Talk:Enrique Peña Nieto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mexico (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Flaws in front of social media[edit]

The new section "FIL Controversy" is clearly not relevant information for an encyclopedic content and it expresses the opinion of the detractors of Peña Nieto, therefore, its not a neutral point of view and its used just to discredit this person. --Maxlags (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This news story has been all over the Mexican media for the last week. In fact, I think that it's probably been the biggest news story related to him outside of Atenco. I've added a couple of sources (El país, and Foxnews). I think that WP:NPOV asks us to write incidents without editorializing them, but not to ignore criticism. I think that if we want to balance it, we could add a couple of quotes by Adela Micha where she says that it's being blow out of proportion and that that reading is not necessary to govern, but I think that it sounds a little ridiculous, and I've yet to find a good reply. We could also add his reply were he admits his fault in not being well prepared for that question. But my opinion is that both of those replies would add to the criticism. -Solid Reign (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
What really happened was that he forgot the title and author of relevant books, everything else that has been said about this is anti-proselitysm. If all the criticism he gets is going to be added in his wiki, regardless of the relevance of the information and supported by the fact that its all over the media, the article is going to became completely off-topic. (And I'm sure that over the next months he is going to get a lot of criticism about relevant and non relevant issues, and all of it is going to be all over the media).Maxlags (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
It was a huge event, there were plenty of editorials on it, thousands of news articles, Vicente Fox commented on it. It was mentioned in the international media. It is relevant because he's received a lot of criticism on not being able to act in non-scripted situations. The number of Google searches for Peña Nieto exploded after the incident. We may consider it to be a trivial event (I personally do), but that doesn't really matter. The fact is that the event is noteworthy because people have defined it as noteworthy. I don't think that all the criticism should be added to the wiki, but I hardly think that adding an event that has had this much impact should be controversial, regardless of whether we consider that it should not have had this much impact. -Solid Reign (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree about the importance of the event in the media and I think that your entrees have been neutral, but other's aren't. For example, I deleted Carlos Fuente's comment yesterday because it is a biased point of view, as he has been a known detractor of Peña and the PRI party. But they undo my deletion saying that it has references. And this is why I say that having references is not enough, if we add all the information that has references, a lot of it will not be true, or neutral. I think it has to be deleted or if it stays, well have to add quotes of other important people saying that this event was out of proportion and that that reading is not necessary to govern, but I think that this section will become too large and off-topic...Silverara (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it's very long. A couple of things you should consider though. Just because Carlos Fuentes has a biased point of view, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't add him. We should try to make it as balanced as possible, but balance does not mean that we should present both sides of the argument as being equal if they are not. For example, if there is a group of people who thinks that Texas, Arizona and California still belong to Mexico, then that doesn't mean that we have to give them equal weight as the people who disagree. In this particular case, I think that most reactions were negative towards EPN and the section has to portray that, but we also have to show that some people find it to be blown out of proportion. I would try to summarize the criticism into something like Peña Nieto was criticized by prominent figures such as Carlos Fuentes, Enrique Krauze, AMLO... for his [...] while Vicente Fox and Adela Micha defended him, saying that [...]. I would remove superfluous lines describing the event "His collaborators tried to help Peña Nieto, but the limited and vague descriptions he offered of the books were not enough for them to help him match the authors and the titles." and would just add a small comment on the tortilla incident. The main problem for me is that the section as is stands is too long, and way too detailed. If you find a good source where someone is defending him, please share, that way we can add it and skim down on other parts. -Solid Reign (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so I'm going to try to make it shorter, without deleting the important facts that have been added. Now I have a disagreement about another entree... The rumor about De la Madrid's death that was added today has really really no relevance! The media is going to talk about everything about the candidates (for example, they are publishing everything they write on their Twitter of Facebook), but that doesn't make the information relevant. I don't agree that we can add anything just because it has references. What do you think? Silverara (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I think you could try adding it to the discussion section first (here), but under a different section. That way we can work on it and make sure it doesn't get reverted. I'd even change the name of the section to 2011 electoral pre-campaign or something like that, and talk about the support he's had, what the polls are saying, etc. I think that this would make more sense. By the way, the correct word is "entry" not entree, entree is the equivalent of saying 'plato fuerte' in Spanish. :) -Solid Reign (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Televisa controversy[edit]

