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, Mid-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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-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.
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Women (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.

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)
Jetstreamer: Are you saying this article is not biased? Honestly. It seems rather clear to me that Cambalachero is using it as a means of expressing his own political views. Only references to Clarín and La Nación, but not to Página 12? At the end of the header you can read critics to her government, but not a single achievement? It seems to me Cambalachero is an experienced Wikipedist (you can tell he has a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia's rules), but, sadly, he's using that knowledge to handle this article as he pleases. (talk) 23:53, 26 February 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)

Disgustingly biased. I can't believe this is a Wikipedia article — I literally looked at the adress bar to verify if I really was on Wikipedia. Section by section this is just a piece of "Anti-K" and conservative propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed (again) unsourced biased comments by Cambalachero, and I pointed out again that there are no source references for the Guardian article. Please stick to facts and reliable sources. Do not remove facts. PLEASE!Sushilover2000 (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, this article is totally based in Clarín and La Nación newspapers which belong to the opposition parties instead of providing a more neitral article Johnny Obama (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarín and La Nación are considered reliable sources whether you like it or not.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't concur: Well, maybe now Cambalachero will try and find some information so he can say that Le Monde is not a realiable source, or they will say that this concerns the article about Maricio Macri (maybe not), or some of the things he's been doing for the past years to keep this a totally biased article... (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, that link proves the point even further. Yes, La Nación took part in the investigation that revealed the off-shore accounts of several people, including Mauricio Macri. That means that they are not politically aligned with Macri, that their editorial line is independent of him. Couple that with their history with Cristina Kirchner, and what do we have? A newspaper that is independent from both parties. The kirchnerite premise was that a newspaper can be either aligned with them, or aligned with the opposition; you have just proved that the premise is false. Thanks. Cambalachero (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
That was never the Kirchnerite premise, in any case that is the Lanata premise. Stop using pseudo-logics; this is not a theorem's proof. Página 12 has also printed articles critic of Kirchnerism, but I'm sure you won't say it is neutral (I don't think it is, but neither do I think La Nación is). You, Cambalachero, seem to be very informed of the political situation of the country, which means that you are very aware of the fact that this is not a neutral article. You are purposely making it biased, because you think that "Kirchnerism is bad" and those who support it are also bad people, or misinformed. That is not what Wikipedia aims at. And not all of us have the time to be here arguing with you and your lackey Jetstreamer, only time to make some minor corrections to the article. Minor corrections which, according to Wikipedia:IPs are human too, are a very important source of material. But you keep undoing all corrections which are not in line with your political vision, using (of course, I won't deny it) your vast knowledge of rules of neutrality, newspapers of record, and all that. So long for neutrality... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Boomerang.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
So, you idea is that Página 12 and La Nación are basically the same thing, just one for Cristina and the other for Macri? Interesting idea. Which, of course, is wrong. Regardless of the opinions or analysis of Le Monde, the fact here is that La Nación published information that would not benefit Macri, and did not commit self-censorship with it. Página 12, on a pure "Ministry of Truth" style, did that when their older reports about Bergoglio contradicted the current political stance of kirchnerism towards the pope. So no, they are not the same, we can not compare both newspaper as equals. Cambalachero (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
No, that was not my idea, that is not what the text above says. What the text above says is that, as Página 12, La Nación is not neutral. Here: And it also says that you and Jetstreamer make it impossible to turn this article into something more or less neutral. You are purposely keeping the bias in this article to reflect your personal POV. Looking at the list of edits of this article, and the Talk Page history, I found this expressions written by you:
  • (→‎2011: We are now entering hell. Please keep your hands and elbows inside the car.)
  • The Berlin Wall has fell, more than 20 years ago. The only "left wing" politicians left in the world are teenager dreamers who hardly get more than 1% of the vote, and a couple of dictatorships that managed to stay in power despite of the fall of the soviet union. See Fall of communism for details

Doesn't sound as someone trying to be objective, just as someone trying to masquerade and failing to do it every now and then. (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The Buenos Aires Herald has been bought by the kirchnerite Cristobal López, so it is part of the kirchnerite media. You can tell by the great misconception in your link: being a newspaper of record is not something decided by "foreign embassies" for mere political convenience. Reliability is not something that politicians (either local or foreign; or anyone else for that matter) may give or take from a newspaper. Reliability is earned by the newspaper, by a consistent policy of being trustworthy regardless of political circumstances. Cambalachero (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The fact that the Herald was bought by López (actually, he's not the owner anymore) doesn't change its trajectory and reputation, nor does it automatically transform its journalists into non-credible. (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the IP in that The Buenos Aires Herald can be considered a reliable source.--Jetstreamer Talk 23:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Archiving Unresolved NPOV Comments[edit]

Dear Jetstreamer: Archiving unresolved NPOV issues doesn't resolve the NPOV issues that this page contains. Sushilover2000 (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Nor it does re-adding the template without providing reasons. Read the {{NPOV}} documentation carefully.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I have read it carefully, and this article clearly needs a NPOV tag. You should not remove it. You should re-read it carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushilover2000 (talkcontribs) 00:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I still don't see your reasons. What's so difficult to understand? You need to clearly state the reasons for tagging the article. That's all.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
You've been told to start a new discussion [1] but you prefer to war over this [2].--Jetstreamer Talk 00:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that this page needs to be re-written using the Buenos Aires Herald as the primary source of information, rather than Clarin. Even though the BAH is part of the Clarin group, it retains integrity about CFK. Your denial of COI issues between CFK and Clarin proves that you are either 1) ignorant of political issues in Argentina, or 2) trying to push your personal political agenda on this page. Please stop removing the NPOV tag! This page clearly has POV issues! Sushilover2000 (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I won't remove it again if that makes you happy, but also feel that you leave the burden of improving the article to others. You may start contributing to it as well. And let me tell you that Clarín is considered a reliable source. The Buenos Aires Herald also is, of course.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. There are so many COIs between Clarin and CFK that it negates the reliability of Clarin, by all standards of COI. As someone pointed out, this page needs major re-writing to bring it up to the current fact that CFK is no longer the prez... I edit when I can, and this page is moving forward on my list... Thanks, Sushilover2000 (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
That seems like a non-issue. There are only 15 references from Clarin, out of more than 150 in the whole article. In particular, the section that describes the conflict between Cristina Kirchner and the press is referenced exclusively from foreign sources, to avoid even the suspicion of a possible conflict of interest. Cambalachero (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

POV and use of Mendelevich[edit]

For details about why I have removed sentences using claims by Pablo Mendelevich as sources, see Talk:Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. I see Jetstreamer, who reverted my removal of Mendelevich's claims, is coincidentally also one of those refusing to allow the POV tag at the top of this article. I will remove said content again, for reasons stated on the aforementioned page. If you remove it, add the POV tag to the top of the article yourself, as removal will mean that this article's content is still disputed. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said in the previous discussion, I won't ever remove the POV tag again.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggested merging of sections on her presidency[edit]

Greetings! There are several very well-along sections in her presidency section that have grown very large. The size is fantastic for balance, but I feel too much detail for a biography, which has many many topics to cover. I recommend merging these sections to the presidency page, with nice summations made for her biography page in their stead. I haven't been bold and done it myself, as I imagine it will require care in not repeating what's on the Presidency page in the timeline - I image a veteran editor on these topics would undoubtably do it smoother and more thoughtfully than I could in this case, if there's an agreement over the move. Yvarta (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)