This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is supported by WikiProject Peru. This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.PeruWikipedia:WikiProject PeruTemplate:WikiProject PeruPeru
I just want to go on record here saying that I think that Messhermit'scomment that I am "praising" Sendero Luminoso is deeply offensive. Sendero was a terrible organization responsible for the death of tens of thousands of Peruvians. To equate me with that organization simply because I had the audacity to mention the objective fact that Martha Chavez introduced the Ley Colán is ridiculous. All of us, myself included, need to do a better job maintaining civility. --Descendall03:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. The edit of Grupo Colina that you reference was of me wikifying the article. I didn't add a single source. Are you angry at me because I didn't delete the sources in that article? I also still don't understand how mentioning the Ley Colán makes me a Senderista, but I don't think I'll ever get a response on that--Descendall16:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am only stating that you must stop pretending to be the "victim" here. If you want to state that I accused you of being a "Sendero" supporter, fine with me. At least you should state that you insulted me first, and that was the main reason of why did I said that comment. As I said before, I have nothing against your person; it is only your neutrality of your actions the one that I'm questioning. Messhermit18:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I copied and pasted the exact same message on the talk pages of the three people that seem to know that most about modern Peruvian politics. The legal aspects of this article are incredibly complicated, at least to me, so I figured that people who know more about it that I do might be able to make the article better. I believe that out of the three people who I contacted, Jersey Devil is the only Peruvian citizen (though I may be wrong about that). I actually have no idea who he voted for and if he supported Fujimori or not. He seems to have done a particually good job on the Ollanta Humala article, so I figure he knows what he's talking about when it comes to Peru. He also is by far the most active member of the Peru collaboration project. I honestly think that we can make a better article through all this. --Descendall16:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that you were at least involved in some minor role in the flame war that took place in the Alberto Fujimori's article here in Wikipedia. You also know that Viajero is clearly "Anti-Fujimorista" (something that even he apparently recognizes on his personal page), and by doing that, you are clearly trying to gather support for yours statements. I expected a move like this one. Also, why do you mean by saying that only those people are the ones that know about Peruvian politics? You should at least know what you are writing, since I found that last comment pretty offensive. As a Peruvian myself, I always keep an eye on what is happening over there. Messhermit17:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously wasn't going to invite you to join in the discussion since you were already in it. I really don't know how to make this any clearer: I told three people who are interested in Peruvian politics that this page might be of interest to people who are interested in Peruvian politics. If you object to that, you can file a request for arbitration against me. If you want me to cut and paste the message that I sent to Jmabel, Jersey Devil, and Viajero onto your talk page, I'll gladly do it. --Descendall17:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...with one of them clearly biased against the articles related to Alberto Fujimori. A Request for Mediation could have been filled, since it was the neutrality of the article the one questioned. By doing that, it seems that you are far more interested in keeping the article "as it is", and not to achieve NPOV. Messhermit18:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. It shows that you don't want a mediation because you want the article to only state your POV. Once again, I wonder how neutral is that. Messhermit19:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I generally think of mediation as a course of last resort, and I think that we will be able to hammer out our differences and create a better article without it. Of course, it is just as easy for you to request mediation as it is for me to request it, so if you really think that it's impossible for us to proceed without mediation, you're free to request it. Keep in mind, however, that this whole dispute is only about half a day old. It's not as if we've been trying to work this out for the past month or anything. --Descendall19:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fine with me. I'll call it a day, since I have to do some College related homework. I already forgot about the "insult" incident, and I will only focus on the neutrality of the article from now on. Messhermit19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to here it. Again, I shouldn't have been as agressive as I was. Wikipedia's servers seem to be having problems, so it's a good time to end it all for today. --Descendall19:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while Viajero can speak for himself, I'd like to point out that his user page says "I have been accused of being a sock puppet, a banned user, a vandal, and an antifujimorista." While I generally like to assume good faith, it's a little hard for me to understand how anyone could possibly take that as an admission of being anti-Fujimori. Messhermit might be interested to know that in addition to his claims that I am a senderista sympathizer, I have also been called a supporter of the AUC who touts a radical ideology "responsible for the death of thousands of Colombian leftists." It's easy to make wild accusations on wikipedia. It's also unoriginal. --Descendall18:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I only base my accusations in facts. I am not interested in hearing your position regarding the Colombian Civil War, but is clear for me that you simply lack the neutrality and NPOV requirements for editing in this type of articles. In this sense, I wonder how neutral is by your part to label Peruvian Presidents as "terrorist" [1], [2]. Your editions speak for yourself, it is not something "unoriginal" or "invented" by me. Messhermit18:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding Viajero, I base what I say in my personal experience and his attempt to censure my ideas just because they did not match with the ones that he has: that is, Viajero "believes" that everything that Fujimori did was wrong. Just by looking at his editions is more than enough to realize that. Messhermit18:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from Descendall's contributions to the Sendro article, I would say he's done alot for trying to stop that article from becoming a propganda page. With regards to this issue, I am not up to date to it and I was just asked to Descendall in my talk page to review it. It is 1:30am here so I'll leave this to tommorow to review. Please, try and keep cool during this and stop this from becoming an edit war. Thank you.