Talk:Vicente Fox/Archive 2

Archives
I would like to point out that the Wikipedia articles, both in English and Spanish, on Vicente Fox, have his full, legal name incorrect. He is NOT Vicente Fox Quesada but correctly is Vicente Fox y Quesada. The dropping of the "y" is just a social (and newspaper reporting) convention. I honestly believe this should be corrected, but as a researcher, not a Wikipedia editor or source, I feel that this should be done by someone with more expertise. Mazbook (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Freeedom of speech
For quite a time now the article has stated that "Andrade also credited the Fox administration with increasing respect for freedom of speech, as well as access to public information." Who's this guy Andrade? Is he an expert on the subject? Why do the international organisms have a different opinion of his?. Both the prosecution of Lydia Cacho and the still unsolved murder of Digna Ochoa both occurred during Fox's term do not honor these statements. Only Iraq supersedes Mexico in terms of journalists murdered during 2006 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/31/AR2007033101359.html?hpid=artslot). Keep in mind that Iraq is in War!. I propose a major edit of this section with citations from proven and reliable sources. I will work on a proposal and paste it here for review before placing it on the article. Andy Rosenthal 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Lydia Cacho was prosecuted in Puebla by the PRI-government of Mario Marín, and Digna Ochoa occured in Mexico City, if I am not mistaken, also under the local jurisdiction of PRD-government of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Added to this, assasination of reporters at the hands of drug dealers have also increased. The question is, however, weather these reporters were murdered by the government, on account of the government, or due to incompetence of the government, and also, of which government? Any proposal that does not take into account that there are three levels of government responsible for the security of their citizens (including reporters), and not taking into account the differences between government-approved media of previous administratios (i.e, Jacobo Zabludowsky's "Hoy fue un día soleado") vs. the free criticism of the federal government of the Fox administration (i.e., "México, lo que todo mexicano quisiera -no- saber de su patria", by Denise Dresser), would be an incomplete proposal.
 * Hari Seldon 00:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Added to this, the role of government should be considered. Is the President responsbile of prosecuting the Governor of Puebla, or is that the role of Congress? Who dominated Congress then? What about the role of the judicial system?
 * In any case, it is clear that the Mexican government is far from perfect, but a CLEAR description of responsibilities makes better criticism than just blaming the President with everything that is wrong.
 * Hari Seldon 00:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's ironic you said that because Fox said just the same thing "It's just another murder of the many that occur in Mexico city". (Imagine a president saying that on such a high profile case, In any other country he would have gotten so much heat from the press that the word impeachment would have been heard, but we should not hold it against him, perhaps he was just trying to do his usual vituperation of the City's government). It is worth noting, that Fox was asked to intervene in the murder of Ochoa http://www.fidh.org/article.php3?id_article=1436) and Fox promised justice for the crime (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/27/149240) yet he failed to provide the resources he was supposed to commit to the investigation. I am not sure who to blame, but I was using this as an example of the prevalence of injustice in Mexico. I will not go on with Cacho's case that it is equally unsettling.
 * Be it as it may Federation or not, local, state or federal. Who in God's name is Andrade?, It seems that Amnesty International or The International press institute both disagree with him. I am sure Fox's mother can say that he is very well intentioned too, does it matter?. Even Reforma has sharply criticized the censorship and lack of openness that Fox had. Do you think it is fair to say that freedom of speech exists or these six years were characterized for openness freedom of speech where the country that has the second highest rate of journalists murdered worldwide? I just think including the opinion of a nobody as a fact when this contradicts the research of international organizations of such prestige as Amnesty International (who say that those six years were full of repression and fear for reporters and  journalists) is neither fair nor accurate. Andy Rosenthal 02:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your analysis is incomplete. First of all, I don't think that the President's words could be interpreted maliciously, as we know, he never got how to talk to the media. He was just stupid. In any case, the investigation should be responsibility of the Attorney General, who depends on the President, but who has been known to act independently, particularly Rafael Macedo de la Concha, former PRI-member. Indeed, Rafael Macedo de la Concha was a far-from-exemplary official, but that does not mean that Fox murdered Digna Ochoa. If he was incompetent, it should be noted, but be careful of taking the accusation too far. In any case, it should also be noted that protecting that citizen WAS the responsbility of the Government of Mexico City, which was also incompetent. I am not arguing that one was better than the other, I am just pointing that it would be unfair to blame one without noting the responsibility of the other. In any case, wikipedia is not a place to distribute blame. If you have reputable sources go ahead and post them, but remember about NPOV. Andrade seems to be a business analyst for private companies (i.e., business lawyer), in any case, I agree his source is not the best that can be found, but before removing it, there is some aknowledgement that, from a point of view (the one comparing Fox with "No pago para que me peguen" former governments), freedom of speech has improved. At least, allow the editors of this page to look for a more reliable source before replacing it. And finally, at state levels, I've seen countless repression of free speech, particularly in PRI-controlled localities, like Puebla and Oaxaca. As for the Federal level, I loved criticizing Fox, I loved "La Parodia", and all programs that made fun of him, I loved countless of newspapers cover page with Fox's stupid remarks, editorials about their criticism and I love how criticism of the Federal government, though widespread, was not persecuted. I am not saying that Fox's government was perfect, or that Mexico has no issues with free speech, but it would be ridiculous to blame it on Fox. Yes, I do feel that his government allowed for more free speech, despite other factors that are not the Federal Goverment preventing it to develop fully. Again, I am not saying that Fox was perfect, but surely he wasn't a repressive maniac! True, those six years where full of repression and fear: by PRI-led state governments and drug gangs, but not by the Federal government. And I think that this is the main difference between Fox's government and the previous governments. Before, it was a perverse government silencing reporters, and with Fox it was an incompetent government allowing state governors and drug gangs to silence reporters. On the other hand, also note that persecuting state governors is the task of Congress, and Fox cannot be held accountable for a task that, legally, he cannot and should not perform. Hari Seldon 03:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your last comment is emotive to say the least. I never planned to use Ochoa's or Cacho's cases on Fox's article but i wanted to use them as examples of situations that occurred during his term. However, there can't be any questioning of the accuracy or validity of the AI's and IPI's reports. Neither can there be any of Washington post article I included on my first comment.


 * I want you to notice the number of times that you say "I" in your reply. I also want you to realize that while you acknowledge that Andrade's is just a point of view, you are asking me not include any points of view ("If you have reputable sources go ahead and post them, but remember about NPOV"). Why would Andrade's point of view would be better than any other? It is in fact a point of view (from someone that " seems to be a business analyst")


 * This is what you should do: 1) Find reputable and reliable sources on the improvement of freedom of speech in Fox's term 2) Document that local authorities are to blame for harassment and murder of journalists and 3) Document your allegations that drug enforcement is not a responsibility of the federal government (last I heard the Army is in charge of it and the army is under jurisdiction of the federal government). This last point is irrelevant to the article, but it will be used to support your other claims. Otherwise I will delete that sentence from Andrade. Andy Rosenthal 07:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You misread me. I am not asking you to refrain from including any point of view. I am simply asking you to put it in the proper context. About "documentation" that local authorities are to blame for "harassment and murder of journalists", well, simply take a look at the laws pertaining civil protection. The Constitution guarantees right of free speech and free press, but it gives states soverignty, which means that the responsibility of protecting citizens living in said states is the responsibility of the State government. In the case of persecution of drug dealers that intimidate reporters, one only has to look at the track record of President Fox fighting organized crime. How many detentions/prosecutions were made during his term? Indeed, you are right, fighting organized crime is an attribution of the Federal Government, but remember that organized crime existed since BEFORE Fox became President. Much of the problem was inherited, and this should be noted. By the way, it is not only the Army that is charged with battling organized crime, but also the Federal Police Agencies (PFP and AFI, the latter created during Fox). As for punishing controversial State Governors (like, Mario Marín), look into the constitution, and you'll see that these public officials are protected by immunity ("fuero") which has to be removed by congress. If I am not mistaken, Fox's party asked for a removal of immunity against Mario Marín... What was the response of the PRI? Consider the Desafuero case vs. Lopez Obrador. The Attorney General did not prosecute Lopez Obrador immediately after the Encino scandal arouse; they had to build a case and then convince Congress to remove Lopez Obrador from immunity. The same process would have applied to Mario Marín in the Lydia Cacho case. Please be patient. I have an exam tomorrow and several homeworks to hand in during the week. Please give me or other editors until Friday to present a proposal. Work on yours, and lets discuss it. In essence, I agree that Fox's term was not perfect, but I wouldn't like for any particular opinion to prevail when all can be presented in the proper context. Again, I don't want to stop you from helping create a better article, I am merely saying that all information needs to be presented NPOV. And yes, I say "I" a lot. In talk pages, I present my arguments on how this article can be better served, and hopefully, the sum of all our contributions create a higher quality, neutral article. And for the record, yes ther can be a questioning of the validity of AI, IPI, and WP, if for no other reasons, because all organizations are corruptible and liable to having an Agenda (in fact, I have a teacher that preaches the "well known fact" that AI has indeed an agenda towards the extreme left). And, wikipedia documents in The Washington Post that "Conservatives often cite the Post, along with The New York Times, as exemplars of "liberal media bias." In any case, no source is incorruptible or absolute, they simply are documentations of reality from a certain point of view. Hari Seldon 09:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What is a teacher from a business school located in the red state that houses the minute man project supposed to say? I am sure Ann Coulter, and Dennis Miller agree with him. Who is this guy? Did he watch this on the O'Rielly factor? AI is an independent pro bono Nobel Prize winning organization (Is not a business, one more reason to dislike them), please feel free to fill me in what their agenda is, I guess they want to take over the world too eh? a conspiracy theory?
 * Why don't you find the figures to see what happened in Fox's term with organized crime, it sky rocketed to the point that public executions are an every day occurrence throughout the country. (You are from Monterrey you should know this better than I)
 * The article from the Washington Post says that Mexico is only second to Iraq in deaths of media related people. I don't see why the orientation of the paper would influence this, perhaps it can be worded differently? I don't see why it matters which political orientation the paper has, it's not even an editorial it is an article!
 * Does it really matter what the constitution say? How many criminals are brought to justice in the Mexican system? Is the constitution adequately enforced? Impunity is the common occurrence rather than the exception.
 * Let's also not forget that Fox gave Televisa and TV Azteca full control of the TV waves perpetuating their monopoly, making it iron clad. Wow, Fox really was a defender of freedom of speech. Andy Rosenthal 19:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Andy! Talk about assuming good faith! Actually, I also have a teacher who supports democratic candidate. My former finance teacher was a libertarian, and of course, teachers are free to teach their course in the best way they see fit. What, can't you stand the criticism? The argument he makes is that AI is funded mostly by left-leaning parties and thus that aids in thier bias, and any way, he is not my teacher in this school, he was my teacher at my undergrad school. He, by the way, also criticized the PAN, the Catholic Church, and every single political association claiming they all had bias, including AI... Figures of organized crime skyrocketing are interesting, but the authorities claim that this is due to them being more effective against drug lords, and thus inciting retaliation. The figures of organized crime should be coupled with these arguments and the figures of apprehended criminals compared to previous administrations, so that the reader can judge by himself whether or not the authorities are doing a good job. And Yes, I am from Monterrey, I remember that during Fernando Canales one could walk safely on the street, and now with Natividad Gonzalez one cannot. That is the way I personally see it. Andy, calm down, I am not critizicing your sources. I am just saying that all sources ARE fallible, and that is why we use NPOV, using contrasting sources, so that the reader can get the complete picture and make his own mind. And, actually, it really matters what the constitution says, because it is the most basic law of Mexico. We should judge our governments compared to how they do according to the constitution. If the constitution says that detainees have rights, and the government doesn't grant them for whatever reason, then we could be living in a repressive government. If the constitution says that the Federal Executive has no power of the Local Executive, there is a reason for it, and having a President try to exceed his powers in that instance might indicate that he would try to exceed his powers in other instances; a prelude to dictatorship. You see, the fact that certain laws are not enforced is not an excuse to refrain oneself from enforcing other laws. On the contrary, we should pressure our governments, specially those who ACTUALLY HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY to enforce said laws (i.e., in most cases, local governments). And, no, again, it wasn't Fox who gave "Televisa and TV azteca" a full control of TV waves "perpetuating their monopoly", it was the house and senate. In the house, the vote was unanimous, which means the PRD also gave Televisa and TV Azteca said rights. Finally, please read the law. The law is above conversion technologies and the decision was whether or not all current companies (not just Televisa and TV Azteca, but all that already have transmission rights) should hold the waves they are assigned to, or have to go through a re-assignment process when switching to digital technology. Grupo Reforma (and apparently, no one else, since the whole issue surfaced when Reforma published this in their front page), argued that with digital technologies, these companies would be able to transmit 10 times the content they currently transmit, and so should be liable to a re-assignment that would give them 1/10 th of the capacity, enough to transmit the same content. All parties in congress disagreed. It does not "perpetuate their monopoly", because there is enough wave space so that further competition can surface, if the SCT approves (and as I understand, will start approving in September 2007). So, with the opinions behind us, lets go to the task at hand. What do you think of the outline? Please feel free to add, or subtract from it. Hari Seldon 23:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Outline
Here is a proposition of an outline:


 * Descritpion of articles 6 and 7 of the constitution (freedom of speech and freedom of the press), the extent of the right and, most notably, the controversial limitants to free speech ("en el caso de que ataque a la moral, los derechos de tercero, provoque algún delito o perturbe el orden público", for article 6).
 * The creation of IFAI as per "el derecho a la información será garantizado por el Estado" of article 6. (IFAI was created during Fox).
 * Fox's own point of view. (If others will comment on Fox, lets also give him a voice): "Hoy, el gobierno federal no censura, no reprime ni compra a nadie, ya no se dicta línea, amenaza o castiga a quienes ejercen el periodismo, ya no se ofrece el ‘chayote’, tan conocido en el pasado, la libertad de expresión es sin duda una de las más grandes conquistas de nuestra democracia", Fox as reported by esmas.com
 * Aknowledgement of increased criticism against the Federal government, particularly, aganist Fox, and the lack of persecution of it. (Mexican Intellectuals and Policy Alternation (2000-2004), Review of Policy Research 22 (1), 17–26. "The political and intellectual landscape of Mexico has been changed by two dramatic events: a new democratic experience, with the triumph of Vicente Fox in the presidential elections of the year 2000; and the relevant role that intellectuals are playing in public opinion. Soon, the democratic experience turned from illusion to deception, basically because Mexican political culture still is authoritarian, and this is something Mexican intellectuals could not accept. Their critics point out that democracy in Mexico is as new as it is weak, and Fox's government has been attacked in the media as no other president in recent history.") AND, "Cuánto miedo frente a los calumniadores con credencial de periodistas. Tanto que, pretextando la libertad de expresión, se les otorga una impunidad mayor que la inmunidad diplomática o el fuero legislativo para que ni siquiera pisen la cárcel.", Carlos Marín in Milenio Diario.
 * Compare with "no pago para que me peguen".
 * Actions to combat repression of free speech (creation of a specialized attorney for crimes against free speech, as reported by CPJ News, "El presidente de México Vicente Fox anunció hoy que pedirá al Procurador General de la República la designación de un fiscal especial para investigar delitos contra la libertad de expresión, un compromiso asumido luego de una serie de violentos ataques contra periodistas en los estados del norte del país".
 * Aknowledgement of AI, IPI and Washington Post concerns
 * Examples in the cases of reporters threatened by drug dealers, but also the cases of Digna Ochoa, Lydia Cacho, and Diario Noticias de Oaxaca.
 * Lawful limits to the intervention of the Federal Government, and its involvement within those limits in these cases. (I.e., Digna Ochoa, Federal Government could not prevent her death, but was charged with investigatin her murder and did not do so appropriately; Lydia Cacho's unlawful kidnapping by Puebla's police forces and suspected corruption of judges --judicial branch and local executive-- and the process of prosecution, and what Vicente Fox could do about the problem; the Diario Noticias de Oaxaca case, when Organized labor organization affiliated with the PRI --CROC and CTM-- took control of the newspaper, presumably under the orders of PRI governor Ulises Ruiz. How did the Federal Government responded to the attack on the paper's right for Free Press.)
 * About the cases of organized crime killing/threatening reporters, a reference to a section on actions against organized crime: "Fox focused his early efforts on improving trade relations with the United States, calming civil unrest in such areas as Chiapas, and reducing corruption, crime, and drug trafficking." (Encyclopeadia Britannica).

What do you think of this outline? Hari Seldon 09:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay. I think it is a good start, but I don't think there is a point in including the articles of the constitution. I think that the entry should expose all points of view and point out the marked increase in organized crime (I think that even if the local governments are the culprits of this, how this occurred as a generalized phenomenon throughout the country deserves to be mentioned) Also I think that in order to acquit the federal government from this rise in crime, you should find sources that demonstrate the federation's efforts to combat crime. It really does not matter what the constitution says, but you should point out how the federation did its job or enforced the constitution. Definitely credit Fox's govt for the creation of the IFAI Also, I don't see why we should include Fox's comments, I think that if anything they make him look bad... (using jargon that is better suited for laymen and not a president) furthermore we are not including anyone else's opinions, and more than opinions we should include facts. The statistics made public by the Wash post and the IPI (AI included) are not concerns, they are facts! Citing britannica is sub-standard, after all they say that his efforts focused on that, but was he successful? I don't have time to write but I will be happy to contribute in any way I can. Andy Rosenthal 07:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, the constitution of Mexico and its rules are not common knowledge for the readers of the english wikipedia. Some context must be provided!
 * By the way, and this a 100% personal opinion, but "using jargon that is better suited for laymen and not a President" was Fox's greatest contribution to Free Speech. It set the stage for a marked rise in criticism against him. It is hard, particularly for the unnacustomed media, to spend 70 years silenced by the government and conditioned to look at the good side of the President. When matters are complicated (as politics usually are), it is easy to avoid direct criticism. But when the President screws up so obviously that even a layman can laugh at him, media criticism is inevitable. What Fox did, perhaps unintentionally, was open the door for criticism to flow freely and unrestricted, starting with the little things and then moving on to the big things (i.e., the expropriation of the sugar plantations, the biggest blunder in his administration). Again, this may have been unintentionally, but, at least in my opinion, it was valuable and deserves a menction. That is why I have tried to maintain the quotes section.
 * By the way, the "Y yo por qué?" comment should be included in this controversy. Clearly, what he meant was that he had no jurisdiction in a dispute between private parties that should have been resolved through the judicial (not the executive) branch of government. I think that this phrase is the core of the great Fox misunderstanding of the people. Mexico did not care about the separation of powers, they wanted results. Fox, on the other hand, at least on TV tried to avoid this overstepping of power, and every time he overstepped his power (Atenco I and II, PFP in Oaxaca, expropriation of plantations, etc...) it went inevitably wrong.
 * What I mean to say is that I don't disagree that Fox was far from perfect, but he was no tyrant or repressor. If anything, he was a man with good intentions who wanted but couldn't. And, in my opinion, this would be a fair portrayal of his administration. On the other hand, lets look for sources and see what they show.
 * So, Andy, I start, for real, the final part of the trimester, and my contributions will be really limited from here on until the second week of May. Holiday has just ended, but I have to hand in a lot of reports and exams these coming weeks and will not be able to advance this further. What do you say if we reconvene in May with sources and start working on a draft?
 * Hari Seldon 07:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan. I agree with you, I think Fox was well intended too, but perhaps too lax sometimes. We will leave the article as it is and await your return for further edits. Thx. Andy Rosenthal 08:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Foxilandia
I don't think it's a good idea to link this rticle with "Foxilandia" it's a term use by people who hate Vicente Fox!! --Pacoworld 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Criticism is not necessarily "hatred", and one can learn a lot about someone's critics. The quality of the critics tell you a lot about the quality of the man. It is impossible to be 100% popular; everybody has critics. But if your critics resort to violence, illogical arguments, lies, and other forms of desperate acts to attack you, it may be because they know they can't beat you in a logical discourse, democratic environment, or with the truth... I am not implying with this anything about Fox, I am merely saying that there is nothing wrong with criticism and it doesn't imply hatred. Hari Seldon 00:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to make this link, can I link Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador with "Populist", "Messianism", Hugo Chavez with "Narcissism", "Leninism" because I guess the same rigth --Pacoworld 03:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The answer to those questions are in the talk pages of the articles of said figures. I personally wouldn't see anything wrong in linking Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to "populism" or Hugo Chavez to "Leninism", but the others seem a bit exaggerated.
 * Foxilandia is a pop-culture term, even if it is critical, criticism, if quoted and sourced, is allowed in wikipedia. What cannot be allowed is personal opinions with no sources. (For instance, if you can find a source to quote that Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is a populist, then it should be allowed to be in that article). Otherwise, it makes no sense to try to hide information simply on the basis that it is an opinion from the critics. The article documents that the term "Foxilandia" is an opinion by the critics. Why should we hide the knowledge that the critics mocked the President instead of proposing solutions to the percieved problems? Hari Seldon 04:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Foxilandia is not something that should be linked with President Fox. I agree with pacoworld.


 * Foxilandia is a term invented because of President Fox. It is already linked to him, no matter how unpleasant he might find it. Hari Seldon 06:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Presidential Library
Ok, so Dcrcort is trying to add information about Fox's library. But he is also making some interesting claims like it would be the "First" Presidential Library (despite the fact that there is A libary in Benito Juarez's house in Oaxaca, though it hardly qualifies as a Presidential Library). He also claims that Fox is "following the footsteps of US Presidents", except that US Presidents get public funding for this, and Fox will not. He also claims that Felipe Calderón will continue this tradition, and he barely has been 6 months in power! Finally, he says that before Fox all documents were off limits to the people, but I am sure this was not the case during Zedillo, at least for some documents. Indeed, if so many wild claims are going to be added, I'll need to see some very good sources. I am not against a section on the library, but lets be objective and not use so many POV statements and weasel words! Hari Seldon 17:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's fair that my section was deleted, because it was based on actual facts. --Dcrcort 01:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hari Seldon your writing is not the only one that counts here. Stop deleting everyone else's work. I'm going to rewrite my "FIRST PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY" section again, and I really wish you wouldn't mess with it.  This time I'll make sure to include some sources. happy?--Dcrcort 01:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not defending my writing as the "only one that counts". I, for one, would like to see sources. Claiming "actual facts" is not enough, you need to provide reliable sources. You haven't yet. Also, be careful with how you word. Take into considerations my comments that President Fox will not "follow US president footsteps" because he would not have public funding, nor is there any indication that Calderón will continue the "tradition". Be sure to source that Fox is, indeed, the FIRST to make such an endeavor, and make sure to distinguish the difference between this library and the "José Vasconcelos" library. Hari Seldon 02:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please quit trashing my writing. I'm not saying Felipe Calderon will continue the library tradition, I'm saying he will "likely" continue the traditon based on the fact that he is from the same party as Fox. Why do you keep deleting sections from my writing...what qualifications do you have to do that?--Dcrcort 02:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you feel I am trashing your writing. But, saying that Calderón will likely continue based on a loose fact (they are from the same party) is hardly encyclopedic. In fact, it is an opinion. Opinions and original research are not encyclopedic and I disagree with their inclusion. Should all opinions on Calderón and Fox be listed in wikipedia? No! Wikipedia is not a blog, or a soapbox! What we should try to do is find reliable sources and reference and add encyclopedic knowledge, data and facts that can be verified. Your opinion cannot be verified, starting with the fact that Calderón and Fox, though from the same party, are from different "currents" within the party. Fox nominated Creel for President, and Calderón defeated Creel. Things are not so simple. Calderón is turning out to be a very different President than Calderón was, and thus it is a huge stretch to assume that he will continue this "tradition" merely because they are from the same party.
 * And by the way, I have the same qualifications as you to edit your writing. This is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone (even me) can edit. Talk pages are here to discuss our edits assuming good faith.
 * Hari Seldon 02:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That’s bogus. Felipe Calderon has continued to operate almost all programs that Vicente Fox founded as president of my country. Whether you agree or disagree with other people’s opinions, you have no right to erase others efforts and work.  If I would have written “Felipe Calderon will continue this tradition”, then your changes would have been fair. Nonetheless, I wrote as a piece of information for others, that President Calderon will “likely, perhaps, possibly” continue this tradition. Quit undermining the efforts of others. --Dcrcort 02:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not talking about his programs, I am talking about his style, for example, dressing up in military uniform, the distance with his wife, the manner in which he speaks, the methods for conducting international relations, the way he approaches congress, etc... The government style of Calderón is different than that of Fox.
 * You see, my edits have nothing to do with whether or not I agree or disagree with your opinions. They have to do with the guidelines about opinions in the article. The article should portray knowledge, not opinions. Even saying that "likely, perhaps possibly" is an opinion. There is no way of knowing this and no reliable source can cite this. I am not undermining your efforts, I am asking you to rise to the highest standard!
 * And by the way, about the "citation needed" tags, they have to do with writing style. For instance, the use of weasel words, unconfirmed information, assumptions, and other unencyclopedic writing are not the highest standard. Hari Seldon 03:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I've made some changes that I think greatly enhance the section. Would like to hear your comments. Hari Seldon 03:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I greatly appreciate that you at least edited the section this time, rather than delete the whole section like you did previously. Nevertheless, I still think the sentence that includes President Calderon should be included. By the way, your citations don’t work. Not everyone has a subscription to El Norte…I think you should consider some scholarly sources.--Dcrcort 04:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A newspaper is an acceptable source, and the source need only be verifiable, not universally accesible. Reforma and El Norte are acceptable sources. For example, the logic of looking for a different source based on the fact that "not everyone" is a subscriptor would also lead to eliminate book citations because "not everyone" have easy access to books. Hari Seldon 05:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You really need to get a life. You are quick to edit everyone’s work, but when someone contradicts your points you quickly delete it. Also, quit placing tags all over my section…it makes it look unreliable to readers. Are you jealous that someone else thought of placing Fox's library here before you? It certainly looks like it. Wikipedia would be a better place without weirdoes like you.--Dcrcort 05:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not jealous of anything! I am simply asking that certain controversial information be verified. It is not unreliable, since a lot of those sentences now have sources. And having free time is not a crime. By the way, I do not. I am writing a paper and happen to be using wikipedia for sources. Finally, please be careful with personal attacks. Hari Seldon 06:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then write your paper and quit editing every word I write. Seriously, what's the matter with you? The world will not end, because one sentence YOU don't agree with is inculded in an online encyclopedia.--Dcrcort 06:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't personal. This isn't about the sentence. This is about the quality of the article. I am sorry you feel this is a personal attack against you. It is not. Hari Seldon 06:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If Fox's library will be modeled after Bill Clinton's, then it will be a U.S. style library. Quit placing citation tags all over my work (for the fifth time).--Dcrcort 07:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't your work! It is colaboratve work! And one President does not define a style. It may be modeled after Clinton, but "US Style" implies a lot more than simple design or purpose. It also defines ideology. Hari Seldon 09:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not implying the whole section is my work, but if I wrote four sentences and then some guy who by obvious reasons has no life decides to first delete my whole section, then edit every word on it, and then place seven “citation needed” tags on it….it gets pretty personal. Really, I just can't believe how creepy you are. There are millions of articles in wikipedia…I can’t believe how much time you are spending on editing four lines of honest work. Get a life you unusual, sad person.--Dcrcort 17:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And quit sending me warning about vandalizing wikipedia....how in the world am I vandalizing the site? Unlike you, I won't kill myself if I'm blocked from editing on this site. For the four time…get a life loser!--Dcrcort 17:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You are vandalizing wikipedia by adding information that is not helpful to the article. Your personal opinion on Calderón and his "possibility" of continuing a "tradition" that hasn't even materialized in Fox is not felpful in the encyclopedic sense. Referenced facts are helpful, personal opinions are not. And before continuing this discussion, please read this. Hari Seldon 17:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Am I arguing with a seven year old? What’s next…you’re going to charge me with terrorism? I’m not sabotaging wikipedia in any meaningful way. If I decided to include that Calderon could possibly continue this new tradition, is because chances are great he will. If Lopez Obrador would have won the election, then I’m sure this tradition wouldn’t have even started in the first place. BUT Calderon is president of Mexico; therefore he will probably construct his own library just like Vicente Fox is. And why not…they are great for tourism.  Haven’t you heard how many visitors presidential libraries get in the US?  Aren’t you happy Mexico is advancing and politicians are now free to let presidential documents out to the public without fear? For the six time, get a life and concentrate on expanding Fox’s page, not deleting everything you disagree with.--Dcrcort 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that your opinion is that "chances are great" that Calderón will continue this "tradition" (which isn't even a building, by the way). However, what I ask of you to understand is that your opinion is not encyclopedic knowledge! My position on how data is presented in this article, particularly, data on the Presidential Library, has nothing to do with my political views. Please understand, I was not deleting your opinion because I disagree with it. I was deleting it because it was an unsourced, uncredited opinion. Now, I've made a change and the opinion is credited. It would be interesting to see what other, more critical editors, say about the value of Mr. Alan Wall's opinion. If you revise this talk page, there is another controversy regarding the presentation of Mr. Andrade's opinion on Fox's stance on free speech. Hari Seldon 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no need to include the author’s name in the article. That’s what the citation is for…so people interested can link to the website where the source came from. And yes you don't have to point out Mr. Andrade...it obvious you edit and delete everyone's work here.--Dcrcort 20:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The citation is to verify that indeed the opinion is made. Please, do not try to present as fact something that is an opinion. Even the possibility of continuation is an opinion, not a fact. And yes, it is obvious that this is wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Hari Seldon 20:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

