Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Photos

I have noticed a sligth problem with the photos: most of them are unrelated with the text. If possible, a photo with Lula, Chavez, Obama or whoever should be located next to a paragraph that talks about relations with Brazil, Venezuela, United States, etc. And when it's possible, a photo directly related with the specific topics being described would be better. MBelgrano (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It is the case of the last ones, some text should be included in first paragraphs --Jor70 (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There are just an absurd number of photos in general. I think at least half of them are unnecessary. Dannyburd (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Pristino (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Article layout

I think it may be better to rearrange the presidency section, and provide some summaries by topic (domestic policy, economic policy, specific big topics) rather than arrange information by year. We can use the featured article Barack Obama as a model. I have kept the current information at Presidency of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and, as it is done with "Presidency of..." articles, we should move there the information that is more related with the administration rather than with the individual. For example, the cabinet. The "Relationship with the media" section should be kept as such in there, and here expand the scope into a "Public image" section, which may mention the disputes with the media but not being limited to them. MBelgrano (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic background of mother

Does anyone know the ethnic background of her mother? Sounds German (obviously). Citations for that would be nice. I'll look later if nobody has it. Obotlig (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Cited and inserted. There are many references for this. Obotlig (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision of History

According to Brazil's most influential news outlet,

E como para Cristina a imprensa local "distorce a realidade", ela decidiu agir por conta própria para dar a sua versão dos fatos, moldando o passado para que o presente pareça mais coerente. Financiado com recursos públicos, o novo instituto terá na linha de frente o historiador Mario "Pacho" O'Donnell, que coordenará uma equipe de 33 pessoas, entre historiadores, ministros, dirigentes e jornalistas - todos aliados da presidente. O objetivo da organização é "estudar, investigar e difundir a vida e a obra de personalidades e circunstâncias que não tenham recebido o reconhecimento adequado no âmbito institucional e de caráter acadêmico", diz o decreto 1880 - sem especificar o que Cristina entende por estudar e investigar. http://veja.abril.com.br/noticia/internacional/argentina-reescrevera-sua-historia-sob-a-otica-de-cristina

I'm not a professional, but my best translation would be

"Since Cristina believes that the local media "distorts reality," she decided to take action herself, in order to give her own version of the facts, molding the past so that the present would appear more coherent. Financed by public resources, the new institute will have on its front lines the historian Mario Pacho O'Donnel, who will coordinate a 33-person team consisting of historians, ministers, directors and journalists--all supporters of the president. The objective of the organization is "to study, investigate and publicize the works and lives of people and circumstances that haven't received adequate recognition in the institutional environment, and give them academic character," says decree 1880, without specifying exactly what Cristina wants to study or investigate."

The author goes on to compare this presidential decree to similar decrees made by Chavez, Morales, Castro, Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Communist Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The author's main point is that she has personal favorites... that she is choosing to highlight the good things they did while ignoring the bad things, and looking at their deeds through a 21st century latin american populist's lens. I did a quick google search for "Cristina Kirchner decree 1880," but didn't find anything. If true, and verifiable with other sources, this should be included in the article. --72.47.85.22 (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As hinted in the quotes, this is not something new in Argentina, Cristina is not doing anything special. The controversies about the Argentine historiography go back to the XIX century, and in fact it was Mitre the first one to describe past events in a light that justifies modern (for his time) policy. But that's beyond the scope of this article. For this one, have in mind that the only thing "new" about the Manuel Dorrego institute is that it is about Manuel Dorrego. A similar institute about Juan Manuel de Rosas already exists, since decades ago. And the claim that Rosas is "a tyrant to the public" is severely outdated. He is depicted in the $20 currency, has a huge statue at a main avenue, and a related holiday. The "Day of National Sovereignty" was issued by CFK, right, but more important, it was easily accepted, without any controversy; and it was not just her own idea but a project promoted since half a century ago. The statue and the currency, were not even issued by the Kirchners but by previous governments, of the opposite political line, which confirms that Rosas has a good image for all Argentines regardless of their political lines. Rosas may be "a tyrant to the public" in Brazil, for reasons long to explain here (and beyond the topic as well), but not in Argentina, and those actions are internal Argentine policies. Cambalachero (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

First lady

I think that the "First lady" part should be removed from the infobox, as it isn't a political office. It is neither an elective office (like that of Presidents, deputies or governors) nor one with real and influential power (like a minister or a judge). It is just a protocolar role, with no political importance at all save for greeting people in ceremonies. It may had make sense to include it at biographies of women notable by being the wife of a president but without holding an office powerful in its own right (like Michelle Obama or even Eva Perón), but with Cristina Fernández that's hardly the case. And, unlike the women mentioned, Cristina has been of a complete low profile during Nestor Kirchner's rule, people only became aware of her when Kirchner refused to run for a second term and made his wife do so. MBelgrano (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Political positions?

