Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Argentina (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine politics. If you would like to participate, you can improve Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Women's History (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Totally biased[edit]

This article is totally biased. Around 90% of newspapers cited are Clarín and La Nación, which have known conflicts of interests with CFK's administration. It needs to be changed toward a neutral POV. I think the Spanish version would be a good starting point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

La Nación is a Newspaper of record, and Clarín is the highest sold newspaper in Argentina. They do not have conflicts of interest with Kirchner, it's Kirchner who has a conflict with everyone and everything that does not bow to her in absolute obedience. Cambalachero (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Ooooh, we have the objective opinion of the week here! La Nación being a Newspaper of record doesn't change the fact of it having conflicts of interest with CFK, neither Clarín being the highest sold newspaper in Argentina. Ever heard of Papel Prensa? Ever heard of digital television standards? I can't believe someone would even try to sustain what you just wrote. Come on! (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Both newspapers qualify as reliable sources. Period. This is not a forum to discuss with whom the current government has conflicts with.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, yeah? According to who? Clarín and La Nación are totally biased in matters regarding the current government. Sources like Página 12, Miradas al Sur, Veintitrés, etc. need to be included to neutralize the article (read the Spanish version, for God's sake!). Cambalachero has been editing-out all attempts to include references to sources not critical of the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. Cambalachero either doesn't understand Spanish or is purposely making false and misleading statements. He translated a statement about hotels in Patagonia being mostly empty in winter to CFK's hotels being mostly empty. This is a VERY BIASED interpretation to give the illusion that they were only existing for money laundering or something. Monkeypuzzled (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
That's simple summary style. El Calafate is a winter vacation resort, so to say that an hotel is mostly empty "in winter" and say that it is mostly empty, period, is the same thing. And no, there is no "illusion", the article cited is not a lost comment inside some newspaper article that talks about something unrelated, it is an article that is precisely talking about "money laundering or something". Read the whole article. If a terrain is bought at $150,000 and then sold at $2,400,000, what else are we talking about, if not of money laundering? Cambalachero (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • No, it is not simple summary style. You are purposefully obfuscating what the article says. "Está llena de hoteles lujosos y en funcionamiento pero vacíos de turistas, al menos en invierno." I translate this as... "It (Calafate) is full of luxurious hotels up and running, but empty of tourists in winter." Since most people go to Calafate in summer, the impact is minor. I've edited it in NPOV, as a compromise, but it really doesn't belong in the article.Monkeypuzzled (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It's also hard for me to find a direct connection between this stuff and the core of the article.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
You wanna find a connection? The connection is that this Cambalachero's practically the sole editor of this article, being the only frequent editor with enough privileges to do whatever he wants. The result is a totally biased and misleading article about a current president. You can see for yourself Cambalachero's totally "anti-K" above (I cite: "it's Kirchner who has a conflict with everyone and everything that does not bow to her in absolute obedience"), and he's using this article to express his own vision of the political reality of Argentina. This is a terrible thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
How about you go read the Talk page on the spanish version of this article? For example: "(...) Wikipedia's not Clarín nor Págnina/12, as I had said before. I insist that in order to obtain biased information we go read those newspapers. This is an encyclopedia." (a comment by user "Erico Valadares";ón:Cristina_Fernández_de_Kirchner#Ciencia_y_tecnologia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I subscribe the accusations of biased information. In the Antonini Wilson scandal, the U.S. Embassy sources quoted are newspapers, when Santiago O'Donnell's book [i]Argenleaks[/i] is a First Hand source. In research and academic papers first hand sources should always be used when available. Overall, most of the sources are newspapers rather than books or other research papers. Newspaper articles are not always signed or thoroughly researched. Online newspapers and articles create the illusion of multiple independent sources, while actually most are copies of the same newspaper source. henry_the_horse (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No original research says the opposite thing, secondary sources such as newspapers are preferred over first hand sources. And yes, books may be better than newspapers when possible, but that's hard to do with subjects that keep generating new information daily, such as sitting heads of state. In any case, newspapers are not a problem just for being newspapers or for being online, La Nación is a newspaper of record and that makes it a reliable source, despite of such trivial concerns. Cambalachero (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi I just wanted to say that in my opinion this article is terrible biased. Anyone with minimal knowledge of Argentinian politics

would say this article is just an editorial. I don't know wikipedia's rules about citing etc, but i have read the discussion and it is clear for me that "Cambalachero" is using this article in an attempt to harm CFK's reputation (but the only reputation being harmed is Wikipedia's) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Cambalachero (talk · contribs) is not the one editing the article. Aside from complaining, there are other ways to contribute to Wikipedia, i.e. editng it according to the policies. I don't think Cambalachero has broken any of them.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Cambalachero twists the policies so no one can put a reference to a newspaper that says good things about CFK. And given his privileges, he can do whatever he wants, unless some other user with enough privileges and a true commitment to Wikipedia's neutrality does something. (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Which privileges? You're free to create an account and edit the same way most of the users do it.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Awful article. Completely disbalanced and biased. Borderline insulting to the intelligence of the reader. I think Cambalachero should get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone is free to edit the article, of course subject to the policies and guidelines of this site. WP:BOLD.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, just removed the libelous reference to her title, something that was discredited BY THE UNIVERSITY ITSELF. I added sources. Let's see how long it takes for cambalachero to vandalize it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose that the criticism should be moved to a section under that name. At this point, in this article, a lot of editorial content is shown as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


