Jump to content

Talk:Controversies of the 2006 Mexican general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Magidin (talk | contribs) at 23:21, 26 November 2006 (→‎Calls for election reform). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Discussion

--Timeshifter 12:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC). Wikipedia is not a debating society between 2 simple positions of right and left. It also is not about consensus. It is about putting out verifiable info from sources. If you have more info, and the sources to back it up, then please add the info, and the sources. You obviously are not very familiar with the wikipedia guidelines. Please read them all:[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
--Timeshifter 12:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might not be familiar with the guidelines, but I have been reading them and consensus is a Wikipedia guideline. And I certainly doubt Wikipedia encourages a single person to decide that the current content should not be removed. Please see straw polls, it's a perfectly valid resource in order to find consensus, which is something I'm not the only one asking for here.
Besides, even if Wikipedia is not a debating society between two simple positions you should take a look at the title of the article: "Mexican general election 2006 controversies", they key word is controversy, which citing Wikipedia is "an opinion or opinions over which parties are actively arguing", so by definition the article should mention the argumentation of the opinions. Or rename the article to "Mexican general election 2006 disagreements", which better describes the current purpose of the content of the article.
-- Felipec 16:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a quote from the top of the overall Wikipedia guidelines page: "While we try to respect consensus, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and its governance can be inconsistent."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
You can't vote here to overrule the Wikipedia guidelines. You can't remove the current content by a straw poll consisting of your friends. The current content meets the Wikipedia guidelines because it is verifiable and sourced. People have added info and sources from various sides. As I said, if you have more info, then please put it in the article. With the sources. --Timeshifter 17:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you afraid of? I'm not asking my friends, I'm asking the community and it's a simple question, it doesn't mean it's going to be done. If you believe Mckappa and others are friends I asked for help you are not only wrong, but certainly not acting in good faith.
Just because the content is verifiable and sourced doesn't mean it meets Wikipedia guidelines. Besides, policies are more important than guidelines, and a very important one, specially for controversies is Neutral point of view, and the current content doesn't meet it.
I understand that you don't want all your work to be gone, but starting from scratch doesn't mean all your work will be gone, because obviously there is important information there, but it would have be slowly added always carefully keeping the neutral point of view.
Regarding the quote: "While we try to respect consensus, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and its governance can be inconsistent.", it states that Wikipedia tries to respect consensus, so there's nothing wrong with trying to achieve it.
Another important policy is:
Ownership of articles
You agreed to allow others to modify your work. So let them.
-- Felipec 21:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand Wikipedia guidelines partly because you have done so few edits. I can see why you have done so few edits, because the last one you did here had typos and errors of misspelling, grammar, and English wording. I corrected your many errors. Obviously you are not a native English speaker. I have learned a second language also, so I can understand why you have so few edits on English-language Wikipedia.

You think I don't understand the Wikipedia guidelines, it's your opinion and I won't take it as true.
No you don't understand, I have done few edits because I have never found an article that I would like to edit until now. Also, I don't normally make so much errors, I guess I didn't took the time to re-check what I wrote, I simply made a direct translation of what I read which is much accurate than what was written down. With your changes it now has better "English wording" but still is not what the articles says. I know English, but I don't know how to translate Mexican legal jargon into English one.
-- Felipec 17:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kept the gist of what you wanted in the article. So no one is censoring you. Also, there is info in the article about how both sides have been accused of fraud and irregularities in this election and one following it. I added the info about the following election where it was the left who won the election, and it was the right who were claiming fraud and irregularities. I am not a supporter of any political parties in Mexico. I don't even understand Mexican politics that well, since I do not read Spanish. I am interested in the issue of election fraud and irregularities which is what this article is about. All sides are represented in the article. If you have more info, then stop complaining, and put the info in the article. Seeking Wikipedia consensus is not about trying to please political parties and their supporters. It is about seeking to meet Wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, all the sides are represented, in a biased way. I would still want to know the opinion of other people via the poll.
-- Felipec 17:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can we achieve a form to contact an administrator or wikipedia expert so as to calm down this discussion and start the balancing of this article? --189.135.70.251 04:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and by the way to analyze Timeshifter editing behavior as I agree with what Felipec has stated: It seems a little 'suspicious' --189.135.70.251 04:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start of McKappa reply

Timeshifter. Fortunately for you, you have plenty of time to edit and erase all what we comment against. That makes you be sort of the "owner" of the article. In my opinion, Felipec, we should write a completely different article, explaining the nature of the controversy from another perspective. A more "partial" en "centralized" one.

I haven't erased any sourced material. You keep complaining about wanting to add more info. No one is stopping you. --Timeshifter 08:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter is definitely not going to accept that "his" article is completely unbalanced, and he will continue making changes "pretending" he is partial. He says he has plenty of sources, but unfortunately his sources are not any credible ones. He cites "La Jornada", the worst, more partial source of information about this controversy.

Felipec, let's coordinate together (you and I, and whoever else would like to participate -including pro-AMLO with some decent wish to write a balanced article-) and let's start it. I know Timeshifter can always edit what we do, but we should can also revert his edits all the time. I propose to call it "Controversies of Presidential Election in Mexico 2006, a balanced view".