This paragraph has to be reviewed (or erased). It's based on one person's accusation without any corroboration and it does not have a valid reference, since it's the blog of the same person that made the allegation. I'm sure there are a lot of accusations made to Enrique Peña Nieto or to any other public person, but they shouldn't be added in a wikipedia article if they are not proven, relevant, or have no reliable source.Neutralon (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The Televisa Controversy DOES NOT belong here. The sources are unreliable. Thanks for bringing it to the talk page. I'll give you the honors to erase it. Cheers. ComputerJA (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I just didNeutralon (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's Televisa's reply [1] ComputerJA (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

De la Madrid rumor in Flaws in front of social media[edit]

The rumor about De la Madrid's death has no relevance. I have disagreed on how all this section of "Flaws in front of social media" has been written because I believe it is biased, but I agree on it's relevance because it was covered by a lot of media (but still, it looks as it is written by his detractors not in a neutral point of view), but the information about De la Madrid's death rumor was really insignificant and makes this section too long. Silverara (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw your changes, and I don't know if Youtube can be used as a reliable source, but for me it's fine. In addition, by your post I would've thought that you would only erase the info on De la Madrid's death, but you also completely erased some cited information. Either way, you balanced out the section. Thanks. ComputerJA (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I erased some parts that were discussed before on the talk page with Solid Reign (I added the title "Flaws in front of social media" to differentiate it in the talk page). I didn't wanted to erase De la Madrid's section because it was added after that discussion, and I wanted to add it on the talk page first. Actually, as it was suggested on the talk page, I think that it's important to add other relevant information about the pre-campaign (or campaign) other than just this controversies, because even with the changes I did, the article still looks biased.

This rumor about De la Madrid's death wasn't relevant at all and the impact it had on social media was nothing compared to the Fil Controversy or the interview with El Pais newspaper. What do you think? About the references, I'll look for other references different than You Tube.--Silverara (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you did some good edits. Here's Wikipedia's stance on using Youtube as a reliable source: WP:RSEX. I personally checked each of the sources you added (I'm a Spanish speaker too), and I verified their content. Keep up the good work. Take care! ComputerJA (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If Campaign Commitments are WP:Not, then also the quote of Carlos Fuentes in Flaws in front of social media are[edit]

I've just read WP:Not and I agree that the commitments of EPN's campaign, erased by BetoCG are political propaganda or proselytism, but then I think that the part of "Flaws in front of social media" has to be reviewed again, at least the part that says that "Peña Nieto was criticized by prominent figures such as Carlos Fuentes, who said that he "does not have the right to become the President of Mexico" due to his ignorance", is clearly proselytism against him and should be erased also because in this moment he is in the presidential race.--Maxlags (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Campaign proposal can be included on the article. I'd say to follow the format of Gabriel Quadri, for example, where each proposal is explained more in-depth. You can also check the pages of other politicians. That's how the pages are set up, too. ComputerJA (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
OK! thanks--Maxlags (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Entry about Peña's relation with Carlos Salinas de Gortari[edit]

How can this information be considered encyclopedic? Even that this entry has been sourced, the way it is written is biased. Can a book about all this theory that is quoted in the reference be a reliable source? --Silverara (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is when it gets tough to decide. I tried to edit the entry about Peña's relation with Salinas de Gortari and find neutrality, but I guess it only works to a certain extent. I hardly doubt, however, that Salinas de Gortari is not supporting Peña Nieto; think about it, he's a PRI militant, and he would love to see the party he loves back at Los Pinos. Nevertheless, Salinas' "support" for EPN's campaign (at least in my opinion) means little to nothing at all. If he were to "finance" his campaign, well, that's a different story. I guess the problem you have is the fact that Salinas de Gortari has been often associated with corruption and bad governance, and that's understandable.
So, I think the question is: Does it really matter to include the fact that Salinas de Gortari "supports" and wishes EPN to win? ComputerJA (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, for starters, the book shows political facts and it was written by a well prepared and notable journalist who has received many awards in Mexico. Meetings between Peña Nieto and De Gortari did happen and are still happening. Wether or not some people find the exposition of those facts desirable for their candidate's reputation is not the issue here. The truth always surfaces. Kronnang_Dunn (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


Last 2 entries in the "Gaffes" section does not show a neutral point of view[edit]

The entry about the interview where EPN talks about his wife's death has been added to support the rumor that he killed his wife, rumor that has been proven completely false (that's why any other journalist talks about it). I think that Wikipedia is completely against this!

