexican territory saw anything but "an event transpiring smoothly", every single one of them saw what was happening before and after the ceremony, and there were repetitions ad-nauseam for all of those who missed it. Every single one of them saw the PRD blocking up the doors, attacking the members of the PAN, trying to take up the tribune by force, etc. And you are clearly taking the comments out of context. Guadalupe Loaeza refers to a "talking-head" that briefly described the ceremony in cadena nacional, which lasted less than 5 minutes (and that included the National Anthem). Both TV networks covered what was going on Congress not only minutes but days before the ceremony, some of them blasted cadena nacional after it stopped broadcasting and at least one (Televisa) invited the leaders of the PRD in both chambers to talk about the event surrounding the ceremony seconds after the prime-time news --All-Bran 23:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
What is this discussion about?
If its about the practices of Televisa and TV Azteca, then go to thos article pages.
If it is about censorship, then please provide evidence. "No evidence can be provided" is no excuse. Imagine that creationists advanced their claim as true and shielded there lies with "no evidence can be provided" arguments! Well, it is a shame that no evidence can be provided... Wikipedia simply cannot advance speculations, no matter how "respected" the person advancing them is. Specially since that very same person has not accused Felipe Calderón of anything!
If this discussion is about our own personal ideologies, then lets go to our own personal blogs and discuss there.
Hari Seldon 23:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So now we discover that Jorge Ramos, the most repsected Spanish-language journalist in the US, a man who left Televisa b/c of censorship, is WRONG? Wow. Now we discover that Jorge Ramos was lying when he stated that the two protected TV networks in Mexico were showing "cooking programs" while CNN was showing the 100,000 (source: NYT) protestors with AMLO at Torre Mayor. So, now we discover that Jorge Ramos was wrong for criticizing the interruption of the TV feed just before FC was to enter the Palacio? Nothing to see here. Move along. [[[User:69.211.22.176|69.211.22.176]] 23:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)]

I am not accusing him of lying. I am simply saying that an opinion cannot be considered factual evidence. Plus, I read your Jorge Ramos article and I saw no claim of GOVERNMENT censorship. He did claim that television networks made partial coverage, but, again I state, that should go in the respective newsgroups wikipedia articles... Why should it be mentioned in the Calderón page when the criticism is not agianst Calderón, but against the networks? Hari Seldon 23:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, let's keep it real: Jorge Ramos is no Pulitzer Prize laureate, he is a TV anchor. CNN is a cable news network doing a 24h news coverage of the world while both Televisa and TV Azteca are general purpose networks with dozens of programs from entertainment to movies, just like CBS, ABC, NBC etc. in the US. You read an article written by Jorge Ramos saying that the main TV networks were not doing a live broadcast of one march organized by the PRD on Dec. 1st, 2006, just that, he never says that they were censored by anyone, nothing, zero, he is critizing the coverage, just that. You read somewhere else that CNN covered it; therefore, YOU conclude that Felipe Calderón is censoring the Mexican TV networks. Does it make any sense at all??? --All-Bran 04:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be very hard to find reliable sources on the coercion exerted on the networks (or their voluntary censorship) to X, Y or Z events. In any case, here is a link to an article that shows exactly what type of people run the TV networks in Mexico (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/business/worldbusiness/06tele.html?em&ex=1165640400&en=b5a068e01b938365&ei=5087%0A), lets also, not forget that according to the infamous "televisa law" the two main broadcasters in Mexico have been provided with unique opportunities for continuing to monopolize the entertainment sector in that country. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/international/features/e3i0801a9d5ffeb0baab71d4354cdc10e45). This obviously creates a conflict of interest and casts doubts on their reliability to mantain neutrality to a govenment that has favored them financially. Andy Rosenthal 09:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC). I think no one read this post so I added it here again. Of course a thug like Calderon knows how to cover his tracks. Good luck finding evidence. By the way email B. Woodward (a Pullitzer winner by the way) and tell him how you percieve the world , I am sure he can learn a thing or two from you. (tell him to "keep it real", " in the hood" Andy Rosenthal 07:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Please take this discussion to Talk:Televisa as it is completely irrelevant here. Hari Seldon 17:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a shame that a guy that does not even know the demographics of his own country (I even doubt that has travelled through it) has the power to make these decisions. This of course is a loss for everyone, since it makes this FREE encyclopedia another instument of the mainstream media (or the people that don't have enough brains to criticize it). By the way I loved that argument about the creationists: "It was very creative". Just a piece of adcvice, remember "to keep it real, G".Andy Rosenthal 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Within any discussion of FC's "transparency" or "commitment to a government which respects the Rule of Law" in his Wiki entry, we can certainly include critics like Jorge Ramos, Guadalupe, and even RightWing columnists like Ricardo Aleman, who have voiced concern about how the events of July 2 were transmitted. Once the FC site opens up, so long as all edits are clearly sourced. Doing so would not be any different from how we have approached other Wiki entries.