POV - april 2007
Let's see this article lacks of a lot of information about Fox, it's incredible to see parts like "Science and Technology" where there's only one quote from a teacher from UNAM, and of course it's not a positive quote, my question is, is that the only information about president Fox did about science and technology? but we have another example on "Controvelsial comments" when there's only criticism for Fox administration, you don't have to be a mexican politician to see that this article it's not neutral and it was made by people who are against Vicente Fox, that's the reason why I put the tag POV and it's not vandalism, and I think it deserve to be there.--Pacoworld 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC) My section was deleted.


 * Pacoworld, you are welcome to add more information. Remember to add sources as well.
 * I don't like it that you come here and accuse me and all of the other editors of being "against President Fox". Remember that Assuming good faith is a wikipedia guideline.
 * Please review the guidelines, including Neutrality (and not favoritism), particularly the part on lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete (with regards to your delete of the link to "Foxilandia"). Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or the place to advance your political ideals. This is intended to be a documentation of Vicente Fox, of biographical information of this person. I agree that the article can be expanded. Please, add to it. However, a request for expansion is not made by adding an NPOV tag. The whole "controversy" is your (and only your) dissatisfaction with the link to "Foxilandia".
 * In summary, NPOV allows for criticism to be added to biographies as long as the criticism is sourced. As you can see, all the criticism that you oppose is, indeed, accompanied by its respective source and reference. Deleting factual, but above all, sourced information simply because it is "against" your personal political ideal is against a Neutral Point of View. If you disagree with the referenced information presented, or feel that other relevant information is being left out, please feel free to add more relevant information, so long as it is accompanied with its respective source and reference. Remember to assume good faith, review the guidelines, and enjoy. 02:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, please review the discussion on Fox's science and technology, and see the points that I've made. Perhaps there you'd find a guide to what you want to research for addition to this article. You can also help by reviewing, adding your ideas, and executing the outline in the "freedom of speech" discussion. Hari Seldon 02:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The April 14, 2007 of the POV tag results as a disagreement of the Foxlandia see-also that is discussed down this page. Recommend removal unless discussed further. Ronbo76 22:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The POV tag should be back, it's incredible to see that there are only negative quotes and opinions made by Vicente Fox rivals and these are consider as "facts" just because someone said it. Anyone can see the "Relations with Congress" and there's only the fact that we has was stopped at the door of the congress, and that's the only information. The same is with "Relations with Latin American countries" the only informations is that "Vicente Fox had several controversies" and that's it, this article it's not neutral. --Pacoworld 05:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute, only your misunderstanding of the guidelines. Please read carefully the material I've linked in my above reply. If you feel this article is not balanced, you are welcome to add referenced material. I understand your concerns, but please contribute by research and writing. Hari Seldon 06:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it, but meanwhile the article it's not neutral and the POV should remain!--Pacoworld 18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If what is presented is sourced (and I think, for the most part it is), then there's no reason to put in the tag. However, I think I have a better solution Hari Seldon 20:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Additions to "Economy" Section
The following was recently added to the "Economy" Section:

''Vicente Fox was the first Mexican president in over four decades to leave office without a major economic upheaval."ref" Vicente Fox was the first Mexican president in over four decades to leave office without a major economic upheaval. Before Fox’s victory in 2000, the economy of Mexico was vulnerable to constant economic crisis and devaluations everything a president left office."/ref" Before Fox’s victory in 2000, the economy of Mexico was vulnerable to constant economic crisis and devaluations everytime a president left office.''

I've deleted it for the following reasons:
 * It is not accurate. Ernesto Zedillo, before Fox, left office without a major economic upheaval.
 * It is not referenced. The "reference" presented is merely an opinion by the author, dcrcort.
 * Since 1997, the economy has not been vulnerable to "constant economic crisis and devaluations" for the very simple reason that the peso/dollar exchange was liberalized and left to market. The dangers of government control were lifted by Zedillo and this allowed through a stabilization of the exchange rate that has lasted since.

A reminder that this is nothing personal. Simply trying to keep the quality to higher standards. If any editor has more contributions, remember to verify their factuality. Hari Seldon 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, why must you have to contradict everything I write in wikipedia. Don’t you have anything else to do; besides harass other users in here? Can you at least edited out what you feel is inappropriate, instead of deleting the whole section.  It is a proven fact, that President Fox is the first Mexican leader to enter and leave office without an economic devaluation.  Are you sure you’re Mexican?--Dcrcort 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Because wikipedia is not a blog. This is not the place to write your opinions. You can write all your opinions here. It is not "a proven fact" because Ernesto Zedillo was President before Fox and he left office without a serious currency crisis, or other form of economic upheaval. Because I am Mexican, I know this. Please cease your personal attacks against me. Hari Seldon 23:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not an opinion, and I have sources and millions of Mexicans to prove it. Fox is the first president to enter and leave office without an economic devaluation. And quit placing vandalizing tags on me, for I’m not vandalizing anything. If you don’t agree with something, wikipedia says to edit it and make it better…not delete the whole section. Sincerely, a true Mexican.--Dcrcort 23:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * *It is not accurate. Ernesto Zedillo, before Fox, left office without a major economic upheaval.


 * WRONG!!! When Zedillo became president in 1994 the exchange rate was 1 dollar=3.44 pesos, in march 1995 was $7.55 pesos, almost 120% devaluation! The interest rate on 12/01/94 was 15%, in march 95 it was 110%, The crisis was meanwhile Zedillo was president.--Pacoworld 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Pacoworld: the first version was "leaving office". Zedillo "left" office without a major economic upheaval. Then, the new version says "first president to enter and leave office" without a major economic upheaval. Wrong again. Adolfo Ruiz Cortines entered and left office without a major economic crisis (though a devaluation, but not a crisis), and Adolfo Lopez Mateos also had a term without a major economic upheavel neither when entering or when exiting his term. What the wording implies is possible defamatory to either of these presidents, and do not give enough credit to other Presidents. I urge you to reconsier your wording, and provide more sources. Hari Seldon 23:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Dcrcort, I am not "deleting the whole section". I have provided sources and added a lot to the quality of the article, not only in the past few days, but over a long time. If necessary I will show you my Mexican documents, which accredit that I am too a "true" Mexican. Disagreeing with you, or adding quality to this article, does not make me any less Mexican. Please, stop your personal attacks. Hari Seldon 23:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is proven. Vicente Fox is the first Mexican president to ENTER AND LEAVE office without a major economic devaluation like the one in 1994 days into the presidency of Zedillo, or the other devaluation that caused so much damage to Mexico during the 70s and 80s. Did you forget about that already…why do you think Mexico is so hurt and poor….devaluations every six years caused Mexico’s poverty. Everyone knows that!! Ruiz Cortines was president in the 50s. I wrote in the last four decades. whats the matter with you.--Dcrcort 23:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your point is not proven! Adolfo Lopez Mateos did it too! I am not trying to undermine Fox's accomplishments. I am simply asking you to be factually accurate. Please, do not let your opinions dominate your contributions. The second version did not say "in the last four decades". Hari Seldon 00:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * yeah it didn't say it because you deleted it, instead of editing it and making it better. Oh great pacoworld…I wish I could be as proud as you that my country was ransacked during Zedillo’s term not after. The point is that Mexico has suffered from constant devaluations every time a new president from the PRI took or left office.  Fox is the first president to enter and leave office without any major economic devaluations…something the last five presidents before Fox can’t be proud of.--Dcrcort 00:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Lopez Mateos left office in 1964. I wrote within four decades...speaking since Diaz Ordaz. You need to read a little more history before you decide to undermine the efforts of others.--Dcrcort 00:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please notice the additions and contributions that I've made. By the way, the 3RR rule does not apply to vandalism, such as yours. Hari Seldon 00:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What's what you should have done in the first place, instead of deleting everything i wrote.--Dcrcort 00:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * These things take time, I had to verify all of the information before adding anything, because wikipedia is a place for knowledge, and not opinions. Notice my additions to Fox's accomplishments in Mexico's economic outlook and its effect in the Stock Market. Do you see all the sources? It takes a lot of time. And that is why we have talk pages, to foster discussion and collaboration. Talk pages are not here to exchange insults while we impose our view and our unverified opinions in article pages. Talk pages are were we discuss and scrutinize our efforts so that they have the highest possible quality. Feel free to scrutinize my efforts as well, I would be happy to learn and improve and always am. Hari Seldon 00:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but because you don't have the time to verify the information, that doesn't mean its not true. Wikipedia states that if you don't agree with something, edit it and make it better. Don't delete it!


 * True, but there are also guidelines on what is the best way to add information. See: WP:BLP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hseldon10 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

I apologize to pacoworld for my misunderstanding of his statement. However, I’m happy to see that people who use wikipedia as a reference, will now be provided with the fact that Vicente Fox is the first president in over four decades to enter and leave office without a major economic devaluation. Thank you President Fox for doing away with the failed economic policies that have cost so much suffering to my people and country.--Dcrcort 04:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please put your opinions here. And study your history, the big reforms that made the economy of Mexico possible in the early 2000 were made by Salinas and Zedillo. The greatest virtue by Fox was intervening as little in the economy as possible, and still he expropriated sugar cane plantations.
 * As for Salinas "handpicking" Zedillo as his succesor, I remind you that Zedillo was tensely chosen as candidate for the PRI after Luis Donaldo Colosio was assasinated, and I also remind you that the 1994 election was conducted by the IFE, the same democratic institution that permitted the 2000 elections to be so democratic that Fox was elected. What you are implying is that the IFE "miraculously" turned democratic in the term of 1994 to 2000, or that Fox was not elected democratically. Take your pick, but in the mean time, without sources for this possibly defamatory claim, and because it is against WP:BLP, I've erased it. Hari Seldon 05:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the way Vicente Fox contributed to Mexico's economy was by not stealing everything in the country's treasury just like Salinas did. Everyone knows Salinas pretended to maintain and improve the economy, only to leave it to collaspe months after leaving office. Have you been living under a rock? And another thing, who are you trying to fool by saying Salinas made the big reforms that made the economy of Mexico possible...tell that to a real Mexican so he can punch you in the face. please!--Dcrcort 06:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For your information, it is widely believed in Mexico (are you sure you are Mexican?) that Salinas handpicked Colosio as his successor, but later ordered his assassination after Colosio proved to have a very different point of view from Mr. Salinas aka La rata. After Colosio was eliminated, he handpicked Zedillo…Everyone in Mexico knows that the PRI presidents handpicked their successors. -God I can just picture you telling a Mexican in the middle of the Zocalo, that Salinas is responsible for the big reforms that made the economy of Mexico possible in the early 2000! I would pay to see that! I can bet my life on it, that you would get a big, fat punch right in the face. --Dcrcort 06:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Widely believed" is not the same as "referenced fact". The latter is accepted in Wikipedia, the other is not, regardless of nationality. Yes, I've heard the rumor myself, but have not heard a single historian proving it beyond all reasonable doubt (about Salinas and Colosio). I had a history teacher who actually had a more interesting theory, in which the leftist current of the PRI killed Colosio in retaliation against Salinas, and thus, after heavy negotiations, Zedillo was selected because there was no other choice. In fact, if you study the "december mistake", you'll notice that the currency devaluation was stupidly managed and destroyed more value than necessary for a market adjustment. My professor claims that this was because Zedillo wanted revenge against Salinas. Indeed, the poor managing of the currency liberalization did made Salinas a "devil" in Mexico, when weeks earlier he was somewhat popular. (And yes, I do remember when he was popular). A theory in a professor's classroom in a major university is far more reliable than a rumor, yet neither are "referenced facts", and thus are not in wikipedia.
 * And about "stealing from the Treasury", the "treasury" is less than 10% of the Mexican economy due to tax evasion, hence the need for a comprehesive tax reform. Indeed, economics is a subject that you might find interesting if you ever wanted to verify your claims. Salinas created growth by artificially pegging the peso to the dollar at a very low rate, for the purpose of attracting US investment. The value was destroyed when Zedillo corrected the mistake of pegging the dollar, through liberalization. If liberalization had not happened, however, the market pressure would have resulted in impossibly high interest rates, stock market crashes, or other forms of relief for the pressure. Worst case scenario, the depletion of the International Reserves. The "december mistake" was actually the solution to a mistake made by Salinas earlier, a mistake made for populist purposes. It has nothing to do with "stealing from the treasury" (though in all likelyhood, he did). It has to do with how you manage an economy. Fox had the intelligence to understand what was being done right and leave it be, and understand what was being done wrong and correct it without negative consequences. Hence the low inflation, hence the stable exchange rate, hence the economic growth. This has nothing to do with how much money the government collects in taxes, it has more to do with their capacity to manage a country.
 * And, finally, read your history books. Salinas negotiated NAFTA and started the privatization process that fostered the liberalization of modern Mexico. He also created the IFE due to domestic pressure cause by his "election" in 1988. Of course, telling all this to PRD-propaganda-fed people in the Zocale would get me a punch in the face, but it gets me an A in my school, because it is historically factual. Salinas made a lot of mistakes, no doubt about that, but walked the first steps towards what the country did next, and a political cataclysm, and many lessons learned later, Mexico is doing ok...
 * So, please, VERIFY your claims in the article, and your insults before you make them.
 * Finally, about your edits, there is no need to waste space repeating that Fox was the first President in 70 years to win the post as an opposition candidate. It is said plenty of times in the article already. It is said THREE TIMES IN THE INTRODUCTION! Finally, if you are going to post opinions (like the one saying that Calderón might continue this "tradition" that hasn't even started), a reference and attribution need be there. The name of the person making the opinion need appear.
 * Hari Seldon 07:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What can one say to sum up the “book” you just wrote? Salinas bankrupted Mexico and millions of Mexicans paid for it… and that my friend is a fact that doesn’t need any sources or references. Salinas, president by fraud, not by the will and votes of Mexicans, doesn’t deserve a debate or my time. In respect and value to the millions of Mexicans who still live in poverty as a consequence of the many years of the PRI, I will not argue with you over Salinas. Nevertheless, I still can not believe I’m actually debating with a “Mexican” over Salinas….are you living in an illusion or some kind of fantasy world? As for your sources from a major university, I seriously doubt that any University in Monterrey or in the middle of the desert in Arizona qualifies as a major university. And as for your professor, take him along with you next time you want to express your illusions so he can get slapped as well. In the meanwhile, go study, stop being arrogant, learn to compromise, and stop editing every word others write. I will write no more on this matter, so save yourself the time and don't respond with more nonsense.--Dcrcort 16:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer all your concerns with one request: please verify all your opinions. And please stop vandalizing the page by deleting attributions and adding redundant information that add nothing to the aticle. Hari Seldon 17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And by the way, both ITESM and Thunderbird are in the top 10 of most prestigious international business schools. ITESM is also one of the top universities in Mexico (top 3), and Thunderbird is #1 International Business School in the United States. The professor who told me the theory was Mexican and taught at the Tec. He no longer teaches there, he now teaches in a major university in Guadalajara. Hari Seldon 17:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dcrcort I think you are making personal comments and taking an agresive speech, the "handkpick" term is no doubt about it real, Salinas said it in his book, he "handkpicked" Colosio and Zedillo but I don't know what this has to deal with this article, this information should be on the Zedillo article, or the Salinas article. The information and the way you are writing this article is like you were a member of Fox "fan club", try not to make expresions like The record highs were cause by a better economic outlook throughout his term, Vicente Fox was one of the few Presidents to avoid a major economic upheaval during office, even if you can prove this you should do it in a different way.--Pacoworld 05:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Logical causality, if sourced, is allowed. If stock market highs were caused by Fox's wrok and better economic outlook, that is ok. Saying that he was one of the few Presidents to avoid a major economic upheaval, as long as it is true and referenced, it is ok. The problem arises when defamation and attacks to the person described, or other people, is involved.
 * My main opposition against saying that Zedillo was "handpicked" is that it implies that he was friendly to Salinas, and that he also was not democratically elected. Considering that the same IFE that oversaw Fox's election also oversaw Zedillo's election, it is very confusing, and quite possibly defamatory of IFE officials. We could say that Zedillo was handpicked as the PRI's candidate, and that would be true. But as his "successor", it seems like a stretch. Also, Zedillo was clearly not friendly to Salinas. Zedillo capitalized on the 1994 economic crisis to separate his government from Salinas's, and he also jailed the former President's brother. In a sense, saying that Zedillo was "handpicked" may be defamatory. It may also be defamatory to the PRI, since they claim that Zedillo was nominated by the party, and not by the President. What the wording misses is that, even withing political parties, there are differences. In fact, the current President of the PAN, Manuel Espino, is in competition with the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderón, even when they are in the same party. Consider that Calderón was fired by Fox from his cabinet because of his intentions to run for President (Fox wanted Creel for President). Implying that Calderón and Fox are the same simply because they are from the same party diminishes the complexity and uniqueness of both characters. The same happens to Zedillo and Salinas with the current wording, and that is what I object to.
 * In general, I don't mind stating that both Zedillo and Salinas were from the PRI, however, this is already stated THREE TIMES in the introduction. I just don't want misconceptions and misunderstandings generate biased wording that hide the complexity of Mexican politics. Zedillo and Salinas, though from the same party, where certainly not friends. Even if Zedillo was "handpicked" as candidate, the situations that led to his nomination should also be considered, and that is impossible to do in a short sentence, in a paragraph that talks about something completely different. Including something about this makes no justice to Zedillo, nor to Fox, and much less to the reader of the section, who is more interested about Fox's economic performance, than Zedillo's political affiliations. Hari Seldon 06:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this information should be in this article in the first place, in the PRI era all candidates were chosen by the incumbent president the last one was Zedillo, (Labastida won an internal election) the term "handkpick" it's very difamatory I know! I don't think this should be here, I suggest to delete that. I agree with you we can't say that Salinas and Zedillo were "friends" they worked together, that's different, Zedillo was Education Minister the first 3 years of Salinas Administrationd and then he was Budget and Programing Secretary both positions were designed by Salinas you can read this al the Salinas book here --Pacoworld 18:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good! Then we have consensus! I will remove the controversial phrase.
 * Finally, please bear in mind that, despite Zedillo being a cabinet member during Salinas, he was removed from both offices. Hari Seldon 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with the removal of the phrase,as long as it was debated...not delete by Hari Seldon as he ususally does just because he disagrees with it.--Dcrcort 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

New picture
I believe a new picture of President Fox would greatly favor the appearance of the page. Any suggestions?


 * Sure, find a picture that is free of copyright and has acceptable resolution, and I will even help you upload it and give it maintenance. Remember, all pictures produced by the Mexican Federal Government are free from copyright, so if you find a picture at Fox's website it would be free to use. I would like to see a picture that does not look down on Fox, with more light, perhaps a light background, and preferably, with him wearing the Presidential Band. If you find it, I'll help you post it. Hari Seldon 21:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure a that "all pictures produced by the Mexican Federal Government are free from copyright"? --FateClub 23:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I am, look at this picture and the tag on copyright information. Hari Seldon 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If you google images of "Vicente Fox", you'll get some nice ones...with presidential band and all. And yes, I'm a huge Foxista to answer to Pacoworld...and a Panista till the day I die!--Dcrcort 20:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dcrcort, it is good to accept your bias. It is not ok, however, to let it interfere with the quality of your contributions to wikipedia. Wikipedia must be neutral, that means, neither PANista, nor PRDista, nor PRIista. None get preference.
 * Aditionally, about the picture, the problem with google images is that they may have copyrights. It must be an image taken from a non-copyright website, such as http://fox.presidencia.gob.mx/

By the way, I’m not that fond of the combination of the “education” and “science and technology” section. However, I’m not one to undo the efforts of others, so you might want to reconsider your work. I believe the education section is too important, and much information is still pending to be added. --Dcrcort 20:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it makes any sense to have a subsection of a couple of paragraphs. Considering the two sections are closely related, I thought it would save space, and make the article more efficient, to merge them. However, if you disagree, and there is a consensus, feel free to edit it. It is not ture that "you are not one to undo the efforts of others". After all, this is wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, even you, even me... Hari Seldon 21:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know anyone can edit wikipedia, but instead of undoing your work, and then have you redo it five minutes later (like you like to do) won't take us anywhere. Instead, I'm expressing my dislike of the combination of the two sections. If others don't agree, then the combination should stay.--Dcrcort 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hari Seldon try to find a new picture. I have tried but no luck. The current picture really bothers me.


 * The fact that the current picture "really bothers" you is not valid reason for urgency. If it bothers you, you find the picture! If I have time during the weekend, I'll look for a better picture then.

As for "undoing work", well, if it is undone as per Wikipedia Guidelines, perhaps you might want to "redo it" according to the guidelines. If you just "redo it" without seriously improving its quality (the reason why it was deleted), then what you are doing is an edit war, that may go against 3RR, and that may be considered vandalism. My removals are not unjustified. I have asked you time and time again to improve the quality of your contributions by adding sources, avoiding weasel words, and presenting information neutrally. Hari Seldon 23:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! You're always online editing this page 24/7. You seem to have to life. jk--Dcrcort 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive
Ok, this discussion is getting rather large. I move for an archive. Who is in favor? Hari Seldon 18:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure why not...--Dcrcort 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Except for the most recent, and still relevant, discussion, the most outdated have been archived. -- Hari Seldon, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversial comments
I believe this section should be deleted. It offers no scholarly information to anyone using Wikipedia to research President Fox. The kind of information provided is of no use and its bias. If no one presents a valid opposition, I will delete this section.


