Talk:Controversies of the 2006 Mexican general election/Archive 1

message: : We're on WikiPedia's Main Page! --A1437053 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

message: Is the 2000 US election included only because it also was a controversial election? It seems that what is happening now in Mexico is of a different scale and type... but I may be wrong. Someone care to qualify the 'see also' or change how it appears? Thanks in advance.
:Several articles in the references and further reading links refer to that election, and to some similar irregularities. Someone may need to list some of the similar alleged irregularities claimed. --Timeshifter 02:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just now noted in the "alleged irregularities" section that similarities were claimed, and I put references to some of the articles.--Timeshifter 06:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also? 

message: Isn't Image:2006_Mexican_elections_-_President.png a bit misleading? It makes it look like there were huge changes in the vote counts as the night went on... but the actual changes were in the 2% range. That's much more reasonable. 
I'm going to change the image caption to better note the limited range.
PyTom 04:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to further clarify the caption. I noted also that the image could be clicked to enlarge it.--Timeshifter 06:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Graph 

message: ya están las fotos :-)
y mil felicidades por el post en la página principal de wikipedia :-)
--Ishihara 08:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fotos + felicidades 

message: --Timeshifter 01:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:DATE: If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present. Have you see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences? It lets user see dates the way they want, but they have to be linked. I linked those in the article text; delinked those in the references (which I hope is an acceptable compromise).  Aille 14:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tried that in my preferences. That is really neat. I noticed that it was not necessary to link 2006 for it to work. It worked when just the month and day were linked. It would still order the month and day according to one's preferences. Just not as thoroughly as when all three were linked. This function doesn't fix what I see as a problem, though, with dates. I don't think it works with number-only dates such as 7/8/06. In Europe that would be August 7, 2006. In the USA that represents July 8, 2006. But I accept your compromise since it ends up with less links and kilobytes than before. And it allows the article itself to be read in the format that people use normally concerning dates.--Timeshifter 01:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:DATE and WP:MOS-L are BOTH true. On overlinking. 

message: --Timeshifter 22:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: September 1: Seized the podium of Congress, blocking Vicente Fox's State of the Nation address. 
Anybody have a relevant working link?--Timeshifter 22:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-working link in Protests section 

message: It seems that the bad links found so far below and in the above sections have all been La Jornada links.
Aug. 9 link removed:
*http://www.jornada.unam.mx:8080/finaliza-bloqueo-de-simpatizantes-de-amlo-en-centro-bancario/
:August 9: Briefly surrounded and blocked the offices of foreign-owned banks: Citigroup's (United States) Banamex; BBVA's (Spain) Bancomer; and Britain's HSBC. 
Aug. 9 link removed:
*http://www.jornada.unam.mx:8080/marchan-simpatizantes-de-amlo-hacia-el-aeropuerto-capitalino
:August 9: Initiated a march towards Mexico City's Benito Juárez International Airport, that was dispersed by federal forces.
Anybody have relevant working links?--Timeshifter 23:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 non-working links in "Acts of civil disobedience" section 

