Talk:Andrés Manuel López Obrador/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Debate

Ok, many things to comment.

1) Reforma's ciber poll is not an indication of the general population feeling. Reforma's ciber poll targets paying subscripted readers who have access to the internet. Talk about the opinion of the minority. Reforma themselves show that their internet poll are not representative of the population.

2) Many national newspapers are calling this the "debate of the proposals", in which candidates proposed solutions, instead of trying to stain the other candidates. No mention of the Ahumada case or even of AMLO's unassistance to the first debate was mentioned. AMLO even praised the civility of the deabtes. This shouldo also be mentioned, I think.

3) Jorge Fernandez Meléndez said that the presence of Lopez Obrador "showed that there where two candidates more" ("sobraban dos candidatos", he said). Jorge Fernandez Meléndez is a rightist political commentator. It is clear that such comments would indicate that AMLO was the light of the debate. His proposals might not have been as good or as complete as Calderon's, but public opinion clearly sensed that AMLO was important in the debate.

4) Before declaring a winner of the debate, it would be wise to wait and see how opinion polls fare them. I hear rumors (friends who work in papers) giving Calderón a lead, Mercado in second place just slightly over AMLO. Of course, these rumors must be confirmed by published polls before they appear in wikipedia. These polls, and not the Reforma ciber poll, are the ones that should be used to show who won.

5) If you don't beat me to it, I'll make these changes tomorrow morning. It's been a long day and I'm sleepy.

Hari Seldon 05:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you say that, considering the recent electoral intention polls, it would be ok to say that López Obrador was the winner of the second debate? After all, his actions in the debate triggered a growing popularity for him that have him back in first spot. Hari Seldon 08:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Metro/metrobus criticism paragraph

I've fixed this paragraph to what I think is a much more NPOV form, while still retaining at least the majority of the facts in it. Comments are welcome. I'd like to go into more detail on the pros and cons of the metrobus, but that probably belongs on the Metrobus page. JZ 22:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

IFeito: The "uses up a lane on an already crowded avenue" part is arguably untrue, or at least misleading. First of all, Avenida Insurgentes has the same number of lanes for cars now as it had before the Metrobus, since the lanes were made narrower, and so was the middle part. Also, the Metrobus took over for a large number of privately operated buses on the same avenue, which stopped at random places and blocked traffic. Additionally, left turns were prohibited, which reduced the number of cars waiting before intersections to turn left. Arguably, Insurgentes car traffic flows better now than it did before the Metrobus, because of all these factors. "Using up a lane on an already crowded avenue" makes it sound like it had a huge impact on the car traffic, and if we're going to state that, I'd like to see some references. JZ 09:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Joakim, I don't think a reference is warranted, the metrobus uses up a lane in insurgentes, a subway wouldn't have used it up. That's pretty straight forward. Improved flow in Insurgentes comes from the fact that all left turns were cancelled and NOT from the metrobus using up a lane. Schicchi 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you ignore the part where I said that there are as many lanes now as there were before, because the existing lanes and the central area of the avenue were both narrowed? JZ 20:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Joakim, regardless if there are as many lanes now as there where before for cars, it appears that the MEtrobus uses up one lane. Since this page is about criticism, why not make the paragarph say the following:

The metrobus is crticized because it uses up a lane that the subway would not have used. However, due to the norrowing of the lanes and the central area (of gardens, if I remember correctly) where norrowed, the available lanes for automobiles remain the same.

Would this do credit to both sides? Hari Seldon 22:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that wording. JZ 01:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hari & Joakim, what would've happened if they had narrowed the "camellón" and made a subway available? See my point? However you look at it, the Metrobus solution uses up one lane on the street where it's implemented. If I remember right, the original article on Scientific American on the Curitiba bus system never mentioned using dedicated lanes. Perhaps it would be interesting to implement that solution in other "rutas" in Mexico City. However fighting against the establishment of colectiveros is not easy, many of them are affiliated with PRI & PRD groups. Schicchi 21:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

From my political standpoint, I criticize everything of Mexico's public transit cities in all its cities. Yet, I don't think this is a place to put personal criticism, rather criticism in the media. I don't recall anyone in the media pointing what you say, that they'd rather see a subway in Insurgentes AND the narrowing of the lanes. The wording I suggest talks about the criticism for the dedicated lane, but also explains Mexico City's government pragmatical solution. Hari Seldon 22:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with HSeldon here, the wording he's suggesting seems balanced. You're arguing that the government should have done something completely different, which is irrelevant to the Metrobus. HSeldon, I think you can go ahead and implement the wording you're suggesting. JZ 22:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Done Hari Seldon 22:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

"It is to be noted that the poorest segment of Mexico, who are presumed to have more likely voted for Lopez Obrador, are less likely to own telephones and are therefore likely underrepresented in this survey" Is this original research? The source http://gruporeforma.elnorte.com/graficoanimado/encuestas/amlo_nombramiento/ needs a ID and password, so i cant see the article, but i dont believe they would put that on they own survey, BTW, i live in mexico, and a LOT of people who voted for AMLO owns telephones, he got a lot of votes on urban centers, like Mexico City, and a lot of the poorest people actually voted for the PRI --148.210.144.98 04:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't original research, but a common criticism against telephone polls in Mexico. There is over 40% of the population that live in misery (defined as earnings of less than a dollar a day). This 40% of the population are very less likely to own telephones, and therefore are not represented in the survey, which is a telephone poll. Indeed, it is presumed by Lopez Obrador and his party that this segment voted for him, and since it is less likely to be represented in the survey, then adding the phrase as context is necessary. However, the phrase does not state a fact. It states that it is presumed that this segment voted for Lopez Obrador, but it is not sure that they did. It also states that it is less likely that they own a telephone and are likely underrepresented, but it doesn't state it as a fact. This is an assumption that is common criticism. It is not original research. Hari Seldon 08:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's just an assumption by a portion of the population, that we dont know how big, and we cant quantify, it dont belong to wikipedia, say, if a belive the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster, and that AMLO is his son, should I add it? I can get at least 100 people to say they belive the same!!, only information that comes from reliable source should be admited, wikipedia should not be a place to put whatever you believe unless there is a good source, I vote for it to be removed --201.150.79.251 02:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't just "an assumption":

Fact #1: Mexico has over 40 million people living in extreme poverty

Fact #2: Most of those 40 million people do not have access to a telephone

Fact #3: It is presumed that most of those 40 million people voted, or favored, Lopez Obrador

Fact #4: People who do not have access to a telephone (like those 40 million that are presumed favored Lopez Obrador) are underrepresented in Telephone polls.

Therefore, the common criticism is valid and factual. The point here is not to argue that Lopez Obrador followers were underrepresented in the poll, or to argue that Lopez Obrador continues to be popular. There is no factual evidence towards any of those claims and I believe the wording in the article leaves that quite clear. However, the poll conducted by Reforma is far from perfect and I believe it to be fair that the most important point of contention with the poll remains in the article: Some people presume that the poor voted for Lopez Obrador, and those do not have a telephone and are not taken into account in telephone polls. Hari Seldon 05:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Help, the article is too wide for my browser

Can someone fix the article? Chivista 16:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC) Thkx

fourteen years at the University

Hi Roman, The information that is going around on the Internet states that López Obrador spent fourteen years at the University, before he was able to graduate. When he finally did graduate, he did not complete the necessary work (thesis) to receive an official degree.

Source it. Hari Seldon 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

German Martinez from PAN, in a radio interview with Juaquin Lopez Doriga said that López Obrador:

1) Did not conclude in "time and shape" his career.

2) He spent more than the "reglamentary time" in University

3) Has a fake official degree "probably brought from Santo Domingo".

4) Did not complete his thesis

5) He did not achieve the required credits to finish his career.

He failed to source his claims.

He was refuted by Cesar Yanez (AMLO's spokesman) during that same interview, who showed a certified copy (signed by Leopoldo Silva, who is the dean of the university administration) of the document that states that AMLO did fully finish his career in "time and shape" and has an official degree in "Public Finances & Government".