Mckappa 04:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mckappa, I couldn't agree with you more. This is the reason I stopped trying to contribute to this article. It is evident that the regular editors, those who don't have to work and/or have enough free time to advance their version of reality in wikipedia, have as a priority to advance their political positions, instead of presenting a neutral and balanced article.
It seems to me that consensus seems to go around the unbalance of this article. The only thing that prevents me to edit is time! How sad! However, it seems to me that a rewriting of this article is necessary, instead of writing a "competing" article. Hari Seldon 04:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mckappa, Hari Seldon, I also agree, maybe we can get our hands in some private wiki where we can edit a new article freely, and once we are happy with the results start merging stuff to this article. In my personal opinion the best way to start is with a list of the controversies, and then with the claims of both sides. -- Felipec 19:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My personal reading is that there is a clear unbalance, at least in the sourcing for the article, if not the actual presentation. The vast majority of sources are staunchly pro-López Obrador (e.g., La Jornada, Narco News, New Left Review). while other sources are merely neutral (El Universal, foreign press, etc). I know that "a lot more pro-López Obrador" could be added, but the unbalance of an article is not measured by how much it omits in favor of one side, but by whether the views are accurately and proportionally represented. I am not advocating for a 50-50 split on opinions, but the general weight shoudl somehow reflect the general feeling on the issue. One would surmise from reading this article that there is a majority consensus that fraud either likely or may have occurred; the opposite seems to me to be true, based on both personal observation and reading, and polls I have seen. The allegations are labeled as allegations, but there seems to be little or nothing said on the debunking of many of them. Is it not relevant that López Obrador produced a video, allegedly smuggled, which he claimed showed ballot stuffing; and that it was clear that he was transferring ballots from the wrong box to the correct one, in plain view (as per the law)? That the video was not smuggled, and that the PRDs own representative to the polling place verified this? Or that López Obrador dismissed this by accusing the representative of having been bought? They produced a woman claiming to be a poll worker whom the PAN tried to bribe, but the claim did not hold up upon scrutiny (she wasn't a poll worker). They produced a man claiming to have been working for the IFE and saying his boss had made him input fake results favorable to Calderón, but again the claim crumbled upon scrutiny. López Obrador accused the PRD's own election observers of having been bought (since many of the polls in which he claimed irregularities had signed statements by those observers saying no irregularities had been observed). Making unfounded or provably false allegations time and again is a measure of credibility, and the López Obrador campaign made many; yet they are not mentioned as far as I can tell. Magidin 19:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to polls, 50% of the voters feel the elections where fair, while 30% feel the election was a fraud. Therefore, 50% of the content should present the view of a fair election, and 30% should present the arguments to that supposed fraud. Timeshifter argues that no one is stopping me from adding info, but the fact is that I have too little time to do it myself. I ask concious editors to take this opportunity at improving the article. Hari Seldon 23:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are not the only one with limited time. I spent longer than I wanted to (or should have) fixing up the section on the PREP, as you can probably tell by looking at the times in the history. Magidin 23:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to a Sept. 8-30, 2006 Ipsos/AP poll of citizens of 9 nations Mexicans had the lowest confidence that their votes are counted accurately. [1] Angus Reid Global Scan, Canada, writes: "87 per cent of Canadian respondents are very or somewhat confident that votes in their elections are counted accurately. France was next on the list with 85 per cent, followed by Germany with 84 per cent, South Korea with 83 per cent, Britain with 79 per cent, and Spain with 75 per cent. The lowest level of trust was registered in Mexico with 60 per cent, Italy with 65 per cent and the United States with 66 per cent." [2] --Timeshifter 23:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a bit of a non-sequitur. Nobody is arguing that mexicans have a high level of trust as compared to other nations. In fact, it is the relatively low confidence (compared to other nearby countries) that is exploited by those who simply cry 'Fraud' without proof. Rather, the point is that a majority of mexicans believe the election was not fraudulent. Even at 60% that would mean that more mexicans believe their votes were accurately counted than not. Magidin 23:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some more poll info from the Wikipedia article:
Nationwide polls: A poll released July 27 by El Universal found that 48 percent wanted a full recount, and 28 percent were against it. [3] 39 percent of Mexicans believe fraud occurred according to a nationwide poll of registered voters taken August 25 through 28, 2006 by the newspaper El Universal. 51 percent believed the election was clean. [4] [5] --Timeshifter 00:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support any particular candidate or party in Mexican elections. I don't read Spanish, so I don't really know much about the candidates or parties. All the parties have made allegations of irregularities or fraud in the presidential election and/or the state election that followed soon after it. The roles have been reversed too when one side or the other wins a particular election. I put that info in the article. I am sure that some of the claims made by all sides have later been found to be mistaken claims or exaggerated claims or possibly fraudulent claims. Wikipedia just reports the info and sources and claims and counterclaims, and lets readers decide for themselves. You also have to remember that there is a lot less info in English than in Spanish. I have to deal with the English sources. So Magidin, your fluency in both languages is a great help. --Timeshifter 23:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is something of an exaggeration to say the roles were merely reversed in the two elections. The PAN did not call for a full recount, nor did it claim a "State Election", nor did it bring forth videos claiming they presented one thing when they were another, nor did they accuse their own poll workers of having bought. Neither did they claim to have "won by two million votes" (the claim made by AMLO on Sunday night when he claimed victory), nor to be ahead in the polls by 10 points in some secret polling which they refused to reveal. Dismissing the long track record of false claims by saying that you are sure "all sides" have engaged in "some" such behavior seems rather cavalier to me. Magidin 23:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not dismissing anything. Just pointing out the obvious. The same stuff goes on in the USA. Claims and counterclaims. From all sides. Some of it is found to be true. Some not. I am not taking sides. And there is a long track record of this stuff in Mexico going back many years. --Timeshifter 00:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The point is that this is not simply "claims and counterclaims. From all sides." The PRD has a history of crying Fraud. Sure, the wolf did eventually come for the sheep, but the context is important. The PRD cannot even hold internal contested elections without the loser claiming that he was defrauded. While the PRD has set forth many nebulous claims, most of which contradict each other, they have yet to produce something that rises above the level of insinuation and innuendo which is not quickly demonstrated to be false or baseless. Why is this not relevant to the context? I think you are trying to be fair; but I think you do not realize the proper context for the situation. You seem to be getting most of your information from "independent" news sources; that's fine, they often include a lot of information not carried by the usual ones. But the, remember: FOX News is an independent news source in that regard: it does not rely on the usual news outlets to produce its news. Does that make them somehow a reliable source? López Obrador stated time and again that a triumph "by the right" (i.e., the PAN), was "unacceptable" and "morally unacceptable." On July 2nd he claimed a two million vote advantage, now he is saying that he won by less than 0.25%, while at the same time saying that the fraud did not involve votes cast, but rather the "prevailing environment". Which is it? Is it relevant? I think it is. I think just saying "all sides do it" or "some true, some false" is far too cavalier an attitude. I say this as someone who personally experienced the PRD from its inception. And as long as I am at it: why are some labeled as "right-leaning" before reporting their opinion that the election was fair, but those who proclaim their opinion the other way are not labeled? Alianza Cívica may be a government watchdog, but it is hardly independent: it has close ties to the PRD. Perhaps all those "right-leaning" labels ought to be removed. Magidin 19:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have to remember that this page was edited by many people. I tried removing all the right and left-leaning stuff initially, but people kept insisting on similar stuff. They would use much stronger language, though. So we came to a compromise and used the terms right and left leaning. It seemed the most NPOV description. It was not an attacking, inciting description such as "far-right" or "extreme leftist" and other such descriptions.
If you find verifiable sourced material that claims that this and that specific PRD allegation in the 2006 election is wrong for such and such reason, then absolutely, please put it in the article. --Timeshifter 22:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PREP vs. Quick Count

The text of the article suggests (and states overtly at least once) that the PREP and the Quick Count are the same thing. They are most definitely not.

The Quick Count ("Conteo Rapido", as opposed to the PREP, "Programa the Resultados Electorales Preliminares"), was a statistical sampling model of several polling places. It was meant as a statistical tool of prediction. The results from the Quick Count, which were made public some days later, showed that the statistical tests showed Calderon as winning in all three, but in two of them the difference was within the margin of error and in the third it was only barely outside. It was because of this, as per prior agreement, that the IFE declared the race too close to call (the prior agreement was that the IFE would either state which candidate was projected to be the winner based on the Conteo Rapido, or ask for a couple more hours to collate more results, or declare the race too close to call). The Quick Count was not the PREP. As it happens, the final tally agreed with the Quick Count results.

The PREP on the other hand is the quick dissemination of full results as reported by the district electoral councils to the IFE. There is no statistical component to the PREP, as opposed to the Quick Count which is an entirely statistical analysis of results.

