Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner/Archive 1

ADEPA

ADEPA means "Asociación de Entidades Periodísticas Argentinas". It is not a journalist's association but an association of media owners. Cheers. Jack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.148.107 (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Birth Place

I tried to correct the fact that she is from Tolosa, a La Plata suburb, but it keeps getting rejected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.122.245 (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Trivia" and other tidbits

Unflattering yet well sourced trivia about Mrs Kirchner's wardrobe is constantly being removed from this article. May I know why? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmagno (talk • contribs) 15:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Max, don't take it personally but it look that you are a single purpose account fixated with Mrs. Fernandez de Kirchner wardrobe. First, IMHO I don't find the issue newsworthy. Second, as far as I can tell from being an avid reader of Argentine news, she has not been nicknamed "Imelda". Bakersville (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I'm not really fixated with Christina Kirchner, it's just that I thought I'd get started on a topic I've recently read something about (that topic being Mrs Kirchner in general, not just her wardrobe). On a related note. In a blatant act of vigilantism, my even more recent addition of the opposition's response to the maletinazo (see below) has been arbitrarily removed by a fellow with the conspicuously partisian name "Peron".

What do you say to that?

"High ranking members of the main opposition parties have denounced the Argentine government's harsh response to the scandal and its criticism of the US as a "smokescreen" and described US involvement in the affaire as merely symptomatic. Identifying corruption in the Argentinean and Venezuelan governments as the root cause of the scandal."

I've now phrased the article more defensively, clearly differentiating fact and allegation (of course it is no fact that the Argentine government is corrupt, far from it).

Oh my god!! Noosphere's been at it now. In his opinion my contribution is : " unrepresentative trash-- public opinion in Argentina is overwhelmingly with Fernandez"

Does that mean, that if Noosphere thinks that public opinion goes against an article (or part of it) such article has no place in Wikipedia?

The paragraph reflects the take of the opposition on the diplomatic impasse between US and Argentina and I agree with Max that is legitimate addition. The paragraph doesn't make an assertion that the position is a widely held view in Argentina. It can also be added in a criticism section. Bakersville (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm most obliged, Sir! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmagno (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The later half of my latest contribution has now been deleted and replaced with a reference to Cristina's poll ratings. I'm not saying the poll ratings are irrelevant, but I don't see why they should replace half of my contribution, especially as it was impeccably sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmagno (talk • contribs) 17:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious, you anticipated my complaint! Obliged once again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmagno (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The second half of the para on the opposition's response to the maletinazo should remain. The opposition clearly thinks that corruption is at the heart of the scandal and there is no reason to hide this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmagno (talk • contribs) 11:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC) It is quite ridiculous to argue that it needs to be removed for economy of words, especially given the seriousness of the corruption alleged.--Maxmagno (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Failure to adress more controversial issues

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has been criticized for being a sort of embassador to the country(something the article states), which is seen as not acceptable (due to time constraints) for someone who already holds the office of senator.

She has also been criticized for being superflous and even of neglecting her duties.An example being the time when she was seen(and photographed) in DISNEY WORLD with her daughter and a friend of her daughter during debates in the Senate over the budget) Those particular pictures also gained her a quite unpopular image (albeit only for a few weeks) in the left wing (of which she proclaims herself a militant) because she was in a place normally identified with big corporations and american imperialism

Also, the only polls that show her as a clear favorite for the presidency are goverment founded ones(her husbands pupularity ,however , is undisputed)

In short i belve a sign should be placed stating that the article is generally biased.

Please forgive my poor english,it is not my native tongue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridio (talk • contribs)

We need to mention that the valijagate included several convictions in Florida by which individuals acknowledged they pressed Mr. Antonini Wilson not to talk. To be honest this site seems to be the "official" biography of Ms. Kirchner.

You also need to discuss her aledged involvement with leftist causes during her university years.

Need to mention the increase in wealth from the official family, specially during the 80s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.143.85 (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

About her studies

There is a text that says as follows: "Although it is claimed that she is a lawyer, details about whether she graduated or not are unknown and her academic records have not been released by the school". A similar text was placed in the spanish article, and proved as vandalism, or something even worse. For the ones who do not speak spanish, I will explain again the reasons.