 * Of course it offers scholarly information! It is an insight to Fox's charachter. At the very least, it is an insight to the reason why he had difficulties with the African American communities, and the reason behind criticism from the left. At the very least, for NPOV, it should remain. However, I do agree that it should be shortened. Hari Seldon 23:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No the information is not scholarly. Anyone using this online encyclopedia to write a paper or learn more about the president, will find no use in Fox mistaking the name of an author or mexico's soccer coach. Dumb information plain and simple. It would be like adding a section to George W. Bush's wikipedia page entitled "Bushism" to highlight everything ironic he's ever said.--Dcrcort 23:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How about when writing a paper about Fox's similarity to George W. Bush, and the apparent use of "Bushisms"? How about a scholarly article about the foundations of criticism against Fox's term, in which leftists founded their criticism in phrases such as "lavadora de dos patas"? Should the scholarly article simply state this information, but leave out the fact that Fox frequently made other types of mistakes, suggesting that, in fact, his comments were not made out of racism, but out of a tendency to say really stupid things (a tendency that has nothing to do with intelligence)? Are these not valid subjects of study?
 * Hari Seldon 23:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, "Bushisms or contoversial comments" is found no where in Bush's page. The information is bias and pretty ironic. It should be deleted.


 * True, but there is an article about it Bushisms.
 * Personally, I don't think that this should have its own article. I think that a section about it, a small section, should be enough.
 * So, do I think the section is poorly written and bias? Yes.
 * Do I think it should be shortened, and have some information, particularly some quotes, moved to wikiquote, or somewhere else? Yes
 * Do I think the whole section should be deleted? No.
 * Hari Seldon 23:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If President Bush doesn't have "bushisms" inculded in his page, there is no need for this to be inculded in Fox's article. I substain it should be deleted or a seperate article should be created like in Bush's case.


 * That logic is poor. For a long time, the article DID featured the section on Bushisms. It may have been that the article got so large that it was necessary to put it in a separate article. This section hasn't gotten that far yet. Remember, Wikpiedia is not censored. I am sorry that the section goes against your bias, but it adds information about the character and must stay! Hari Seldon 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hari Seldon here, Bushism is a very popular term and it is probably not included in the article because there is so much information on the President of the US. So much information that there is a Category:George W. Bush where, of course, one can find the article Bushism. This information on Vicente Fox must be included because there is no article called Foxism or Foxismo and a Category:Vicente Fox. I would agree that the article on Bush has much better quality because there has been more collaboration on it and being a controversial character there will always be people writing pros and cons and editors keep each other's contribution to a higher standard. That is what Hari Seldon is doing here, making sure that content that is innacurate is fixed and controversial and unsourced content is removed, that is because of the policies Attribution and others, especially on living people. --FateClub 00:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if a separate article of "bushisms" exist, it is not linked or under the "see also" section in W. Bush's page. The "controversial comments" section needs to be deleted or moved to a separate article as soon as possible. The information provided is unscholarly and bias. There is no need for this useless information to take so much space on Vicente Fox’s article.--Dcrcort 15:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't need to be under the "see also" because Mr. Bush has a category, whereas Mr. Fox does not. Frankly, in my opinion, the available information on his comments do not warrant a separate article, and the limited articles about Mr. Fox do not warrant a category. Thus, the next best solution is keeping everything here.
 * As for your arguments that the information is "unscholarly" and "bias". Let me explain to you that the way we protect ourselves against bias is through the guidelines (particularly WP:NPOV and WP:V). The section conforms to them, as all referenced points of view are presented in the section. As for scholarly, dictionary.com gives a definition of that saying that scholarly is "concerned with academic learning and research." In this case, since the information is referenced, research is certainly guaranteed. As for academic learning, the argument is that Fox was neither universally popular, nor a god-like entity that never made mistakes. Thus, if someone wanted to know why Fox recieved criticism, or what where his more common mistakes, this section would certainly help learn them. In fact, if only because of this, I would argue that not documenting his controversial comments and their reactions/implications would be unscholarly and bias. Hari Seldon 17:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Breaking Traditions
In my opinion, this section currently contributes very little encyclopedic information. The only thing I find valuable, is Fox's post-Presidential public life, which needs to be cleaned for NPOV. However, this should take into consideration that Fox has not been the only President to have a public life after retiring from the President, merely he has been the only one whose public life is still news in Mexico, and while living in Mexico. Salinas was a book writer, public speaker, and teacher after leaving Mexico. Zedillo became board member of several major companies, and an adivsor to the UN, and also a public speaker. For NPOV, this should also be taken into account.

Aditionally, since the only "tradition" being broken is remaining controversial in Mexico after his Presidency, I suggest two options:


 * Option 1 - rename the section to "Post Presidential Life"
 * Option 2 - include other broken traditions, such as when Fox kissed the Pope's ring and kneeled before him, an action that not only was not traditional of previous President's, but also was against the Constitution. Perhaps these traditions should also be added?

Any other ideas?

Hari Seldon 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, another wikipedia article that can be edited by yourself is not a valid source. Please consult the guidelines on how to source and reference properly. Hari Seldon 23:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, please don't revert, every time you revert you ruin my edits! I am trying to fix this citation for you (hopefully, you'll learn how to do it and in the future, do it yourself) Hari Seldon 23:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hari Seldon instead of spending one hour undoing every edit I do, find more information and help expand the article on President Fox. His library is the first presidential library in Mexico, if it isn’t then which is? Televisa, the Mexican Presidency, Wall Street Journal, EL NORTE, and many other major sources refer to it as Mexico's first presidential library. What's next? your going to change "amigos de fox" to "amgios of whoever" cause it might promote Mr. Fox. Quit being arrogant and learn to accept facts.--Dcrcort 00:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:V, and the section about "Burden of Evidence". You want it in Wikipedia? You find the source and prove it! Finally, please do not go against WP:NOT. And, for your information, I have in fact added a lot of sources to your claims. I've been extremly kind to you considering your attitude, taken into account your arguments, looking for sources, actually considering what you are trying to say. I have not reverted everything you have done, and the proof is that there are two new sections to this article, made by yourself! (By the way, the section now specifically states that Fox refers to the library as "Mexico's First", which is what the sources can prove. you still have to provide a source that proves that it is, indeed, Mexico's first. I still think of the one I visited in Oaxaca, about Benito Juarez)... I've simply asked for you to improve your quality, provide sources, and conform to the guidelines. You keep failing to do so, and instead, engage in personal attacks against me. I am not arrogant, I try to contribue. I don't need to learn to accept any facts, I just need you to provide me with evidence that what you are adding to wikipedia is, indeed, a fact! Hari Seldon 00:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Presidential libraries are libraries that are planned out by the President himself like Fox and every U.S. President who has one has done. In addition, presidential libraries hold every important record, image, and document that was administrated throughout a president's six years. I doubt that Benito Juarez, who I deeply admired and respect, inaugurated his own presidential library, and I doubt that the “library” stores all information about his presidency. Get over it!! Fox’s library is the First Presidential library in Mexico; the others are simply museums to honor past legends or presidents of Mexico.--Dcrcort 00:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that is not what the wording you are suggesting implies. In any case, have you visited the "Casa de Benito Juarez" in Oaxaca? It is very similar to that which you state. It is very simple, find me a source, and I will personally change the wording. Hari Seldon 00:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There are things one finds evident or obvious or think it is true because one heard it somewhere, or even lots of somewheres. This does not imply it is accurate. Wikipedia does not collect true information, but sourced information. If your contribution proves to be controversial, that is... somebody else does not agree with it, you must source it. Otherwise the information may be, and will very likely be, removed. If one does not remove it the article may just get out of control, especially if somebody else writers an article citing Wikipedia. And especially if they find out that we are including information that is inaccurate. --FateClub 00:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fateclub writes exactly like Hari Seldon...but anyway. This article is about president Fox and everything he's done. If he refers to his library as "Mexico's first presidential library" then it must it called that way.--Dcrcort 01:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

He refers to it that way in his official website...which is already used to cite the information on the library section.--Dcrcort 01:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is because Fateclub, as me, knows the policies. You'll notice, however, that both Fateclub and I have been here for a long time, and that we've had our discussions in the past. Even in this page. Just in case you are implying any sockpuppetry, believe me, it is no.
 * This article already states that Fox refers to it as "Mexico's First". The source says Fox refers to it that way, this article says Fox refers to it that way. What is the controversy? You want the article to say that the library is Mexico's first? Find a source that says that the library is Mexico's first. Hari Seldon 01:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, if you still have doubts about sockpuppetry between FateClub and me, feel free to check out his contributions and mine
 * I think he is referring to the fact that I have an MBA and you are currently studying to earn one. That is, in our studies a higher level of writing was expected from us. So, take it as a compliment. --FateClub 01:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, sure, how careless of me! I am sorry for not assuming good faith. =S Hari Seldon 01:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

how charming...you guys were meant for each other. congrats! Why are you even editing Fox's article, when it's obvious you are anti-fox. Go edit someone else's article. By the way, people that I know who hold mba's don't have time to be editing online. you must really suck at your job.-Dcrcort 06:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The library is mentioned as the first in Mexico in every source and even by President Fox himself. The name should stay as "Mexico's first Presidential library"

I think you must read No Personal Attacks and Be Civil policies, because your comments are clearly breaking them. The fact that Fox refers to "his" library as "Mexico's first" does not imply we must agree with him. I think Hari made an excellent point by mentioning Benito Juárez's Library in Oaxaca. The source you added to back up your argument does not say it is "Mexico's first", but "Mexico's first US-like presidential library".

So I agree with source: it would be Mexico's first US-like presidential library. That's all. Alex  Covarrubias   ( Let's talk! ) 09:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And even then, Alex, it is only "US-like" in certain opinions. This library is not 100% US-like because it does not have public funding, among other things. While US Presidential libraries are partly run by the government (see: ), in Mexico this would be against the law. Fox, indeed, is a pioneer in demonstrating the force of the private initiative. I just fail to understand the perturbed logic of certain users who think that portraying Fox as "pro-US" means to be "pro-Fox", while trying to portray his complete picture, including instances in which his ways surpass those of the US to be "anti-Fox"...
 * Hari Seldon 10:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I also believe that there should be a point made to differentiate this library with the "Mega Biblioteca José Vasconcelos", considered to be Fox's most important cultural project during his term. Why? Because the José Vasconcelos library was paid with tax payer money, while the one being built in Guanajuato is not. Additionally, the José Vasconcelos library was built during his term, while this one is built after his term. Additionally, the José Vasconcelos library is the Fox/Mexico City copy cat of a very similar library that Carlos Salinas de Gortari built in Monterrey during his term, the "Biblioteca Magna Raul Rangel Frías".
 * True, many people looking for information in wikipedia would be english-speaking students who may not know about this stuff. But having been contributing to this article for over 3 years I know that sometimes other type of users access this article frequently, and they want to know a deeper perspective about President Fox. Not just what those who worship him say about him, or how he promotes himself. They also want to know how was it that he accomplished his success, and they want to know in great detail, not just language suitable for high school. Others want to know how come there is so much criticism against him and what went wrong. A complete picture about all forces of the opposition, the criticism and the logic behind it needs to be presented so that the validity of said criticism can be assessed. If Fox says that this is the first "Presidential Library" the first criticism other editors/users will point to is the existance of both the José Vasconcelos and the Raul Rangel Frías library, and perhaps the Benito Juarez center in Oaxaca. An importan mention of them, and their differentiation seems to be in order, don't you think?
 * Hari Seldon 10:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Education
Ok, since we are now protected, now we are forced to reach consensus. I will add one more controversy and that is "education"

1) The article currently starts with two sentences that are more appropriate in a political brochure that here. First of all, Fox did not "devote" his administration to education. If anything, he devoted it to housing, which is where he had most success (and indeed, I had a very nice, referenced section on housing and now it has been deleted. Perhaps it is also time to bring that back!)

2) The next paragraph talks about the UNAM and its accomplishments. However, since the UNAM is autonomous, one can argue that Fox has nothing to do with the success or failure of the UNAM. Therefore, this paragraph is irrelevant to the article and should be deleted.

3) The above is an argument to delete all of the UNAM paragraph, except the one sentence that claims that during Fox there were more university students than ever. Because of demographic reasons (a growing population), combined with a more stable economy, this one is easy to believe. However, the sentence still needs a reference.

4) The next two paragraphs talk about Fox's committment to science and technology. The only change I would make here is the elimination of the wikilink for René Drucker Colín, since in a year or so no one has bothered to do an article on him, and he won't stay coordinator of basic science research for UNAM forever...

5) However, certain additions have to be made.

6) At the moment that an anonymous user wrote the part of René Drucker Colin I made an argument that I make again. The government official accused Fox of neglecting government research. However, I argued that this did not paint the whole picture. Since Fox was a pro-business politician, a more complete analysis should also include how did attitudes towards research changed within the research community. We should find references that talk about how, during Fox term, Mexican companies did their research, whether or not they did more or less of it, and what where their attitudes. It doesn't matter whether this research was done in Mexico or not, only that it was made by Mexican companies. This would provide a more complete picture of Fox's attitudes to research. Additionally, this section doesn't menction what happened to the Institute for Biotechnology Fox promoted, funded, and inagurated.

7) The "Mega Biblioteca José Vasconcelos", and the "Enciclomedia" project should be listed here, particularly Bill Gates's participation in the latter, as well as other smaller innovations, like the Federal breakfasts...

8) We should also point out the chiaroscuro that was the administration of Reyes Tamez. For the one part, he opened up the public education system, revealing for the first time results and methods used in evaluation... for the other part, he was also heavily criticized...

9) Finally, does anyone think that Fox's relations with the Teacher Union is of interest for this section?

What do you think of the above? Hari Seldon 17:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Show me an article or source that critizes or contradicts Mr. Fox. Every major source in Mexico and U.S., acknowleges Fox's Library as Mexico's First Presidential Library.(Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Televisa, San Antonio Express). Many of articles written by respected journalist and historians refer to his library as "Mexico's First Presdiential Library". What qualifications do you have to call it otherwise? Even online Brittanica refers to it as Mexico's First.  Its really a shame, that wikipedia doesn't offer that valuable information...

The burden of proof relies within the person who wants to make a claim. You show proof that what Fox is saying is more than just a quote from him and a reality. For my part, I've presented my arguments. And no, the sources acknowledge that Fox said that it would be Mexico's first. In any case, even if it was the case, the section is not a promotion. It should still be named "Presidential Library", and not "Mexico's First". Why?, because of of WP:NOT. Wikipedia has rules, you know? In any case, since the information has not yet been confirmed by an independent source, how is it that the information is so valuable? Hari Seldon 06:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph of this section should be deleted, I looks like a pro-Fox propaganda. !!! --Pacoworld 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what my outline suggests, too! Hari Seldon 02:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Instead of arguing over senseless issues, everyone in here should dedicate their time and effort to expand the article. Hari Seldon states that he has contributed for the past three years, but all he does is delete the work of others. Who added the only new sections of the past month?...presidential library, campaign for president, and post presidential life. not you! The edit block needs to be removed. And about the first paragraph, it was completely edited by Hari Seldon...therefore it was written by him. dcrcort^

You are free to see my contributions and compare them to the guidelines, and judge whether or not I really only "delete the work of others". I am sorry, but this logic is twisted. First of all, this is a collaborative project, there is no "own work" here. Whatever you add, dcrcort, is not your work, is everyones work. I am proofreading it according to guidelines. About the edit block, let me explain to you something. The block forbids both you and me, and everyone, from editing the page. Thus, no one can impose their "version". So, what is it needed for the block to be lifted? Consensus. You and I must come to an agreement. That means, we both will have to yield on something. I am willing to yield, as long as you conform to all of the guidelines. Read them carefully. Once we both reach an agreement, and administrator will unblock the page and incorporate our agreement to the article, but not before. I think this is a pretty fair deal, specially considering that you've committed multiple acts of vandalism. It could have been you who were blocked instead of the page, but, I felt that you really have good faith in contributing, only that you are not familiar with the guidelines. I made this argument in the "protection" forum, and evidently, there are some administrators who agree. Once you conform to the guidelines, you'll be a great editor. Hopefully, this page protection will help us both in becoming better editors. Hari Seldon 17:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a consensus. You like to edit every word others write. While I understand that this is Wikipeida, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, you have dedicated your existence to edit every minor change I make. It’s obnoxious and irresponsible. This whole dispute was started by you who repeatedly changed or tagged every word I wrote. For example, you tagged the phrase, “Lazaro Cardenas had Calles escorted out the country for interfering in his presidency.” Then you wonder why I doubt if you truly are of Mexican nationality. Even a third grader in Mexico knows that! Why should you be obnoxious and have to tag everything I write.  Your tags, make the information provided seem unreliable…not every sentence written has to have a source. If you look at articles of other presidents, not every sentence has a “citation needed” added to it, it’s just information that is widely known and no citation is needed… Learn to compromise and concentrate on expanding the article. Now, since you like to throw your guidelines at me all the time, how about learning Wikipedia’s golden rule. If you don’t agree with something, edit it and make it better. Don’t delete it like you love to do.--Dcrcort 19:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Come on Dcrcort, you want to make this article a pro-Fox propaganda you write things that happened meanwhile Fox was on office that he has nothing to do with it!! If Hseldon edit something that you wrote is because you only write Fox propaganda and this article should be neutral--Pacoworld 19:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A president's every decision or move impacts a nation...you should know that by now. Pacoworld, have you ever heard of the Real World? educate yourself. --Dcrcort 19:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Dcrcort, I edit any change anyone makes when it does not conform to wikipedia guidelines or standars. Please read the guidelines again. Improving quality is not obnoxious and it certainly is not irresponsible, and you are the only one here who doesn't agree that requesting sources, proofreading, and keeping the article NPOV means "improving quality". I tagged the phrase not because I thought it was a lie, but because it had no reference or source, and this is a biography of a living person (read WP:BLP). My tags simply alert other users that the sentence does not have a reference and that they would help wikipedia by verifying the data. And, though not every sentence written has to have a source, those that are liable to be frowned upon (like criticism to members of opposition political parties) need to. I don't need to learn to compromise, I am here willing to discuss this until we can compromise. Where is your compromise? By the way, I've edited everything you've added and I've made it better. You tagged Tortilla Price Stabilization Pact, an article I created, with "fact" tags and I added references to each and every single tag. You don't need to lecture me on paving the way with examples, or in "compromising". I am asking you to do it because I feel I've done it myself plenty of times, and for a long long time. Hari Seldon 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is shameful
Honestly, WTF is this?!?: "President Fox devoted his administration to improving Mexico's education. Like most people, President Fox believed that a country's future depends on the education given to its citizens". Isn't ANYBODY going to do something about it?? -- Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 01:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ask Drcrot. He is trying to impose this "perspective", I am trying to uphold WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:V Hari Seldon 04:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright... I hope we reach consensus that that is nonsense (or at least biased) and we're finally able to edit that out of the article, because I can't edit. -- Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 05:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody can. The article is currently protected due to an edit war based on this issue alone. I don't think the sentence is nonesense, but it certainly is biased, and it most certainly is against guidelines. Hari Seldon 06:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes we have to do something about this!!Drcrot wants to make this article a Fox propaganda article, every time someone edit or delete, he answer with insults or personal remarks, --Pacoworld 17:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we have to ask for the moderation of an admin on this issue? It is extremely damaging for the article that such an outrageously outlandish statement stays there. If we strive for a neutral (neutral... *sigh*) encyclopaedia, we should swiftly edit that unsourced statement out of the article. Let's move, people! I ask again... WTF this?? "President Fox devoted his administration to improving Mexico's education. Like most people, President Fox believed that a country's future depends on the education given to its citizens"  -- Teh Original Mr. Orange  (Orange juice?) 00:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The damage that was being done was even more dangerous. Indeed, I think that the best solution is to start proposing drafts for a new version. A draft with sufficient reliable sources and other features that help it conform to wikipedia guidelines. When their is consensus, we'll see what follows. Hari Seldon 00:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How shall we start the draft, and where? I can contribute, I haven't got a lot of free time this days but this matter is almost as urgent as my paper due tomorrow :p -- Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 01:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, for one, I have proposed an outline (see above subsection). You can write it and upload it to your sandbox, or you can post it here. Then we can discuss... Hari Seldon 02:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would I be promoting President Fox? He's not running for any office...is he? The ban needs to be removed already, so new information can be added.--Dcrcort 06:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you would argue that Fox had nothing to do with the UNAM'S success. If a president's economic policies are bad and the country's economy suffers, I really doubt too many people would be rushing to attend a university. With what money?--Dcrcort 06:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Up until a few weeks ago, Vicente Fox was running for President of the Alliance of Christian Democratic Parties of the Americas. Vicente Fox also has a lot to gain by promoting his book and his Personal Library and Museum. Additionally, though Vicente Fox is no longer an active politician, his ideals continue to spark debate in Mexican society and abroad. Promotion of his ideals is a form of promotion that is not allowed in wikipedia (nor is it allowed to anti-promote or criticize, the only thing that is allowed is "neutral documentation"). Neutral documentation is defined in the guidelines, which I invite you again to read.
 * There is no ban in this article, there is simply a protection to avoid edit warring. Edit warring occurs when two stubborn editors (like you and me) edit the article endlessly in the hopes of one version prevailing. In your case, you continue to admit that you wanted your version to prevail, and I continue to admit that I just cannot allow sub-standard content in this article. This article, as it is now, still contains substandard content, but I am willing to wait until we discuss and agree. When an agreement has been reached, and not before, will an administrator remove the protection. I am not an administrator, thus, I cannot remove the protection (nor place it).
 * Finally, of course I would argue that Fox had nothing to do with UNAM's success. First of all, Fox appoints a Secretariat of Education (which was Reyes Tamez). Reyes Tamez oversees everything that has to do about education, and then reports to Fox. Sure, Fox is responsible if something goes wrong, but Reyez Tamez is hired to work for education only, so that Fox can concern himself in other issues (like the Economy and Domestic Policy)... So, even if you would argue that the Federal Government was partially responsible for UNAM's success, then the credit goes first to Reyes Tamez, and then to Fox. However, this argument is also invalid because the UNAM is AUTONOMOUS. That means that it decides what to do with itself by itself. The UNAM chooses a dean internally, and the UNAM finds funding internally. Yes, they do get funding from the government, but even when the government was in bad shape had UNAM been a respected university. Where did the funding came from in those harsh times? Debt. Of course, there are a lot of economic arguments that can be made about that scheme, but none have to do with the Federal Goverment's responsibility to the UNAM. If your arguments made any sense, then, logically, UNAM would not be the only University privileged. Where is the status of UANL, Universidad de Yucatán, or other public universities around the nation?
 * So, I'll agree that Fox was great in the economy, but you need to study a little something called "separation of powers", "University Autonomy" and "Mexican History" to understand what I am talking about. Saying that Fox was responsible for UNAM's success is almost as perverse as saying that the 1968 massacre was UNAM's responsibility, in collusion with the government. No, UNAM is independent and autonomous of the Federal Government. In fact, the University, the dean, and many in the faculty supported and still support Lopez Obrador...
 * Hari Seldon 06:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? If a country is stable, then families are stable. If families are stable, then they sent their children to a university. My point is that during the presidency of Vicente Fox, the country as a whole prosper including the UNAM...all I wrote was that during Fox's administration, the ranking of the university got better...nothing more, nothing less.--Dcrcort 06:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, first of all, your reference doesn't support that the ranking of UNAM got better under Fox. Your reference states that the UNAM was ranked a certain way under Fox, and it was ranked by ONE source. However, the current wording does not scrutinize that ranking with other rankings, nor there is a historical ranking, so there really is no way of verifying that, indeed, it got better under Fox.
 * Additionally, even if it got better under Fox, what did the Federal Government had to do with it? Nothing, academic programs are handled autonomously.
 * Your argument is that a better economy fosters more university learning. It is a hard argument, first of all, because there is no data behind it. Secondly, because the gap between rich and poor in Mexico is too great. The fact that there are bad times in Mexico doesn't mean that everyone suffers them, or that school enrollment drops, and there is no data behind an argument of that sort either (you can make it if you want, but back it up with references). Additionally, I must remind you that the UNAM is not only autonomous, it is also public and public access, which means that enrollment is typically highly subsidized, so that arguing that a better standard of living drives enrollment up is a hard argument to make.
 * Finally, if you want to credit Fox with procuring a stable economy, fine, do it as long you have the references. I've provided some, where are yours? And please do not confuse a cause with its effect, particularly when the supposed effect is only percieved and there is no data behind it. A better economy may pump enrollment rates, but without data to support it, the flamboyant claim borders with the ridiculous when all things are considered...
 * Hari Seldon 08:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't worry too much about determining how much credit should Fox be given for an alleged improvement in Education in Mexico, wikipedia made it easy for us with No original research. Therefore it is not Dcrcort's responsibility to determine this, neither is Hari Seldon's or FateClub's or any other wikipedian's. This is a matter of finding primary sources and give them a space in this article. --FateClub 21:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And thats what the rules are for. Indeed, any argument can be presented provided appropriate and verifiable sources. See WP:NPOV for more information... Hari Seldon 23:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as the presidential library and the post presidential life sections stay, I think this editing war is resolved. dcrcort


 * They won't go away, but they will be subject to significant improvement as time goes by. Particularly since we can expect them to get bigger as the Library continues to be developed and as Fox continues enjoying his retirement. Hari Seldon 02:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

okay keep telling yourself that. I just want this foolish edit ban to be removed.--Dcrcort 10:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