It would be nice to have a section dedicated to her political positions/stances. G90025 (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Mercosur pro-tempore presidency

Should it be added to her infobox? She assumed on December 20th.--Andres arg (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

chronology

"In April 2008, on the 26th anniversary of the Falklands War, Kirchner stepped up Argentine claims to the Falkland Islands. She called Argentina's rights to the islands "inalienable"" - This had occurred at 2009 SHIMONSHA (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it appears to be accurate: 2008 minus 26 equals 1982. Quis separabit? 15:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the date mentioned in the article is the 26th anniversary to the war, doesn't say it is so; I found a reliable source in Hebrew who reports about the event a day after it occurred, and it was published at april 3rd 2009 - http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3696644,00.html I hope someone here could read Hebrew. SHIMONSHA (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Offices in the Infobox

It should be clarified that her deputy and senator offices were national, since they could be provincial. In addition, where it states that she was a National Senator for Buenos Aires, I added Buenos Aires Province, to differentiate it from the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.115.239 (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Photos

Hi, I have removed a number of images from the article, mostly from the 2010 images. I did this as the article was flagged for "clean-up" The one's removed I selected from a stylistic perspective. Where it was clutered I took some out, leaving the bigger personalities alone. This lady seems to have had an extraordinary terms in office. (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))

All the best...

Totally biased - Basically unreadable.

I understand that members of opposition parties or companies have right as anyone to write in wikipedia. but this article needs to be completely reshaped. you cannot use opinion articles as factual references. I specially see this, for example:

"The governor of the Buenos Aires province Daniel Scioli voiced his intention to run for the presidency in 2015, so the national government confiscated the money he would use to pay wages, in order to harm his image.[91] A similar step was done with Mauricio Macri, refusing to mediate in a subway strike that lasted for ten days, generating huge traffic delays in Buenos Aires.[92] Cristina stepped back on both actions after noticing that she was more harmed by them than Scioli and Macri."

This is simply a lie. Or at least a malicious, gross misinterpretation. The gov. of Buenos Aires province is responsible for wages of their employees and it was them who couldn't get the money to pay wages out of their defficient administration. The federal government solved the situation by paying part of it even when it was not it's responsability. so how can this help transformed in a confiscation because of a scioli campaign? Second: The subway, which is property of the government of the city of buenos aires, is subject of a dispute between the federal and the city government over who should be administraiting it. The government of the city initially accepted the session, then decided to not accept it, and now it just refuses to fulfill it's obligations. Again, the federal government had to intervene thanks to the irresponsible and sloppy administration of the local government. To add more data into it, the federal governement even provided funds to the city governement in order for it to kick off it's administration, and the judiciary had to force the city governement to use it.

http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-199127-2012-07-20.html http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/ultimas/20-200059-2012-08-01.html http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-202026-2012-08-28.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.208.30 (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Página 12 is a known propaganda outlet of the government, financed by the government, and it is not a reliable source Cambalachero (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That expresses an opinion -a personal one-, and an article is not about opinion (neither the Talk Page). In the same fashion, it could be also stated that Clarín is a known source of propaganda for the Grupo Clarín corporation, whose actual interests are clearly contrary to the government. And a similar statement could also be made about La Nación. But not to have these two sources in account would not be desirable, realizing one of the goals of Wikipedia is neutrality Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality).

Therefore, starting by the sources, and going through the whole article, it needs to be rewritten in order to have balanced information. This way it will get in the direction toward neutrality.168.96.255.98 (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"Clarín is a known source of propaganda for the Grupo Clarín corporation"? Do you read the things you write before clicking on "save page"? Of course that Clarín represents the opinions of Clarín! That's a tautology, and it's pointless to discuss tautologies. But Clarín is not a political party, nor is aligned to any political party. It has editorial independence, and you had not proved otherwise. Página 12, on the other hand, is financed by a political faction. That is a fact, and you can't opine on facts. You may opine that, regardless of being financed by the government, Página 12 praises the government but keeping their editorial independence... but you should have very sound explanations to justify that. Cambalachero (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Página 12 being financed by the government is not a fact. If you have very sound evidence of your affirmation, please share it. Again: have in mind the goal of neutrality. This article is not neutral for the reasons stated above. This is not new: the issue of neutrality has already been raised not long ago Talk:Cristina_Fernández_de_Kirchner/Archive_1#Article_Neutrality_Discussed. I'm not going to discuss further on the issue of independence and interests of the papers because, again, talk pages are not the place for this, but it would be interesting to refer to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality, and I cite: "Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective (...)". Please, let's not use an article to express our personal opinions and points of view, but let's use the fact of them being different to achieve balance in the information provided.168.96.255.98 (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

