Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Critisism shown as fact

People keep trying to push their own political agenda on this page. Here is some of the dispute that was filed away to hide this fact...

I appeal to the common sense of this wikipedia community. Stop manipulating the article to reflect your own political interests ideas and bias. We should show facts and we are only showing a collection of accusations, many of them dubious. Stop treating people as idiots. Balance the sources. Balance the ideas and remove critisism from the introductory statement. IT DOES NOT BELONG THERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.254.4.10 (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation of the neutral point of view, we do not present facts as if they were opinions. I have seen your recent edit to the article, and adding things such as "accused of", "allegedly", "so-said", "have been claimed", etc; before claims is not a good writing standard. I am familiar with the Kirchnerite policy of pretending that everything is relative and depends on who says it, but for the rest of the world 2+2=4 no matter who says it. We don't care if an outlandish populist leader and his network of propaganda says that 2 + 2 = 5, we have to call a spade a spade. Cambalachero (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This is very far away from being a fact: "It is estimated that the Kirchner government controls nearly 80% of the Argentine media, either directly or indirectly." It is a completely false statement. It is not true just because a journalist say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.238.60 (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not reflect truth but facts. And facts are supported by reliable sources. If you find references saying otherwise you are welcome to add them per WP:NPOV.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
It is a very strong assertion, and the only support for this is a note in a newspaper that only says exactly that. I live in Argentina and I know that it is a completely false statement, because the great majority of the media is against Cristina Kirchner. I know I will not find a different percentage simply because the index makes no sense at all. This article, along with many of the references, is biased, and includes statements which are not facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.236.39 (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
You're free to neutralise the article including as many references as you want.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I re-wrote this section to accurately reflect the facts of this statement.Sushilover2000 (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The line "One journalist, without providing any sources" is particularly derogatory. We are talking about The Guardian, one of the most reliable international newspapers around. And being from another country, it is free of suspicions over the media dispute of CFK against Clarín. They have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and can be counted as a reliable source. Cambalachero (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Cambalachero: you are defending that 2 + 2 = 5. The reference you are talking about says clearly that the information comes from "Ricardo Kirschbaum, Clarín's editor-in-chief". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.45.131.218 (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Clarín is considered a reliable source whether you like it or not. The Guardian also is. It won't be difficult for you to find other sources if things are the way you say.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC).
The assertion is hilarious, and it is not even well defined. What does it mean 80% of the media? What is indirect control? I would like to see a link to a study leading to that fact, but I know there isn't any. This material would be perfect for an article called "limitations of Wikipedia". On the other hand you can take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index#Rankings_and_scores_by_country. Compare Argentina with United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.138.78.135 (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source per WP:CIRCULAR. I suggest you to check what is a reliable source at WP:RELIABLE.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
That is irrelevant in this discussion. You can see directly http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html and http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Yuhjtman (talk • contribs)

Why is it irrelevant? Because you say so? Someone pointed to Wikipedia as a source, I told them that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Separately, if you want to add any kind of information and have reliable sources to support it, go ahead. By the way, you should sign your posts.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

This page needs some outside mediating, because some users are biasing the contents of the page.Sushilover2000 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you please provide the biased statements in the article? It's easy to add a tag to an article an then wait for someone else to take care of it.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
See above comments. This article is obviously biased. Readers should be aware of that.
I'm not requiring to state your reasons here but in the {{NPOV}} tag in the article. Separately, you should sign your posts.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This page is totally biased. It looks like users Jetstreamer and Cambalachero are just whitewashing over all such comments and points. This use of Wikipedia for political reasons is not appropriate. Readers of this article should have fair warning of this issue. Please one of you, re-insert a bias tag at the top of the article. Sushilover2000 (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You are still not providing reasons. Everything in the article is supported by reliable sources. If you believe something is not, you may tag the claims that are in need of sources. As I said before, the page has not NPOV issues just because you don't like it.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Likewise, this page doesn't 'not have' NPOV issues, just because you claim otherwise. There have been lots of complaints about this page. Anyone that knows anything about this topic can see it has NPOV issues. It should be tagged otherwise. Not all the people with interest in this page can work on it 24/7. This should remain tagged "NPOV".Sushilover2000 (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Archiving Unresolved NPOV Comments

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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)

