Talk:José Mujica/Archive 1

Amnesty law
"In 1985, when democracy was restored, Mujica was freed under a general amnesty that covered all political crimes (except homicide) committed since 1962." This is a peculiar representation of the law. The law covers political and related military crimes. For people committed of homicide every day served counts as three. So if you were convicted of homicide (related to the political and military crimes), if you had served a third of the sentence you could be freed under the law. I'm going to simplify the text a bit. Elvko (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Former terrorist
He is a former member of the Tupamaros, a terrorist organisation. I think we need to address his former terrorism in the article, perhaps in a separate section. Gauge 2m (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia article on terrorism, to qualify the group must use violence targeted at civilians, and if you want to call the tupamaros a terrorist organization, you need to provide citations that prove this. This article had survived for a long time calling Mujica a politician and it seems the objective in editing it now is political and non-neutral in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.103.55 (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, this article is in spanish: http://www.envozalta.org/accionterrorista.html, but details terrorist acts perpetrated by the tupamaro movement. Of course this should have been addressed earlier, but the main page link is acting as a catalyzer for this article´s research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.27.197.130 (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Mhausen77 (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The link you provide may call the tupamaros a terrorist group (not suprisingly since it mainly contains articles by the former enemies of the tupamaros, many of them now serving time for human rights violations. But I'm discussing the definition of terrorism that wikipedia gives, more in line with international views, therefore you need to reference citations that show that the tupamaros targeted civilians with violence. So far, the only victims of the tupamaros I can find are either uniformed personnel, a CIA agent, and a civilian who happened to find a secret hiding place. This hardly compares to real terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, that cause the death of thousands of civilians by targeting them systematically.

Just found this out and thought it was time to revive the discussion. The tupamaros acted against civilian targets aiming to terrorize what they called the oligarchy of Uruguay. The bombing of a bowling center in Carrasco (a high income neighborhood in Montevideo) is a notable example well documented by many. It was part of a greater terrorist plan called "Cacao" which included bombing private companies.

Please review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupamaros#List_of_attacks, http://historico.elpais.com.uy/09/01/07/predit_391530.asp (in Spanish), and especially http://www.elobservador.com.uy/noticia/251331/glosario-para-entender-las-cartas-de-amodio/ (in Spanish) and http://leonardohaberkorn.blogspot.com/2009/08/hilaria-quirino-fernandez-huidobro.html (also in Spanish). For the record, Leonardo Haberkorn is a well respected writer, journalist and teacher that has written many books and articles related to the Tupamaros, backed by extensive research and interviews to former tupamaros.

What else would be needed to support their definition as terrorists? Afrachel (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The MLN-Tupamaros no longer exists, so it is impossible to remain a member of an organization that does not exist. Make it a terrorist organization or not depends on the definition and one is, despite isolated incidents, that the act of the Tupamaros was not at all the systematic attack toward innocent civilians. Regarding Mujica, request that it be treated as a terrorist and not as a politician leaves me great doubts about the objectivity and intentionality from those who request that kind of treatment. Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allezen (talk • contribs) 04:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hostage status
Martin Hausen 16:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC) I included the information that he was kept as a hostage and this was removed apparently because the word "hostage" is not neutral. The term hostage ("rehen") was used by both sides of the conflict to refer to these 9 tupamaros imprisoned and kept alive in case there would be another tupamaro action. Therefore, I do not see why not to use it here.


 * This is of course interesting to know, but it would be good to have a source for it. Feketekave (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Political prisoner
Again, another word removed out of the article citing a NPOV was "political prisoner". The majority of those escaped had not received sentences due simply to the crime they had committed but according to their political intention to cause a revolution ("sedición"), therefore making them political prisoners. Also, given the dubious legality of the process that sentenced him (regardless of his culpability) I would not say he "served" a certain number of years. Please discuss here before further edits to the article, as the page is featured in the main page of wikipedia.

I'm thinking on expanding on the nature of the administration of Jorge Pacheco Areco under which Mujica was imprisoned.

Amnesty
Martin Hausen 13:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I'm removing the tag "Uruguayan criminal" based on the fact that he was given Amnesty, which is defined by wikipedia as including "more than pardon, in as much as it obliterates all legal remembrance of the offense. The word has the same root as amnesia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhausen77 (talk • contribs)

Something wrong with this sentence
Something is wrong with this sentence in the background section -- "Several years after the restoration of democracy, Mujica joined other members of the Tupamaros and other to create the Movement of Popular Participation, a political party that was accepted within the Broad Front coalition." What does the "and other" mean? Was it former Tupamaros and other people in general and therefore should be "and others", or was it only Tupamaros and those words "and other" should be cut?InspectorSands (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was Tupamaros and other left-wing groups (which seceded in the 90s) so it should be "others". It's been changed with reference added.Martin Hausen 15:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, this sentence: "In 1985, when democracy was restored, Mujica was freed under a general amnesty for all common and political prisoners since 1962." Is it supposed to be "held since 1962"? Or was the first general amnesty since 1962?InspectorSands (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to reflect that the amnesty covered all crimes committed with a political goal since 1962 (except homicide), reference provided. Thanks for suggestions. Martin Hausen 15:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Trivia?
Apparently El Pepe drives an ancient VW Beetle (that replaced an even more aged Vespa) and gives away 2/3rds of his salary. Can these things be verified as they mark him as very different from teh typical head of state.The Yowser (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I found two relevant sites containing that information but only in Spanish

