Talk:National Action Party (Mexico)

Centre Right???

The statement that the PAN is a centre right party is extremely misleading. Those guys are ultra-right-wing, ultra-conservative hardliners. There should be more information about their dirty history.--Scandza (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

How is the pan ultra-right wing or ultra-conservative? With regards to economic policies, it's further to the left than the Republican party, probably even more to the left than American Democratic party even. For example, you will not hear PAN politicians argue that "the society should take care of itself" or anything similar to the Republican party's position. Social spending and welfare are always an important part of their goverment platforms. With regards to social issues, the only issues as to why you might label them as conservative would be abortion and gay marriage, which was really only in two states. Furthermore the other big parties in mexico don't really have strongly advertised national pro-choice or pro-gay marriage platforms, most of the country is quite conservative with regards to those issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariorz (talk • contribs) 05:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Free market and economically liberal stances do not equate to "right wing". Just because the right in the United States has adopted these ideals does not mean that it is a defining characteristic of the right in general.--Drdak (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Recent Politic Scandals"

This section is a total disgrace. I considered deleting it whole but instead leave it to the discretion of a (perhaps more neutral) third party. As it is evident, "politic scandals" is not proper English wording. Grammatically, this section is pathetic.

Point by point:

1) FOBAPROA was government policy and therefore has no place in a political party's page. Furthermore, it was pursued in the 1990s, when Mexico was ruled by the PRI. Misspelled Scotiabank is a Canadian bank which arrived to Mexico after the Fobaproa scandal.

2) PEMEX contracts - again government policy. Furthermore, no court has yet accepted these charges. Hard to find a relationship between the party and this 'scandal'.

3) The PAN has not been judged guilty of using more money for campaigning than that allocated by the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE). Regarding a party trying to discredit the opposition... well, I have seen a lot of discrediting between Obama and Clinton at the moment and they're in the same party! It's common practise (and was practised both ways). The Zhenli Ye Gon allegation is completely ridiculous and was only passingly mentioned by said individual as he was captured, but not even the PRD opposition is considering this scenario seriously.

4) Privatisation - PEMEX and CFE are only some of the most profitable public sector companies because of the disastrous performance of said sector. The current federal government, as well as the PAN party, is against privatising both companies - it would be, after all, political suicide (See [1]). The Calderón government is currently pushing forward a very mild programme allowing Pemex to pursue public-private ventures to explore certain deep-sea reservoirs.

If anyone is willing to tackle this subject seriously, go ahead, but this is a joke.

Agreed; this section has major problems and needs a complete re-write or, barring that, deletion. Also, RE: comment by Scandza above, I'd venture to say that all political parties are involved in trying to discredit their opposition, with a certain amount of 'dirty history' on all sides, so to single out one group seems a bit unfair to me. God knows that the PRI certainly does not have clean hands, and a much longer history (Since the 1920s with Calles and Obregon, with the Tlatelolco Massacre thrown in for good measure) than does PAN.--Lyricmac (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Election box metadata

Heh...PAN seems a bit Schizo...One second they're doing whatever the Vatican tells them to and the next they're forming bizarre alliances with far left parties that have logos that remind one of the old USSR.

This article holds certain amount of hostility towards the PAN

The PAN is indeed a conservative party but is not an ultraconservative party as mentioned in the article (destroy art pieces, miniskirts restriction). It cannot be compared to any other party outside Mexico. Since the 1917 Constitution, Mexico experienced a drastic separation between Church and State (more violent than in any other Latin American country). Not only should political parties be absolutely lay, but Catholic priests were forbidden by law to get involved in any political movement and to organize any religious event outside the church buildings. Monasteries were abolished and priests were even forbidden to vote on elections. These laws are considered by PRI-supporters to be a landmark in Mexican politics. No single PRI Mexican president would even dare to make reference to anything Christian (they would not go to mass, and in fact, it was Carlos Salinas de Gortari, in the 1990s, the first president to welcome the pope as a chief of state visitor).

The fact that president Vicente Fox goes to mass every Sunday, (something quite natural in almost any other country) has provoked repudation by leftist and PRI-supporters. Considering what has been explained above, and the fact that this particular detail was frowned upon in the article clearly shows the author's policital preferences and his partiality in his assessment of the PAN.

