Talk:Alberto Fujimori/Archive 2

Is Viajero the "owner" of this article?

User:Viajero is reverting my edits WITHOUT EXPLANATION. I would like a clear answer from him of why is he reverting my edits.--AAAAA 12:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting you because you are not participating in the ongoing discussion on this Talk page, and I indicated this to you in the edit summaries when I reverted you. If you have issues with the text, list them here first please, so we can discuss them. Thank you. -- Viajero 13:08, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First of all, what I edited has NOTHING TO DO with the discussions you are having here. I just rearranged 2 paragraphs (and put one after the other, and removed information regarding Montesinos that seems to me repetitive and is already shwon in the Montesinos article.--AAAAA 12:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but that material is relevant. Mentioning why people think the Fujimori regime was corrupt is certainly essential. Yes, of course it duplicates what is in the other article, but we are talking about two sentences. Removing them implies that that Fujimori is not reponsible for Montesinos's acitivites. We don't want to give that impression, do we? -- Viajero 13:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is obviously known Montesinos's activities were out from the law, but it is well known he did all of that including drug trafficking and murder out from Fujimori, it is very controversial to associate both, they were very different, and the article main issue is about Fujimori, not Montesinos.

Peruvian view is certainly very important on this article as it has an accurate point of view, less thenstrangers or foreigners who have not lived during the 90's on Peru or even lived on Peru enough (next to our people ) to see how facts were developed during those years.HappyApple 14:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are right, I did not live in Peru during the 1990s. But I have one question: how old were you in 1990? -- Viajero 14:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

However you dont have authority to ask me my age, i got enough age to know peruvian politics as same domestic and overall related peruvian matters were in dissaray, i knew the turnoil about Garcia years left a country entirely devastated even worse then after the War of the Pacific (1879-1884) and knew during the Fujimori era the country began to grow, and knew events such as self coup , fujishock , rescue of the hostages in japanese embassy, and even controversial but legal reelection of 2000 were matters i knew very well. Enough age to know those facts afected my country and let it grew, as we solved conflics with Equator in 1998, and we come back to foreign politics and foreign market.HappyApple 17:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I presume that by "Equator" you mean "Ecuador"? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:13, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yes i meant Ecuador, and as same i wish to clarify the main issue is not the age, is the fact, that as a native born peruvian i have more rights then User:Viajero to have a point of view more accurate then him, and my arguments are based in my possition which i have already stated in the previous paragraph.HappyApple 17:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What a ridiculous statement. By your logic, U.S. citizens would have "rights" to "have a point of view more accurate" than non-Americans. Facts are facts, regardless of whether the person saying them is a citizen of country A or a resident of country B. --Ryanaxp 18:44, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

And your responce is as ridiculous as HappyApple opinion. I have already stated that Peruvians we have also a strong voice on Peruvian Related topics. The fact is that User:Viajero, in many times have deleted some contributions regardless if they are right or wrong, without explaining them. That was not right. Also, that responce came because of this statement:

If you are unable to accept native speakers of English correcting your texts, then you won't last very long here.'

As you can see, If Peruvians don't have the last word on Peruvian related articles (wich does not mean that they have) then the last Quote is also wrong. The fact that we are not from a native-speacking English country does not make our contributions less valuable. If you have any interesting contribution, please fell free to stated it, but not to continuate a non-sence discussion. Messhermit 04:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Non sequitur. On its face, the statement that "If you are unable to accept native speakers of English correcting your texts, then you won't last very long here." relates to correction of English grammar or usage; it has nothing to do with substantive edits (that is, edits having to do with fact rather than form). That said, I have no idea about User:Viajero, or whether he made that statement sincerely or as a smokescreen; I am simply addressing the validity of the statement itself. Your contributions are wholeheartedly welcome, regardless of flaws in your English; however, you should not be offended if your contributions are corrected for grammar, style or usage. Factual content is another issue entirely, of course.--Ryanaxp 18:57, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attacks against other Wikipedist

• User:Viajero, please stop atacking and disregarding AAAA and HappyApple contributions to the page. They have interesting things that can expand the page. Tha fact that they opinions does not coincide with you it doesn't mean that they are wrong.

• Also, AAAAA has already stated why he is trting to arrange the topic, and I considerated fair and NPOV, since Vladimiro Montesinos has its own article. If you want to say something related to him, feel free to used it.

• Regarding HappyApple Request for his age, you have no authority to request it. Also, please stop black mailing him. That is pathetic and I don't think that you are actually contributing to the Fujimori Page at all: Please, explain me this:

If you are unable to accept native speakers of English correcting your texts, then you won't last very long here.'

• How can somebody react to that statement? it is a treath? Discrimination for the fact that he is not english? Intolerance to discuss the issue with him?

• If that is the case then yes, you might be right. He cant change the fact that you born in a english speaking contry. But then you have no authority to discuss with him topics related to Peruvian History, since like AAAAA and me, we are living it. No matter how much do you investigate, you will never have the knownledge like we do.

• As I said, please respect everybodies opinion. If a change is made, disscus it first and edit latter. Messhermit 16:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This claim that only Peruvians can write on Peru is absolutely, without question, not a statement of Wikipedia policy. In fact, it is directly counter to Wikipedia policy. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:24, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• I said that we have a much more strong voice for the Peruvian article, becouse we are living our history. And the fact that English users have the last word on Wikipedia on English also Counter Wikipedia policy. I doubt that any English Wikipedist agre with that statement. Messhermit 17:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• My two cents:

- I find the statement that the analysis and logic of non-Peruvian citizens is a priori less valid than the analysis and logic of Peruvian citizens to be ridiculous and racist. If you have an issue with statements presented by a wikipedia contributor, please dispute them with facts - to allude to the writer's nationality, rightly or wrongly, is a low blow. - Given that I am a native-born Peruvian citizen who lived in Peru through the Garcia period and through Fujimori's self-coup, the view that Peruvians have a secret, mystic link to the truth hereby collapses in a heap of self-contradiction.

It is a pity that claims such as those alluded to by Jmabel have, in practice, some weight in Wikipedia, both in this page and elsewhere. Hasdrubal 20:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Unfortunately User:Hasdrubal, yout POV could have been usefull a couple of weeks ago. However, I have explain my position regarding the Peruvian People. The fact that we known our history make us a valuable tool for Wikipedia, and also that doesn't mean that we are "segregating" or in some way "excluding" other Wikipedist. I have my differences with User:Viajero, and I have said in many times that his information are not from credibles sources (or at least Highly Biased)... But in any moment have I (and many others that dissagree with him) at any time preventing him from presenting his ideas. The fact that this debate is taking forever is that we have our differences. Please. If you are going to make a contribution, refer to the topic on question, and not to express opinions that does not contribute to the article itself and only creation more controversy. I have already stated that If I have offend someone/somebody with some arguments, I appologise.

• First of all - not all Peruvian citizens know Peruvian history, and not all non-Peruvian citizens are ignorant of it. Whether or not a certain statement is factually correct is independent of the nationality of the person who states it. Second of all - why, yes, if a statement is written in ungrammatical English, it should be corrected. Of course, many native speakers of English cannot write standard English, and some non-native speakers can write it very well, thank you very much. So, as far as the "If you are unable..." statement is concerned: if it were changed to "If you are unable to accept other people to correct the grammar and style of your prose, then you will not last very long here", I would have no objections to it. As it is, it should be amended.

It would be best to make no further allusions to our nationalities and native languages, and to focus on writing factually correct statements in standard (North-American?) English. Hasdrubal 18:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It is not right to speack without knonwing what is going on. Also, please screch the word "Racist" and "Ridiculous". I considerated them offensive and innapropiated, since if that is the case, Ovbiously your not looking at the other side of the picture:

If you are unable to accept native speakers of English correcting your texts, then you won't last very long here.'

• What is your opinion about this then? isn't this a (wrongfully) way to said "English speakers have more right to edit on Wikipedia that non-english speakers?. Please, once again, read before making an opinion. Messhermit 04:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• No, that's not what the statement said. Why have you put it into emotional terms of rights? The claim was that non-native English speakers should accept corrections to their English by native speakers. I don't see the problem with that. I've never objected to native French, or German, or Greek speakers correcting my French, German, or Greek; that would be absurd.
• Besides, Messhermit, I thought that you'd retracted and apologised for the sorts of remarks that are being criticised here (including those by HappyApple; why are you now objecting to the criticism? Are you returning to your claim that Peruvians have more right to speak on Peru than no-Peruvians, or that they're more likely to be right? And are you arguing that native English speakers know no more about correct English than you do? Or are you in fact just becoming overheated, and lashing out without thinking? Please calm down; remember that there's an RfC about you still live, and that someone like me retracted his vote because you seemed to be tutrning over a new leaf; don't turn over an old one... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• That was not the meaning of my objection. Maybe I didn't explain myself too well.

• It is true that there is a size of peruvian population that doesn't known our own history, I will not argue about that. I also stated that HappyApple was not right in stating that "peruvians articles are for Peruvians only", I already separate myself about that controversy, apologising for any offesinve remark that I have said. I'm only saying that peruvians that do known their history must have a voice too, and this voice can be discussed on this talk page or any peruvian related topic or any other topics that can be expanded with their knownledge. I already stated also that non-peruvians are important to express an opinion wich can be disscuss on any talk page. At any moment I have said that I come back to support any discriminatory remarks. I already said that contributions of any persons is welcome. What I don't agree is that other users pretend to use those words (that I already not support) as an attack. I considered this as innapropiate, since they barely known all what has happened on this topic. Worst thing that this already dumb quotes have happened I believe. Messhermit 20:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• In a few lines: Peruvians that do known their history should be heard on peruvian related topics, at least. They are not always right and ovbiously they are not always wrong. Any person, reglardless of their national identity can disscuss this issues too. There is no discrimatory acts by myself, and If I have ever stated one, I appoplogize. Messhermit 21:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Also, I have never objected (as you Mel Etitis must known) to any grammatic correction that you have made to the page, since I'm not in a position to argue about a language that I'm still learning. What I strongly dissagree was the fact that the words that Viajero used to counterbalance something that I have said, were not the apropiate ones. I have never tryed to correct anything related to english language: in fact, I believe it is important to check if the article is in good shape. Viajero (at least for me) used a quote that appears to be discriminatory against me, relaying on his position of being a native-speacking person of an English Language to win a controversy over a topic, not the language itself. English was not the problem, the problem was some sort of topic. I don't forget about the RfC. And also, I have never led down to anybody, and I will not start today. Messhermit 20:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Overhaul of English, & some questions

I've just gone through the article, correcting grammar, punctuation, spellings, style, etc. Two issues are more than merely a matter of house-keeping:

1. There were two translations of autogolpe: 'self-coup' and 'auto-coup'. Although the former appeared more often adn was more prominent, it's slightly less in keeping with normal English formations (autohypnosis, autosuggestion, sutodidact, etc.), and the latter seemed to me to be anyway more attractive.
2. Some of the article is in U.S. English, some in U.K. English (usually in chunks, alternating irregularly through the text). I assume that U.S. English is the one that is preferred under Wikipedia style guidelines, but I'm not competent to make those changes (beyond the obvious single letters and 'z's instead of 's' in gerunds, etc.). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I believe that the most appropiate will be "self-Coup". Thanks for the job. Messhermit 17:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why do you prefer 'self-coup'? It sounds very odd in English (well, so does 'auto-coup', to be honest, but I think that it sounds slightly less clumsy). I'd not want to push my view very hard (as I don't think that there's a huge difference), but I'd be interested in any reasons for different opinions. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Well. I believe that Self-Coup was better due to the fact that Fujimori executed the coup to his own government. I really son't see the point on Auto-Coup. I may be wrong, but I'm open to opinions. Messhermit 18:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

'Auto' as a prefix means 'self' in English as in other languages, like Spanish (see my examples above). It's not a difference in meaning, but in feel to a native speaker. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to say this exactly once: Messhermit, you claim that non-Peruvians cannot possibly know enough about Peru to write about it, but you presume to tell native English speakers what sounds more natural in English? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:51, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Best comment I've seen on a talk page in some time Descendall

Please retract that argument Jmabel. I'm only saying what I known based on my knownledge in english. I have never forced any user to accept my Opinions in an english-based topic that is dealing with grammatics. In any moment I have said to User: Mel Etitis "leave it like that becouse I known that and you not", like some other users. You are attacking me and that is not right. It is fool and also discriminatory. Messhermit 04:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Photos about the "terrorist/guerrilla fighters"

I agree with most of the modifications that "Viajero" have made becouse they were discussed, but I must remind that the issue about the picture were not solved. Also, I separate the implications of the Self-Coup and added a sub-topic: International Reaction.