The entry saying that he didn't go to the ITESM because they wouldn't let him have a telepromter is completely off topic! I erased it once because I don't think that it has any relevance at all (even if it's true, what I really doubt). The relevance of all the other gaffes is clear because of the number of national and international publications talking about that, but this rumor has nothing to do here.--Maxlags (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. Doesn't matter if you are for or against this guy, this should be erased immediately since it does not comply with Wikipedia standards. WP:NOT. ComputerJA (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought the wife's death comment was more in the sense that he actually didn't know the cause of death when asked. --Weakdeadfight (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Here's some info on the Gaffes of EPN; it's written by Fox News and CNN. It may balance the section and take away minor details. [2] [3] ComputerJA (talk)

Semi-protection lock to this article[edit]

I've noticed that after the presidential debate there has been a lot of vandalism going on. And since there has not been any constructive edits by unregistered users, I think we should consider locking the page with a semi-protection until the elections. (WP:PP) I'm not an expert in this, so I don't know how to do it, but it's just a thought. What do you all think? ComputerJA (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. One problem is the vandalism but also the lack of a neutral point of view in all the new information that has been added during the campaign. Maybe after the elections it is going to be more clear to see which information is relevant for the article an which information was just added to affect or to benefit the campaign. --Neutralon (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Please do. And I think also that this article is becoming off topic and biased because of the coming elections.--Maxlags (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It's practically unreadable... what a shame, since it gets thousands of visits daily. I wanted to copyedit it, but there seemed to be so much irrelevant info that I gave up. If someone redoes the article, drop me a line and I'll get involved. ʝunglejill 10:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Televisa–Peña Nieto supposed collusion new section is WW:NOT[edit]

This new section is about a not proven accusation. The creation of the article was meant to affect Peña's candidacy having the elections this close, so adding this topic is political propaganda against Peña Nieto, it does not represent a neutral point of view since it doesn't say Televisa's response. --Neutralon (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a topic that has gotten worldwide media attention through the 132 protests of course it will have to be included in the article. Feel free to add his or televisa's responses if you know of any.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Televisa–Peña Nieto supposed collusion The Guardian published an article on the alleged relationship between Peña Nieto and Mexico's biggest television network, Televisa, where it is alleged that Televisa conspired to ensure favourable coverage for his campaign and unfavourable coverage for Andres Manuel López Obrador, who is currently Peña Nieto's closest political rival.[63] The documents – which where given to the The Guardian by a supposed sourced who worked for Televisa – appear to have been created years ago.[63] The authenticity of the documents, however, has not been confirmed.[63] Similar claims have been made by the social movement Yo Soy 132 which protests what they see as a political one-sidedness of the Mexican media.[64][65]

Im new at this. I think the article does need to be neutral, which means (at least what i think) that the one writing should put aside his own opinion of the article. I believe that the truth should always be above any other statements. So, if you find reliable sources you have to post it, no matter if is good or bad for the person (in this case Enrique Peña Nieto) because youll be certain its a good entry based on facts, good sources and above all truth.

so what i wanted to say its i believe this part of "Televisa–Peña Nieto supposed collusion" is taken out of context, starting with the title you clearly see that it is not neutral just by using the word -Supposed-. If you read The guardian articles about this matter youll find that the article cited is not the last one of the newspaper, they wrote a responde to this matter in the next link

Also i found this other source that relates to this topic, and believe that the phrase "The documents – which where given to the The Guardian by a supposed sourced who worked for Televisa – appear to have been created years ago." is misleading, because yes, one of the documents has been online for a few years, but not all of them are online, and also even if they where that does not make them less true.

For the part " Similar claims have been made by the social movement Yo Soy 132 which protests what they see as a political one-sidedness of the Mexican media.[64][65]" Similar claims? which claims? This kind of comments is what makes the article not NEUTRAL, if the movement 132 is in favor or not it has to say what they said, and also cite the movements page so people can go see for themselves what they stand for, and not only believe that they are going against Peña Nieto just for the fun of it.