Mexican ultraconservative catholics support SOME PAN (both party and government) actions but are against others. PAN government (President Vicente Fox government) has approved the use of "The next day pill" a pill considered by the Catholic Church and the ultraconservative as abortive. Also in March 2005 the Mexican government started a campaing to fight against homophobia in Mexico, and to promote tolerance for sexual diversity, something that most Cathotlic organizations disliked.

Anyone can check this in the following links: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/version_imprimir?id_nota=119183&tabla=NACION_H http://anodis.com/display_message.asp?mid=1583

The author comments the following "President Fox himself – who simply see supporting the party as the best way of preventing the hated PRI from remaining in power." This again is not true, and shows the author contempt for the PAN. As it can be noted in the presidents web page, as well as in the PAN's web page, (even in the book "Opening Mexico" by Preston and Dillon former NY Times bureau chiefs in Mexico), president Fox consideres himself a "panista", an adjective referring to the fact that he beliefs in the party's guidelines.

Also, the author of the article mentions that some analysts believe that 2004 elections results are a significat repudiation of the PAN. EDIT: Yet they did gain the presidency from the PRI for the first time in over 70 years... That is not so; in 2004 the PAN did lose the governorship of some states but won in others like Tlaxcala and Aguascalientes. This fact, and the use of the word "repudiation" show again that the author is not being impartial in his comments.

The article is DEFINETLY not neutral and must be edited.

The article should also mention comments from its new Regional Director for the State of Mexico, Oscar Sanchez, publicly admiring Hitler and the Nazis, and inviting virulently anti-semitic speakers to one of its public events. The party has not officially made any statement condemning or 'de-linking' itself from Mr Sanchez's comments, implying that there is a tacit agreement with this ideology. They have only suggested that it is his right to 'exercise free speech'. See http://www.sinembargo.mx/17-06-2013/657144 [in Spanish]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.153.108 (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

"Economic Policies"

Removing most of this section as it is either completely unrelated to economic policies (i.e. Fox and the Virgin Guadalupe), or to the PAN (i.e. NAFTA was signed long before P was in government) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariorz (talk • contribs) 23:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Response: "neutrality"

On the other hand, some PAN members, and even elected officials, have been known to commit some ultraconservative actions (as described - destroy pieces of art, miniskirt restriction, etc...) I agree that they are individual expressions and not party policy, but a party is made by its members...

The truth is that ultraconservatives will find expression in the PAN for there is no other popular right-wing party in Mexico!

On the other hand, eventhough priests are forbidden to participate in politcs, it is well known that the catholic church has an influence in the Agenda of the Party. The party's stand on issues such as abortion, gay marriages, and the like is in parallel to Catholic teachings. Is it to be denied that the party has alliances with "Christian Democrat" parties in Latin America?

President Fox is, indeed, heavly influence by catholicism: Remember how he kneeled and kissed the Papal Ring? This is outrageously unconstitutional in Mexico, and would be consider an insult in any other country. How about President Bush kneeling in front of another head of state? That is to be seen as an act of recognition of the other's superior authority. The act of President Fox was an act of approving the superior authority of the church. Even if some "sinner" policies, such as the after-day pill are approved...

I agree that the article is not neutral, but the fact remains that the PAN does lean to the extreme-right in some circumstances, and the catholicism does permeate to the party's politics.

I agree that the PAN does lean right, although not as far as far-right. It is defnitely more common for PAN members to be mixing politics and religion. Remember Abascal (former Minister of Labor, currently Secretary of Government) who said that with "God's mercy" Mexico would get more jobs. The problem is not that Fox is catholic, but that he does show it so much, because it pleases catholics and attracts them to the party. He didn't get married until he won the election, why? perhaps as not to anger conservatives because he and his "girlfriend" were divorced. The fact that individuals (as the article mentions) have enacted extreme conservative laws is a very important information to be shared. The PAN *is* conservative and is a member of the christian coalition of parties, there isn't much more to say about this.

