Talk:Jorge Hank Rhon

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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] ===============================================================dida===================================

This article is replete with pro-PRI, pro-Hank text which is not appropiate for an encyclopedia article and it should be changed and/or removed.

This page definatly needs a rework especially since it is election time in baja california and hank is a candidate--Sajjad664 07:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ==================================================================================================

zeta is not a "tabloid", it is a newsweekly

actually, it is a tabloid (size and shape, it is weekly)--FateClub 02:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
yeah, but don't you know "tabloid" carries a sensationalist tone? "zeta" is a very serious newspaper. it is not part of the 'tabloid press'--Verbose
I do know that since many tabloids follow that line the term is used, incorrectly, to define all sensationalist publications, but then again, they are incorrect. --FateClub 17:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

and why did someone change the wikified "zeta" link from the wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_(magazine) to the external site? why was this necessary?


who the heck is 24.165.16.57 ?? i thought wikipedia only allowed registered users to edit?! notice how the keep pruning the unfavorable facts from this guy's article!!

wikipedia... the encyclopedia that anyone can edit... :) --FateClub 02:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
"equal access" and "anonymity" are two different concepts. --Verbose 17:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, I do agree with you. But wikipedia does not require one to create an account or log on to make edits. It is more about citing sources and staying neutral. --FateClub 17:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey this article is completely unfactual and have absolutely o evidence to support it. I actualy live in Tijuana and regularly see him in the media with no such controversy. All the accusations are such a minor part of his life, that no one even remembers the controversy. Oh and, by the way you guys don't even know where all the drug links came from( Explain later). It's all bull. I mean if it was legitimate how could he cross to San Diego every week without getting stopped at the border. Also, Zeta is much more of a tabloid than it is a newspaper. The stories it writes are so spectacular that no one actually believes their stories, they only read it for entertainment. - G

If any of you guys can read in spanish look at the spanish language article. It's actually much more factual and well written. Not just based on idiotic hear-say (If you could even call it that.

thanks for leaving your signature, bub --Verbose 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

FateClub: see? these are the people working for hank! trying to descredit zeta as a 'spectacular tabloid' read for 'entertainment'.. so why have their journalists won awards for? why have they been murdered? --Verbose 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The only think we can do here is to source everything. At this point, however, there are 3 negative sources for 1 neutral, so we have to work on that too. --FateClub 21:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
fateclub: i agrre with this, but his own page made by his own administration does *not* count as a "neutral" source.. is the white house's website a neutral source for george bush? i don't think so..
Articles usually include the official sites of the person or entity in question. --FateClub 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they've been awarded by any renowned mexican media sources. Also I don't work for Hank I only am frustrated by lies that a few people have written about him. Look at all the surces claiming those accusations, they all link to Blancornelas. And it's true that much more sources are needed for the page. Do you hguys ignore the hundreds of articles written about when he's worked as mayor? Proving that you guys are biased. --G

"been awarded by any renowned mexican media sources." 1.-media sources don't give eachother awards. 2.-international journalism awards have more merit than national ones, not less.
"Look at all the surces claiming those accusations, they all link to Blancornelas." narconews is not owned by blancornelas. local writters cited by the l.a. times articles are not linked to blancornelas. blancornelas is already dead, anyway. why are you deleting negative things about the guy? just publish more positive things about him. you do your pro-hank work and let us do the anti-hank work, which takes more balls, but is actually easier to do, since there is just so much crap to write about the guy.--Verbose 03:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually we are not supposed to write pro or anti content about anybody, especially about living people, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The issue is not about having balls, it does not take any courage to write on here, as you may be aware by Wikipedia:Abuse reports. We cannot write "crap" about people in wikipedia just because others do so, every source must be reputable and reliable. --FateClub 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
"Actually we are not supposed to write pro or anti content about anybody, especially about living people". i've never seen myself as someone who contributes "anti-" or "pro-" content. i'm interested in the truth. people like "g" are the ones who are trying to frame this argument as a fight between a "pro-" and an "anti-" camp. i'm only using their own language to show the absurdity of their claims. facts are facts. it is true that i dislike mr hank, but this is not a reaction that happened in a vacuum, out of pure "a priori" speculation. there are well-researched, well-documented facts that prove the man is a criminal, and since this is not an opinion, i cannot have a biased point of view. points of view are creatures of interpretation, and i am dealing only with facts. removal of facts does not a more neutral article make. both "g" and you have suggested adding more "positive" facts.. so go out and get them. quit removing my "negative" facts. "it does not take any courage to write on here" it does if you want to write about hank rhon and you live in tijuana.. do you know how many journalists, photographers and news anchors are threatened and harassed because they've taken a critical stance against the corruption in his administration? don't even get me started on his orwellian cameras. "We cannot write "crap" about people in wikipedia just because others do so". i am not to blame for mr hank's lack of ethical judgement. his weak values and loose scruples, and the consequences that these have reaped on his peers and on his image, are guilts of his own. i can only cover them here. as wikipedia contributors, our responsibility is to the convey empirical truth, and not to be arbitrators of politeness.
We are supposed to stay neutral and stick to reputable sources. Source everything, and abstain from having your self-confessed negative point of view reflect on the article. It's as simple as that, if you cannot stay neutral then do not oppose when others edit the article. Wikipedia states: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." You may want to visit Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as well as Wikipedia:Attribution. --FateClub 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

See. My point exactly. how can a person like this edit an encyclopedia. Besides, if what oyu claim are facts, show me those facts and then I will be "enlightened." my issue with this article is that you guys weigh too much the negative parts of his life, and fail to focus on the part that most people care about. People don't consider him corrupt or a criminal, but a politician who is trying to do a good job politcally (whether you agree or not that he is, remains irrelevent). My point is that this article should be written froma completely neutral point of view. And this hear say is not neutral or fatcs, but merely rumors. If you can find facts than go right ahead. - G

[edit] Political information

For him being a politician this article lacks information on his campaign for president of Tijuana as well as his performance as the mayor once he won. --FateClub 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is a lot more accurate now.