He also showed a copy of the "Cedula Profesional (Professional Certificate)" of AMLO which "leaves no doubt" that AMLO did complete his professional studies.

German Martinez from PAN only limited himself to say that "the PRD and AMLO are lying" and showed an un-certified copy of the "Academic History" of AMLO which showed that AMLO only covered 252 of the required 300 credits.

The interview is located here (audio, in spanish): http://www.radioformula.com.mx/multimedia/jld/130606_jld2.ram

A couple days later, Joaquin Lopez Doriga invited Leopoldo Silva (Dean of the UNAM's University Administration) for an interview about the claims that AMLO did not finish his career.

He stated that the documents showed by the PAN showing that AMLO had only 252 of 300 credits covered was obtained illegaly and that they are incomplete.

He showed the full certified academic history, showing 316 credits.

He stated that the laws which limit the time you can spend in the UNAM were imposed in 1997, 10 years AFTER Lopez Obrador received his title and are not retroactive, which means they only apply to students who joined the UNAM in 1997 or after.

Before 1997 there was no limit on the ammount of time it took a student to graduate.

This interview is in spanish and located here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP6VvJxXzaM

A transcription of both interviews is here http://senderodefecal.blogspot.com/2006/06/transcripcion-de-la-entrevista-del.html

Also, you can view the details of his thesis here http://132.248.67.4:4500/ALEPH/SPA/TES/TES/TES/FIND-ACC/2647110

The server is from the UNAM as a reverse DNS lookup will show http://remote.12dt.com/rns/lookup.php

Results

132.248.67.4 resolves to

"ultrasun2.dgbiblio.unam.mx"

Top Level Domain: "unam.mx"

• Sometimes it works, and sometimes the server is down, in the meantime here's a screenshot of it. http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1640/668/1600/tesisamlo.jpg

In my opinion, this is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how long he took to graduate. If there is a document that shows he graudated, then he did and that's all we need. I don't think that the lenght of time it took for him to graduate holds any relevance to his person. Hari Seldon 21:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I don't understand some people from PAN making a lot of noise about AMLO taking 10 years to finish his career without looking at Vicente Fox who did it in more than 30 years (started around 1960, dropped out and finished in 1999 right before becomming president).

Background

I just don't understand. At one point I have read in the background that Obrador did not graduate and he is drop-out? Was this inaccurate info? Now is says it graduated with a degree. As a person from Azerbaijan I am confused. Which info is right? I assume this was vandalism by the people from the right or his opponent's supporters? More info appreciated. --Roman123 18:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

AMLO's college grades have been distributed around the Internet as a proof of him being a drop-out; however, it isn't clear who started to distribute this information or even if it's true. It doesn't look like vandalism, though; it's just something that has to be clarified by reliable sources. --Benighted 192.88.212.44 18:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reliable source available to confirm or deny this, so I think it is best to just not precise how much time it took AMLO to graduate. In any case, it makes little difference. Hari Seldon 17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone claiming to know how long he took to finish his studies is doing something illegal, since you cannot have information from anyone besides of you at the university. It is all a fake! 201.141.26.16 01:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Head of Government of the Federal District

The quote from the Economist that claims that his record was "patchy" is a misleading quote. It makes it look like the Economist made an analysis of his years as a mayor.

It wasn't. It was a story about his campaign. The article is careful to qualify how there are people that found his record as mayor as a problem in the center of the article. The quote calling his record "patchy" is in the concluding paragraph, calling back to the well qualified section.

I propose erasing that line, and finding another serious article or analysis that really focuses on his years as mayor that is critical of Lopez Obrador, since the sentence is trying to provide balance.

--Hugo Estrada 19:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Under "Legal & Political Controversies" we find the claim that the Metro was neglected. In fact, the expenditures for replacing Metro rolling stock (43 trains) were TEN times greater than the expenditure for the elevated roadway that is now part of the southern half of the Periferico-West.

Miguelkelley 16:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Left vs. Center-Left

I think there is a general agreement that AMLO is center-left, per previous discussion. However, the PRD is not a center-left party, it is a grouping of many factions from different parts of the left-spectrum. I think that it would be best to avoid placing an adjective on the PRD in this page, because there is already a page for the PRD where editors can do just that. I think the most appropriate thing to do is simply call AMLO center-left, and avoid categorizing the PRD. If a categorization of the PRD is necessary, I think the most accurate one is "leftist" or "left-wing", considering the plurality of the party. Hari Seldon 15:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a very bad idea trying to apply a left-centre-right label to a politician in the opening line of an article. These labels are always subjective and open to challenge. The PRD is historically a left-wing party and should be described as such. If AMLO is on the moderate wing of the party that should be said somewhere later in the text. Adam 16:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I find that agreeable, but I think we should wait to see what other opinions the other editors have. Hari Seldon 20:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think one reason AMLO is not defined as left-wing politician, it´s his huge support among people who doesn´t identify with any party. This people come from very different backgrounds, and I really believe (that's my opinion) their support is for the candidate, not for the party. Therefore, his actions must take into account their ideals. User: gchavez77 27 June 2006

The political opinions of those who vote for him are not really relevant to the question of how he should be described. If he has cross-party appeal, that can be noted (if appropriately sourced). Adam 06:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that he has a cross-party appeal. Many people in Mexico consider themselves as "independent", just as people in the u.s. who are not republican or democrat.User: gchavez77 27 June 2006

It doesn't matter who are the supporters of the candidate. His place in the political spectrum are defined by his actions and by his political platform. If you please read the article for left-wing politics, and if you see the international sources who cite Lopez Obrador as "center-left", then it is clear that no discussion is needed. AMLO is center-left, the PRD is left, as is shown in the sources. The political ideology of those who support the candidate are irrelevant. For example, Fox was elected partly because of the support of the "independent left", who voted for him. Does that make Fox a left-wing politician? I think that whomever supported Fox is irrelevant to define that his Presidency and his Party are clearly right or center-right (or in the odd cases, such as Diego Fernandez, far-right). Same happens with AMLO and PRD. Hari Seldon 14:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg to disagree with Mr. Seldon, a politician creates an agenda in part based on what his/her constituency expects from such a person, at least that's how a democracy works. If your constituency is far-right you can not be labelled as "center", that is very obvious. Besides that Seldon is right, it is easier to label AMLO as center-left. Pabloblns, 1 july 2006.

I agree that a democracy works with candidates following the demands of its constituents. However, Mexico is not a perfect democracy, and these politicians (AMLO, Calderon, Madrazo) were all doing politics before democratic elections where allowed. They bring their platform based on their party's interests, and not in what their constituency demands. Besides, the political platform is not an important factor influencing the elector's decisions as much as a perception of corruption. Hari Seldon 17:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mexico not a perfect democracy? Can you show me a perfect democracy? Certainly not the US, where vote fraud is rife. Obrador is right to declare vote fraud, as the following posts prove: http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article1967.html

'And then there was a call saying that the state police barracks at Santa Maria Coyotepec held thousands of ballots which the troops were busily marking for distribution to the polls at the close of the day – a believable scenario given that so many polling places had “inadvertently” run out of ballots. The caller said his uncle, a police officer, just couldn’t bring himself to do it and blew the whistle. The uncle said the police had been working for three days to mark the ballots. The caller’s voice wavered with emotion as he described his uncle’s information. http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article1958.html Brian

Brian: By saying Mexico is not a perfect democracy, I wasn't claiming other countries where. In any case, the position that politicans do not report to constituents stands. Don't you agree? Hari Seldon 01:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have changed far-left politician to left-leaning politician. 10:36 July 06, 2006 (EST) Andres Aullet

Mr. Obrador is a far-Left politician. National Review calls him a "radical Leftist," while FNC refers to him as a "leftist," Mexico's Leftist Candidate Calls for Mass Protest. I think it is appropriate at the least to label him a leftist. - MSTCrow 20:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• The National Review is a right-wing American magazine that sees anyone who doesn't agree with its own views as "left" wing. Fox News is another right-wing, biased source.