There are details of the government financial support to Página 12 here and here. Even the Congress acknowledges this fact and required more information about to to the presidency, see here Cambalachero (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You're talking about the distribution of government publicity, which is a known issue. But you can't claim that "Página 12 is a known propaganda outlet of the government, financed by the government" just because of that. One of the articles you refer to (this) states that Anses is one of the most faithful advertisers on the Buenos Aires Herald, and no one would claim it does not have editorial independence from the government. Página 12 is a very recognized Argentinian paper (the first article that brought to light the "vuelos de la muerte" issue was published there. Horacio Verbitsky's opinion columns are a landmark of the paper). Clarín may be independent from the government, but it is not independent from its parent corporation interests: we're talking about two kinds of independences (see here).

I think that we have diverted from the main issue here: this article has a clear bias toward government-criticism, it is not neutral, and it has to be rewritten. More references other than those from government opposition media need to be added. You can't ignore this: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality. You can't also ignore the Spanish version, which is clearly neutral, and the result from heavy discussion between its editors.168.96.255.98 (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no such a thing as "opposition media", unless the media is aligned to an opposing political party or financed by it, which is not the case here. Saying that Clarín is not independent from itself is a weird tautology, which is pointless to discuss. Yes, Clarín is financed by their own commercial activities: just like any major independent media in the world. In fact, if you tried to fill the sentence "Clarin depends from ___", and the only entry you could find is "Clarín", then you have actually stated yourself that it is independent. Página 12 is not a recognized newspaper, it was, in past tense. They had a reputable past, but that was under other directors and with a truly independent editorial line. Nowadays their sales are minimal, and they only avoid the bankruptcy with the financial support of the government, which they receive in exchange of their servitude. As for the "Puede colaborar" page, it is not the page of any reputable newspaper, just a web page of the lot, and headings that compare Barack Obama with Jorge Videla or Augusto Pinochet, or which describe the US as a police state, do very little help to consider it a reliable source.

As for the requests for sources supporting Cristina, I will say what I said somewhere else: bring reliable sources that do not receive this financial support, reliable sources that believe in the INDEC figures or in the constant coup conspiracy theories without receiving any reward from the government in exchange, and then we shall reconsider. Cambalachero (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

See here as well. Several countries, such as the United States, Germany, Australia and Spain criticized the attack to the press during a UN conference. And you can't say they are the "opposition media". In fact, this shows that Kirchner is alone in this, that only the government-financed media can see a positive light in the scandals of the last year, which only the half or the third part of them would have been enough anywhere else in the world to cause a resign or an impeachment. There is another section of the neutrality policy that you should consider, the one about undue weight. Cambalachero (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Cambalachero: Absolutely none of the things you are saying, disputes the clear fact that this article is biased and needs to be rewritten. Pagina 12 is not government financed, that is, again, gross misinterpretation. I don't expect this article to be Kirchnerist. I expect it to be neutral, and using Clarin and La Nación as sources, makes it far from that objective. You say that Pagina 12 is not reputable, and that is your opinion, but is not a fact. My opinion is that Clarín and La Nación never were reputable. And you have absolutely not authority to dispute my claims as well as I have no authority to dispute yours. This must be a collection of facts, not a collection of interpretation of what you think that facts are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.254.4.4 (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, do you consider this to be neutral? Is this a joke?

"The governor of the Buenos Aires province Daniel Scioli voiced his intention to run for the presidency in 2015, so the national government confiscated the money he would use to pay wages, in order to harm his image.[91] A similar step was done with Mauricio Macri, refusing to mediate in a subway strike that lasted for ten days, generating huge traffic delays in Buenos Aires.[92] Cristina stepped back on both actions after noticing that she was more harmed by them than Scioli and Macri."

