Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

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)

@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)

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

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)

• I have no problems. --Cambalachero (talk) 00:22, 5 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)