--Hugo Estrada 19:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Hugo, since you are a perfectly neutral source you do have the right to call "Fox News" right-wing, but the National Review does not have the right to call AMLO "left-wing"? Your reasoning is not very bright. I thought this issue had been resolved months ago! AMLO can be called "center-left", and there is nothing wrong with calling him "left leaning" or "left-wing", after all, it is just a political position. What is so wrong about calling someone a "leftist"? Is being from the left something to be ashamed of? Hari Seldon 01:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What about calling him a leftist with a strong populist tendency? LuisDS

Again, leftist: Mexico Stops the Chavez Left - MSTCrow 00:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bah. Both the BBC and the Economist call him centre-left (and I have more faith in the objectivity of those sources than in Buckley's mag or the Murdoch news machine). AMLO's style is inflammatory, but the substance is pretty moderate. Half his trouble in the party comes from his not being radical enough for the real lefties in the PRD (Michoacán and Zacatecas come to mind -- whose support was missing from his campaign?) and having surrounded himself with wishy-washy ex-PRI centrists like Camacho Solís and Ebrard (both involved, at one point, in a highly forgettable something called the Partido del Centro Democrático). Aille 14:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, try this. Time magazine, July 17 2006, a liberal news mag, on page...um, ok, no page numbers, but on the second half of the Notebook spread in the beginning of the magazine, includes the statement "member of Mexician presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's leftist party.(italics my own)" I think it's starting to stretch credulity here to pretend he's anything but a leftist in a leftist party. - MSTCrow 23:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That Time reference is to his party, not to AMLO himself (and, as has been stated a couple of times above, he is not on the radical wing of that party). Here's a story from today's English-language Mexican press that identifies AMLO (not the party) as "center-left" (from the El Universal / Miami Herald alliance, which is itself probably on the center-right of national journalism). And I'm sure we could go on endlessly in the same vein... What I will do is confess that part of my dislike of the word 'leftist', irrespective of whether or not it applies to López Obrador, are the derogatory undertones it carries, courtesy of its use by people like Buckley, FOX (er... no, not Fox) and Horowitz. "Leftist" really doesn't achieve anything that 'left of center' doesn't, other than that deprecatory tone and the saving of a cm or two of column space. Calderón is not identified as a "rightist" on his article, and correctly so -- there's something not entirely pleasant in how that -ist suffix has come to be used. Aille 17:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've thought about it, and would like to suggest he be listed as classified as center-left by some, and leftist by some. - MSTCrow 22:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Rueters calls Obrador "leftist: Mexican leftist says he is president, vows protests - MSTCrow 09:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit by 201.143.182.131

I'm tempted to just delete his post, but let's see what he has to show for pictures of the rally. Schicchi 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Dirty War (guerra sucia) commentary

I don't agree with the removal of the mention of the dirty war. Dirty war not only refers to TV ads and spots against AMLO, but also against Calderón and other candidates. There are a lot of mentions in the press, where it clearly demonstrates that the fall of AMLO in the polls was a direct repercusion of the TV ads against him. Later in the campaign, the IFE (the electoral council) ruled that most of this TV ads were difamatory, and they had to be removed. This also happened with TV ads against Calderón. user gchavez77

The most respected pollster in Mexico, Maria de las Heras, disagrees. Maria de las Heras predicted the electoral victories of Vicente Fox and Rodriguez Zapatero when every other poll disagreed. She has placed AMLO at the top by 3 porcentual points THROUGHOUT the election and she has said that the so-called "dirty war" (which is only a campaign strategy) had no effect on Lopez Obrador, and that his supposed fall had more to do with his party's nomination of candidates to deputies and senators and other local offices. Therefore, the Dirty War comment is irrelevant to the page.

Furthermore, this page discusses AMLO, his policies, and his actions, and not campaign wars, which are natural phenomena in campaigns everywhere. Perhaps the dirty war should be mentioned in the 2006 Mexico General Election page.

Besides, the original comment made no mention of the PRD ads against Calderón, and the fact that the "dirty war" was a two-sided issue.

Finally, I wouldn't call it a "dirty-war", because it isn't. I'll call it a denigratory campaign strategy: candidates run ads to define their opponents in a poor way, instead of running ads to define themselves and their proposals positively. In fact, AMLO ran very few ads about his proposals, because he used alternative communication to expose them.

Hari Seldon 22:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, youve never heard of Televisa.

Unsigned commentator: Yes, I've heard of Televisa, and it has its own Wikipedia entry! If you want to discuss Televisa, please do so there. Hari Seldon 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Two things: Maria de las Heras is not the "most respected pollster" in Mexico and you can't use the sentence "Guerra Sucia" (Dirty war) to name simple propaganda. I have seen very much agressive TV ads in many local elections in the USA. This is just another strategy of the PRD fanatics to gain international atention. But those ads only said "Lopez Obrador is a danger to Mexico" ans stuff like that. Is taht a "Dirty War" ?? The sanme "Dirty War" was used back in the 70s when the ruling party used to order the massive assesination of communist groups and political oponents, but it has nothing in common with that ridiculous ad campaigns. C'mon this is supossed to be a democracy. Are the parties supossed to praise their rivals in their ad campaigns ??

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 15:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to declare a winner at all, I don't think it's Wikipedia's place. We can report on IFE's conclusions and the process from now until Wednesday, with few problems. If the elections are very close and more than one candidate fails to accept defeat, we should report on that process too. Obviously, vandalism of articles declaring anyone to be the winner before the actual elections, or before the elections end, should just be removed. When exit polls are published on Sunday night, however, I see nothing wrong with keeping Wikipedia up to date (although it might be a bit tedious to update all candidates' pages, so it should probably be kept to the election article). In other words, keep removing vandalism, and don't worry too much about it. JZ 09:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you. Hari Seldon 17:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but smile! we all mexicans are going to win if this is a clean election.

Anonymous: I have no doubt that tomorrow's election will be among the cleanest in Mexico's history, and regardless of the winner, Mexico will be a better country after the elections! Hari Seldon 23:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

NOONE can declare a winner except TRIFE. IFEs rush to declare Calderon winner followed by the media pack is fraudulent, adn shows collusion between IFE and PAN. Here is mexican newsweekly Proceso: '“The decision by the IFE to leave the announcement of its PREP results in suspense, in spite of the fact it could have done so before midnight on Sunday, confirms that this agency has been an ally of the federal government in its goal of avoiding, at all costs, the arrival of Andrés Manuel López Obrador to the presidency.” http://www.narconews.com/Issue42/article1967.html Brian

Brian you are rushing too in your comments. IFE delcares who got the majority and TRIFE confirms it if there are no proofs of fraud. TRIFE cannot declare a winner by itself because it is a judicial body (it is a court=tribunal) that does not count the votes, it simply oversees the legality of the procedure. IFE calls the election on the basis of relative majority on a first-past-the-post system. Secondly, you should know by now that both Proceso and La Joranda are left-wing publications and pro-AMLO, they cannot be taken as neutral. Thirdly, not calling the election (i.e. declaring a winner) on Sunday night was AGREED by all parties if the difference on the exit polls (encuestas de salida) was close to or less than the statistical error (0.3%). Since that was the case, IFE, as agreed by all parties, decided to defer its announcement. Fourthly, not calling an election does not constitute by itself a proof of fraud; not calling an election does not even constitute a proof of an "alliance between the federal government and IFE". Moreover your citation (narconews.com) assumes AMLO won a priori. --Alonso 16:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is unfair to jump into conclusions based upon personal perceptions (like the PRD calling for a conspiracy between the federal government and the IFE or the national leader of PAN, Manuel Espino demanding the IFE to name his candidate the winner of the election based on the PREP, when they knew that 3 million votes were not counted yet). This is a very controversial issue, however, I beg to differ in calling certain newspapers PRO or agains any candidate. I have had this discussion with the editor of the Reforma article. If you assume that la Jornada and Proceso are biased, then which publications can you trust? The people supporting AMLO would say that the other newspapers are pro Calderon, and we can keep arguing forever. I think that in order to make an article onjective both sources should be cited and comments pertaining to each of the sourrces should be made, letting THE READER MAKE HIS OWN CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FACTS PROVIDED. I have seen that people contributing in articles seldom keep in mind that they are not supposed to write opinions on their contributions, and they fail to recognize when they do so. Andres Lopez.