See for example [6], in which Ugalde speaks of making the results from the Quick Count known, and whether the tecnical committee felt it would be possible to determine the electoral tendencies at the time. Another note is in: [7] Finally, the official report from the tecnical committee is at [8] Magidin 22:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I did not write those 2 sections in the article: "Quick count" and "Official count". But I would really appreciate it if you could rewrite both of those sections. With as much detail as possible. I don't read Spanish so I can't follow up on the links you left. If you rewrite those sections please leave some links sprinkled around in it. Just plain old external links if you want. Like you did in your above comment. I can convert them to detailed reference links. That will save you some time. --Timeshifter 22:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the first, with a title change. I will get to the second part when time permits, probably later today. Magidin 17:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a lighter but nontrivial rewrite to the Official Count section as well, and some small additions and fixes to the other section. Magidin 19:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is disagreeing with Timeshifter a form of vandalism?

I have deleted the See Also section because if you remove "Electoral Fraud", there is nothing else to see...

I believe that removing "Electoral Fraud" as a link would greatly aid in the neutrality of the page. Having that link makes the implication that the 2006 election was a form of electoral fraud, advancing the thesis of the minority who saw their candidate lose the election. In honor of neutrality, I believe this article should strive to focus on facts, and the fact is that the election was held, and that controversies where filed, but that there is was no legal resolution, or no majority opinion (at least in Mexico) that electoral fraud occured.

Having the link is an implication that fraud occured in Mexico in 2006, and that the controversies have factual value. I contest this conclusion, as many others in this talk page do. Indeed, for the benefit of neutrality, the link in the "see also" section should be deleted. Hari Seldon 06:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is agreement with Hseldon now a new wikipedia guideline?

Having a "See also" section is normal for most wikipedia pages. They put in links to other wikipedia pages about the same topic or related topics. This article is about alleged electoral fraud. The wikipedia article on electoral fraud has a lot of info on all types of electoral fraud and irregularities. It is a good place to look to learn, and to decide which, if any, of the claims in the Mexican election are similar or not. It is not a claim that the Mexican election was, or was not, fraudulent. Let the readers decide. I will add some additional "See also" links. --Timeshifter 08:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not asking for you to agree with me, only to discuss the point before imposing your point of view, and calling mine vandalism.
I am not against a See Also link, but I think the See Also should link to other controversial elections, or to other Mexican elections. The See Also section adds context. By adding a link to "Electoral Fraud" the context you are advancing is one with the conclusion that the 2006 elections constituted Electoral Fraud. They do not, and so the link should be removed from the See Also section. Hari Seldon 18:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added this note after the Electoral Fraud link: "Inclusion of this wikipedia link does not indicate endorsement of the claims made of electoral irregularities and fraud in the 2006 Mexican general election." I know of no other wikipedia page that does this. You will note that the solution was to add more info, to clarify, and to edit, not to delete material. Deleting material is vandalism when editing it would solve the problem. Look it up in the wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter 21:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Actually it is a wikipedia guideline to agree with Hseldon if he is with the consensus. Timeshifter obviously doesn't care about this guideline.
In my opinion all those links in the "See also" section should be gone. Are you going to add each and every link to other wiki pages there? As Timeshifter said, it is meant for pages about the same topic or related topics. May I remind you that this page is about controversies, not electoral fraud. A good see also example: 2004 United States election voting controversies.
It also isn't helpful to go forth and backwards adding and removing editions, that's what consensus is for.
-- Felipec 19:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I agree that the 2004 United States election voting controversies seems like a good guideline. Compared to it, this page is poorly edited (completely setting aside the content, the formatting seems generally poor: a lot of short or one-sentence paragraphs, and the like). I think the article could use a full rewrite (okay, setting aside the sections I just fully rewrote yesterday...), inclusion of background (both the fact that election fraud was widely prevalent prior to 2000, that the rules were completely overhauled in 1998, and a quick review of how the system is supposed to operate; and also problems and statements made during the campaign, such as the illegal ads by the CCE which were pro-Calderón). A better organization of the allegations, with a clearer timeline. Rather than quoting each allegation separately, mentioning the categories and linking to those making them, etc. Now, it is of course easy for me to propose such massive work, a bit harder to bring it to fruition. I teach at a university, and we are heading to the end of the semester rush, so I certainly do not foresee having a lot of time for reformatting and reorganzing, let alone dig up more information and references. But I may have some in three or four weeks. Given the recent back and forths perhaps a good temporary solution would be to have a cooling off period for a couple of weeks, leaving the neutrality tag but leaving any major re-write off, and then come back to it. In any case, by mid-December I should have a couple of days during which I could try to reorganize and reformat this article, and try to provide more references and a background. Magidin 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Magidin. I am a student at a university, so I have the same time problem as you. Late december would be better for me to contribute.
About the "See Also" section, I also believe it should be about same topi or related topics, such as elections in Mexico, controversial elections in other countries, and the electoral system of Mexico, and perhaps other countries. A link to the Electoral Fraud article has no place in this section. Hari Seldon 22:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with you Magidin. You are doing a great job, it would be great if you could give some time in mid-December to make these big changes. Maybe then we can focus on the controversies, and of course, an explanation of the whole system seems necessary, maybe even a different article about it. -- Felipec 20:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Almond?

I agree with Hseldon, the opinion of Mark Almond is not that relevant here, he was not even an observer in this elections.

If you read the article, he mentions a lot of stuff happening in a lot of parts of the world, and few references to Mexico. The only fact the he mentions is the following:

Although Mexico's election authorities rejected Lopez Obrador's demand for all 42m ballots to be recounted, the partial recount of 9% indicated numerous irregularities. But no echo of indignation has wafted to the streets of Mexico City from western capitals.

A lot of people keep mentioning this one, specially the people that doesn't know how the Mexican elections work. I agree it's a controversial one, but that doesn't mean there was fraud, the reason is simple: Only the ballots with proved irregularities are recounted. Assuming that the other 91% of the ballots which had no proven irregularities actually had irregularities because the 9% with proven irregularities actually had irregularities it's a fallacy.

The rest of the article he actually mentions something related to the election focuses on Salafranca. He makes a lot of claims, but no facts.

So what are we gaining from the opinion of Mark Almond? Are we going to put the opinion of all the world even when they make fallacious conclusions?