UNAM's ranking and Fox
You cannot argue that UNAM improved thanks to Fox when one of its high ranking officials (Rene Drucker) says that science was neglected during his term. The Times rating includes research and prestige of the faculty among its parameters, and it stupid to say that while basic science was neglected "like never before" the university climbed in its ranking. If anyone should be thanked for this is Juan Ramon de la Fuente, but not Fox. Furthermore, during Fox's term the budget for UNAM increased only 18% when adjusted to inflation (http://www.cecu.unam.mx/19perez.htm, http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/04/08/045n1soc.php, http://www.banxico.org.mx/portalesEspecializados/inflacion/indicadores.html) when the previous presidential term it increased 50%. The provost of the University JR de la F agrees and has criticized Fox for reducing the budget in research (http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/07/18/041n1soc.php, http://www.esmas.com/noticierostelevisa/mexico/519161.html). Including that the UNAM impoved in this article is misleading as it makes the reader think that it was due to Fox's efforts when it was not. This statement should be removed.Andy Rosenthal 16:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for proving my point. Where were you when this ridiculous edit war was going on? Hari Seldon 16:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As for UNAM's budget "increasing only 18%", surely the money must have gone somewhere else. Where do you think it went? And, additionally, if UNAM did not go bankrupt for this "low increase", how did they get their money? Again, the issue is ideological. I can argue why this so-called neglect was positive for Mexico. Who should be doing research, the government, or the companies that would benefit from it? I still think that something about the intensity of private research during Fox term should be included, for NPOV. Hari Seldon 16:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As we have discussed before research by private companies has little significance for the well being of the country as it gets exported and does not render any profits to the nation (you can read that in Drucker's own words) . What is beneficial though, is research that is done in conjunction between the industry and higher education institutions. The UNAM had to cut a lot of its programs and endured a crisis because of the budget cut during Fox's term. Now, if it would be proven that the budget was lowered to supply other major public institutions with more funding, I would agree, it was overall beneficial to the country. However, the government financed the banks and other private institutions saving them from bankruptcy. We can argue that the money went there (which is really sad, if it were true). Furthermore this budget reduction does not make sense with Fox's policy on education, that while it increased the enrollment in schools it has also increased the number of people that will seek higher education, and that very likely will not be able afford a private institution. I cannot argue that an improvement in private research generates jobs and perhaps an economic benefit in the short-medium term. If you find any info that relates to this, please feel free to include it. Andy Rosenthal 16:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting accusations that "export of research" that "does not render any profits to the nation". At the very least, some of the profits are in the balance of payments! Why is research done "in conjuction" more beneficial? The argument seems to be made by a University researcher, who has an INTEREST in getting money for research (and for his pay). Without a doubt, more investigation is needed in this matter before opinions transform into content.
 * About the "financing of banks and other private institutions", if you are refering to FOBAPROA, remember, this happened before Fox. And remember what a banking crisis would mean to a country's economy. Please bear that in mind before making your considerations. I agree that some corruption occured in the baking system rescue, nevertheless, the rescue was necessary. The rescue should not be condemened; it is those who used it to commit corruption who should. (i.e., the bankers and those public servants who supported them).
 * However, about money going to other public education institutions, the role of Encyclomedia is not yet covered, but this was the most central part of Fox's education policy! Everything should be covered, from the idea, the funding provided by Bill Gates, the initial success, and the ultimate fiasco.
 * About the "more people seeking higher education" argument, this can be easily countered ideologically and realistically. Ideologically, in the view of an economic liberal, people should pay for their own education, or be sponsored by the company that would benefit from their education. Realistically, in Mexico, the current demand for higher education jobs is close to none, but the current demand for middle-education (i.e., technical schools) is high, thus, it can be argued that this simply was a way of putting money where it was neeeded. (I agree, more information is necessary).
 * Finally, I can argue easily that private research generates jobs and economic benefit in the short-medium term. First of all, private-research direcly relates to core business, therefore, all succesful private research will generate secondary jobs (from knowledge to engineering, to design, to manufacturing, to marketing, to servicing). Even if the research was for export, the money would still flow back to Mexico (either in the form of payment to researchers, or in the form of repatriation of income by Mexican companies), affecting the Balance of Payments, and consequently, the exchange rate and inflation. Finally, all economies are knowledge-based, thus, private research benefits the economy because it adds knowledge to economically-producing activities. This, of course, is more long term.
 * So, you see, a broader perspective always let us see that there is more than one way of doing things. Andy, I am sorry, I am in exams week and won't be able to look up anything until, at least, next monday. However, I will provide any information I find by then, and be assured that if the facts do not support my theories, I won't cling to them and will only supply the facts.
 * Hari Seldon 17:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There was of course the highway rescue, the selling of Banamex and so forth. The FOBAPROA thing is out of the scope of this article or discussion, but a lot of the resources of the government were spent into this (The validity and need for this is also out of the scope of this discussion). I was simply stating where the money might have gone. (Speculating just as you did when you said that this budget reduction was beneficial).
 * When research is done in the private sector, the patents and knowledge generated by it are owned by the company that does it. Since the scheme that is used by companies (which does not follow the research for the sake of doing research scheme ) employs less people and is oriented towards ideas or goals that are profitable (is most of the cases translational research). When research is done at a university or in conjunction with a university, the patent and knowledge that are generated stay at least in partly in that institution and while this is being done, it provides an opportunity to train more scientists (PhD students, post doctoral fellows, etc) generating a myriad of benefits for the University and ultimately the country. Furthermore, in the case of Mexico private companies doing the research are not based in Mexico and as such have ownership of their developments that can exploit elsewhere (leaving the country without anything). However when the research is based in a university (or done in conjunction with it), MTA's and other agreements are established where the University can benefit from the discoveries too. Of course academicians, and faculty members at Universities defend their ideas and their funding, but keep in mind that these people could have devoted their lives and careers to the private sector in more profitable endeavors, but their not receiving a paycheck from a corporation allows them greater independence and avoids conflicts of interest, which in turns allows them to do true basic science research. This is why research has suffered so much for the last few years, because the liberal economic policies don't agree with 'purposeless' research (where all of the Nobel prizes have been generated).
 * Quoting you "Finally, I can argue easily that private research generates jobs and economic benefit in the short-medium term" this is just what I said on my last entry. Andy Rosenthal 19:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The selling of Banamex was within one private part to another private party according to the law of the land. If something in that law was to the opposition's disliking, the opposition had the power to change the law, to REFORM it, if you will, from congress. For instance, a Comprehensive Tax Reform might have been helpful?
 * When research is done by a private company, private companies finance the development of new products. When research is done by universities, the government finance the development of new products for private companies. The "research for the sake of research" is nice, but I don't remember Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein enjoying government grants, at least, not in their early years... When research is done at universities, a "myriad" of training is created, but that training may not match the demand of the job market, and then you have PhDs driving taxi cabs and companies anxious to get skilled technicians. As for "private companies doing research that are not based in Mexico", perhaps, they are not based in "Mexico City", but I urge you to consider companies of higher standards, like CEMEX, Gruma, Vitro, Sigma Alimentos, Alfa, Femsa, and others. CEMEX does an enormous amount of research, and I assure you, the foreign earnings of those new products are repatriated, sometimes, even indirectly by boosting the stock market. As for "conflicts of interest", the only way to avoid it is to be honest. If you want to do research for the sake of it, you don't demand government grants, you do the research with whatever means are available to you. If you want research for personal advancement, or profit, then you do it honestly, the way the private sector does: for profit and personal advancement, and paying for it with your own money, and protecting your assets.
 * And, on your last quote, no, you said the exact opposite...
 * Hari Seldon 20:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * However the government (or should I say the people) picked up the tab on the debt the bank had (http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2005/04/29/mexican-government-sues-over-banamex-allegations/, http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2002/02april/april02interviewgiordano.html). So it did with the highways and a number of other things that anyone that lives in Mexico will be paying for a long long time. I will not argue your points about the source of funding. it is not an argument that it is worth having at all. Why educate people if you can turn Mexico into a big sweatshop. As long as an elite (my sons and my family) has access to higher education abroad and can come back to Mexico to run the country with their Harvard (or some diploma from an unknown university as long as it is written in English). That really has taken us very far, hasn't it? Andy Rosenthal 20:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not the people, the tax payers. In Mexico, not all the people pay taxes. According to leftist accusations, those far up (like politicians) evade taxes. According to tax laws, those far down have negative taxes. Thus, only the middle class pays.
 * Is knowledge worth having? Yes... If it is worth having, is it worth paying for it? yes... Then, why ask the government to pick up the tab?
 * About running the country, the comment evidently demonstrate a lack of understanding of power. Power is a systemic relation, it never flows top-down, and this is the reason why all dictatorships fail.
 * Finally, I am not going to argue the highway rescue package. Who designed the original, the one that failed, highway privatization project?
 * Hari Seldon 21:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * which should make you angry, because I assume that you are a law abiding citizen that does pay taxes. Whatever was decided and who's original plan, the people in Fox's administration abide by it. The model for research is something that we have to discuss further, but what we believe is of little relevance to the article. We should abide to whatever is the consensus, that a country should foster and promote research. (This comes from the World bank and the IBD) Andy Rosenthal 21:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Presumably" and previous consensus
What consensus?

The quotation is an opinion, hence, it must be clarified that it is an opinion, by adding a descriptor like "in their opinion", or "presumably". The quotation is a quotation, hence, it must be clarified that it is a quotation by putting quotation marks. When an authority says something with proof then his sayings are put in quotation marks, but no further descriptor is needed, only a clarification on their proof. In the case of opinions, at the very least, a clarification that the quotations is their opinion. Perhaps, if it could be provided the basis for their opinions, so that they can be scrutinized, that might be more useful even. Hari Seldon 20:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I looked at the archive, and there was no consensus. I had made some other points about that sentence that never were addressed. The fact that the discussion was not continued does not make it a consensus. Hence, since no consensus was reached, and because of the above, I am reverting the edit. I am open to continue discussion, and most certainly would want to improve on the article, but previous consensus was not reached. Hari Seldon 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You agreed on that edit, or at least that is what you said. It seems you have a selective memory. Use "in their opinion" but not use presumably. Furthermore, what kind of proof do you want, judging things like that makes me wonder if anything that is said in the article is accurate or just opinions.Andy Rosenthal 20:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Futhermore why should it go in if I disagree? I think the paragraph should be changed to the way it was before the first edit until we reach an agreement. Andy Rosenthal 21:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I didn't agree on anything. In any case, the current version does not say "in their opinion" either, though I'd be happy to conform to it.
 * Secondly, I don't want proof. I'll explain this in a second.
 * Third, "judging things like that makes me wonder if anything that is said in the article is accurate or just opinions". This is the reason why he have WP:V. Sometimes, I just wonder where is Drcrot. It would be nice if both of you saw how annoying certain attitudes are when used for the exact same opposing purpose that you intended to use them for.
 * Back to the opinion/proof thing, lets remember this is an encyclopedia. We do not produce knowledge, nor do we endorse stances. We document knowledge, and we document stances. In this case, we are trying to document that COHA criticized the Castañeda Doctrine. The proof that they criticized it is the reference. Next, the sentence says, "they criticized it because the policy was submissive". This is not true, there is no proof that the policy was submissive (i.e., no reference from a functionary admitting to be submissive, nor a ranking on a "submissiveness index" on Mexico). It is better to say, "they criticized it because, in their opinion, the policy was submissive". This is true, the reference is proof that COHA indeed had that opinion, and indeed caused the criticism. Now, what I am saying is that it would be even more useful if the sentence said "their opinion that the policy was submissive was based on x, y, and z" (x, y, and z being arguments). We can then contrast those arguments to facts. (i.e., submissiveness may mean that Mexico agreed unconditionally to any policy directorate from the US, but this can be easily contrasted with Mexico's vote in the UN regarding Iraq... on the other hand, submissiveness may mean openess to free trade, and in this case, we can see the current account balance and agree with COHA). By doing this, we not only provide knowledge to the readers, we also provide context and accuracy. This is what I call "enriched content".
 * Finally, I hope we reach an agreement soon. As I've said before, I'll see you on Monday.
 * Hari Seldon 21:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Annoying Hari? You don't even know half of it, please remember we went back and forth on arguments like this and you thought you were right when you were not (that did not stop you from arguing at that time, and as surprising as it may be, you have not learned the lesson it seems)
 * When you say presumably and use the quotation marks it almost feels that you are including the sentence because you are forced to do so.... It seems that you are saying these researchers or scholars are in their own private world having an opinion that it seems to be 'out of whack' that is why it bothered me so much (because it advances your own personal opinion, so if it is not submissive why it is not? produce the evidence that states that is not). However you provide a very good point, lets include what made the country submissive (in their opinion. What you cannot disqualify is that these people are serious researchers, and as informed and smart you are (or I) whatever they say counts. Isn't that true? I agree that including it with some context will be helpful. Let's work together on a section that includes ALL points of view, making a richer and better article. Andy Rosenthal 21:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What an interesting assumption, Andy. The quotation is used to quote, hence the name. I think that it would be proper to quote directly what they are saying, instead of allowing the possibility of mis-interpretation. Don't you think? Perhaps a more expanded quote would be more useful.
 * By the way, I am not advancing any opinion. It is a fact that COHA had an opinion, and it is a fact that said opinion is that the policy was submissive. This is not my opinion, this is proven in the reference! I am not advancing anything here, you are percieving something and then trying to change it to advance your own viewpoint. I don't need to prove that the country's policy was not submissive because I am not advancing such claim! All I am trying to do is elevate the quality of the article. Please read what I am saying more carefully. For me, this issue is not about content, but about style. I don't disqualify that COHA is a group of serious researchers. In fact, that is the main reason the citation is included! However, since it is a citation, it must be in quotations. Since it is an opinion, it must be labeled as such. It would also help a lot if we also cited the basis for their opinion. I've said this before.
 * Lets not make this personal and continue to work together. I am sorry about the "annoying" thing, but, seriously, it would be very useful if we left our personal opinions out of our editing. I admit I can use some help accomplishing this sometimes, but lets judge other people's edits and arguments by their quality and not by their percieved underlying basis.
 * Hari Seldon 23:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Presidential legacy
This is the current intro "According to Enrique Andrade, a Mexico City-based attorney and business consultant, during Fox's presidency annual inflation was consistently under 10%, the peso's devaluation to the United States Dollar was unsubstantial, and central bank reserves were significant. Andrade also credited the Fox administration with increasing respect for freedom of speech, as well as access to public information."


 * First of all, who is Enrique Andrade? What makes him so special that what everybody else thinks pales in comparison with what he thinks?


 * Also, why does Mr. Andrade think Fox is an economist? Otherwise he should have included opinions on other subjects. If he is going to stick to economy then we must add other's opinions on other topics.


 * Why is Mr. Andrade not mentioning that the price of oil was the highest in years and that remittances from Mexican immigrants in the US were at record-levels. Otherwise how is an improvement in the Mexican economy Fox's legacy.


 * Why is Mr. Andrade creditting Fox with an increasing respect for freedom of speech when his wife sued a writer, her publisher and a magazine and he praised her for it? Why is he not mentioning all the verbal attacks that Fox made against the press?

Shall we replace Andrade's with an unbiased expert (s) instead? I am not trusting this fellow. --FateClub 19:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

yeah the Fox's sued someone, something anyone can do...even the wife of a president. What's new in Mexico, is that reporters or writers were actually allowed to say whatever they wanted about a sitting mexican president without getting killed or kidnapped.

Fateclub, I would really like to see you expand and add some new, good information to the article of President Fox, instead of complaining about everything in it. Quit complaining and adding dumb tags. --Dcrcort 20:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I've been trying to get this changed as you can see in the beginning of this discussion section. I agree I don't even know who Andrade is and what is this Mexidata website?
 * I have argued your points (I did not get to the Olga Wormat issue, but it has definitely to be included) and the fact that Mexico is only second to Irak in number of journalists that are assassinated (I've provided the Washington Post source that states that) However, Hari Seldon feels that this is in fact a product of the neglect of the local governments (even though it is occurring in most states and that the Federal government is in charge of prosecuting organized crime).
 * About the economic policies, well even Carlos Slim said it. It is easy to be the head of the Bank of Mexico when the oil has record high prices and remittances are in an all time high.
 * I agree this section should be modified
 * What is new Dcrcort? All due respect you don't live and have not lived in Mexico (according to your personal page) I don't se either that you are an expert in Latin American studies or anything of that sort, so what gives you the authority to prove your claims? I have provided sources from Amnesty International and Worldpress.org that state that Mexico is far behind from wher it should be in protecting the rights of journalists (and freedom of expression). Andy Rosenthal 20:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What is disturbing is that this rosy picture the section is trying to portray does not correspond to the opinions of experts on the subject. This is not a fan page and it should not be worded as such. If someone does not prove this Andrade fellow is an outstanding expert on the matter, I do not know how they will, his opinion should be removed. Now we do need the opinions on unbiased experts. I'll get some later on tonight and we will go from there. --FateClub 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * the W post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/31/AR2007033101359.html?hpid=artslot
 * Amnesty International http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/mex-summary-eng
 * International Press Institute http://www.freemedia.at/cms/ipi/freedom_detail.html?country=/KW0001/KW0002/KW0024/
 * To a certain point it might be true that transparency was improved, however saying that freedom of speech was the rule, is not true as the federal government failed to ensure the safety of those practicing journalism. As I said before, saying that freedom of speech is exercised without penalty in the country that has the largest number of journalists killed per year is a contradiction in itself. Andy Rosenthal 20:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The correct term, and the only one that matters regardin Fox, is that freedom of speech during Fox was excerised without illegal penalties from the government. If the penalty was not exercised by the government, then what matters is whether or not the government focused some effort in combating it (like, for example, creating a prosecutor for crimes against journalists, which it did). If penalties where legal, then the appropriate criticism should be directed at the law, and not at the President enforcing it. Hari Seldon 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The prosecution of these crimes was a failure. Why not state this as well. I agree that freedom of speech was improved. But since we are set on 'scrutinizing' everything so thoroughly. Why not provide info on freedom of speech during Zedillo's term (the preceding president to Fox) demonstrating that the government silenced journalists as it is being said. This will provide context to the statements and give the reader a better picture of the achievements of this administration, and allow them to form an opinion based on the facts provided.
 * It is interesting Hari, because you are very Harsh with my proposals and it seems that you are not as thorough with yours. Why provide a single statement from an unknown person to state such an important fact? why not use the figures from the Bank of Mexico that were in fact available at the time this sentence was included. You have failed to provide the structure that you ask for when I propose an edit. I am only asking to be as thorough. On this light, I think you will have to agree that sentence from Andrade needs to be changed and improved. Andy Rosenthal 22:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Now wait a minute, we already have a discussion (on Andrade and "freedom of speech" attitudes"), and an outline on that. Please don't ignore it. We promised to work and expand that outline. By the way, Andrade gave opinions on more subject than the economy, but at the time, the Fox administration had not ended and this was the only available source on numbers regarding Fox's term. We should be able to get new numbers elsewhere. Of course, I would not be against new sources that replace Andrade's.
 * Now, granted, high oil prices and remittances help the economy, but it helps a specific part of the economy only (i.e., the Country's International Reserves, and the country's debt capacity -interest rates-). However, during Fox, the economy showed other signs of improvement, for example, low inflation rates. While interest rates and money supply depend on monetary policy (dictated by the Central Bank) and external factors like international trade and the price of oil, inflation is a very domestic issue and is affected from government primarily through fiscal policy (and more specifically, whether the country has a deficit or not). Since Fox and his government was the one designing and spending the Federal budget (and since Fox won a Constitutional Controversy in the Supreme Court regarding Congress's power to approve a budget), then it is quite obvious that low inflation rates are a quite remarkable achievement of Fox's administration.
 * Finally, Fox's wife sued a writer, a publisher, and a magazzine. Previous Presidents controlled a monopoly on media sponsorship and on newsprint production and forced newspapers out of business when they didn't like what they where saying, the "no pago para que me peguen" attitude. There is a difference between going through legal channels to settle disputes, and going through illegal and unconstitutional channels to go against articles 6 and 7. (By the way, if you read article 6, you'll find that what Martha Sahagún did is perfectly legal). This is obviously an improvement, and we had discussed this before.
 * Hari Seldon 21:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It’s really an embarrassment that some people don’t want to own up and admit that freedom of speech greatly improved during the administration of President Fox. Mexicans were violated for 71 years and no one ever said anything, but now that President Fox gave them the liberty to speak against the government everyone feels so brave and courageous. Like they say in MEXICO….antes con el PRI todos callados, pero ahora con Fox todos tienen muchos huevos verda??... I would have loved to see any of you guys attack President Diaz Ordaz or Salinas so vigorously like you attack President Fox. Trust me…you wouldn’t be here writing in an online encyclopedia. --Dcrcort 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dcrcort, I don't think that Freedom of Speech "greatly improved". I'll just say that it improved. Why? Because for it to really improve requires a number of Constitutional Reforms. However, Constitutional Reforms are not dependant on the President, and thus, Fox cannot and should not be held accountable for that. If a person sues another one for something that was printed, Article 6th provides that right. Which is one of the two reasons why the Olga Wornat case should not be included in this article. The other reason is that this article is about Fox, not about Martha Sahagún.
 * Additionally, for the argument that Mexico has a similar journalistic environment than Iraq, one has to consider who is doing the repression. Since this is not the case of the government repressing journalists, and since the government did create a prosecutor for crimes against journalists, I don't see how Fox could be held responsible for repression. The assasinations are done by drug dealers and other criminals, and the kidnappings and encarcerations (like Lydia Cacho) are done by PRI-led local governments. Is the President guilty of respecting State rights? Yes. Should the President do something against abusive governors? No, because it is against the law. The President should set an example of law-abidingness, even if we disagree witht he law. Is the President responsible of not stopping organized crime? Yes, but this is a different subject other than freedom of speech. Taking situations out of context to accuse people is not a very nice thing to do, and it certainly cannot happen in Wikipedia. Lets strive for presicion, and not for advancing political agendas.
 * Hari Seldon 21:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fox tried to control the murders of Journalists, but he failed! His intentions were good but the results were negative. It is important also to point out how much resources were spent on this, and to be frank I can easily argue that the creation of that commission or the assignment of someone to prosecute the crimes is a propagandistic measure just to keep the public pressure from the president. The fact is that the crimes against Journalists increased. I did not make the comparison with Iraq. The reporter in the W Post did. The fundamental issue is, how can you say that freedom of expression is freely exercised in a country that has as many journalists every year.
 * I wrote a few suggestions on the proposal that you wrote, and I am sorry to say I did not feel that you even consider them. I don't want to get personal or be harsh to you, but I honestly don't think that you read what I propose. You automatically discard it as if I were trying to promote a bias, which believe me, is the last thing I want to do. I just want the article to be objective and not be a 'rosy' caricature of what things actually are.
 * If this were an article from a different country (say a member of the UE or the US) the article will likely include the scandal behind Wormat. I don't know enough Wormat to call her an ethical journalist, but I do know that she was harassed for doing her job. Whether what she did was ethical or if she has a poor reputation as a journalist can be stated here, but I think that the fact that the wife of the president (that was so intimately related to him) sued a journalist should be stated. What would have happened in another term, with another president is just speculation. As I said before, why not provide a comparison so the reader can decide if there was an improvement and how to rate that improvement.
 * I could not agree more. Regretfully this section of the article has failed to provide all sides of the story which make it seem seems that is being used to advance a political agenda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andy Rosenthal (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Andy, your claim that I don’t know anything about Mexican politics is ridiculous and an insult to the millions of Mexicans living in the United States.--Dcrcort 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dcrcort, don't make it personal. If Andy decides to make these arguments personal, that is his loss. Don't fall into the trap of following sub-standard behavior. Hari Seldon 21:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if I offended you, however I did not mean that as a personal attack. I was stating that you are not an authority on the subject and that an expert opinion is more worthy than yours (or mine for that matter). Andy Rosenthal 22:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK... Mr. Andrade is... the leading person behind mexidata.info and he was "Director of Audiences and Hearings for President Vicente Fox, in the Office of the Presidency of the Republic, until September 2004". No wonder why everything coming out his mouth and the entire mexidata.info site does not appear to be unbiased. Neither Mr. Andrade or mexidata.info are reputable sources and as it appears they are not even biased. So their opinions may be removed. --FateClub 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, given that this article is about President Fox, sources close to the President himself are good sources.--Dcrcort 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Dcrcort, I don't see how promotional material is useful in providing knowledge, really. It would almost be as saying that an ad, or a documentary, made by people close to Lopez Obrador "are good sources" because they are close to the former candidate. Hari Seldon 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not promotion, because Fox is not running for public office, and Mr. Andrade is simply stating facts that are stated by others aswell. Moreover, please don't compare AMLO or his supporters to President Vicente Fox. Why don't you compare him to Hugo Chavez while you're at it. I think Mr. Fox deserves a little more respect.--Dcrcort 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Reliable_sources "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Mr. Andrade is neither generally regarded as trustworthy or mexidata.info is a reliable publication. And being an ex-member of Fox's cabinet he may be biased, as Hari points out. --FateClub 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The argument that "it is not promotion because Fox is not running for public office" is a fallacy. If someone said that "Lopez Obrador is a viable alternative", and then said that the statement is not promotion because Lopez Obrador is not running for public office, would you believe him? The argument, as you can see, is a fallacy.
 * Here is a list of things that could be promoted using biased information:
 * Fox was, until recently, competing for a leadership position in the Organization of American Social Democratic parties.
 * Fox is trying to promote himself as an anti-Chavez leader.
 * Fox, and his supporters, want to promote his ideals as a viable solution for Latin America.
 * Fox wants to promote his self image for booking public appearences
 * Fox wants to promote his self image for selling books.
 * Now, bear in mind that I am not comparing Fox to Lopez Obrador, though I don't see how comparing two human beings is insulting. I am simply stating that your arguments are invalid by exemplifying their use with the exact opposite purpose that you intended. When you make an argument, if you can substitue your idea with the exact same opposite idea, and the argument still seems neutral, then that is a good test, I think.
 * Hari Seldon 23:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

okay keep telling yourself that. My point is that no one seems to be expanding the article, but instead trying to delete and argue everything about it. Get yourself to work already, or let others do it.--Dcrcort 23:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, in my defense, I am not expanding because I said I couldn't until monday. I am already spending way too much time discussing... (Wikipedia is an addiction!)... As for arguing, it is constructive and that is the reason why we have talk pages. As for expanding the article, I commend you for that. However, we still have guidelines. And yes, I will continue to tell me that neutrality is more important than promotion, if that is what you mean. I don't think that you are really readying my arguments. Hari Seldon 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