I will not modify the "legacy" part, but I considerated that they are not accurate and should be avoid until more debate can be arrange. also, According to the "Cantuta and Barrios Altos" masacres, most of his accusations are about his political responsability, not his direct involvement.

I objected to the fact that another user (with an IP and not a user name) modify the page. I didn't realise the modification but ussualy those users vadalize the page. If it was for correcting a gramatic error, fine with me. Messhermit 17:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that such anonymous users are more than welcome to contribute. People are encouraged to get a User name, but it's not at all compulsory. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have not said that I not allow those correction. If you look carefully, a couple of days ago there was an attemp to erase the content of this article by several IP users. I only assumed that it was another attemp and reverted. I didn't realise that it wasn't the case. Messhermit 23:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

also, According to the "Cantuta and Barrios Altos" masacres, most of his accusations are about his political responsability, not his direct involvement.

Sorry, you a wrong. No one accuses him of pulling the trigger, rather he is accused of being autor intelectual, which nonetheless makes him equally as guilty as those that did. See:

Sobre Fujimori pesa una petición de extradición dictada por la Corte Suprema de Justicia de Perú, pero el expediente aún no ha sido entregado a las autoridades de Japón porque no se ha culminado su traducción. Fujimori está acusado de ser autor intelectual de los asesinatos de 25 personas en una matanza en la zona de Barrios Altos en 1991 y otra en la universidad La Cantuta en 1992, perpetradas por el pa:ramilitar grupo Colina. [1]

and

Cardenal Cipriani atestigua hoy por caso La Cantuta.- El cardenal Juan Luis Cipriani rendirá hoy su declaración testimonial en el proceso penal que se le sigue al ex presidente Alberto Fujimori, acusado de ser el autor intelectual de los crímenes de La Cantuta y Barrios Altos. [2]

and

La Cantuta y Barrios Altos: La Fiscalía Suprema pidió para Fujimori una pena de 30 años de cárcel y el pago de S./100 millones de reparación civil por los asesinatos de La Cantuta y Barrios Altos. La Fiscal lo responsabiliza de haber impartido órdenes para cometer esos asesinatos y lo considera como autor intelectual de ambos crímenes. Asimismo establece en su documento acusatorio que Fujimori llevó adelante una seria de acciones para conseguir la impunidad de los autores materiales de las matanzas. La primera conclusión de la denuncia fiscal es que “Fujimori fue el real cabecilla del grupo Colina”, considera La República [3]

-- Viajero 20:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• You have yourself respon, Viajero. The fact that he is not the one who pulled the trigger cant make him "a murder" but only "political responsable". Please, read carefully your own arguments. Also, I already Stated that the web page www.aprodeh.org is a POV. You are also once again using your own POV to judge people.

• Also, once Again I repeat that you are no judge or jury to decidy who is and who is not guilty. Please stop qualifying people and No, I'm not wrong I'm most of the cases. You are just poorly informed. Messhermit 23:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The issue is autoría intelectual. From the Peruvian Código Penal ([4]): "Artículo 23.- Autoría, autoría mediata y coautoría. El que realiza por sí o por medio de otro el hecho punible y los que lo cometan conjuntamente serán reprimidos con la pena establecida para esta infracción." So if, as the fiscalía claims above, he gave the order ("por medio de otro") for the massacre, he is the autor intelectual and the same punishment applies as to the actual trigger-pulling perpetrators. Judge and jury? No, that's for the Peruvian courts to decide once the accusation has been made and the trial has begun. –Hajor 23:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WHat you said is true. Peruvian courts will decide if Fujimori have or have not part of the guilty on those accusations. I think that your last paragraph will be something interesting that Viajero should realise. Also, If you read carefully on those paragraphhs you will find information like this:

• Artículo III.- Prohibición de la Analogía
  No es permitida la analogía para calificar el hecho como delito o falta, definir un estado de peligrosidad o determinar la pena o medida de seguridad que les corresponde.

Until the case against him is over and the until the Judge reachs a veredict, I believe it is innapropiate to name him "a murder" or accusing him of "muder". I think that a more NPOV is that "He is facing charges that involve his political responsability on the Barrios Altos and Cantuta Massacres".

Also, I must remind Viajero that we have not reach any compromise about the Picture of Fujimori and about Viajero's opinions regarding those? I'm deleting them becouse those lines are clearly a POV. Messhermit 04:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Messhermit, in the article I see only the statement that he has been accused of murder. Are you saying that is incorrect? Or merely that it is unpalatable? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:48, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

The word "murder" is not appropiate in this case. I said it once and I said it again: His involvement (If there was any) was political, and not in any other escene. Also the real question is not if I find it acceptable or agreeable, it is about achieving a NPOV article and not another that shows one side of it. Messhermit 05:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So are you saying -- and I honestly don't know the facts, and this is not a rhetorical question -- that he has not been criminally charged with murder? If there is such a charge, clearly it belongs in the article. If not, it is equally clear that it is wrong to say that he has been "accused of murder". -- Jmabel | Talk 05:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

---

Judging from the edit history, one sentence that is in contention seems to be, "Fujimori was seen on television next to the bodies of the dead rebels, and used the event to bolster his image as being tough on terrorism." I'm trying to understand exactly what the objection is.

1. Is anyone saying that the first clause—"Fujimori was seen on television next to the bodies of the dead rebels..."—is false?
2. Is anyone saying that the first clause—"...and used the event to bolster his image as being tough on terrorism"—is false? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:51, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Those are Viajero's own Words and Owns POV. I have not seeing and article showing President Bush with Saddam Hussein's death sons or pictures about the captured former Iraqui Predident... are not those violations of the Genova Accord?

• Besides that, there is no compromise regarding the rebels, that is why I deleted the picture and those statements. Messhermit 05:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. I didn't ask who said it. Which Wikipedian wrote it is not relevant. All Wikipedia articles are collective work. I asked whether your position is that it is factually false. May I presume from your reply that you are not claiming that?
  2. George Bush didn't pose with Saddam Hussein's dead sons, but believe me, if he had I'd be the first to say the photo belonged in Wikipedia. As for "pictures about the captured former Iraqui Predident" (sic), take a look at Saddam_Hussein#Pursuit_and_capture.
  3. What the heck does "there is no compromise regarding the rebels" have to do with it? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:39, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

---

In support of these the photo and thext being included, I offer the following evidence:

TRIUMPH AT THE TIME

The commandos' raid - after which a beaming Fujimori sped through Lima in a bus packed with freed hostages was seen in 1997 as a triumph, bolstering his hard-line stance against unpopular leftist groups. (Reuters) [5]

and

Fujimori's popularity ratings quickly doubled to nearly 70 percent and he was acclaimed a national hero. (AP) [6]

and

He is likely to use the successful outcome of the siege as a vindication of his tough stance on terrorism. (BBC) [7]

and

After the massacre, Peruvian TV showed Fujimori striding among the bodies in the house. Some of them had arms and legs chopped off. [8]

-- Viajero 10:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hajor's edits

Careful reading of the MoS brings out that it recommends straight quotation marks as opposed to curly ones, all right, but not with regard to coded marks (see, incidentally, Quotation marks). Coded marks and accented letters are preferable because they're independent of any particular user's set-up; they'll be interpreted by the browser as intended. There's plenty of real work to be done here; why waste time on this? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Real work to be done. Absolutely. However:

1. Curly vs. straight quotation marks: MoS seems pretty clear on that point: "for uniformity and to avoid complications". The reference in the paragraphs below to the coded marks is w/r/t other uses of those characters.
2. ampersand-aacute vs. á: there's a list of "safe characters" somewhere, and my understanding was that all Spanish (and French, German, Portuguese, etc.) accented characters were "safe". In addition, "á" is a lot easier parse (and key-in) when editing wikitext than &aacute.
3. Dates. Linking dates is a pretty useless practice (other than to resolve the mmmdd vs ddmmm issue), but it's house style. However, I think linking to February 2005 is a lot more useful than linking to the two separately, February 2005, if the reader wants to see the background against which an event occurred. (Have you visited February lately? February's birthstone is the amethyst, etc.)

There we go. Even more time wasted. –Hajor 20:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) ( <--- even more petty parenthetical postscript: check the name; ceci n'est pas une vache. Maybe not so petty: I think there is -- or was -- a User:Hathor out there.)

1. But you see, in my browser, your double quotation marks all come out as closing marks (slanted bottom left to top right); other browsers that I've used show them as vertical — so no uniformity there. The code versions, though, come out roughly the same on every browser that I've used (and are fine on text-based browsers such as Lynx, which I often use)
2. á is much easier for me than the alternative, and looks the same on all browsers (the so-called 'safe' characters actually don't always come out right on text-based browers, including those for the blind and partially sighted).
3. I agree with your view on dates, and don't really think that there's much point linking to them all, but Wiki-style for the moment recommends them (though there's been discussion recently, and many people argued against linking).
4. Remember that the style guide is a recommendation only, and changes (it's undergoing various changes at the moment, in fact).
5. Sorry about your User name; I'll be more careful in future. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I meant to add that the quotation marks round the first occurrence of 'auto-coup' are standard scare-quotes, because it's a neologism. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Read and noted, particularly re the "scare quotes". I'm happy with the way things are now, but if you want to put the quotation marks back, I'll not bother removing them again. (Or would italics be an acceptable alternative?) –Hajor 00:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK — shall we compromise on italics? I'll put them in. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And so you did. What I hadn't realized is that italics wouldn't show up in the ToC (ugh) and, quite frankly, they don't look that good in the article, either. Would you care to put the quotation marks back? Either straight or curly, your choice. –Hajor 16:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

re. APRODEH

Messhermit wrote above:

Also, I already Stated that the web page www.aprodeh.org is a POV.