message: I agree that the article is unbalanced. It does not currently list any of the many specific claims and filings of AMLO's alliance concerning election irregularities and fraud. Also the many claims of irregularities made by the opposing parties in the presidential election. Also the many claims made by non-party observers. Also the claims of bias and conflicts of interest concerning the members of the court. --Timeshifter 03:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does not currently list the specific claims and filings of Mr. Lopez Obrador's Party, and further, it doesn't list how these claims have been proven to be false, or have been proven to have no judicial value. Furthermore, it doesn't list the many times that Felipe Calderón has proposed a negotiation to create a coalition government, an offering that mr. Lopez Obrador has refused. The article also doesn't claim how one party in Mr. Lopez Obrador's alliance has judged his actions to be improper and has decided to separate from the alliance. Hari Seldon 14:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article also does not list the claims ignored by the courts, and why.--Timeshifter 17:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, the WHY is the important issue here, and the WHY was declared by the courts two months ago to be: "because the PRD did not presented them in a proper and timely fashion". This is quoted in one of the "El Universal" sources in the article. Hari Seldon 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my reading of articles the courts ignored other claims even after they were properly submitted. And the redress of the grievances that were properly submitted was inadequate according to many. So there are many details from all viewpoints that need to be addressed in the article. --Timeshifter 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "According to many", according to whom? What specific claims can you source as being ignored? Hari Seldon 21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could ask the same for all the things you have said. It is a legitimate question. And when either of us gets more time and motivation we can start filling in all these details and putting sources for them. I was too busy finding the many articles and trying to get a big picture. Others may have to help put the specific info into wikipedia. The info is in the references and further reading sections. The details are important. Because here in the USA during the 2000 presidential election Al Gore lost the election when the vote was counted one way using only a partial recount of Florida votes. But long after the election the media paid for a full recount of Florida votes, and Al Gore won. So people worldwide have less and less trust in the election process in the USA, and the fairness of its courts in ruling on those elections. And so people are very curious about the details of the election process in Mexico, the USA's neighbor. In recent months in the USA there was a very detailed analysis of the vote in Ohio during the 2004 presidential election by Robert Kennedy. It showed many more details of fraud and irregularities. So people are digging a lot deeper into the details.--Timeshifter 21:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my case it is simple: according to the courts, and according to major media sources. In the time we've been discussing i've provided to the article with three sources. The big picture is: the election was acceptably fair, specially considered to what they used to be in Mexico, and there is a clear, validated winner of the election, and there is no justification for blocking streets, congress, or claiming unsourced, undocumented fraud, particularly when your "evidence" has been proven to be bogus by the many institutions and NGOs that monitored the election. Obviously, changes in the way votes are counted, specially with such a small difference, can cause reversible results, and that is what Mr. Lopez Obrador was hoping for. However, the rules are set in law, and I think that the best solution is stop arguing, any of the parties can (and was) wronged by irregularities in the process. The goal here is not to get a hold of a position of power, but to make the country better, and I see no other way of doing it than by having these two characters using their political capital to negotiate a strong coalition government. So far, mr. Lopez Obrador has refused to do this, and instead has alienated the more than 60% of voters who did not vote for him. I've sourced this previously. Hari Seldon 01:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs specific claims of irregularities, fraud, bias. 

message: The whole article is focused on the disagreement of the PRD supporters. Shouldn't the WHOLE picture of the article be focused on all the sides? I see a lot of photographs and information about PRD protests and nothing about other factions (like the neutral human chain made in Insurgentes, or the PAN Plaza de Toros meeting, included in this article) this article must be redone in orther to respect the NPOV standards. Anyone agrees?
I've removed some pictures, they were redundant. {Unsigned comments Sept. 18, 2006 from 189.135.65.241}
:I agree that this article is biased. I would like to point a few things:
:* A controversy means two parties are actively arguing as they have contrary opinions. That means the article should mention only the opinions for which there is contrary one.
:* There can be millions of opinions of people and organizations, only the most important should be mentioned, and probably the general opinion of both sides.
:* Polls of opinions of people should be taken as the opinion of one side, the side in which the publisher is.
:* Marches don't tell anything about controversies, except that they exist, but not what they are about. Are the pepople protesting against the result? Because they think there was fraud? Because they want to open the polls to know if there was fraud? Because they want another election? Or because they want peace? You can't tell.
: -- Felipec 09:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about non-PRD protests and meetings? 

message: I've read that they were proven to be the copies owned by the PRD.
Besides, most of their proofs have been debunked (videos, photos, the PREP argument, etc.) -{Unsigned Sept. 23, 2006 comment by 201.132.242.39} 
:You are right. Almost all alleged "proof" that the PRD "had" has been disqualified judicially. The claim that there was electoral fraud is as credible as the claim that aliens from outer space are abducting people. However, fanatics never listen to reason. Hari Seldon 03:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --Timeshifter 12:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --Timeshifter 12:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballots in garbage dumps? 