-- Felipec 20:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Perhaps it would be more constructive to, instead, show the opinion of Mexican analysts or the opinion of someone directly involved in the election. I understand that including an opinion about the observers is important for the issue of neutrality, but does it add anything to just put any opinion, no matter how far out of context the opinion is taken? At the very least, the article should mention that Mark Almond's opinion is not made as a judgement of the election, but as a judgement about attitudes of western nations. Hari Seldon 22:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the recent edit of that section by Magidin here is fine by me.
He added this mainly: "(but who did not participate as an observer in the Mexican election)"
Here is the original sourced sentence in question:
Mark Almond, an election observer in several countries, questioned the objectivity of José Ignacio Salafranca and some of the mass media.
The reference link for it is:
"Outcry over Mexican elections falling on deaf ears". By Mark Almond, Malaysia Sun, 15 August 2006. Same article in The Guardian is titled: 'People power' is a global brand owned by America. "West promoting 'people power' when it suits". Taipei Times, 19 August 2006. Same Guardian article as above.
This is obviously relevant to the article. The referenced article was reprinted in several mainstream media. It comments directly on the election observers in Mexico. Consensus, as I discussed previously, is about meeting wikipedia guidelines, not about a small group of people agreeing to delete parts of a wikipedia article. See all the relevant wikipedia guideline links in previous discussion.
If you want to further clarify the Mark Almond info, Felipec, then feel free to do so. But it must be verifiable info that you add, and verifiable editing that you do. Meaning it comes from verifiable sources, and not just from you. :See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability - Feel free to add info from other analysts, etc..
Felipec, you are now up to 7 edits total as a member of wikipedia (not including edits on talk pages). All of those edits are on this wikipedia page. Several of your edits have been deletions of sourced material. Anyone can see this for themselves by clicking the link to your contributions, and then clicking the "diff" links next to each of your edits. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Felipec
Felipec, you also tried to label the Global Exchange group as "far left". See that here. People then agreed to use NPOV terms such as right or left leaning. Or no description. --Timeshifter 23:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 2 deletions are several, and please keep in mind that the article is biased, I removed content that was leaning towards the AMLO side, and considering Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, I consider that a good thing. Or do you think we should add each and every piece of sourced material out there?
I did try to label Global Exchange as far left? Please read the Wikipedia article about Global Exchange and you'll see I was not the one who made that label.
And why my contributions have anything to do with this? Please let's discuss the article, not me. Oh, and BTW, I'm Felipe Contreras, not Felipe Calderón, if that's any relevant to you.
-- Felipec 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of your current total of 7 edits of wikipedia pages, here are 3 vandalizing deletions of highly relevant sourced material: 1. 2. 3.

I see where somebody snuck in the label of "far left" on the Global Exchange wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_Exchange&diff=73806689&oldid=72970664

I just deleted that "far left" sentence there. My edit comment there says: "Deleted sentence about them being 'far left.' That is a POV. The most one could accurately say is 'left-leaning' and that is unnecessary since people can decide for themselves from the description."

Found this on a Global Exchange page: "Global Exchange is ranked in the 'Top 20 Most Trusted NGOs' by readers of the Wall Street Journal." http://store.gxonlinestore.org

It is common on wikipedia talk pages to discuss an editor's biases as shown by their edits and talk page controversies. --Timeshifter 02:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, #2 is not a deletion, it includes #1 deletion, which is a totally valid deletion because it didn't make any point (and I made that comment in the hope that somebody else would put it into context), it didn't even mention it was Ted Lewis the one who said that, and there is no other source of that information. It alone didn't imply anything, but putting it in the context of the Ted Lewis's comment it implies that if there were irregularities the diplomats were not allowed to make comments.
According to Wikipedia vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. So are you implying that I tried to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia? You are making far fetched comments and assuming people are doing things in bad-faith, and that is against Wikipedia guidelines, always assume good-faith. And "highly relevant sourced material" is a relative qualification.
Top 20 Most Trusted NGOs? I can't find any other source of information that mentions that, except Global Exchange of course. But even if that were the case what does it have to do with anything? I did not delete any relevant information that came from Global Exchange.
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.
Edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person may not be vandalism, but instead an effort by the subject of the article to remove inaccurate or biased material.
-- Felipec 06:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The high rating of Global Exchange by Wall Street Journal readers is to further show that it is not correct to label it "far left."

Repeated deletion of the same relevant sourced material is strongly frowned upon in Wikipedia. Here are the 2 items below that you deleted. One of them you deleted twice. I converted the reference links to standard links, so people could see them.

There were 673 international election observers for 130,000 polling stations. Most of them were diplomats, and were therefore not allowed to make public comments. "Standoff At The Zocalo". Sophie McNeill, ZNet, 28 August 2006.
Mark Almond, an election observer in several countries, questioned the objectivity of José Ignacio Salafranca and some of the mass media. "Outcry over Mexican elections falling on deaf ears". By Mark Almond, Malaysia Sun, 15 August 2006. Same article in The Guardian is titled: 'People power' is a global brand owned by America. "West promoting 'people power' when it suits". Taipei Times, 19 August 2006. Same Guardian article as above.

The info is obviously relevant. And both have references to back them up. You will note that an experienced editor, Magidin, did not delete the Mark Almond info. He added more info. That is how it is done in Wikipedia. One clarifies and edits. One does not delete except as a last resort. --Timeshifter 08:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not quote my leaving the information in as evidence that it is relevant. In my editing comment, for example, I stated I thought the relevance was questionable at best. I usually tend to leave things in on a first pass, but that's merely my style, not my evaluation of the relevancy. In addition, since I am hoping to reorganize the entire thing to make it more coherent and less a long list of people and opinions, I left the information in for future reference. Whether this is actually fully relevant is, frankly, something I am nowhere near convinced. The article is a complaint that the media has not paid more attention to the situation, Almond's general feeling that there may be something fishy (a feeling he gets from a distance, not from direct observation or even inquiry into the situation, from what I can tell) and the only thing the quotation seems to add is Salafranca's affiliation (something that could be added directly onto Salafranca). As I said, I am pretty unhappy with the organization of this article as a whole, and I think it needs a thorough reorganization and rewrite. Magidin 13:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I added some info from the Mark Almond article concerning Salafranca's track record as an election observer. It must be noted that Wikipedia doesn't require its editors to agree with sourced info. Only that the sourced info represents a significant viewpoint. --Timeshifter 14:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Flooding the page with information does not help; it only helps make the page more confusing. Now we have a long paragraph regarding elections in Lebanon and Hizbullah in the middle of a page about controversies regarding the mexican elections. The point of putting links to the documents is to allow the readers to go and see the specific points being raised by those making it, while the page only summarizes the highlights. Almond's objection to Salafranca stems from the fact that Salafranca belongs to the Partido Popular, so he views Salafranca as ideologically suspect given the declared winner; that's mentioned. The piece is linked. Why do we need the extra paragraph? Should we start adding a paragraph on Almond too, pointing out any ideological affinity he might have with the PRD? Rather than clarify the flood of tangential information only murkies the issue, IMHO. Magidin 15:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that once stuff is sorted out into more subsections as discussed in my reply to your proposal on reorganization farther down, then things will sort themselves out. Both for us and the readers. --Timeshifter 02:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened next?