APRODEH is a human rights oganization whose institutional charter and activities you may not agree with, and you are entitled to your opinion. However, its website has many useful documents from third parties, including Peruvian newspapers, foreign newspapers, and international wire services. If you think any of these documents are falsified or fraudulent, that is a serious charge and you better have solid proof. Otherwise, it is perfectly acceptable to cite documents from that website. -- Viajero 11:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the page has a big title as "Fujimori, la justicia te reclama" is clearly a POV and also shows that the page is more a propagandistic tool rather than a viable source of information. It also shows that most of the articles are to prove a POV about the former president and that is using those accusations politicaly and not as an investigation, since a good partion of those articles are part of "La Republica" a highly controvertial and Biased Newspaper.

Once again, Those accusations and the picture are another topic. Those do not belong here.

Also Viajero, Once again I repeat to you that there is no agreement about the MRTA and the Japanesse Embassy. Please stop using your own POV on that matter. Those are YOUR claims, rather than accurate information. Until an Agreement can be reach, once again I'm reverting to a previous version. Messhermit 15:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, Messhermit, I'm afraid that you're simply wrong here. That a Web site has a PoV does not preclude the inclusion of a link to it from a Wikipedia article. The link should stay. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• And I'm afraid that you simply don't listen the real thing behind it. The topic related with Japanese embassy are not part of the main discussion here and it should be treated on a diferent article. That is all. Messhermit 17:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also notice that, though you only say that you objected to the addition to the link and details of the siege, you in fact reverted the page as a whole, thus undoing all Viajero's other edits (including his change of 'terrorists' to the more neutral 'militants'). That's poor Wikiquette, at best. (Incidentally, 'quite possibly' suggests a stronger possibility than merely 'possibly'.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• You have not participated in the discussion about the terrorist organization "MRTA" and his involvement on the Japanesse Embassy. It is not right to modify the page without a proper discussion. I don't think that "Al Quade" will be considereted as "Guerrilla" or mrely "HighJackers". Viajero uses the word "Dictatorship" here in the talk page, and it is right to call it like that just becouse he believe that it was? I don't think so. Also, those quotes about the bodies are not NPOV but a baseless accusations. Please, if you want to add something, make a contribution interesting to the webpage, not rewriting oppinions.

Messhermit, I would like to point out to you that user:Hajor restored the text about the embassy rescue earlier this afternoon, not me. And now, Mel Etitis has restored it as well. So, it would appear that this is not simply "my POV". I am afraid you will have to come up with better arguments than that to reject it. -- Viajero 15:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, It is simple: the fact that another user "rewrite" your argument in another way doesn't make it his argument. Those lines are still your POV about the topic and should not be stated. Messhermit 17:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also Messerhermit, you may not agree with the editorial positions taken in "La Republica", a newspaper which is reknowned for its opposition in the 1990s to the Fujimontesinista dictadura, but its reporting is solid and reliable. I don't always agree with the editorial positions taken on the OpEd pages of The Wall Street Journal or The Financial Times, but it does not lead me to doubt the accuracy of their reporting. -- Viajero 16:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Well, it looks like you have finally take off your "NPOV mask" and decide it to call it a "Dictatorship". Let me remind you that it is your POV to call it like that, and let me remind you that even most of the articles on "la Republica" Newspaper are opinions so that thing of but its reporting is solid and reliable is clearly your opinion. Most of them are clearly Biased towars the former president and not a source of Neutral information. If you don't like those newspapers that you stated, fine with me: It shows that you avoid them becouse you considered those opinions as Biased, most likely. Messhermit 17:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

UK vs. US English

In "Overhaul of English, & some questions" above, User:Mel Etitis notes that this article is at present inconsistent in its choice between European and North American spelling conventions. A glance at the history reveals the following:

• 18 Nov 2002: Article started, ugly little stub, no flags to indicate UK/US preference.
• 10 May 2003: someone introduces the phrase "organised crime". Article is four paragraphs long, not a stub.
• 6 Aug 2003: someone adds "neighbour".
• 7 Aug 2003; "neighbour" is deleted; "capitalized" is added. Article now mixes -ise & ize forms.
• 8 Aug 2003: "organised crime" is changed to "organized crime".

Thus, per the Manual of Style's first major contributions rule, the article should still be using UK conventions. –Hajor 16:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, as Peru is a member of the OAS, the MoS says that the article should be in U.S. English... I'd be happy if it were to be in U.K. English, because then I'd feel confident to make it consistent. As consistency is probably more important, shall I do that anyway? Then if, at later stage, someone who's a native U.S.-English speaker turns up, they can always switch it all over again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please do go ahead and do the consistent-making thing. As it stands now (17:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)), the MoS has no mention of US conventions being imposed over all the OAS member states -- heaven forfend, for the sake of the Anglophone Caribbean and the perverted minority (me incluyo) of Latin Americans who prefer UK or UN usages. I know there's been discussion about the OAS and the EU, but (as I understood) only with respect to the institutions thereof, not the individual members. It's also a heck of a stretch to equate the EU with the OAS (the what?), but that's another matter; elsewhere, another time. –Hajor 17:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A question

In the 'In exile' section, it's stated that Congress 'voted 63–0 with two abstentions to approve charges', and that it also 'voted 65–0 with one abstention to charge Fujimori for responsibility...'. Where did the extra person come from? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Per Congress of Peru, the total number of deputies is 120. So I'd guess that one congressman just rushed back in time for the second vote after missing the first one, while there were 30-odd of his colleagues who missed both. Does that help? –Hajor 18:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes; I was just concerned that a mistake hadn't slipped in. There was no indication as to how far apart the votes were. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Compromise to the aticle

As a attemp to terminate with most of this endless discussion (becouse this is going forever) I propose this as alternative solutions to this dispute:

• Creation of the following Articles:

• Discussion about the privatisations on "Economy of Peru" and stated on this page that the "the results of privatisations are still higly controvertial (see Economy of Peru)"
• Creation of "Human Rights on Peru" or "Civil War on Peru" that will deal with most of the dispute regarding MRTA and Sendero Luminoso and his actions during the Belaunde, Garcia AND Fujimori administration. That means that it will cover from the Uchurajay massacre to the last actions, the bombing of the "El Polo" Commercial Center. It will also talk about the Violations that the Government (Using the name of the government) use during those times, like "Violations of The Belaunde/Garcia/Fujimori/Toledo Administration".
• Creation of a page that can deal with the ongoing dispute about the Japanesse Embassy, that will deal with the controversy of the photos and the actions of the MRTA and Government

• I will no longer object another word to describe MRTA and Sendero Luminoso. That means I will no longer support the use of "terrorist" to talk about those organizations, but I will object any word that give them any sence of legality to their actions.

• The Photos and the Boost of popularity will can be discuss on "Human Rights on Peru/Civil War on Peru" or in "Japanesse Embassy Crisis Hostages". About a mention on the page, a neutral quote could be that "The aftermath have a political impact on Fujimori popularity, however, it is controvertial how much (See "Japanesse Crisis Hostages")

If you can add any other option that can help with this, please send them to my talk page. It is time to achieve a NPOV (In the best case that will satisfy me and Viajero) and work on other topics on Wikipedia. Messhermit 18:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In support

Personally this page it requires further investigation, and a NPOV it must be reached.

• It is obviously strangers and foreigners have not clear mind to jugde by himselfs using arguments based on so called-organizations with a POV clearly against Fujimori.

• Basing on the real facts that affected Peru on those years and as peruvian citizen i must say they are totally wrong.

• I agree with User:Messhermit, if you want to clarify information about deeply aspects of the Fujimori politics and economics, and events that happened in his era, it is a wise decision or compromise to let those facts and information to be discussed in articles such as Economy of Peru, Politics of Peru, as among other peruvian Fujimori or another administration related articles.

• I support that things that happened as government should be discussed as government issues, and not as person focused on Fujimori himself.

But focus to be neutral. Be wise and humble people on wikipedia and dont use your power to impose your point of view. HappyApple 19:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't accept (and nor should it) the argument that inhabitants of a country are innately privileged when it comes to neutrality, sources, etc. In fact, those who live in a country, especially one that's politically strongly polarised, often find it particularly difficult to achieve a neutral point of view, and to recognise it in others.

Given that the disagreements on this article seem primarily to be between Peruvians, how can it be argued that it's 'strangers and foreigners' who are to blame for the chaos of insults and attacks on this Talk page, or for the edit wars that have raged here? Nor does the almost xenophobic claim that foreigners can't have clear minds on the subject help matters. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I do not endorse HappyApple Talks about this. If he agrees, fine. The other talking are his own POV. I'm only asking if the compromise is good enought to be implemented. Please, submit just to the topic. Messhermit 19:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Additional articles along the lines suggested would be welcome, and I would even be willing to contribute to them (not just now though).
2. However, I am not in favor of simply refactoring difficult topics to other articles to solve problems in this one; that achieves nothing.
3. Even if there was an article on, say, Human rights violations in Peru 19801-1995, it would still be necessary to mention these cases in the articles on the respective presidents, especially in the case of Fujimori, since murder charges in conjunction with La Cantuta and the other massacres form part of the request for extradition. Also, as Hajor already pointed out, the Embassy crisis was the major event of his 2nd term.
4. Simply labelling something "controversial" does not necessarily constitue a workable compromise for me. In many cases, I present documental evidence to butress assertions, such as that the Embassy raid boosted Fujimori's popularity rating, that he knew this and took advantage of it. This is dismissed without any meaningful counterargument, without any substantiation.
5. The same goes for the privatizations: I have pointed out Congressional findings which indicate nearly all the money they raised was squandered. This is dismissed with any alternative evidence being cited.
6. Likewise: Were photos made of Fujimori standing next to dead bodies of the MRTAs? Yes, we have one. Why are we not allowed to mention this? I have yet to see a solid counterargument, simply that it is "POV". Sorry, this is not enough.

-- Viajero 20:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I want to clarify my possition it is not xenophobic and i want to apologice about the words written previously.

But i also want to highlight peruvian point of view is very important in the article about Fujimori, regarless age or gender or even the place that we came.

User:Messhermit's proposal to reach a compromise it is very important and i strongly support him.

Keep in mind the issue in this article is focusing about Fujimori himself, not only about his presidency, it is about the man, it's a biography , it's about the facts of the man that rule Peruvian nation during the 1990's, there is certainly controversies in his administration that should be discussed with sence and logic, in peruvian related articles such as Politics of Peru or Economy of Peru, as same for the Historical events happened in those years, such as Non declared war with Ecuador.

What it is your proposal then User:Viajero? HappyApple 20:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Reaching a compromise,both sides, dont win, dont lose, its an accord keep in mind that.HappyApple 20:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem lies in the implication that there's one Peruvian point of view. That is so obviously not the case, that insisting that we include it just doesn't make any sense. The point is that no points of view should be included, though any genuine points of view should be mentioned and, if necessary, discussed. It seems to me that the article does explain why some people support Fujimori, after everything that's happened, while other people don't. What more needs to be said on this? If people put here what they think is missing, then we could discuss it, without setting off more revert wars. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

HappyApple may be wrong about the POV. And Viajero is also wrong. I have some mistakes on the article too. At the begining of this dispute Viajero was not willing to explain most of his changes, I continued to expose my ideas. Also, about the MRTA bodies and Fujimori, he insist to keep them instead of allowing a disscussion. I have said that they need to be discussed on a separated topic. Achieving a NPOV can be reach, but it seems that Viajero is not willing to gave up some of its allegations (As I'm doing regarding the word "terrorism" or talking the main problems in separated discussion). It is so important for him to see them in this page? Why he can gave up as I'm doing with some of my defense?. A compromise is to avoid confrontation, and I'm willing to do so. I can't understand what he is up to. Messhermit 00:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, one point is clear: merely stating a verifiable fact isn't PoV. Is anyone denying that Fujimori was photographed standing by the dead bodies? Presumably not, given that the photograph exists. I don't understand the opposition to mentioning it. Some of the other points made by Viajero seem to be in the same sort of class. Could someone explain (in clear, simple, unemotional language) what the reasons are for opposing his positions? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts from an outsider

Someone has requested new input and fresh users to look at this article. I don't know Peru. I am an Englishman who lives in Honduras, who knows very little about Fujimori, and is thus neither for or against him.

