Talk:Andrés Manuel López Obrador

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 Mexico (Rated C-class, Mid-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Socialism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

relationship with the PRD since the election[edit]

The American and European media has been reporting on and off that the PRD is increasingly distancing itself from López Obrador, seeing him as somewhat of an embarrassment; for example, 5 of 6 PRD state governors skipped his protest rally on the anniversary of the disputed election, and the PRD legislators have ignored his call to boycott the government and refuse to negotiate with Calderón. The article doesn't currently mention anything about this relationship; perhaps something should be added? --Delirium 09:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Grupo Reforma[edit]

In the "reactions to the legitimate presidency" section, I eliminated the parenthesis that stated right wing newspaper refering to Grupo Reforma. Anyone who reads the paper can notice their columnists and editorialists are all over the political map. It is strongly disingenous to state that this news source is right wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.141.140.103 (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate president of Mexico in the preceded/succeded by boxes removed[edit]

Since there's no real Legitimate president of Mexico figure, I removed this. Though he might claim the title, it doesn't really exist in the constitution or any reliable academic sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.141.178.51 (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it should be there so we can remind him that since he already claimed to be the president of Mexico he cannot run for president in 2012. Schicchi (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather remove the legitimate presidency figure, as mentioned before it is something that he created for himself, and it Will not in any way stop him for seeking the candidacy for the presidency in 2012. Topio (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is not Effective Suffrage he could run for the Presidency, although I agree that the box should be removed. EOZyo (мѕğ) 07:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Legitimate President of Mexico", this designation is purely symbolic and holds no legal force, so he can ACTUALLY run for the Presidency. Torres (мѕğ) 12:52:01, 14 Oct 2011 (UTC)

Removed his second last name[edit]

Nobody in México uses his second last name to identify himself, unless he's ashamed of his first last name. Since most political figures in México use only their first last name (Calderón, Mouriño, Cárdenas, Madrazo, Gordillo, etc.), I removed López' second last name from the article. 189.146.81.94 (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost nobody in Mexico calls him just 'López', he's almost universially referred to as López Obrador. In fact one of the slogans used by his movement is es un honor estar con Obrador. I'll change it back. Mixcoatl (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that nobody calls him López is completely irrelevant. Until articles on Calderón, Mourinho, Encinas, et al are changed to use both last names the point is moot. Wikipedia is a POV neutral source which needs some coherency and consistency to work, and using both last names of López isn't useful at all. I'll revert.200.38.163.132 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That's nonsense. Throughout the Spanish speaking world it's common to use both last names, especially when the apellido paterno is a very common one (Gonzalez, Garcia, Sanchez, Lopez). Or do you suggest we also name articles Gabriel García, José Luis Rodríguez, Manuel Ávila and José Ortega? Mixcoatl (talk)
He is referred to as López Obrador, Obrador or AMLO throughout the Spanish and English-speaking worlds. That is all. None of the examples above are the same, as none of those individuals are known by the names suggested. KenThomas (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Legal and political controversies[edit]

I have added the {{POV}} templeate to the section since only one of the points has links to citations. Furthermore, the relation with Bejarano has not yet be confirmed, there are speculations only, but not facts, and i believe speculations should be kept as that, not stated as a truth. Besides this, the point talking that reads "López Obrador rejected the transparency laws applicable in all of México" is tendentiously used, Vicente Fox received billions of dollars due to the increases in oil prices and he did not make public where this money ended up, thus, Fox also rejected this "transparency laws applicable in all México". I strongly suggest to keep the article the most accurate and neutral as possible, not just adding and keeping conjectures without the enough basis to sustain them. An example of this would be the case of McCain and the newspaper (I don't remember right now which) that accused him of extramarital affairs, accused but not proofs, and if any proof was presented it was not strong or believable enough to sustain the accusaion. EOZyo (мѕğ) 06:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

This article makes me wanna cry, it is absolutelly tendentious, it violates the policy of neutrality, Lopez Obrador is presented as a hero or almost as a God, it must be clear first that now the majority of the mexicans believe he is a real trouble for the stability, specially the part of the TV Spot is non-relevant. This article is like a whole apologize for Obrador, its urgent to makes things clear here. User:Lefairh —Preceding comment was added at 03:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is not tendentious and only facts are presented. Eleccion in 2006 are part of mexican history and today,feb 26 2011 are still a lot o people who dont know who really won in 2006. That is a fact. How do we know what the "majority of mexicans" believe about Obrador? .Again, I think this article, besides some references that are clearly on the PAN side, is enough neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newton-galileo (talkcontribs) 06:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is this people who don't know who won the election? Felipe Calderon did, whether they believe it or not is a different issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.75.29 (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC) f Despite all the protests again the fraud, there is a lot of references that demostrates that Obrador did not win and he knew it. Covarrubias informed him few minutes before 8:00 O'clock that Calderon had an advantage of 400,000 votes, after that Obrador went out to say that Covarrubias informed him of a advantage of 500,000 votes and declared himself the winner. "Así lo viví" by Luis Carlos Ugalde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.233.37.50 (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

See immediately below. The very facts of this matter remain in substantive dispute, with each side representing a POV. Much care is needed here. KenThomas (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Tone/NPOV / NPOV tag appropriate?[edit]

"Andrés Manuel López Obrador (born November 13, 1952) is a former Mexican wanna-be politician" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andr%C3%A9s_Manuel_L%C3%B3pez_Obrador&oldid=290191787

Is this kind of description really necessary?

