Talk:Foxilandia

This article is not neutral, is made by people how hate former presidente Fox, "widely used"??? I never heard anyone using this word , and I'm from Mexico!!!

I'm not agree that this article should exist in the first place!, but I know that there's nothing that I can do about it! So I'm going to modify it!--Pacoworld 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is widely used in major publications, including Reforma, El Universal, and other non-partisan news organizations, not to menction the left-wing but widely read La Jornada.

Criticism is not wrong, and it certainly is of intersting historical significance how the opposition where allowed to make such wild comments on the President when, 5 years earlier, these type of comments would not even be allowed. Indeed, one can learn a lot about a man by his critics. I don't see anything wrong with this article.

And considering it is a stub, I don't see how it can be "not neutral". You apparently fixed all weasel words. I've added some context too. Lets see how it evolves. Hari Seldon 01:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"widely" ???? mmmm maybe by La Jornada but nor for other newspapers. Yes there's a lot of people use this word but are you going to tell me that all this people are "neutral"? we all know that if someone use this word is because it's against Vicente Fox, and probably it's a member of the mexican left wing --Pacoworld 03:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was only used by "La Jornada", it is one of the most widely read newspapers in the nation, so it still qualifies as "widely". However, I've seen the phrase used in other media, primarily left-wing, but also in independent media like Reforma and El Universal. This qualifies as "widely" even more so. Hari Seldon 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok let's see , first you want a source that this term is used by "criticism to former President Vicente Fox" but in the next paragraph you can see this: "It was first used during the appearance of President Fox before the Congress of Mexico in September 2004, in arguments by the opposition" so the same article make a reference and describe who created and use this word in the first place.

Then you ask for a source for "in material supporting losing candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador" but 3 paragraps later there's the information that Mandoki used this word in his documentary, there's even a complete episode of Foxilandia in this documentary and let's not forget that this documentary was distributed for free on DVD'S all across Mexico as a political propaganda on the mexican political campaign on the elections last year. That's your source.

I really would like to see a real source on the "is a critical term used" because just because you put a word on Google and you make a link to the result, that's not a real source!!

I'm not proposing to delete this article, this term is real, but this article should make very clear who, and why this word is used for.--Pacoworld 06:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the guidelines on sources to understand what "reliable source" means in this wikipedia. The article makes it very clear. It was created by the opposition, it was used by filmakers who, as you say, are supporters of Lopez Obrador, and it is used as criticism. Indeed, the article is tensely balanced. I am sorry this article is not propaganda in favor or against your political ideals, but wikipedia is not a soapbox. Add sources, and discuss your changes if they are so controversial. I am trying to assume good faith on your edits, but if you continue destroying acceptable content (per guidelines) and replacing it with unnaceptable content (i.e., full of weasel words, not neutral but in favor or against a particular point of view -yours-), then I will have to warn you. Hari Seldon 06:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read the the guidelines on sources a lot of times I know what's this about, but I recomend you to read it again, and try to include real sources, not a search on google as a sorce because we all know that is not!!! This article is not balanced in any way! --Pacoworld 16:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not include the "google search" as a source. I dont recommend it. Video is also not a very good source.

Please, re-read the guidelines on verifiability again to understand that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". Neutrality HAS TO BE accompanied by verifiability. Percieved "neutrality" without verifiability is not neutral at all. Hari Seldon 16:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think it's a real source why do you put it again?? The video is a source that was already here in this article, why don't you think it's a good source?? I'm totally agree with you "Neutrality HAS TO BE accompanied by verifiability" and there's no way to prove that a "google search it's a good source"

I have a lot of free time we can continue with this as long as you want, but this article should explain the truth abut this term. With REAL SOURCES!!! Not a google search. --Pacoworld 18:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced and bias

FateClub removed the following because it was "unsourced and bias":

This term is used by people who are against former President Vicente Fox and it's very common between people who support former candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and the mexican left wing in general.

Ok, it may be unsourced, but that doesn't make it untrue or bias. In fact, I haven't found any reference of "Foxilandia" in any document supporting President Fox, or who don't support Lopez Obrador, or the mexican right wing in general. I think that the statement adds context, because "Foxilandia" is not a real place, it is a critical construct created to attack and criticize President Fox. Whether or not the criticism has substance is another matter all together (of course, the left would argue that the criticism has substance and the right would argue that it does not). But, substance or not, "Foxilandia" is still criticism of Fox, and that is worth noting. Hari Seldon 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Foxilandia" is still criticism of Fox, and that is worth noting", read the FIRST paragraph of the article "Foxilandia is a critical term used in the Mexican political culture".
• Per WP:NOR all submissions must be be sourced.
• Per WP:ATT the sources must be removed if proved controversial about living people, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources one source is not enough to demonstrate the submission is widely understood as such. Otherwise we are implying that Carlos Mendoza Aupetit, Luis Mandoki and Luis Estrada (amongst others) "are against former President Vicente Fox" which borders on libelous.
• "it may be unsourced, but that doesn't make it untrue ". Per WP:ATT "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true". --FateClub 23:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about living people. It is about the term "Foxilandia".

The sentence hardly qualifies as original research, because it is not an "unpublished fact, argument, concept, statement, or theory". True, sources help identify original research, but the lack of sources is not an automatic cause for deletion, unless the statement is obviously NPOV, obviously controversial, or otherwise to obscure to accept without sources. Neither of the above match to the sentence in controversy. Though if you want a source, I'll find it for you. Lets add "{{fact}}" to the sentence for the time being.

The sentence says that "it is very common", but it doesn't say that it is exclusive. Luis Mandoki and Luis Estrada can use the term without necessarily being against President Fox. Additionally, you have to admit that it is very likely that both Mandoki and Estrada disagree profoundly with President Fox's ideology and actions.

And yes, "true" and "untrue" are not criteria for inclusion, but lack of sources is not a criteria for exclusion either. Sources help and greatly add, but are not a requisite.

Hari Seldon 23:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)