"In order to harm it's image"? Where is the government document that states "In order to harm Scioli reputation, we will conficate money for wages"? This is a total lie. It makes the article unrealiable and it even sounds dumb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.254.4.4 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, I included two links to the polls for each case.

This is not an issue of liking or not this or that newspaper, but checking if they are reliable. A newspaper that is financed by the government and in turn praises the government, can not be considered reliable because it has a conflict of interest involved. Clarín, on the other hand, has no such involvement with either the government or the opposition parties, so there is no conflict of interest involving it. Cambalachero (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Polls are not by any way the thing that is being argued. Let me keep it simple for you: National government did not confiscate any funds of the province of Buenos Aires simply because such funds are of free use of the province government and they sit in the bank of the province of buenos aires which acts as financial agent of the province government. The whole thing is a lie and it should be removed since it does not correspond with reality. Same thing regarding the buenos aires subway, which was jurisdiction of the government of the city and it was already at the time. Regarding Clarin, it does has involvement with the governement of the city of buenos aires, via state publicity (the same kind of "involvement" you accuse pagina 12 to have with the national governement) and via netbook contracts, which makes the connection much larger than the one you claim the national governement have with Pagina 12. It does have a clear conflict of insterests since it still struggles against the governement over the application of the antimonopolic media law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.254.4.7 (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I have commented the segment in question. I will redact it in a fact-based approach. We should give it a little context explaining the "Coparticipation Law".--Neo139 (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It is to most observers evident by action and reaction that the majority of privately financed media in the South Americas is backed and bought by special interest groups. Proving this is difficulty in accordance to ever more prejudicial wikipedia rules as the government is not allowed to defend itself using its own sources but they (the elite) are as their hand is not as visible as that of the governments in their side of the media. Truly independent news media is becoming a scarcity, as an aspiring journalist I am ever more aware of the inability of journalists to seek employment with true integrity and still earn reasonable living. It is increasingly more necessary, in my opinion, to construct Wikipedia articles alongside "biased" viewpoints, portraying two views on a dividing issue instead of attempting to, often in vain, seek the path of subjective research. Please reply to this, heck, feel free to take it to a higher level to. I am much distraught with the bureaucracy (that favors longstanding members instead of the anonymous masses that made this site) and general culture of Wikipedia to know or perhaps even have the energy to start anything to serious. But I do care about this article.213.100.108.117 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Hi! I have noticed that a huge amount of the references to newspapers are from government-opposition media. Should it not be more balanced, in regards of objectivity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.96.255.98 (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Please see my response below in the "Totaly biased, unreadable" comment. But basically I think that we should start treating active political issues as we treat those of war (sadly), portraying both views of the story instead of attempting to find the middleground. 213.100.108.117 (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Obvious negative bias in editing after section 2012

All of the sections under 2012 are highly opinionated and oppositional. It is also poorly written, and has a sensational edge to it that reminds me of a tabloid. Reading it made me specifically check the history. It appears that user Cambalachero is responsible for quite a bit of the editing of this section.

It is one thing to present negative evidence and viewpoints - quite another to use loaded language that reflects personal opinion. Jgmoneill (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The section on "Public Image" is either factually lacking or so poorly documented as to be nothing more than negative editorializing. "Appeal to Emotion" is a logical fallacy defined by objective criteria. And the article links to that Wikipedia entry on "Appeal to Emotion" demonstrating that is the intended interpretation the reader should have of the term. The allegation as made here requires examples that demonstrate the objective criteria is met. In the absence of such evidence, the assumption must be that the author is just expressing an opinion and himself/herself committing the fallacy of "Appeal to Emotion": "Kirchner must be 'bad' because she makes appeals to emotion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.108.154 (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There are many such examples in the article cited as reference. An appeal to emotion is not "good" or "bad", it's just a speech technique. Cambalachero (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This entire article is really poor. I've read the entire thing - and other articles on her - and I don't know what any of her policies are. I don't even know if she's left wing or right wing. You simply can't get that information.124.171.106.192 (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

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 Cambalachero (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If anything the right wing lost some great champions with the fall of the Berlin-Wall. You should read up on the definition of left and right as it has nothing to do with socialism vs capitalism. 213.100.108.117 (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Cambalachero: In reference to your comment; "An appeal to emotion is not "good" or "bad", it's just a speech technique." -It is also a form of propaganda when applied to media. Also, I wasn't clear in my original comment, I apologize. To rephrase; "It is one thing to present negative evidence and viewpoints - quite another to use (sources that contain) loaded language that reflects personal opinion." Meaning essentially, don't use tabloid-like articles with derisive language. Jgmoneill (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Style section