Please indent your comments and sign them using four tildes. The PAN is a member of the christian coalition of parties, and as such, can be accurately considered a christian democratic party. Mindlessly removing descriptions of real policies of the PAN without any reason is not NPOV. If you have issues with the article, discuss here and edit accordingly. JZ 02:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. Christian Democracy is not the same as Christianity. There is a large difference between Christian Democracy as a political ideology, and Christian parties. Itake 03:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You are putting the "kissing the Pope's ring" incident with Fox totally out of context. As an example, you ask what would happen if Bush kneeled in front of another head of state. Of course that would be an outrage. But to compare that with Fox's actions would be to say that there are no cultural, political, religious and social differences between USA and Mexico. Indeed there are differences, and it is because of these differences that we cannot compare both scenarios. Fox kissed the Pope's ring, as would any of the 89% of Mexicans who are Roman Catholic. (Source: CIA World Factbook <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html#People>) Fox kissed the ring because he is Mexican, NOT because he is a member of the PAN and defenitely NOT because he is an ultra-conservative "Christian Democrat". Any Mexican would show the same kind of respect and admiration for the Pope, even the ultra-liberals (?) of the PRD. Obviously the term "ultra-liberal" is used here for sarcasm. I live in the north of Mexico where there is a large population of PAN supporters and a dominance of PAN in the government, and I have never seen such demonstrations of religious fanatism like prohibiting skirts and destroying artwork. Yes, the PAN leans right, but this is more as far as economic ideals are concerned than socially speaking. But, by no means are they a party with a religious base. There is no such thing as a party with a religious base in Mexico. If the strategies PAN use to attract voters are religious, as has been mentioned, then the PAN would have 89% of the votes, corresponding to all the Catholic population AND they wouldn't have taken as long to win the first presidential election, considering that the dominance of the Catholic church in Mexico has done nothing but decrease throughout the years. Obviously this accusatin could not be more mistaken.

Not a religious party

It is not true that the PAN has ideological bases related to the Roman Catholic Church as the article states. PAN in fact does lean right, but to say that they support the church is an exageration. As mentioned above, religion and politics in Mexico is a very sensitive issue, and no political party would even think of teaming up with the church. In a nutshell, PAN's ideology favors neoliberalism, tax reductions and free trade (not much unlike the US GOP). They see enterpreneurship and private investment as the best way to spur employment and economic growth, as opposed to public spending and government control.

Recent huge edits

There have recently been huge, destructive edits under the guise of "removing bias". These edits have included removing things like the designation of the PAN as a christian democratic party, and the percentages with which it has won various elections. I have reverted such edits once, and will do so again, until some consensus is reached here on this discussion page about what specific parts of the article show bias and need to be changed. The fact that the PAN is a christian democratic party is not biased, since it's a member of an international organization of christian democratic parties. The election numbers are not biased. If anyone's going to make edits to this article, I suggest they're made much more sparingly and non-destructively, and ideally, everything should be discussed here first, and a consensus reached. JZ 09:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Joakim. Some PNI members even take pride in their Christian Democratic affiliation, plus their political platform is very often congruent with Christian Democratic ideology. Obviously, there is no "criticism" towards the PAN for calling them what they are. Important figures in World politics are Christian Democratic.

I would also like to know what is it considered bias about this article so I can contribute.

Greetings! Hari Seldon 14:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit Suggestions

I would like to mention that I have been the one who made the edits on the article as I do not see it as being a neutral and objective one. I perhaps mistakenly edited it without reaching a consensus as I was not completely aware of the discussion policies. I have nothing against the article or its creator, but it is obvious to me that the author has anti-PAN feelings and he has not been able to completely ignore them when writing this article and as a result, although perhaps not intentionally, he has shed some of those feelings to the text which should be completely objective. It is obvious that this person has a deep knowledge of Mesxico's political affairs and once again I have nothing personal against him. However, I think we could all help to make this article better and more useful. That is why I have decided to share with you the reasons why I find this article to be biased and the modifications I feel could provide a light of neutrality to it.

• First of all I suggest the following paragraph be deleted, because it exagerates the right-wing tendencies of the party to portray them as ultra-conservative. Furthermore, that information cannot be confirmed as there is no source cited for it. Also, the last sentence suggests tha there is a vast number of PAN followers who are in the party's ranks for the sole urpuse of tackling the PRI in its efforts to remain in power, which is also misleading and suggestive that the party has no real followers but rather only opposers of the PRI.