--Jersey Devil05:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the article "The Constitutional Democratic Congress was working on a new Constitution at that time, and thus the Constitution of 1979 was no longer legally effective." I believe the word "thus" is misleading. The '79 constitution was inoperative, but not because a new constitution was being written. It's perfectly normal to operate under an existing constitution while writing a new one. It was inoperative because Fujimori had effectively suspended it, no? - Jmabel | Talk05:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Democratic Constitutional Congress was replacing both the Peruvian Senate and Chamber of Deputies, there is no questions regarding that. It acted in the same way as the "Constitutional Assembly of 1979": That is, it totally disregarded the Constitution (in that case, the one of 1933) and created a new one. No Peruvian constitution has ever stated a way of how to replace it (only to reform it), and that was the case of the ones of 1933 and 1979. Messhermit14:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When President Fujimori declared that Congress would be closed and ordered the reorganization of the Judiciary Branch, it only suspended the parts of the constitution that "were not compatible with his government" [3]. The "Constitution of 1979" was still in place until the "Democratic Constitutional Congress" was elected and established as the Legislative Branch of the country. Thus, the sessions and work of the DCC were not legally binded to the "Constitution of 1979". Messhermit14:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But then you still run into the problem of sounding like the DCC is automatically and logically superior to the Constitution of 1979. Simply because it was elected doesn't mean that it was superior to that Constitution; the entire point of a democratic Constitution is usually to restrain the elected branches of government. The reason that the Constitution of 1979 wasn't operative at the time was, as far as I can tell, because Fujimori simply declared that was void. --Descendall16:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, and your comment is once again based only in anti-Fujimori POV: Jaime Yoshiyama, President of the Constitutional Democratic Congress stated that the Assembly was above the "Constitution of 1979": He declared that the Constitution was still in place except the parts that contradict or interfere with the work of the Assembly. Both Opposition (which was present in the Assembly) and Government Congressman’s agreed. Messhermit17:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine, but then you still run into the same problem of sounding like the DCC is automatically and logically superior to the Constitution of 1979. It wasn't. Someone had to make that decision. Whether it was Fujimori or his right hand man in Congress doesn't get you around the problem. Not only did someone have to make the decision, but most of Congress disagreed with it: the only two established parties in Peru, APRA and AP, both refused to take part in the entire process. But that's really not the point. Even if it was agreed upon by 100% of Peruvians, which it obviously wasn't, the "thus" would still be incorrect. --Descendall17:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So now Yoshiyama was his "right hand", and everybody that does not agree with your POV falls in the same category. I wonder how impartial that is. Also you are wrong in stating that "just because some of the political parties attempted to boycott the election, it lacks authority". The "Partido Popular Cristiano", active since 1963, participated in the elections, in the same way the "Frente Independiente Moralizador", active since 1980, took part in the process. Many other prominent leftlist politicians were elected to the Assembly, ignoring the fact that there was never a "leftlist" political party clearly established. Do I have to remind you that at least those two parties are still active in Peruvian politics? Your conception of "established parties" seems to be pretty narrow. Messhermit18:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the APRA and AP did not participate in the elections, if was not because they were not allowed, but because they decided to not participate on them. Don't blame on Fujimori or the other political parties the fact that APRA and AP were not elected to the "Democratic Constitutional Congress". Messhermit18:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's still besides the point. The Democratic Constitutional Congress was not automatically superior to the constitution, which the word "thus" implies. It has to go. --Descendall18:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an objective fact that at some point, a decision was made that the Democratic Constitutional Congress would be above the Constitution of 1979. It's amazing that anyone would deny that. --Descendall19:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitutional Assembly was above the "Constitution of 1979" by the simple fact that "if some provisions of the Constitution contradict the Assembly, the Assembly is above the Constitution". The congressman's that worked in that Assembly (Pro and Anti Government) knew this and accepted this. I don't believe that there are more simple words to explain you this. If you don't want to accept this, fine. You don't have. But it was the law, and as the law, it was obeyed. Messhermit19:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is called the fallacy of equivication. If you are using the word "law" to mean natural law or a logical progression, then you should use the word "thus." But you're not. You're using the word "law" to mean the result of some form of decision-making process that occured within the Peruvian polity. As a result, "thus" should not be used. --Descendall19:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
