This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.
I would suggest we try to find sources differents than the Argentine executive branch of course but also from Clarin and La Nacion which are obviously clearly biased. The way they manipulate the external news for example is for laughing, they only quote the part of the article that suits them. Im not happy with this goverment but the opposition is regrettable. And isnt this Anastasia O'Grady the one who support the closure of honduras radios during the recent coup ? --Jor70 (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
First of all, the preponderance of Spanish language sources has led to acquiring English language sources so that other editors can at least quickly check information. As to the reliability of a nationally and internationally recognized columnist is entirely left up to the editing process. I would consider "anything" from The Wall Street Journal to have an inherent bias, but the use of a source in quoting directly from the source makes it a verifiable and acceptable reference. In regards to external links, they are what they are, since they represent a particular organization or entity; having a number of links that represent the diverse elements of this story is reasonable. FWiW, please note that there is a vast difference between quotation marks and their use: " and ″. Bzuk (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Sources from Argentina have the advantage that they provide full coverage on the topic (each thing X says or does, each thing that the Congress or the Courts do or refuse to do, etc.), whenereas foreign ones may notice only specific big events and dismiss others. But I agree that, whenever possible, references in Spanish should be replaced by references in English that inform about the same thing, when such sources appear. I also point that this is a dispute between the government and Grupo Clarín, and La Nación is not part of it. In fact, it's a competitor. La Nación is an involved party only in the Papel Prensa operation (aimed mainly against Clarin, and La Nacion simply was caught in the crossfire), it's completely unrelated with all the other disputes, and their relation with the conflict as a whole would be rather difuse --MBelgrano (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that Tiempo Argentino and El Argentino are definitely not reliable sources, as they are government-funded newspapers and the government is involved in this ongoing conflict. If we're including them, then it would only be fair to cite Clarín as well. Otherwise, they shouldn't really be used as references. ♠TomasBat 20:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Sources from all sides of the controversy should therefore be considered. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Controversies between Clarín and Kirchnerism → Relation of Kirchnerism with the press – It would be better to expand the scope of this article. Kirchnerism does not attack just Clarín, but many other media as well, such as La Nación or Perfil. There are topics that involve the press as a whole, such as the refusal of the governors to give press conferences, or the use of government ads to finance pro-government press and punish the independent press (there is a ruling of the Supreme Court on a trial about that, but which was initiated by the Perfil newspaper, not Clarín). In fact, the pro-government press is also a topic to talk about. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Cambalachero (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Independent in independent media is a weasel word and makes assumptions that are not backed with a proper source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pozzoe (talk • contribs) 16:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it should be renamed and heavily edited. It's also not right, maybe, to define this as a conflict between "kirchnerism" and Clarín, as well. What could a new title look like? I don't know... =) Niqueco (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I would use the title "Conflict between Argentine Government and local media".Pozzoe (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I would rather use "Conflict between Argentine Government and part of local media".Drkbugs (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if I like "Conflict between Argentine Government and part of local media", but I can't think of anything better... Niqueco (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
There was a much unbiased title before: "Controversies between Clarín and Kirchnerism". It was there until the user User:Cambalachero moved it to the current biased an unacceptable title. Maybe we should just go back to that one. niqueco✍ 18:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Or better: Controversies between Argentine government and Clarín. niqueco✍ 18:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree using "Argentine Government" since some issues mentioned on the article relate also to political opposition. Pozzoe (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved to alternate proposed name per consensus below. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Rename, Disagree on proposed title: I support niqueco's rationale of renaming. However, the proposed title was overly wide, as that would include any conflicts between the media and any Argentinian administration, while this title only deals with the conflicts during the Kirchner and Fernandez de Kirchner administrations.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 18:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Disagree on proposed title. The current title was propoused by me. I also suggested other titles:
Conflict between Kirchnerism and independent media
Conflict between the Argentine Government and independent media
Press conflict during Cristina Fernández administration
Argentina's government-media fight
Government-media fight on Cristina Fernández administration
The conflict is with this administration, and with independent press, I cannot see how that is bias.--Neo139 (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Maybe Argentinians would use "Kirchnerism" to mean the administration of the Kirchners, but in English usage it would mean the political movement related to the Kirchners, just like Peronism does not solely mean the administration of Juan Peron. I won't say La Nacion or Clarín as "independent" in the English usage either; they're not owned by the government, sure, but we'd call it commercial media. Using "independent" to call them is clearly violative of NPOV.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 05:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I rather use Argentine Government because the issue is not restricted to Kirchnerist party or the Executive Branch. It involves the Congress (who voted the new media law with approval of part of the opposing parties), judicial system (which, for example, just a few days ago declared the media law to be constitutional). Also, some conflicts involve non kirchnerist parties currently in office on provinces, in fact one of the resignations mentioned on the article is from a Socialist,not Kirchnerist, ministry. Restricting the article to show only those conflicts that affect the Kirchnerist Executive Branch is biased. Regarding "independent" I also agree that's violative of NPOV. Pozzoe (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I would use this as an analogy for the "independent" issue: nobody would call The Times and The Sun "independent" either without being warned for being POV. The title still needs work, though--as I said, I don't think the article should be expanded to include conflicts in successive administrations, which should be many in number.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 18:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that using “kirchnerism” here is wrong... There's really nothing concrete called like that... Here we have a government in place, with a certain administration. I guess it also may be considered non-NPOV as well, as it sounds like saying "this is not our government, it's 'kirchnerism'". I like "controversy" more than conflict, as it doesn't convey such a negative sentiment, which could also be taken as a judgement, but conflict is ok as well. I don't mind putting "Clarín" instead of "part of the media" because Clarín is deinitely at the center of this and makes the title much clearer... niqueco✍ 15:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree that we shouldn't use "kirchnerism". But conflict is properly used. Controversy fits better for single-event scandals. This is a long conflict. I like "Press conflict during Cristina Fernández administration".--Neo139 (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Kirchnerism means the Kirchner's administration. It did not exist before it, and it remains to be seen if it survives the day that a president from another political line takes government (Peronism did, but Menemism did not). If that happens, then it may make sense to reconsider. "Independent" here means Objectivity (journalism), not Self-publishing; but if the term is misleading we may replace "independent media" with "free press", whose meaning is universal. By the way, I did not select the current name, it was Nyttend, see hereCambalachero (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Show, by evidence, that "Kirchnerism" means the Kirchners' administrations in English langauge.
To me "free" is as laudatory as "independent" such that it's not NPOV either.
Independent: "Free from outside control; not depending on another's authority." If someone/something is independent or not, is not an opinion, its a fact. What word should we use to distinguish press that depends on government subsidies from press which doesn't?--Neo139 (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Support - anything that gets "Kirchnerism" out of article title ASAP. WP:NPOVIn ictu oculi (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The term "Kirchnerism" exists and is much more used than this "Obamaism" that I have heard for the first time. Cambalachero (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Obamaism gets many more hits in Google Books. But that's not the point. This isn't a suitable NPOV title. en.wp isn't a political soapbox. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. The current title isn't great, but the proposed title would be worse, because there have been closely connected disputes with a variety of independent voices - not just Clarín (although Clarín is obviously a high-profile example). bobrayner (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
inserted "alternative proposal" subheading above Samuel Curtis' proposal for clarity In ictu oculi (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Does this article merit an "unbalanced" tag?
It got tagged as such by Diegodm, who not only did not give reasons for doing so in talk: he didn't even participate in the renaming discussions. (He had also tagged it as "NPV-title", but I removed that tag, since the article was apparently satisfactorily renamed.)
Unless someone can explain how the article as it presently stands is unbalanced, I propose that the "unbalanced" tag be removed. – Herzen (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)