"In some cases, PAN mayors and governors have banned public employees from wearing miniskirts (Guadalajara, Jalisco), clamped down on the use of profanity in public marketplaces (Santiago de Querétaro), and – in one particularly notorious case in the northern state of Baja California – brought extreme religious and political pressure to bear on a teenaged rape victim to dissuade her from abortion, which she was legally entitled to. Carlos Abascal, secretary of the interior in the Vicente Fox administration, also notoriously called birth control pills weapons of mass destruction in 2005. Such stances are not, however, shared by many of the PAN's middle-class rank and file members, who traditionally saw supporting the party as the best way of preventing the PRI from remaining in power."

• In the whole section discussing the party's ideology, there is only the first sentence which is an objective description of the party's points of view on major issues. The rest is more of a criticism to the party's so called "religious influence". Again, there is no source to confirm this and the author has gone to the length of stating things like "many of its members are also advocates of Roman Catholicism as a political inspiration" which not only contains weasel words (many of its members: who are these members?), but is stated as a fact, once again, with no source or means of confirming such a statement. It is because of this that I suggest that the section on party ideology be completely re-rwitten. I propose the following, which is a compilation of my own contributions, Joakin's and other people who have written in this discussion, which I believe to have a much more neutral standpoint and objective information:

"The PAN occupies the right of Mexico's political spectrum. PAN's ideology favors neoliberalism, tax reductions, free enterprise and free trade, smaller government and a reform of the welfare state. They see enterpreneurship and private investment as the best way to spur employment and economic growth, as opposed to public spending and government control. Its economic ideology is not much unlike the Republican Party of the United States. It's views on controversial social issues are sometimes tending towards the conservative side, being that the party is a member of the a member of the Christian Democrat Organization of America (CDOA) and has a number of openly catholic members in its ranks, in a country that is 90% catholic. For instance, President Fox attends church regularly. Nevertheless PAN government has also approved the use of "the next day pill" a pill considered by the Catholic Church and the ultraconservative as abortive. Also in March 2005 the Mexican government started a campaing to fight against homophobia in Mexico, and to promote tolerance for sexual diversity, something that most Cathotlic organizations disliked."

• Also to make the article more neutral and objective, I strongly suggest that the heading for the seccond section of th article be changed from "Conservative Politics" to "Ideology" or something else of the sort. "Ideology" gives the article a more neutral standpoint.

• I also suggest that the following paragraphs be moved from the article's overview to the history section, which could then be renamed from "Recent History" to just "History". Another possibility would be to move the text to a new section called "Origins" and maintain the section on "Recent History" as is:

"Mexican Roman Catholics, together with other conservatives (mainly Manuel Gomez Morín), founded the PAN in 1939 after the cristero insurgency lost the Cristero War. They were looking for a peaceful way to bring about change in the country and to achieve political representation, after the years of chaos and violence that followed the Mexican Revolution. The turning point in the Cristero War was when the Catholic Church reached an agreement with the National Revolutionary Party – the forerunner of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) that dominated power for most of the 20th century – whereunder it turned a blind eye to the lack of democracy in the country and stopped supporting the Catholic rebels, threatening its members with excommunication if they disobeyed the government.

The PAN spent its first years since its foundation in 1939 in opposition, as all presidents since the end of the Mexican Revolution were from the PRI or its variously named predecessors. Despite an absence during the 1976 elections due to internal rivalries, the party saw its support grow during the 1980s and 1990s, leading to the first non-PRI governor in 1989 in Baja California.

In the 2000 presidential elections, the candidate of the Alianza por el cambio ("Alliance for change"), formed by the PAN and the PVEM, Vicente Fox Quesada won 42.5% of the popular vote and was elected president of Mexico. In the senatorial elections of the same date, the Alliance as part of the 46 out of 128 seats in the Senate of Mexico. The Alliance broke off the following year and the PVEM has since participated together with the PRI in several elections. Three years later at the last legislative elections, the party won 23.1% of the popular vote and 153 out of 500 seats in the Chamber of Deputies."