What happened after the TEPJF declaration on 5 September? Did Obrador give up? Did the 500,000 protestors just go home? Sure;y that wasn't the end of the story, was it? -- Dominus 09:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

López Obrador lifted his sit in, I believe on September 16 or thereabouts. The sit-in had been steadily losing people, and more importantly, eroding the support for López Obrador in particular and the PRD in general, especially among a moderate middle class that they had successfully courted for the election. He formed a "wide political front", and has begun the process of registering it with the IFE so as to get public monies that are assigned to legal, registered, political associations (so much for "to hell with your institutions"). He declared himself the Legitimate President by a show of hands in his last large rally, and will swear himself in on November 20. He says he will have a sort of shadow cabinet, and will go around the country dealing with the people personally. He spent some effort unsuccessfully campaigning for the PRD candidate for governor of his native Tabasco, who lost some weeks ago amid allegations (and this time, lots and lots of verifiable evidence) of electoral violations by all sides. Right now, the discussion among his people is whether to attempt to prevent the swearing-in of Calderón on December 1st by taking over the podium, the way they did with Fox's State of the Union on September 1st. Magidin 18:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some info from the wikipedia article about the unpopularity of the sit-in: "Since the rally on July 31, López Obrador's campaign has set up plantones, or encampments, inside the Zócalo and along Paseo de la Reforma, one of Mexico City's main arteries, snarling traffic for weeks. Though 59% of Mexico City residents believe there was fraud, the encampents are widely unpopular, as 65% oppose them, according to a poll taken August 9 by El Universal." http://www.mexiconews.com.mx/19857.html and http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/141694.html The info is in the "protests" section of the wikipedia article. Under the July 31 entry. --Timeshifter 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Giordano, and photos

Reading the Al Giordano piece referenced regarding the photographs, there is one thing that jumps up: he has already reached the conclusion that there was "massive fraud". The piece is not reporting, it is a big op-ed piece expressing this conclusion (if conclusion it be). In addition, the "photographic evidence" is laughable. To wit: the first photograph shows the large poster-sized version of the acta which is, by law, posted outside each polling place after the count is finished and the actas signed by the poll workers and the party representatives. Once posted, it is not only within plain sight, but in easy reach of anyone. Any one with a felt-tip pen can modify the poster. Giordano misidentifies the manta as the "acta" (it is not), and does not show enough of either the manta or the PREP report to be able to determine for sure if they are meant to be reports of the same polling place. In any case, the PREP are not the official results. Compare this to the photo of the second one in [9], which is the acta (not the manta), and where the "fraud" seems to consist of capture error (88 rather than 188). He tells us of a "pattern" based on two examples, and seems to have ignored the fact that, if his first example were correct, it would show Calderón's total also being under-reported in the PREP. As for the second one, you might note that the acta seems to lack the signatures of the party representatives, which together with the obviously amended totals on the third column bring to question the validity of the entire acta. This is "evidence"? Al Giordano is not acting as a reporter here, he is acting as an advocate; and referencing this as "photographic evidence" is a rather large jump. Magidin 15:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the wikipedia article that particular claim of his is not mentioned. --Timeshifter 02:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First proposal: Archive of portions of talk page

Clearly, we have some frayed nerves and strong opinions, myself included. I want to make two proposals, the first one here, the second below in a different heading.

First, I propose archiving at part of this talk page (see WP:Archive), which seems to be growing rather fast. It seems like at least the first 8 sections are done; the next four sections haven't seen any action since mid-September. This at least, could probably be archived now. I have never done any archiving myself, but the page linked above seems fairly straightforward. My second proposal appears separately, since it involves the actual page. Magidin 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, archiving is necessary. Hari Seldon 18:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created an archive page using the instructions at WP:Archive. Which I just edited a little to simplify the process for the next person. The most recent comment in the last section in the archived talk page is from October 27, 2006. The most recent comment in the "Discussion" section in the current talk page is from November 18, 2006. --Timeshifter 02:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Proposal: Moratorium and reorganization

My second proposal is to agree to a moratorium of a couple of weeks to let tempers cool off a bit. I don't think we need to set it up as a formal blocking on editing, but I would propose that we refrain from adding substantial new information (going either way) for a bit. Copy-editing, slight reorganization or rephrasing, missing links added, all of them are still good ideas; but perhaps we can simply propose any major new additions in the talk page for now, pending a whole reorganization of this page.

As I mentioned before, I think 2004 United States election voting controversies gives a reasonable template in terms of what we should be aiming for. It is clear that the evaluation of the election mostly breaks along ideological lines (with a few notable exceptions like Jose Woldenberg), which we can make clear to begin with system was completely redesigned and that the only real antecedent to this election is the 2000 election, not the ones run by the Secretaría de Gobernación under the PRI; but that nonetheless the makes the issue of fraud a sensitive and emotional one. We should also clearly distinguish between fraud and irregularities. We should have an opening paragraph, similar to the one in page mentioned above, which summarizes the allegations by broad category (mistakes in the PREP, bias of observers, problems with party observers, etc.) Then a section on background. Then the problems during the campaign (the CCE spots, comments by Fox, etc). Then the summary of the voting and PREP, Conteo Rápido, and election results, the legal complaints, and final resolution. Then we can go on to specifics: complaints on the PREP, allegations of irregularities, the legal complaints (both about the campaign and the voting process), the opening of packages and the TPEJF resolution. Then the recount, and the allegations surrounding it, and then the decision about the TPEJF. These sections would contain the information currently on the page, but be organized in a manner similar to the page on the US election problems. They include specific alegations, and specific links and comments, without the apparent flood of information we currently have here. After that, we can have a section on the general press reaction, op-ed pieces with more generic arguments, the intellectuals' letters, and so on, and some of the polls on the general opinion in Mexico (there were several that were very explicit on the breakdown relative to how people voted, e.g. that most but not all people who voted for López Obrador believed there was fraud, that most but not all people who voted for Calderón were happy with the partial recount; we should aim to find polls like that which show the clear breakdown along ideological and partizan lines).

After that we can have the sections on the organized opposition and the photographs, which seem to me to be better edited and reasonably so within the context (of course, those are easier, since we all agree that the actions happened, whereas the previous sections are about allegations). The issue with the See Also section can be fixed if instead of simple links with no comment (which is, granted, the usual) we do something more along the lines of the way it is done in, say, Squaring the circle (to name one I notice recently).

All of this is a major undertaking, but I honestly think that this page is a bit of a mess, even setting aside issues of neutrality. Alas, I certainly do not have the time to do this right now, and I am not positive I will have sufficient time later (of course, I'm not the only one who can do this). We should probably begin, after a cooling-off period, with the background and campaign, which should be straightforward and unlikely to be contentious. Clearly the most contentious bit will be the section on the allegations, but even there I think that a more coherent organization of the claims and counterclaims will go a long way towards making this seems more balanced. Of course, it is possible (if not likely) that the way I envision this is improbably or impossible to actually bring to fruition. It's happened before. But I think we should try, when there is enough time to devote to it wholesale rather than bits and pieces at a time.Magidin 18:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you wrote. I understand you may not have time to work on it soon. But I have time now and will start adding subsections to break down the allegations by topic. That way the related claims and counterclaims will be in the correct sections so that readers can find stuff easily using the table of contents. We can always rearrange stuff at any time. It is much easier to do once stuff is sorted out. --Timeshifter 02:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My one request would be to stick to reorganizing and copy-editing, rather than introduce new references or allegations. I think we need a short cooling off period before addressing what should be in or out. Magidin 13:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, reorganization will be very helpful, and a cooling off period would be great too. -- Felipec 20:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broad categories for the reorganization