First, I do not like the quote from Bernard Aranson claiming there have been 2 episodes of genocide in the 20th Century. He is entitled to believe this inaccuracy but wikipedia has no right to spread it. Even a basic analysis shows there have been many more than 2 genocides in the 20th century. Armenia, Soviet Union and Rwanda are 3 examples; arguably Guatemala, a little closer to home, is a 4th example. Please get rid of this incorrect statement or I will.

As I read the opening paragraphs I immediately gained the impression that this is anti-Fujimori article, and therefore POV for that reason. I could see why the NPOV notice has been placed. Though it calmed down a bit it the POV then comes up strongly again at the end. The article is also ambiguous and confusing at times. The second paragraph of early years is plain confusing. dubbed the Fujishock, bore no resemblance to the vague, populist program set out during the campaign. Name me a Latin American elected President you could not say this about? This just confirms my feeling the article is too anti_Fujimori. The international reactions section is far too long because it unbalances the article, and it also includes bits, including at the end, that are not about the international reaction.

It seems a bit obsessed with linking Fujimori to Montesinos, and I question whether Montesinos should be included in the paragraph above 2000 elections as it is already treated in this section. By creating a terrorist section the article loses chronological order, which is confusing. I would mix the terrorist section between first and second terms, and 2000 elections to make the article read better and avoid confusing people. I find the In exile section, giving most of the space over to charges against Fujimori, with very little balance. We could end up believing he is guilty from this. I find the last paragraph pretty anti him as well, even blaming him for Peru's current economic deprerssion, as if there weren't a lot of other factors involved as well.

I have read a little background on the case, and will investigate further before comnmenting further, but I would be interested in what people think of my comments. --SqueakBox 00:26, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

• I mostly agree with SqueakBox. Some comments:
  • I also don't like the PART OF THE QUOTE from Bernard Aranson claiming there have been 2 episodes of genocide in the 20th Century. However, I tend to agre with his quote in the sense that it is very possible that Shining Path would have created another Cambodia.
  • Since I first read the article, I immediately felt the article was VERY anti-Fujimori. As a matter of fact, I was the first to put the NPOV tag to the article. And every time I tried to "smooth" it to make it more balanced, some Anti-Fujimori nut came back with reverts and even more anti-Fujimori info.
  • The article is confusing and ambigous at times because it is now a kind of "turf of war" between many anti-Fujimori people and some pro-Fujimori people.
  • Montesinos is currently in jail and has been convicted of several crimes. Although accused by many, Fujimori has not been either tried or sentenced about anything(as far as I know...I might be mistaken). It seems to me that nobody has proved anything against Fujimori yet(I might be mistaken). Undoubtedly, Fujimori was aware and permitted many of the things that Montesinos did. It seems to me that Fujimori kept "clean" and let Montesinos do the "dirty work" to keep the country with the minimum of political problems. For example, I believe that there were very few labor strikes during Fujimori's presidency. My guess is that Montesinos bribed all the leaders of the national unions and syndicates.
    • [Since Fujimori is an Japan, which will not extradite him, and Peru does not try people in absentia, this is technically correct. Hence, we are left citing human rights groups, and mentioning Peruvian efforts to extradite. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:00, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)]
  • It is very sad that many people, including the Anti-Fujimorists, believe that Fujimori is the culprit of Peru's current recesion. Instead, they should go back to Velasco and then to Alan Garcia. This "dynamic duo" is, in my view, the real culprit of Peru's economic situation. On the contrary, most of Fujimori's economic measures were liberal and changed the economic structure of the country in a way that it became more "real" as opposed to the fantasies of the Alan Garcia period. Maybe I am not making myself so understandable, but you probably get the picture.--AAAAA 03:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. I stand aside from the genocide quotation; the term 'genocide' is now used so vaguely and generally (to mean little more than killing a lot of people) that it's pretty well declined into a mere 'boo-word'.
2. The trouble with the claim that the article is anti-Fujimori is that it has to depend upon a certain view of Fujimori, either a pro or a neutral view. Squeakbox is, he says, starting from a neutral view, but on what is that view based? To use an extreme analogy, if one read an article on Pol Pot (or Hitler, or Stalin), starting from a neutral point of view, and in ignorance of the facts, one might indeed come to the conclusion that the article was unbalanced and anti-Pol Pot.
3. On the specific point of Fujimori not having been found guilty of anything: I'd thought that the point was that he'd evaded te Peruvian legal system by staying in Japan; if that's not the case, could someone set out the facts of the matter here?
4. My own view is that there are anti-Fujimori and pro-Fujimori people pulling at the article, all tending to get over-emotional instead of discussing the matter sensibly, so that a genuinely balanced article (not one that imposes a neutral view on a non-neutral subject) is next to impossible. I've been trying to do little more than preserve the status quo until things calm down. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And it shows. As usual, I think Mel would be well served by a thorough review of policy, particularly NPOV. Have a look at Adolf Hitler, for an example of a generally unpopular leader (which fujimori isn't, BTW) being treated in a NPOV manner. This article is a smear job against fujimori, and it shows. The fact that some wrongfully, and in contradiction of fundamental wikipedia policy feel that "impos[ing] a neutral view on a non-neutral subject" is anything other than our goal here is this pages primary impediment to success. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, let me see, that would be what SS normally mislabels 'ad hominem' I believe. Now if only he were able to rise above his petty vendettas, he might make a decent Wikipedian. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SS has insisted on bringing his dispute with me to this page, so I'll place here the reponse he made to me on my Talk page, together with my reply 9which is relevant to this article):

== What are you a profesor of again? == Because it certainly isn't logic. Advising you to review the NPOV policy which your statement contridicted is no ad hominem. I didn't make things personal, I didn't dispute your worth as a wikipedian, nor did I accuse you of being "petty", all of which you did in your (obviously ad hominem) reply. I understand that you feel self-righteous in your partisanship against me, but at least maintain the minimum policy accordance. NPOV is non-negotiable, and my worth as a wikipedian, as a person, or otherwise is not for you to judge here. See:

• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Stick to the issues, don't make it about the person. Logic and intellectual rigour do matter here, and as soon as you prove me wrong on that, I'll be gone. I love books of reference such as encyclopedias because of the neutral presentation which they strive for. Yes, I have my opinions, as do we all, but my goal here is not to inflict them on articles, but rather to struggle for the neutral truth, diversity of cited expert opinion. Frankly I have a very mixed opinion about Fujimori, one far more complex and subtle than the current state of his article allows for. If you want to focus on me personally, positively or negatively, be my guest, use my talk page, or Wikipedia:Conflict resolution, but keep it out of the article talk pages. Thank you. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Of course it isn't ad hominem; it's what you've elsewhere referred to as ad hominem.
2. You started by making sneering and sarcastic comments aimed at me, rather than addressing the point. Frankly, any neutral or even non-neutral observer who read your comment would notice your tone, so there's little point acting the injured innocent, nor referring me to guidelines which you yourself have (here and elsewhere) violated.
3. As for the notion that neutrality means falsifying the facts in order to achieve an inaccurate account of a person or topic, I reject it utterly. With regard to your claim about the nature of the NPoV policy, and your reference to Hitler, I quote from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

In other words, if someone is bad, the article can bring out the fact that he is; when someone is demonstrably guilty, it's not PoV for an article to represent that fact, so long as it does so within the guidelines. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Viajero's view

A politician, like any natural phenomena, has positive aspects and negative aspects; it would be naïve to assume they are always in balance. But this article appears to some to be "too negative" about Fujimori, hence unbalanced. If that is indeed the case, I place the blame for it appearing so squarely on the shoulders of the Fujimoristas, because they don't do their homework.

Take, for example, the issue of Fujimori's economic legacy. The political economy of a country is not some nebulous force of nature; it is the result of specific actions and decisions taken by governments, combined with historical and external factors. Therefore, we can review the policies implemented and see their impact on such things as macroeconomic measures and socio-economic factors. We can also cite appropriate expressions in the press of popular and learned opinion. My reading of the facts is that AF's overall impact on the economy of Peru, acknowledging the problems he inherited from his predecessor, is negative, that he is largely responsible for the deep recession in which the country now finds itself. I present statistics and quotes to support this interpretation. Do the Fujimoristas present alternate data and alternate expressions of opinion? No, they just complain about "bias" and dismiss us as "anti-Fujimori nuts". Although I am as keen as any to see this a well-balanced article, I am not going to do their work for them; I am not going to try to find evidence to support a interpretation of reality that I don't believe in.

