This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ejones24 ( article contribs).
Ever since the SNTE backed off and the APPO entered, and was later revealed that the APPO leadership was linked to the PRD, I think that the 2006 Oaxaca Protests have less to do with "organized labour" than with political interests and traditional pressure mechanism that political groups that used to be part of the government and now are in opposition use to stop the initiatives of those who replaced them. There is a great deal of evidence to this, and the proper context should be noted in this article and not mislead the reader into thinking that this is a normal labour conflict. Hari Seldon 06:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The above comment is fairly old, and was made relatively shortly after the events. If someone feels house keeping is in order I'm all for removing both of our comments, but: This is entirely a labour issue. It became the self-organization of labour, and because of that it may not fit the pre-conceived idea that unions are the only form of organized labour.-- Taboo Tongue ( talk) 09:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I think these sources are not fully neutral, given that the shot reporter used to work for Indymedia. Could there be a way of balancing the article towards the POV of an informed outsider? I live in Mexico but would rather not analyze since my oppinion is pretty biased :P makeyourself 10:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that most of the sources you listed actually can be used, and probably ought to. In fact, an amalgation of all of them would bring one closer to NPOV than just using El Universal (mainstream papers always have their own agendas, just like any paper). Keep in mind, not everyone speaks spanish (i read some, but French, German, and English are the only ones i'm truly fluent in), so we either have to go on bad translations or English sources. And i don't actually see anything wrong with using Indymedia as "first-hand accounts," as long as there are other first-hand accounts to show the other views. Of course, it's hard to verify veracity on Indymedia, but it's equally hard to verify that any particular american or mexican newspaper isn't trying to spin things to support their own agenda, either. -- Chalyres 08:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyone have any idea why Scotiabank was targeted in the bombings? Already posted this same event in Scotiabank entry (see Recent Events). While i've got a few ideas why they would have been targeted, I can't find the official statement from the five groups as to why they chose Scotiabank. See my comments on the Scotiabank entry for more. If anyone can point me to the text of the statement or even mexican news speculation, that'd help complete both pages. Canadian newspapers seem pretty baffled by the whole thing, and here is not to go into my own opinions of "corporate innocence" tendencies in major canadian dailies, but i think some sort of clarification would be really, really useful. -- Chalyres 07:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I've undertaken a few clean-up edits and figured i ought to explain them here since there seems to be quite a bit of conflict already going on.
First off, i added more about the bombings on Nov 6th, including clarifying that the five groups who took responsibility did so jointly.
Also, i removed the "before brad will, media coverage was minimal." while brad's death did increase awareness (and became an unfortunate excuse for fox to send in soldiers), i see no proof that previously the coverage was "minimal." A quick search through BBC archives (where i've been following the story since the strike began) would argue otherwise.
Perhaps a little concerned that the extensive attention to Brad Will actually might overshadow the rest of the events. Certainly he's one of the reasons many people even know what has been happening there, but the extensive attention to his death really does obscure all the other deaths there.
I'm not sure what kind of official category something like that would fit in Wikijargon, but another page devoted to him exists. -- Chalyres 08:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
--i've made some similar edits as well, mostly pretty minor. I added a sentence to the bombing section about APPO's denial of involvement. The way it read seemed to imply that the guerrilla groups and appo were working together, when there is no evidence of this.
Also, I corrected an error that said the original police raid in June resulted in three days of street fighting. This may have been meant to say three hours, but I changed it to several hours because I'm not sure about the exact length or how we would want to measure it. But the fighting only lasted until late morning/early afternoon of June 14, not three days. I added a little bit of context to the sentences about burning tires and barricades to explain why barricades were set up. Again, the lack of context made it seem that they are just acting in a destructive manner with little rationale.