It is no surprise that journals and newspapers editorials have a political preference, not only in Mexico, but pretty much everywhere in the world (e.g. Washington Post is regarded as a conservative newspaper; El Periódico in Spain is also conservative whereas Avui is liberal, etc.). That is why we must distinguish between facts and editorial opinions. What the PREP reported is a fact; to say it is fraudulent (or precise) is an opinion. You cannot cite Proceso and La Joranda, which are, explicitly left-wing (and even PRO-AMLO) publications to say that there was fraud, anymore that you can cite the El Universal editorial to "proof" there wasn't. Universal and Reforma do not mix editorial comments and news articles (they clearly separate them, so you can tell which is which) and Editorial Comments are only accessible through an explicit link, they are never (or rarely) posted on the main page. Proceso is a specialized publication which do not present news but opinions (it is not a newspaper, but a magazine; it doesn't "sell" news, it sells the "analysis" of their editors, ergo opinions). --Alonso 14:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I might be mistaken but what I gather from your the previous paragraph is that (according to you) La Jornada and Proceso are not reliable sources of information. I honestly think that this is very hard to judge, and I think that you are going a little bit too far in your comments. What I can say though, is that if they are major circulation media, they would require mention in an article specially when they provide information that no one else does. Don't you think? Andres Lopez.

Yes you are mistaken, or you are not reading what I wrote thoroughly. I NEVER said they are not reliable. Read my comments again, please. I will repeat myself: La Joranda and Proceso, as almost EVERY other newspaper and journal in the planet are politically oriented in their editorial comments (do you know what a note or letter of the editor is?). In other words, if you want to use La Jornada to provide DATA and FACTS, they are, as any other newspaper, RELIABLE (i.e. GOOD!) sources of information. But you CANNOT use La Jornada, neither Reforma nor El Universal, or whatever newspaper you read, to prove something based on the point of view that is expressed in the SUBJECTIVE opinion of an editor in an Editorial comment or the Opinion Section (unless, of course, proof is provided within the article). I will try to be crystal clear this time: If La Jornada presents the results of PREP, it is showing data: it is reliable. If La Jornada says PREP is fraudulent (and the case hasn't even been taken to court, that is, it has NOT been proved nor disproved, and La Jornada doesn't have any first-hand access to the proofs) then that is a very respectable opinion from the editor, but nonetheless an opinion, never a proof. I have nothing against la Jornada; so to make myself clear I will say it differently: If El Universal's Editor writes an article explicitly stating that PREP was precise, flawless and "fraud-less" but does not provide any proof (and again, the case has not been yet proved or disproved by anyone) then it is ONLY an opinion and you should NOT cite him as a proof of your thesis. You might (though I deem it unnecessary for any serious encyclopedia) cite it as a respectable opinion amongst thousands, but never a proof. Am I making myself clear now?? --Alonso 16:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Alonso, I apologize , I did not notice your first sentence stating "editorials". I agree that it is preposterous to cite editorials as sources. My argument was about citing these two publications in articles, as unbelivable as it may be , I have seen people state that they can not be used because of their political tendencies. I appreciate your time and comments and I again apologize for this misunderstanding. Andres Lopez.

Well, at least we can agree that we shouldn't write into the Wikipedia that there is a winner until the TRIFE decides to do so. Finally, I would like to add that in the past we have tried to replace cited editorials with cited news. In general, my personal opinion is that La Jornada is too to the left to be considered reliable, and I think that we can greatly improve the quality of this entry by providing the best quality sources (more reliable news sources with little editorials). I want to stress that I don't think that we shouldn't use La Jornada because it is leftist, rather point that some of their articles, as well as some of the articles of other sources, may not be reliable. If we find an article, regardless of which media outlet prints it, in which the general wording, style and journalistic value seems to be unreliable, it is best to avoid it. In general, we have avoided Reforma here because it is subscription based over the Internet as well. So, the ideal source is a neutral article with neutral wording, neutral style and high journalistic value that is freely available over the internet. Granting that this is close to impossible to find, I think we should make an effort in finding a source that approaches the ideal. In the case of "who wins" the election (which is the sub-topic of this discussion), such a high profile event should be covered by a lot of media outlets, and so a reliable source should not be impossible to find. Hari Seldon 17:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the comment by Hari Seldon about a neutral article with neutral wording, neutral style and high journalistic value that is freely available over the internet source, I strongly recommend http://www.esmas.com/ Check it out. It might be not ideal but it's a very good source. Thank you for your great work on the Wikipedia. 201.144.65.214

Citations

could someone please give some refs for this statement:

• López Obrador used the moment to advance his popularity, and even put himself in a position where he was about to set foot on jail, only to be bailed out by political opponents who claimed Lopez Obrador should follow the same judicial process as anyone else. One of the largest public marches ever seen was organized in support of López Obrador against the desafuero. Opponents questioned the validity of the march, since some attendants appear to have been brought to the march by López Obrador's support team.

Actually, the entire Desafuero section needs refs and clean-up --gloushire 23:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Election Results

I think now that the results of the election are known a complete reorganization of the article is in order. Let's hope the section for "post electoral conflict" doesn't end up being too long.

Couldnt resist commenting - whatever happened on these ellections, 60% of the population would get a president they didnt choose. Its imo an inherent error of the electional system - a second round of voting or prefferential voting sistem is absolutely necessary with more than 2 significant candidates.

Mexico's electoral system is a First Past the Post system, which means that only relative majority is needed not absolute majority. Moreover since voting is a "prerrogative" (according to the constitution) but not compulsory nor enforced (unlike most countries in South America), a second round would be useless for the same reason: if only 50% of the population chooses to vote and the candidate wins with 50% + 1 vote (absolute majority on a second round) then it can be said that 75% would get a president they didn't choose. Second rounds would only meet the purpose you suggest if there is compulsory suffrage, as it is the case in most countries in South America that do use second rounds (e.g. Chile and Argentina) --Alonso 16:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure I follow this logic re num of people actually using their right to vote - anyone who cared to choose would have chosen the president majority of them preffered, whereas now majority of people who cared to choose their president got a president they explicitly didnt vote for; theres no reason to suppose ppl who didnt vote were in any sense opposed to the ellected president, whoever got ellected, as you have, while that can reasonably be thought for people who actually voted for some of presidents competitors, and should at least be checked in another round, or better, by ranking votes - incentive for strategic voting is incredibly strong without it. As a voting sistem, all else in the legislature being equal, a first past the post will certaly show the will of people simply matematically worse than a prefferential sysem, or even its two round approximation. Two rounds without forcing everyone to vote is pretty common in europe, at least where the president has significant authority, and sometimes even when not.