Should the style section remain in the article? It has good sources but still, I'm not sure if its relevant enough for a current president.--Neo139 (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

When a politician has a distinctive style that forms an important part of his or her appeal to the voters, that is relevant (style is also relevant if some view it as extravagant and it becomes part of their critique). It does not cease to be relevant just because he or she becomes President. Nandt1 (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The style section could remain in the article but it should be properly written. What I had removed was badly sourced, ie the contexts of the quotes was unclear and the person who translated the contents into English did so poorly. He is also very vocal (in talk) about his distaste for this particular presidency and it would seem that the Style section only serves as another conduit for the original editor to espouse his personal venom. It does not conform to any of the guidelines, and considering the messy state of the entire article, it is entirely superfluous. Jgmoneill (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Renewed claim for Falkland Islands - 1/3/2013

RE Jetstreamer undoing recent edit about the islands...

That edit did seem opinionated, but the big news of the last 1-2 days is Kircher's request to David Cameron to reclaim the islands. Indeed, this is an article about a president, not claims to soverignty of land. However there are currently 9 mentions of the Falklands (aka Malvinas) already in her article.

She made a demand directly to the British PM, rather than just criticizing their claim to the UN as she has done in the past. I think that is a bold enough move to warrant some unbiased mention here?

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/03/david-cameron-falkland-islands-argentina - one of many sources, but most international news outlets are covering it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trep26 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the removed content? Neutral point of view was violated by stating ″despite a limited and misconceived claim to the islands″. The question is far from being closed, to the extent that several international organisations have called for the resumption of negotiations. Reinstate the deleted content if you want, but following WP:NPOV.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the question is closed - the Falkland Islanders have made their decision, and will once again in an upcoming referendum, being held for political reasons. The UK is militarily defending these islands, and that's basically the end of debate, except for much rhetoric. There are many good solid sources for this view, if one takes the effort to look. It's along the same lines of Kosovo - whether the rest of the UN recognizes its independence or not, NATO is guaranteeing it, and that, boys and girls, is the final word on that. The article on the Falklands points this out in a nice NPOV fashion.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Jetstreamer: yes, I have. No argument that it seemed biased and maybe wasn't appropriate. Just saying that I think the poster was trying to contribute something about the news on Argentine/UK relations. (s)he may not have eloquently done so. But there's an arguably important current event going on now. Seeing the levity of it, I'm amazed that there's no still no mention of it here on Ms. Kirchner's page. I respect your deletion and don't want to reinstate it... just hear what I'm sayin'.

(Disclaimer: I'm am American who has been to both countries and tries to stay informed on the Falklands dispute. I don't claim to be well-informed on it, just hope to see Wikipedia stay informative and balanced.)--Trep26 (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Public image section

While in general this whole article is poorly written, this is no excuse for sentences which make no sense such as the caption under the only image included in the Public Image section: 'Cristina Fernández meeting people from José C. Paz during an income housing delivery in 2008'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.214.222 (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

copy edit comments

I did a 60% copy edit of this article for spelling, punctuation, grammar etc. I have to stop at the moment due to time. I will return within a day or two at the most to finish the copy edit. It is a long article. I have fixed a few sentences which made no sense, but mostly I am just correcting grammar. 25 March 2013 Montykillies (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I came back and finished the edit to improve English, punctuation, spelling etc. Removed opinions not suited for this article. Montykillies (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Montykillies (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Cristina Kirchner is not dead

Let's better prevent problems before they happen. There is a huge internet hoax right now at several pages of internet, facebook and twitter, saying that Cristina Kirchner may have died on October 28. See details about the hoax [http://en.mediamass.net/people/cristina-kirchner/deathhoax.html here]. Someone may read this rumor and come here to "fix" the article with such news; this must not be allowed. Cristina Kirchner is not dead, and any edit that says otherwise without citing a known, reliable and trustworthy source will be reverted on sight.