• On the section called "Recent History" the author has done a good job on describing the PAN's defeats over tha past few years but has forgotten to include some of the party's successes. That is why I suggest that we mention in this section that as of May 2006 the Governors of Aguascalientes, Baja California, Guanajuato, Jalisco, Morelos, San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Yucatán, Chiapas, and Tlaxcala are also from PAN.

• I also believe that the information on the origins of the party has to be re-written, but I must do a bit of research before I can suggest anything on this, but I would appreciate contributions from others.

-Rodrigo Gardner

Rodrigo: It would be very useful that you get a username, so you can sign your comments with a recognizable and consistent username

In theory, it is impossible to reach a perfectly objective point of view, as we are all subjects and can only experience the world subjectively. However, considering how heated Mexican politics are, I think the article is as objective as it can be.

About your comments, I agree that the article needs plenty of citations. However, there is no denying that the PAN has an ultra-conservative wing. The article clearly states that the party is Christian Democratic, and that doesn't mean that it is "ultra-conservative". As far as I can tell, the prevalent message in both the article and the discussion is that PAN is not ultra-conservative. However, some members have taken controversial measures, and there are ultra-conservatives in the party. Neither of this is a lie and I don't see why mentioning it makes the article misleading. These actions, by the way, are not rare, but it is also true that is not general to the party. The paragraph you ask to delete clearly states that those actions happen only "in some cases".

Is it a lie that many of the PAN's members are Roman Catholic? In a country where over 75% of the population is Roman Catholic, this is to be expected. Statistics and citations can be easily found, and perhaps that is the reason that the author decided not to include them. However, for the sake of neutrality, we should find them and add them.

You ask who are those members, here are a few names: Carlos Medina Placencia (the guy who takes pride in naming the PAN as "christian democratic), Carlos Abascal, Fernando Canales, Felipe Calderón, Vicente Fox (who kneeled in front of the Pope). Evidently, this aren't isolated cases. These people are important figures in the party and they all profess the Catholic religion (at least), or promote them from positions of government (like Abascal). Remember that Abascal had an influence in having a teacher removed from a school for teaching Carlos Fuentes's "Aura"? This, however, is not mentioned, I think, because it doesn't add anything of value to the article. Not even context. The article is sufficient to say that some members profess roman catholicism and take the religion as an ideal. Again, it is clear that this only happens in some cases, but they are not isolated cases.

About your suggestion of changing the title from "Conservative politics" to "Ideology", I agree. How about "Poltical Ideology of the PAN". Does that sound better? Let's have a vote on this.

Currently, however, I don't see any reason to have the content as a whole rewritten. What you propose about changing the "Recent History" section moves important pieces of the article. This change could affect the article, as the context of the information would change. Having the Gomez Morin paragraph at the beginning adds the following context:

• PAN is an old party. This is important because all other opposition parties (not-PRI) in Mexico are younger than 20 years old.
• PAN is a christian party, and it explains its origins.

Having this in the beginning adds greatly to the article because this information is important to understand the Party. Having it in another section would be hiding it and removing the context it provides.

Greetings! And I hope your contributions add to the quality of the article. As you can see, discussing controversial topics is better than just making huge changes without previous consensus. Hari Seldon 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hari, thank you for your feedback. I agree with you in some points, but I still think that the article needs to be worked on. Let me tell you why.

You say that the article doesn't state PAN is ultra-conservative expressly, but it does give a general idea that it is by putting all the emphasis on the ultra-conservative actions that have been linked to the Party. By combining what is already mentioned with other aspects of the party which are also true but do not reflect its ultra-conservative side will allow the reader of the article to form his or her own opinion based on the information, whereas the article, the way it is written at the moment doesn't allow for that because it tends to form an opinion by leading the reader and mentioning some aspects of the party more than others. By doing this, I see no way that we would be taking value from the article but rather it would be adding more usefull information.

