Talk:Controversies of the 2006 Mexican general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Quality of sources[edit]

It worries me that many of the sources used to invoke allegations of "fraud", "corruption", and others come from blogs. Are we using opinions to justify entries in an encyclopedia? At least the wording makes it clear that said allegations have never been proven (sometimes, not even denounced) in a court of law and that the allegations are entirely the opinion of its authors. Perhaps a disclaimer would be useful? Hari Seldon 02:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are worthless as secondary sources and are only rarely worthwhile as primary sources of a notable blogger's words (as for example referencing the pope's own words from the holy pope blog for the pope's article). Just delete that stuff. 75.5.100.86 (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link left by anonymous editor[edit]

An anonymous editor repeated the info below throughout the article:

"see the next link and translate it with altavista babelfish

See this diff.

I reverted all the changes, but don't know what to do with the link since I don't read Spanish. --Timeshifter 20:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do nothing. The link is to a text that rehashes the many "statistical analysis arguments" that are already covered in the article. In addition, it has no references and would not qualify as a reliable source as per Wikipedia. It does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia. The same user attempted to add it to President of Mexico, where I removed it. Magidin 15:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
let me ask you something Magidin : should I be worried that if I try to add a link you will automatically remove it because you deem it "suspicious" or "unreliable" of your own accord? I fear this 'Do nothing' entry you posted above is grounded on neither statistical nor political expertise ≈≈≈≈
wikipedia policies withstanding, I would love to receive notifications should you choose to remove my edits so I can get a handle on what criterion you follow in removing sources that you deem "unreliable" ≈≈≈≈
"https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Jose-Antonio-Crespo/dp/9708103977"
If you put this page on your "watchlist", it will notify you of any changes anyone makes. I will note that you are replying to something that is almost 13 years old, and which seems to have caused absolutely no controversy, so your insinuations notwithstanding, it does not appear to have caused a problem. Wikipedia has policies indicating what is considered reliable and unreliable, and if you familiarize yourself with them and abide by them, there will be little or no problems. Magidin (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The myth of the electoral fraud in Mexico"[edit]

Over the December holiday, I read Fernando Pliego Carrasco's El mito del fraude electoral en México, Editorial Pax Mexico, ISBN 978-968-860-906-4. It contains a lot of information that is not in the article at present (for example, the returns in the PREP sorted by "marginalizacion level" of the districts, a full statistical study of the arithmetic errors found on the tally sheets, discussions on the "Voto por voto y casilla por casilla", and the use of social federal programs). All of it is interesting, all of it is well-sourced, and a lot of it would work well to balance much already in the article. I am a bit busy at present, so I may not be able to add it wholesale or very soon, but I hope to add it at least piecemeal in the not-too-distant future. I wanted to give a heads up and get the name and information of the book into the page, since we do not have a References or Bibliography sections in the article itself. Magidin (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You could put it in the external links section until you actually use it as a reference. After you use it as a reference feel free to experiment with a separate references section for books if you don't want to use the existing references section. I believe there is a way to reference books so that repetition is avoided when citing individual pages of a book. But I don't know offhand of some examples in articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to use the current method of citing for the page. I just wanted the name to be associated to the page somehow until such time as I manage to find the time to put the information in. And I accomplished that with comment above, which gave the author, title, editorial, and ISBN. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Magidin (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I thought you wanted to get it into the article itself right away. Talk page, or in the article. Either way is fine by me. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I wouldn't trust Pliego Carrasco to give me the NBA scores let alone the real tally of the 2006 election - I can not possible adhere to the "assume good faith" guideline in this instance.
Advice on how to proceed
"https://www.elcinco.mx/noticias/el-dia-que-eugenio-traiciono-el-pri-1"

the link above includes the transcript ot the 2 as well as a recording. If we are supposed to asume good faith you can assume that I know who Elba Esther Gordillo Pedro Cerisola and Eugenio Hernandez are and I can sware on a bible if need be that these are their voices ≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.real.daywalker (talk • contribs) 09:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize; what you can or cannot do is your problem, not ours. Especially when the only apparent reason you have for your lack of trust is that you don't like what he said. What you are prepared to swear to or not is irrelevant; the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and relevance, not whether you swear on a stack of bibles or not. Magidin (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How votes are counted... defense of detail[edit]

An anonymous editor placed a flag in the section on How the votes are counted, indicating he/she believes it is overly detailed. I do not believe so; many of the allegations of fraud were based on clear misunderstandings or misconceptions of the differences between the PREP, the Quick Count, and the official count; many of the reported "irregularities" were also based on ignorance on the methodology for counting (e.g., Narconews presenting photographs of the information notice posted outside polling places as if they represented official, unalterable returns for those polling places). Many of the complaints discussed later in the article require the reader to understand the issue of transmission of information from the polling place to the district office (to explain the issues surrounding the running totals), and other issues such as the hard limits on number of voters per polling place. I do not think the section is too detailed, and this is already a subsidiary article as it is. There is no "trivia, praise, criticism, lists and colleciton of links" in the section at all. As such, I think the flag is not appropriate. I would also argue for reinstating the deleted paragraph that explains that the details are necessary in order to understand the issues raised later, which this anonymous editor removed, thus depriving the contents of the section of some needed context. Magidin (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. See WP:NOTPAPER. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The section does need a once-over to fix the tense and the references to the COFIPE, which has been amended since 2006; in other words, it needs a disclaimer that references to the COFIPE are to what it was at the time, and it needs to change the present tenses to past tenses. I don't have time today, but I'll try to get to it before the end of the week. Magidin (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. I have not been editing Wikipedia as much. Archive.org may have some of the old versions of the pages, if needed.
http://www.archive.org --Timeshifter (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
actually I second the motion to place a flag. You failed to gather clear cut evidence readily available that flat-out fraud on the part of the then ruling party Partido Accion Nacional did in fact occur.≈≈≈≈
that you failed to gather such basic,raw evidence which was so readily available represents imo a gross oversight therefore I will be placing a flag ≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.real.daywalker (talk • contribs) 09:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ten years later seems a bit out of date for you to "support a motion". In any case, the reasons you provide are irrelevant to the topic at hand, which was whether the section was overly detailed or not. Evidence of fraud on a description of how the counting occurred would be out of place there anyway. In any case, the extraordinary claim here (and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) is that there was "clear cut evidence that flat-out fraud on the part of the then ruling party [...] did in fact occur." So it is up to those putting forth those theories that the onus of gathering and producing reliable, verifiable, sources drops. It is not up to everyone else to gather evidence that no such fraud occurred. And such issues would not go in the section in question. So what flag do you support here? "Too much detail"? Because that's the flag you claim to be supporting. Magidin (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mexican general election 2006 controversies. 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:

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) 08:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mexican general election 2006 controversies. 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:

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) 03:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Controversies_of_the_2006_Mexican_general_election&oldid=1211559536"