Of course, there is the chance that she may actually die, she's a human being after all, and one day she will die, like anyone else. And she has been at a surgery some days ago, and she's kept severely away from the public during her recovery, which may fuel conspiracy theories. But, as of October 29, that's just in the realm of the things that did not happen. Considering the circumstances, if you find a news page saying that Cristina Kirchner has died, try to confirm it first checking bigger news sources, such as CNN or BBC. If she does die, it won't take more than a few minutes for them to pick up the news. Cambalachero (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

CFK

So far, I've reverted the edits made by 190.166.6.18 (talk · contribs), which removes from the lead the fact that Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is also known as "CFK", twice ([1], [2]). A Google search is enough to show that this is indeed the case, so the removal is plainly wrong. Furthermore, there are also citation overkill concerns in this IP edit. I will add a reference or two references both for "Cristina Kirchner" and for "CFK".--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello. I noticed that on the introduction there are only "critics" of CFK, but not one good thing about his government, such as all the things that there are on the spanish version of the article. I quote that stuff: "Entre sus obras de gobierno se destacan la Asignación Universal por Hijo, la reestatización de los fondos jubilatorios, el programa Conectar Igualdad, el aumento en el presupuesto para ciencia e investigación, la Ley de Servicios de Comunicación Audiovisual, la Ley de matrimonio igualitario, la reestatización de la empresa Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales (YPF), la reforma del Banco Central, la recomposición de las relaciones con países latinoamericanos, entre otras." Please add at least SOMETHING, to make this more neutral. Also, I agree that there's too much sources from opponent newspapers. Whether or not Clarín is "the highest sold newspaper", it has to be 50% of "kirchnerists" newspapers and "anti-kirchnerists" newspapers, or something like that. PS: sorry for my shitty english, I'm an argentine. --181.29.223.68 (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The thing is not if a newspaper is kirchnerite or not: first and foremost, it has to be reliable. Newspapers financed by the government to say that the government is the greatest are not reliable. And most of the things that you mentioned as "good things", are actually bad things when the "epic" tone is removed when seen by reliable independent media. Cambalachero (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, "Página/12" is not financed by the government, they just support the government because they like it. But who decides which newspaper is reliable and which isn't? Of course "Tiempo Argentino", for example, is financed by the government, but "Clarín" is financed by economic groups that permanently wants to destabilize the government. And they lie everyday. The solution is base the article with ALL sources. My opinion is that "Clarín" is not reliable, and your opinion is that "Página/12" isn't. But this has to be neutral. --181.29.223.68 (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarín is financed by its own sales and economic activities. Like all the trustworthy media in the world do. As for Página 12, check here: they received 33,9 millions of pesos, the 26,5 of all the money the state uses for official publicity. Note that Página 12 is not even inside the top ten of most sold Argentine newspapers (see here). Página 12 sells more or less 14,200 newspapers each day (see here), which is basically near the 5% of Clarín's sales. Put 2 and 2 toguether: very low sales + incredibly high financial support from the government = all hail the government! Cambalachero (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@181.29.223.68 and Cambalachero: Agree with Cambalachero. Furthermore, anyone can go to WP:RSN should there exists any discrepancy regarding the reliabiliuty of any source.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

And what about the Spanish version of the article? That is also Wikipedia, and it is pretty evindent by comparing both versions that the Spanish one is truly neutral. I believe the different language versions of Wikipedia have the same reliable sources policies, don't they? Could it be the difference between articles is due to Cambalachero being the only stable editor of this article with enough privileges to erase anything he doesn't like (the other one being you), and the Spanish version has input from many editors who agree on a neutral POV? 186.0.209.34 (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I cannot talk for Cambalachero, but I think I have a neutral poin of view in spite of being Argentine. Honestly, I've never taken a look at the Argentne version. If you feel something can be improved you can either modify it by yourself or discuss the changes here at the talk page. Editing by consensus is the best way to do the job.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

But there is no consensus, man. As I said above, you two are the only editors with enough privileges to erase whatever you don't like. And that's what Cambalachero does. I know you can't talk for him, but you can see that everything slightly in favour of Cristina Kirchner is erased from this article by him. The issue about references is a very valid one. If you only cite Clarín or La Nación, of course everything in her favour is a lie! If you're going to cite them, then include cites to Página 12, Miradas al Sur, etc. to counter-balance them. 186.0.209.34 (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no, the policies are not the same. Compare Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and es:Wikipedia:Punto de vista neutral. The first is very detailed and adresses many points on how to actually achieve a neutral point of view, the second is just a vague essay on why wikipedia should be neutral, without any real guidelines on how to do that in practice. Same goes for Wikipedia:Verifiability and es:Wikipedia:Verificabilidad. Specifically, Página 12 would fail to meet up the standards set at Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source and to be within Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources (for reasons that I have already proved previously on this talk page); the policy in Spanish does not have such a section anywhere.