Please note that in the desafuero section of AMLO's wiki entry, there is a statement which reads: ""López Obrador used the moment {desafuero) to advance his popularity". We decided to include this statement to achieve a "fair and balanced" view of the desafuero. Likewise, we can do so on FC's entry, to achieve a fair and balanced perspective on his claims to "transparency" or "commitment to a government which respects the rule of law."

With respect to the two paragraphs on the inauguration, as they presently stand, they are woefully inadequate in conveying the events of the day to an uninformed reader. Contrast them with the account of the New York Times, found here [13], or the LA Times account [14].

For example, while the Wiki account cites the "Yes we Could" howl by PANistas, if fails to mention, as the LATimes account does, that PRDistas chanted, "Felipe will Fall." The wiki account reads that FC was there for five minutes, but fails to mention that it was the shortest swearing-in ceremony in Mexico's history. Moreover, someone who reads the account will fail to appreciate the magnitude of the opposition, which would not be lost on a NYTimes reader who comes across the march of "more than" 100,000 protesters who joined AMLO on the periphery of Chapultepec. In assessing the impartiality of the Wiki entry on the inauguration, look no further than the first sentence of the entry...

"Despite the PRD's plans to prevent Calderon from taking office, the inauguration was able to proceed."

, and compare/contrast with the first sentences of the LATimes and NYTimes accounts.[[[User:69.211.22.176|69.211.22.176]] 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)]

Well, I wish I had your parapsychic capacities of knowing a lot about people you've never met. For example, you've said that "I don't even know the demographics of my own country", or that "I've not travelled through it"... You are wrong, but I certainly wish I could have that insight, and state claims without evidence or cause.
Now, I am not arguing that Televisa's coverage was "neutral" or "fair to the audience"... It was not. But, my question is and continues to be, apart from opinions, do you have any significant EVIDENCE that the government forced the media to behave this way? If you don't, then this discussion belongs in the Televisa article. If you do, I'll personally add the accusation in this page.
A neutral point of view implies accepting different interpretations of reality, not exposing an interpretation of reality, and a made-up reality based on opinions and speculation. Lopez Obrador had the desafuero process, and then Lopez Obrador behaved in certain specific ways, and then Lopez Obrador's popularity goes up in the polls... All of this is documented and there is a significant evidence to it. What is a valid interpretation of reality? "Lopez Obrador used the desafuero to advance his popularity"...
On the other hand, what you ask us is to see a reality (the media's partial coverage), and then to see some poorly documented opinions and substantial speculation, but no evidence, of a governmental effort to force the media into this partial coverage, and conclude that it is valid to say that there was Goverment censorship. I am sorry, but this is just not possible. I will gladly support any criticism you want to make of Televisa or TV Azteca, but that should be done in their articles, not here.
Finally, what you say of the PRD chants that are not listed in this article, well, you have to assume good faith (after all, it IS a wikipedia policy). Not all of us read the LATimes. If you can but share the link to the source, I would be more than happy to add that chant into this article, as it is highly relevant and important.
Hari Seldon 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Just for the sake "keeping it real" I will say that "I ain't no psychic" Andy Rosenthal 02:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, then I don't know where your information came from... Anyways, should we go post criticism in the Televisa article? Hari Seldon 03:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Arguing on opinions, here is an opinion by Katia D'Artigues, from El Universal, clearly stating that there has been no censorship in the young government of Felipe Calderón... [15]Clearly, there have been no indications that the partial coverage by the major networks was government imposed. I've added a criticism section to the Televisa article, though. Hari Seldon 14:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salary cap