All this discussion about Fox's work. I think the main discussion should be about his legacy. In my opinion not a very good one considering he received a unified country when He won clearly in 2000, and then we all saw how he was unable to do a good job and really bring the nation into prosperity... and unity. He made error after error(including the fact that with his mistakes he was one of the must succesful Lopez Obrador propagandists). Because of these errors he had to intervene in one of the worst elections on Mexico's History in 2006; just when we thought we were a democracy. The discussion should be to put a grade on his work and do the same with the most recent presidents of Mexico. The sad thing for him is that he would fail miserably, and fall in last place (even when we have had really bad presidents)...the main reason being that he was supposed to be a leader and he delivered a profoundly divided Mexico. Mexico before Fox did not have a problem of unity. Now is sad to hear mexicans talking about dividing the country into "Mexico north and Mexico south". This is the sad Fox legacy. I write this as a proud common mexican, he had to think about this when he decided to win a second election "a como de lugar" ---g_llamas_l

What to do now?
Well, if there is anybody out there that would like to improve this article instead of fighting here's is an (editable) list of things we can do:

How about adding his signture. -- the previous unsigned comment was left by Dcrcort


 * Who's signature? Hari Seldon 04:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

President Vicente Fox.--Dcrcort 04:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How about setting up an altar and lighting candles for him? Dcrcort, STOPPPP!!!!! Gah. -- Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 04:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

umm...I like editing wikipedia, is that a problem? FYI, our contributions continue wikipedia running, for if you didn't know. All major politicans have their signature inculded in thier article.--Dcrcort 07:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you would call Mexico the worst country in the world, what's the matter with you? Because of Mexicans like you, Mexico isn't in the place it should be.(read orange's juice page, it's full of nonsense) it's pretty sad.--Dcrcort 07:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense is what plagues your userpage. Clearly stating you're a fan of Mr. Fox, you set a precedent for suspicion for whatever edit you make to this article. Besides, what is sad is that you don't understand the wordplay and irony on the statement "Mexico is the worst country in the world" contained in my userpage. Besides, the outrageous remark on Hitler and López Obrador is both ad hominem and abhorrent. Quite distasteful, if you ask me. -- Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 22:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cabinet! okay this section needs a lot of work. Help would be great! Maybe we can change the name from "the original cabinet" to the "The Fox Cabinet" when all the names are added.--Dcrcort 09:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dcrcort: I think that adding a signature may have unwanted side effects, like some one copying it and doing nasty stuff with it. I think that in the general spirit of WP:BLP, we shouldn't include his signature. In any case, I don't think it really adds too much academical value.
 * As for "The Original Cabinet", bear in mind that Fox changed Cabinet member throughout his term. That means that the people who started in his Cabinet are not the same as the people who ended in his Cabinet. An example is current President Calderón. He arrived to Fox Cabinet in 2003, and was fired months later. An elegant way to present this complexity will be required. Hari Seldon 14:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am no saint and I do get personal sometimes. The times when this has caused distress or has made other users upset I have tried my best to offer my apologies. However, I want to say that this accusation game is getting old. As for Dcrcort I think that his criticizing another user's personal page does not make any sense to me (I personally think that his comparing Hitler to AMLO is an insult for the six million Jews executed by Hitler, however he disagrees and stated that he can say whatever he wants in his personal page). I am only asking people to judge other the way you want to be judged. I also think that there is no place for crass remarks like the ones he made when writing in Spanish in one of his contributions. Out of respect to all of the users of this encyclopedia I will please ask you to refrain from using that type of language.
 * This article will not improve if we do not listen to each other, and do an honest effort to to understand the other 's point of view. I've never stated my political preferences, and I honestly think that whatever they are they are irrelevant as they should not influence my contributions and I do my best effort to not let this happen. It can't be true that Fox had an immaculate presidency, regardless of his good intentions and the efforts he had to improve things. I think the article should remain objective and we should all try to achieve a consensus that reflects the plurality that Mexico has thus the image we want the world to have of such a dear country to all of us.
 * Hari is a great contributor, and a very smart guy. He tries his best to remain objective but he fails to listen to suggestions (at least coming from me) because he believes I have some kind of vendetta with Fox and the PAN. I resent the fact that my ideologies or the impression that people have of them prevent them from hearing my contributions. I think this has to stop. It is my impression that all of us want this article to be better and we should work on it so we can get it where we want it to be. I also believe that Fateclub set an example when he put aside his personal ideas and provided the hard facts that got this stupid back and forth argument over with and provided a list of things to do. I will be happy to contribute to the enrichment of this article in the measure that my time allows it. Andy Rosenthal 16:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Andy, comparing AMLO to Hitler was not started by Drcrot, it was a common theme during the Presidential campaign. The argument was that Hitler got to power in a "democratic" farce, saying lies, pressuring people to vote for him, selling himself as the "salvation" of his country, and so forth... Indeed, it is not the first time that political opponents slander a candidate by comparing him to Hitler. Seven years ago, the PRI also compared Vicente Fox to Hitler, and that time the "argument" was the support both had from the church.
 * I agree, it is no excuse, but don't make misconceptions something personal. It is better to show other points of view, particularly when it is clear that the comment is not meant as a directed insult. As I explained before, the AMLO-Hitler comparison was quite common during the 2006 campaign, and was not started by Drcrot.
 * I agree that an honest effort to understand other's point of view is necessary. I've been saying that for weeks =). As for you never stating your political preferences, you never had to, they are quite evident. I've never seen you contribute any new information on achievements, only information on criticism of said achievements, not only of Fox, but also of Calderón, and other figures attacked by Lopez Obrador (like Reforma). "Thank god Mexico is not Monterrey), you've said. The assumption is easy to make: you support left-wing politics.
 * As for me not listening to suggestions. I do listen to them, but I would like the same treatment that you expect from me, and you not always give it. I am a little bit dissapointed that you re-started the "Fox free speech" debate when we had already started agreeing on an outline. And, no, I don't oppose you because of a "vendetta" with Fox or the PAN. I do not have any political preference (only a preference to an economical ideal, yet, I still try to be neutral). My issues have more to do with neutrality, and it is easy to see that I have not made many friends, from either the people who support left-wing politics (like you) or the people who support right-wing politics (like Drcrot). Indeed, neutrality seems to be unpopular in political articles, all the reason for it to be more necessary.
 * I do want to make this article better. But making it better includes not only the quantity of information, but also the quality. Quality has to do with style (top level english, and compliance with the guidelines), neutrality, as described in the guidelines, and abundance of references.
 * On Monday, I will be a little bit more free and will be able to contribute more. In the mean time, I ask that, when we come here, we all put our political preferences aside, and really contribute to this article.
 * Hari Seldon 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hari, As much as it is true that the comparison was made in the past I brought it to the attention of the users on this page because I personally asked Dcrcort to refrain from using it. However, he believes that he is exercising his right to use it. After that I cannot help but agree, he is entitled to his own opinion (as everyone else is). I only wanted make evident the unfairness of asking of others what you are not personally willing to give. If things were fair, there would be no place for the personal attacks he made against another user based on the contents of his/her personal page.
 * I have been adding the failures because they are the things that are missing from the articles. More often than not the articles where I have tried to contribute have failed to reflect all sides of the story. Whenever I come out and try to contribute, I do it because I believe that the information provided is not objective as many of these things have been left out. You have recognized that some of the things that I have contributed were unknown to the editors and I think that you should appreciate a second opinion on an article, as it can only make it better. I wrote that last paragraph in an effort to make bygones be bygones. I have said things in the past that I am not proud of, and to reiterate that despite my political allegiance; I have tried to remain objective.
 * I understand your being upset because I ignored your proposal. To be perfectly honest my impression was that it was only a draft and that we never reached an agreement. Furthermore I felt like it had no place for my suggestions as you disqualified them from the "getgo". As an example of such a misunderstanding I can say that the same thing happened with my proposal of the Foreign policy section, It was my understanding that you agreed to the changes, however, it seems that you did not. Be it as it may, we need to focus on how to improve the article. To achieve this, I will only ask for your cooperation and your willingness to listen to my suggestions (and everybody else's). An editor came out and said that Andrade is obviously biased because of who he is, and it really made me upset that you stood up so much for that as it turned out to be such poor source. I encourage you to use this as an example of the fact that we all can make mistakes and we should bear that in mind before disposing of the ideas of others. Having said this, I want to reiterate my support for the improvement of this article as much as my free time allows it. Andy Rosenthal 17:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it is very unfair to ask of others what you are not personally willing to give. Glad you agree. =)
 * As for there being no place for personal attacks, you are absolutely right, there are none in wikipedia. Perhaps you should issue a warning?
 * As for "adding the failures becuase those are the things missing", I haven't seen you add any to the article on La Jornada, or on Lopez Obrador. Now, please, don't tell me that they don't have any, because all humans and all human institutions have faults in one form or another...
 * I agree that I was once stubborn like Drcrot, back when I was a newbie. But, I've changed since then. I defend neutrality in countless articles, and have added both accomplishments and criticism to articles like Felipe Calderón, Reforma, and this one. Yes, agreed, Reforma was a long fight, but I'd rather we talked about it in that article's page.
 * I appreciate second opinions, but I never assume anyone writes anything in stone. Not even me. (unless, of course, it is an agreement). Because of this, expanding on opinions, discussing them, making them bullet proof, can also be regarded as improvements.
 * As for "remaining objective", that is impossible to any human being. We are subjective beings. The best thing we can do is approximate neutrality. Recognizing that we are all subjective, that our fellow editors are subjective, and that we ourselves cannot be gone with our subjectity, greatly enhances our ability to cooperate and understand one another.
 * As for the freedom of speech, the outline was, indeed a draft, but it was an attempt to summarize all the points discussed. The only agreement was that there where a number of topics and viewpoints that could be included. I don't care if the draft is severly changed or discussed further, I only care that certain important information not be ignored.
 * Ever since we found out who Andrade was, I have not defended his source or quote. I have merely said that he was originally put in because there was no better source at the time. However, currently, I think we can easily find a better source and replace his quotes. I will do this personally on Monday, unless any of the other editors beat me to it.
 * And yes, we all make mistakes. I've made mistakes in the past. The important thing is that we learn from them, and reflect on ourselves that, as you say, we give that which we demand.
 * Hari Seldon 17:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Hari for understanding I did not start the whole hitler lopez obrador issue. However, I don't believe my comparison of AMLO to Hitler, is as bad as what Mr. "orangejuice" is talking about. In his personal page, he states that Mexico is the worst country in the world. Who the hell is he to say that? Comes to show, that he's probably nothing more than a failure in life.--Dcrcort 19:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that all of these have been just a waste of time (mine and others). Please Dcrcort, avoid getting personal. I just said, if you are free to say whatever you want on your personal page, so is he. Please lets just get to work and leave all this nonsense behind, shall we? Andy Rosenthal 19:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

okay andy well work. You keep saying you want to work, but you add nothing. I don't see your name nowhere in the "history" of the article.--Dcrcort 19:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dcrcort: Both Andy and I have been editing this article since a long time before you came to wikipedia. Our arguments have been heated at times, both in this article as in others, but never as heated as the arguments we've both had with you. I urge you once more to read the guidelines, particularly on assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks (like claiming that an editor who has more time editing the article "adds nothing"). Additionally, I remind you that talk pages add a great deal to the article, particularly Biographies of Living People. Discussion refines contributions, and, after all, our primary goal is not an undiscriminate expansion. Our primary goal is an expansion of the most pristine quality. That includes neutrality issues.
 * Finally, please avoid doing major reverts without discussing it first. Why did you revert my contributions on the "Economy" section, or FateClub's spell check? Hari Seldon 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Who cares how long you been contributing, what matters is how much good information you add to the article. I have added in the past two weeks, more information than many editors have in the past year. Again, quit throwing guidelines all over the place, and get to work. Do something Hari, all you do is edit the sections I create and fight with me over them. --Dcrcort 20:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * About a year ago, an admin decided to erase all the parts of the article that did not had sources... Pretty much all of the article was destroyed. Whatever you encountered when you came was, mostly, done by Andy and I, and a few other editors.
 * About the information you've added, remember, we must discriminate information and talk about quality. Your efforts are appreciated, but be mindful of the quality (verifiability, neutrality) of that which you are adding.
 * I am not the only one copy-editing the article, and if we do it, it is because it is necessary, since you apparently have no capacity to do it yourself. Hari Seldon 20:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

All the sections I added, have sources. That's why they are still part of the article. I can't say the same thing about the four sentences added to the cabinet section.--Dcrcort 23:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cabinet
I am not sure if the Cabinet should have its own section. In my opinion, the most important things about the Cabinet are the following: 1.- The first one was chosen with head-hunters 2.- The ISO-9000 certifications 3.- The fact that Fox did not keep his promise of not making changes. Particularly, the fact that Calderón was fired (or, pressured to resign) from the cabinet because he announced his desire to run for President, when rumors abounded that Fox supported Creel.

Since all of the above is part of Fox's legacy, I don't see why the Cabinet shouldn't be a sub-section of said section. Additionally, the section "Presidency" has no content, and I can't think of anything that can be added in "Presidency" that can't be included in "Presidential Legacy". Hari Seldon 21:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you serious Hari? That cabinet was not it's own section, until you decided to make it one. When I created the cabinet, I added it on the left margin as a small table that provide the names of the original cabinet.--Dcrcort 22:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I made it a subsection of "Presidential Legacy", somebody made it a subsection of a new section called "Presidency". I believe this new section is redundant, and they can and should be merged.


 * Either source your information, or it will be deleted.--Dcrcort 23:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is solved by adding a tag, unless it is controversial and unsourced data about living people, Biographies of living persons.--FateClub 23:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources are coming. Indeed, I have 30 sources, however, most of them are editorials and I didn't want to devalue the article by sourcing opinions of other people. I will get those sources and add them to the article tonight. In the meant ime, the fact tag is appropriate. Hari Seldon 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * see example of Ronald Reagan's cabinet. Looks better merged to the left. Takes up too much space as a section of it's own.

Well, first of all, this isn't an American President. And, secondly, space is a legitimate concern, but only secondary to quality. In the case of Mexican politics, and particularly, in the context of the "Government of Change", the Fox Presidency, the Cabinet warrants enough attention to grant it its own sub-section. Hari Seldon 17:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

it's not reducing quality hari...just because you decided to put it in the center, it doesn't mean it must stay there. Show me a presidential article that provides a whole section for the cabinet. As far as I'm concern, only calderon's article does that, and you had a lot to do with it. Stop it already.


 * Well, for one, Felipe Calderón provides a Cabinet section. This is my rationale:
 * During the PRI times, the cabinet used to be a "loyalty-reward" system, in which not the most qualified individuals served, but those who could give more to the President/Party in terms of votes, loyalty and stability. By the end of the PRI-era, President no longer went through the charade of getting a "publicly-elected" position (or, a position that needed the appearance of elections, like Governor of a State). Zedillo, Salinas, de la Madrid, and Lopez Portillo were all members of the Cabinet before becoming Presidents. They were not career politicians, but technocrats.
 * However, Vicente Fox changed everything of this during his term. First of all, he didn't choose member of his party only. He said he would get the most qualified people, and he hired head hunters to make sure. He hired people from all parties, including the Ambassador to Cuba, who was from the PRD. Some Cabinet members didn't even have a party affiliation when they were nominated.
 * Then, he tried to use the Cabinet to make someone President (Creel), but he failed, and instead, his party nominated someone else (Calderón), who despite serving in the Cabinet for a few months, had a strong political background before that.
 * The cabinet was a frequent source of conflict between Fox and his party. I've said before that it is important to note these types of conflicts because it gives a broader perspective to Fox. How did Fox solved the conflict? During, and after, the electoral defeat of the midterm elections in 2003, he replaced capable people in the cabinet with Party members, like the case of Fernando Canales Clariond, who was Governor of Nuevo León and was asked to resign during elections so that he wouldn't interfere negatively in the electoral campaign of Mauricio Fernandez. Canales was "rewarded" with the Secretariat of Economy, and Fernandez lost (regrettably, and I say this with bitterness because I am from Nuevo León and am suffering the consequences of his defeat) to Natividad Gonzalez Parás.
 * These are the types of things that make up for an interesting article. Understanding the political difficulties Fox went through as the first President from the opposition in decades also help us appreciate in a better light the significance of his successes and the cause for his failures. It also adds a lot more perspective to Calderón, the next President. Calderón won despite Fox, not thanks to him. Fox wanted Creel to be the candidate, but Calderón won the party and was nominated. Fox had a history of electoral defeats after his 2000 victory, yet Calderón turned that around against a massively popular candidate. This is what I called "adding depth".
 * I will do some research and start adding the above content (referenced) to the article tomorrow. Today I am travelling, so, wish me luck. Hari Seldon 17:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Economy and Jobs
The following paragraph has been recently added to the Economy section:

''Job creation stalled during the first four years of Fox's administration. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit[35] not only jobs were not created from 2000-2004 but the number of street vendors increased 40%. This workforce does not pay income tax and includes illicit activities such as smuggling of foreign goods and piracy, this latter grew during Fox's term to a multi-billion industry that produces 8 billion dollars a year[36]. The number of registered workers afiliated to the IMSS decreased from 11,026,370 in December 2000 to 10,881,160[35].''

Though I don't doubt of the veracity of the statements, the paragraph seems to contradict another paragraph that states that taxes from employees grew, but not the tax rate, hence, there should have been more employment.

The real issue is poorly presented in this paragraph, and I suggest a re-write:

Employees were being hired, but not under the legal status of employees, but as contractors, who paid less taxes and had no access to benefits such as health insurance. The reason behind this phenomenon, according to experts, has nothing to do with the economy, but has to do with the tax laws. In other words, jobs during Fox grew as the economy grew, but they were not registered so to avoid taxation, and this was done for the convinience of both the employer and the employee. According to these same experts, a tax reform, like the one proposed by Fox and negated by Congress, would have remedied the situation.

Additionally, for the black market increase and the street vendors. The paragraph fails to explain in which cities did these street vendors appeared in, and whose jurisdiction is it to regulate them... Is it really Fox's fault that there were more street vendors in Mexico City? Or is it the fault and incompetence of the governor of Mexico City, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador?

Hari Seldon 01:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is exactly the issue of including an Economy section, if we do not explicitly explain otherwise everything is assumed to be the direct consequence of Fox's economic policies. This section (last time I checked) did not specifically explained that many of these positive figures have more to do with external factors (such as the price of oil and other commodities and remittances from Mexicans in the US also hit record levels) and budget cuts on social programs (although others were created and expanded). Prior to the recent edits this section only highlighted the positive and not the negative about the Mexican economy did present negative at the end of his term.


 * Now, if we are to excuse Fox from the negative figures then we must do so with the positive figures as well. This is, of course, using reliable and reputable sources. For example, job creation must also take in consideration the hundreds of thousands of emigrants who would have become part of the unemployed or would have taken the jobs of some of the currently.


 * In regards to the employed, underemployed and unemployed, let's just include cold facts and put them together so they make sense. IMSS reported X jobs in 2000 and Y in 2006, (Foo) also reported X2 jobs created in 2000-2006 where employees where hired as contractors and are not included in the IMSS figure.


 * Now, about the street vendors. The issue is not that they exist and must be exterminated, but that there must be jobs so they don't have to sell stuff on the streets. The sources I included specifically talk about the fact that street vendors (of illegal and illegally-obtained merchandise) have no guaranteed salaries (such as store clerks), and no medical benefits, INFONAVIT, etc. which may be preferable to have than selling stuff on the streets, that street vendors cause taxable sales to drop and registered jobs to decrease, etc. I didn't want to include that because we will have an extensive treatise (which may be on option in the future, to have it as a separate article, but not now where we have holes everywhere in the article still).


 * At this point, this is still a work in progress, so let's not sweat it too much about the details. We can either fill holes for now and then work on making each section wholesome or work on taking sections to near perfection at a time. Either way is fine with me. --FateClub 17:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The assumption that Fox economic figures (inflation rates and interest rates) have more to do with "external factors" is misguided. In the first place, Echeverría and Lopez Portillo also enjoyed favorable oil prices, yet they didn't have the same success as Fox. As for the remittances, the balance of payments is negative in Mexico, thus, despite the remittances, the growth of the international reserves with a negative balance of payments is outstanding. Additionally, the Mexican economy is said to be "dependant" on the US economy, yet the Mexican economy grew despite the stagnation of the US economy. This summarizes external factors, I think. As for the budget cuts in social programs, it is ironic that the same social programs with budget cuts have also been heralded as examples, and are now being copied internationally, for example, in New York. Perhaps the budget cuts were due to increased efficiency (a guess)?

As for the employment issue, I am not suggesting that Fox created millions of jobs and that everything was great. I am merely saying that not everything is as bleak as it appears to be. Sure, real income decreased during Fox by 3%... but it decreased by 36% on average in the past 4 administrations. Thus, Fox was not great, but it wasn't as bad as the government had previously been. How was employment before Fox?

The issue with street vendors is that they are black market economy. Black markets exist to avoid government regulation. If the economy provided a regulation with enough freedom, the black market (and the street vendors) would not be necessary. In general, I agree with your point that a black market is undesirable, but what I don't agree is with the implication that it was Fox's fault that the black markets flourished. What are the stringent regulations being avoided (taxes), and whose responsibility is it to reform (Congress) / enforce (Government of Mexico City and other local governments) those regulations?

I agree that reliable sources are necessary. I am doing my research and will come back shortly.

Hari Seldon 20:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * True, low inflation in Mexico has less to do with external factors but more to do with a stagnant economy. Fox seemed (I don't think anybody knows) to have focused on stabilization of the economy (which was already stable, after Zedillo). The problem is controlling inflation when you have high growth, which Mexico hasn't had in six years. Echeverría did not suffer from low oil prices, only worldwide recession! Just that! López Portillo DID NOT enjoy favorable oil prices in 1982, that is exactly what caused the economic crisis. Both López Portillo and Echeverría determined to create infrastructure to produce higher growth and they financed it, naturally, through debt at low rates and then were forced to pay them at more costly dollars, after the price of oil significantly dropped. Fox only confronted the stagnation of the US economy, because other countries like China and most of the rest of Latin America kept growing. The Mexican economy did grow... at 2.2% and went from being the world's 8th economy to being the world's 13th economy, so Mexico compared with its peers did not perform as well which is half of the analysis. Fox's administration can only be seen as successful in regards to the economy if seen from certain points of view, only taking in consideration certain factors but all must be taken into account. An entity must be compared to its peers, but comparing Fox with López Portillo would not be as simply as to say he "performed" better, because the conditions were very much different. Mexico's economy was not global back then, Mexico did not join the GATT until the 1980s. The only simpler comparison can be made with Zedillo, and only after the fixed peso-dollar parity ended, anything before is just not feasible for a subsection of a wikipedia article. That comparison would have to include Manuel Ávila Camacho's 6% average growth with Fox's 2% or course or the fact that 1970s was "the worst decade of Western and American economic performance since the Great Depression". --FateClub 22:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lopez Portillo did not enjoy favorable oil prices in 1982, but he did in 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978, and 1977. And no, the recession in Mexico was not caused by the 1982 turn in the price on oil, but by the excessive debt with variable interest rates in a foreign currency --exactly as he negotiated the terms of the debt-- that he took out to fund questionable government programs. By the way, according to a more advanced theory of economics, infrastructure does not produce growth, but exploitation of resources. Hence, infrastructure should be built privately, not publicly. As for the "stagnant economy", I agree the economy was somewhat stable under Zedillo, but other sources, like the UN, World Bank, and OAS also talk about a net decrease in poverty during Fox not necesarily associated with Zedillo. As for your suggestion that China "kept growing", you haven't menctioned the difference: that China has a lot more people in poverty than Mexico (check GDP per capita growth rate), and that China is a dictatortial country where labor can be forced to work, instead, Mexico is a democracy where labor must be paid (even if little amounts). You are compring Mexico's evolution of 8th to 13th nominally, which is not a fair evaluation. In PPP dollars compensated for inflation, what happened? And, true, an entity must be compared to his peers. But since Fox's significance is being the first opposition President in decades, he should also be compared to his predecessors, because he offered change and it is very significant to show the kind of change he offered. (Like, responsible economic policies that guaranteed low interest rates, lower debt issuance from the government, including price stability, even at the expense of a short term growth that may have been lost in the mid term future). As for your claim that this comparison is not a "feasible subsection", I disagree. Precisely because these differences explain the different performance. A more global economy and a freer environment explain the better economic outcome than Lopez Portillo (Manuel Avila Camacho, by the way, had a freer and more global economic environment than Lopez Portillo too, if for no other reason, Brenton Woods!). As for your claim that he can only be compared with Zedillo, the latter devaluated the currency from $7.50 to nearly $11 in four years, (and consider, this is after the December Mistake). Zedillo grew, yes, but only 7% in his last term, and inflation was low, yes, but not as low as Fox, and poverty was not reduced. Fox was a better manager than Zedillo. And you can argue that Zedillo inherited a bomb, and I'll remind you that he recieved the economy from Salinas on December 1 1994 and there was no depression in sight... at least, not a depression of the proportions that Mexico ended having in 1995. In any case, Fox's campaign promise was a change that would not cause a "sexennial economic crisis", in clear reference to Mexico from 1976 to 1997. Thus, this is the period against he should be compared with for purposes of evaluating his term. Hari Seldon 23:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Signature
why was his signature removed? All major politicians have thier signature inculded in their articles. See Reagan, Clinton, Brack Obama etc, etc.