- Mexican Woman - — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Unclear Phrasing[edit]

  • "Enrique Peña received his constancy of candidate of his party for the 2012 presidential election." What is "constancy of candidate" meant to say? This seems to be a mistranslation.
No idea either. I believe it means that he was elected as the presidential candidate of the PRI. ComputerJA (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Changed to "On December 18, 2011, Enrique Peña was confirmed as the party's candidate for the 2012 presidential election." ʝunglejill 13:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Enrique Peña Nieto presented his book [...] with co-writers [...] journalist Jaime Sánchez Susarrey who reviewed the book.[1]" - does this intend to say that Susarrey published a review of the book, in addition to being a co-writer? That seems the implication, but I couldn't verify and wanted to be sure. ʝunglejill 08:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
According to the citation [4], Susarrey simply commented on the book EPN wrote during his book presentation. There is no mention of a "review" or of Susarrey being the co-author. Best, ComputerJA (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I should have read the source more carefully. It was my own misunderstanding. ʝunglejill 13:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Information about his son with Maritza Diaz[edit]

Peña made public this information on an interview before the article of Yahoo News that is mentioned in the article (under the Family section). The way it is written suggests that he didn't make it public by himself. I believe that the fact that he has one son outside his marriage could be mentioned, but the other information is irrelevant.--Neutralon (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you provide a source where Pena Nieto refers to the issue, I will edit the section accordingly. Not doubting you - I just don't care to look for it myself right now. ʝunglejill 05:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
He had an interview with Katia d'Artuigues on January 22 that was published on El Universal. Here's the link Since that interview, there are tons of publications that published it. More links:,ña-nieto-destapa-sus-infidelidades.html,,1163fd8375d05310VgnVCM3000009af154d0RCRD.html--Maxlags (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I have some physics homework, will do this later if no one else has. ʝunglejill 08:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
In retrospect, I should've asked you to summarize the info. :P My Spanish is worse than I remembered. Rewrote this and added info about claims of neglect from an English source. If you have something worth adding, let me know. ʝunglejill 12:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it is ok, but the part about the Facebook publication from the mother. This was said because of the political moment, and it seems that it has been added to affect the campaign, which can't be done here. Don't you think it's out of topic? --Neutralon (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I added it myself. I assure you I have no interest in affecting the campaign. I found it notable enough to include - I think mentioning the son without mentioning that the mother accused EPN of neglect would be incomplete information. I did not add the same accusation made by his political rival, which also appears in the reference. You'll note I also added that EPN himself acknowledges he has little contact with his son. That's just the way it is - any politician who runs for office can expect public scrutiny. The article should only aspire to be neutral - there is absolutely no obligation to remove all negative information. ʝunglejill 23:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's what. I will rename the section to "Family and personal life" and move it to a lower place in the article, as is the common practice with politicians. ʝunglejill 23:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Gafes and Televisa acusations[edit]