I'm sorry but I understood only half of what you said. I don't know if this discussion is relevant at all to this article, but since you are writing anonimously, we cannot continue this conversation on you talk page. Assuming those who did not vote would have voted for the candidate preferred by the majority is irrational, you cannot assume anything about preferences of those who choose not to vote; in fact, as it was the case in Mexico, EZLN had asked the citizens not to vote but to support the "other alternative" (i.e. their movement); others may not have voted because they didn't like ANY of the possible candidates. Whichever is the case, at least these two groups of people will get a president they don't like, a president they didn't explicitly vote for. Now, while two rounds are common in Europe where voting is not compulsory, all but one of the European states operate with parliamentary systems or semi-presidential systems (prime minister is elected from legislature and president is chief of state or figurehead) whereas Mexico operates under a full presidential system (president is elected separated from legislature and is both chief of government and chief of state). Moreover the majority of European states do not use first-past-the-post (UK being a notable exception) but proportional representation (or a mixture of both), an electoral system which, by its very nature, produces multi-party system in which on rare ocassions a single party ever gets absolute majority, and in which coalitions (or second rounds) are necessary in order for the legislature to elect a prime minister (and sometimes the president, depending on the country). Since the president has all executive authority in Mexico and since it is elected independently from the legislature, a first-past-the-post with relative majority does the job without the need of forming parliamentary coalitions. In fact, Mexico uses both first-past-the-post and proportional representation to elect the legislature on both houses. --Alonso 14:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I unfrequently use this account so dont have the good habbit to login when commenting, youre right, this is irrelevant to the article - but I watched the crisis these ellections created in mexico with some interest, and visited this page in search of some information - my first reaction was mainly that this shouldnt have happened with a better election system. The two round ellections (while still unnecessarely suboptimal) are not used or related to the proportional voting used in parlamentary ellections, (hence the whole discussion of the system used for ellecting the parlament you explain here is completely irrelevant), but for direct ellection of the president, essentially identical to the way president is ellected in the proportional vote countries, and usually where hes rather powerfull (like semi-presidential) but also in directly ellecting the president of some parlamentary system countries, even thought hes not too relevant there (more than a figurehead though). I supossed nothing about the non-voters, but indeed thought them irrelevant to the argument, though you used them as a point, I failed to express myself if ive given you a different impression - people that didnt vote simply didnt vote, have willingly choosen to make their opinion irrelevant to the mechanism of the ellections and so cannot be part of the argument about the ellectoral system; those who did vote, due to there being more than 2 strong candidates and a system that ellects by prularity and not seeking actual majority approval in an unacceptibly huge number got a president they explicitly chose against, and no chance to express who they'd actually (rather) support. --Aryah 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed broken link

• Editorial in El Universal by Ricardo Pascoe, founding member of the PRD

Signed:Travb (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Two official sites in Spanish?

Which site is the official site of AMLO?

• (in Spanish) "Official Campaign site". amlo.org. Retrieved 2006-07-11.
• (in Spanish) "Official site of Andrés Manuel López Obrador". Lopez-obrador.com.mx. Retrieved 2006-07-11.

Maybe both?

Signed Travb (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The first one is the official campaign site. The second one may be a fan page, but it clearly is not official. Hari Seldon 17:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

- He is a supporter of Venezuela's Dictator Hugo Chavez. - He is violent, he has kidnapped Mexico City with blockades.

• Do you have any proofs of Lopez Obrador supporting Hugo Chavez? Why do you say Hugo Chavez is a dictator? I thought he was elected democratically. Can he be a dictator then? Do you have sources?
• Lopez Obrador has not killed or attacked anyone but the government has (Atenco, Oaxaca, Chiapas...). Why is he considered violent? Because of demonstrating? That is a right for every Mexican (so it is stated in the constitution; you can do that too if you want). Considering also, that there are many proofs of a fraud I see the blockading legitim: if all votes are counted, the blockade will come to an end. (And please don't think I'm supporting the blockading, I'm just saying it is legitim).

Why do you think he has kidnapped Mexico City? He is not allowing cars to get into ONE avenue. Does this really mean kidnapping a city? Please give your sources! Else we do not know if it is just your opinion (or the one of someone you saw at a TV show) or if it is fundamented. Aldera 16:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV discussion on rallies

I know that these events passed months ago, but I, who lives in Mexico City, knows that he kidnapped the city. That avenue is 10 kilometers long (more than 6 miles) east-west, and in the center of town also the streets were blocked. We, who really live and work in this city, not just accamping and hearing a would-be dictator, were very damaged by all the blockades; I nearly lost my job, other business had to close and lost much money (also, many poor people (who in theory AMLO supports) lost their jobs, and I know at least two cases of people who died because an ambullance could'nt pass because the blockades.Gypaetus 20:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am deeply moved by what you had to suffer on account of this madman. If you can provide objective sources to prove that Lopez Obrador's actions created a generalized and encyclopedic-relevant affectation, then it would imperative to add it. (In fact, I think that there already is a reference to this in the article)...

The point is that events are interpreted differently by different people. Wikipedia has a policy of neutral point of view, but points of view must be properly sourced, referenced, and also be sufficiently relevant. What happened to one person is not relevant to an encyclopedia, but what happened to the downtown area of a major city is. Can you provide sources of these affectations that you refer to, so to expand the article in a neutral and objective fashion?

Hari Seldon 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Post-elections protest rallies

I think that the rally that is presently ocurring in the D.F. should be included to this article, because it is a big success ocurring right now.

Joachim Grissom----

You're right, this is absolutely relevant and I posted something about it, which was deleted earlier. I am going to post it again and I beg of the visitors of this article, especially Joakim, not to delete it without discussing about it as it contains only information that is both true and objective, which can also be verified 100%. The $200 million peso statistic is quoted from "El Economista" es follows: "Enérgica protesta de la IP contra AMLO. Lilia González / El Economista. Los empresarios capitalinos alzaron la voz ante el megaplantón de perredistas que ocasiona pérdidas por más de 200 millones de pesos diarios[...]" The source of this quote is <http://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/elfinanciero/portal/cfpages/contentmgr.cfm?docId=13841&docTipo=1&orderby=docid&sortby=ASC>. Thank you.

--RodGB 07:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this information should be added. However, I don't believe in "objective" point of view. I believe in neutrality, and that is what we should try to achieve. The first step is to add citations and sources to the paragraphs added. That would greatly help for its permanence in the article. Hari Seldon 08:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

the info is true, and neutral, AMLO even has offered apologies, altough he plans to continue the protest in Reforma Ave.

--Joachim Grissom 21:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to point out that this section does not inform the reader that the post-electoral protests were blocking traffic, despite the fact that López Obrador (as Head of Government) passed a law that specifically prohibited protesters from doing so. I don't recall the details, but maybe someone could do it and edit the entry.

Relevance

"According to the Royal Spanish Academy, the word Peje also means a resourceful and clever man. " Says this article.

My question is: Is this relevant at all?

I wasn't aware that AMLO was called "peje" because of this. As a matter of fact, I don't think this usage of the word "peje" is very common. In the case of AMLO, it seems clear that he is nicknamed "peje" because it is an abbreviation of "pejelagarto". Because of this, I believe that the aboved menctioned line is irrelevant to the article and should be deleted, or at the very least, added that such usages is not the reason why Lopez Obrador is called "peje", unless a citation of such usage exists... Hari Seldon 22:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to disagree. It may not be used very commonly but some supporters of AMLO know and use it because of its double meaning (I know some of them personally), so I'm not sure if it is an error to say both things. 201.141.26.16 01:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that we've been through this before. Should we also qualify FC's degree from the Kennedy School? It wasn't even a two year degree (one year program)? Let's refrain from pettiness, please. [[[User:65.42.93.23|65.42.93.23]] 02:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)]

Also, please note the two comments above, in which Hari Seldon and others have determined that this should not appear.

[[[User:65.42.93.23|65.42.93.23]] 02:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)]

Leadership

There are many leaders like Lopez Obrador.

Unfortunately they go by names like Mao, Stalin and Fidel.

72.82.214.157 23:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have the same opinion. Unfourtunately, there is no room for opinion in wikipedia articles, only sourced information. Hari Seldon 01:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Thus, the Talk Page entry. I'm just being chatty.

72.82.222.131 16:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's ok. Just want to make sure there is no justification for such opinions finding their way into articles that are supposed to be neutral. Hari Seldon 05:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that's what talk pages are for, acknowledging you are wrong and just stating your opinion. I want that creep out of the streets now but that's just a nobody's opinion.--GodEmperorOfHell 19:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS

First of all, you cannot cite Reuters articles and all unsourced criticism must be removed immediately per WP:BLP. Most of these sources appear to be Spanish language newspapers. This is unacceptable. This is a major politician. There are English sources for any authentic content. I'm tempted to add the TotallyDisputed template. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 04:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Andres manuel picture

I think the main picture of this page doesnot reflects the personality of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, and not only that, is really big so slow conections can have problems to see the whole page.