 * First of all, this isn't an American politician. This is a Mexican politician. His signature may be forged, stolen, or otherwise misused quite easily. Per WP:BLP it was removed to protect his privacy and identity. When he ceases to be "living" it might be useful to re-add it. Hari Seldon 13:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not being an American politician is not a valid argument. So only Mexicans can steal, forge or misuse identites? Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama...they are all living, and their signature is inculded. I don't see why Fox's signature can't be inculded.


 * That's not exactly what I meant. What I mean is that in Mexico it is easier to steal, forge and misuse identities using a forged signature. A signature is a very powerful thing in Mexico, and making it publicly available may not be to the liking of the Living Person. WP:BLP clearly states that we should prefer to err on the safe side. Hari Seldon 00:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the president's signature is inculded in every "Paisano" public handbook issued out in the border...that's where the signature came from. I don't see the "danger" of inculding it.


 * Please provide a reference. (No need for an electronic reference in this case, simply an MLA or APA style reference). Hari Seldon 00:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, since the signature is an image, please provide the copyright permit that allows wikipedia to use it. Hari Seldon 00:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You deleted it, now you fix it


 * You want to add it, you provide the references and the copyright permits. Its in the guidelines! Hari Seldon 04:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I had, until you deleted it.


 * None was listed in the article. Please sign your comments. Hari Seldon 15:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just reviewed the image. The image has no tags at all, its copyright is not listed, nor is there a reference on where it is taken from. Please add this. Hari Seldon 16:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To do list
okay, creating a "TO DO LIST" is great, but no one seems to be working here. What happened to the editors who have contributed for the past three years? Exactly, all they do is delete the work of others, and disappear once there's nothing new to edit.--Dcrcort 02:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything that is strikethrough has been done. The to do list is for everybody, anybody (wikipedia: the encyclopedia that anybody may edit) --FateClub 16:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "all they do is delete the work fo others". I wouldn't call unsourced opinions "work", nor would I say that adding unreferenced, controversial material is "work". Deleting it, however, is work, and perhaps if certain editors stopped diminishing the quality of the article by adding said material, then there would be time for other things. As for me, I am looking for sources, but FateClub has been kind enough in doing a better job than I, so I am now working on something else. Hari Seldon 18:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope this clarifies things, this is all from What is a good article?

<<A good article has the following attributes:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to sources used; (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles; and (c) contains no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and (b) stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

>>

I have bolded some of the activities you have found objectionable. --FateClub 20:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like PAN propaganda
No mention of the Monterrey summit disaster, of the corruption charges of the first lady's sons (the Bribiesca brothers), his involvement in the 2006 elections contrary to law, the drop in international Transparency, Competitiveness, and GDP rankings, the Atenco riots which forced him to cancel the new airport for Mexico City, etc. etc. etc.

This sounds like right-wing PAN propaganda. Please somebody try and come up with a less biased recount of what is by all conceivable standards one of the most inept governments in recent Mexican history. Raguil79 19:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added these to the to-do-list. You are welcomed to contribute though, with sources included, preferably. --FateClub 20:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Monterrey summit disaster" was deleted for lack of sources and references. However, it is noteworthy to state that the Monterrey Summit had a conclusion that was landmark for the world's economy, and is a lot more relevant than a phone call with a two-bit dictator from a starving island.
 * Exactly how has the world economy changed thanks to the summit? It was all talk and no substance like pretty much everything the UN ever organizes regarding economic development. Regardless of who was the "two-bit" dictator, the fact is that Fox's behavior with Castro was nothing short of shameful. I'm sure PAN-lovers like you like to whine about Chavez and yet when Fox also breaks diplomatic protocol you defend him. How ironic... --Raguil79 02:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Bribiesca" charges was deleted because they were found "without cause to investigate" twice, and the third time they tried, Congress was able to start an investigation but it has gone nowehre. Since these are only charges without any resolution yet, and since this supposed crime (one is innocent until proven guilty) was not commited by Fox himself, one has to question the relevance of adding the information in this article.
 * It has gone nowhere precisely because they're being protected by the government. Jesus Christ, I can't believe you are so naive as to believe otherwise. --Raguil79 02:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * His "involvement" in the 2006 elections is a lie/argument advanced by Lopez Obrador as propaganda for his cause. Since this is not the place to advance propaganda, the only relevant information is the electoral courts ruling: that the President's comments during the election were irrelevant to the end result.
 * A lie? Look back at Fox's statements and behavior during the elections and tell me with a straight face that it was not intervention. Even the IFE recognized it and he was reprimanded for it! --Raguil79 02:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The "drop in international transparency" requires a really good source, since Fox's efforts and negotiations with congress elevated transparency to the rank of constitutional right, and crated the IFAI. Remember NPOV
 * So, Transparency International is not a good source? --Raguil79 02:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The "drop in competitivenss" and "drop in GDP" rankings must also be sourced, clear, and NPOV. Where these drops attributable to Fox?
 * LOL! So you're saying that economic perfomance during a six-year period is NOT attributable to the government during that time frame. My god... --Raguil79 02:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The accoutn of the Atenco riots must also be NPOV. That means that (sourced) accusations that the mobilized protestors where sponsored and organized by the PRD must also be included.
 * Be my guest and include that. I'm not here to defend the PRD unlike you with your beloved blanquiazul. --Raguil79 02:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The accusation that this article sounds like PAN propaganda is out of proportion. A lot of people around here have worked hard to make this article as NPOV as possible. This article must not be allowed to become propaganda of any sort, neither pro-PAN, nor pro-PRD, nor pro-PRI. Being neutral is the only way to be "less biased". This implies that claiming that Fox's goverment was "the most inept" "by all conceivable standards" is an exaggeration of humoristic proportions. How can this be compared to the ineptitude of the government of Mexico City during the same term, or to the ineptitude of the Lopez Portillo, Echeverría, and Miguel de la Madrid governments? Please, read WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP before contributing.
 * Hari Seldon 22:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It sure wasn't better than Zedillo's. And it sure wasn't better than nearly all PRI governments pre-Diaz Ordaz. --Raguil79 02:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the article has improved significantly. Fortunately the main contributors to this article hardly agree with each other so they keep each other in check. Right now, something to point out is that the article is more likely to link positive things to Fox than negative things. For example the rise in # of Internet users (how in the world is Fox related to this?). Same criteria should apply to negative things and positive things. --FateClub 01:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its too positive.--Dcrcort 06:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This comes yet as another example of the real perception of the people in Mexico about Fox's administration (which this article does not portray, evidently). Of course there are facts behind this perception (keep in mind that close to 50% of the people voted against continuing Fox's policies in the last presidential election).
 * I must say that the article has improved substantially (I wish though I could say that it was thanks to my work) I really wish I had more time than I do now. I do, however, agree with Fateclub, there is a double standard. It seems that the article gives credit to Fox for even the silliest achievements but it fails to attribute to his government any of the failures (for example the incredible rise in organized crime, the prevalence of corruption, lack of freedom of speech, etc)
 * About the Bribiesca family, one can easily argue that the prosecution of their crimes has been halted because of deals done under the table, some op-eds at la Jornada and Proceso have said that their immunity was negociated in exchange of votes and other commodities. The vein of these accusations was that their relation (Bribiesca’s) to the presidency proved to be profitable for them. The involvement of Fox on this is unknown, but they are the sons of his wife (and according to Olga Wormat, the person in charge of the country) this is something that perhaps should be included. I am sure that this would be included in any other article of any other major politician. Why should it be exluded here?
 * There is also no mention whatseover about the relation of the Henkel family with Fox (and how the wealth of this family rose during Fox's term thanks to the business the presidency gave them)
 * Despite being a landmark to world's economy (which is, by the way, POV) what is disturbing about that call to Fidel is the fact that Fox made it out of instructions he received from someone else (speaking about submissive behavior) Mexico had a long history of healthy relations with Cuba before this. Without any thought of what Castro is, and what he has done (and without making judgements, remember NPOV) it seems that Fox was coerced to made that call, which should be noted.  Presidents are often called dignitaries where was Fox's dignity when he did that? More importantly where was the dignity of the nation that he presided? When was it when he lied to the people about the whole incident?
 * Attributing the influence of Fox over the election to some trick developed by Lopez Obrador is an understatement (everybody knows that AMLO is old news and there is no need to keep bringing him up in every conversation about Fox or Mexico, it seems that all of these people that hate him idolatrize him privately, they really concede him a LOT of authority) In fact, the judges from the electoral court, called Fox's influence on the election the worst irregularity of the whole Process. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2006/09/06/008n1pol.php The fact that he voiced his opinion was wrong not because I or anyone else thinks so, but because he broke the law. Furthermore, the comments he made after leaving the office in which he reduced the whole -very delicate- political situation of the country to the rivalry he had with other politicians should be noted (this in the opinion of a justice of the Mexican Supreme court -which I am sure understands the law better than any of us- was self inculpatory). http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/02/15/index.php?section=politica&article=013n2pol
 * There is also no mention about the prosecution of Olga Wormat. I think we have brought this up before. Although he was charged with libel, through the proper legal channels. She is a journalist  that was harrassed for doing her job. This ought to be mentioned. Andy Rosenthal 06:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * FateClub: the number of Internet users relates to Fox because it is a way to measure economic progress. The way I see it, there is only so much the government can (should) do about the economy. Thus, the best way to portray the economy section is by listing what Fox did, and then listing the end results. In the case of transparency, this should also be the case. What did the Federal government did, and what was the end result? If there is one index on transparency in which Mexico declined, is this because of what Fox did, or because of what local governments did?
 * Andy, about the "real perception of Fox's administration", we only need to see the approval ratings. Which, if I remember correctly, were better than Zedillo's. Evidently, the "real perception" is favorable. Unless, of course, you are within the 25% of the population that don't believe in freedom (of the economy).
 * About the Bribiesca family and the deals under the table, I hope you have good sources. By the way, they have not been halted. They are going forward. I was merely remarking on the fact that this is the third try to get these people indicted, because the first two Congress found them without cause to prosecute. The fact that, despite their proven innocence, they are still prosecuted makes me think of a witch-hunt. But of course, I don't have sources and thus only ask that, if there will be some menction of the process, then it should be listed in detail. However, I don't see how this relates to Fox.
 * The Monterrey Consensus is "landmark" to the world economy and that is not POV, it is an accurate description. The Monterrey Consensus was a follow-up of the Doha rounds, and the Mty Consensus lists a number of commitments from developed countries to aid and finance development in less developed countries. Indeed, the progress of the consensus is in constant follow-up. Because of its global significance, and the global significance of the ultimate goal of the Doha rounds, related to the Monterrey Consensus, and becuase of the seriousness of the issues dealt with, the Monterrey Conference for Finance and Development, if covered in this article, should focus in the more relevant aspects of the conference, and less on the soap opera/media circus created over a phone call with a two-bit dictator that can't tell Monterrey from Guadalajara, and that is kept alive through Photoshop and quotes from others like him. As for the "long, healthy relationships with Cuba", where is the dignity in having healty relations with an opressive government?
 * As for the "Henkel family", again, please provide sources.
 * Agreed, Fox broke Mexican law by voicing opinions on the election, and this should be noted. It should also be noted that nearly no other liberal democracy requires their head of state/head of government to keep quiet. It should also be noted that the Head of government of Mexico City also did not keep quiet, and also paid with tax money ads to aid his candidate ("el prietito en el arroz", remember?). Ads that aired outside his constituency (Mexico City), but nationally (why?). Yes, they were the "worse", and they were "wrong", but they were not "uncommon", and they "did not significantly influence the election", according to the courts. I may not understand law very well, but I understand that an opinion has no power, and that a court ruling has plenty. I also understand that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in electoral controversies, and I also understand the reason.
 * There is no menction of Olga Wornat, and there is also no menction of the closure of "Noticias de Oaxaca", nor government spending in La Jornada. On the other hand, Andy, I don't see any edits by you in the article.
 * The discussion has been good, but I think it is time to stop arguing and start looking for sources.
 * Hari Seldon 14:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Without sources, linking the increase of internet users to the economy is original research. For many reasons I wouldn't believe that relationship first hand, the Internet is a new technology and right now it's still catching on in Mexico vs. mature markets such as the US, so it HAS to grow. In developed markets people have Internet at home, in a country like Mexico, people go to Internet cafes because they cannot afford having it at home, so the increase in numbers may not really relate to an improvement in the economy (which I do not even remember happening during Fox, just the so-called "stability"). This is one of the issues we ought to not spend too much time on because it isn't our responsibility, which should be to find reliable sources.


 * Another issue is that these long stretches of linkages exist when closer, more standards links such as GDP rankings are being contested as "attributable to Fox". Or we are limiting ourselves to mentioning only the court's ruling on the matter of Fox's involvement, this is... when we have his virtual confession, a minority of Mexicans believing the elections were clean, cabinet members complaining about Fox's involvement and the Mexican press condemning it.


 * Now, it is irrelevant that other countries allow heads of state to talk freely, in Mexico we do not and it is against electoral laws. We cannot be sitting like judges determining how morally wrong it is to ask the president to not use his time and resources (which are the times and resources of the nation) to publicly support the candidate of his party, instead of resolving the very important issues in the country that fall into the responsibility of the President.


 * Now, this brings me to other issues, such as the high increase in murders, drug-trafficking and that Mexico became a world leader in kidnappings as well as in deaths of journalists? Has anyone noticed that the word "drug" is not present in the article? Or that Fox was found to many times breaking the law ("traditions", I believe this article explains)?


 * About the Bribiescas? A court ruling against Wormat was that she was found to be excessive in adjectives but not incorrect. That the Bribiesca family did increase its wealth in ways that only can be explained by linking them to being Fox's family. They did use the presidential airplane among other things that belong to the nation and ought to be used only by the president.


 * Now, keeping good relationships with Cuba is a matter of national pride, by guarding off US influence, which Fox failed to do and perhaps just to obtain amnesty for US immigrants, which he also failed to do (and should be noted). It is also a matter of economy, Cuba owes Mexico millions of dollars, and buys billions of dollars in goods (not from Mexico, anymore). The Cuba-Mexico relationship is also of strategic value in keeping good relationships with your neighbors, not only for the above reasons but because Cuba has good relationships with many other countries, such as countries in Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa (where Mexico has negligible influence). Damaging a relationship with Cuba may damage the relationship with several other countries, one of the results was Fox's failure to get Derbez to become head of the OAS. We are not as liked as we used to be, that definitely changed during Fox.


 * But yes, we must keep a NPOV, but we should also apply this principle retroactively to the positive things describe in the article, that way people do not leave with the impression that this article is propaganda, and worse... that people leave misguided by the article after reading it. --FateClub 16:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize (as I had before) for my lack of edits. I simply have not found the time to do them. Hari, I think you once criticized other users for the use of a similar tone in the discussions. I do not believe that is constructive at all.
 * Perhaps a good idea is to add a section of Fox's approval ratings, the only thing similar to this is found on mexidata.com, and I think we have discussed the bias of that particular site. Why don't we add a table with ratings from different sources to see where we are standing.
 * About the Henkel Family here is one article: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/150461.html
 * Hari, I know that you are hard to convince. I am sure you are acquainted with how google works. If you believe (as the markets do, see the rise in their stock if you have any doubts) that google is accurate. Google "freedom of speech Mexico" granted that you are using an ISP in the US, see the results.
 * Hari, You are one of the firsts to criticize law enforcement in Mexico, you have even said it's discretionary. Now it appears that you uphold the ruling of the electoral college as a dogma. Why use this double standard? It is clear that according to someone that understands and knows the law, what Fox this was wrong, this deserves to be mentioned.
 * What is this business about the government spending in La Jornada? La Jornada is #3 in Mexico City in paid circulation and its distributed almost nationwide. If the newspaper were biased towards the government this would be a good point, but I don't see how that plays a role here. If you are speaking about the hosting of the website, its through a commercial agreement in which la Jornada pays UNAM for the bandwidth. Actually it has enough advertisers to afford this, and it is a good business for UNAM.  Plus the article uses Mexidata.com as a source, why not use la Jornada as one?
 * About the immunity granted to the Bribiesca family here is what Julio Hernandez Lopez said Lo menos que haría Vicente si Felipe se atreve a ir contra su familia sería develar aspectos de la manera como hizo ganar fraudulentamente al michoacano el pasado 2 de julio. Por eso es que el diariamente ofendido no puede sino voltear hacia otro lado y ensayar amargas fórmulas de "respeto" a su adversario intencional y envenenadamente imprudente I am sure this may sound like a conspiracy theory. But, Again I would argue the same, how come that law that is ''discretionary' enforced, yet it can be trusted for this ... but not for anything else.
 * Finally, how come 32 local governments are failing. How come the increase in organized crime is attributable only to local governments when it is a phenomenon that is happening throughout the country?
 * Let's go back and work on Hari's initial proposal on freedom of speech, I would even suggest creating an article about this subject so we can avoid all of the junk that it would create to put everything in detail here. I also suggest adding a controversy section where we can fit in all of the above (Bribiesca, Castro, Wormat, Influence in the electoral process).
 * Should we add that during Fox's term the wealth of the richest increased? (e.g. Slim's case)
 * Perhaps the icing on the cake after the Monterrey Consensus (Or should we call it 'Washington Consensus V2.0') for Mexico were the Banff talks in the beginning of this year.
 * Finally, Mexico Liberal? Is what Lorenzo Meyer calls liberalismo autoritario
 * Andy Rosenthal 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * FateClub: You are right, linking the increase of internet users to the economy is original research.
 * As for the election contests:
 * There is no virtual confession. Only a remark that Lopez Obrador says is a confession.
 * According to polls by some of the most prestigious newspapers in Mexico, the "minority" is in those who consider the 2006 election "fraud". Indeed, according to Reforma, about 60% of Mexicans believe the election was fair. As far as I remember, 60% = Majority.
 * I am not asking anyone to "sit like judges" to determine anything. Judges of the electoral court already did that for us. All I am saying is that, as per WP:NPOV we don't need to give equal relevance to disputing positions, only present both. My point is that more relevance should be given to the court ruling than to the opinions, because the court ruling is based in evidenced presented by the political parties to the courts and the analysis made by the courts. The courts said that Fox did intefere, but that the interference was not measurable to the election, and thus, decided not to punish Fox. The judges already sat and ruled: no action was done that required punishment.
 * As for the high increase in drug trafficking during Fox, the responsibility of local officials cannot be ignored. However, I agree, it is incredible that the creation of the AFI, and its ongoing success, the capture of numerous drug cartel leaders, and the increase in drug-mobs response to their prosecution is not covered in the article.
 * As for Fox's breaking the law, we would need to reference and cite the appropriate suits and court rulings determining that, indeed, Fox broke the law, as per WP:BLP. On the other hand, we could cite those people saying that Fox broke the law and say, "in the opinion of X, Fox broke Y law by doing Z".
 * The above also goes for the Bribiescas. Please, by all means say that, according to Wornat, the Bribiescas did all that. However, also state that Congress found, twice, nothing to prosecute. Only in the third try was the opposition able to prosecute them.
 * As for "keeping good relations with Cuba is a matter of national pride", who is proud of that? I was certainly not. Am I in the minority? Reference the poll that says that. The underlying issue was, and remains, the Castañeda Doctrine vs. the Estrada Doctrine. The "Cuban" incident, and the "Chavez" incidents of the latter part of his term were all caused by the change in Foreign Policy that Castañeda started. We may or may not agree with the new policy, but the only neutral position is that the policy caused these frictions. Whether the frictions were good or bad or a matter of national pride, that is something completely different. According to leftist editorialists, it was wrong, but according to Castañeda, it was the right thing to do. Keep in mind that Mexico was not elected to the UN Security Council by Latin America, but by the developed/western powers. Critics call this "submissiveness", supporters call it "inclusion". In any case, it is clear that Mexico, during Fox, stepped away from the neutrality of the Third World (in the foreign relations sense, not the economic sense) and sought entrance into the First World (again, in the foreign relations sense, and not the economic sense). Good or bad? that's outside the scope of the article.
 * Saying that Fox "failed" to make Derbez head of the OAS is an exaggeration. A failure would have been a devastating defeat in the votes. What happened was a compromise. This, of course, is a reflection of the tension and the polarization of the region, and also of the position, and the aspirations of leadership in said position, that Mexico has. Again, that is what is relevant.
 * Andy: approval ratings were measured periodically by Reforma and other institutions. I can add information about this.
 * Google is not consider a "reliable source" available for reference in Wikipedia. And, the accuracy of google has nothing to do with its stock price. Stock price has to do with expectations of profitability. I am hard to convince in the absence of evidence, and moreso when I live evidence of the exact opposite of what you are saying.
 * As for the "Henkel" argument. I read your source. It is quite sensationalist. It is incredible the amount of documents, numbers, pictures, and other evidence it uses to support the opinion. In fact, the accountability of the paper catches my eye, as the journalist didn't even sign the article. Is it reliable to say that the Henkel family became rich during Fox? No. The reliable thing to say is, "according to an editorial by El Universal, a company owned by the Henkel family recieved government contracts during Fox, presumably as a payment for supporting him during his campaign". There is a great difference between facts and accusations.
 * Law is enforced by the Executive branch, while Law is interpreted by the Judicial branch. I said that law is enforced discretionally, but I didn't say it was interpreted discretionally. To explain: there are institutions with more corruption than others, and transparency is indirectly proportional to corruption. Because of the amount of media attention and transparency in the arguments of both sides, and the quality of the court ruling, it should be clear that the electoral court was not "discretional" in its interpretation. Read it yourself! In fact, most international observers, and foreign dignitaries agree with the ruling and have recognized Calderón's legitimacy. It is not "dogma" I defend, only the arguments that are supported by the most evidence.
 * The La Jornada argument is the following: when Mexico had limits to freedom of speech, one of the mechanisms the government used to punish crticial papers was to not advertise in the punished paper. Hence, the punished paper suffered economically. (The government has the responsibility to communicate, and, since Fox cancelled the "media tax", the government has the responsibility to pay for said communication). Thus, if the Government has decreased its paid adveritisement in La Jornada, this would be an indication of punishment to freedom of speech. By the way, another mechanism the old governments used was to limit the critical media's access to newsprint paper. Has La Jornada suffered any shortages in the past 6 years?
 * I am not saying that the increase in crime is attributable only to local governments. Saying that is just as ridiculous as saying that the increase in crime is attributable only to the Federal Government. I am only asking that the responsibility of one should not be disproportionately portrayed with respect to the other.
 * Sure, add that during Fox the wealth of the richest increased. Also add why (because the stock market hit record highs, because the economy improved -evidenced in the interest rates and the stable exchange rate-). Also add OAS and UN reports of a better HDI and lower poverty during Fox (add that, according to reputable sources, the wealth of poorest also increased).
 * As for your phrase, "Washington Consensus v.2", I am glad you agree that the Monterrey Consensus is a landmark of equivalent proportions.
 * Finally, as for the "liberalismo autoritario", Salinas was an autoritarian dictator, but Fox was democratically elected and had the legitimacy of the people's vote, hence the "authoritarian" adjective is out of order. Liberalism implies the warranty of freedom with all of its consequences. True, not everyone wants to be free, but the "burden of freedom" cannot be carried by someone else but the individual, thus, calling Freedom an "imposition" is a laughable attempt, even for an academician.
 * Hari Seldon 21:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The remark that López Obrador calls Fox's comment as a virtual confession to discredit it as confession is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well. It is invalid to say that if something is said by López Obrador then we must conclude it is false. In this case we cannot conclude that Fox's remark is not a confession just because AMLO said it, especially, when an expert on the subject, a judge of the Mexican Supreme Court (Juventino Castro y Castro) found that remark may cause to go to court for respond to charges
 * The sitting judges remark was about the inclusion of a paragraph explaining how in other countries the President is allowed to speak freely while in Mexico it is not.
 * Now, Fox being democratically elected wouldn't forbidding from becoming a dictator. Remember that Hugo Chávez has been democratically elected twice.
 * Now you are contesting the fact that crime increase in Mexico be attributable to Fox, but everything good in the country is being attributed to Fox, including the economy, which partially the responsibility of the states and municipalities. Again, we must be fair in both the positive and negative.
 * Now, the responsibility of drug trafficking cannot be shared by the states, since it is a federal crime. Then again, are we trying to share with the states only what is not positive about the country?
 * Fox id "fail" to make Derbez chief of the OAS. It was his entire intention, not a wish. Fox didn't say "I hope Derbez wins, he is a good fella". He said "Derbez will win the OEA" ("México ganará la OEA: Fox"--FateClub 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, would you mind sharing Reforma's find that 60% of Mexicans think the elections were clean? A poll by El Universal in Mexico City shows otherwise. Granted, the majority of Mexico City did vote for AMLO, but the poll also shows generalized dislike towards most of the PRD actions.
 * Yes, you are in the minority thinking that keeping good relationships with Cuba is not a good idea (a poll after the Fox-Castro incident indicated that 70% of Mexicans favor relationships Cuba-Mexico even when 89% dislike Castro. And what we think should stay here in the talk page and not exported to the article.
 * Now, we cannot possibly blame the deterioration of relations solely on Castañeda, or, again, are we attributing all positive economical factors only to cabinet members instead of Fox? Foreign relations are, unlike the economy, under direct control of the president. If Castañeda had not behaved as Fox wanted, Fox would have apologized and replace Castañeda.
 * The neutrality of the Third World? Since when has China been neutral, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or Iran. Since when has Switzerland or Sweden or Luxembourg been as vocal as was Mexico this sexenio? But then, the criticism is not that Mexico was involved so much, but the mess he made of all these foreign relationships. --FateClub 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fateclub:
 * I didn't say that the argument was false because Lopez Obrador said it. I said that the argument is false despite Lopez Obrador saying it is true. Fox said that he felt like the Lopez Obrador was defeat was a personal victory (notice, "felt like"). Lopez Obrador replied that this was a "confession". A confession, however, would be Fox saying "I comitted electoral crimes to guarantee Lopez Obrador's defeat". Fox never said this nor anything of the sort. I also feel like Lopez Obrador's defeat was a personal victory, but, I am not confessing to anything ;)
 * I did not propose the inclusion of a paragraph about what happens in other countries. I menctioned it to add context to the accusations, and explain the validity of the arguments behind the "irrelevance" of said "involvement". Because, to speak about the state of the nation during elections is a different "involvement" than to "stuff ballots"... One is called "freedom of speech" and the other one is called "electoral fraud". The opposition tries to confuse one with the other.
 * No, we are not trying to share with the states only that which is not positive to the country. Drug Trafficking is a Federal Crime, but not assasinations. Additionally, State authorities also take action on drug crimes, have been accused of having relations with drug lords, and other similar things. I am talking specifically about the State of Baja California (the municipality of Tijuana and its mayor), the State of Sinaloa (and its congress), and the State of Nuevo León (and its current governor).
 * Ok, Derbez did not win, but he didn't lose either. He compromised. Derbez did not lose the vote.
 * As for Cuba, I agree, I am not in the majority, and I didn't need to see (another) poll to know that. I was simply remarking that personal opinions about the Cuban-Mexico relations are irrelevant, both yours and mine. My point is that the core of the issue is the disagreements between Fox's administration and their implementation of the Castañeda Doctrine, and the oppositions "defense" of the Estrada Doctrine. The Castañeda Doctrine implies an abandonment of the ideals of the non-aligned, and a desire to be a part of the West. The fact that Cuba revealed tapes of a phone call is a minor issue, compared to the underlying environment of change in the Mexican Foreign Relations. By the way, this is the context that explains Derbez's "compromise". With Mexico's change, Chavez's influence, and the post-9/11 policies of the US, the continent is polarizing, and Fox had the historical chance to place Mexico in a position, and not only did he not maintained neutrality, but he sought to lead!
 * Again, I am not attributing all the negative things to Castañeda, but to the Foreign Policy that was defended by Fox and continues today, and that is academically called the "Castañeda Doctrine" because it was first implemented by Castañeda.
 * As for the poll, Reforma Poll on Calderón approval rating, a question under the "Elección" tab; "¿Considera usted que la elección Presidencial del 2 de Julio fue legitima o fraudulenta?": 54% legitima, 34% fraudulenta, 12% No sabe/no contestó.
 * "The neutrality of the Third World", I wasn't referring to the economical Third World, but to the movement of the non-aligned, sometimes called "third world" to heighten the fact that they were not aligned with the West (the so called First World) or the Communist East (the so called Second World). This is a different use for "Third World" than the mainstream, economical term.
 * Hari Seldon 23:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * True.. Fox didn't confess. Neither did OJ Simpson in the proposed book If I Did It.
 * Maybe it was a personal victory for you, and you are fine to say whatever you want, because you are not the president of Mexico, or president of the IFE, or Secretary of the Interior, etc. You are not in a position to have an effect on an election. Like Fox did, and had to be stopped by the IFE and the Supreme Court. They both determined that he influenced the electoral process at times.
 * Context in that sense would be comparing what it is illegal in the United State (for example) and then adding a case when it was illegal (for example, Nixon). Or comparing it to how elections were interfered by PRI presidents in the past.
 * In lieu of the Reforma poll I change my comment from "Or we are limiting ourselves to mentioning only the court's ruling on the matter of Fox's involvement, this is... when we have his virtual confession, a minority of Mexicans believing the elections were clean, cabinet members complaining about Fox's involvement and the Mexican press condemning it."     to      "Or we are limiting ourselves to mentioning only the court's ruling on the matter of Fox's involvement, this is... when we have his virtual confession, 34% of Mexicans believing the elections were not clean and 12% either do not know or didn't care to respond, cabinet members complaining about Fox's involvement and the Mexican press condemning it."
 * Ok, Derbez did not win, but he didn't lose either??? There is no second place for chief of the OAS.
 * "The fact that Cuba revealed tapes of a phone call is a minor issue"??? The fact that the chief of a "sovereign" country asked the president of Cuba to "eat and then go home" so as to not annoy another guest is a minor issue? Fidel Castro was invited to this meeting, Mexico was only the host country, not the organizer. This was not a birthday bash but a meeting of heads of state and experts in economics. Then Fox lied (remember that before Fox lying was a bad thing?)
 * Now, the idea that Fox wasn't too bad because drug trafficking increased only because murders did increase too is not a good idea. After all, how many times did we hear that such and such murder was caused by drug cartels fighting for control of drug routes. How many? more than 3,600 deaths related to drug trafficking.
 * "the underlying environment of change in the Mexican Foreign Relations" caused a deterioration of Mexico's relation with Cuba, Venezuela, Brasil, Argentina, Bolivia suffer. While the one with the US did not provide good results, the immigration reform Fox promised never happened, etc. Therefore, Fox changed a tradition in Mexican politics for the worst (mostly if not almost completely). --FateClub 23:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hari,
 * Please take a step back and review your answers.