Due to lack of verification and due also that Wikipedia is not a Tabloid, the section Gaffes and Televisa acusations where removed, they violate what are the rules of Biographies of living people since those themes are not neutral are defamatory on the way they where written.--Sergiozaragoza (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, I have to disagree on the "lack of verification." The Gaffes section was properly sourced with links to prominent media outlets. It also got international coverage, which is one of the reasons why we decided to keep it in the article (see "Flaws in front of social media" above). Same goes for the Televisa–EPN collusion. I really don't care if you erased the info, but I hope you consider improving the article now that it was given due weight. ComputerJA (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense, this information is all sourced. BLP doesn't say an article can't have negative information, it just says that it has to be adequately sourced which this is. The information is not written in a biased way and if it were the solution would be to change the wording to something less "defamatory", not to remove material that figures prominently in the last 6 months of press coverage about the topic of the article. I've reinstated it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Gaffes section, does apply as a personal attack in the way it was written, also it goes into weasel words policy, and also complies into victimizing the person subject to BLP. Im removing the content. If restored again then this matter should be posted in the BLP noticeboard to be looked upon.--Sergiozaragoza (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I have reinserted it. Ypou must 1. show which wordings you find conflict with BLP specifically. Then we can adress those. DOn't remove sourced content. Please do post it to BLPN.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I already post it on BLPN for revision of a third party. Citing material wich original sources are not confirmed on authenticity is of course defamatory and can be considered as an attack.--Sergiozaragoza (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a misreading of the BLP policy. We are summarising the reports and noting that the sources are not fully confirmed. There is nothing defamatory in that - simply neutral reporting.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
If you can take my opinion as a third party, I find that the section is well-sourced, informative and neutral. I agree that it's all about silly stuff, but this is the kind of information people want about their politicians. It is an indication of character. These gaffes obviously received widespread coverage in Mexico, which reflects that people are interested in them. Sergiozaragoza, can you quote the specific statements that constitute a personal attack? As to weasel words, the only example I found is very minor, one instance that uses "asserted", which I changed to "said". ʝunglejill 12:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Junglejill I consider and many wikipedia editors consider that political gaffes should not be inside de BLP biographies, there is an article expressly made for that purpose: Political Gaffe. Is in my opinion that this section should be transferred and cited on this article. You can also check this post which addresses the political gaffe issues: Article for deletion political Gaffes. I still consider that this section is non relevant for the person BLP and is edited more into a form of attack.--Sergiozaragoza (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The post that "addresses the political gaffe" issue is a proposal to delete the article. Most editors who proposed to keep were ambivalent towards its existence, and none of them stated that all political gaffes should be listed there. Indeed, the article came pretty close to deletion. In Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons I see no indication that gaffes should not be included. If you think I overlooked something, please cite the specific instruction. If you claim that many Wikipedians agree that gaffes should not be included in a BLP, please provide proof. Again, I ask that you cite specific parts of this section that constitute a personal attack. ʝunglejill 14:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:BLP has nothing to do here, the policy is extremely simple: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted, and if it is already there, should be removed with no objection. Contentious? Yes; poorly sourced or unsourced, no, in fact it is well-sourced. If the problem is the neutrality, the article already has a {{POV}} tag, and that should be discussed. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here's what. I put "gaffes" under "public perception". Because there is no general content about public perception, "gaffes" now open this section. I hope this can settle the dispute - obviously gaffes and accusations of corruption are relevant to EPN's public perception. If anyone can provide an intro to "public perception", that would improve the article. I can add the content myself if anyone provides some sources and summarizes notable content. ʝunglejill 06:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The new Public's Perception intro is not balanced at all! It just talks about negative media coverage. After reading all this section it's clear that it is not looking for neutrality. There's a lot of information about positive public perception that is not here. --Silverara (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Requests for clarification[edit]

  • "Severiano Peña, mayor of Acambay in 1914, 1916, 1921 and 1923" unless Mexican mayors only serve for one year (lol, why not) we should be able to do better than this. Is it 1914-1916 and 1921-1923? ʝunglejill 23:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Those years were during the revolution which affected that area very hard and it is quite possible that he served single years.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Then I might change it to "four instances during the Mexican revolution" because it's probably as confusing to other editors as it is to me. I would like someone else to verify, though, because I read x10 slower in Spanish.
  • "A year later he participated as a delegate to the Organization and Citizen Front" is citizen front the official name for the position? I don't believe a corresponding position would be thus named in English. Should it be changed to "public delegate" "or citizens outreach" or something? Italicized? Removed altogether? If anyone can clarify, let me know and I'll try to decide.
  • "His working team is composed, in its latest version, by: (long list of non-notable persons)"

Does anyone consider this informative? It isn't wikified either - looks like it was copied directly from the source. Provided no one objects, I intend to remove it. ʝunglejill 06:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Peña Nieto Is Not Official President Of Mexico until IFE give the Official Win[edit]

Peña Nieto Is Not Official President Of Mexico until IFE give the Official Win — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xlaw84 (talkcontribs) 19:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Well actually he is not official president of Mexico untill the ceremony in which Calderon steps down and he assumes office. He is nonetheless President elect by a wide margin and news reports form Mexico and the rest of the world have reported his win. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to point that the following statement "He is nonetheless President elect" is completely false, according to Mexican Electoral Law, the TEPJF needs to declare first valid the Election and then it will proceed to declare the winner as President-elect. Legally, there is NO President-elect yet. EOZyo (мѕğ) 05:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why President of Mexico?[edit]

He will be inaugurated in December as the President! Accept it and make your community great!