• From what I can perceive, Viajero seems to be an outsider, reading data about Fujimori and other Presidents. His conclusions cannot be more wrong. IIT IS MY POINT OF VIEW that the country's economy was destroyed first by VELASCO and then by ALAN GARCIA. Fujimori actually REPAIRED THE DAMAGE, to a certain degree. I won't take time to present facts, because convincing Viajero is probably a lost cause, and whatever I bring to the table, with enought time anybody can bring data that shows the contrary. Even in the U.S., very renowned economists have totally opposite points of view. Generally, left-wing economic policies tend to destroy economies and right-wing, conservative or liberal policies tend to repair it. It is sad that there are still many people in the world that believe the opposite. Again, this is MY POINT OF VIEW. Overall, I think Fujimori's policies were good for the country, not bad.--AAAAA 05:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "Viajero seems to be an outsider" - so are we back to the argument over whether this article is the exclusive province of Peruvians? It is not.
    • It is not. Any user with an interesting opinion and a source to support it, is welcome. Messhermit
  • "I won't take time to present facts", apparently because you have contempt for your antagonist of the moment? Then why should any of us listen to you in terms of what goes into the article? The article must be based on citable sources, not on anyone's personal views. If you have contempt for Viajero, I guess that's your prerogative, but if you won't present evidence for your views, why should anyone else be swayed?
    • The problem here is that there is several opinions (myself included) and that are supported by different sources. A solution could be to balance this stating or arrange those in a singles NPOV paragraph. Messhermit 05:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "Generally, left-wing economic policies tend to destroy economies and right-wing, conservative or liberal policies tend to repair it." Wow. That would be news to those who went through the Great Depression in the United States. Those great Hoover years and all. This is nothing more or less than an admission of bias on your part. I make no generalization about either being generally better for the economy than the other, but, again, this is not an article primarily about what is better economic policy, it is an article about Alberto Fujimori. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Herbert Hoover was a terrible President for the USA, that is the truth. In the case of Peru, Neoliberalim was applied here as much like Argentina. The controversy over the economy was started by Viajero and the privatisations. Messhermit 05:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As for his judicial status, Fujimori has, since leaving office, been accused by the Peruvian Congress and the courts of his land of a long list of crimes, but since Peru does not try individuals in absentia, and Fujimori has not agreed to return to Peru to face these charges, they will remain, technically speaking, unproven for the foreseeable future, unless of course Japan decides to extradite him. That being said, the Peruvian government has been forced in at least one case (there may be others in the future) to compensate the victims of human rights violations committed during his presidency, and these are crimes for which he is partly responsible. All these matters, proven or otherwise, cast Fujimori, inevitably, in a bad light, and cannot simply be dismissed, as the Fujimoristas are accustomed, as "political". -- Viajero 14:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Viajero, are you labing us of "Fujimoristas"? I belive that your perseption of us is getting a little distortioned. At least me, Fujimori was a good president. But that doesn't mean that Everything he did was right. As any other president, he made mistakes. Please, I urge you to retract those quotes. It is not right to go aroung labeling people. Messhermit 05:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Alan Garcia was also accused by congress after he finished his Presidency. And, in my view, Alan Garcia BLATANTLY stole Millions of dollars (example: the famous METRO TRAIN in which many millions were invested and only less than 1 Km of the project was built, and many pilars all over the city that are now wasted monuments to his negligence and corruption). However, political maneuvers and secret negotiations helped him avoid conviction, and now he's one of the leading candidates for the 2006 Presidential elections. Weird world, but that's life. However, people and many wikipedians editing the Alan Garcia article seem to conveniently have "forgotten" these issues. Now, Fujimori is the "evil politician du jour". I guess that's also life.--AAAAA 05:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • García's corruption (which I wouldn't deny for a moment) is neither here nor there. This is the article about Fujimori. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • It should be stated I think. That is why Peru was forced to privatised most of his stated owned enterprises. Messhermit 05:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The state-owned industries privatized by Fujimori were not, by and large, the result of nationalizations carried out by Alan Garcia. If I am not mistaken, Garcia nationalized nothing but banks, and, for that matter, he was ultimately unable to carry out the bank nationalizations. Hasdrubal 23:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • State Owned Enterprises, like ENTEL or ELECTROLIMA were overcorwded by members of the APRA Party, wich most of them have virtually no knownledge to the enterprise in question. That lead to a terrible burocratization of the system and nearly a loss of money for part of the state. Garcia left the BCR with money, yes, but with worthless Intis. Privatisations does not mean that he nationalize those enterprises, but it led them to a so deteriorated contitions that the State could no longer support it withouth losing much money. Messhermit 16:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Treaty of Ancón?

Last night I did a little reading around the subject of the "Ancón Treaty" (which should probably be relinked in the article to the form given in this section header). Could someone take a look at that article and flesh out the matters that remained in dispute until they were settled by Chile and Fujimori during his 2nd term? It wasn't immediately apparent... Tnx, –Hajor 14:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have a stamp about the treaty, would it be good to put on the article? Messhermit 05:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Be bold! Thanks. –Hajor 16:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"views of opposition"?

Sorry, AAAAA, you can't simply pigenhole material like the congressional inquiry into the privatizations as "views of the opposition" unless you present equally solid evidence contravening it. Given Fujimori's overwhelming popularity these days [9], that shouldn't be so difficult. -- Viajero 12:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Congressional inquiry of who? Who is in power now? Which parties do the members of the opposition belong to? All privatization funds went into the Peruvian "Banco de la Nacion". Whatever the buyers paid in bribes; it could be zero or it could be billions: nobody knows. How did the government use the money in, that's another story.--AAAAA 18:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, according to the Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática (INEI), the level of poverty in Peru increased from 42,7% to 48,4% between 1997 and 2000. This supports the statement that fujishock had negative long-term effects. You have any alternative studies to support the opposite contention? -- Viajero 12:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And according to the United Nations, the level of poverty in Peru was reduced from 53.5% to 49% from 1994 to 1997. The Fuji-shock was in 1990 or 1991 (if I remember correctly). What is "long term" for you? And it seems the numbers for the INEI and for the United Nations differ (the first states 42.7% in 1997 and the second 49%). Using statistics to prove your point, taking into consideration only a short frame of time, IS NOT CORRECT. To correctly analyze data, we would really need a NEUTRAL database of poverty for every year, and I would really start it in 1960. Furthermore, poverty numbers are only ONE STATISTIC. For me, a better statistic (although obviously controversial) is the value of the debt of the country in the open market. Although not a perfect number (nothing is perfect), it represents the confidence of the world "market" in the country's economy, among other factors. I believe that before the 1990 elections the market paid 2 to 4 cents on the dollar(for Peruvian debt). At the end of Fujimori's period it was paying substantially more than 50%.--AAAAA 18:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Finally, I think that Viajero's version of the "legacy" section is a SMEAR JOB. Words like "vast" (related to corruption) are subjective and therefore POV. I think the section should show BOTH points of view, of the Pro-Fujimori and the Anti-Fujimori. Not only Viajero's views.--AAAAA 18:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I am not allowed to use the word "vast" yet you are free to introduce the word "disastrous" with reference to the García years. -- Viajero 21:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anybody in their right minds would consider the García years to have been good. --Tuomas ^hello 01:45, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

From what I can read, it seems to me that some user has been "smoothing" Alan Garcia's article to make Garcia seem like are more or less OK President, while Smearing Fujimori as much as possible.--AAAAA 04:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Garcia Administration was by far the most corrupt on peruvian history. Also, It was the main reason of the economic disaster that Peru faced during the 85-90. "Disastrous" is the most NPOV to stated that failure, I believe. Also, it should be stated that it was becouse of his administration that Fujimori gained power. Messhermit 05:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changes

I think the article is looking much better! I translated 3 terms into English, as we are writing for people who speak no Spanish. So I hope my comments were helpful.

I firmly believe that both the wonder and the challenge of wikipedia and the net is that we all interact with people from different areas and backgrounds. The value of anyone's contribution is the contribution itself, not anything about them as a person; background, experience, etc. I found the argument between the english and the peruvians very sad. This article is lucky enough to have both a heavyweight academic like viajero, and real Peruvians, contributing.Would that the Honduras articles had such luck! --SqueakBox 03:55, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Um - I truly hope the reference to "real Peruvians" is not opposing them to "fake Peruvians". Hasdrubal 23:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BTW, please remember that we are not writing exclusively for people who have no Spanish. We are writing for the full range of English speakers who are likely to be interested in the topic, which means that while we must accommodate the monolingual, we also have to be careful not to talk down to the bilingual. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

With Jmabel's comments in mind, I must confess that on my most recent edit I removed the Eng-lang glosses from Grupo Colina and Sí Cumple. With respect to the former, the difficult part is "colina" (we can guess it's a group, but why was it given that name?); w/r/t the latter, the name will probably need a paragraph of explanations and proposed English equivalents ("We Deliver"? "Kept Promises"?). Both those will be better addressed in the corresponding articles, when we get round to writing them. My take; what does anyone else think? –Hajor 05:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I side with Jmabel and Hajor on this; I think the transliterations look kind of hokey. I'd rather seem them in separate articles, even if they are just stubs for the time being. -- Viajero 14:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Hajor. I am not talking down the bilinguals, who need no help translating terms, but the momolinguals. We don't need to accommodate the bilinguals, as English translations make no difference to them, but the great majority of wiki readers will have no Spanish. --SqueakBox 13:57, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I would get irritated at not understanding if it was a French or German article, though I appreciate these terms are not easy to translate. Sí cumple is something like yes we fulfill our electoral promises. Obviously if there were links to articles on these groups/parties it would be different, and the articles could give full treatment to what these terms mean. Obviously I bow to the majority, but I would be irritated if I were monolingual. I put a controversial notice on this talk page. --SqueakBox 16:18, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel's just translating the word cambio is much the best bet. Could the same be done for cumple? --SqueakBox 20:38, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the Idea, However, its the page going describing "Cambio 90" goin to be stated like that on english or in spanish? maybe a piped link could solve this. Messhermit 05:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a bit incoherent, I'm not sure what you mean to ask. Are you asking what the page should be called? It should be (and is) called "Cambio 90". There is no common English-language name: English-language newspapers consistently used the Spanish. If that's not what you meant to ask, restate your question, either in English or in Spanish. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:54, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Never mind then. I just realise that the article is called "Cambio 90". My question was stated becouse the name of the article was "Change 90" a couple of days ago. Messhermit 15:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think Cambio 90 fell victim to something of a "this is the English wikipedia" crusade a few months ago. Glad to see it's back where it belongs. –Hajor 16:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recent dubious edits: cut from article

"The former president is accused of murder in connection with the 1991 Barrios Altos massacre, in which fifteen people at a barbecue in a poor neighborhood of Lima were killed by an army death squad known as the Grupo Colina, and thought to have been set up on Montesinos' initiative. The victims included an eight-year-old boy. Fujimori is also accused of murder in the 1992 La Cantuta massacre, in which nine students and a professor, suspected of belonging to Shining Path, were abducted from their university and murdered by the same army death squad. There is no evidence for this accusations."

• This is a ridiculous inclusion. If there is "no evidence", the accusations should not be mentioned. More specifically, though, saying "is accused of murder" is the wrong way to go at things. Has he been formally indicted? Then say so. If not, has he been "accused", by an NGO, a newspaper, etc.? Cite who makes the accusation. If it's not something citable like this -- e.g., a blogger or a street rumor -- it probably does not belong in this article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

"But according to the Fujimori´s defenders, all of the participants in the ´born rate control´ knew and accept the procedures."

• "born rate control"? I'm guessing "birthrate control", but in any case "according to the Fujimori´s defenders" is not a citation. Cite someone saying this. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:53, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

"But according to the specialists, the last word is in the JNE (Jurado Nacional de Elecciones) Elections court."

• "according to the specialists" is not a citation. It's just a blind claim of knowing more than someone else. The claim may well be true, but you need to cite some authority as saying this.

"Because the economy stability that Peru enjoys today is the consequence of the Fujimori´s period"

• Again, nothing but a blind, uncited POV claim. Find a source, cite it. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.

"Other issues to highlight are: Frontiers agreement with Ecuador and Chile. Rebuilding of the National ways, defeated of the terrorism, among others."

• Comments about what the article should discuss do not belong in the article, they belong here on the talk page.

Jmabel | Talk 21:04, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have no knownledge of who made those modifications (In fact, I didn't even notice them). However, there are some points that are interesting and I would research about them. Messhermit 00:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On pretty much any of this, I would welcome well-cited material, but I assume we can generally agree that this was not well-cited material (including the "The former president is accused of..." material which I'm sure Messhermit is as glad as anyone to see out of the article). -- Jmabel | Talk 07:46, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to avoid an outright edit war here, but frankly the anon (or anons) adding (and re-adding) this material don't seem to understand what constitutes a citation. I am leaving the following in the article for now.

"This accusations were dismissed by the courts, and the "Chavin de Huantar" enjoy now the recognition of the public. They headed the military parade last year."

• Besides grammatical problems and lack of citation, "the courts" is vague, "the military parade" is vague, "the recognition of the public" is meaningless, and "last year" is unclear and certainly unencyclopedic (what year? 2004?).

"However, the JNE (Jurado Nacional de Elecciones), according to Javier Valle-Riestra, has the final word on it. The desicion of the JNE court will be taken, later on this year."