message: I'm removing the following line:
:There were 673 international election observers for 130,000 polling stations. Most of them were diplomats, and were therefore not allowed to make public comments.
This alone doesn't make any point. It should be mentioned in the context in the point that most election observers claimed the elections where clean.
Also the article states that:
:PAN has claimed that the elections were clean because of the presence of international election observers. However, the 673 election observers only oversaw a fraction of the country's 130 thousand polling stations and one of the international observer groups, Global Exchange, has documented possible cases of vote-buying by the PAN and PRI political parties, illegal confiscations of voter ID cards and ballot shortages at certain polling stations.
:So why is the majority of the press repeating that the presence of international observers ensured that the election was clean and fair? "It was the electoral tribunal itself that put out that press release about the observer's," Global Exchange President Ted Lewis told me.  "We were really annoyed with them when they did that. And about two thirds of the other observers were diplomats who are not allowed to make public comments."
So the reference to this fact is supposed to be something Ted Lewis said. Who is president of Global Exchange, which is left-sided.
-- Felipec 15:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point that the statement about the 673 international election observers does not make as much sense when the controversies are not adequately explained. There was election observer info in a couple places in the article. You may not have seen the info in the old section called "Arguments considering the election fair." So I created a section called "Election observers" and moved the info concerning the election observers to that section. The controversies are clearer now. I deleted the section called "Arguments considering the election fair". All the info in that section was about election observers. All of that info has been moved to the election observers section. --Timeshifter 16:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's better, but could be improved. For starters, the comment is still misleading; I haven't found any reference other than Ted Lewis' comment that two thirds of the observers where diplomats, and where not allowed to make comments. -- Felipec 23:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your rewrite made it seem like the 673 number and the two thirds number both came from Ted Lewis. The 673 number came from Sophie McNeill's article. She does not say it came from Ted Lewis. I looked at the Global Exchange website articles again, and did not see any total number for international opservers. The two thirds number came from Ted Lewis as reported by Sophie McNeill. So I rewrote it to make it clearer as to where the numbers came from. Both our previous rewrites were confusing on this. Hope this helps. --Timeshifter 01:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems better, but anyway Sophie McNeill wasn't an election observer and doesn't provide any reference to that number. That makes me wonder on the reliability of that reporter. I have seen other articles that say Ted Lewis made those comments, so at least that information is OK. -- Felipec 09:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wikipedia article states that Sophie McNeill reported that 673 number. So people can decide for themselves on the reliability of that number. There are also some links in the article to show that she really is an Australian TV reporter for SBS Dateline Australia. --Timeshifter 22:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not useful information 

message: In the same day 2 anonymous vandals deleted a lot of stuff from the article. I reverted the vandalism both times. One of the vandals left a Spanish-language link. Maybe someone who reads Spanish might want to check the link left by 189.164.62.242 since I deleted the link not knowing what it was. I don't read Spanish. And normally we are not supposed to leave foreign language links in a wikipedia page unless there is no other source handy. Also the reason for adding the link must be explained.--Timeshifter 05:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Elecciones 2006 - Quejas sin sustento". By Armando Reyes Vigueras, July 2006. --Timeshifter 02:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please don't edit what other people write on a talk page. That is not normally allowed on a talk page. I had the link in the format that is already being used in the external links section of the wikipedia article. You changed it to a different format. You can do so in your posts on a talk page, but please don't change my posts on a talk page. I changed my last post back to what I had before. Feel free to put the link in the wikipedia article. I don't feel comfortable doing it myself since I can't read what it says. Please explain what you just wrote too, since normally Wikipedia doesn't want foreign-language links in an article. Is there an English version of some of that response-by-response info on that site? If so, please put that link too. --Timeshifter 14:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with the link being put in the article. But I can't read it, so someone else will have to put the link in the article. Maybe the info will get translated into English someday, and that link will also be put in the article.--Timeshifter 22:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal left link Sept. 27, 2006 

message: The text of the article suggests (and states overtly at least once) that the PREP and the Quick Count are the same thing. They are most definitely not. 
The Quick Count ("Conteo Rapido", as opposed to the PREP, "Programa the Resultados Electorales Preliminares"), was a statistical sampling model of several polling places. It was meant as a statistical tool of prediction. The results from the Quick Count, which were made public some days later, showed that the statistical tests showed Calderon as winning in all three, but in two of them the difference was within the margin of error and in the third it was only barely outside. It was because of this, as per prior agreement, that the IFE declared the race too close to call (the prior agreement was that the IFE would either state which candidate was projected to be the winner based on the Conteo Rapido, or ask for a couple more hours to collate more results, or declare the race too close to call). The Quick Count was not the PREP. As it happens, the final tally agreed with the Quick Count results.
The PREP on the other hand is the quick dissemination of full results as reported by the district electoral councils to the IFE. There is no statistical component to the PREP, as opposed to the Quick Count which is an entirely statistical analysis of results.
See for example , in which Ugalde speaks of making the results from the Quick Count known, and whether the tecnical committee felt it would be possible to determine the electoral tendencies at the time.  Another note is in:  
Finally, the official report from the tecnical committee is at  Magidin 22:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. I did not write those 2 sections in the article: "Quick count" and "Official count". But I would really appreciate it if you could rewrite both of those sections. With as much detail as possible. I don't read Spanish so I can't follow up on the links you left. If you rewrite those sections please leave some links sprinkled around in it. Just plain old external links if you want. Like you did in your above comment. I can convert them to detailed reference links. That will save you some time. --Timeshifter 22:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the first, with a title change. I will get to the second part when time permits, probably later today. Magidin 17:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've done a lighter but nontrivial rewrite to the Official Count section as well, and some small additions and fixes to the other section. Magidin 19:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PREP vs. Quick Count 