As far as reorganizing the page, here are a few comments. I believe the allegations should be broadly broken down into five kinds:

1. Irregularities during the campaign/about illegal campaigning. There were some allegations during the campaign, and some after the election. Undue influence, the CCE spots, "dirty campaigning", false accusations, etc.
2. Irregularities during the vote. This is the category where I believe there were very few, if any, complaints: I am talking about turning people away, people not being allowed to vote because they are not in the registry, etc. The only complaints I am aware of were people being turned away from special polling places (for people voting outside their district) because the latter ran out of ballots. The law specifies both location, number, and number of ballots in those polling places. But if there are other such allegations of problems during the voting, they would go here.
3. Irregularities in the counting. This is where allegations of ballot-stuffing, vote-stealing, etc. would go. In general any difference between the votes actually cast and the totals as they appear in the corresponding acta (including the "ballots in the dumpster" and the like).
4. Irregularities in the reporting. This is where the allegations of cyberfraud or differences between what the actas say and what the PREP and/or official count said.
5. Irregularities during the controversy. This would be unauthorized reopening of the ballot packages, unauthorized recounts, problems during the recount, etc.

I believe that most foreign observers were mostly concerned with points 2 and perhaps 3; that is, the actual voting, and perhaps the counting. We probably want them in roughly chronological order within each category, with also a broad chronology of when any particular kind of allegation may have surfaced: for example, there's been allegations of type 1 throughout (and some where addressed during the campaign, and by the TPEJF later). López Obrador and much of the foreign commentary from independent news sources focused initially on problems of type 4. Only later the allegations shifted to type 3 (so perhaps type 4 should go first, despite it "logically" being later than type 3). Type 5 began during the official count and continued until the TPEJF ruled. Magidin 22:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Timeshifter 04:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC). The broad categories sound good as a start. May need more, or may need to refine the words used, and so on. May be difficult to combine them with more chronological elements though. Subcategories by topic can be added too. One just adds more equal signs at the beginning and end of the headings: = == === ==== . Something like this below. Headings will be refined. Gave some examples of subheadings for the first main category. Just some preliminary ideas. I will keep adding subcategories to this map below over the next few days. I may rearrange things completely. Feel free to start your own map after mine, and we will see how we can integrate them. We are pretty much agreed that the order of the rest of the article is fine. The task ahead is on how to reorder the irregularities section.[reply]

Irregularities

Illegal campaigning.
CCE spots
Vote buying
False accusations
Foreign influence
Voting
Counting
Recounting
Reporting.
During the controversy

I rearranged the main article a little so that all the alleged irregularities are in one overall category. Also I created a new recount section that only describes the timing and mechanics of the recount as has been done for the PREP, Quick Count, and Official Count sections. But without any details of the irregularities. I took out the specific claims of irregularities out of the election observers section, and put them in the main irregularities category for future sorting.

This way all the irregularities are in one section, and we can concentrate on breaking down that section. --Timeshifter 05:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English and Spanish Names

As a general rule, I think that if you are going to include both Spanish and English names of an organization, you should put the actual name first, and the translation later. Thus, for example, when the page first refers to Alianza Cívica, I think the name should be in Spanish with the English translation in parenthesis. Future references can be either to the Spanish name alone, or to the English translation alone. Same goes for "Conteo Rápido"/Quick Count, etc. Magidin 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Future references should go to the English translation in my opinion. Otherwise most native English speakers will get confused. --Timeshifter 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for election reform