The controversial text provides a reference, this site. Providing references is crucial when adding such information. The problem is that the reference is a lie: the article does not say what it is refereced it would say. It does not state about her graduation being unknown or her records not being released. It suggest the idea, employing speculation, circunstancial evidence, faulty logic, conditional syntax; but it carefully keeps from making any clear statement that would send them to justice because of defamation. In fact, it does quite the opposite, and does state a disclaimer about them just speculating and not formally accusing her of not having a degree, wich makes the whole article pointless as a source of information for Wikipedia.

Cristina Fernandez having a degree, on the other hand, can be referenced with her profile at the Senate of Argentina itself.

Besides, this portal is not a reliable source. It must be noted that none of the mainstream media of Argentina, either for, against or neutral towards Kirchner, have given room to any of this speculations. It is entirely an issue raised by a semi-unknown internet site. 190.30.21.5 15:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

---

The link you provide for her studies says she studied law, not that she actually graduated. Nobody disputes that she studied law, but there are several strong indicators that she never graduated: 1) When asked about her graduation records, she claims they got lost. 2) When asked about her graduation diploma, she never produced it. 3) She had lots of study mates. Excluding her husband, none have declared they know of her graduation. Many say they shared her studies for the early years, but she later disappeared from college.

All this does not PROVE she never graduated, but there´s not the slightest evidence that she did either. I will add a "references needed" to the section so if anyone has any pointers to a reliable source that demonstrates she obtained her degree, it can be completed. 201.253.223.235 (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Here is an article showing the lack of clarity regarding whether Cristina Elizabet Fernández ever actually graduated from Law School.

http://www.bolsonweb.com.ar/diariobolson/detalle.php?id_noticia=8338 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.238.71 (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, have a look here:

http://juancruz-rgl.blogspot.com/2007/09/cristina-es-doctora.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.238.71 (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"De Kirchner" Article title

What is the source of the Swiss-German Kirchner family ever using the name "de Kirchner"? AFAIK the Kirchner family is not a noble family. Boris Bratcevic 15:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In Argentina, married women usually add de + husband's last name to their maiden names. It's not German, it's Spanish for "of". —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did we drop "de Kirchner" from the article title? Both of the subject's official websites use that name, as does the New York Times and other U.S. papers. I don't see any discussion about the move. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone moved it, no discussion. I'll put it back. Over here the media use both names (with a slight preference towards the longer version, I'd guess); some go with "Cristina Kirchner"; some write "CFK" for effect; others just say "Cristina". —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Normal practice in Latin America is that her last name is "Fernández de Kirchner". The mainstream media realizes this can be confusing and they tend to refer to her on TV and newspapers as "Cristina". Either call her Kirchner or Fernández de Kirchner, but not "de Kirchner". --Lizzard 05:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be "Cristina Fernández" imo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.136.214.96 (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Every time I come here she seems to be called something different. We use common naming here and it appears that even in Spanish she is known as Cristina Kirchner, and most certainly is in English. Our policies thus dictate that even though her correct Spanish name according to Spanish naming rules may not include the word Kirchner (as current) that this must be superseded by the overwhelming common usage. This is not different to Eva Perón]], and I think the article neds to be called Cristina Kirchnere, SqueakBox 17:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure the current title is actually the most used name to refer the subject. On this BBC article [1] she is mostly mentioned as "Mrs Kirchner", with her husband's name. Italian news reports also mentioned her as Cristina Kirchner. I would therefore propose to rename this article to "Cristina Kirchner" per WP:COMMON. --Angelo 18:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Her official site calls her "Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner", as does her Argentine Senate site. This is also the form given by the official election body of Argentina. A review of English-language journalism sites indicates:

• "Fernandez de Kirchner": TIME, Reuters, CSM, Guardian
• "Fernandez" alone: AP, IHT/NYT
• "Kirchner" alone: AFP (and BBC per above)

While I think there's an argument for Fernandez based in part on Latin American name customs, it's clear that in official contexts she uses the long form with both names, and that's also what most news outlets call her. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

President?