First of all, here are the reasons why I am reverting:

  • Felipe Calderon has proposed two salary cap initiatives. One is the bill in congress, and another one is the Presidential decree that only affects himself and his cabinet members. The fact that the decree only affects himself and his cabinet members is already in the article and needs not be repeated.
  • However, the criticism being written does not specify which of the two initiatives is being critiziced.
  • The invertia source talks about the Presidential Decree, while the La Jornada source talks about the bill. It seems to me that the wording confuses the user, and is weasels its way into advancing a position: that Calderon's ideas are no good.
  • The invertia source does not contain any criticism whatsoever. It simply states facts. The statement already in the article about the decree also simply states facts. Lets keep it that way.
  • For the bill, the La Jornada article does not menction anything about bonuses. In fact, President Calderon stated in his speech that no public servant can have a total remuneration (including bonuses) higher than the salary of the President. The critical senator only speaks about pensions as a criticism. If we are going to add this criticism, it might be useful to the reader to FURTHER add the controversy about Presidential pension funds that Lopez Obrador advanced while campaiging. (Remember Fox's quote, "yo si merezco mi pensión"?)...
  • Additionally, the source does not specifically prove that FAP's initiative was advanced before the Presidential bill initiative. Other sources, like Imagen, say that the FAP initiative came after the President's. Until we can find a better source about who came first, I think that it is irrelevant to the article.

In essence, I believe that the best actions would be the following:

  • Quote that the Presidential Decree only affects the President and his cabinet, but not all public servants
  • Quote that the Presidential Bill Initiative has been met with criticism by Lopez Obrador's coalition because of the absence of a pension reform, but that IT does include all public servants in all branches of government, and that IT does include bonuses.
  • Remind the reader that Presidential pensions where a controversial issue during the campaign.
  • Not state anything else because it is not supported by the sources, and not confuse the reader. State as clearly as possible that the Presidential Decree is different from the President's Bill Initiative.

Hari Seldon 20:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hsledon, please read the sidebar of the following primary source. Doesn't it read that benefits (which in the examples given exceed the salary) would not be covered by FC's bill? What does "en ningun caso la remuneracion considera....." To me, it suggests that the Bill will not account for benefits.
http://www.sep.gob.mx/wb2/sep/sep_i01Ref240107
[[[User:69.210.244.63|69.210.244.63]] 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)]


Hseldon, please refer to the following site....
http://www.cbot.com/cbot/pub/page/0,,1213+chart,00.html?symb=C&month=H&year=07&period=&study=&study0=&study1=&study2=&study3=&bartype=&bardensity=
You will see that the price of corn has already gotten as high as US$ 3.91 a bushel just prior to December. Therefore, please rephrase the sentence suggesting that the price increased during the first month of FC's tenure.
[[[User:69.210.244.63|69.210.244.63]] 21:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)]
"Prestaciones" is not the same as "bonuses". Under law, "prestaciones" clearly include non-monetary benefits, like health care, or other benefits given in the form of goods or services, but not in the form of money. Bonuses are not "prestaciones". In this case, the article is probably referring to benefits like plastic surgery in private hospitals, or driving government-paid cars, or government-paid vacations to Hawaii. Pensions are added in this benefits. Indeed, those are valid criticisms that should be added to this page. But unless the word "bonus" is specifically sourced, I don't see why we sould add it, since Calderón's speech explicitly states that all remuneration (all money compensation, including bonuses) should be lower than the President's remuneration (as outlined in the bill).
Note: "No debemos permitir la discrecionalidad en la asignación e, incluso, en la autoasignación de sueldos, ni tampoco la simulación en los ingresos de los servidores públicos a través de otras denominaciones distintas a la de sueldos. That phrase clearly rules out bonuses. So, unless a source is provided that specifically proves that the President is lying, or wasn't referring to bonuses, I don't see why we should add it here.
Hari Seldon 21:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
On the price of corn, I'll rephrase. Hari Seldon 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