So im uploading a better and small picture. (with no copyright.)

Gogitotx 03:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)GogitotxGogitotx 03:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Article is a mess

perhaps not enough for a cleanup tag, but this article needs serious proofing. raw video links in the middle of text, some run-on sentences, and other problems. it also seem that there is some editorializing going on here which is not consistent with an encyclopedia entry. Emax0 04:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Some one is posting links all over the place.

Some one has gone and done what he thinks is a "civil duty" of posting a link to a video of a supposed election fraud. I neither agree or disagree with it, but it can not be in the middle of sentences.

speaking of messes...

"Neverheless, while Mr. Calderon promises to keep sending Mexican workers to the U.S.A. and to challenge the American will, Mr. Lopez Obrador wants to create jobs in Mexico for Mexicans."

What the hell is up with that? And there are a couple of other similarly bizarre sentences, too. --r. 12:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• if this article keeps having problems then please request semi-protection for it, this seems to be too contraversial for some to handle Emax0 21:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

There have been a number of comments regarding the election that are now all over the place in the article. THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT AMLO, NOT THE ELECTION. In addition, Wikipedia is not the place for discussing your views on the election, please find a discussion forum for that instead. I recognize from reading the article that it appears that some of the contributors are likely native Spanish speakers and that this may not be very clear, but please refrain from turning this article into a political debate. There are other articles, namely Mexican general election 2006 controversies where you can contribute information about problems in the election. This article is strictly about the man, so please stay on topic and be relevant to this topic. Thanks. Emax0 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

New changes

Hi, I'm the one who last changed the page. I'm new to Wikipedia and just wanted to even things out, since I looked at the article and it appeared too biased to me. I didn't mean to further polarize it.

So help me out with this. I understand only verifiable content is accepted in the articles. However, what qualifies as verifiable? Also, what do I do if I find a particular article highly controversial and/or biased? I'm not quite sure of the ettiquete here.

Thank you. Hope I can help in other articles...

• welcome to WP, please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~) after your post so we can see who you are. you will want to see the tutorials on npov and the policy on verifibility. you can also post a question on my talk page if you need more help. Emax0 04:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi - just an FYI that this article had some severe POV issues (still has, but I've reworked the worst, and will keep working at it), and was referenced in a high-traffic pro-AMLO blog on 18/sep/06... so some edit wars may be coming. If you are here due to the link on El Sendero, and feel like contributing, please keep in mind this is meant to be a neutral article about the 'person' AMLO. Election controversies and the like belong elsewhere (try Mexican general election 2006 controversies). En Espan~ol: Si vienes por la nota en El Sendero el 18/Sep/06, y deseas contribuir, por favor recuerda que este aspira a ser un articulo neutral acerca de Andres Manuel, persona. Controversias electorales y demas tienen otros articulos (como este). Mejor seria empezar un buen articulo sobre la CND. -- wolfe 05:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.amlo.org.mx/ and http://www.lopezobrador.org.mx/ both takes you to the same server [148.244.244.193] and I don't believe there is a need to have both links when it's just 1 website so 1 could be removed. --CarlosN 17:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is not acurate, stay on topic please.

Good evening everyone, there's a few things that surprised me when I was reading this article. First of all I think the article is about a biography about Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, not about electoral campaigns or political gossip.

Also, when quoting "specialists", please include a reliaiable source like an english-written newspaper and not spanish sources, as this article is in english. Don't try to use this biography as a forum to put "your" point of view with comments like "Most poeple were glad he didn't win" or "some specialists say..." without having proof of what you say, it is very confusing to read the news and read this biography and notice very different information.

What's wrong with Spanish-language newspapers? Internet translators aren't great, but they should be able to tell you whether a citation is fair. Besides, I'd imagine that a Mexican newspaper (which would probably be in Spanish) would have better information since they aren't playing telephone. Twin Bird 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

For example. ==I withdrew a sentence until further research is done== ...if you are a wikipedian then be one, please, please please, be one, and don't use this as a forum to write false information about this person.

Is he good? is he bad? is he a crook and a vile politician, or an honest person and national hero, this is not the place to talk about it, stay in the facts, only information that could give people a general idea of who he was without any tendencies.

======================================================

Yes, I think the same.. aslo I propose to edit the last paragrpah. It reads as if a he was legaly elected president and it seems likle is only presenting a biased one side point of view.

quote 'On 16 September a "National Democratic Convention" was held on the Zócalo. He was here given the title of "Legitimate President of México" by the convention participants, more than a million registered to vote, including some contingents of the PRD and PT. He called an establishment of a parallel goverment and shadow cabinet. He has also advocated to remove or reform several institutions, alleging they are spoilt and corrupt. He's also asked for changes to the consititution to ensure the institutions work "for the people", and provide wellfare and assistance to the elderly and other vulnerable groups.' --Irwin 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

A mediation case has been started by Joeblack 67. If the main article page continues to get vandalized then I would advise people to seek an administrator to initiate a partial lockdown - to ban only unregistered users from editing the page. Jsw663 09:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Done, this makes sense. —Xyrael / 12:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Double linking

Can someone de-link "Mayor of Mexico City" in the intro? It redirects to the same place as the link three words before it. It seems very unnecessary. --MPD01605 (T / C) 21:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

CCE

Can someone add a link to that word? At least to let readers know what does it stand for.--201.114.96.112 03:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Also:

• (backing "Irwin") Specify werther there is or isn't any legal recognition of his "Legitimate President of México" title. (with source, please). I looks as if he was legally the President.

• Idicate howcome he got the pejelagarto nickname. It might be trivia, but if there is space for cartoon and movie trivia, there surely is also space for government trivia.

• In one of the last paragraphs, it says "On September 16th, he WILL". Fix that.

• The guy is not as known as AMLO as he is as Peje. Actually, I think only anchors and reporters remember now and then he does have regular Christian name... There is also a rummor he changed his name because it used to read MALO, which means bad (with both English connotations) in Spanish.--201.114.96.112 03:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• CCE means "Consejo Coordinador Empresarial", it is an association of businessmen.
• There isn't any legal recognition of his "Legitimate President of Mexico". The only legally legitimate President of Mexico is Vicente Fox, and the only legally legitimate President-elect is Felipe Calderón (as of september 2006). The point made by Mr. Lopez Obrador is that the law and justice are two different things. He and his followers advance this idea because the law (the courts) decided that his allegations of electoral fraud had no legal value, and therefore, in his perspective, there was no justice. Going further they claim that, since the law does not deliver justice, then the law is not a source for legitimacy. Therefore, though Calderón is the legal President Elect, a group of supporters in a rally have taken the "democratic" decision of ignoring the ballots and proclaiming him "legitimate President", without asking the rest of Mexico.
• I don't know how he got the name "pejelagarto", but I know that some commentators have said that he used to have a small statue of the animal in his office. It is likely that he got the nickname by his manner of speech and by the fact that both the animal and the politican come from the same state.
• You are as free to change this site as anyone else. You can change the wording too. Please feel free to change the tense on the last paragraph you refer to.
• The rumor that he changed his name is as false as the rumor that Felipe Calderón "signed" the FOBAPROA. During the campaign, exaggerations and lies where said by both sides, as is typical in many campaigns. By the way, the rumor that he did not graduated, or that he took 18 years to graduate, is also untrue. Trying to communicate these rumors as true by sourcing "hate pages" that merely state the rumors without proving it is not appropriate.
• AMLO is an abbreviation of his full name "Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador" and, in my opinion, is a perfectly acceptable usage, though I agree that such precision should be made somewhere in the page.
• Finally, please recognize that this man is controversial, with passionate supporters and detractors. The page gets vandalized often, is full of misinformation, and has very little sourced material (which doesn't mean some of the unsourced material is untrue). Watching the page is more than a full time job and many editors do not have enough time to keep up. Pages have a life of their own. The best way to contribute is to add, source, remove vandalism or misinformation, and watch the page.
• You are welcome to contribute more whenever you can.