I am also going to add some info since there is a big hole between June activities and Brad Will's death that needs to be filled. -- Cwhalvor 02:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I added a section on July developments, including the Mexican elections and the boycott of the Guelagetza. These seem to me to big the largest issues more July, but please add more. I'll start working on a section for August to include the escalation of violence. It's a shame that there is so little written prior to the death of a gringo and that it all focuses on violence, which is only one part of what has been happening in Oaxaca, and not even the most important part. --
Cwhalvor 06:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
you'll find it here, check it out: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3688
Evidently, the teacher demonstrations where can opener, for all the problems that the state has had for the last decades are now unraveling. Ulises Ruiz has been unpopular since before his "election" and it seems to me that the teacher protests where the excuse for others to take action. Indeed, the conflict address social and political issues that have hunderds of years of history... So how come none of this context is provided in this page?
Furthermore, the article's writing style is amazingly poor. It looks more like a journal than an encyclopedic article. The article is poorly sourced, and at times it seems that the wording tries to advance an hypothesis by appearing to not doing it.... Look at this sentence:
On October 27, 2006, Bradley Roland Will, a U.S. Indymedia journalist from New York who had entered the country under a tourist visa, Professor Emilio Alonso Fabián and Esteban López Zurita, both Mexican protesters, were killed in what Associated Press has claimed was a "shootout" between protestors and a group of armed men, but which protestors claim was a shooting by a group of armed men against unarmed protestors.
So what if the guy was under a tourist visa? This is not an uncommon practice in Mexico! The associated press does not "claim", they report and that is their job. Finally, where is the source saying that protesters (not protestors) claim that it was a "shooting by a group of armed men against unarmed protesters"?, and What difference does it make? There is no context and there are no sources! This article is a shame!
Why is it not mentioned that the Federal Police was ordered to take the state capital unarmed, and that the President claims there where no casualties? And why is only the University incident mentioned, and not the Zocalo incidents or the fact that the APPO responded with explosives against the police?
The article also mentiones that "There are no known ties between guerrilla groups and Oaxacan protestors, and APPO members denied any involvement in or knowledge of the bombings.", but it doesnt mention that the guerrilla groups claimed that they committed their attacks in support of the APPO. The article doesn't mention that the Federal Prosecutor (PGR) supports the hypothesis that EPR and ERPI are behind the attacks.
Why was Acteal massacre in the "See also"? This is so unrelated that I simply had to change it! Acteal corresponds to a completely different conflict with a completely different context. I replaced it with Ulises Ruiz, who is directly inolved in the Oaxaca conflict.
There are people in Mexico who also don't like the APPO. Just today Sergio Sarmiento advanced the hypothesis, based on claims by Jose Murat, that the group started this conflict because Ulises Ruiz stopped their government funding worth $400 million pesos. I don't know how valid this claim is, but considering that Jose Murat was governor of the State before Ruiz, I think it deserves to be mentioned, to honor neutrality. Also, I find it interesting how Ruiz is rarely mentioned in the article. Please remember this is a local state conflict that has gotten out of hand and has gone national. But the protesters main demand still is and has been that Ulises Ruiz leaves its position as governor. This article seems to be focused as a "protesters versus government" situation, when in reality local government and federal government aren't even the same thing. They are not from the same party, they don't share the same values, and are not very collaborative. This week, the Secretary of the Interior (Federal) said that Ulises Ruiz had to resign, or negotiate a deal with the APPO, and that he was responsible for the conflict. The Senate and other parts of the Federal government have also expressed their desire that Ruiz resigns. It is evident that, even though the Federal Police may be in Oaxaca, their interests are not to protect Ruiz. This should also be documented.
I understand that there may be a lot of point of views to this issue. This article should address most of them, be complete and fair and as unbiased as possible. Right now it is the opposite of what a good article should be. It needs a lot of work, not only for neutrality issues, but also for style and scope issues.
It makes me sad to see that such an important issue for modern Mexican history is so poorly documented in wikipedia. Unfortunately, i don't have the time to work on this article, if not, I would. Please, editors, follow guidelines and research from all points of view. I hope someone can improve on the quality of this article.
