Talk:Constitution of Mexico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I find the Article 18 crises section to be very slanted. Is it possible to get a rewrite?

Contents 1 NPOV dispute: Article 18 crisis 2 Which Supreme Court? 3 Interwiki linking to Spanish Wikisource 4 NPOV dispute:Entire article

[edit] NPOV dispute: Article 18 crisis

The section of this article dealing Article 18 of the Constitution does not appear to be neutral.

1. It is given undue prominence. No other article of the constitution gets a section of its own.
2. The section appears to be a partisan commentary: it is labelled as a crisis, implying that it is a crisis of the constitution, whereas it actually discusses a dispute between Mexico and one of its neighbouring countries (the USA) which arises from a judicial ruling on the interpretation of Article 18.
3. The section does not read as fair to each side of the dispute: in its first sentence, it describes Article 18 as "troubling", before the article is even described.
4. The section has an American bias, since it is considered solely from the POV of extradition to the USA, and appears not to accept that Mexico may have legitimate grounds for its stance.
5. The section claims concerns from the "perspective of legal scholars", but cites no legal scholars as sources (in fact, no sources at all are cited). The concerns cited appear to be those which might be expected from American prosecutors, which is a rather different matter.

I suggest that this section should be deleted pending the expansion of the article to produce a fuller description of the Mexican constitution.

If it is felt appropriate for Wikipedia to cover the extradition dispute, that might be better achived done by providing a separate (but linked) article on the extradition dispute, or in the section on international strains in the article on extradition.

BrownHairedGirl 06:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with BrownHairedGirl. Section about Art-18 needs to be rewriten or even deleted. I dont found Art-18 as troubling; I also think there is not such a crisis. It is given undue prominence. --Abögarp 17:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Further research reveals that the Mexican Supreme Court has revised its position on life sentences, and that extradition is now possible. I have therefore deleted the section, since it is clearly out of date. (Sources: "Wanted Fugitive Raul Gomez Garcia Extradited to the U.S." (US Embassy in Mexico) and Mexico alters extradition rules (BBC News)). There may be merit in a future section explaining the shifting interpretations, but I suggest that this should not be given undue prominence, and should be carefully checked against the nuances of what appears to be subtly shifting jurisprudence. In the meantime, I have added a paragraph to the article on Life imprisonment briefly explaining the history of the dispute, and linked to it from brief note on Article 18 under the new heading "other articles". I hope that this accommodates all viewpoints. BrownHairedGirl 11:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which Supreme Court?

Is it just me, or is anyone else confused by which Supreme Court is being discussed in the following? "The reason Article 18 has become an object of concern for these countries, notably the United States, is that the Supreme Court ruled in October 2001 that life imprisonment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of Article 22, partially because it fails to allow for the possibility of rehabilitation as required by Article 18." As the United States is mentioned just before the "Supreme Court", on a quick and casual reading I did a double-take when for a second I thought that the sentence was claiming the US Supreme Court of the United States had somehow ruled to honor Mexican law :-) Why not just eliminate the re-direct and use the title of the supreme court article. Yaf 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Issue resolved with latest edit removing the point of confusion. Yaf

[edit] Interwiki linking to Spanish Wikisource

Spanish Wikisource has the text of the Mexican Constitution. Anybody know a simpler way of linking to there (i.e. an interwiki of a different language?) --Cumbiagermen 07:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute:Entire article

The articles of the Constitution presented here are selectively presented to emphasize portions of the Constitution that are used by anti-Mexican propagandistas. Specifically, Articles 32, 33, 55 91, 95. This article should present the whole Mexican Constitution article by article, or just be a summary of the whole thing, not a presentation of what articles right-wing theocrats want people to read.Tubezone 16:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)