Talk:2006 civil unrest in San Salvador Atenco
|WikiProject Law Enforcement||(Rated Stub-class)|
|WikiProject Mexico||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
I've tagged this article as an NPOV problem because it seems to be written from a very pro-protester point of view. I don't have good enough knowledge of the event to sort it out myself, perhaps someone else could. Cynical 11:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed the tag, for lack of backing to the claim. I've reviewed the article, and though the statement of reported fact may shock some people, it is not bias. The wording of a few things could be cleaned up, but we don't need that ugly tag here. Canaen 07:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
All of the information here comes from sources listed, (except some other pieces which are properly cited), and all that needs to be done is for people to go rummaging through the sources, and apply links where citations should be. Most of them tell the same basic story. We could definitely use some larger media sources, though they tend to be more bias. Canaen 07:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The following was added without reference by User:126.96.36.199, and reverted with no reasoning by User:Digitalme.
=== Atenco's History === - - Anyone in the world understands History has an important factor into actual scenarios. Atenco's experience is not an exception. First of all, it is a histaorical matter. - - During the Aztec Empire, the locals in Atenco were members of "Triple Alliance"; something similar to the allies during World War II. So, people from Atenco were part of Texcoquian territory, and they were members of that Alliance. They always received respect in all situations, the most important their land. - - Spanish arrived to Mexico, conquered the Aztec Empire, but they kept the tradition to keep peace and armony with Texcoquians -including Atenquies, someone from Atenco- due to the facts of resistance as well as people able to keep their land in front of any situation, able to give their lifes for it. - - Independence movement arrived to Mexico, and the new gobernment kept respect to Texcoquians. Even, French intervention had similar attitude. - - Revolutionary times in 1910 had a different perspective because of their main battles were located in North of Mexico. Later, the National Revolutionary Party (Father of PRI) applied a non agretion diplomacy policy with Texcoquians for more than 70 years. - - Unfortunately, the actual Mexico political leaders did not know all these details and the historical situation with Atenquies. Then, several missunderstandings as well as wrong decisions have been applied.
=== Conclusions === - - It is very sad for a nation like Mexico, a member of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), having such as kind of social repressions are showing a country where many people can not achieve freedom and respect to their traditions. - - Unfortunately, people like the one named MARCOS, are not able to give solutions to actual needs between several social classes. Neither the Mexico state governor, Enrique Peña-Nieto, nor President Fox and his cabinet, headed by Carlos Abascal.
Most of this is accurate, but lacks sources. I'd prefer to keep it here on the talk page, rather than deleting it alltogether. Canæn 03:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the title should be changed to 2006 human rights abuses in San Salvador Atenco, since the "uprising" wasn't an insurrection as such, but rather a response to the police brutality. What does everyone else think?--Rockero 16:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that we should put the Atenco residents in a view of pity. They rebelled against the state police, and the police were bigger. Yes, it was a response to already-existant police brutality, however they knew full-well what they would face. I like uprising, personally. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 18:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- If we keep uprising, it needs to be uncapitalized. What do you mean by "put the Atenco residents in a view of pity"? That we shouldn't pity the victims? Because I'm not trying to minimize in any way the actions of the people who stood up to the abuse...
- I don't like uprising because it is non-specific (see the wiki article Uprising-the closest thing on that dab page is insurrection, which just provides a link to insurgency). The Atenco events were/are not an insurgency or an uprising against the civil authority (viz the Mexican government), but resistance to the police authority, specifically their abuse of their authority.
- The important aspect of the event (IMHO) is the abuse of human rights, which is why I suggested the rename.--Rockero 19:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yea, you're probably right. I just don't like the wording. It seems like it's a personal thing to me, though. To me, the important thing is that villagers had the courage to rise up against the police, rather than that the police were shitheads. The latter fact is well-known to me; it just seems that rising against police forces is so much more rare. But to the rest of the world, who don't care enough to listen, and don't hear about the constant human rights abuses, your wording fits better. Go ahead and move it, if you think it's best. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think both the current name and the proposed name are not neutral. The Mexican government has not (and probably will not, unless coerced by the courts) recognized the situation as one were abuse of human rights happened. "Uprising" isn't quite the right word, and the term in this context is slanted towards the leftist movement in Mexico. The I'd recommend something along the lines of 2006 civil unrest in San Salvador Atenco.
Additionally, I question the GFDL claim of Image:Atenco protests 2006.JPG since the text below it seems lifted from a publication. I will change the license tag to something more appropriate if no source is provided within a week. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- The GFDL claim was made by me. I lifted the image from http://www.indybay.org, though I can no longer find the article. This is their statement:
- "© 2000–2006 SF Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF Bay Area IMC."
- I've a lackluster knowledge of image licensing, so if something is more appropriate, please do fix it. However, I believe that we can use it here, since Wikipedia is a non-commercial enterprise.