By the way, now that we are at it, it would be advisable if the references to La Nación are gradually replaced with references to reliable sources in English that report the same events, as I have been doing with Pope Francis (such as New York Times, CNN, etc). Unfortunately for you, it won't change the article itself very much, as their style is very similar to that of La Nación. Cambalachero (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why Página 12 would not be a reliable source, or be a questionable one. The reasons you have stated above are supported by Clarín, La Nación, or Perfil. So everything you say is always based on articles by the same newspapers that sistematically discredit anyone that supports Cristina Kirchner. But they don't have publicity paid by the government, so they're reliable. Regardless of their links to the agro sector (which is clearly against the government), regardless of the issue with Papel Prensa, regardless of Clarín being a media monopoly (oh, no, wait; Clarín says they're not a monopoly, so clearly they're not a monopoly, because a reliable source like Clarín says so). And if you need support for anyone of them, cite another one of them, because they have absolutely no interests in common, and do not have common business. And most importantly: you're clearly interested in a neutral POV, and do not use your privileges to show in this article your personal POVs about Cristina Kirchner. 186.0.209.34 (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

See for example here: "Kirchner insists all she is trying to do is apply a law that has the laudable goal of decentralizing media power. Yet the unrelenting offensive of recent months has put in evidence what the president always saw as the main purpose of the law: decimate her most powerful foe while building a network of allied media that rely on government advertising to survive. So far at least, the government has shown little interest in applying other measures of the media law that do not directly relate to Clarín". Or here: "GEN has also highlighted more than 450 legal and administrative acts of harassment against Clarín. One key move has been the government's preferential placing of state advertising with certain media companies which, says GEN, "has effectively bought itself control of media content." It is estimated the the Kirchner government now has direct or indirect control of 80% of the Argentine media. As for the media law, it was supposed to strengthen diversity and pluralism by limiting monopoly media ownership - a legitimate goal - but its critics say it has only one intention: to stifle dissent and, in particular, to dismantle the Clarín group". Cambalachero (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, I have to agree with Cambalachero. If there are changes to be made regarding the sourcing of the article, I'm inclined to gradually replace references to Spanish-written newspaper in favour of English-written ones. I don't wanna be rude, but the time you spend in raising your position over and over again does not contribute to the article, and the purpose of talk pages is to discuss the different ways to improve the page. If you are really interested in making this article better, you are kindly invited to expose your proposals.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, let's be clear on something: a given source is not reliable or unreliable depending on how do they write about the Kirchners. They are reliable if they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, editorial oversight, and no evident conflict of interest involved. Cambalachero (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of surnames

Three different forms of her surnames are used in the article, Fernández de Kirchner, Fernández and Kirchner. Which is correct? Hack (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Gustavo Ferraro, yes or no?

@SimpleStitch: I've reverted your edit ([3]) again. I don't see what's the point of removing just a portion of a sentence that is entirely unsourced. It's fine for me to wipe out the entire sentence if you prefer (it has been unsourced for more than a year).--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ignore my message above. You're right about the addition plus the edit summary is completely misleading [4]: it was not a simple copy edit. Thanks for noticing it.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 11:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem Jetstreamer. Actually if you look at the entry for Gustavo Ferraro it looks kind of fishy. The LinkedIn that was used for the bio/background doesn't exist and it seems the whole intent was to disparage him with a section that is weak at best.--SimpleStitch (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw you started a discussion at Talk:Gustavo Ferraro.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger

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

The image is the same. The sentence "She said in a speech at the United Nations that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant jihadist group may be trying to kill her, and later that it would be the US; Elisa Carrió dismissed such threats as mere conspiracy theories" details the unusual thing she said in her speech, and the rebuttal. The things she said about the "vulture funds" is a usual part of her speech, the government is saying each week that someone is trying to make a coup against them; so I included that info in the "Public image" section, which describes this is a more general way. I have also seen somewhere that the term "hedge funds" may be less derogatory than "vulture funds", so I preferred using it. Cambalachero (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: I think you've forgot to mention some very important points. The core points of her speech are as following:

• Economical issues of Argentina and world (Argentina paid debts, the role of vulture funds and etc)
• Prosecution of the bombings files (specially Amia bombing)
• ISIL (origination and support of ISIL, ISIL threatening her)