 * You happen to be among the ones that believe that Mexico’s integration to the US and Canada is beneficial. That is the opinion of some but certainly not the majority. Even Sam Huntington who was an advocate of the integration of north America has changed his mind. I have met plenty of Canadians that are outraged by the idea, and certainly many Americans that disagree. If this is the right thing or not to do is not for us to judge. You  believe that Fox chose to lead, however it seems that he chose to be lead. In my opinion he chose to serve (and was shortchanged at that, as this subjection turned to be totally unprofitable). Despite of this fact, this shift in paradigm was costly for Mexico in the relations that it had with Latin America, For you and others I am sure this is nothing, but Mexico had a long tradition of neutrality (hence it was the country of choice for migration for many Spaniards,  Chileans, etc)  that was lost. I will not even get into how important this migration was for Mexico in terms of modernization of UNAM and other aspects. But I believe that this is noteworthy. Furthermore, what is relevant about that incident is that Fox lied to the people. I believe that this should be included in this article.


 * To some the Washington Consensus is a set of predatory policies that are immoral, despite this, what was Fox's role on the MTY summit, Mexico was only the host country, nothing more.


 * Hari, the Henkel note appeared on the front page of El Universal a few weeks ago. It is signed Redaccion. Newspapers do this all the time, I am surprised you spent time in one and are unaware of this or the meaning of this.


 * I repeat what I have said, I belive you have a double standard. On the one hand you have said that the application of the law in Mexico is discretionary, but then you hold as an undisputable truth that the rulings made by courts are accurate. I told you before that the fact that the Bribiescas have not been prosecuted could be attributed to the fact that they had connections to the presidency. It is scandalous and the prosecution has been turbid. I believe this should be included.


 * I still not see the connection with La Jornada. Perhaps we can discuss that elsewhere, but I think that whatever the point is, it is irrelevant to this article.


 * I think the Bribiesca issue, The Henkel Family, the MTY summit, the steady rise in organized crime and drug trafficking should be addressed in the article.Andy Rosenthal 23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just one more precision, In science which try to be as accurate as anything can be. There is a rating for the importance of a journal that is based on the number of times said journal is cited eleswhere. This is pretty much the principle that google uses to ranks its pages. Hence when you google something the resulf of your search will be the webpages that are referenced the most times by other pages and that contain the words you included in the search.  When you google freedom of speech in Mexico, most of the top ten hits are related to how freedom of speech in Mexico is a contradiction since journalists are murdered every single day. (Remember only second to Iraq).  As it has been said, we can say that Fox gave a lot of people access to the internet is fair, but saying that he was unable to prevent journalist deaths in ALL of the country is not? Andy Rosenthal 00:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

FateClub: I don't understand what OJ Simpson has to do with Fox. If Fox didn't confess, why did you said earlier he made a "virtual confession"?

Fox isn't in any position to have an influence in the election either. Only the citizens in charge of the electoral booths, and the political parties, and the IFE have the capacity to influence the election. Of course, you could stretch the argument and say that a government that does a good job "influences the election" because it convinces voters to vote for the ruling party again, but, is this wrong? Stretch it a little more and say that self promotion of a job well done is an influence. Well, again, true. Is it wrong? maybe not. Is it illegal? In Mexico... Is it punishible? not according to the courts...

No, context is not confusing a public speech with spying on the opposition. Context is comparing public speech of heads of state of other countries with public speech of the Mexican head of state. And then adding that despite public speech of heads of state is normal in other liberal democracies, it is illegal in Mexico, and thus, despite Fox didn't do anything any other head of state would do, it was wrong. Thus, the court reprimanded him but did not punish him. That is context.

Again, we are not limiting anything. I am simply saying that the appropriate context and NPOV coverage should be provided. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." (from WP:NPOV). Thus, portraying the Fox administration from the point of view of the minority is unnacceptable at best. I am not saying Fox was perfect or a saint, but saying that he manipulated an election is a stretch, and it is also a stretch to say that independent, possibly biased and interested opinions from opposition politicians have the same weight as a court ruling. I am not saying that we should limit the article to the ruling, but lets not give it a lesser role, but the role of law that it has. In international relations, and in politics, there is always a second place. True, Derbez is not Chief of OAS, but it isn't because he lost an election, but because he conceded. This means, after more than 20 votes, no clear winner could emerge, and thus, the members negotiated Derbez's withdrawl. What did Mexico get in return? Lets make sure our political positions don't make us lose sight of the issues. What was happening in the continent when Derbez conceded? Why was the division in the OAS so important? What is it evidence of? What is Mexico's involvement in the phenomenon, and how does it compare to Mexico's involvement in previous, similar phenomenon? This is what matters. Yes, the Fact that Fox asked a two-bit dictator to eat and then go home is a minor issue. What Fox did lacked tact, but it is not uncommon. It is not uncommon that a country asks another country to intervene in its favor, either. Fox lied, ok, that was wrong. So what? Castro lied too. Is this within the scope of the article? Did it really cause a deteroriation with all those countries, or only with the so-called "Bolivarian Alternative"? As fas as I know, relations with Brazil and Argentina are in as good a standing as they were in 2000... not that we had such a good relations earlier (we couldn't then, and we still can't, negotiate entry to Mercosur)... So, relations with Argentina and Brazil did not improve, but they also didn't "deteriorate". As for the US relation "not providing good results", the error was Fox's failure to support the War in Iraq as a strategy for the 2003 midterm election. If anything, it was Fox's lack of commitment to change, and not his first steps, that caused the failure. Plus, limiting "good results" to the immigration reform is mediocre at best, considering the breadth and depth of the US-Mexico relationship. FDI from the US to Mexico has increased, tariffs have been reduced, etc..., Plus, the US is not the whole west. How have relations with Europe, Canada, and Japan evolved? Andy: Mexico seeks to lead the pro-FTAA side of the argument in Latin America. Leftists say that this is "servitude" to the US, but since the US, now that it has lost competitiveness, itself fears FTAA, the leftist argument falls over its own weight. It is simple: countries that benefit from free trade support it, and countries who fear competition from abroad avoid it. The US no longer has anything to gain from it and now cowers under protectionism (a result of entrerenurial mismanagement of the economy, no doubt). I honestly don't understand how you can't see this contradiction in your arguments. As for "neutrality being beneficial", an argument (with references) can also be easily made about how this shift in paradigm about neutrality has resulted in Mexico's profit (for instance, FDI commitments, and the expansion of Mexican transnational companies). Arguments either way can be made, but the important thing is that Fox took a decision, that the decision was not entirely popular, and that if had consequences. Whether Chavez sang about it or not is the least of the matter. As for Fox's lies, sure, also include the international criticism Castro suffered for making public secret telephone communications with a fellow head of state. Fox is not innocent, but please do not portray the opposition as innocent too. As for the Washington consensus being "immoral predatory policies", well, those opinions are the result of ignorance. In any case, I didn't say that the Monterrey Consensus was a positive landmark, I only said that it was landmark and deserved far more coverage than worthless accusations from two-bit dictators. Mexico's role as host is relevant because it is a statement of Mexico's involvement in international affairs. That is Fox's role in the summit, by the way (and we return to the issue of the shift in paradigm). I want to make this clear. My personal opinion is that the shift in paradigm was positive, but I am not trying to make the article portray this if there are no sources to support it. However, it should be obvious that the shift in paradigm, whether positive or negative, should be the central piece of this article's coverage on Fox's actions regarding international relations. When a paper signs "redacción", it means that, either it was a giantly collaborative effort, or it was written by an unexperienced author. Sometimes it means that the newspaper is trying to protect the author, but, in a country with this level of freedom of speech, that "protection" is obviously unnecessary. In this case, if it is part of a "giantly collaborative effort", where are the pictures, the documents cited, the interviews, and so forth? It is in front page because it sells, but that doesn't make it a reliable article. Again, I am not saying that it shouldn't be included in this article, I am only saying that we shouldn't pass this opinion as fact. I don't hold that the "rulings made by courts are accurate" in general. I am saying that the SPECIFIC ruling of the SPECIFIC electoral court on the SPECIFIC case of the 2006 Mexican general election is accurate, because of its nature and the environment surrounding it. "Discretionary" doesn't mean that it is always arbitrary, it simply means that sometimes it is accurate and sometimes it isn't. In this case, it was impossible to make it arbitrary, because all legitimacy in the system would have been lost. On the other hand, Mexico's government still holds international legitimacy, and the majority of the population also agree in the legitimacy of the government headed by Calderón. Thus, the ruling must have been accurate enough to maintain legitimacy. I don't disagree in your proposed coverage of all issues you list. I simply ask that it be done in NPOV fashion. Bribiesca are presumed innocent, and were found without cause to prosecute twice, but Congress pressured... Henkel is a hypothesis advanced by El Universal, the MTY summit evidences Mexico's shift in foreign policy, and the steady rise of crime is a combination of Federal incompetence and local complicity.


 * Fox’s intervention was illegal. He was acquainted with the law, and despite the warnings he received the broke the law. Furthermore his Freudian slip months after he left office make the whole situation fishy. If Mexico were a plce where it would be rutine to indict a president, well, we can argue that the courts and the law have spoken, however, as you have recognized this is not the case.


 * It seems that the article is at a point where it is portraying the POV of the minority and should be counterbalanced with arguments from “both sides of the aisle”


 * It seems that you are saying that because Fox did things that in your opinion are good it is OK that he lied? I think there is no excuse to this, and this is part of his legacy, hence accounted for in the article.  No doubt this argument should be weighted against what you claim to be positive consequences of this paradigm shift. However the decision of the correctness of this whould be made by the reader with the arguments provided and not bias it one way or the other.


 * The economic changes that you are attributing to Fox and say are a consequence of his new policy, were in fact previously negotiated with NAFTA. No real positive consequences emerged of his subjection. It was all planned (e.g. Amero).


 * Law enforcement cannot be discretionary. This is a contradiction of any principle of the upholding of law. However, the argument that you have used several times is that the application of law in Mexico is the exception rather than the rule, yet it seems that when it serves to defend something that you believe this rulings are accurate and trustable.


 * it's really bold to call ignorant those whot think that the Washington Consensus is predatory and immoral (I guess then J Stiglitz is ignorant! -talk about arrogance)


 * The Henkel Story appeared first page on the Newspaper. It is in fact the result of an investigation that appeared on la revista (I don't want to be harsh but it seems arrogant to me to contradit a major newspaper as a source ).


 * When I propose the inclusion of a topic I expect it to be counterbalanced with arguments agains, if not what is the use of adding it? Andy Rosenthal 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The one thing I would add is that despite his high popularity..... close to 50% of the people vote against continuation of his policy (hence the results of the 2006 election) I would expect this not to be the case, if his popularity was as much, and people were so content, his party should have won by a landslide, righ? .

To-do-list
I am adding Hari's remarks on the to-do-list here. There is simply not enough space to have entire arguments in that little box. << >> --FateClub 16:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * the corruption charges of the first lady's sons (the Bribiesca brothers) --discussion: is this really relevant to Fox, or more relevant to Sahagún?--
 * involvement in the 2006 elections --discussion: the only relevant information is the court's ruling in the matter.--
 * drop in international Transparency, --discussion: no sources found.--
 * drop in Competitiveness --discussion: attributable to Fox?--
 * drop in GDP rankings discsussion: attributable to Fox?--
 * the Atenco riots which forced him to cancel the new airport for Mexico City --NPOV version?--

First clean elections in 2000?
Hari claims that the 2000 elections where the first to be generally considered clean. He then presented this source "Some say, we will have a relatively clean, fair election in contrast with the past because Ernesto Zedillo pushed things forward" (PBS interview with Dennise Dresser before the 2000 election)

Which I objected as proof that the 2000 elections were the first to be generally considered clean because:
 * This is an opinion of one journalist.
 * This opinion is about what "some say", not what she concludes
 * The opinion is on the cleanliness of the election "in contrast with the past"

Hari added "never, but this statement is about general opinion. The sentence does not say 'this elections where the first to be clean', it says, "they were the first to be generally considered clean". Generally considered has to do with the opinion of all actors. Simply put, the 2000 elections, both Labastida and Cárdenas accepted Fox's victory, whereas the same thing did not happen with Zedillo, or any of the previous presidents since the Mexican Revolution (since Lerdo de Tejada?)"

However, there is no "first" in that entire paragraph. Now, both Labastida and Cárdenas accepted their defeat. AMLO did not. Are we to say that the 2000 were the last elections to be considered generally clean? --FateClub 00:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll look for more sources.
 * The relevance of the sentence has nothing to do with the cleanliness of the elections itself. The intention is not to bash previous governments, but to state the significance of Fox's legitimacy. True, Zedillo's election was "clean", but he wasn't universally recognized as a fair victor, and thus, his government lacked the legitimacy to push reforms in the name of the whole country. On the other hand, Fox's failures and success where legitimated in the 2000 ballots and the general consideration of cleanliness. This is the relevance.
 * If you want to say that they were also the last to be "generally considered" clean, it wouldn't be innaccurate, for less than 40% of the Mexican population believes the 2006 elections weren't clean. However, considering that there has been only one Presidential election after Fox, but plenty before Fox, the statement would be weird. Perhaps it could be shortened to "the only to be generally considered clean and fair since the Mexican Revolution".
 * Hari Seldon 00:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Zedillo was not able to push all the reforms the country needed because the PRI lost the majority in Congress in 1997, not because some people did not concede their defeats in the 1994 election. AMLO did not concede the election, but reforms are being passed because Calderón has the support of the PRI (more than the PAN, it seems, at times).
 * I'm all about including whatever it is that would state the significance of Fox's legitimacy but does not cause the article to look like "propaganda" anymore or Fox's MySpace or fan club, which has been at times. If Zedillo's election was clean (I don't recall neither the PAN or PRD claiming they won the election in 1994), then Fox's election was not the first generally clean. --FateClub 01:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Also it seems an argument made by someone not older than 21. When De la Madrid was elected he was a candidate for more than one party. Furthermore he won a true majority ~80 some percent. That is why the first virtual colombian nobel Mario Vargas Llosa called Mexico the perfect dictatorship.


 * Careful, I am not talking about being able to push reforms, I am talking about the legitimacy of the reforms pushed, or not pushed.
 * In modern days, legitimacy means that the actions of the goverment are done in legitimate representation of those governed. Legitimacy is purpose of democracy. This is the only reason why the statement is important. Fox may have been an illiterate, but he was a legitimate illiterate, while Zedillo might have been a genius, but his legitimacy was questioned at least once. (And, come on, he was "being controlled" by Salinas, according to his critics... remember?)
 * The Vargas Llosa comment is a perfect example. Vargas Llosa said that, with Fox, Mexico transitioned from the Perfect Dictatorship to the "imperfect democracy". Imperfect, but legitimated.
 * Now, the issue is tricky, because, agreed, Fox's term was not the first to be legitimate. According to law, procedure, and international observers, Zedillo and Calderón were both elected democratically, and thus, had legitimacy. The issue, however, is that Fox was the first to be percieved legitimate. Why is this important? Not because of Fox, but because of the confidence that the Mexican people had in its institutions as a result of the Fox victory (simply put: Fox might have done nothing significant, but winning the election was significant enough). This is the main issue. If you want to give it a shot at writing something better than I did, that better portrays the idea, please feel free to do so.
 * Hari Seldon 22:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the sentence should state that it was the first in which a candidate that was not handpicked by it's predecessor democratically won. Furthermore, I agree it should be contrasted to the previous presidential election that was perceived as a fraud. Andy Rosenthal 22:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am contesting the statement that 2000 elections were the first to be generally considered clean. I left the statement, out of politeness and put a fact tag. I contested that tag and now both the statement and the tag remain in the article when they are still being contested. Now, I have a source that says the contrary "Fraude electoral (hasta 1994) Autoridades electorales independientes limpias (1994 hasta el presente)" (http://www2.kenyon.edu/depts/PSci/Fac/klesner/Klesner_Institucionalizar_La_Nueva_Democracia_de_Mexico.pdf JOSEPH L. KLESNER], Kenyon College)--FateClub 23:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I made a big mistake, I meant a perception of fraud in the election of 88. Andy Rosenthal 01:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The significance of the 2000 election as a landmark to Mexican democracy cannot be downplayed. I agree that the election was not the landmark, but one of many. Yet, I believe that honest intentions to portray the election's significance in its correct context are nullified by the perception that this portrayal downplays other landmarks. My intention is not to portray other landmarks, only to state that the Fox election was one. I understand that the sentence in discussion was not the most accurate way to do it. Any other proposals? Hari Seldon 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Update of the to-do-list
Now this discussion page is again more than 230kb long and we are having arguments about material nobody has included yet. Although, at this point, we have benefited from discussion of the topics we may include, which are:


 * Fox influence in the election ,
 * Court ruling
 * Public perception ,
 * Contrast to actions taken by the Government of the Federal District in favor of Lopez Obrador (actions that where not addressed by the court, but documented by countless newspapers, including accusations of forcing government employees to "contribute", using public spaces to place propaganda, and usage of tax money to create national campaigns. Fox was not accused of any of these, and yet, he was scolded and the Mexico City goverment was not. It would be appropriate to contrast these two).
 * I guess we can go by the same standard that you use, accusations are not sufficient. If there had been a case it would have been prosecuted, if there is no indictment or rule made by a court, what is the point? Furthermore, I don't believe this should even be mentioned here as I don't see the relevance of it. Andy Rosenthal 22:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The relevance is contrast: Fox did it but the opposition did it too, so it isn't uncommon. Accusations are not sufficient, but the ads paid with government money aired nationally! That is a fact! Since the point is not to accuse Lopez Obrador of wrong doing, but simply to show that the opposition did the same things that they accused Fox of doing, this fact is sufficient to show. Hari Seldon 23:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, the standard is: don't pass accusations as fact. Say "according to X"... the accusation, and then the facts/evidence supporting the accusation (if any). In the case of the Henkel article, there is no supporting evidence! (At least in the article you referenced). However, in the case of the Goverment of Mexico City, the evidence is the ad itself. Hari Seldon 00:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course this has to be documented (i.e. and investigation of the funds demonstrating the misuse, etc) However, I think this should be added to the Encinas or the AMLO article. I really don't see the need to put it her (except to make Fox looks better and attenuate his misdemeanors) Andy Rosenthal 16:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If an effect is to "make Fox look better", it is an unintended effect. The need for this comparison is to add context and NPOV. Otherwise, a reader not familiar with the issues might get the wrong impression that Fox was the only factor in the election's polarization, when in fact, he was not. Fox contributed, but he wasn't the only factor. Indeed, in a country where, frequently, traditions are stronger than law, the appropriate context of what was recriminated against Fox (things that the critics also committed and weren't punished for) is necessary to establish the whole picture. As for the request for documentation, that will be easy to get.Hari Seldon 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fox's statement on vengeance on AMLO and discussion on it
 * (Note, he didn't say vengeance, he said personal satisfaction, which isn't the same) Hari Seldon 17:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the quote of what Fox said (speaking of the desafuero) "tuve que retirarme y perdí. Pero 18 meses después, me desquité cuando ganó mi candidato (Felipe Calderón)" I guess it's a matter of perception but I can definitely see the bitterness and rivalry encoded in this comment. http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/148377.html
 * Bitterness is not a crime. And that's another thing, if Fox was supporting Creel, how come, all of a sudden, Calderón is "his" candidate? Hari Seldon 22:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not but it denotes his bias and opens the room for discussion on his involvement (illegal of course) in the election. I guess you can ask him why he changed who his candidate was. I did not make it up, that is a direct quote of what he said! Andy Rosenthal 22:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As we have discussed before, bias is inevitable. Encinas also had a bias pro-Lopez Obrador. Is that a crime? Bias opens room for discussion on his supposed illegal involvement? Its almost like saying that wishing is the same as doing, yet, it isn't so. Hari Seldon 23:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not perpetuate this stupid argument. Let's get a third person and take it from there. Andy Rosenthal 02:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I spent a couple of hours reviewing the "Ley general de procedimientos electorales" and I did not find anyhting that said that Fox's comments were illegal. The ruling of the court was made on the basis of his influence in the election. His comments were not illegal.
 * So what's the controversy then? The argument that wishing is not doing and that perception is not necessarily reality is not "stupid". I asked for documentation, and you checked, and it turns out there was nothing illegal! So, there you go. I am not against adding attributed opinions, but I am against passing opinions as fact. That is all. Hari Seldon 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Mexico's shift in foreign policy during Fox.
 * (Please note that this comment is NPOV, as Chile, Costa Rica, and other pro-freedom of the market allies are in Latin America. The comment is also NPOV because Washington set a goal in the war in Iraq, a goal that Mexico did not cooperate with; and, Mexico supports free trade even when the US doesn't always. Hari Seldon 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)): Distancing from Latin America and working towards the goals set by Washington