Hari Seldon 07:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Giving a street-level blow-by-blow while ignoring the root of the conflict (and the various legal and political positions on removing Ruiz by the national parties, etc.) may or may not be biased, but it is clearly shortsighted. -- Homunq 15:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Noticed Cwhalvor reverted Hseldon's deletion of "peaceful" under the late november entry, and I support that reversion unless Hseldon can precisely explain why the sources listed do not support the assertion that the march was peaceful. There is nothing on either side that i have found that suggests otherwise, and the opposite of violent is peaceful. Unless the march was violent before it arrived, it can truly be called "peaceful" up to that point regardless of assumed or purported intentions.
I'm posting this not necessarily in support of one person's editorial views versus another's, but i'm afraid that deleting a statement with just a comment of opinion is asking for the beginning of a revert-war, which i'd really, really rather not see on this page.
Hseldon, can you provide a source that counters the claim that it was peaceful? Can i also suggest that everybody consider fully explaining their reasons for edits on the discussion page?
-- Chalyres 05:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
When was it decided that Indymedia is not local? The way i understand it, Indymedia is merely a posting site for first-hand accounts and journalists, not a editorialising site. In fact, the only editorial decisions made are which accounts to post on the main page. You could, from where you are now, post any first-hand account onto any of the sites (the main, the seattle, the jerusalem, etc.).
I have my own personal problems with Indymedia (i worked with them for awhile in Seattle, and will NEVER do so again), but the one thing i do not criticise them for bias as far as "first-hand" and "local" reporting goes.
I do agree with you on the need for multiple points of view, and we should include as many of those as possible.
I have a suggestion that might work well for all sides. This isn't normal wikipedia format, but what if we had a point/counterpoint subheading under each date that listed facts according to their source. It would look something like this:
November 25-26
According to (indymedia):
According to (el Universal)
According to (official police account):
Etc. I know this would take A LOT more time, but this would also free everyone from feeling like each edit will need to be reverted, undoing each other's work all the time. Does this make sense?
Also, Hari, can you recommend a better Spanish-English translator than Babelfish? The words i don't understand never get translated (its dictionary is pretty limited).
--
Chalyres 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
(this i suggest just as a temporary fix only).
Hi,
I find the pics in this article awesome ; that's just infortunate they don't have yet gone to Commons, in which I started a place for it : commons:Category:Oaxaca protests, 2006.
So is my request for uploads, pals !
86.208.180.81 00:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
DIY : 17:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I was in Oaxaca on the day that the strike initially turned violent. I was there taking classes at URSE (Universidad Regional del Sureste)and I received a phone call that morning stating that we were to stay in our houses and not go to class that day or we may be injured. I have photos that I took later that day that show some of the destruction created by that first day. If anyone cares to talk to me about it, I'm here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CityCat262 ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The Mexican coverage of these events includes specifics of other blockades and protests, in the state of Oaxaca as well as in Guerrero, Michoacan etc. These were all linked, and in sympathy with APPO, while some were affiliates, such as the blockades of the refineries on the Istmo (at Tehuantepec and ??), also IIRC at Tuxtla Gutierrez in Chiapas; I think also in the state of Tabasco. Are the detentions of the APPO prisoners in distant parts of Mexico also discussed? Skookum1 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a request for those with information on the current state of affairs in Oaxaca to add what the deem appropriate. There should be some mention here that Oaxaca is currently in the most deadly period of the conflict, with murders occurring frequently around the state as APPO and PRI backers fight for control of communities, municipios, and schools. I don't have much detailed info here, but it seems pretty vital. The conflict has entered into a different stage, but it is certainly not over. -- Cwhalvor 01:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Brad Will's last footage is on Youtube. Here is the link for it. I don't know how much the other external links have, but this one's seventeen minutes worth. 72.78.29.133 ( talk) 05:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2006 Oaxaca protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2006 Oaxaca protests. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on 2006 Oaxaca protests. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?storyid=2006-10-31T035130Z_01_N30373695_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MEXICO-OAXACA.xml&type=worldNews&WTmodLoc=World-C3-More-3{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mexiconews.com.mx/22157.htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on 2006 Oaxaca protests. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ejones24 ( article contribs).