On the "salary cap" issue, the Calderon initiative to reform public servant salaries uses the word "remuneration", see: Calderon Proposal (in spanish).
This means that the law will put limit to public servant remunerations. The proposed initiative defines remuneration as "the payment, in money or in kind, that a public servant recieves for the exercise of his employment, charge or commission. Never will remuneration include benefits inherent to the office". I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that what this means is that the President's salary, and total remuneration, would be fixed, but that doesn't mean that the costs of flying Presidential plane, or being protected by the Presidential guard should be considered as "remuneration".
I see no substantil evidence that the proposed initiative leaves out bonuses, because bonuses are payments in money.
This is the lawful interpretation of the initiative. Any other interpretation is an opinion, and wikipedia is not the place to post opinions. If, in the future, the initiative is turned into law, and the Supreme Court rules that the ammendment does not include bonuses, then we can add something here.
Hari Seldon 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] day-care program

if anybody wants to add to the list of stuff hes done, he started a day care program to help working mothers, from what I understand its only started for the state of mexico for now but he wants to expand it nationwide I got a link (Spanish) http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/prensa/discursos/?contenido=28597

Yes, well, this article is not intended as propaganda, neither in favor nor against this character or his actions.
However, I added the first 100 days of government actions because the article was starting to suffer some vandalism from critics that placed unsourced material with POV statements. I thought the best solution was to address those issues by adding sources and NPOV (statements in favor and against his actions). I think the article, as it stands, is incomplete, but it is better than when it started.
This subsection may evolve in the future to a more detailed analysis of broader actions that mark Calderón's presidency, and when his term is over in 6 years, perhaps this will evolve into an analysis of his legacy.
Quite frankly, I don't see how the national day care program would have anything to do with his legacy. Sure, it was a campaign promise and he delivered, but it is such a minor issue considering the wide array and depth of problems this nation faces. Added to that, the source you provide is an official source (his PR website!), which is inadmissible.
In short, adding this program contributes little to the article, it does not protect it from POV statements being inserted, nor from vandalic attacks, it is personal promotion of the character, and is irrelevant for the overall analysis of this person. Therefore, I would not be very much inclined in adding it just yet...
Hari Seldon 08:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
okay, I was just trying to help :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.174.193.60 (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
That's fine. Perhaps you can make a list of all other programs started by Calderón (like PROARBOL, day care program, etc...) with no further commentary, like: "The government of Calderón also started programs x, y and z")... This could be useful for the reader who is wondering what else has Calderón done, but lets keep it short, because it really isn't very crucial, and adding just one or two minor programs really isn't gonna help the article much. Lets make a list of at least five. Hari Seldon 02:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References to TV monopolies and Government Actions

I don't know why the Lupa Ciudadana link was added, but I presume to document his campaign promise on the subject. I couldn't find it. The promise I assume the editor made reference was: "Nuevas estaciones de radio y televisión. Se identificarán las ciudades susceptibles de ser atendidas con nuevos servicios de radio y televisión, tanto comercial como cultural, educativa, comunitaria y oficial, a efecto de iniciar los procedimientos de licitación pública o permisionarios, según se trate, durante el primer semestre del 2007."

Notice how the El Universal article makes reference to this by quoting the Secretariat of Communications saying that they are looking for "local" stations, identifying cities where more local radio and TV stations can be opened, and so on...

Now, the El Universal article says that there will be no third TV stations... in the first 100 days. This seems logical, since 100 days is only three months, and the technical studies required by law to give out such permission require much more than 3 months. Does the article say that a third TV station will not become a reality anytime? No. The Secretary of Communications and Transportation says that the proposal is being analyzed and has not been discarded.

