Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 6 November 2016. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

Presidential term[edit]

Hi @Cambalachero: the source is clear. The presidential term ended on 9 december 2015, not on 10 december. Please see the judiciary bill and the rulers website. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC) @Joseph Solis in Australia: --Panam2014 (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: based on the ruling, her term ended at 24:00 hrs of 9 December 2015, the 24:00 hrs signifies 00:00 hr of the following day thus it is still valid to say that CFK's term ended on 00:00 hr of 10 December 2015. A proof that CFK's term ended on 24 hrs or 0:00 hr of December 10. Joseph Solis in Australia (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) IMO, 24:00 means 23:59:59 of the same day and 00:00 refers to following day.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
It is simply a standard to set the inauguration day as both the first day of the new president and the last day of the outgoing president. Note that, if we go for the bill, this rule would have always applied. But in most other cases of presidential transitions (or basically all other cases), the precise hour when the president ceases to be the president is just a legal technicality that doesn't change anything. This bill only exists because Kirchner tested the limits as it had never been done: had she behaved like any other normal president from elsewhere, her term would have still technically ended at 00:00, but she would still have been a "de facto" president until more or less the 16:00 or 17:00 when she would have handed the symbols, and there would be no discussion about any of this.
Note as well that the bill itself is a primary source. And, although the bill is written as if this was the case for all presidential transitions, I'm not aware of any speculation about it setting a jurisprudence that would influence future presidential transitions. Macri will be the president until December 10, 2019 (or 2023 if reelected), "technically" ceasing his term at 00:00 but still being "de facto" president for a handful of hours until he gives the symbols to Vidal, Carrio, Massa or whoever is elected. The standard has not been broken, there's no reason not to stick to it. Cambalachero (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Cambalachero, Joseph Solis in Australia, and Jetstreamer: Hello. I think there is a paradox. I do not know if Cristina Kirchner had agreed to hand over power to Macri, she would have done it on December 9 at 12:00 or 17:00 so before the end of her term or she would have done it the next day. It seems to me that according to the Argentine law, the second option is the only one in conformity with the constitution. In France, François Hollande, whose mandate began on May 15, 2012, will have to surrender power on May 14, 2017 because his term ends on May 15, 2017 at 24:00. In the USA, the presidential term ends on 20 January. In addition, Nestor Kirchner, elected at the beginning of 2003, handed power to his wife on 10 December and not on 9, after completing the mandate of the Rua until 10 December and then began his two terms. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we are not discussing the law, which is pretty clear. The matter here is when she effectively handed over the Presidency. Actually, Federico Pinedo took office in the meantime. I think that should also be taken into account--Jetstreamer Talk 22:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jetstreamer: have you got a source ? --Panam2014 (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
A source for what? For Pinedo being the president half a day or so?--Jetstreamer Talk 20:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jetstreamer: for that Kirchner's term ends on 10 December. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
{{ping|Cambalachero|Joseph Solis in Australia|Jetstreamer} your source said that CFK was not president at noon. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The source in the article is clear, the term finished December 9th. Provide another source (not just an opinion) before changing again the date. 128.179.253.75 (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC) 128.179.253.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As I said, the judicial ruling is a primary source. --Cambalachero (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
So? 128.179.252.253 (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC) 128.179.252.253 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
See Wikipedia:No original research Cambalachero (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." So? 128.179.254.184 (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarity needed[edit]

Not sure why Kirchner's second term was cut short by 12 hrs (honestly, a half a day?), but perhaps an explanation for it in the article content would suffice, more then just relying on external links. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That's detailed at Inauguration of Mauricio Macri --Cambalachero (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
We should have it written out in this article, though. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Vulture funds[edit]

Where has this edit gone? --Mhhossein talk 23:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