Ever since the SNTE backed off and the APPO entered, and was later revealed that the APPO leadership was linked to the PRD, I think that the 2006 Oaxaca Protests have less to do with "organized labour" than with political interests and traditional pressure mechanism that political groups that used to be part of the government and now are in opposition use to stop the initiatives of those who replaced them. There is a great deal of evidence to this, and the proper context should be noted in this article and not mislead the reader into thinking that this is a normal labour conflict. Hari Seldon 06:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The above comment is fairly old, and was made relatively shortly after the events. If someone feels house keeping is in order I'm all for removing both of our comments, but: This is entirely a labour issue. It became the self-organization of labour, and because of that it may not fit the pre-conceived idea that unions are the only form of organized labour.-- Taboo Tongue ( talk) 09:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I think these sources are not fully neutral, given that the shot reporter used to work for Indymedia. Could there be a way of balancing the article towards the POV of an informed outsider? I live in Mexico but would rather not analyze since my oppinion is pretty biased :P makeyourself 10:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that most of the sources you listed actually can be used, and probably ought to. In fact, an amalgation of all of them would bring one closer to NPOV than just using El Universal (mainstream papers always have their own agendas, just like any paper). Keep in mind, not everyone speaks spanish (i read some, but French, German, and English are the only ones i'm truly fluent in), so we either have to go on bad translations or English sources. And i don't actually see anything wrong with using Indymedia as "first-hand accounts," as long as there are other first-hand accounts to show the other views. Of course, it's hard to verify veracity on Indymedia, but it's equally hard to verify that any particular american or mexican newspaper isn't trying to spin things to support their own agenda, either. -- Chalyres 08:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyone have any idea why Scotiabank was targeted in the bombings? Already posted this same event in Scotiabank entry (see Recent Events). While i've got a few ideas why they would have been targeted, I can't find the official statement from the five groups as to why they chose Scotiabank. See my comments on the Scotiabank entry for more. If anyone can point me to the text of the statement or even mexican news speculation, that'd help complete both pages. Canadian newspapers seem pretty baffled by the whole thing, and here is not to go into my own opinions of "corporate innocence" tendencies in major canadian dailies, but i think some sort of clarification would be really, really useful. -- Chalyres 07:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I've undertaken a few clean-up edits and figured i ought to explain them here since there seems to be quite a bit of conflict already going on.
First off, i added more about the bombings on Nov 6th, including clarifying that the five groups who took responsibility did so jointly.
Also, i removed the "before brad will, media coverage was minimal." while brad's death did increase awareness (and became an unfortunate excuse for fox to send in soldiers), i see no proof that previously the coverage was "minimal." A quick search through BBC archives (where i've been following the story since the strike began) would argue otherwise.
Perhaps a little concerned that the extensive attention to Brad Will actually might overshadow the rest of the events. Certainly he's one of the reasons many people even know what has been happening there, but the extensive attention to his death really does obscure all the other deaths there.
I'm not sure what kind of official category something like that would fit in Wikijargon, but another page devoted to him exists. -- Chalyres 08:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
--i've made some similar edits as well, mostly pretty minor. I added a sentence to the bombing section about APPO's denial of involvement. The way it read seemed to imply that the guerrilla groups and appo were working together, when there is no evidence of this.
Also, I corrected an error that said the original police raid in June resulted in three days of street fighting. This may have been meant to say three hours, but I changed it to several hours because I'm not sure about the exact length or how we would want to measure it. But the fighting only lasted until late morning/early afternoon of June 14, not three days. I added a little bit of context to the sentences about burning tires and barricades to explain why barricades were set up. Again, the lack of context made it seem that they are just acting in a destructive manner with little rationale.