I am not sure the section on calls for election reform belong in this article; this is about the controversies on the election, and it mostly focuses on allegations of irregularities during the counting (though there will be some on the campaign and pre-campaign issues when we rewrite it). The article in the El Heraldo de México is not proposing anything that would change the way in which votes are cast or counted, nor in the way allegations or recounts are handled; I don't know if any party has proposed changes there. The PRD has not proposed any change in the law that would allow a full recount, for example. Perhaps a paragraph might eventually belong in the section on irregularities during the campaign. Discussion on a possible second round in future elections is, I think, well beyond the scope of this article. Magidin 19:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved that section so that it is now a subsection of "Results of opposition." That should make it more relevant. Also I just rewrote it to make the connection to the election irregularities controversy clearer. I connected Salafranca more clearly to the issue by pointing out that he observed the July 2 election. Also, a runoff election is a full recount in a sense. Because in many nations a runoff election does not occur unless the top 2 candidates are within a certain number of percentage points of each other. In Nicaragua there is no runoff election if there is five percent or more difference in votes. Salafranca's comment "greater democratic legitimacy" is directly connected to the alleged irregularities and the questions they caused in many people's minds about the legitimacy of the July 2, 2006 democratic process.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_election,_2006#Electoral_reforms_in_2000
From that section:
The electoral reforms introduced in January 2000, as a result of the pact between the PLC and the FSLN, established new rules for the contending parties in the elections. The required percentages to win the Presidential Election was reduced from 45 to 40 percent. The electoral law states that a participating candidate must obtain a relative majority of at least 40 percent of the vote to win a presidential election. However, a candidate may win by obtaining at least 35 percent of the vote, with at least a five percent margin over the second place finisher. The law also established a second-round runoff election if none of the candidates won in the first round. --Timeshifter 21:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A runoff election is a full recount in a sense." I'm sorry, but that is rather a large stretch. In fact, in very close multi-party elections with very polarizing candidates, that is seldom the case. It is well known that the results of an election with more than 2 candidates need not, in any way, shape, or form, have anything to do with pairwise elections among those candidates. See Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, Condorcet's Paradox, Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem, . You can have an election in which the Condorcet loser wins an full election, or one in which the Condorcet winner loses the election. Runoffs have little to do with recounts. The proposals for runoffs have to do with legitimacy and gobernability, not with alleged irregularities. The fact that Salafranca observed the elections in 2006 does not make his suggesting reform or a second round relevant to an article about the controversies surrounding the 2006 election, and especially not at length. At best, it seems to me that the most it would deserve is a sentence saying that in the aftermath the political parties and many observers have suggested changing the system from an FPGP-election to a two-round/runoff system; in which case, since the controversies surrounded the counting of the votes and the recounts, another sentence noting the changes that may have been suggested in that arena (counting, oversight, handling complaints, hangling recounts, etc); or that no change to the procedures for counting the votes or for recounts or investigating alleged irregularities has been proposed (if that is the case). Any discussion about changing the law may be the result of the controversies, but it is not part of the controversies, the subject of this article, regardless of who proposes the changes. Magidin 23:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Any discussion about changing the law may be the result of the controversies, but it is not part of the controversies, the subject of this article, regardless of who proposes the changes." That is your opinion. I disagree. I believe the controversies include all aspects of the election process, not just the specifics of the current process in question. People are questioning everything. The same thing is happening in the USA (the call for runoff elections, proportional representation, Condorcet, and fundamental changes of all kinds). The election controversies go very deep in both countries. To try to narrow the range of those controversies is a POV fork in my opinion. Wikipedia says that all significant sides of controversies should be covered. The "results of the opposition" section was initiated by either Felipec or Hseldon, I believe. I agreed. And some of these calls for reform are a result of the opposition to the July 2 general election irregularities (alleged). Also the calls for funding limits, time limits, and transparency are related in some ways to the claims of illegal campaigning during the run-up to the July 2 election. --Timeshifter 00:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People are questioning everything? Really? This article should include all the aspects of elections? Shall we throw in a couple Ph.D. thesis worth of discussing the different electoral systems? All significant sides of the controversy should be covered, yes. The question is whether people talking about whether a different electoral system should be used is not part of the "controversy" about the election; it is, at best, a result of the controversy. Should there be a section on eliminating the electoral college in the article about the controversies of the 2000 U.S. election? No; at most, it would deserve a very quick mention. Likewise here. Citing Salafranca in extenso on the excuse that he was an observer seems unwarranted. Now, controversies about elections may cover a lot, but this article is "Mexican general election 2006 controversies", not "Mexican elections controversies in general, and everything that might be remotely connected to this". As I said, saying that in the wake of the problems there have been discussions about these things, and links thereby, okay, maybe. Why is Salafranca being singled out? As a sly way to undermine the fact that he said he thought the elections were clean. Magidin 01:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would one not talk about the electoral college controversy during the 2000 and 2004 elections as part of their wikipedia pages? It was talked about a lot here in the USA during those times. I am American, so I can vouch for that. It is very much a part of the 2000 and 2004 election controversies. Salafranca is very much a part of the 2006 Mexican election controversies. People frequently tried to dismiss all claims of irregularities by just saying that Salafranca's EU observers had spoken. Wikipedia puts out the significant sides of the controversies, and lets the readers decide. Wikipedia does not ostracize particular viewpoints. That would not be NPOV. Of course, there is not enough room for Ph.D theses on wikipedia pages. Everything is summarized in wikipedia pages. And links are provided to further info. I notice that you have worked a lot on some math-related wikipedia pages. Things are not as clearcut in politics as in math. I doubt Condorcet methods were discussed much before, during, or after the July 2, 2006 Mexican election. It may not even merit a link in the "See also" section. But a link to Voting systems is merited since changes in the Mexican electoral system were discussed before, during, and after the July 2, 2006 election. And Condorcet methods are discussed in that overall article on voting systems. --Timeshifter 06:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[It is fine to break up my comment in order to comment on it, but please leave a copy of my unbroken comment too. I pasted a copy of it back in. --Timeshifter 21:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Why would one not talk about the electoral college controversy during the 2000 and 2004 elections as part of their wikipedia pages?
Not as part of the pages on controversies, because they are not germane to the topic of the page. Magidin
It was talked about a lot here in the USA during those times. I am American, so I can vouch for that.
So am I (just so you know). I know. The discussion happens in cycles. The same is true in Mexico. Talk of a second round was flying before the 2000 election. And talk is happening in Mexico now, to an even lesser degree than it happened then. But it is not part of the controversies of the 2006 election; mentioning that talk of electoral reform followed on the heels of the controversy, okay. In extenso discussion of the pros and cons of such reform, and quoting in extenso someone who is not Mexican on the excuse that he was mentioned earlier on the page as endorsing the election, that's not germane to the controversies either. And in any case, since this is the conclusion of a report by the EU team, if you are going to mention it, it should be attributed as such. Magidin
It is very much a part of the 2000 and 2004 election controversies.
Curious, then, that they are not mentioned in those pages, no? Why not go and try to add such sections to the page on 2004? As you can see, they are not there right now. Why? Because they don't really belong on the pages on the controversies. On the page on the 2000 U.S. presidential election it is not even mentioned in the section on Consequences. This might belong on the main page of the 2006 Mexican election; maybe. It might deserve a quick mention in this page. But this page is not the place for a long discussion on this; it is not part of the controversies. Magidin
Salafranca is very much a part of the 2006 Mexican election controversies.
His contemporary statements about the election, yes. His observations of the election, yes. His discussion, in an interview five months later, as representative of a team which is the one who issued the recommendations, on possible changes to the Mexican electoral system for future elections, quoted in extenso? Let me quote you: that's your opinion. I disagree. Moreover, the articles quotes make it clear that this was not Salafranca speaking on his own initiative. Rather, as head of the observation team, he was in charge of presenting recommendations issued by the team as a whole. Magidin
People frequently tried to dismiss all claims of irregularities by just saying that Salafranca's EU observers had spoken.
So... are you saying that quoting Salafranca on reform is a way to undermine the earlier quote of his about not seeing problems in the election? Magidin
Wikipedia puts out the significant sides of the controversies, and lets the readers decide. Wikipedia does not ostracize particular viewpoints.
You still are missing the main point. This is not part of the controversy. Magidin
That would not be NPOV. Of course, there is not enough room for Ph.D theses on wikipedia pages. Everything is summarized in wikipedia pages. And links are provided to further info. I notice that you have worked a lot on some math-related wikipedia pages. Things are not as clearcut in politics as in math. I doubt Condorcet methods were discussed much before, during, or after the July 2, 2006 Mexican election.
A two round system was discussed a lot during the run-off to the 2000 Mexican election; the fact that López Obrador might very well lose a 2-round system on the strength of anti-PRD votes from the PRI was also discussed quite a bit leading to the 2006 election. But the point is, the discussion going on now may be considered part of the aftermath of the controversies; a quick mention at the end might be in order. But this is not part of the controversy, and so there should not be a lengthy section on it in this page. Especially not if its main purpose is simply an attempt to discredit a source that was not critical of the election. You need to distinguish between what is part of the controversy, and what is a tangential consequence of the controversy; tangential, because this talk always follows close elections. The PRD talked a lot about it in 2000, and kept it up, right up until Jospin lost to Le Penn in France; then, all of a sudden, it did not seem like such a hot idea. Magidin
It may not even merit a link in the "See also" section. But a link to Voting systems is merited since changes in the Mexican electoral system were discussed before, during, and after the July 2, 2006 election. And Condorcet methods are discussed in that overall article on voting systems. --Timeshifter 06:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. Did I say you should not include a link to different voting systems in the "See also" section? Not that I recall. What I said is that in extenso discussions about talk of reform, and in extenso quoting of Salafranca (which is merely done as a way to undermine his earlier comments; it seems to be a pattern, as it happens: you've gone to great lengths, it seems to me, to try to undermine his contemporary conclusions about the election. Why is that?) is out of place in a page about the controversies of the election. Magidin 19:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you have just proved my points. You haven't really disagreed with me that all these things were discussed as part of this election. And we agree that we don't want a long thesis on anything in this wikipedia page. There is not room. So it is a matter of balance and presenting all sides fairly. There is room to do so. You are desperate to prevent Salafranca from being discredited in my opinion. Even by inference. I just throw out the significant viewpoints, and let the readers decide. What you are trying to do now is what Felipec and Hseldon were trying to do before. Which is selective emphasis on certain POVs. By blocking material you don't like. That is not allowed in wikipedia pages. I have no fear of all the viewpoints getting out. I haven't blocked anything that you 3 have wanted in the article, I believe. By the way, out of curiosity, why does your user page say: "This user is able to contribute with a professional level of English." That is why I assumed you were not American. Are you a naturalized American? --Timeshifter 21:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reply, interspersed. Magidin

You are desperate to prevent Salafranca from being discredited in my opinion. Even by inference.

