Talk:Carlos Hank González

Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?

Wetman

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carlos Hank González. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20080110161434/http://www.lideresmexicanos.com/articulos.php?id_sec=36&id_art=193 to http://www.lideresmexicanos.com/articulos.php?id_sec=36&id_art=193

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes

@PercinoPit and TrayectosEnElMundo: can you please discuss the changes proposed by Percino here? In particular, are the accusations about this person, or his son? Walt Yoder (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to open a Talk discussion because it was for sure getting to an edit warring state. Previous versions of the edit were referencing allegations against this persons' son and presenting them as if they were presented against this person.

The current version is more accurate, though I don't really see an addition of new information, as all sources reference the White Tiger report for the allegations, which is already covered extensively in the page. For now, I will refrain from further editing until we can come to a consensus about the edits, in order to keep the peace. TrayectosEnElMundo (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Stop editing the page back to your benefit until the narrative is resolved. You yourself said you would not further edit. You are promoting the page and not listing the facts. You are clearly a very member of the Hank family or their hired PR. PercinoPit (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The edit history clearly shows who made changes. That last one was not mine, so I'd appreciate if you didn't throw around baseless accusations. TrayectosEnElMundo (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

(Redacted) Aside from the whole family being accused of serious crimes, I have attached sources that are solely on Carlos Hank Gonzalez and not just of his sons. This should all be mentioned on this page. The editor TrayectosEnElMundo is trying to play Carlos Hank Gonzalez as a victim when he is definitely not. Everyone in Mexico know how they made their money and it was all through corruption and illegal activities with ties to cartels. Please see relevant links and lock page or block promotional editor. PercinoPit (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to begin by showing the difference between the previous version of this contribution, which I edited, and the current version of this contribution, which is completely different[1] (this is the first time a link a diff, so bear with me, I hope I this is the right way to go about it). The previous version was a copy paste of an edit made by @PercinoPit on this persons' son wikipedia page.[2]

As it stood, the original version presented accusations against this person's son as if had been presented against this person. (For example, this person was never arrested for possession of unlicensed arms or for dealing in the trade of exotic animals). My intention in editing those previous versions out was never to hide information, but to restore the page to a version prior to what, to me, seemed like an inaccurate addition.

From what I'm gathering, this may be, at its core, a disagreement about tone or presentation of the facts. The accusations regarding narco connections and money laundering against this person were, to my understanding, already present in the wiki page.[3] To my knowledge, and this is backed by @PercinoPit's references, these allegations tend to go back to the White Tiger Report and the 1999 Washington Post that originally published it.

As is already explained in the page, the report was denied by its supposed sources. In addition, there was never a court sentence, or any formal charges brought up against this person. While it can be argued that the rejection of the White Tiger Report and the lack of charges were due to political reasons, this possibility is also already discussed in the page.

My intention in presenting the nuances about White Tiger and other accusations is not to present Hank Gonzalez as a victim, but to show the full facts of the matter. TrayectosEnElMundo (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s not just the white tiger report. Carlos Hank González has been accused for political corruption. He was not born to rich parents, he made his money off of his involvement in money laundering, drug trafficking assistance, and illegal activities when he was in power. He is accused of using their businesses to facilitate drug trafficking and money laundering, with ties to major drug trafficking organizations in Mexico. He had a close relationship with Amado Carrillo Fuentes and were involved in election fraud and vote-buying. His businesses were used to move cocaine and launder millions of dollars from the drug trade. Carlos Hank González and his two sons, Carlos Hank Rohn and Jorge Hank Rohn, have been investigated for political corruption, bribery, tax evasion, and illegal activities. Carlos Hank González was accused of having ties to drug traffickers such as Félix Gallardo, the Arellano brothers, and Mayo Zambada. The group led by Hank González had control over American banks, investment companies, and casinos for money laundering and drug trafficking.

This should be mentioned in the wiki page. He his not a hero or victim. His accusations are serious. This is why his two sons are rich. Please see references about all of this below:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/mexico/stories/hank060299.htm

https://www.sdpnoticias.com/mexico/quien-es-carlos-hank-gonzalez-y-por-que-se-le-relaciona-con-el-mayo-zambada/

https://www.elimparcial.com/tijuana/Columnas/Carlos-Hank-y-el-narcotrafico-20010815-0002.html

https://cuestione.com/nacional/quien-fue-carlos-hank-gonzalez-pri-narcos-mexico-netflix/

https://www.infobae.com/america/mexico/2021/11/08/quien-fue-carlos-hank-gonzalez-el-politico-senalado-en-narcos-mexico-3/

https://heraldodemexico.com.mx/espectaculos/2021/11/10/narcos-mexico-quien-era-carlos-hank-gonzalez-cual-su-relacion-con-amado-carrillo-en-la-serie-352355.html PercinoPit (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Was Hank formally accused of any of those charges? If so, was he found guilty? If not, why is the text taking allegations as facts. Hank is dead, so it should not be defamatory at least in California, but his offspring is, so WP:BLP applies to anything that relates to them. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It is my understanding that there were no formal accusations against Hank, or at least I have found no sources that list formal accusations.TrayectosEnElMundo (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Carlos Hank González, in his capacity as a governor at the time, enjoyed political immunity, which shielded him from undergoing trial for the crimes with which he was charged. Consequently, in accordance with the law, he was not subject to sentencing for trial, despite the existence of incriminating evidence against him. (It is worth noting that his son did face legal repercussions for the same offenses and was duly apprehended, serving a period of incarceration as a consequence.)