I am also going to add some info since there is a big hole between June activities and Brad Will's death that needs to be filled. -- Cwhalvor 02:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I added a section on July developments, including the Mexican elections and the boycott of the Guelagetza. These seem to me to big the largest issues more July, but please add more. I'll start working on a section for August to include the escalation of violence. It's a shame that there is so little written prior to the death of a gringo and that it all focuses on violence, which is only one part of what has been happening in Oaxaca, and not even the most important part. --
Cwhalvor 06:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
you'll find it here, check it out: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3688
Evidently, the teacher demonstrations where can opener, for all the problems that the state has had for the last decades are now unraveling. Ulises Ruiz has been unpopular since before his "election" and it seems to me that the teacher protests where the excuse for others to take action. Indeed, the conflict address social and political issues that have hunderds of years of history... So how come none of this context is provided in this page?
Furthermore, the article's writing style is amazingly poor. It looks more like a journal than an encyclopedic article. The article is poorly sourced, and at times it seems that the wording tries to advance an hypothesis by appearing to not doing it.... Look at this sentence:
On October 27, 2006, Bradley Roland Will, a U.S. Indymedia journalist from New York who had entered the country under a tourist visa, Professor Emilio Alonso Fabián and Esteban López Zurita, both Mexican protesters, were killed in what Associated Press has claimed was a "shootout" between protestors and a group of armed men, but which protestors claim was a shooting by a group of armed men against unarmed protestors.
So what if the guy was under a tourist visa? This is not an uncommon practice in Mexico! The associated press does not "claim", they report and that is their job. Finally, where is the source saying that protesters (not protestors) claim that it was a "shooting by a group of armed men against unarmed protesters"?, and What difference does it make? There is no context and there are no sources! This article is a shame!
Why is it not mentioned that the Federal Police was ordered to take the state capital unarmed, and that the President claims there where no casualties? And why is only the University incident mentioned, and not the Zocalo incidents or the fact that the APPO responded with explosives against the police?
The article also mentiones that "There are no known ties between guerrilla groups and Oaxacan protestors, and APPO members denied any involvement in or knowledge of the bombings.", but it doesnt mention that the guerrilla groups claimed that they committed their attacks in support of the APPO. The article doesn't mention that the Federal Prosecutor (PGR) supports the hypothesis that EPR and ERPI are behind the attacks.
Why was Acteal massacre in the "See also"? This is so unrelated that I simply had to change it! Acteal corresponds to a completely different conflict with a completely different context. I replaced it with Ulises Ruiz, who is directly inolved in the Oaxaca conflict.
There are people in Mexico who also don't like the APPO. Just today Sergio Sarmiento advanced the hypothesis, based on claims by Jose Murat, that the group started this conflict because Ulises Ruiz stopped their government funding worth $400 million pesos. I don't know how valid this claim is, but considering that Jose Murat was governor of the State before Ruiz, I think it deserves to be mentioned, to honor neutrality. Also, I find it interesting how Ruiz is rarely mentioned in the article. Please remember this is a local state conflict that has gotten out of hand and has gone national. But the protesters main demand still is and has been that Ulises Ruiz leaves its position as governor. This article seems to be focused as a "protesters versus government" situation, when in reality local government and federal government aren't even the same thing. They are not from the same party, they don't share the same values, and are not very collaborative. This week, the Secretary of the Interior (Federal) said that Ulises Ruiz had to resign, or negotiate a deal with the APPO, and that he was responsible for the conflict. The Senate and other parts of the Federal government have also expressed their desire that Ruiz resigns. It is evident that, even though the Federal Police may be in Oaxaca, their interests are not to protect Ruiz. This should also be documented.
I understand that there may be a lot of point of views to this issue. This article should address most of them, be complete and fair and as unbiased as possible. Right now it is the opposite of what a good article should be. It needs a lot of work, not only for neutrality issues, but also for style and scope issues.
It makes me sad to see that such an important issue for modern Mexican history is so poorly documented in wikipedia. Unfortunately, i don't have the time to work on this article, if not, I would. Please, editors, follow guidelines and research from all points of view. I hope someone can improve on the quality of this article.