- As far as the Mexican Government goes: I consider "Civil unrest" to be a loaded term, used from a governmental perspective. Governments are not neutral bodies; they have a clear motive, which is to stay in power. That's why governments always fight against rebellions. "Uprising" seems to work to me. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Page still needs NPOVing
I've removed some wording that I thought was particularly POV, such as "invaded" and "cutting down everyone in their path" in my most recent copy edits  and . I think the article would be improved by furhter NPOVing some of the material. What's the official statement of the Mexican government about the events? I'm certainly willing to discuss the changes I made or other proposed changes. Also, are you sure that the sources are all WP:RS? Peace, delldot | talk 19:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'd assume that the government either ignored the events, or simply called the FPDT rebels as an excuse to shoot them down; that's what they always do. Invasion I don't see as POV; it's a simple verb. A hostile force (government cops) came into a community (Atenco), and violence ensued. That's invasion. I really wish folks on Wikipedia would stop considering lies to be NPOV just because they are popular, or because the alternative truths are unpleasant. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 03:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Much of this page appears to be cut and pasted from this znet article. Do we have permission to use the material? Is znet published under the GFDL? Unfortunately, wikipedia can't used copyrighted material or we might get sued: (See WP:CV). Sadly, I'm going to have to stub it down until and unless we can get some evidence that we have permission to use the material. If such evidence already exists, revert me and pardon my flakiness! Also, please put it here on the talk page. You are also of course free to rewrite the article in your own words. delldot | talk 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I rewrote the intro paragraph in my own words. If the article does have to stay like this, it's unfortunate, but on the plus side we may be able to remove the NPOV tag if consensus is reached on that. delldot | talk 16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
188.8.131.52 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)kevin184.108.40.206 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC) "I don't think that we should put the Atenco residents in a view of pity. They rebelled against the state police, and the police were bigger. Yes, it was a response to already-existant police brutality, however they knew full-well what they would face." I know the Atenco political prisoners personally, and have been involved in the movement to inform others about the state repression committed since last May. I'd have to say that being objective is not giving 50% of the benefit of the doubt to each side. Being objective is looking at the entire event from a distance, free of biases. The state governor Peña Nieto, the president at the time (Fox), the three "police chiefs" of the three police forces: Robledo, Varghas, and Medina, all are accused and many have even been convicted of criminal corruption. In fact the invasion of Texcoco-Atenco May 3rd and 4th was planned well before (at least two weeks many say) and the torture was systematic. There's no mention of the people that were "disappeared" by the police. The police included military (Mexican Federal Army) that were trained in torture techniques, most probably at the School of the Americas. It's public knowledge that thousands of Mex military have been trained at the School of the Americas and that many protestors in Guadalajara, before Atenco, were tortured for more than a week by the military. More recently in Oaxaca, the PFP, state police, state spnsored paramilitaries, and Mex military continue to torture, murder, disappear, and unjustly imprison civil protestors. The attack came in 4 waves of police, and a "baiting" and mass media manufacturing of consent, sometimes referred to as "deconstruction" was clearly put into effect. To say that the people involved knew what they were getting into, is ridiculous. If the 350 protestors knew that there would be 3500 police, torturing, killing, and imprisoning at will, I'm sure a different tactic would have been taken. The Atenco state repression was clearly timed as an attack against the "Other" campaign. The repression was by no means a spontaneous escalation of tragic events. To date, there has been a complete impunity against all the politicians, police, military, state sponsored and controlled mass media, the warden of Penal de Santiaguito, and the state judges who clearly are breaking the Mexican constitutional law, and International agreements and conventions. It's much worse than has been reported, and 32 people continue to be wrongfully imprisoned; some without criminal charges, 7 months after the fact. 9171-3560 Mexico City, una.uno.y.otr at gmail dot com 220.127.116.11 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)kevin18.104.22.168 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're right. You can fix it if you want. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 23:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The statement that five foreigners involved in the protest were illegally expelled from the country may be factually incorrect. I believe that the Mexican constitution states that individuals who do not hold Mexican citizenship are not legally allowed to take part in public protests and movements within the country. If this is the case, the foreigners' expulsion from Mexico may not have been illegal under Mexican law. I don't, however, have an exact source to recommend, other than looking at the Mexican constitution itself, and how it has been applied in terms of this law. 22.214.171.124 00:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Rebecca
- Hi Rebecca, thanks for pointing that out, it's a tough one. I don't really know what to do about it other than to alter the wording to avoid the problem. How about taking out "illegally"? At least till we can find a source that says that it was or wasn't. By the way, I took the liberty of altering your email address to make it harder for bots that crawl the internet looking for email addresses to find and send you mountains of spam. delldot talk 03:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- The CONSTITUCION POLITICA DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS Says
ARTICULO 33. SON EXTRANJEROS LOS QUE NO POSEAN LAS CALIDADES DETERMINADAS EN EL ARTICULO 30. TIENEN DERECHO A LAS GARANTIAS QUE OTORGA EL CAPITULO I, TITULO PRIMERO, DE LA PRESENTE CONSTITUCION; PERO EL EJECUTIVO DE LA UNION TENDRA LA FACULTAD EXCLUSIVA DE HACER ABANDONAR EL TERRITORIO NACIONAL, INMEDIATAMENTE Y SIN NECESIDAD DE JUICIO PREVIO, A TODO EXTRANJERO CUYA PERMANENCIA JUZGUE INCONVENIENTE.
LOS EXTRANJEROS NO PODRAN DE NINGUNA MANERA INMISCUIRSE EN LOS ASUNTOS POLITICOS DEL PAIS. Source: http://info4.juridicas.unam.mx/ijure/fed/9/34.htm?s=
This means: Foreigners are those not complying with characteristics determined in Article 30. They have the rights given by Article 1, first paragraph, of this constitution; but the Executive Power of the Union has the exclusive power of expelling from mational territory, inmediately and without trial, every foreigner whose sojourn it deems as inconvenient. Foreigners may not, in any way, get involved in political matters pertaining this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acoronab (talk • contribs) 21:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Atenco protests 2006.JPG
Image:Atenco protests 2006.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)