Hari Seldon 08:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your time!! The AMLO-MALO rummor could be quoted from some source spreading it and some source proving it is wrong, So there is no doubt it is false.

I didn't know the statue thing, but it'd be a good thing to find a source out and comment briefly the story in the article.

AMLO is very used in media, but I'm still not sure that's ok in an Encyclopedia. Is there some sort of bigger master we could ask?--201.114.96.112 21:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

What's wrong with using Spanish sources?--201.114.96.112 06:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC) If the article is going to be protected, at least take care of it. The mistakes I pointed are still there.--201 19:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ilegal Interference from CCE & Fox

Hseldon, I realize that the source I cited is a columnist. [The other source is not a column, but a news story.] But please note that he, Ricardo Aleman, is a very Conservative, not Liberal, columnist, who has been very critical of AMLO, even before the campaign. He says,

"Como todos saben, en su resolutivo el Tribunal Electoral reconoció que una de las mayores irregularidades registradas en el proceso fue que Vicente Fox metió la mano de manera ilegal en el proceso electoral, lo mismo que grupos empresariales. Pero a nadie le queda claro por qué razón no existieron sanciones para quienes cometieron esas irregularidades, y más aún si se reconoció que por ellas se puso el riesgo la elección. Pero tampoco quedó claro cuál fue el criterio para determinar que pese a esas irregularidades, su efecto negativo hacia la elección no afectó, lo suficiente, como para modificar a favor de uno de los candidatos la pequeña diferencia entre el ganador y perdedor." [[[User:69.211.22.85|69.211.22.85]] 19:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)]

In the past, the opinion of a columnist has not been regarded as proper source. The statement you added should read, "In the opinion of columnist Ricardo Aleman of El Universal, the CCE interference was illegal". However, the statement you added to the article give the impression that it was the courts ruling that the CCE interference was illegal. Please source the ruling's actual text, or a news source quoting the ruling. This article does not quote the ruling and therefore it is invalid as a source about the court. However, it is valid as a source about Mr. Alemans opinion, but since that is irrelevant to this article, I am erasing it. Hari Seldon 19:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, the provided Terra article, and the TEPJF press release fail to document any claim that the court ruled the intereference as "illegal". Please refrain from adding accusations to this article without a source. You are entitled to your opinion, but Wikipedia is not the place to advance it. Hari Seldon 21:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hseldon, how would you translate: "(El CCE) cometió una violación a lo dispuesto en normas de orden público", sentenciaron los magistrados. Con los spots de radio y televisión que difundió entre marzo y mayo del 2006, subrayó el dictamen, el CCE violó los principios de igualdad en las contiendas electorales. El TEPJF reprende que en su promoción del voto, el consejo haya exhibido una tendencia a favor de la continuidad del gobierno panista, transgrediendo la prohibición legal de que terceras personas contraten publicidad en favor o en contra de algún partido político. [[[User:69.211.22.85|69.211.22.85]] 21:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)]

The translation should read "The CCE committed a violation in what is stated in norms of public order". However, this is not a direct quote. The statement should read, "It has been reported that the CCE committed..."

Norms of public order is not the same as law.

I still believe that the court's ruling should be publicly available, and it would be best if it was quoted directly in this page. Hari Seldon 22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Presidency

This should be an interesting subsection. I've divided the reactions paragraphs from the rest of the subsection because I believe it is likely that more reactions will occur as time goes by, and that Lopez Obrador might do meaningful things while acting as "Legitimate President". These should be separated and not be confused. The reactions are public opinions while the actions Lopez Obrador do should be documented in a neutral point of view. Having opinions and facts together might stir confusion, so I hope this division helps. Hari Seldon 04:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Further changes, I've changed the introduction to keep it current. The issue of major relevance about him now is his "Legitimate Presidency", and his previous functions as head of government of Federal District and candidate for the coalition for good of all are no longer as significant. I've changed the introduction to have issues appear in order of relevance.

I've also changed the structure of the sections, making the protests a sub-section of the Presidential Campaign section, and made the Alternative "Presidency" a full section. I believe that this section will continue to grow and is more significant than the three month protests. Hari Seldon 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I changed the name of the section from Alternative "Presidency" to "Legitimate Presidency". It seems that this is the title he will go by. The quotes ("") remain to add clarity, he is not legitimately President under Mexican law, it is just a title his supporters gave him. Hari Seldon 04:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please find below the relevant sentences from the Reforma note I have cited: El país está enojado, vive con incertidumbre y una buena porción de sus ciudadanos tiene ganas de pelear.Así lo desprende un exhaustivo estudio de la empresa De la Riva Investigación Estratégica que analiza la circunstancia post- electoral para efectos de tomas de decisión en empresas e instituciones públicas.En su capítulo denominado "Clima Postelectoral" apunta a una interesante conclusión:

"Las campañas electorales 'empoderaron' a millones de ciudadanos que hoy saben que su voto y su decisión de compra valen y están dispuestos a hacerla valer logrando con esto un importante cambio cultural tanto en lo político como en el consumo. Ahora saben que ellos tienen el poder".

Referente a la percepción de lo que pasó en la elección del 2 de julio, el estudio elaborado en octubre; es decir, ya con la calificación del Tribunal Electoral, con Presidente electo y otro "legítimo", concluye que 56 por ciento piensa que debió haber conteo voto por voto después del 2 de julio mientras que 43 por ciento piensa que hubo fraude y 33 por ciento hubiera querido la anulación. ¡Cuatro de cada 10 están convencidos de un fraude electoral!Por ello quizás, la credibilidad del IFE, según el estudio, es de un 28 por ciento y del Tribunal Electoral del 22 por ciento.La institución con mayor credibilidad y confianza es el Ejército con 53 por ciento mientras 51 por ciento piensa que es la Iglesia.

Author:EL PAÍS ESTÁ ENOJADO.REFORMA.Roberto Zamarripa.

Dientes apretados.

[[[User:69.211.20.224|69.211.20.224]] 13:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)]

I don't think it is best practices for this page to quote from op/eds. Finally, the sourcing lacks any context. Exactly, how trusted is De La Riva? What was the methodology of the poll? When was it taken? It is completely different to say that "many mexicans still support him" if the poll was made immediately after the election. If this is the case, then the sentence should go in post-election protests and not in the "reactions to 'Legitimate Presidency'" section. I think that for the reactions sections we should concentrate on the most recent and the ones that are directly related to it. Hari Seldon 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

69.211.18.106 added an "El Universal" poll quoted from "El Pais". The poll says that 46% believe the elections were fair while 42% believe the elections were fraud. In fact, this disagrees with most other polls I've seen. However, the source also menctions that 75% of Mexicans reject Lopez Obrador's claim of calling himself "Legitimate President". While I find interesting that 69.211.18.106 left this information out of the main article, I want to challenge the placement of the quote from the poll in this space of the article:

• The first one is context. The sub-article is about the "Legitimate Presidency" not weather or not Mexicans believe there was fraud.
• The second one is that the reference is not first hand. The first hand reference says that such poll is of only Mexico City, while this reproduction claims it to be of "all of Mexico". This explains while this source contradicts most other polls I've seen since september.

Because of these reasons I challenge the usefulness of having 69.211.18.106 addition to the sub-article. Remember, we should not strive to create a wikiality in which Lopez Obrador is President. We should strive to document the events as neutrally and usefully to readers seeking knowledge as we can. Hari Seldon 06:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Double Presidency

Perhaps both Obrador and Calderon ought to be considered President of Mexico, given the (pretty much) 50-50 split of the election. In other words - first-past-the-post systems are arguably not truely democratic. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Rickyrab, recent polls indicate that at least 75% of Mexicans consider Felipe Calderon to be their President, while at most only 25% would Consider Lopez Obrador to be their President. Regardless of this, the election was not a 50-50 split, it was a 41-40-15-2-2 split. Finally, please consider that under Mexican Law there can only be ONE President of Mexico, and to be that ONE President, the person must win an election by a plurality of votes counted by independent citiziens and qualified by the court. In this case, the only one who has done this is Felipe Calderon. Lopez Obrador claims that Calderon made fraud and that is why he and his followers have given him the title of "Legitimate President", but that is only a carnival title, not a legal one.