Enrique has not been elected yet,how do i know that,because i live in Mexico and is not been elected yet! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejo1013 (talkcontribs) 00:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace: Atlacomulco or Mexico City?[edit]

There's conflicting sources about this. Some say he was born in Atlacomulco, [5] while others mention that he was born in Mexico City (although his parents' residence was in Atlacomulco). [6] [7] What do you all think? ComputerJA (talk)

Considering that all sources in Mexico manages Atlacomulco, and that his CURP is matches with the State of Mexico, which sources say that he did born in Mexico City? Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "El miércoles 20 de julio de 1966 nació Enrique Peña Nieto en el Distrito Federal, aunque mucha gente cree que vio luz en Atlacomulco." [8] ComputerJA (talk)
    Contradictorily the same daily wrote: Enrique Peña Nieto nació en Atlacomulco, Estado de México, el 20 de julio de 1966.[9] Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks, pal. ComputerJA (talk)

Article clean-up[edit]

I'll be making some major clean ups in the article. I find it particularly unreadable and occasionally off topic. But I'll make sure to verify each of the citations and removed unsourced information (don't worry... I'll look for the unsourced information online to see if it can be kept). When I get to the Gaffes section, I'll come back. I'm sure that needs to be summarized (Wikipedia:Summary style). Thanks, ComputerJA (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Is the assassination of the 4 bodyguards in Veracruz relevant? I'm thinking of erasing that paragraph. ComputerJA (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The assassination of 4 bodyguards of a political candidate during a political election is entirely relevant since it bespeaks pertinent behavior of a circumstance simply by its event occurrence. In any other political candidacy or history article it would definately be included. It should absolutely be included in the article, and its omission from the article would by any consideration be regarded as bias. Regards. Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You can go ahead and add it now. The paragraph is here, although I'm not sure how long the mentioned should be. Cheers. ComputerJA (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaffes section: Let's do some rethinking[edit]

Hello, everyone. I'm almost done cleaning up the section, but came back to discuss the Gaffes section as I promised. I just talked to User talk:ThaddeusB about the the Gaffes section. I thought it was important to contact an experience user and a neutral perspective to improve this article. Now, I was thinking of summarizing (or completely erasing the Gaffes section now that the article is well-balanced). CNN did a good job in the fourth paragraph by summarizing his gaffes. What do you all think? I'm leaning towards a short summary. ComputerJA (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, Paulina Peña's exact words were "greetings to the bunch of assholes [she was not calling them 'wimps' or cowards, she was calling them 'idiots'] that form part of the prole[tariat] [she said 'prole', not 'proletariat'] and only criticize those they envy". The wording tones her down and makes it seem like she tweeted a whole essay.
She actually retweeted her boyfriend's tweet. You should make sure that is specified. Loretomm (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Loretomm

On a second thought, why does Paulina's retweet have to be included to begin with? Loretomm (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Loretomm

Because that's one of the things that decreased his popularity.
  • I'm sticking with the CNN article for now; I also want to write a paragraph on the presidential campaign section and remove a whole section for Gaffes. It's too unbalanced, IMO. ComputerJA (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The main problem with the article is (and will be) the POVs. If it has no information about his mistakes or other negative information, the "Pejeliebers" will consider Wikipedia to be a pro-Peña site; on the other hand, if included the "Peñabots" will call this site an AMLO-corrupted site. You have to balance the information the most you can. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I have NO IDEA how to work things out anymore. I tried my best to write about his beginnings but the ratings at the bottom of the page don't seem to appreciate the fact that I've mentioned both sides as fairly as I could. Thanks your input. Best, ComputerJA (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


[10][11]·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Good stuff. Do you plan to add them in the article? I guess we can include both sides, including a counter argument for Proceso:
    "Durante su campaña por la Presidencia, Enrique Peña Nieto se tomó cientos de miles de fotografías con militantes y simpatizantes, sin que eso implique compromiso o cercanía más allá del momento." [12] ComputerJA (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether to add, I was hoping for some more input - similar to what you suggest here. I guess it is a question about how prominent this issue becomes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

General cleanup needed[edit]

I don't have the time at the moment (will try to come back to it) but this page could use a thorough sweep for correct grammar, missing words, etc. (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Go for it. Such changes are always encouraged. Cheers. ComputerJA (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

2 children out of wedlock in infobox [is it needed?][edit]

Is the fact that 2 children of his children were born out of wedlock really needed in the infobox? I would go ahead and remove it, but I wanted to see what others had to say about it first. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Favorable Article[edit]

let's be real, the lede in this article heavily favors Enrique Pena Nieto and was clearly written by one of his sympathizers.

these are the sentences that i have problems with:

"succeeding Felipe Calderón as President of Mexico, thereby marking the return to power of the party that ruled Mexican politics for 71 consecutive years.[4][5]"

i think that party in the above sentence should be replaced with "autocratic regime" because that's what it is or it should just be removed because it's mentioned in the second paragraph.

i also have a problem with "Throughout the election, he maintained a wide lead in the polls." Those polls were symbolic and fabricated. this sentence has no merit and should be discarded.

also all the sentences that deal with what Pena Nieto says he will do should be removed. You don't see Barack Obama's page filled with his campaign promises (read:lies).

so remove these:

"Peña Nieto proposed that he will reinvigorate Mexico's economy,[4] permit the national oil company, Pemex, to compete in the private sector,[18] and reduce drug violence that has left more than 55,000 dead in six years."