@Cambalachero: could you please explain what parts of 2014 Cristina Fernández de Kirchner's speech at UN is merged in this article? To be frank, I think you've omitted most of it without adding it to the current article. Please explain part by part. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The image is the same. The sentence "She said in a speech at the United Nations that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant jihadist group may be trying to kill her, and later that it would be the US; Elisa Carrió dismissed such threats as mere conspiracy theories" details the unusual thing she said in her speech, and the rebuttal. The things she said about the "vulture funds" is a usual part of her speech, the government is saying each week that someone is trying to make a coup against them; so I included that info in the "Public image" section, which describes this is a more general way. I have also seen somewhere that the term "hedge funds" may be less derogatory than "vulture funds", so I preferred using it. Cambalachero (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
@Cambalachero: I think you've forgot to mention some very important points. The core points of her speech are as following:
  • Economical issues of Argentina and world (Argentina paid debts, the role of vulture funds and etc)
  • Prosecution of the bombings files (specially Amia bombing)
  • ISIL (origination and support of ISIL, ISIL threatening her)
Other parts of her speech was devoted to Israel and Palestine, Security Council reform and etc. Among the above core points, as it seems, you've just pointed to the ISIL threatening her which is not all what she said. AFAIK, She was for the first time calling "Vulture funds" economic terrorist. Besides she went into detail while regarding the AMIA bombing files and the fact that Argentina's cooperation with Iran has upset some groups. These are materials which had reflections and reactions in the media some of which would better be covered here. So, I don't regard your previous edition as 'merger' but it was much more a deletion. Mhhossein (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The problem with the hedge funds was described in the sentences just before the one about the speech. The deal with Iran over the AMIA bombing had been described in the 2013 section, when the deal was made; as of 2014 there are no noteworthy advances about that. And yes, it already mentions the opinion of the Jewish community. The idea that the economic problems of Argentina are the result of some foreign force trying to make a coup against her (and not the result of the government's own actions), and her tantrums about the press are a weekly routine of the Kirchner government since 2008; nowadays nobody bats an eye when she says it yet again. I mentioned that she accused the ISIS and the US of trying to kill her because it was suprisingly specific claim. As for "economic terrorism", she had also said that ISIS was just a TV scam and that Bin Laden was a victim whose human rights were not respected, she doesn't seem to have a very clear idea of what is the terrorism.
In any case, don't forget that this article is a biography, not an article about a specific speech. There are countless speeches, anouncements, reported opinions, interviews, documents, etc; either from Cristina Kirchner or talking about Cristina Kirchner. We can't include them all, and we shouldn't try either. See Wikipedia:Summary style Cambalachero (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I wrote an essay on this: Wikipedia:But for Napoleon, it was Tuesday Cambalachero (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@Cambalachero: Thanks for your civil response. We're not here to judge whether she is right or wrong, or whether she has a very clear idea of what is the terrorism or not. Our job is to improve the encyclopedia based on the rules. I see no reason not to mention "economic terrorism" as such things will not be counted as repeated items. However, we should consider that Speech at the UN general assembly is not a weekly session with news reporters. The reader has the right to know an abstract of the important points. Prosecution of the Bombing files also has to be included because she is reflecting the file's recent progress and reactions. Mhhossein (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration with Iran to murder Jews[edit]

Why is there no mention of how she covered up Iran's murder of hundreds of Jews in Argentina and had Alberto Nisman assassinated for exposing her cover-up?[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:FD07:E900:6822:14D5:E9BB:4C02 (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No proof to support he has been assasinated.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

52nd President[edit]

She's the 52nd President of Argentina. Why is it so terrible to number her in the infobox, just because she's the incumbent? GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Your addition was unsourced. It is supported nowhere in the article that she's the 52nd Argentine President. Moreover, I assume the hidden note was added by consensus and you changed that unilaterally.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
She's numbered as 52nd in the intro. The previous presidents are numbered up to 51st in their intros & infoboxes? PS: Don't you think you're being a tad stubborn? GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I've marked that satement as needing a citation. WP:VERIFY was clearly not followed there.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I would recommend that you delete the numberings from the articles of Kirchner's predecessors, if the decision is to de-number her. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Those articles are not in my watchlist. BTW, it's not my decision. As I said above, consensus seems to be not to number her in the infobox.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)