message: I have deleted the See Also section because if you remove "Electoral Fraud", there is nothing else to see...
I believe that removing "Electoral Fraud" as a link would greatly aid in the neutrality of the page. Having that link makes the implication that the 2006 election was a form of electoral fraud, advancing the thesis of the minority who saw their candidate lose the election. In honor of neutrality, I believe this article should strive to focus on facts, and the fact is that the election was held, and that controversies where filed, but that there is was no legal resolution, or no majority opinion (at least in Mexico) that electoral fraud occured. 
Having the link is an implication that fraud occured in Mexico in 2006, and that the controversies have factual value. I contest this conclusion, as many others in this talk page do. Indeed, for the benefit of neutrality, the link in the "see also" section should be deleted. Hari Seldon 06:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is disagreeing with Timeshifter a form of vandalism? 

message: What happened after the TEPJF declaration on 5 September?   Did Obrador give up?  Did the 500,000 protestors just go home?  Sure;y that wasn't the end of the story, was it?  -- Dominus 09:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: López Obrador lifted his sit in, I believe on September 16 or thereabouts. The sit-in had been steadily losing people, and more importantly, eroding the support for López Obrador in particular and the PRD in general, especially among a moderate middle class that they had successfully courted for the election. He formed a "wide political front", and has begun the process of registering it with the IFE so as to get public monies that are assigned to legal, registered, political associations (so much for "to hell with your institutions"). He declared himself the Legitimate President by a show of hands in his last large rally, and will swear himself in on November 20. He says he will have a sort of shadow cabinet, and will go around the country dealing with the people personally. He spent some effort unsuccessfully campaigning for the PRD candidate for governor of his native Tabasco, who lost some weeks ago amid allegations (and this time, lots and lots of verifiable evidence) of electoral violations by all sides. Right now, the discussion among his people is whether to attempt to prevent the swearing-in of Calderón on December 1st by taking over the podium, the way they did with Fox's State of the Union on September 1st. Magidin 18:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is some info from the wikipedia article about the unpopularity of the sit-in: "Since the rally on July 31, López Obrador's campaign has set up plantones, or encampments, inside the Zócalo and along Paseo de la Reforma, one of Mexico City's main arteries, snarling traffic for weeks. Though 59% of Mexico City residents believe there was fraud, the encampents are widely unpopular, as 65% oppose them, according to a poll taken August 9 by El Universal." http://www.mexiconews.com.mx/19857.html and http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/141694.html The info is in the "protests" section of the wikipedia article. Under the July 31 entry. --Timeshifter 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened next? 

message: Reading the Al Giordano piece referenced regarding the photographs, there is one thing that jumps up: he has already reached the conclusion that there was "massive fraud". The piece is not reporting, it is a big op-ed piece expressing this conclusion (if conclusion it be). In addition, the "photographic evidence" is laughable. To wit: the first photograph shows the large poster-sized version of the acta which is, by law, posted outside each polling place after the count is finished and the actas signed by the poll workers and the party representatives. Once posted, it is not only within plain sight, but in easy reach of anyone. Any one with a felt-tip pen can modify the poster. Giordano misidentifies the manta as the "acta" (it is not), and does not show enough of either the manta or the PREP report to be able to determine for sure if they are meant to be reports of the same polling place. In any case, the PREP are not the official results.  Compare this to the photo of the second one in , which is the acta (not the manta), and where the "fraud" seems to consist of capture error (88 rather than 188). He tells us of a "pattern" based on two examples, and seems to have ignored the fact that, if his first example were correct, it would show Calderón's total also being under-reported in the PREP. As for the second one, you might note that the acta seems to lack the signatures of the party representatives, which together with the obviously amended totals on the third column bring to question the validity of the entire acta. This is "evidence"? Al Giordano is not acting as a reporter here, he is acting as an advocate; and referencing this as "photographic evidence" is a rather large jump. Magidin 15:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the wikipedia article that particular claim of his is not mentioned. --Timeshifter 02:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Giordano, and photos 

message: Clearly, we have some frayed nerves and strong opinions, myself included. I want to make two proposals, the first one here, the second below in a different heading. 
First, I propose archiving at part of this talk page (see WP:Archive), which seems to be growing rather fast. It seems like at least the first 8 sections are done; the next four sections haven't seen any action since mid-September.  This at least, could probably be archived now. I have never done any archiving myself, but the page linked above seems fairly straightforward. My second proposal appears separately, since it involves the actual page. Magidin 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, archiving is necessary.  Hari Seldon 18:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created an archive page using the instructions at WP:Archive. Which I just edited a little to simplify the process for the next person. The most recent comment in the last section in the archived talk page is from October 27, 2006. The most recent comment in the "Discussion" section in the current talk page is from November 18, 2006. --Timeshifter 02:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First proposal: Archive of portions of talk page 