La Jornada talks about experts opinions about what happens with only two TV stations, and the absence of a third. It doesn't specifically reference a government "no" to a third TV station "for ever"...

Therefore, I believe that critizicing Calderón for something that has not come to pass is not logical. Sure, we all know that monopolies need to end and that a third TV station would be a good thing. But it is ridiculous to expect it in 100 days. If, lets say, a couple of years go by and nothing happens, or if GE openly attacks Calderon's term in a source that wikipedians can verify and source, then we should add it. But I don't see any reason why we should do it before.

Hari Seldon 19:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Recent criticism

The WSJ/La Nacion articles talk about Calderón's play for consolidating power and how it may diminish its capacity to drive reform. The key word is "may". The current wording in this article confuses the reader by making it appear as a given. I would suggest if the actual WSJ wording was used instead.

As for the actions of the demonstrators, I've reworded that sentence to add context. After all, the Oaxaca protests are a state issue, and the first thing that Calderón did was to take Federal Police out of Oaxaca after detaining some of the APPO leaders and disarming the local police... (this, of course, should also be added to the article). On the other hand, protestors from the 2006 general election should be menctioned in the article, but merely saying "electoral fraud" is POV at best: firstly, because, at least judicially, no electoral fraud was ever proven, and "election irregularities" (which is not the same as fraud) were judged by the courts to have "indeffinite" influence on the election. The election of 2006 has been judged valid and fair by law. Therefore the word "supposedly", or "allegedly" should always come before any allegation of electoral fraud in this article. Additionally, we should not lead readers to believe that Calderón has promoted electoral fraud in other elections (i.e., state or municipal elections). None have come to pass during his term, so, at least for the time being, it would be illogical to imply something like that. Precision is necessary.

Hari Seldon 19:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Hseldon, please reread the links having to do with the radiospectrum auction. This must be addressed in the entry, as the Wall Street Journal and even LATimes have commented on it. I will work on rephrasing it, and welcome your input. [[[User:69.210.244.63|69.210.244.63]] 19:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)]

I disagree. Nothing substantive involving the government has happened on the radiospectrum auction. Calderón promised studies, not actually opening the spectrum, and the Secretary of Communications has said that they are doing these studies.
General Electric's subsidiary, Telemundo, which is the company seeking this third license for a national TV network has accused its future competitors, Televisa and TV Azteca of blocking their entry. GE has not yet accused the government.
Other than opinions (which are frowned upon, at best), there are no reliable sources pointing to an active blocking or passive negligence from the part of Calderon's government against more competition in the sector.
It has only been less than 70 days. It is too soon to say either way. I am not saying that if Calderón fails to meet the expectations in the future he shouldn't be critizied then. I am only saying that, as of now, and despite the subject matter being extremely important, the actions of the government do not guarantee neither praise nor criticism. There is too little information to document in this article.
Hari Seldon 19:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a little picking on my part. Telemundo is not a direct subsidiary of GE - Telemundo is a network operated by the GE subsidiary NBC Universal. It's almost like calling CTV a subsidiary of BCE when in fact it's a network operated by CTVglobemedia, formerly Bell Globemedia; or calling Univision a subsidiary of Televisa. --64.223.48.10 21:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by 165.91.48.42

Recently an anonymous editor has been trying to add the following to the subsection on Calderón's First Employment Program:

"(Similar to that withdrowned in France because it sparked a massive wave of protests"French government withdraws “First Job Contract,” enlists unions in assault on job security".) "

The "reference" provided simply says that a French First Employment Program sparked protests in France. Never does the source (or any other) state that Calderón's program is similar to the latter, or, what the meaning that tries to weasel, that the program has also sparked protests in Mexico.

In my opinion, this edit is POV, motivated by POV, unproperly sourced, and inadmissible, and thus, I will be reverting until a better source, and a better wording, can be found.

