Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

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)

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)