Talk:Desafuero of Andrés Manuel López Obrador

The article is well written, well researched and is generally a nice try at tackling this subject. However, as it stands now, the article has a discernible bias against Lopez Obrador. I am not necessarily a fan of Lopez Obrador but the facts should be presented accurately and with balance.

Some of my issues are: 1. I think the article should be split into two Wikipedia entries: one for Desafuero as a generic term and a separate one for the Lopez Obrador Desafuero saga. The first one should include links to the definition of Impeachment, and also to high profile impeachment processes in the world (Bill Clinton, Color de Mello, Pinochet -by the way, the link to Augusto Pinochet as it stands now is unfair to Lopez Obrador as the two impeachment cases and the underlying alleged offenses are not at all comparable among the two cases, I have thus deleted this reference for the time being-). The second entry should cover the particulars of the Encino case and all the political issues and implications behind it. 2. The article almost completely ignores the political context and motivations of the parties pushing for the desafuero. The article makes passing reference to Lopez Obrador's "media strategy", but I don't think this accurately reflects that fact that while the desafuero had legal origins and some legal basis, its motivation and inspiration was clearly political. This is also the most interesting aspect of the story: who wanted the desafuero? why? who benefitted and who was hurt by the whole affair? etc. For example, the article contains a number of interesting details (like the mention of the payment of the "fianza" by two PAN congressmen, but these details have very little meaning if the big picture context is not provided. 3. The Political Reactions section of the article suffers from many of the same problems outlined above. For starters, it states that the Desafuero caused favorable and unfavorable reactions. This is factually correct but fails to point out that overwhelmingly support for the desafuero came almost exclusively from the ranks of the PRI and PAN and criticism for the Desafuero was widespread (almost unanimous) among the domestic and international media (NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post editorials, etc.), political commentators, etc. 4. I think more verifiable sources and links should be provided.

I realize that I'm making broad critical statements about the article without necessarily proposing any concrete changes. I am very willing to colaborate in the edition of this article but I wanted to throw in some ideas to start the process.

(Unsigned, but by User:Lievano. He posted this criticism at the top of the article, so I moved it here.--Rockero 04:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC))

Response to Lievano
1a. Desafuero is not impeachment. See es:Desafuero and es:impeachment. 1b. There is a sectio about the Encino case. 2a. The political context is not ignored "After a long session where AMLO accused President Fox of being behind the process". 2b. "its motivation and inspiration was clearly political" if it's clear? can you provide sources? The Supreme Court having political bias is a strong accusation. 3. "ignores... the desafuero came almost exclusively from the ranks of the PRI and PAN". Yes, it is being (sort of) mentioned "with a majority of PRD members (AMLO's party) has refused to acknowledge the validity of this". The fact that these two parties supported the desafuero (the PRI was split on the topic) is not evidence of political bias, but rather is a POV. In spite of the opinion of the "NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post editorials, etc." congress has to abide to law not to popularity. 4. I'm glad that you have thought of collaborating. This is a wiki and anybody can edit the article. If you'd like to provide sources, go ahead and do it. For now I will remove the POV tag that I think it's excessive in this case. --Vizcarra 22:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to Vizcarra
Thanks for your response. I'm relatively new here so I don't necessarily know the right protocol. My apologies if the POV tag was excessive. I did some preliminary edits to the article as I truly believe it is biased as it stands now. I'm makin these edits from a lousy TV Internet connectio from a hotel in the midwest, and I can't really see what I'm writing. I'll clean it up tomorrow night from my home. The desafuero is as much a political pocess as it is a legal process. I'm not making this up or even accusing anyone of anything. This is the way it was designed to be and this is why it is the Camara de Diputados that makes de decision. This is how the process works in other countries as well. Therefore the desafuero was never just a simple case of AMLO broke the law, therefore he ought to be impeached. As much as the government clealy tried to sell it that way. Now, I'm not even trying to prescribe how the government should have acted here. My only concern is that this complexity in the process be accurately reflected in the article. I don't want my POV reflected in the article. I just want the full picture reflected.


 * That's what we're all trying to do, and together we'll improve the article. --Vizcarra 06:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Desafuero of Manuel López Obrador. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060216073624/http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2005/04/07/018n1pol.php to http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2005/04/07/018n1pol.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050426115100/http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/noticia.html?id_nota=124383&tabla=Nacion to http://www2.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/noticia.html?id_nota=124383&tabla=nacion

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)