Hari Seldon 07:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Giving a street-level blow-by-blow while ignoring the root of the conflict (and the various legal and political positions on removing Ruiz by the national parties, etc.) may or may not be biased, but it is clearly shortsighted. -- Homunq 15:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Noticed Cwhalvor reverted Hseldon's deletion of "peaceful" under the late november entry, and I support that reversion unless Hseldon can precisely explain why the sources listed do not support the assertion that the march was peaceful. There is nothing on either side that i have found that suggests otherwise, and the opposite of violent is peaceful. Unless the march was violent before it arrived, it can truly be called "peaceful" up to that point regardless of assumed or purported intentions.
I'm posting this not necessarily in support of one person's editorial views versus another's, but i'm afraid that deleting a statement with just a comment of opinion is asking for the beginning of a revert-war, which i'd really, really rather not see on this page.
Hseldon, can you provide a source that counters the claim that it was peaceful? Can i also suggest that everybody consider fully explaining their reasons for edits on the discussion page?
-- Chalyres 05:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
When was it decided that Indymedia is not local? The way i understand it, Indymedia is merely a posting site for first-hand accounts and journalists, not a editorialising site. In fact, the only editorial decisions made are which accounts to post on the main page. You could, from where you are now, post any first-hand account onto any of the sites (the main, the seattle, the jerusalem, etc.).
I have my own personal problems with Indymedia (i worked with them for awhile in Seattle, and will NEVER do so again), but the one thing i do not criticise them for bias as far as "first-hand" and "local" reporting goes.
I do agree with you on the need for multiple points of view, and we should include as many of those as possible.
I have a suggestion that might work well for all sides. This isn't normal wikipedia format, but what if we had a point/counterpoint subheading under each date that listed facts according to their source. It would look something like this:
November 25-26
According to (indymedia):
According to (el Universal)
According to (official police account):
Etc. I know this would take A LOT more time, but this would also free everyone from feeling like each edit will need to be reverted, undoing each other's work all the time. Does this make sense?
Also, Hari, can you recommend a better Spanish-English translator than Babelfish? The words i don't understand never get translated (its dictionary is pretty limited).
--
Chalyres 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
(this i suggest just as a temporary fix only).
Hi,
I find the pics in this article awesome ; that's just infortunate they don't have yet gone to Commons, in which I started a place for it : commons:Category:Oaxaca protests, 2006.
So is my request for uploads, pals !
86.208.180.81 00:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
DIY : 17:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I was in Oaxaca on the day that the strike initially turned violent. I was there taking classes at URSE (Universidad Regional del Sureste)and I received a phone call that morning stating that we were to stay in our houses and not go to class that day or we may be injured. I have photos that I took later that day that show some of the destruction created by that first day. If anyone cares to talk to me about it, I'm here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CityCat262 ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The Mexican coverage of these events includes specifics of other blockades and protests, in the state of Oaxaca as well as in Guerrero, Michoacan etc. These were all linked, and in sympathy with APPO, while some were affiliates, such as the blockades of the refineries on the Istmo (at Tehuantepec and ??), also IIRC at Tuxtla Gutierrez in Chiapas; I think also in the state of Tabasco. Are the detentions of the APPO prisoners in distant parts of Mexico also discussed? Skookum1 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a request for those with information on the current state of affairs in Oaxaca to add what the deem appropriate. There should be some mention here that Oaxaca is currently in the most deadly period of the conflict, with murders occurring frequently around the state as APPO and PRI backers fight for control of communities, municipios, and schools. I don't have much detailed info here, but it seems pretty vital. The conflict has entered into a different stage, but it is certainly not over. -- Cwhalvor 01:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Brad Will's last footage is on Youtube. Here is the link for it. I don't know how much the other external links have, but this one's seventeen minutes worth. 72.78.29.133 ( talk) 05:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
2006 Oaxaca protests. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2006 Oaxaca protests. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on 2006 Oaxaca protests. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?storyid=2006-10-31T035130Z_01_N30373695_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MEXICO-OAXACA.xml&type=worldNews&WTmodLoc=World-C3-More-3{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mexiconews.com.mx/22157.htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on 2006 Oaxaca protests. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)