• (Besides spelling issues) I don't know who Javier Valle-Riestra, but a name alone is not a citation. Where is this cited from? Is Valle-Riestra a scholar, a jurist, or what? "...this year" is unclear and certainly unencyclopedic (what year? 2005?). (I also want to remark that removing the word "fugitive" as an adjective on Fujimori, while arguable, seems to me a bit absurd. Are you contending that he is not currently a fugitive from Peruvian law?)

"...because studies from APOYO (a peruvian research center) has shown that the extreme poverty has fallen to half in the Fujimori period."

• (Besides spelling issues) where is the citation? Just naming an organization is not a citation.

This may all be legitimate, but it needs (and lacks) clear citation. I, for one, certainly will not complain if someone deletes it, pending citation. And I do not at all like having people anonymously add uncited material to a controversial article especially when they add immediately before a citation note, implying falsely that the cited source backs up their contention. Several of these are misleadingly placed in this manner. I strongly suggest that at the very least these be placed after the relevant citations, to make it clear that they are not backed by the cited sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:46, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) Jmabel | Talk 08:46, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I just find some information about Javier Valle Riestra. I hope that this could clarify something about some remarks.

• http://www.24horaslibre.com/politica/1111415086.php --> This one is about an ongoing investigation agains President Toledo
• http://www.24horaslibre.com/politica/1108656181.php --> About the reincorporation to Parlament of Martha Chávez, a leading member of Fujimori's party, Cambio 90-Nueva Mayoria

Glad to help Messhermit 16:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That clarifies who Javier Valle Riestra is (and suggests he is probably worthy of an article of his own), but I assume we can all agree that it does nothing to validate the claim that he holds this particular opinion about the authority of the JNE. We still need a citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:09, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

( 201.240.70.76) I have made all of those changes. I have cited Javier Valle-Riestra, a very well known jurist in Peru. He has written many articles on this issue. But the Dra. Chu, head of the ONPE (menber of the JNE) again have said to the media that the final word, on the Fujimori´s issue, is on the JNE. The writer is a 45 years old, Peruvian Engineer, who works for an American Company and wants a fair and NPO treatment for A. Fujimori

Again "he has written many articles" is not a citation. Indicate an article (either on line or in print) that backs up your contention. You will notice that there is a lot of citation here. That is largely because this is controversial material. Citation is needed for verifiability. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:10, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Just added a portrait of Peru/Lima on the 90´s. It is important to know the Fujimori´s context, in order to understand the political actor. mramirez500 03/22/05

The Cantuta and Barrios Altos incidents are infamous, not just street rumours; as soon as we can figure out whether or not Fujimori is being formally accused of involvement, and, if so, in what capacity, we should probably mention them. Hasdrubal 21:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fuji-Cola ?

The project was idea of Kenji Fujimori (now living in the USA). Although a controvertial name, the former president was not aware of this until it appeared on newspaper. I would state that it was his son, rather than his political motivations the one that created the drink (wich, by the way, has not been produced.) (unsigned, but it's Messhermit, 22 March 2005)

Sounds like you know more about this than whoever wrote it; I suggest you edit accordingly. A citation would be good. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

My Internet was slow this day, so by the time that I realize that I didn't sign, It wa too late. But regarding Fuji-Cola, I have some information that can provide accure information about it:

• http://www.lapalmainteractivo.com/guias/content/gen/ap/America_Latina/AMS_ECO_PERU_FUJIMORI_COLA.html;COXnetJSessionID=CARnXKZ2XEfJ0LywLqeIaZ4aVuOZjCUROpngy5CYrLAutbbLGXJ1!-394889638?urac=n&urvf=11115442312880.25421924944606045

• http://www.terra.cl/noticias/noticias.cfm?id_reg=475051&id_cat=306

Glad to help. Messhermit 02:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to a report on the BBC website, Fujimori

has given his backing to Fuji-Cola, a new drink he claims will "quench the thirst of popular discontent". [10]

-- Viajero 14:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fujimori on 2006 ?

I see that information regarding the 2006 election are being deleted. I made a quick research and find some interesting information that could help to improve it and stated it correctly on the page.

• http://www.rpp.com.pe/politica/26006.php --> According to a former congressman, the Constitutional Tribunal has not acted correctly.

• http://www.terra.com.pe/noticias/nacional/18/18847.html --> Another former congressman also stated that only the JNE is capable of accepting or denying Fujimori's bid for the presidency.

• http://www.24horaslibre.com/politica/1109950086.php --> A leading member of the JNE reaffirm that his institution is the only on capable of allawing or not Fujimori´s request.

• http://www.perunoticias.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2732 --> Another

• http://www.terra.com.pe/noticias/nacional/18/18990.html --> Former President Paniagua states that the TC has the right to decide it whether it was asked or not.

Make sence that Fujimori can present his candidacy to the 2006 Elecctions. Even if he is not elected, as a Peruvian citizen, he can still try it. Hope that this will prevent more things from being deleted without a proper disscusion. Messhermit 02:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The New York Times has run several articles, including one in which they interviewed Fujimori about his webpage and Fujimori admitted that he would like to run again.

APOYO reference needs citation

I have temporarily removed this text from the article:

because studies from APOYO (a Peruvian research centre) has shown that the extreme poverty has fallen to half in the Fujimori period; also, during 1996-1997 Peru had the biggest Economy growth in the Latin American, with 12% yearly rate.

This is potentially useful, but can whoever added it supply a URL as reference? I took a look at the APOYO site but didn't find it. -- Viajero 23:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• A citation would be in order. Needn't be a URL, though, citing a print source would be fine. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:40, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

OK. Agree about the citation. But there are many parts in the article that needs citation also..... Any way, I have included a very wonderful Economic information. It comes from the Lima stock exchange (http://www.bvl.com.pe/pubdif/AFICHE.pdf) and portraits the most important economic figures of Peru between 1979 to 2003, you can see clearly the effects of the Fujimori´s economic reforms. this information changes completaly the shape of the economic part of the article, and I hope you guys to be objective. mramirez500 3/24/12:10 LT

Well, I can see the supposed effects, but not very clearly; this PDF is nearly illegible. This is not a criticism directed at you. I only wish this kind of information was presented in web pages or at the very least in decent-sized PNG files. -- Viajero 10:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Lima Stock Exchange will be glad if you can direct your comments directly to them. -- mramirez500

See my opinion on Apoyo below, at the end of the following section. Hasdrubal 19:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Legacy section

"Any way, I have included …... mramirez500" So are you the same person who edited the Legacy section anonymously? It would be really helpful if you would log in before editing, makes it much easier to work out who is doing what.

In any case, the recently added material certainly belongs in the article (give or take details), but I don't agree with the deletion that was made at the same time. Others should have a look at this.

I'm not sure the chart fully bears out the claim of 240% growth in the 1990s (and much of the text is hard to read, not scanned at a very high resolution. If I read this correctly, the GDP for 1990 appears to be about 25 billion, for 2000, about 54 billion. That's impressive, but it's not quite 2.4 times, more like 2.15. Also, if those are current-value dollars rather than constant dollars, so one has to allow for some dollar inflation, and the actual growth would only be just below a doubling. Again, impressive, but not quite what was said.

None of that, of course, has any bearing on what sectors of society benefitted from the increase in wealth. Also, the relatively flat numbers from 1995 onward do tend to bear out the claims made elsewhere in this article that the positive effects of the "Fujishock" were mainly short-term, although they don't show negative longterm effects. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:04, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Let´s be objective guys. Lets be friends of the facts. Don be afraid of the facts you liket or not. The economy part of the Fujimori´s period is a very strong one. Actually, right now the economical stability of the country is because those fujimori´s years. So, there is no controversial about the economy. and the growt is more than 2 times, not the 1.4 that someone puts over there. The numbers on the chart are "not stationary" so the numbers are real. user:mramrez500

mramrez500, thank you for the additional information, which I think improves the article. However, despite your assertions otherwise, AF's economic legacy is most definitely controversial, but it is a controversy we needn't -- and shouldn't -- try to solve here, just ensure that various points of view are appropriately represented in the article. Along those lines, I request you not to remove the references to the deep recession and the high poverty rates. As far as AF's privatizations go, you won't deny that they are considered highly controversial in Peru? As you may recall, in June 2002 the city of Arequipa erupted in a massive civil revolt -- the largest Peru had seen in fifty years it was said -- in response to plans of the Toledo administration to sell off two power generating companies. The main point of contention was peoples' profound suspicion of the promised benefits of such privatizations based on disappointing results of those pushed through by AF in the 1990s. As for Camisea, it is interesting you should mention that. It would be a rewarding exercise to examine that project more closely to see exactly what its impact on the economy of Peru is, both in terms of macroeconomics (GDP etc) as well as socio-economic terms, such employment, and just how the revenues it generates are disposed. Attracting foreign investment is not an end unto itself; we also need to look at what the benefits are to a country. -- Viajero 10:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Viajero, I understand your confusion about the things that happened in Peru in Fujimori´s years. If I live outside Peru, it may happen the same to me. But as a Peruvian, with postgraduate in management, to me and for the rest of the country it is very clear what happened in the economy on those years. The prove, is Toledo administration could no touch any thing about the economy. So right now, as I said, Peru is still living as the consequence of Fujimori´s years. The link you have put about INEI does not shown any thing, and it must be removed. Further, as I said, APOYO, research centre, has shown that the extreme poverty has fallen in half in fujimori´s years. So, I think there is not controversial about the economy, the controversial is elsewhere. As I said, lets be objective and friends of the facts. ONG´S have a lot to do with this confusion, they are left ideology and do not forgive Fujimori for doing open economy in Peru. user:mramirez500 3/25/2005

Regarding the issue of the failed privatisation in Arequipa; The Toledo administration is a complete failure, with the exception of maintain the economy structures from the Fujimori´s times, but has failed completely in doing privatisation. You have to understand that the political parties in Peru, during the last decade, has done opposition to Fujimori saying things to people that was essentially lies. The privatisation changed profoundly the economy of Peru, the amount of foreign capital invested in the country was never seen before. -- user:mramirez500