message: My second proposal is to agree to a moratorium of a couple of weeks to let tempers cool off a bit. I don't think we need to set it up as a formal blocking on editing, but I would propose that we refrain from adding substantial new information (going either way) for a bit. Copy-editing, slight reorganization or rephrasing, missing links added, all of them are still good ideas; but perhaps we can simply propose any major new additions in the talk page for now, pending a whole reorganization of this page. 
As I mentioned before, I think 2004 United States election voting controversies gives a reasonable template in terms of what we should be aiming for. It is clear that the evaluation of the election mostly breaks along ideological lines (with a few notable exceptions like Jose Woldenberg), which we can make clear to begin with 
system was completely redesigned and that the only real antecedent to this election is the 2000 election, not the ones run by the Secretaría de Gobernación under the PRI; but that nonetheless the makes the issue of fraud a sensitive and emotional one. We should also clearly distinguish between fraud and irregularities. We should have an opening paragraph, similar to the one in page mentioned above, which summarizes the allegations by broad category (mistakes in the PREP, bias of observers, problems with party observers, etc.) Then a section on background. Then the problems during the campaign (the CCE spots, comments by Fox, etc). Then the summary of the voting and PREP, Conteo Rápido, and election results, the legal complaints, and final resolution. Then we can go on to specifics: complaints on the PREP, allegations of irregularities, the legal complaints (both about the campaign and the voting process), the opening of packages and the TPEJF resolution. Then the recount, and the allegations surrounding it, and then the decision about the TPEJF. These sections would contain the information currently on the page, but be organized in a manner similar to the page on the US election problems. They include specific alegations, and specific links and comments, without the apparent flood of information we currently have here. After that, we can have a section on the general press reaction, op-ed pieces with more generic arguments, the intellectuals' letters, and so on, and some of the polls on the general opinion in Mexico (there were several that were very explicit on the breakdown relative to how people voted, e.g. that most but not all people who voted for López Obrador believed there was fraud, that most but not all people who voted for Calderón were happy with the partial recount; we should aim to find polls like that which show the clear breakdown along ideological and partizan lines). 
After that we can have the sections on the organized opposition and the photographs, which seem to me to be better edited and reasonably so within the context (of course, those are easier, since we all agree that the actions happened, whereas the previous sections are about allegations). The issue with the See Also section can be fixed if instead of simple links with no comment (which is, granted, the usual) we do something more along the lines of the way it is done in, say, Squaring the circle (to name one I notice recently).
All of this is a major undertaking, but I honestly think that this page is a bit of a mess, even setting aside issues of neutrality. Alas, I certainly do not have the time to do this right now, and I am not positive I will have sufficient time later (of course, I'm not the only one who can do this). We should probably begin, after a cooling-off period, with the background and campaign, which should be straightforward and unlikely to be contentious. Clearly the most contentious bit will be the section on the allegations, but even there I think that a more coherent organization of the claims and counterclaims will go a long way towards making this seems more balanced. Of course, it is possible (if not likely) that the way I envision this is improbably or impossible to actually bring to fruition. It's happened before. But I think we should try, when there is enough time to devote to it wholesale rather than bits and pieces at a time.Magidin 18:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of what you wrote. I understand you may not have time to work on it soon. But I have time now and will start adding subsections to break down the allegations by topic. That way the related claims and counterclaims will be in the correct sections so that readers can find stuff easily using the table of contents. We can always rearrange stuff at any time. It is much easier to do once stuff is sorted out. --Timeshifter 02:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My one request would be to stick to reorganizing and copy-editing, rather than introduce new references or allegations. I think we need a short cooling off period before addressing what should be in or out. Magidin 13:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, reorganization will be very helpful, and a cooling off period would be great too. -- Felipec 20:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Proposal: Moratorium and reorganization 

message: As a general rule, I think that if you are going to include both Spanish and English names of an organization, you should put the actual name first, and the translation later. Thus, for example, when the page first refers to Alianza Cívica, I think the name should be in Spanish with the English translation in parenthesis. Future references can be either to the Spanish name alone, or to the English translation alone. Same goes for "Conteo Rápido"/Quick Count, etc. Magidin 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Future references should go to the English translation in my opinion. Otherwise most native English speakers will get confused. --Timeshifter 21:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English and Spanish Names