I think it is dishonest to do so the way it has been done so far. First, someone who wasn't even there was quoted authoritatively, and he was refered to giving the impression he was there, to discredit Salafranca. Now, Salafranca is quoted out of context. And you seem to be agreeing that the intention of that quote was to discredit Salafranca. If that be the case, then it is a dishonest attempt at discrediting him; trying to present it as Neutral POV and then saying "let the readers decide" is disingenious at best. It is being done on the sly, by misrepresenting his comments. Comments that should not be in the page in the first place since they are not germane to the subject matter of the page. The EU team, as a whole, is recommending a number of changes for future elections. In that very same conference, see [10], Salafranca "also defended the outcome of the July 2 election." If the quote is being given in an attempt at discrediting Salafranca by giving the impression he now doubts the validity of the elections (which is what I believe is the point), then it is a dishonest attempt. The latest in a series. Magidin

I just throw out the significant viewpoints, and let the readers decide. What you are trying to do now is what Felipec and Hseldon were trying to do before. Which is selective emphasis on certain POVs.

Shall I quote you again, "in your opinion"? Almond's lack of direct observation was omitted. Al Giordano presents incorrect information and misrepresents photographs, but is taken as a reliable source. You present a quote which is out of context and misrepresents the statements, and then you wash your hands by saying "Let the readers decide". In a page where there is an ongoing disagreement, and where a simple moratorium was requested, you went ahead and added the information. I raised my objection in the Talk page, and I am the one giving "selective emphasis on certain POVs"? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. You are giving much too much weight to what is a minority view of the subject, as evidenced by the polls you yourself have quoted. Fine; that's the side that you are clearly invested in. But when that predilection was questioned, first Felipec's opinion was questionable for lack of experience. You were happy to applaud my participation when you thought I was on your side. But then sly comments about my experience perhaps not being useful because this is a political page and claims I am somehow "blocking" material I haven't even edited, because you don't like what I'm saying. An objection to what is at best tangential being presented as germane is not a violation of NPOV. Neither is objecting to underhanded attempts at discrediting a certain majority POV (that of the EU observers) by quoting out of context. Quite the opposite, in fact. Magidin

By blocking material you don't like.

For crying out loud. How have I "blocked" anything? Have I removed the text I am objecting to? Have I removed any text that I have found questionable? Did I remove the Almond quote you were so fond of? There, I added the information that he did not participate in the election and thus did not observe the events or the person he criticized; was that "selective emphasis on certain POVs"? Or was it rather the removal of selective emphasis on a particular POV, that of "let's discredit the observers"? Now, I have a disagreement, and I am trying to hash it out in the Talk pages prior to any editing. I have not even touched the section at issue. How am I blocking something? What I said was: "I am not sure the section on calls for election reform belong in this article[.]" Magidin

That is not allowed in wikipedia pages. I have no fear of all the viewpoints getting out. I haven't blocked anything that you 3 have wanted in the article, I believe. By the way, out of curiosity, why does your user page say: "This user is able to contribute with a professional level of English." That is why I assumed you were not American. Are you a naturalized American? --Timeshifter 21:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it is in any way relevant, but the reason it says that is because it is true. No, I am not naturalized. Which is completely irrelevant, as is your nationality or how you came by it (but you decided it was important to bring it up). Magidin 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


--Timeshifter 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC). Also, here are some excerpts of the 2000 U.S. election wikipedia article:[reply]

This election marked the third time in United States history that a candidate had definitively won the Electoral College and thus the Presidency without winning a plurality of the popular vote. (This also happened in the elections of 1876 and 1888.)
Nonetheless, embarrassment about the Florida vote uncertainties led to widespread calls for electoral reform in the United States and ultimately to the passage of the Help America Vote Act, which authorized the United States federal government to provide funds to the states to replace their mechanical voting equipment with electronic voting equipment. However, this has led to new controversies including the lack of paper-based methods of verification and the complexity of testing required to certify correct operation of computer-based systems.
Such a close national contest contributed to the controversy of the election. This was the first time since 1888 that a candidate who clearly did not receive a plurality of the popular vote received a majority of the Electoral College (see United States Electoral College, losing the popular vote). (Due to the unusual ballot in Alabama in 1960, it is unclear how much of the popular vote in that state can be attributed to Kennedy and hence whether Kennedy beat Nixon in the popular vote.)
Since the Presidential Election was so close and hotly contested in Florida, the United States Government and state governments pushed for election reform to be prepared by the 2004 United States Presidential Election. Many of Florida's year 2000 election night problems stemmed from voting machine issues like rejected ballots, "hanging chad", and the possibly confusing "butterfly ballot". An opportunistic solution to these problems was assumed to be the installation of modern electronic voting machines.
Electronic voting was initially touted by many as a panacea for the ills faced during the 2000 election. In years following, such machines were questioned for a suspicious lack of a paper trail, less than ideal security standards, low tolerance for software or hardware problems, and being manufactured by companies which had openly supported Republican candidates. The United States Presidential Election of 2000 spurred the debate about election and voting reform, but it did not end it. See Electronic voting: problems.

--Timeshifter 22:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC). The 5 wikipedia articles on the 2004 U.S. election controversies have much more info than the 2006 Mexican election controversies article we are working on.[reply]

Nobody is arguing that the amount of information is too much. There are concerns about the organization, the lack of representability of the majority POV in the article, and an apparent predilection for sources closely tied to one particular candidate (López Obrador). We are not talking about the size of the article, but whether an in extenso discussion about potential changes to the electoral system is germane to the subject matter of this page. I brought up the pages on the 2004 election because you brought up the 2004 elections and calls for change, and I pointed out that this information is not on the pages on the controversy, because it is not part of the controversy, exactly the same argument I am making of this page. Did you notice that the talk about proposals and calls for reform is in the main article on the election, not an article about the controversies? And that the mention is brief, to the point, and without quoting in extenso specific people or specific calls? Magidin 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


So there is room to discuss more of the claims and counterclaims in the 2006 article. I can't read the Spanish-language reports written by the Civic Alliance. Their reports of irregularities are in their articles linked from this page:

The MS Word doc file version of their reports can also be opened with WordPad or the free Word Viewer. --Timeshifter 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the point I am discussing is not whether there is room or not for discussing more claims and counterclaims. The point is that discussions about future changes to the electoral system are not claims, and they are not counterclaims, and they are not controversies about the election. Magidin 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed 4 duplicative photos

I removed the thumbnails of the 4 photos linked below from the wikipedia page. They are for the "Third Informative Assembly." They are unnecessary since very similar thumbnail photos are already on the page for that particular rally, and because there are links on the wikipedia page to photo galleries with many more rally photos.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Controversies_of_the_2006_Mexican_general_election&oldid=90315073"