I have to say it guys: I find the article to emotional, to many comments and very few facts. You know this is an Encyclopaedia, and have to be useful for any body that reads the article. Besides, it has been more than 5 years since finished the Fujimori´s period, so there is enough space to see it more realistic. I would like to see more facts here guys, and less comments or suggestions. The article needs to be re-shaped. -– mramirez500

mramirez500, I have just taken a look at your user page and wish to congratulate you on your good fortune at being able to travel the world so much. But I wonder: have you been to Huancavelica lately? Cerro de Pasco? Huánuco? Ayacucho? Juliaca? Moyobamba? Quillabamba? The economic "reality" of those locations is a great deal different than of Miraflores or San Isidro, or wherever exactly you live and work. As for your many academic degrees, that generally doesn't count for much on Wikipedia; this is a egalitarian, meritocratic environment where the eloquence of your arguments and the quality of your research tends to win the day. By that measure, you don't accomplish anything by simply dismissing ONGs out of hand as simply "leftists"; that kind of coarse generalization will get you nowhere. I for one would be interested in hearing you explain exactly why you think the Lima Stock Exchange provides a better picture of the economic health of Peru than the INEI, but since this is not a suitable forum for such discussions, the best thing would be to cite them both in the article and for us to agree to disagree. As for neoliberal economics, this is a matter that is hotly debated in many countries around the world -- and Peru is no different. Please refrain from dismissing such issues as partisan politics; that is unproductive. Finally, I am wondering how it is possible that you have worked for an American company for twenty years and yet your English is so lamentable. Curious indeed. -- Viajero 18:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lets say that you are in a different position Viajero. Umm... I wonder how living in Europe and America has made you champion of the poor people in Peru. Also, about his english... sigh... It shows a lot of things from you. Let him state his opinions and not segragate him for his english, would you? Any opinion is welcome. Messhermit 20:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regardless if the ONG are from left or right, you are really trying to rewrite history and deny much of Fujimori-s economical legacy. Facts are something that stays, and Peru stability are a proof of that. Messhermit 20:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VIAJERO: I can see you are an emotional person, who likes to make personal attacks. None of this will contribute in any way to the quality of the article. Any way, I will answer some of your comments. Yes, I know most of the Peruvian cities, because it is part of my job, Two weeks ago I was in Piura and Trujillo, and tomorrow I will travel to Trujillo again, I spent 20 years traveling around Peru. I think that the knowledge is not egalitarian, nor democratic. I reaffirm myself saying that the leftist ONG´s have not contribute to my country in any means, they were too political, too Latin. The BVL is an old private technical institution, whose economical numbers are widely trusted; The INEI is a Government institution, whose numbers are always political or controversial. I work for an American company IN PERU, so my daily language is Spanish. -- mramirez500 3/26/2005 14:18 LT

May I propose an "acting editor" of the article, in order to balance it. I propose: Jmabel or Mel Etitis for that job. -- mramirez500 3/26/2005 14:18 LT

Sorry, there is no precedent whatsoever in Wikipedia for the appointment of an "acting editor" for any article. We will have to negotiate these issues ourselves, here on this Talk page. Do you not agree that Fujimori is a controversial figure? If so, the article must reflect that; it must present various points of view. It will never be ideal from your point of view, nor from mine, nor from jmabel's nor any other contributor. The best we can hope for is an article of which none of us has any major criticisms. For my part, I think it is important that the perspective of Fujimori's admirers is accurately represented; at the same time, I will strenuously resist any effort on the part of Fujimoristas like yourself to shape it to reflect only your point of view. If you don't trust ONGs and the INEI, that is your right, but we will cite them in this article unless you present overwhelmingly convincing evidence that this is inappropriate. -- Viajero 20:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry too but this is an encyclopedia so POV´s are not welcome here. As contributors of this article we have sought to adhere to accepted standards of scholarly objectivity; which means: trusted sources, research and facts. The anti-fujimoristas contributors, like yourself, have to be reflected in the article, but they do not have to shape it. The article is to unbalanced, to many rumors and comments.

I have to insist about the “acting editor” figure, who can balance the article. If you do not accept this figure, is because you know It is totally unbalanced. -- mramirez500 3/26/2005 16:42 LT

No, I don't accept this "acting editor" proposal of yours. I think it is utterly preposterous of you to show up on this web site and insist on telling us how you think our collaborative editing process should be run after only a couple of days. You have an authoritarian streak which does not bode well for your future here. -- Viajero 23:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I support Mramirez500 in this one, another person should be on charge of hearing and deciding what is best for the article and waht is not. Also, labeling Fujimorista to everyone that tries to give a NPOV on this page is ignorant, offensive, clearly narrow minded and above all, Authoritatian. Lets avoid this and work for the articles. Messhermit 00:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Two statements above are simply wrong.

1.Viajero, there is precedent for "warring" parties to agree on a neutral party to do the editing of an article for a while, confining the edits in controversial areas to what can reach some consensus on the talk page. It might be the way to proceed, but it won't be me.

I stand corrected. -- Viajero 10:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that Jmabel have already tried this option, and things didn't developed very well. Anyways, It was a good attemp to mediate on this discussion. Messhermit 18:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Jmabel did not serve as a surrogate editor. I invited him to help me resolve some of the problems I was having with you people over the article. He took the incentive to exhaustively list all of the issues here on the Talk page, then made some sensible and useful suggestions on how to proceed and left us largely up to our own devices to resolve them, which we did. I then entered the agreed-upon changes in the text. The process worked, more or less. If there was a problem, it was that you started making irrational accusations of bias against him on RfC page we dedicated to you, but he is too polite to point this out (I am not), and that appears to be the reason why he is reluctant to participate further (understandably so). For the rest, here as anywhere, general statements, especially from newcomers, that the article is slanted, too emotional, a smear job, etc etc etc, as well as vacuous exhortations to respect the facts, are completely counterproductive. If you or AAAAA or mramirez or anyone else still has problems with this article, we will just have to continue this process we started with jmabel. You list the specific problems that you have with the text on the Talk and we will discuss them, item by item. But let me point out that whether an "acting editor" is involved or not the process will still be the same: you will have to do your research and back up your assertions with citations. And you will also have to respect other points of view. -- Viajero 11:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tried wading into this once to try to achieve balance, and all it got me was brickbats. No thank you. Still, you can all just restrain yourselves from edit warring, set some ground rules here on the talk page for how to proceed, and live by them. The main ground rule I recommend is to work cooperatively toward defining the substance of the disagreements about what the article should say (not the disagreements about whether you like Fujimori) and then work toward consensus on how to handle each. 2. mramirez500, I think you misunderstand the NPOV rules. There is plenty of room in Wikipedia for points of view, just not in the narrative voice of the article. Political matters are inherently controversial. The idea is that one cites a range of views from appropriate sources. Certainly the NGOs and the INEI qualify as such, as does the stock exchange. In controversial matters, the normal and correct approach is to cite and either quote or paraphrase the most authoritative statement(s) of each of the conflicting views. In matters like this the NPOV approach does not strive for a single truth: it strives for presenting the range of opinion, more or less proportionally.

If we get good, well-cited interpretations of the events surrounding Fujimori, from both pro- and anti-Fujimori sources, we'll end up with a good, neutral article. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:09, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Where neutral, of course, does not mean saying as many good and bad things about person X. This point seems to be missed sometimes. One can be impartial, fair, and, overall, condemnatory; sometimes it is inevitable. Hasdrubal 18:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding mramirez's comment:

What is the BVL?

• Bolsa de Valores de Lima (stock exchange). -- Jmabel | Talk 19:05, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

The INEI has been under political pressures, of course, but those have come from the media and opposition parties as much as from the government. However, the fact that it is under pressure does not mean that it yields to pressure. The head of the INEI was fired back in 1987 for not producing numbers the government liked; still, the INEI personnel rallied around him and refused to change their (statistically sound) methods. At the same time, Apoyo was producing figures the government liked. Personally, I trust neither Apoyo's expertise (though this may have improved over time) nor its impartiality (they seem to be able to "apoyar" whoever is in power at the moment, or likely to be in power soon). Most statisticians at the INEI are serious professionals - yes, serious professionals often working under idiots, but still. Hasdrubal 18:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with Hasdruval. However, I would said the same about the ONG's that Viajero so much glorifies. Most of the time, some of those organisations clearly make politics rather than what they suppose to do, like "Human rights". So lets be fair and also treat ONG like INEI and the Stock Market: good instituons ruled by incompetent people.Messhermit 20:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On macroeconomics and the GDP: it is not just that wealth distribution has to be considered side by side with the growth in production; we also have to look a bit more closely at production per sector. One can obtain very impressive GDP growth in the following way: set royalties for the extraction of non-renewable natural resources near to zero and encourage transnationals to come and, well, extract. The totality of the resources extracted then get added to the GDP, but only a fraction - sometimes a tiny fraction - of that wealth stays in the country (by means of the near-zero royalties, and miner's salaries, such as they are). It is my impression that this is part of what was happening in the Fujimori years; we should get detailed charts to bear this out. So, it is not really a matter of macro vs. welfare economics; we really have to look at the macroeconomic data in more detail. Hasdrubal 19:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then another article should be created detailling those economics figures,like "economics of Peru" to disscuss this with more detailed information. This article should concentrate only on Alberto Fujimori as a Person and some of his achievements and mistakes. Messhermit 20:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

INEI data: http://www.inei.gob.pe -- go to "Peru en cifras", "Indicadores economicos", "Produccion".

Total GDP growth from 1992 to 2001, inclusive: 44.60%, amounting to 3.76% yearly Total GDP per capita growth from 1991 to 2001, inclusive: 30.78%, amounting to 2.47% yearly

I don't know whether those are in real dollars already or not; in the absence of a note on the matter, I'd presume not.

Perhaps we should consult the BVL for stock-market statistics only. The INEI is usually a very reliable source; in any case, it is a bit outlandish to suggest that it was somehow pressured (by the all-powerful powerless opposition and the usually pro-Fujimori media, I'd imagine) to underestimate growth during the Fujimori years. Hasdrubal 19:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then we should also disregard information that this "free media" gaves about Fujimori, since most of them now tryes to minimize his achievements. Politics are politics, so I would believe on the Media of this 4 years, and also I didn't believe that everything was happiness under Fujimori. At the end, once again, those a mere Politics. Messhermit 20:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Normally, I would say that where two respectable sources disagree, cite both and indicate what they each say. However, if you look at [11], the BVL cite the INEI as a source, along with the BCRP (I don't know the initialism, but I'm guessing that is the national bank; please correct me if I'm wrong). It's partly a matter of what base year one chooses (1990 or 1992) and partly (as I remarked above) I'm not sure the BVL chart bears out the claim of 240% growth in the 1990s. The GDP for 1990 appears to be about 25 billion, for 2000, about 54 billion, more like 2.15 times than 2.4, and if those are current-value dollars rather than constant dollars, so one has to allow for some dollar inflation, and the actual growth would only be just below a doubling. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:47, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to get the INEI's original tables, with an explanation of whether constant or real dollars are used. BCRP = Banco Central de Reserva del Peru. Hasdrubal 23:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Take off the BVL numbers and put over there goberments numbers (INEI) is not serious. I wold like to make a real portrait of the fujimori´s period not a false one. All of us have to agree in accept trusted sources. LA BOLSA DE VALORES DE LIMA is a very trusted source, because is PRIVATE not PUBLIC. In countries like Peru, the goberment places not qualified persons in charge of the public institutions. The people who live in Peru see it every day. Toledo has put a "vendedora de anticuchos" as a chief of the internal goverment "jefa de gobierno interior una dependencia del ministerio del interior" and many many other cases. If you wanna make a fake page about fujimori´s page, them we are in a circus. LETS MAKE A REAL PORTRAIT. DO NOT BE AFRAID OF THE TRUTH. mramirez500 03/30/2005 LT 21:17

Let's see if I've got this.

• Him taking out your material is bias, but you taking out his (which were quite well cited) is TRUTH.
• A government agency can't be trusted, but a stock exchange, heck, why would they present a rosier-than-accurate picture of the economy?
• Oh, and those who disagree with you politically are "not serious" and are trying to make a "fake page" and are "afraid of truth" (of which you are the voice).

A fine way to reach consensus.

On top of that, as I discussed above, I absolutely do not see where you get the "240%" that you claim the BVL numbers demonstrate. I won't repeat it here, but you never responded and refuted any of what I said.