 * Mexico's position in the Security Council, and vote with regards to the War in Iraq
 * Shift in attitude from FDI investors
 * how can this be credited to Fox and not to NAFTA? Andy Rosenthal 22:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * NAFTA had been in effect for 6 years, and only until Fox did FDI attitude change? Hari Seldon 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the provided reference, and find one that backups your suggestion. Thanks. Andy Rosenthal 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Praise received from US Congress, and officials
 * Signature of the Free Trade Agreement with Japan
 * New relations with the EU
 * Fox kissing the Pope's ring (and public reaction)
 * Fox's push for immigration reform in the US, (Note: US congress started discussing this issue during Fox, and Senator Kennedy has announced today that both Republicans and Democrats have reached an agreement ), however this proposal has yet to be voted and it might not be approved at all (With a pact by both parties and the President? non-approval seems unlikely... but wouldn't you wish? Hari Seldon 21:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Hari. Read the reference that I provided and avoid getting personal, would you? Andy Rosenthal 21:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fox asking the resignation of Adolfo Aguilar Zinser to the UN after calling Mexico the backyard of the US (please also list the official reasonHari Seldon 21:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)) and alleged pressure from Colin Powell to Fox on the subject . While we are it constructing conspiracy theories, why not add something about Aguilar Zinser's misterious death? Hari Seldon 21:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Monterrey Summit on Financing for Development (UN anti-poverty conference, Special Summit of the Americas)
 * Of upmost importance: Mexico's new role in the International Arena evidenced in the protagonism - counterbalanced with critics calling Mexico submissive to the US
 * Landmark of the Monterrey Consensus - What was Fox's role on the consensus? How this should be included here as one of his achievements. Articles on the summit do not even mention him. Not even the page on this same encyclopedia. Mexico hosted the summit but did not organize it! The summit just served to adopt policies that were designed beforehand in Jan that same year in NY -The Outcome Document that was negotiated at the final Preparatory Committee meeting in New York in January 2002 (the "Monterrey Consensus"-   Without getting into what is the relevance of the consensus, why should Fox be credited at all for it? Andy Rosenthal 22:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Castro complaints of US influence ,
 * Bush denial ,
 * Fox denial, , , through Castañeda
 * Fox "comes y te vas" phone call to Castro ,
 * Reactions in Mexico, [
 * Reactions in Cuba
 * Relations strained
 * Congress response, Fox is denied to leave the country
 * International response
 * Popular culture: play, and song
 * Derbez for president of the OEA
 * Fox's campaign
 * Voting deadlock
 * Derbez conceding
 * Mercosur meeting
 * Fox's push for the FTAA ,
 * The FTAA was conceived in 1994 by the US, Fox was a Washington representative in the negotiations (no surprise). This should be counterbalanced with the arguments (and the songs Hari Seldon 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)) of those calling Fox, Washington's pawn.  His recent decision to champion the FTAA and almost obsequiously bend his knee to Washington’s grand economic design for the region puzzled many observers, since the only possible motivation for such servility was the forlorn hope of encouraging an otherwise elusive immigration agreement with the U.S. Furthermore the FTAA was not even on the Agenda of the "IV Cumbre de los Américas de Mar del Plata" but Fox pushed for its negotiation  (presumably under pressure from Washington -- the previous accusation needs a good source... Hari Seldon 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)) Please read the references provided Andy Rosenthal 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Chile's reaction
 * Canada's reaction (?? Canada was not invited) --but the issue is the FTAA, and Canada did have a position on it.--
 * Argentina reaction
 * Brazil reaction
 * Venezuela reaction, and the initiation of the "Bolivarian Alternative" (This includes Cuba's reaction, Bolivia's reaction, and perhaps Haiti?)
 * Uruguay reaction
 * Paraguay reaction


 * Accusations of traffic of influences during Fox
 * The Henkel family
 * The Bribiescas
 * The (two-times failed) Congressional investigation
 * Olga Wornat's book and lawsuit
 * Court ruling


 * Crime in Mexico
 * Drug trafficking
 * Accusations of criminal complicity with local officials in Baja California, Sinaloa, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas, and Guerrero
 * Murders
 * Misterious death of Ramón Martín Huerta, rumors of drug involvement and official denial. Hari Seldon 21:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Murders of journalists - Mexico is second to Iraq in number of journalists assasinated per year
 * "The threats to freedom of speech have changed since the 70-year rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) ended five years ago. The administration of Vicente Fox, of the National Action Party (PAN), has been tainted by old and new forms of repression (source??? Hari Seldon 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)). While the police obstruct reporters from gathering information (Federal Police? During Fox? where is the source? Hari Seldon 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)), organised criminals kill them. Journalists in the capital, Mexico City (oh, only in Mexico City? I suppose thos reporting in Monterrey about the inadequacies of the governments of Natividad Gonzalez and Fernando Canales where also coerced by the PAN into criticizing their own party? I also suppose that Ulises Ruiz and Mario Marín never had anything to do with repression? Hari Seldon 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)), were generally able to report freely, but journalists reporting on drug trafficking, official corruption and other illegal activities in the northern states bordering the United States and in the southern states of Chiapas, Guerrero and Oaxaca were increasingly targeted by those seeking to prevent the media from exposing their activities."
 * Hari, please note the QUOTE marksAndy Rosenthal 18:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * According to CEPET, during President Fox's administration, 17 journalists have been killed (by whom?) because of their work, including five in 2004 alone, ranking Mexico as the most dangerous country for journalists in the western hemisphere.
 * Creation of the Prosecutor of Crimes Against Journalists and its failure to produce results (is the failure due to the Prosecutor, or due to the judges... proper documentation of accusations, please Hari Seldon 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)).
 * Drug-related murders


 * Local conflicts Violence and social conflicts during Fox's gov't 2001-02
 * Atenco texcoco airport plan, no change in plans, will be solved, cancellation violence is deplorable
 * Chiapas 15 minutes, steps, will be solved
 * Oaxaca will be solved, (question: is this Fox's responsibility, or Ulises Ruiz's?)
 * For both of the above: the supposed involvement and financing of the PRD to both movements
 * So now when something is suppossed it should be inlcuded? I thought you were outraged because you thought I was trying to do this. What will the standard be then?
 * Pasta de Conchos (please be sure to add the accusations of fraud against the Miner Union)
 * The EZLN "resolution", the radicalization of Marcos, and the latter's "insults" against Lopez Obrador.


 * Competitiveness, ,


 * HDI improvement
 * is it really fair to link this to Fox? or his predecesors? This has to be clarified and supported to direct actions taken by Fox that had impact on the HDI. For example stating that more Mexicans than ever before attended school could be easily explained by thr pyramidal shape of the population. (As asked before, is this necessary to explain, or is this an attempt to make Fox look worse than he did? Is HDI attributed to Fox? Well, if it happened throughout his term, then yes, but then again, HDI is so complex that it is hard to say. In any case, I believe it should be listed, even if attribution of the goal can only be partially due to Fox. Hari Seldon 21:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Precisely my point. How will you attribute it to him then? There are measures like life expectancy that do not change in a period of 6 years. Furthermore, the HDI has increased steadily for the last 20 years and at the same rate. You said to point out the HDI increase in Fox's term. I assume you are attributing it to him. If not why do you want it here?Andy Rosenthal 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How did Fox manage to maintain the "historical improvement" under a supposed worsening of the economy? Particularly because Mexico's improvement was not only nominal, but also in rankings. It means that, compared to other nations (like Cuba and Venezuela), Mexico's Human Development improved. The point is, how did Mexico do this despite Fox's supposed failure? Hari Seldon 17:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Spurirous statements again Hari? Cuba's HDI increased from the 11th place in 1994 in Latin America to the 5th in 2005. and its higher than Mexico's (even with its two bit dictator) and a fieresome economic ban.  No one is saying that he failed, this is an attempt to portray his presidency as it really was (as Fateclub has said, not as a fan-page).  We should add to Lopez Portillo's  article that during his term that Mexico has had its greatest HDI improvement.Andy Rosenthal 18:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Poverty reduction

Feel free to add to this list, either items or sources. --FateClub 17:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fox's influence in the election
I spent a couple of hours reviewing the "Ley general de instituciones politicas y procedimientos electorales" and I did not find anything that said that Fox's comments were illegal. The ruling of the court was made on the basis of his influence in the election. (which would have made his comments Illegal if it were to be found that he did influence the election). He did not breake the law. However in the context of his comments after the election, it seems that he accepted to have a personal involvement in the whole process, and a bias towards a candidate. I am unaware if the law Mexican prohibits the president of the country to advocate for a candidate. It is my understanding that the law does not allow it, however I lack documentation for this. Interestingly today, La Jornada has published an interview with the president of the electoral college and it quotes him saying "Su actitud protagónica, sus comentarios alegóricos, si bien no fueron ilegales sí contaminaron el proceso, contribuyeron al encono y provocaron un clima de enfrentamiento político. Fueron actitudes irresponsables, indeseables en un jefe de Estado, a pesar de que fueron legales. Me hubiera gustado que se comportara de manera ética y responsable"

Perhaps the correct way to state this would be to:


 * Document Fox's comments (i.e. Se vale cambiar de jinete pero no de caballo) providing context of the significance of this, and the perception of Ugalde and others about this (Even a poll if one is available) What was the public's opinion, intellectuals, etc. and the court ruling on this and final comments (i.e. worst irregularity of the whole process)


 * Claims of his influence in the election and the decision of the electoral college in this regard. At this point according to Ugalde there is no documentation of the sponsorship of 80% of the spots that aired in the campaigns. Hari proposed to contrast this to the fact that the DF's government inappropriately used its budget to support AMLO. This if documented, should be added elsewhere. There are claims that the Federal Govt also deviated money for Calderon's campaign. (which is the same situation but at the federal level) Was Fox aware of this? whatever we say here will be pure speculation and I think should be avoided.


 * Document Fox's comments after the election. What is the significance of this? and the possible interpretation. Also, perhaps, the declarations of Calderon on this regard calling the comments not ill intended

This is my proposal for that small section. Any comments/critiques are welcome. Andy Rosenthal 18:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación did determine that Fox's intervention was illegal but not definitive to invalidate the elections . Fox's declarations did risk the elections to be declared void . Five out of ten Mexicans think Fox's desquite comments were not the innocent kind and he did interfere for Calderón to win --FateClub 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This last poll casts a shadow of doubt on the one cited previously from Reforma stating that 60% of the people believed the elections were clean and fair. Andy Rosenthal 20:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would one poll cast a shadow of doubt on another? five out of 10 is 50%, wheras the Reforma poll said 54% believe the election was legitimate. The 4% difference is within the margin of error. If anything, both polls are evidence of a social/political polarization of Mexico.
 * In any case, I agree with the above section. The section should make clear that comments are not incriminatory/illegal in themselves, but that they can be interpreted to be "undesired". Hari Seldon 21:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right Hari, I apologize for that comment, which was unfounded. However you provide a good point. The margin of error of that poll might be significant, and it is only one poll. This points to the fact that it should not be taken as absolute truth (in any case it should be contrasted with other polls). It might very well be that not the majority of Mexicans think that the elections were clean. This, again, is speculation. It was very hard for me to see polls about the perception of the election after it. God knows everyone wanted to see them, I wonder why we did not have as many. Andy Rosenthal 21:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't speculate on the "why we didn't have as many polls", but I'll say that I've seen plenty... made in Mexico City, and only a few done nationally. I won't speculate, but my opinion shouldn't be a secret by now... As for the margin of error, Reforma claims it was +/-2% (normal). If Milenio's is also +/-2%, then 4% is within the margin of error. In any case, the Reforma poll also says that only 34% said the election was illegitimate, thus, even conspiracy-theorists are in the minority. My point is that it is possible to think that Fox's actions, though legal, where wrong, and still believe the election was fair. This is, for example, my opinion. What Fox did was wrong, but in a context in which "everyone was doing it", it was fair. Hari Seldon 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you really saying that? This same logic can be used to justify anything (name it, genocide ,racism, etc.) One good example I can think of is Gonzales' defense of torture. He used exactly the same logic. How can we observe the Geneva conventions if the enemy doesn't. Andy Rosenthal 16:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not excusing Fox. I am merely remarking on the need of adding context. Saying that the whole environment was tainted does not excuse Fox, but it does give extra information to the reader: that Fox was not an exception to the rule, even though what he did might have been wrong. Hari Seldon 17:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, Gonzales' defense of torture is inexcusable, but that doesn't justify the "enemy"'s contravention of Geneva. Both are wrong, and attacking one does not justify the other. However, stating that both are wrong adds greatly to understing the phenomenon. Hari Seldon 17:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Understand which phenomenon? That he justified torture? What in the name of God are you saying? what you just wrote does not make any sense at all. Andy Rosenthal 17:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fox's approval rate
During the last days Hari said that Fox had a very high approval rating throghout his term (I believe he said that only 25% of the people that did not believe in liberalism did not like Fox) I have found the following from an editorial included in El Universal: ''Así, de acuerdo con Mitofsky, la buena evaluación de la "cercanía con la gente" de Fox bajó de 71% a 42% durante estos cinco años; la "preocupación por los pobres" pasó de 64% a 34%; en su "experiencia para gobernar" descendió de 60% a 26% (mientras más experiencia adquiría, menos bien se le evaluaba); la "capacidad para resolver problemas" pasó de 66% a 28%; y el "liderazgo para dirigir al país" se desplomó de 69% a 25%. La credibilidad presidencial era 69% en 2000, y sólo 41% en 2005. Y 60% pensaba, al iniciar 2001, que Fox llevaba las riendas del país frente a sólo un 38% que lo sigue creyendo hoy. Al evaluar su "honradez", pasó de 61% a 35% (vaya daño el que le hizo Marta Sahagún y su sospechosa familia).'' I think this would be of use in a proposed section about his popularity and approval ratings. Andy Rosenthal 18:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say he had high approval ratings throughout his term, I said he ended with high approval ratings, and ended higher than Zedillo. So, now we are including editorials as "references"? Whats next? Blogs? Hari Seldon 00:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you read Consulta Mitofsky at the beginning of that? It is an editorial that references data from Mitofsky.  Andy Rosenthal 02:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be best to reference directly to Mitofsky? Because this quote seems to take data discretionally and make statements of opinion that Mitofsky might have not made. For example, he "explains" a six-year decrease of 26% of "honradez" perception in the ongoing investigation of Martha Sahagún's sons, that only happened in his last year of goverment. So now one case in the last year of goverment explains a six-year drop? Hari Seldon 17:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think Mitofsky makes any statements at all, they should not. That is not their job. I've unsuccesfully tried to find the data from Mitofsky. I agree, why the ratings dropped is speculation, but these are figures that come straight from the source and are indicators of the public perception of Fox and should be accounted for. The only think that I ask for Hari is fairness. Include the good and the bad. I insist that you have a double standard in accepting what matches your ideas and dissapproving what does not.  Andy Rosenthal 18:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I also ask that the good and the bad be included. But I believe that some editors focus to much time in searching for "the bad" without searching for "the context" and "the significance" of the issues. I haven't asked that your suggestions be removed, only that they be enhanced with a broader perspective. Hari Seldon 22:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If that is so, why are casual readers of this article concerned about the bias towards the positive of Fox's administration versus the negative? In spite of the overall high approval rate there were many issues in that administration that displeased the majority or significant minority groups and those issues are still not found in the article. Unfortunately, most of the holes for this article lie within the negative of his administration. --FateClub 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Update of the to do-list, reloaded
Strikethrough lines have already been added.

Content, without editorial commentaries

2006 elections
Fox influence in the election ,
 * Court ruling
 * Public perception ,  (this one could not be added because its for subscribers only)
 * Contrast with local governments
 * Fox's statement on desquite against AMLO and discussion on it

Foreign relations
Mexico's shift in foreign policy during Fox.
 * Distancing from Latin America and working towards the goals set by Washington
 * Mexico's position in the Security Council, and vote with regards to the War in Iraq
 * Shift in attitude from FDI investors
 * Signature of the Free Trade Agreement with Japan
 * New relations with the EU
 * Fox kissing the Pope's ring (and public reaction)
 * Mexico's new role in the International Arena
 * counterbalanced with critics calling Mexico submissive to the US

Immigration to the US
Fox's push for immigration reform in the US.
 * Republicans and Democrats reaching an agreement ),
 * Fox's influence on both parties reaching an agreement

Mexico-US relations

 * Praise received from US Congress, and officials
 * Fox asking the resignation of Adolfo Aguilar Zinser to the UN after calling Mexico the backyard of the US
 * official reason and alleged pressure from Colin Powell to Fox on the subject,.

Monterrey Summit
Monterrey Summit on Financing for Development (UN anti-poverty conference, Special Summit of the Americas)
 * Landmark of the Monterrey Consensus
 * What was Fox's role on the consensus? How this should be included here as one of his achievements.,
 * Castro complaints of US influence ,
 * Bush denial/  ,
 * Fox denial, , , through Castañeda
 * Fox "comes y te vas" phone call to Castro  ,
 * Reactions in Mexico,
 * Reactions in Cuba
 * Relations strained
 * Congress response, Fox is denied to leave the country
 * International response
 * Popular culture: play, and song

Derbez for President of the OAS
Derbez for president of the OEA
 * Fox's campaign
 * Voting deadlock
 * Derbez conceding
 * Mercosur meeting

Fox at the Americas Summit in Mar del Plata

 * Fox's push for the FTAA ,
 * The FTAA was conceived in 1994 by the US, Fox was a Washington representative in the negotiations of those calling Fox, Washington's pawn.
 * His recent decision to champion the FTAA and almost obsequiously bend his knee to Washington’s grand economic design for the region puzzled many observers, since the only possible motivation for such servility was the forlorn hope of encouraging an otherwise elusive immigration agreement with the U.S.
 * Furthermore the FTAA was not even on the Agenda of the "IV Cumbre de los Américas de Mar del Plata" but Fox pushed for its negotiation
 * Chile's reaction
 * Canada's reaction (?? Canada was not invited, but the issue is the FTAA, and Canada did have a position on it)
 * Argentina reaction
 * Brazil reaction
 * Venezuela reaction, and the initiation of the "Bolivarian Alternative" (This includes Cuba's reaction, Bolivia's reaction, and perhaps Haiti?)
 * Uruguay reaction
 * Paraguay reaction

Traffic of influences
Accusations of traffic of influences during Fox
 * The Henkel family
 * The Bribiescas
 * Congressional investigation #1
 * Congressional investigation #2
 * Congressional investigation #3
 * Olga Wornat's book and lawsuit
 * Court ruling

Drug trafficking

 * Accusations of criminal complicity with local officials in Baja California, Sinaloa, Nuevo León, Tamaulipas, and Guerrero

Death of Ramón Martín Huerta

 * rumors of drug involvement and official denial.

Murders of journalists

 * Mexico is second to Iraq in number of journalists assasinated per year ,
 * According to CEPET, during President Fox's administration, 17 journalists have been killed (by whom?) because of their work, including five in 2004 alone, ranking Mexico as the most dangerous country for journalists in the western hemisphere.
 * Creation of the Prosecutor of Crimes Against Journalists, amid pressure from international watchdogs (same references as below) in 02/06- Daniel Vega Vera (journalists leery on seeing results)
 * failure to produce results (lack of jurisdiction at the federal level, of 109 denounces no accusations were produced)
 * Performance of the Prosecutor
 * Performance of the judges
 * proper documentation of accusations
 * UN says government guilty by omission

Drug-related murders

 * 

Female homicides in Ciudad Juárez

 * Fox says Juárez overblown

Local social conflicts
Local conflicts
 * Violence and social conflicts during Fox's gov't 2001-02
 * San Salvador Atenco
 * Texcoco airport plan
 * Community Front in Defense of Land
 * no change in plans
 * will be solved
 * cancellation
 * violence is deplorable
 * 2006 civil unrest in San Salvador Atenco
 * Chiapas
 * 15 minutes
 * steps
 * will be solved
 * The EZLN "resolution", the radicalization of Marcos, and the latter's "insults" against Lopez Obrador.
 * 2006 Oaxaca protests will be solved
 * Responsibility of the Federal Government
 * Pasta de Conchos mine disaster
 * Accusations of fraud against the Miner Union

Economy

 * Competitiveness, ,
 * HDI improvemen from 2000 to 2003 to 2006, and historical ,
 * Comparison with HDI of other countries in the region
 * Cuba's HDI increased from the 11th place in 1994 in Latin America to the 5th in 2005 and its higher than Mexico's and a fieresome economic ban.
 * Comparison with previous administrations
 * Lopez Portillo's administration (greatest HDI improvement.)
 * De La Madrid administration
 * Salinas administration
 * Zedillo administration
 * Poverty reduction
 * 50% Increase in unemployment  (From 2.2% in 2000 to 3.4% in 2004 finishing with 3.47% in december 2006. Compare to Zedillo that started at 3.70 increased to 6.20 and ended up in 2.2%

Feel free to add topics that I have missed or you would like to see included in the future. Sources are very well welcomed. --FateClub 19:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, feel free to remove topics you feel have nothing to do with Vicente Fox. Get real amloclub, 99% of the topics you included, are negative topics loosely related to President Fox.--Dcrcort 22:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, do not remove topics, just discuss why you consider the article would be better without them. --FateClub 22:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

False information
''like Sergio Sarmiento called this issue "the biggest failure" of Fox's tenure and declared:

''The precedent is terrible. Never before has the government so openly promoted the use of violence to resolve conflicts'' Seriously, what in the world is this "quote" doing in this article. Not only is the information provided extremely false, but its also a pretty stupid thing to say. What about the use of violence to resolve conflict in 1968??? Fateclub, I think you and Mr. Sarmiento need to read a little more history.--Dcrcort 22:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Verifiability, Wikipedia is unconcerned about true or false information. Wikipedia is a collection of verifiable information. Today you have removed information with its sources (that will find its place in the article after I am finished writing this comment). Today you have also included unsourced information, which will have to be either sourced or removed from the article. --FateClub 23:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the information you provided is not verifiable because it's not true.

It's pretty wrong that sections that deal directly with the administration of Vicente Fox are a mere one paragraph, when sections like the San Salvador Atenco take up 4 to 5 paragraphs. For this long sections, a separate article can be created and a link can be provided if that's what you desire. It's pretty obvious that Fateclub is a amlo supporter, and all his contributions to the Vicente fox article are always negative. Get over it, amlo lost!
 * The fact that sources are provided make the information verifiable, that is an objective qualification. A subjective qualification would be whether it is true or false.
 * If you feel that some areas need expansion either add information (with sources, so they do not get removed) or add them to the To-Do-List above, so other may add them. --FateClub 22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles of San Salvador Atenco and Texcoco are relevant. But when it comes to the summits, a separate article must be created. Shall we include them on the article of each of the 33 world leaders? I think not. Create a separate article and link it to Fox's page if thats what you wish.--Dcrcort 01:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We may include them if the content has relevance. If their performance caused international crises, then definitely include them. --FateClub 01:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Crisis? who are you kidding? Get over it. Create separate artcle then link it to Fox.--Dcrcort 01:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am kidding no one, if you were unaware of the 2005 Mexico and Venezuela diplomatic crisis then that's the whole purpose of these articles, to inform people. --FateClub 15:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Where was I? How many people got killed or kidnapped? inform me! lol, Venezuela is a great country, but unfortunately they have the wrong president who is quickly becoming a dictator. Thank god Felipe Calderon saved us from Mexico's own Hugo Chavez--AMLO!.
 * Ok --FateClub 01:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

AMLOclub, excuse me I meant to say fateclub. You must admit though, Felipe Calderon was brilliant by airing those commercials that compared AMLO to Chavez. Best ads ever! I'm sure you agree. ---dcrcort
 * The commercials were effective, but the decision to air them wasn't Calderón's, but a Spanish consultant. --FateClub 15:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well of course Calderon had nothing to do with them...yeah right! Why would he right? lol, are you even reading your writing?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.91.148 (talk • contribs)

All


 * This has became a political dispute. If the comment has a verifiable neutral source, even a YouTube video, keep it. If not, delete it. Simply as that wether you like it or not. For me, it seems unverifiable, as there is no point of comparison for the quote. But that's my opinion.--Fluence 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One more thing. I once supported AMLO until he advertised people earning above $10,000 pesos are rich. That just pissed me off as the biggest bullshit I've ever heard. Then I supported Calderón. Seems however we're all going the f*** down with his damn gas tax. I don't know whom to believe in anymore. I really miss Mr. Fox--Fluence 02:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)