It is also true, as you say, that some members of the party have taken controversial measures but this is not representative of the party as a whole. And alas I must say the article does seem to suggest that. You also say that many members of the party profess a catholic religion. That is to be expected in a country with so many catholics in it, as I have already mentioned. But again that is not representative of the party since, despite being a Christian Democrat party, they do not found their political ideology in pure christianity. What part of the catholic church tels us we should favor free trade, for instance? Furthermore, considering the amount of catholics in Mexico, all political parties will have a majority of catholics in their ranks. Not only PAN. You ask if its a lie that many of PAN's members are catholics. Of course it isn't, but that's also true for most civil groups in Mexico, except for non-catholic religious groups.

Regardless of the above stated, wouldn't you agree the concrete suggestions for edits I gave in my previous post would provide a more neutral standpoint to the article by providing the most amount of usefull facts to the reader and allowing for him or her to form their own informed opinion? In which way would these changes harm the article? Finally I vote "for" to changing the heading of the ideology section.

-Rodrigo Gardner

Rodrigo:

It may be true that the article dedicates a lot of words to ultra-conservative actions of members of the party, instead of focusing on other parts of its history. That doesn't justify erasing what is already there. Perhaps, if you add to the article's other sections, such as history, political ideology, and so on. The article doesn't explain how the party has evolved in 70 years, for instance...

What I mean to say is that if the article dedicates too many words to talk about certain topic, it doesn't necessarily mean that the article "puts emphasis". The wording and the amount of words on the ultra-conservative wing of the party is there to add context. What I see is that the article is missing other details.

The text of the article never says that the Party as a whole takes controversial measures. It clearly states that it is only some members. And careful with that, because they are not just any members, they are elected officials, and in some instances, Federal public servants...

The article clearly states that only some of the members take the catholic religion as a political ideal. The Christian Democratic political ideology is wide in its particularities, and it is obvious that not all members of the party would take the catholic religon as ideal. The article also states that some of the supporters of the party do not share the catholic view.

It would be expected to find a majority of catholics in other political parties. But in the case of the PRI and PRD, their leadership denies any catholic influence. The important thing about the PAN is not that they have a lot of catholics, is that they recognize it in a country in which the separation of state and church is taken to the ultimate level, almost tabu. For some PRI and PRD members, the fact that a Christian Democratic party exists in Mexico is almost a sin, while in other countries is something not uncommon. That is why leaving this informations adds context to the article.

I don't agree on deleting any information as is stated in the article. Perhaps I would add the following information, if I found the proper sources and citations:

• The history of the PAN from its foundation to 1990.
• The nature of their historic rivalry with the PRI.
• More detail on their economic agenda.
• Examples of actions of non-ultra conservative members of the Party. (One is already there, the article remembers how Fox allowed the use of the day-after pill, eventhough one member of its cabinet called it a "weapong of mass destruction". Fortunately, the President outranks the Secretariat of Labor).
• Examples of actions that PAN governments have taken in important states and or cities, and maybe a one-paragraph reference to Fox's presidency. This should be short and only to enlighten on the Party's political agenda.

These are the changes I would suggest. Be careful: I would only ADD the above mentioned without deleting anything else in the article. Finally, once you (or I) find sources and have decided on a proper wording to it, lets bring it first to the discussion page, and then reach consensus, and then apply the changes to the article page.

Greetings! Hari Seldon 15:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

PAN is NOT a conservative Party.

200.34.184.134 (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In the section entitled "Conservative Politics," the following passage needs citations: "In some cases, PAN mayors and governors have banned public employees from wearing miniskirts (Guadalajara), clamped down on the use of profanity in public marketplaces (Santiago de Querétaro)." According to a well-known scholar of the PAN, David Shirk (2000, p.31), these claims are "fundamentally wrong and may well be deliberate manipulations of the facts by hostile media sources." I do not know if these events truly occurred or not, but if they are going to be included in this article, as statements of fact, the source should be cited. {Anonymousgradstudent (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)}

References

Infoboxes

I like the idea of placing the Political Party infobox here, but look at what it has done to the design! The page looks horrible and it need immediate attention. I think the design should be upgraded and mantained as much as the content. Hari Seldon 17:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pan logo.PNG

Image:Pan logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pan logo.PNG

Image:Pan logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pan logo.PNG

Image:Pan logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The 20:02, 10 May 2009 99.255.177.151 version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)