That info is present, although in a rewritten form, in the second paragraph of the "Foreign policy" section. --Cambalachero (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Cambalachero: Yes. But I see nothing about "Vulture funds" and "Economic terrorism". --Mhhossein talk 13:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The hedge funds are mentioned in the economic policy section, and the use of conspiracy theories to explain mistakes as attacks from others in the public image section. --Cambalachero (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coffee (talk · contribs) 06:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    From Early life and education:
    This line doesn't seem to convey properly what it is attempting to say (perhaps explaining the job/purpose of job/and saying "her father" instead of Wilhelm): "Cristina and Néstor married in a civil ceremony on 9 May 1975. Wilhelm got them administrative jobs at her union."
     Done Cambalachero (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    This line needs a year specified: "Cristina proposed to go to Río Gallegos, Néstor's home city, but he delayed their departure until his graduation on 3 July."
     Done Cambalachero (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    What are "free exams" and how do they work: "Cristina had not yet graduated when they moved to Río Gallegos, and was tested by free exams for the remaining subjects."
    Fixed Cambalachero (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    Post hoc ergo propter hoc: "The firm worked for banks and financial groups that filed eviction lawsuits, as the 1050 ruling of the Central Bank had increased the interest rates for mortgage loans."
     Done Cambalachero (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    This sequence makes little sense: "The Kirchners acquired twenty-one land lots at cheap prices as they were about to be auctioned. Although forced disappearances were common during the Dirty War, Néstor and Cristina Kirchner never signed any habeas corpus requests. Their law firm took military personnel involved in the Dirty War as clients."
    Fixed Cambalachero (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
lead: ok; layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: n/a; lists: n/a
  1. From Early life and education:
    The image is violating MOS:SANDWICH.
    In my screen it does not. Cambalachero (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Two references are dead.
     Done I replaced one of the links, and added an archived version of the other. Cambalachero (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    There are two Citation Needed tags to be sorted out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    There are five refs in the Reflist (at end of article); all the rest are embedded. It would be helpful if the five could be embedded also as it's not ideal to mix 2 different reffing approaches in an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    No sign of it.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    The Alchetron site has made use of this article, not the other way around. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    From Early life and education:
    This line does not seem relevant to describing Kirchner: "There were heated political controversies at the time caused by: the decline of the Argentine Revolution military government, the return of the former president Juan Perón from exile, the election of Héctor Cámpora as president of Argentina, and the early stages of the Dirty War."
    It explains the context, and those issues are merely listed, not discussed in undue detail. Cambalachero (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    From Political career:
    Why do we make it seem like her actions were contingent upon someone else's: "She opposed most bills proposed by Menem, such as a treaty with Chilean president Patricio Aylwin that benefited Chile in a dispute over the Argentina–Chile border."
    She was a legislator. The Congress discussed bills proposed by others, and I mentioned her reactions to some of those bills that were noticed by the press. Cambalachero (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    It reads admirably neutrally. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    It's been fine lately, despite an errant IP's efforts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    There are actually rather a lot of images of CFK smiling to camera, but she's a politico and it's a long article, so I shan't insist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Well, I'm sorry this took so long, but glad that the article is now in excellent shape, and at last gains the Good Article status that it deserves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

 Comment: Nobody seems to be addressing the reviewer's comments.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I was away for some days, I have returned and fixed the points mentioned. Cambalachero (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Cambalachero: I'm afraid that Coffee has not edited Wikipedia for some while now, and I think it's safe to say his return is not imminent. So honestly I'm not sure what we should do with this review. @Bluemoonset: You know a lot more about procedure than I do. What would you suggest in this case? We cannot simply pass it; failing it and returning it to the bottom of the queue would be unfair to Cambalachero; but any new reviewer will probably need to go over each of the criteria once again. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
    • That seems correct, he has blanked his user page and user talk page, and even protected his blanked user page. Seems a clear signal that he has left wikipedia. I have changed the review status to "second opinion", so that some other reviewer takes the article. Cambalachero (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Vanamonde, I'm afraid I didn't see this way back when: your ping went awry (the template is fussy about orthography). Since Coffee will not be back, and second opinions rarely turn into full reviews, my best suggestion is that we place this back into the reviewing pool with no loss of seniority, something I'm happy to do (and have already done today for another abandoned review). Since this is the oldest nomination in the Politics and government section, and will be the third-oldest unreviewed nomination, there's a reasonable chance it will get picked up by a new reviewer before too terribly long. Cambalachero, if you and Vanamonde have no objections, I'll take care of it as soon as you've both responded. Thanks, and sorry you've had such a long delay. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cambalachero, Vanamonde93, BlueMoonset: The article isn't in a bad state, the review is far advanced, and we have an active nominator, so I shall complete the job. Deus ex machina, almost... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, all. @BlueMoonset: Thanks for taking care of this. It's my fault, I aught to have checked to see if the ping showed a blue link. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Media control claim[edit]

I removed the claim that 80% of the media was controlled (directly or indirectly) by Kirchner, since I could not find a credible analysis stating this. The cited Guardian article gave no source. A detailed 2016 analysis of media ownership and concentration in Argentina published by Oxford Scholarship gives no such numbers. InverseHypercube (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)