Hari Seldon 14:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

These edits have now been done by 75.111.128.132 on 15:57, March 14, 2007. I am worried about a possible sockpuppet to avoid discussion. Hari Seldon 00:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Last night, this article was without a picture for a few minutes. The reason was that the previous pictures was deleted. Why was it deleted? Because it was uploaded under a fair use rationale that did not conform to guidelines, or copyright protection policies of wikipedia. My solution has been to upload a public domain picture. Granted, it is not the best picture, but it is without copyright, and thus, requires no fair use rationale, and its deletion would not be justified. Being things as they are, if you find a really cool picture that has copyright, please do not add it. If, on the other hand, you find a better picture that is public domain, then lets add it! In the mean time, the current picture does the job. Hari Seldon 22:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calderón and 2012

Here is a list that may happen between now and 2012 that may prevent Calderón to finish his term:

  • He may resign
  • He may be assasinated
  • Congress may call for extraordinary elections
  • Congress may impeach him
  • The Constitutional reform currently being discussed by all political parties and all branches of government may change the lenght of the President's term
  • The Constitutional reform currently being discussed by all political parties and all branches of government may allow Calderón to run for re-election.
  • Mexico may declare a revolution and oust Calderón

Because all of the above are possibilities, we cannot say with certainty that Calderón will finish his term in 2012. Therefore, we cannot announce in wikipedia that he will. We do not know the future, and we cannot say whether or not he will, indeed, fulfill his term.

In any case, a more appropriate wording would be: "he was elected for the term running from 2006 to 2012". That way we would not be implying that he will govern until 2012 (i.e., we will not claim to know the future)... Hari Seldon 03:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

impeach? yeah keep telling yourself that. Calderon serves until 2012, and then the PAN wins again!--Dcrcort 15:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We all hope that. But hope is never a certainty... Hari Seldon 18:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well something that is certain is that the PRD won't win in 2012. Everyone got to see how dangerous to democracy they can be.

Well, I don't have your visionary powers; I cannot see the future, and as far as I know, Mexico is still a liberal, republican democracy, and thus every political party has a chance of winning, regardless of how we feel about them. Let me remind you that the PRD did get over 30% of the vote in the last election. The only thing that is certain is that I won't vote for the PRD, but that hardly constitutes an "electoral defeat". Hari Seldon 19:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The PRD will problaly pick a more conservative and mentally mature character for a candidate (like Barack Obama in the US) for 2012. they a;ready learned the hard way not to go with the populists.
As for the possibility that Mexico declares a revolution and ousts calderon? HAHA don't make me laugh! it's like saying that George W. Bush may not finish his term in 2008 because a civil war may break out or he may be overthrown.
In other words, the probability of a political fiasco of a similar magnitude happening in Mexico or America in the near future is very low. --69.14.74.155 04:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Whatever your political opinions may be, we don't know the future... Regardless of probabilities. Hari Seldon 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hseldon10's proposed wording sounds appropiate! Abögarp 02:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flat Tax

Is Calderón a proponent of a Flat Tax?

According to a reference provided (http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/10/01/008n2pol.php), legislators from the PRD and Convergencia claim that Calderón, at one point in time, supported a one-rate for tax on personal income of certain type of entities (ISR), and the application of the VAT on all products and services. (currently, Mexico does not apply the VAT in certain products and services that the government considers "important", like food and medicines, which lowers the costs to food-processing companies and pharmaceuticals, but does not change price of the finished product on the consumer).

According to the article about them, a flat tax would tax all household income and corporate profits at the same marginal rates. VAT (IVA in spanish) does not tax household income, so it is irrelevant. The ISR taxes personal income, but only those of certain entities or persons. A "flat" ISR doesn't mean a "flat tax" because it would not be the same marginal rate for all households, and certainly not for all companies.

The other reference provided, http://www.noticias-oax.com.mx/articulos.php?id_sec=5&id_art=34628&id_ejemplar=876, doesn't even talk about the subject.

Additionally, as the discussion on Fiscal Reform approaches, it may be possible that the position of Calderón, or his proposal sent to congress does not include either propositions. So, apart from quotes by "legislators from the PRD and Convergencia", what other evidence is there that Calderón supports a flat tax? None. Ergo, the sentence should be removed.