Other parts of her speech was devoted to Israel and Palestine, Security Council reform and etc. Among the above core points, as it seems, you've just pointed to the ISIL threatening her which is not all what she said. AFAIK, She was for the first time calling "Vulture funds" economic terrorist. Besides she went into detail while regarding the AMIA bombing files and the fact that Argentina's cooperation with Iran has upset some groups. These are materials which had reflections and reactions in the media some of which would better be covered here. So, I don't regard your previous edition as 'merger' but it was much more a deletion. Mhhossein (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the hedge funds was described in the sentences just before the one about the speech. The deal with Iran over the AMIA bombing had been described in the 2013 section, when the deal was made; as of 2014 there are no noteworthy advances about that. And yes, it already mentions the opinion of the Jewish community. The idea that the economic problems of Argentina are the result of some foreign force trying to make a coup against her (and not the result of the government's own actions), and her tantrums about the press are a weekly routine of the Kirchner government since 2008; nowadays nobody bats an eye when she says it yet again. I mentioned that she accused the ISIS and the US of trying to kill her because it was suprisingly specific claim. As for "economic terrorism", she had also said that ISIS was just a TV scam and that Bin Laden was a victim whose human rights were not respected, she doesn't seem to have a very clear idea of what is the terrorism.

In any case, don't forget that this article is a biography, not an article about a specific speech. There are countless speeches, anouncements, reported opinions, interviews, documents, etc; either from Cristina Kirchner or talking about Cristina Kirchner. We can't include them all, and we shouldn't try either. See Wikipedia:Summary style Cambalachero (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I wrote an essay on this: Wikipedia:But for Napoleon, it was Tuesday Cambalachero (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: Thanks for your civil response. We're not here to judge whether she is right or wrong, or whether she has a very clear idea of what is the terrorism or not. Our job is to improve the encyclopedia based on the rules. I see no reason not to mention "economic terrorism" as such things will not be counted as repeated items. However, we should consider that Speech at the UN general assembly is not a weekly session with news reporters. The reader has the right to know an abstract of the important points. Prosecution of the Bombing files also has to be included because she is reflecting the file's recent progress and reactions. Mhhossein (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration with Iran to murder Jews

Why is there no mention of how she covered up Iran's murder of hundreds of Jews in Argentina and had Alberto Nisman assassinated for exposing her cover-up?[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:FD07:E900:6822:14D5:E9BB:4C02 (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

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

52nd President

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

Your addition was unsourced. It is supported nowhere in the article that she's the 52nd Argentine President. Moreover, I assume the hidden note was added by consensus and you changed that unilaterally.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

She's numbered as 52nd in the intro. The previous presidents are numbered up to 51st in their intros & infoboxes? PS: Don't you think you're being a tad stubborn? GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I've marked that satement as needing a citation. WP:VERIFY was clearly not followed there.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend that you delete the numberings from the articles of Kirchner's predecessors, if the decision is to de-number her. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Those articles are not in my watchlist. BTW, it's not my decision. As I said above, consensus seems to be not to number her in the infobox.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it'd be helpful if you could provide a pointer to the part of WP:MOS that says this? I confess, I can't find it. GoldenRing (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Although I note this source, which lists Nestor Kirchner as the 52nd president, which would make her the 53rd. GoldenRing (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I support the removal of the number. The number makes sense with, for example, the president of the united states, as the first one was Washington, and the presidential line has never been interrupted. On the other hand, the article President of Argentina details (in a sourced comment) that there are three possible "first president" according to which historian is asked; a situation which is not shared with the US. And, depending on which one is the first, it depends how many presidents there are, and which "number" goes for each one. Cambalachero (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

2015

There is too much about the Nisman case in this section. I resembles more a brief description of the case than a section about her 2015 actions. I think the things about the Nisman case should be made shorter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.25.166.93 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That's the main noteworthy topic involving her in this year, so far. Still, I will redesign the article in some days, by topic instead of year. Nisman's death would be included in a topic dealing with the investigation of the AMIA bombing under her government. Cambalachero (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Article sections

Most articles about modern heads of state do not have sections for each year, they have sections for each major topic within their administrations (economy, international policy, the main political disputes during their term, etc.). See for example the article of Barack Obama, which is a featured article. Cambalachero (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: Hey, That was a good idea to change the topics, but removing material without discussing it in the talk page by you was not a good action. Please restore the deleted sentences. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Post-presidency

This article needs a section with her post presidency activities Cambalachero (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Critisism shown as 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)