Talk:Francisco I. Madero
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
I'd like to know the source of the claim that "Madero... feared that the existing regime under Díaz would inevitably breed true social revolution..."
In his book, La Revolución, Thomas Benjamin writes, "To Madero, the Revolution of 1910 was a genuine and radical one, but he did not understand or accept the concept of a social revolution. In an address given in Veracruz in September 1911, Madero emphasized that social and economic progress "cannot be brought about by a revolution, nor by laws, nor by decrees." (Benjamin, page 44)" TheDoof 22:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The grammar and overall structure seems poor at best...He ran in the mexican presidency in the early 1900s .Díaz in 1910,(Diaz was currently in power. He didn't back down from Diaz during the election.He was elected as candidate for the Anti-reelectionist movement.This silm gentlemen from nothern Mexico,only wanted for Diaz to share more power among the Mexican elite,but Diaz refused.As a result Madero got radical As a result he opened up the door for other various leaders to run for election; such as peasants. He was arrested in June and then released conditionally in July. Díaz was declared president, with an improbably massive majority, in October 1910.
I don't know as much about Madero as I'd like, but perhaps someone else could revamp it? --Tothebarricades.tk 21:18, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Madero was a "revolutionary?" Madero's intent in overthrowing Diaz had nothing to do with a revolution, but rather crushing an imminent revolution that was growing with Diaz's policies. He aimed to give small concessions to the Proletariat to make them think that a Capitalist society would be advantageous. - Mawied
He was a revolutionary in the sense that he was an active participant of the revolution, I'd hope some details could be found in the "Plan de San Luis" article. makeyourself 06:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Why the grammar is subpar
This article is mostly plagiarized from
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/F/Francisco-I.-Madero.htm
[edit] Flying chief
There is no source on how he was the first chief executive to fly in an airplane, and it's not quite clear if this stands internationally, or only for mexican government's leaders. makeyourself 06:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Image
Here's the image originally illustrating the article, found and scanned from vintage PD paper source for Wikipedia. -- Infrogmation 21:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This is wrong
In accordance with every other account about Madero, he genuininely beleived in his revolutionary ideas. He was a naive idealist, not the calculating politician represented here, bent on thwarting true social progress. Randomdude888 02:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- You're right, I've added the neutrality disputed template. Mixcoatl 17:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Madero's Middle Name
As stated on his birth certificate, Madero's middle name was "Ignacio" and not "Indalecio"
[edit] Comment from 68.111.39.2
I offer the following for your consideration:
In the 6th edition of A History of Latin America, by Keen and Haynes, probably the most widely used Latin American history text in U.S. colleges, Madero is quoted as stating "the ignorant public should take no direct part in determining who should be the candidate for public office." Not in and of itself a "smoking gun" but a clear indicator of his elitist views. If you examine his Plan of San Luis Potosi, he advocates judicial reform when the majority of the populace was starving b/c of the depression of 1906-1907, with Keen and Haynes writing "his conception of democracy as a formal democracy that would give the masses the illusion of power...but would vest all decision making in the hands of an elite."
Looking at his actions once Diaz had resigned after the Treaty of Ciudad Juarez, interim president de la Barra dispatched federal forces to stop the Zapatistas from the land redistribution they had engaged in almost immediately. Madero did nothing to stop it. Moreover, Madero was convinced that the land should remain in the hands of the hacendados, as it had been under Diaz. In addition, his social and educational reforms were non-existent.
For further clarification of Madero's standpoint I also direct you to "Zapata and the Mexican Revolution" by John Womack, Jr., probably the seminal work in Zapatista and Mexican Revolutionary scholarship since the late 60s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.111.39.2 (talk • contribs).