This webpage designates a specific section as "defamatory" without the presence of any judicial ruling or authorization that warrants the utilization of such a term. It appears that the previous editor, @trayetosenelmundo, is endeavoring to portray this individual as a victim, thereby disregarding the gravity of the accusations levied against him, which were substantiated by ample evidence in both Mexico and the United States, with due consideration for the justice of the victims involved. It is imperative to recognize that a statement can only be deemed defamatory if it has been definitively proven as such in a court of law, accompanied by a verdict that confirms the act of defamation. In the present circumstances, no such legal proceedings or verdict have ever transpired. Therefore, I firmly believe it is of utmost importance to incorporate the aforementioned accusations onto the page as this is public interest and information.

Rather than selectively including only what is preferred, it is essential to include all accusations (not solely the white tiger report). In the aforementioned communication, I have provided relevant sources pertaining to the accusations I previously mentioned and respectfully request that the term "defamatory" be modified to "accusations," as they possess significance and should not be omitted. @Materialscientist @Ira Leviton @Iffy @Acousmana@AnomieBOT @CafecitodeStarbucks @Tbhotch @MB @Fehufanga @Maya2022

Please see references about all of this below:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/mexico/stories/hank060299.htm

https://www.sdpnoticias.com/mexico/quien-es-carlos-hank-gonzalez-y-por-que-se-le-relaciona-con-el-mayo-zambada/

https://www.elimparcial.com/tijuana/Columnas/Carlos-Hank-y-el-narcotrafico-20010815-0002.html

https://cuestione.com/nacional/quien-fue-carlos-hank-gonzalez-pri-narcos-mexico-netflix/

https://www.infobae.com/america/mexico/2021/11/08/quien-fue-carlos-hank-gonzalez-el-politico-senalado-en-narcos-mexico-3/

https://heraldodemexico.com.mx/espectaculos/2021/11/10/narcos-mexico-quien-era-carlos-hank-gonzalez-cual-su-relacion-con-amado-carrillo-en-la-serie-352355.html PercinoPit (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@PercinoPit: We don't report allegations as facts. Regardeless if he did what you claim he did, we have multiple policies and guidelines on how to treat crimes and alleged crimes. Wikipedia is not a court. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure it is absolutely unnecessary to clarify, but I'm fine with the new subtitle (it is more neutral) and with the addition of additional allegations in the corresponding section. Like I said before, my largest concern was with the copy pasted allegations from Jorge Hank Rhon's page. TrayectosEnElMundo (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: It has come to my attention that given by your tone you may be perceiving this matter in a personal manner. I am trying to be as neutral as possible but given your account’s association with Mexico City, it is possible that your opinions may be influenced or biased. Your comment “what you claim he did”: I would like to clarify that I am not making any claims myself regarding the allegations in question; rather, these are claims from the United States and Mexican government. Furthermore, I did not use the term "facts" in my previous statement. I would like to redirect the focus back to you, as regardless of whether or not the individual in question is guilty, these allegations were never proven “defamatory” and the accusations are of public interest and should be addressed on the page. I never said Wikipedia is a court either, but it is platform where pages are written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as fair as possible, without editorial bias, and include all significant views and accusations that have been published by reliable sources. Hence what this page is missing. Could @Materialscientist @Ira Leviton @Iffy @Acousmana@AnomieBOT@CafecitodeStarbucks @Tbhotch @MB @Fehufanga @Maya2022 @Acousmana @Ira Leviton @Stella120987 @BrownHairedGirl @Historiapolitica2 @Klayman55 @Oculi @ZI Jony @Udonknome@Rosguill @Cardofk @Rlink2 @Edderiofer @Geraldo Perez help with the narrative of this page? PercinoPit (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why I'm being mentioned here. I know nothing about this person or their family or what they've been accused of, nor do I believe I've ever interacted with this page, and I'm not about to try to read through all this.

Perhaps someone should briefly summarize the topic under discussion and the key arguments made by both sides, with reference to any relevant Wikipedia policies. Edderiofer (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Relevant public information

The previous editor is trying to hide relevant public information about public figure and promoting him. This public figure is not a hero or victim, his accusations are serious crimes and should be noted on the @page. @Materialscientist @Ira Leviton @Iffy @Acousmana @AnomieBOT @CafecitodeStarbucks @Tbhotch @MB @Fehufanga @Maya2022 PercinoPit (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@PercinoPit: please, refer to WP:CANVASS. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 13:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)