" Nonetheless, Peña Nieto has denied such accusations, and promised that his government will be much more democratic, modern, and open to criticism.[15] He also pledged that he will continue to fight organized crime and that there will be no pacts with the criminals.[15]"

you're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob56710 (talkcontribs) 21:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • The fact (if it is cited) that he made those statements during a campaign election makes it wholly appropriate to include in an article on a political campaign and person...Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns. I'll try to address everyone of your points.

[You] "i think that party in the above sentence should be replaced with "autocratic regime" because that's what it is or it should just be removed because it's mentioned in the second paragraph."
  • [Me] Although the PRI was an "authoritarian regime" before it was tossed from power in 2000, it is important to maintain a neutral point of view in Wikipedia. Name-tagging the party as a autocratic regime as of today would be pushing for an impartial tone.
[You] i also have a problem with "Throughout the election, he maintained a wide lead in the polls." Those polls were symbolic and fabricated. this sentence has no merit and should be discarded.
  • [Me] I think I understand what you mean. EPN was "winning" in the polls by a huge margin and then ended up winning by so little, which implies that the polls were "fabricated". However, we try to go by what reliable sources say, and the source says that he did lead the polls throughout the whole election. Whether the polls were off is irrelevant; that fact is that he did maintain the lead. But I'm cool with taking off that part if you wish.
[You] "also all the sentences that deal with what Pena Nieto says he will do should be removed. You don't see Barack Obama's page filled with his campaign promises"
  • [Me] If you read here at WP:FUTURE, it says: "... It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced..." BTW, if we erase solely the proposals of EPN, I think we'd have to erase the student movements and accusations too, because they're just that – accusations. I tried to include all sides of what EPN is all about. Hope this helps. ComputerJA (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Murder and torture accusations plus allegations of closeted homosexuality[edit]

It seems obvious that including such extraordinary claims would require extraordinarily good sources and very close attention to weight and neutrality. Has Peña Nieto or any of his representatives reacted? Has it received any cover in major international news outlets? If it hasnt that is a good reason to consider the claims unreliable and of dubious notability.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that these claims made world news means that the claims themselves were notable. To remove them as if the highly newsworthy claims did not happen smacks to me of trying to cover up the fact that the claims took place.Keizers (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
None of the sources presented are "world news", and the fact that they are not and have not been repeated by any international newsmedia or news agencies suggest to me very strongly that they are not notable. To add them based on flimsy evidence could be construed as trying to smear a politician based on political dislike , but I would prefer to try to discuss rationally rather than based on ad hominem insinuations. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The accusations came out early during the campaign and didn't get much coverage, so I'm guessing they're not important. But we have to be careful when we handle accusations; I'd say that the accusations of vote buying and corruption are fine because they've had significant coverage throughout the election and are part of Peña Nieto's and the PRI's image. We have to distinguish which ones hold some weight and which ones don't. That's how I see it.

By the way, welcome back Maunus. Face-smile.svg ComputerJA (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Accessibility and Spanish Language Sources[edit]

Accessibility Access to sources Policy shortcuts:


See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, Wikipedia:Offline sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost

Other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. This implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may only be available in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to help obtain source material. Non-English sources Policy shortcuts:


See also: Wikipedia:Translators available and Wikipedia:No original research#Translations and transcriptions

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.

When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote. When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.[9]

Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. When posting original source material, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.