Of course, you can argue for democracy all you want, and disagree with reality if you please. However, wikipedia has high standards and should only call President of Mexico the person who truly is, by law, President of Mexico, which is Felipe Calderon. Hari Seldon 06:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the poll, what is there to discuss? I provided two links, both attesting to the fact that 42% of Mexicans believe there was fraud in the election. Why were they deleted?

With respect to the other changes, we've discussed them all, and had, I believed, arrived at a manageable wiki entry. For example, at one time, someone said that AMLO's policies were irresponsible and populist. Someone else then cited a source in which Vazquez MOta and Fox had decided to implement some of these same policies. In the interest of space, we decided to delete both references. Why are we going through this again??!!! [[[User:69.211.18.106|69.211.18.106]] 06:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)]

Hsledon, I've just been through both citations, and both say that Mexicans believe, not "Mexico City residents" believe. Why are you so against me referencing this poll?

Hseldon, another example of repitition, and why I'v reverted some changes. One of the changes reads: "But his administration was marred by extensive corruption within his closest collaborators." Please note that that's already been covered in the VideoScandalos section. Again, are we going to reinvent the wheel.

Hsledon, please note that I've added a third source, this one from El Universal, which states, "Lo anterior se observa en los resultados de la encuesta realizada en vivienda a mil ciudadanos con credencial de elector, con representatividad geográfica del país, realizada por EL UNIVERSAL entre el 23 y 26 de noviembre pasado." I've also taken heed of your comments, and added other results from the same poll. [[[User:69.211.18.106|69.211.18.106]] 06:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)]

Ok, if we are trying to avoid redundance, I am all for it. Then lets avoid redundance by adding, in a subsection about "Legitimate Presidency", opinion polls about the election. If anything, that data should go in the "controversies" section. I commend you for adding a first-hand source, and I apologize for my mistake of confusing the poll with another one. Evidently, this one is for all of Mexico. Finally, I would also recommend you add context about the poll. Notice how the referenced Reforma poll states its confidence interval, margin of error and the date it was taken. That information adds greatly to the article, for it provides the reader a measure of the usefulness of the poll. I am assuming your good faith, and ask kindly of you that you consider my arguments. Hari Seldon 06:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hseldon, I have no problem with where you positioned the poll. I just thought it was important to cite it. Good night. [[[User:69.211.18.106|69.211.18.106]] 07:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)]

Yes indeed, it is important to cite it. But in this case, one source is good enough, because it is first hand and high quality. Good night! Hari Seldon 07:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Blogs

Hello Hseldon, I was under the impression that we had agreed to not promote blogs, whether pro or anti, on politician's entries. If we are going to allow a reference to an anti-AMLO site on this page, are you opposed to allowing anti-FC blogs, such as senderodelpeje, marcajeafecal or others, on his page? [[[User:69.211.18.106|69.211.18.106]] 21:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)]

I don't mind either way. I wasn't aware of that consensus (of not allowing blogs), and since there were blogs listed in this page (like Sendero del Peje), I just added them. However, if this page is going to have pro-AMLO blogs, it should also have blogs criticizing him, in honor of NPOV.

Hari Seldon 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hseldon, I'm really indifferent. If you or others would like to reinstate them, fine. So long as we can do so as well on FC's page. [[[User:69.211.18.106|69.211.18.106]] 23:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)]

As I said, I don't care, and since we both are indifferent, then perhaps status quo is the best way to go (not having blogs), until, and if, the discussion continues and a different consensus is reached. Hari Seldon 23:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay....who is disfiguring this page?

Who is writing that this page is "bullshit and hairy twats?" (Not to mention other comments of this nature.....) I personally am rather glad that Calderon won the Mexican election, but this kind of comment has no place in a serious article. I have to agree that this page should be at least semi-protected, as it appears people have issues with it that they cannot handle rationally.

137.113.19.142 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)RAR

More than in agreement with you. Preventing vandalism is becoming a full time job, and wikipedia does not pay good salaries... Hari Seldon 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey 137.113.19.142 , who told you this is a "serious" article? Absoltely not. --the precedent unsigned comment was left by 72.73.223.17

Biased, Manipulated and Irrelevant info

The Article is plagued with a bunch of pro/against excuses. Here are a couple of examples:

"López Obrador was severely questioned for not accepting the new transparency policy (IFAI) that requires all public finance to be disclosed to the general public during his administration of the Federal District. López Obrador claims that his administration had proper disclosure policies. In this matter, the IFAI hasn't brought any of the fruits it should have, since most politicians and institutions have refused to give internal information, so López Obrador hasn't been an exception."

"....It is to be noted that the poorest segment of Mexico, who are presumed to have more likely voted for Lopez Obrador, are less likely to own telephones and are therefore likely underrepresented in this survey."

Also the references to the articles are manipulated in the benefit of AMLO.

For example: The articles reference http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/146101.html states that "42% que opinan que en las elecciones del pasado 2 de julio hubo fraude electoral. Son menos que el 46% que considera que no fue así". This line does not imply that "Calderon's victory was fraudulent" as the Wikipedia article, the line says that people think there was a fraud but the fraud could have happened to help either Madrazo, Calderon or Lopez Obrador himself

I don't think that his agenda as the "Legitimate president" is relevant and should be kept as part of the article.

Bottomline is: Lets not add personal thoughts but lets stick to what the references are so that the article is neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcrogel (talk • contribs) 20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC). --Jcrogel 20:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would agree, Jcrogel, but doing what you suggest has been proven to increase vandalism in the page. However, at the very least, the references should be fixed. Would you like to do it? Hari Seldon 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusing reversion

I changed the phrase "like price ceilings for tortillas[72] that protect local producers of corn, " into "like price ceilings for tortillas[72] that protect local consumers of corn". Because the price ceiling protect the consumers who need to be able to buy tortillas at a reasonable price - protecting the producers would be done by fixing a minimum price. My change was then reverted with the edit summary "That is an opinion. The government's stated purpose is to protect consumers.)" This is self conrradrictory if the governments expressed purpose is to protect consumers (which I believe it is) why would you then revert the text into saying that price ceiling protect the producers (which basic economic theory says it doesn't). I am confused. please state which one you actually mean and provide an actual source stating whether the government wants to protect the consumers (which would be logical) or the producers (which would be illogical since the problem is too high prices, not too low prices). ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, the government's stated purpose is to protect producers. Read Calderon's speech, and the reaction of maize producers. The argumentation is that Maize producers are being exploited by intermediaries. The pact's purpose is to limit intermediary's power, improving the terms that Maize producers have, and indirectly benefiting consumers. Hari Seldon 21:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Hseldon. I agree with Maunus. How can this "price ceiling" accord help the corn producers? Already, despite the accord, corn farmers in Mexico are increasing corn acreage, anticipating higher prices. Please read a recent AP story that addresses this[1]. I don't feel that strongly about it, so I won't change it. But as someone with an MBA, I can assure you that the price ceiling does not help producers. Of course, the accord could provide for corn subsidies (a la USA) that I don't know about. In that case, you may be correct. 69.211.22.62 22:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)]

A judgement of what the "price ceiling" did or did not do is an opinion. Wikipedia is not a place for opinions. On the other hand, the Governmnent and the producer STATED that the intention was to help corn producers by putting restrictions on intermediaries. Please study these sources carefully, and government actions carefully. They went against intermediaries, like Cargill, not against producers, like Gruma. Corn subsidies "a la USA" already existed prior to the accord. Hari Seldon 23:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I think this discussion should be taken to the Tortilla Price Stabilization Pact article talk page. Hari Seldon 23:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3