Totally biased

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 168.96.255.98 (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!168.96.255.98 (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 168.96.255.98 (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 190.49.43.130 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC) — 190.49.43.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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"; http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusión:Cristina_Fernández_de_Kirchner#Ciencia_y_tecnologia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.175.173.156 (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC) — 190.175.173.156 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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 200.3.190.65 (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC) — 200.3.190.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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 181.46.249.46 (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC) — 181.46.249.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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. 168.96.149.224 (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC) — 168.96.149.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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 137.254.4.13 (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.181.15.176.3 (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC) — 181.15.176.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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 137.254.4.13 (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 137.254.4.13 (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 190.50.167.37 (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC) — 190.50.167.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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) — Johnny Obama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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: http://www.lemonde.fr/panama-papers/article/2016/04/14/panama-papers-l-influent-quotidien-argentin-la-nacion-dans-la-tourmente_4902133_4890278.html. 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... 168.96.255.107 (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC) — 168.96.255.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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 138.121.228.10 (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: http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/206393/argentine-press--reader-2016-. 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. 138.121.228.10 (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — 138.121.228.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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. 181.91.68.55 (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC) — 181.91.68.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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)

Suggested merging of sections on her presidency

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)

Good article nomination? Seriously?

How can it be that in spite of the continuing discussion about this article's neutrality, user Cambalachero is nominating it for "good article"? I find it almost funny, the article being practically his own. I mean: every time someone tries to contribute so as to turn it into something that could be called barely neutral, he undoes the contribution, so the ghastly biased thing that it is remains.

Oh, yeah: who removed the POV tag again? 181.92.117.34 (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC) — 181.92.117.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article has been completely re-written since the last discussions, so they are dated now. Before, it only cited reliable sources from Argentina, and ignored the unreliable ones. Now, all sources are foreign sources. Not Página 12 or El Argentino, but neither Clarín or La Nación. The only exception are the sections that talk about her time before the presidency, as she was not internationally noteworthy back then. By the way, you forgot to sign in. Cambalachero (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't mean that there isn't a POV issue with the article. It is still written in a biased way (mainly by you). By the way: I didn't sing in because I don't have a user account created; I'm not an editor like you. I'm sorry if you find annoying that anonymous IP's like me object to this article's lack of neutrality. A good way of get rid of us would be to put aside your hatred of CFK, and act accordingly to Wikipedia's guidelines concerning neutrality. 181.92.117.34 (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC) — 181.92.117.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I noticed that you edited my original post, singling me as a single-purpose account. It can be read in the corresponding project page: "... a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed." It is ironic that this is exactly what you're trying to do with this article. 181.92.117.34 (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC) — 181.92.117.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Let's check some of the controversial issues of Kirchner's government.

  • Nationalization of the AFJPs: "The nationalization was justified by the president as government protectionism during the crisis, and compared with the bank bailouts in Europe and the United States."
  • Inflation: "Although inflation was nearing 25% and on the rise, Boudou did not consider it a significant problem."
  • Currency controls: "The government believed the controls were required to prevent the capital flight and tax evasion."
  • Nationalization of YPF: "She opted instead to send a bill to Congress for the renationalization of YPF, privatized in 1993, blaming the Spanish company Repsol for the energy trade deficit"
  • Conflict with farmers: "The government argued that the new taxes would allow for a better redistribution of wealth, and keep down the food prices. It also claimed the farmers were staging a coup d'état against Kirchner."
  • First cacerolazo: "Kirchner dismissed the demonstration, and said that she would continue working as before. Most of the Kirchner loyalists, however, preferred simply to ignore the protest."
  • 8N: "Cabinet Chief Juan Manuel Abal Medina said the demonstrators belonged to a class that was against social justice, and compared the demonstrations to a coup d'états. A similar view was held by Kirchner's loyalists."
  • Triple crime: "Fernández denied the charges, maintaining that it was a set up to undermine his chances in the 2015 general election"
  • The route of the K money: "Báez denied any wrongdoing."
  • Relation with the press: "Cristina Kirchner claims that journalistic objectivity does not exist, and that all journalists act on behalf of certain interests. She also justified the lack of press conferences, arguing that it is not important for her administration."