Hari Seldon 00:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Hello Hseldon. Did you even read the sources I cited? From the second source cited, ". Pero hay dos puntos clave para esto: uno, simplificar el sistema fiscal convirtiendo el impuesto sobre la renta en un impuesto de tasa única para cualquier nivel de ingreso, que será una tasa menor a la actual con un mecanismo muy simple para declaraciones y pagos. " Would there be a level of income exempt from taxation. Yes, but that doesn't mean that we don't call it a "flat tax" Forbes, in the US, also allows for a certain level of income exempt from taxation, yet he calls it a flat tax. In Eastern Europe, a certain level of income is exempt, yet we call it a "flat tax". Please note that I have added one more source, from El Universal, that includes the phrase....

propone desde ahora una baja en el Impuesto Sobre la Renta (ISR) a 24%, como tasa única básica. 69.210.250.124 01:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)]

Ok then. Hari Seldon 02:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tortilla Pact

This section should only be linked to Calderon's page, but not be included in the main article. It makes it seem like tortillas are the only thing Mexicans eat...pretty biased and goes against the true identity of Mexicans across the country.--Dcrcort 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does not "make it look like tortillas are the only thing Mexicans eat". The action is remarkable because it is a control on prices, which is atypical for a politician who promotes economic liberalism. It is also remarkable in that it was an action criticized by both the left AND the right. The proper documentation for this adds a lot of perspective not only to Calderón, but also about his opposition and his supporters. What are they expecting from him and what are they demanding?
The opposition seems to be criticizing the ruling party even when their actions are reasonable (see my comments on the recent approval of the Alternative Fuel Initiative), and even when those actions where initially proposed by Lopez Obrador. Indeed, since the opposition has a large amount of power (30% in congress), and the ability to stifle reforms, any information that gives an idea of what type of opposition Calderón has faced is useful to get a broader idea of what this President is facing.
In any case, the rise in the price of tortilla has been quite significant for his term. Contrary to what happened during Fox, the year 2007 has been disastrous for inflation, proving difficult to control (in the own words of the Chairman of Banxico). Even the configuration of inflation has changed, and this is worrisome. The international price of corn is directly responsible for this, because not only did it affect the price of tortillas, but also of other foodstuffs (egg, chicken and pork, who require corn as foodstuff, and later beef and milk due to demand pressures). Inflation rates affect everything (including the effectiveness of monetary and fiscal policy in expanding the economy, and, most importantly, exchange rates) and have prompted Banxico to unexpectedly raise the interest rates for the first time in a year! Since the Tortilla Price Stabilization Pact is the only action taken by Calderón, so far, to counter inflation, a complete documentation of the program is required.
I am in exams week, but hopefull by the end of the week I'll be able to add more about inflation and the expansion of the pact announced last week.
Now, I would agree to a reduction of the paragraph, but not to a move. The Pact has been Calderón's most impacting program so far (it has, according to Banxico's chairman, aided in controlling inflation, at least a bit), and thus deserves to be first. And I also don't agree with the parts that were removed. They were the most interesting parts. Hari Seldon 12:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Then reduced it yourself, or quit reverting my reductions.

I will, but not today. Hari Seldon 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Move to "President FC"

Why was FC moved to "President FC". Shouldn't we be consistent with Bush's entry, which is not found under "President GWB", or Sarkozy's entry, not found under "President N Sarkozy"?

[edit] Mexico flood response

This deserves to be mentioned.. [16] --F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calderon has a master degree?

The following should be cleared... After growing up in Morelia, Calderón moved to Mexico City, where he received a bachelor's degree in law from the Escuela Libre de Derecho. Later on, he received a master's degree in economics from the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM) and a Master of Public Administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.[3]

Calderon probably studied at Harvard University, however he did not get Master of Public Administration. The reference uses as a source the same mexican government, where there are a lot of examples of people using false degrees. (Fox said that he had the same master degree). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.101.54 (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

This article has been attacting a lot of vandalism recently (and a lot of it is not reverted quickly). Perhaps it is better to semiprotect this page. Mixcoatl (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)