Richardkselby (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the entire article is questionable and filled with "facts" that are not facts. I will probably tag NPOV, the article could use help by a neutral editor or twenty. KenThomas (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Grossly ideological, filled with inaccuracies, unsourced, negative perspective hidden in weasel-words....[edit]

After 24 hours of thinking about it, I'm highly disappointed by this article. It's full of inaccuracies that come from ideological perspectives and interests (=POV). It's not at all neutral.

I'd like to take a stab at editing and correcting the inaccuracies and bad information, but with the caveat that I'm involved in the events and that may not be appropriate (== more of the same). It's also hard to imagine this article, without scrapping large parts that are argumentative (ie, there's an entire paragraph that argues that the electoral claims were contradictory, without evidence... jeez, you might as well say the same of Al Gore!).

A current event or other tag may be appropriate (such as the one above), but does not seem an exact perfect vehicle. The dispute here is over both facts and ideology, and is a long-term, not short-term struggle between different POVs. Regardless, the situation is heating up, so such tags may be appropriate.

Any & all comments solicited and welcome. KenThomas (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've used the deprecated tag for active Politicians here, as a way of marking. I'm going to try to clean out inaccurate/ideological info. KenThomas (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
There's also a lot of use of weasel-words etc to produce effect (usually negative) here. "Many" people "severely" criticized AMLO, for instance, for x,y,z. I've toned down the phrasing, but it's still vague. It would be better to be specific and clear, however.
The Cardenas section is clearly meant to delegitimize, however, it's not very careful. It was reported that Cardenas wanted the Presidency for his son, for instance, and rumours were that back-room deals were in play. KenThomas (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I saw this article mentioned elsewhere on the site because of the active politician banner used on it. An alternative tag would be better. See, a long time ago we used to have many visual styles of templates like this. Gradually, we adapted into consistent standard styling. I understand the logic in your thinking, and it's fine on this Talk page, but the current banner doesn't work well on the article.
Content >>> relativeTo(importance), {visual style} ??? I'll to see what I can do... :) KenThomas (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not really suitable for a few reasons: it does clash visually due to its Talk page templates style; it's oriented towards editors not readers, with references to stuff like talk-page trolling (typical readers don't care or need to know about that); and because it's not an article template, all the automatic categorization into cleanup categories which they would do don't happen. I appreciate you might not find the ordinary neutrality tag adequate, KT. There are some more specific article tags here though, which you may find suitable. Perhaps you can find one you like. Thank you for working on the article, and good luck with whipping it into shape. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It's a temporary measure; it's been there barely 24 hours. Why does every bold edit on Wikipedia, result in endless flame wars, usually from those who don't look closely? Yes, I looked at the tag options before adding it. Yes, I consulted on the talk template page, waited, and thought about. And yes, I'll consider something else-- either making it hardcoded and more appropriate for the moment, alternative tags, proposing a template for similar situations, or a combo of the previous. But we can't go forward if everyone's a naysayer, if there's a rush to judgment (and knee-jerk reverts), if editors flat-out refuse to use talk pages, and it everything has to be done NOW NOW NOW RUSH RUSH.  :P KenThomas (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I've changed it to the more appropriate POV tag, as that seems to be what your primary concerns are. Singularity42 (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I leave that change for now, as a) it's a forward edit and b) my attention will be able to remain here for a while. I do think POV is appropriate as additional editors' help could surely be needed (I admit I have a bias here, which will need to be counterbalanced if I make further edits). However I don't think the POV tag is sufficient, and don't accept the revert/change as fully ... addressing the situation. Thus I'll look for a new solution. Please take my proposed usage as a "stub." Thanks. KenThomas (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
A few thoughts - I don't have time to look at particular issues, unfortunately. As for template styles, there's a long-standing consensus that only {{ambox}}-styled templates should be used on article pages, with a decided preference for choosing from already-extant templates. As far as alternate templates you could consider, there's also {{systemic bias}} and {{POV-check}}. I'm not sure where a complete listing of the templates is, but the Wikipedia:Help Desk might know. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Template_messages#Article-related_namespace --NeilN talk to me 12:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Religion[edit]

AMLO is not a Roman Catholic, he is Christian. The importance of his religion as a public person and politician in a place like Mexico, has a lot of weight and changes supporters and other important political views such as the Mexican Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.164.217 (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)