Rather old article from 2004 mentioning the Vespa and WV Beetle http://www.clarin.com/diario/2004/11/01/elmundo/i-02601.htm

Recent which mentions the salary donations. http://www.larepublica.com.uy/editorial/400203-mujica-en-el-pato-encadenado

Btw I'm not too crafty on this wiky thingies so feel free to properly correct the links to make em suitable for the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.159.202 (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Just saying that it is never mentioned that the "ranch" he lives in is actually several hundreds of hectares in area and that the terrain itself is worth millions. Also, the article about the salary donations only mentions that he said he would donate the 87% of his monthly salary, it is never stated that he actually kept his word. In fact, it has been causing a lot of controversy that said donations have never been recieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.25.186.62 (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Religion
added agnostic, as it reflex better his position, as he doubts of the existent of a god, but he doesn't denies it. U mad? fine.. clarify yourself. (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've changed "He is an atheist" to "He does not believe in God" per the Google translation of the cited source . As noted above, "atheist" can mean "denies the existence of any god" (see Negative and positive atheism), which is too strong to be supported by the cited source. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

According to Al Jazeera, Mujica considers himself a Secular Catholic. He was raised a Roman Catholic, and attends catholic mass from time to time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.87.110 (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, well that's another reason why the "atheist" label could be misleading. Do you have a link or any other details about the Al Jazeera article? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 08:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Being confined to the bottom of a well for more than two years
The only link supporting this affirmation is currently behind a paywall (not freely accessible) at a non-Uruguayan news company, and on the Spanish article about Mujica there is no mention to it.

As this implies an exceptionally cruel punishment, I believe it should be sustained by further publicly accessible web references or references in books available at the National Library of Uruguay. Otherwise it should (at least temporarily) be removed. Afrachel (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Just removed the reference to the well. Afrachel (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That an article is behind a paywall is not a reason for removing it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It took me less than five minutes to verify this. He and several other prisoners were confined to the bottom of a well for two years, they shared it with some frogs that they fed with bread crumbs. This is mentioned in a lot of interviews and descriptions of Mujica's time in prison all over the internet. I added a link to an interview in which he describes it himselfUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It took a whole week of waiting for comments before the removal took place. Thanks for adding freely available references. Afrachel (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

First sentence
This edit changed the lead/first sentence to describe Mujica in the present tense as a fighter, instead of a former fighter. That is inaccurate, I would imagine. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 23:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

POV comment
As a former terrorist, and a far left politician, many people may have been worried when he became president. The statement that "The expectations were high, as Mujica is the first former guerrilla fighter to become President in Uruguay" doesn't make sense. Having been a "guerrilla fighter" AKA terrorist does not qualify him to be president any more than having been a bank robber does.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The main problem was not that the sentence was POV but that it was unsourced and uninformative (whose expectations?). I have removed it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Mujica terrorist
Certainly Mujica was a terrorist, as the tupamaro group. Uruguay was a democratic country at the time of the tupamaros, and as Che Guevara said when visited that country, "there is no need for a revolution in your country". The fact is, the left party groups were a very small minority in Uruguay democratic elections, that´s why, following the instructions of the OLAS meeting, several left party groups, who had no votes in democratic elections, started a "revolution" following the idea of the Cuban revolution, with the support of Cuba and Russia through the comunist party. A great number of tupamaros members received guerrilla instruction in Cuba and Rusia (we have to look out if Mujica was one of them). Terrorists create terror, and surely the tupamaros create terror: we can mention the Pando assault (what was its purpose if not to create terror in the civilian people?) where more several inocent people were killed, the blowing of the golf club, the bowling club at Carrasco, and several other bombings, as well as killing by treason of policeman, soldiers (remember the 4 soldiers killed in a jeep by suprise with no chance to defend themselves), kidnapping, robbery, etc. Surely they were terrorist, you just have to ask any uruguayan that lived that era. On the other hand Mujica was prosecuted for robbery and assault, previous becoming a tupamaro terrorist. The tupamaros put Uruguay in fire in that time, acting violently and in a coward way, something that has never been seen before in Uruguays´ history, including the revolutionary times in the 18th hundreds and beginning of the 20th century. He was also not a political hostage, he was in jail for murder, robery, kidnapping, and association for crime comiting, all this included in Uruguayan laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.61.203.241 (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on José Mujica. 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/20120225140520/http://www.espectador.com/1v4_contenido.php?id=124426&sts=1 to http://www.espectador.com/1v4_contenido.php?id=124426&sts=1

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) 12:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on José Mujica. 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/20131230234601/http://exwebserv.telesurtv.net/secciones/noticias/?ckl=76634-NN&idafondo=249 to http://exwebserv.telesurtv.net/secciones/noticias/?ckl=76634-NN&idafondo=249
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20091019075452/http://www.focoblanco.com.uy/2009/10/mujica-por-pagina-12-%E2%80%9Cen-mi-paisito-vale-la-pena-invertir%E2%80%9D/ to http://www.focoblanco.com.uy/2009/10/mujica-por-pagina-12-%E2%80%9Cen-mi-paisito-vale-la-pena-invertir%E2%80%9D/

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) 15:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Desi Bouterse
Dear reader As far as I know Desi Bouterse was never a pesident of Uruguay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.20.123 (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)