I'll be back to finish this... Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

your point?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Last name: Nieto or Pena-Nieto?[edit]

Is Pena his middle name or does he have two last names? If the latter, why are they not hyphenated in the article? This seems to be a convention of the spanish language that isn't well known to english speakers. What's up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walterego (talkcontribs) 18:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Spanish namin practice is to have two surnames paternal (first) and maternal (second), without a hyphen. HE would be alphabetized as Peña.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • His name is Enrique. Peña is his paternal surname, while Nieto is his maternal one. Media outlets usually call him by his two last names, although they are technically considered separate. ComputerJA (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I see, actually there was a note at the top of the article that explained that, which I skipped over and didn't read. I notice though that the other articles on Mexican presidents only use the Paternal surname. I've know for years that the last president of Mexico was Felipe Calderón and the previous leader was Vicente Fox, that's how I've always heard them identified in english speaking media. Indeed the wikipedia articles for them are "Felipe Calderón" and "Vicente Fox", even though their full paternal and maternal last names are Calderon Hinojosa and Fox Quesada. But I've never in my life heard Calderón and Fox called the full name by english media in the USA. So is it simpler to call Peña Nieto just "Peña" the way that the articles on Calderón and Fox do?
    • It seems the article using both last names in order to avoid confusion with an already existing article on "Enrique Peña" the Cuban musician, whose full name is actually Enrique Peña Sanchez. I notice that typing "Enrique Peña" into the search box directs straight to Enrique Peña Sanchez the musician without any disambiguation page in between. I would think the new president of Mexico is more significant and more likely to be researched than a Cuban coronet player/composer who died in 1922, and of whom there are very few recordings. It seems like an update of both page headings is in order surely.Walterego (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps because of the existence of other Enrique Peñas Mexican media invariably use both of his surnames, making it the WP:COMMONNAME.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
That is a good point you bring up, Walterego. I really don't know the exact reason why some former Presidents were called by the paternal surname and not by both. Another good example is Andrés Manuel López Obrador, which goes by both as well. We go by WP:COMMONNAME as Maunus mentioned, though. Cheers. ComputerJA (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarification on Education?[edit]

"Upon graduating as a lawyer from the Universidad Panamericana, Peña Nieto sought a Master's degree in the Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education, based in the State of Mexico." Could this be clarified a little? My understanding of ITESM was that it is based in Monterrey, in the state of Nuevo Leon, but that it has a campus in the Estado de Mexico. Is it correct to say that Pena Nieto went to the ITESM campus in the State of Mexico for his Master's degree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

wrong citation?[edit]

The article states that "The PRI touted that it "knows how to govern" and how to manage the drug cartels, which was compelling enough for many voters." but the cited article says won't provide a source for some PRI representative expressing that statment (or someone at the opposing parties) and it's just a single - unreliable - guy cited at an article. Some people at Mexico believe that the PRI know how to deal, or pact with narcs, "said Mexico City plumber Raimundo Salazar, 44." "The PRI understands how things work here. And it knows how to manage the drug gangs." It's not about if this fact it's true or not, it's about the cite being made from an ureliable original source, rather that from some PRI representative or the other parties. Soparamens (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you for bringing this up and for using the talkpage. You're right. The source says that the PRI has touted that it does know how to govern, but it did not say that it can manage the country's drug gangs. I made a small change addressing your concerns. Please let me know if you disagree with them. Thanks. ComputerJA () 19:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


Check the "Spouse" field on the info box. I really don't think he's married to his economist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


The article has too much material from the campaign, with each side saying what it "would do." Needs to be updated to reflect Peña Nieto's election and what he has achieved so far. Campaign stuff really needs to be reduced. It may be that the whole energy policy issues should be discussed in a separate article on Mexican oil, starting with nationalization in 1938.Parkwells (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be updated to focus on the presidency and not the campaign. The reforms, including the energy reform, are a huge part of his presidency, as are the different scandals, the drug war response and the decrease in public approval.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


The Registro Nacional de Profesionistas provided by the Secretaria de Educacion Publica shows the following professional certificate record for Mr. Pena Nieto:

Número de Cédula: 1629426 Nombre: ENRIQUE PEÑA NIETO Género: HOMBRE Profesión: LICENCIATURA EN DERECHO Año de expedición: 1991 Institución: UNIVERSIDAD PANAMERICANA Tipo: C1

That is the only record shown. Even if Mr. Pena Nieto attended classes, he never obtained a MA degree in Business Administration from the Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education (ITESM).

Using the official Registro Nacional de Profesionistas webpage that the Secretaria de Educacion Publica provides for that matter, anyone can verify this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdemucha (talkcontribs) 23:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Peña Nieto presenta su libro: “México, la gran esperanza”