As you can see, the Kirchnerite point of view is accounted for in this article. Do you have some more specific concern? Cambalachero (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's see. I believe you're trying move the focus of the discussion. That you include things that CFK and members of her government said about controversial issues doesn't mean that this article isn't biased. For example, reading the aforementioned article citations you can tell that they're written in a biased way. And reading some of the article (because I don't have the time that you seem to have to dedicate to this), I can cite these:
  • "Several corruption scandals took place, and she faced several demonstrations against her rule."

Her rule? Oh, yeah: you must think her government was a dictatorship. By the way: she also had several demonstations to support her government, but that's surely not important, because they must have been orchestratred.

  • "Her defeat in the 2013 midterm elections prevented an attempt to amend the constitution to allow the president to run for a third term."

She never stated she wanted to do this; it was merely media speculation.

I also noticed that you cite Majul as a source. But shurely not Víctor Hugo Morales, or Sandra Russo, or Horacio Vervitsky, because they're obviously paid propaganda makers.

  • "Although forced disappearances were common during the Dirty War, Néstor and Cristina Kirchner never signed any habeas corpus requests."

So? They and how many others?

Does this account as "specific concern"? 181.92.117.34 (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC) — 181.92.117.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, I did try to move the foxus of the discussion: from a generalized rant into specific issues, easier to discuss. The word "rule" in this context makes reference to the tenure of a governor, party or political line; it is not limited to dictatorships. See for example: "Argentina creditors may gain with end to Kirchner rule", "Argentina Elects Pro-Business Mauricio Macri After 12 Years of Kirchner Rule", "The conservative mayor of Buenos Aires, Mauricio Macri, was elected president of Argentina on Sunday, in a win seen as a rejection of departing leader Cristina Kirchner’s interventionist economic policies and a turn to the right after 12 years of leftist rule", "Argentina marks 10 years of Kirchner rule", etc. It matters little if the project to amend the constitution was announced by Cristina herself or her agents; the project existed, the press considered it that way, and we report things the way the press does. Note that she did not deny it, either. As for Majul, I cited him because his book mentions some info about the Kirchner's early days in the patagonia; not in the really important sections of the article. As for the lack of habeas corpus, it is noteworthy information: as they would turn the remembrance of the dirty war into a government policy, their actual actions during that time is of interest. Besides, they were lawyers back then, they could have filled those if they wanted to (Alfonsín did it). Hope that this clarifies your concerns and we can move on. Cambalachero (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The word "rule" is used in a derisive manner; you won't find it in the article about Obama, or about Angela Merkel. The fact that you insist on defending its use is another example of you trying to justify the bias of this article.
It does matter that the project wasn't announced by any member of her government. It was only media speculation. And, in fact, she publicly denied it: "Cristina Kirchner: "Lo digo con todas las letras, la Constitución debería ser modificada, pero no voy a proponer ningún cambio"".
If you're going to cite Majul, which was openly against her government, cite also another author which wasn't, or cite an author with a more neutral stance regarding her. If you only cite Majul, there's no neutraliy.
Regarding the corpus, I don't think any lawyer would have done it as easily as you cite it. Those were dangerous times; a public figure like Alfonsín was obviously more protected against possible retaliations by the dictatorship than common people like the Kirchners. The fact that this is not mentioned in the article gives the image of certain hypocrisy or double discourse by them, which of course is what you pretend.
Of course that these are only three parts of the article that I considered non neutral, which I chose to put as example. In no way they are the only ones; the whole article is full biased. So if you consider that you have clarified these three doesn't mean that you have clarified the issue of non neutrality. I point this because you have removed the POV tag again and justified it saying that issues were clarified, which is not true. I ask you not to remove the POV tag again. 181.92.117.34 (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC) — 181.92.117.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
See for example Does this mark the end for Angela Merkel's rule? and 'Merkel's rule collapses'? Don't write her off yet, analysts say. As you can see, the word "rule" is also used to describe Merkel's term of office. The link you gave does not say what you think it says. Read it again. She says that the constitution should be amended, but that she won't propose the bill. As for Majul, remember that POV is about including all viewpoints, not about the type of sources used. Is there a viewpoint about Cristina Kirchner's early life that you think is missing? As for the Habeas Corpus, I don't know how many ones were requested, but see here. As of December 1977, Eugenio Zaffaroni was rejecting the habeas corpus number 362. That's only 1 year after the coup, and there were still 6 more years on the way. By the way, it was presented by a relative, not by a public figure. And in any case, being a public figure was not really a protection: Héctor Germán Oesterheld was dissapeared, and Carlos Menem was kept prisoner for a long time. And, about the template, I explained things, waited for two days, and I understood by your lack of answers that the issue was settled. The POV tag is not a "badge of shame", it is a temporary thing, and if there is some problem in the article the idea is to point it, discuss it and go on. Cambalachero (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@181.92.117.34:, are you still there? Do you have a reply for the things I have said before? If you don't, I will consider that the issues have been clarified and remove the template. Cambalachero (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Certainly WP:SILENCE applies.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The conditions of neutrality have NOT been met. This article should not be considered as a good article. It is marginal at best.100.42.0.156 (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC) — 100.42.0.156 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You have to provide a detailed, specific and actionable rationale for your concern. "The conditions of neutrality have NOT been met" does not really say anything. Cambalachero (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Vulture funds