For what it's worth, I think both the BVL and INEI claims belong in the article, appropriately cited and accurately described. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:33, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious that there is a dispute over which sources are considered accurate. You have two choices here: you can list neither source, or you can list both and acknowledge that there is a dispute. What you cannot do (and what I hear being suggested) is to declare that one source is "accurate" and that the other source is "not trusted" because you agree with one and not with the other; that would be pushing a point of view. NPOV mandates that the claims of both sources be reported, with appropriate proper attribution.

Debate over which source is "more true" or "more trusted" is misplaced here; as long as there is significant dispute over which sources are accurate or trustworthy, the encyclopedia article must not take sides but report the claims of all sides equally and dispassionately. Kelly Martin 14:19, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

As Jmabel already pointed out, the BVL cites as its sources the INEI itself and the Central Reserve Bank. If we can't trust the INEI, we can't trust the BVL. Moreover, it seems the BVL has conducted no independent research; one of its employees has simply put together a (possibly misleading) graph which you are now misreading.

If we have a source A, and a source B that claims to be simply using source A, we cite source A. It would be interesting to get to the Central Reserve Bank data, whatever they are; does anybody have a reference? I doubt that they duplicate the INEI's labour, myself. Hasdrubal 21:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can somebody explain why is in the article the Economy growth during 1992-2000 and not 1990-2000?. The Fujimori´s period was 1990-2000, so it is very important to portrait the growth of that period, that is why the BVL´s numbers are important, because give some perspective of the growth in a large period of time. -- mramirez500 | Talk

Viajero: Intolerant with other POV

This is what I mean when "owners" of some articles appears. Messhermit 20:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Jmabel did not serve as a surrogate editor. I invited him to help me resolve some of the problems I was having with you people over the article. He took the incentive to exhaustively list all of the issues here on the Talk page, then made some sensible and useful suggestions on how to proceed and left us largely up to our own devices to resolve them, which we did. I then entered the agreed-upon changes in the text. The process worked, more or less. If there was a problem, it was that you started making irrational accusations of bias against him on RfC page we dedicated to you, but he is too polite to point this out (I am not), and that appears to be the reason why he is reluctant to participate further (understandably so). For the rest, here as anywhere, general statements, especially from newcomers, that the article is slanted, too emotional, a smear job, etc etc etc, as well as vacuous exhortations to respect the facts, are completely counterproductive. If you or AAAAA or mramirez or anyone else still has problems with this article, we will just have to continue this process we started with jmabel. You list the specific problems that you have with the text on the Talk and we will discuss them, item by item. But let me point out that whether an "acting editor" is involved or not the process will still be the same: you will have to do your research and back up your assertions with citations. And you will also have to respect other points of view. -- Viajero 11:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Were Do I start?

• I will not respect persons that disregard other's POV (not only mine, but also the ones of AAAAA, HappyApple, Mramirez500). About the researchs, for what? you are always irrational and stating that are "not good enought" for you. It wouldn't matter if I, or any other user state something in this talk page: What you like (or approve) is what most people, unfortunately see in this page. I have tryed to let the disscussion of "Human Rights" to other pages, but it worries me your lack of respect for my Ideas and the fact that you always threat other people with banning them of Blocked them (see HappyApple talk page, so you can remember). You always fail to achieve compromise, since most of the time you always try to impose your own POV.

• If the article is too emotional, then is mostly your "vast and deep" accusation against the former president. Don't blame your mistakes to me.

• Talking about Jmabel, If he has something to tell me, he already would said that to me (and he has done it in several ocations). I regret the hole inconvenience (becouse curiously I notice the "terrorist" word in a page that he was monitoring when your RfC appear) and thanks him for trying to achieve a compromise (wich you, for most of my arguments, don't agree and at the end, didn't put them) He is polite, indeed. I hardly believe that any person can be polite with such a zealot like you.

• He is reluctant, but not becouse of my actions only. Seriously, at any moment you have ever tried to listen to my arguments?. If Jmabel does not want to participate here, it is becouse of OUR own mistakes. Please don't be irrational on this one. Your lack of will to compromise is also a main factor in this one.

• I have already appologize with Jmabel and, I have begun to work in other pages. I have even asked him help in grammatic and english corrections. He may not be my friend, but I will continue to work with him as long as it may be neccesary for the sake of Wiki. I do not bother to disscuss with you, since it is clearly a waste of my time. Since you already stated, he may be polite even with the devil.

• I'm looking with extreme detail what do you do in this type of articles, and it worries me to known that you are trying to destroy also Ex-Presidents Belaúnde reputation.

• Hasdrubal is a nice person to disscuss (after having settled some previous misunderstandments), but I hardly believe that he make you agree with the fact that Belaunde was not appointed with the military. It appears that now you are also owner of the article of another Ex-president?. I will keep working with Hasdrubal to achieve a NPOV article in Belaúnde. Any suggestion (without rv and talking first on the talk page) is welcome.

• For the record: It is curious to ask for simplicity in other articles while in another you are extremely detailled. I wonder how we can name that. You accuse HappyApple of being extremely detailed in San Marcos, but It appears that you take your time to destroy any political figure that you don't like. Sigh... What a incongruence. Messhermit 18:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Messhermit: I think Viajero made a mistake once in the Belaunde page, and he admitted his mistake (in my talk page) and stood corrected when I pointed it out to him. I've corrected the mistake, and now everything stands corrected. We all make a slip from time to time; if we acknowledge it, no harm is done.

Let us all take a deep breath and continue thereafter. Perhaps we can focus on less political pages for a few days? Hasdrubal 23:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hasdrubal: I appretiate your efforts to mediate this dispute, and if you analize my last modification, I don't bother to even modify this page (the last thing that I did was added the Timeline of Peruvian Presidents).

I already known that Viajero has made it pretty clear that he will not tolerate my contributions. If you wanna talk about taking a rest, please convince Viajero to relax and edit better stuff here on wiki. Maybe he will feel better if he focus all that hate and disrepectfull thoughs of Fujimori in something more productive. Also, if he avoid using personal attacks to other users, it would be helpfull. Messhermit 02:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe all participants in the discussion have valid points to make. I also believe that, while we should try to respect each other, our work on public figures should be guided by a search for the truth and for facts, not by respect. If you become a public figure, you consciously expose yourself to having other people express publicly their possibly very negative opinions of you; that's part of the job.

What we should work on in the immediate future is respect for each other, not for Fujimori or for some imaginary anti-Fujimori (made of positrons, I imagine). I see that there are two problematic areas:

(a) Nationality (and residence). It is currently fashionable in some (marginal?) sectors of academia (mostly outside history departments) to consider the identity of the person making a statement as somehow relevant to the truth of the statement itself; thus "X's truth" and "Y's truth". This is, of course, also common (and has been common throughout the history of mankind...) outside academia. In my view, this trend is unfortunate. I hope there is a truth (or Truth, even) we can all converge to by means of rational argument. Proposals and alleged facts can be considered, supported and countered without any reference to who is putting them forward - let alone what national group the person who puts them forward is assumed to belong to. I do not think one's current place of work is very relevant either; in any case, it would be more valid (if either practice is at all valid) to criticize a Peruvian for not living in Peru at this very moment (take myself, or at least one other contributor) than it is to criticize somebody who is catalogued as a non-Peruvian (by whatever powers may be) for not living in Peru (and it seems some are criticizing Viajero for (supposedly) being in this category).

At any rate, none of us can claim to be an average Peruvian: for one thing, the Average Peruvian does not exist (he/she would need to have one breast and one testicle), and, for another, we are all able to speak English (to varying extents) and have regular access to computers.

• My clains regarding nationality were stated because "someone" stated that, since I'm not a native english-speaker, I should retract myself from editing on English-wiki. Unfortunately, my idea was distortionate. Messhermit 21:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(b) Language. We should take each other's opinions with whatever respect they deserve (if any), independently of whether they are expressed in imperfect English. Usually, I would consider references to one's grammatical mistakes to be improper in a discussion. At the same time, we do have an exceptional, and rather crucial, circumstance: we are all editors of an English-language work, namely, the wikipedia. This said work should at all times be written in standard English, and, furthermore, follow the somewhat vague but nevertheless important unwritten conventions of English redaction (this latter point may be more relevant to the San Marcos article than to this one). Thus, it is inevitable that imperfect English prose will be promptly edited by people who can write standard English. It is also inevitable, and also understandable, that some people will get annoyed at repeated edits by people whose English is really not that great, as that forces the producers of standard English (let us use this technical-sounding term instead of "native speaker" - many native speakers are unable to put together a good written sentence!) to work extra.

• Maybe of "someone" retracts most of his attacks regarding some knownledge in English to other wikipedist, fine with me. Then we can move on I guess.Messhermit 21:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In an ideal world, the following would happen: when somebody whose English is not up to par wants to do substantial edits, he can first submit them to a friend whose English is better, and then, after the edits get proofread and corrected, he can actually upload them to Wikipedia. Of course, here in the talk page, we can talk in whatever variety we want - I, for one, would have nothing against having a friendly discussion with somebody who insists on writing in, say, Scouse, provided that I can understand him. Hasdrubal 19:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. This type of emotional attacks against other wikipedist doesn't surprise me anymore. I will start to make some edits on this page, and working with "civilized" people: talking first and achieving compromise. Messhermit 21:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The state of the country on the 90´s, about terrorism, have to be portraid

All the information regarding this issue was deleted without discusion. That information are facts, history, that nobody can change, and I LIVED THAT WITH MY FAMILY. So, lets be honest with the facts! let emerge the real history of those years in Peru, let the peruvians tell their history! (mramirez500 LT 22:16 3/22/05

I also lived through the period of subversive terrorism and state terrorism with my family. It seems that our views don't match, so excluding discussion members by nationality is not likely to get us anywhere. Hasdrubal 19:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The situation of the country was clearly different if you lived on Lima (or America or Eurupe). The capital only realize the threat of terrorism after the Tarata Bombing and the terrorist attack on "Canal 2"... But the rest of Peru was already feeling what was the civil war.

This could sound a little bit out of the disscussion, but my father traveled a lot during the 80's under the sponsorship of ENTEL PERU, the telephone company of those years, and sometime he was send to Ayacucho, for naming only one province. The situation was desperating, since due to the threat of Sendero, the Military was in control of the province. I can really state that Peru was not a paradise on those days (maybe on Lima), but clearly not a widely supported "People's Revolution"... It was only a pure and simple Civil War.

Anyways, I have to agree with Mramirez500 on this one. Messhermit 20:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You agree with him in what way?

Only somebody who lived in an extreme social and political isolation in Lima would not have realized there was a "terrorist threat" going on before the Tarata bombing. I do not think anybody here is claiming Peru was a paradise in those years; certainly none of the contributors here claims the Shining Path was carrying out a "People's revolution". Hasdrubal 22:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't state a point well here. I appologise. I'm only stated this becouse someone stated about being in Ayacucho, Trujillo and other cities of the country. Sendero was strong in some places. That is all. Messhermit 03:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Hasdrubal 19:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cumpliendo

The name of Fujimori's current party is given in the article as "Si Cumple". May I presume that should be "Sí Cumple"? I will refrain from adding a joke, but the possibilities are so tempting. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:13, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes - Si should be changed to Sí throughout. Good joke. Hasdrubal 19:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Just like Fuji-Kola. Messhermit 20:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great joke Descendall