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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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

 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)

Presidential term

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

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)

Media control claim

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

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

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

Lede concerning Alberto Nisman and other controversies

Some controversies are being removed from the lede. The information seems well backed by RS. @Cambalachero, any particular reason why this is being removed? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

See WP:Lead fixation. Yes, all that info is already included and referenced... in the body of the article. The lead must be a brief summary of info that is fully explained later, and a simple line "Several corruption scandals took place, and she faced several demonstrations against her rule." is enough at that level. Same for everything else: in my version of the lead, for each line that says something about her rule, there is an expanded info later on. That's why I did not mention, for example, the Universal allocation per child in the lead: it's mentioned in the "Economic policy" section, but there isn't much more to say about it than that sentence, it's just a social security program. Cambalachero (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. User:Dianaa seems to have been able to balance this out per their last edit. It looks fine to me now. If you think this needs further discussion let me know and we can perhaps open a RfC to get others involved. Regards. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Overview

Articles do not need to have overview sections: that's what the lead is for. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for details. Cambalachero (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

As per MOS:LEADLENGTH an article of this size (4,500+ characters) can have 3 or 4 paragraphs in the lead section, which is exactly the number of paragraphs the article had before User:Elizabeta Kirkland's edits. The usage of an 'Overview' section is not standard and contrary to the purpose of the lead section. I suppose continued User:Elizabeta Kirkland's noncompliance with the MOS, disregard of consensus and unwillingness to participate in discussion (as we don't know the rationale behind their edits) should be dealt with administrative action. --MewMeowth (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Argentina only apparently democratic?

The following phrase is preposterous: "glorifying democracy in speeches while maintaining only the appearance of it". Can we remove it? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah what is up with that section, this is not "Public image", this is "Criticism from the point of view of Axel Kaiser". – Thjarkur (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Impunity vs. Immunity

In 2017, an arrest warrant was issued for Fernández de Kirchner charging her for treason after further evidence surfaced showing that the pact signed between her government and Iran secretly included the impunity of the Iranians involved in the terrorist attack.[7][8]

I didn't check the sources. Assume this is a translation error, and the correct word is "immunity". Last sentence in the Lede.68.206.249.124 (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria?

Too many images MOS:IMAGELOC and the Criticism section is a mess. Is Good article reassessment merited? (t · c) buidhe 22:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

one sided sources

Idem what i wrote on other articles's discussions FrankRhymez (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

and i request it be protected like Macri's FrankRhymez (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Nothing justifies a protection anyway. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

why is macri's protected and not hers? FrankRhymez (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"Legacy" section is heavily one-sided

The entirety of the "Legacy" section of this article should be under a "Criticism" section, as much of it reflects criticism made toward Cristina, and not her legacy per se. The presence and citations of Axel Kaiser is also problematic, as it exposes a very one-sided view of Cristina's public image. As she was elected in 2019 yet again, it's impossible for her to be that universally questioned. SantaCrabby (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

What is in a name.

When her husband Nestor Kirchner died she became Cristina Fernández viuda de Kirchner, by custom if not by law. Peter Horn User talk 01:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Page created for assassination attempt

Someone created the article for the assassination attempt, posting here for her article watchers. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cristina_Fernández_de_Kirchner/Archive_3&oldid=1193203269"