Why is Cristina Fernández said to be the 55th president of Argentina, if she'll take office in December? Unless there's a Wikipedia policy about elected officials, I'm going to put the infobox back to how it was before. The president until December 10 is Néstor Kirchner. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. She's just the president-elect until inaugurated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources

There is no proper citation for quote #9 on the page, currently; the bit about "Hillary was able to position herself nationally because her husband was president." I'd love to see that quote in Spanish and/or to have even an approximate date for it. --Lizzard 05:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Challenges ahead

I've had my edits undone by an anonymous user and I got this message as explanation:

me tomé el tiempo de leerlos y lo del desempleo "estructural" no es mas que una opinión particular

muy distinto de un hecho, ademas de tener todo un tufillo a viciado terrible

201.253.147.134 (talk · contribs)

Translated: "I took the time to read [the sources I provided] and the thing about "structural" unemployment is no more than a [private? personal?] opinion, quite different from fact, besides it all smells terribly of bias."

I don't agree with this but I won't revert anymore, lest I start an edit war. I'm starting a discussion about this. One of the topics is structural unemployment, the other is crime. Structural unemployment in Argentina is caused mainly by lack of education. Industries need qualified personnel and can't find it because many young Argentinians had to drop from school in the 1990s and early 2000s, technical education has been going downhill for years, and there's no organized contact between higher educational institutions and industries that could employ their graduates (except for private universities, whose students are all affluent middle- and upper-middle-class and often already have contacts). Job creation has been a great achievement of Kirchner's but has decelerated and it's well known that there's a hard core of structural unemployment — people who've been unemployed for years and won't find a stable job, ever, unless something is done to address their specific problem. I can find plenty of sources for this, but logically most of those won't speak of this as a challenge to Cristina, because her victory is just days past.

As for crime, if you live in a big city you know it's a problem, and you know what causes it — poverty on one side, politicians' and police corruption and collusion with organized crime on the other. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

PS: I've semi-protected the page to avoid the stupid little edit wars going on about the proper way to name Cristina. A week from now, when the post-election turmoil is over, I guess the article will not get so much exposure. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

grammar

fix this: "what means that near the 70% of Argentine voters chose a woman for president" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.19.82 (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed as original research. Please source and return, SqueakBox 20:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, in this case the user is right, which can be confirmed easily by looking at the election figures (45% of the vote for CFK, 23% for Elisa Carrió = 68% of the vote went to female candidates). But I don't think this is well put. It sounds as if people were consciously trying to make a difference by voting for women. At best this could go on the article about the election, and then only as a footnote. I didn't see the sex or gender of the candidates dealt with as an important issue during the campaign. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Her name is Cristina Kirchner

GOOGLE:

• "Cristina Fernández de Kirchner": 2 020 000
• "Cristina Kirchner": 1 570 000
• "Cristina Fernández" -Kirchner (probably not all referring to Cristina Kirchner): 947 000

Brother Johannes 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your "statistics" contradict the title of your discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.32.143 (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beritaz (talk • contribs) 11:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Time Magazine Removal?

Why was my contribution that cited a Time article removed? Kaos85g's incoherent explanation was "The article citated (ref to time magazine) not correpond to reality." Uhh...What?! Time Magazine exists in reality. Not just wikiality. I'll put the tidbit back in again as soon as I can. Perhaps this was just a case of vandalism. Daveroo69 06:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just put it back and added another source just in case. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

maybe because it looks like a vague overgeneralization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beritaz (talk • contribs) 15:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Vote in the cities

I've rephrased the note about CFK not winning in the large cities. She won in almost every district in the country (by different margins), so her winning the vote in most of the large cities is not notable. What is "of note" is that she didn't win precisely in the three largest cities. I left Mendoza and Tucumán because 1) they were mentioned in the Página/12 article used as source, 2) Cristina herself specifically employed these two cities as counterexamples of the apparent correlation "urban middle class = anti-Kirchner vote". —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

original was better phrased —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beritaz (talk • contribs) 12:05, 2 November 2007

I don't think so, and I've explained why in the paragraph above. Please do bother writing more one line of text to delete text. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

President

Guys, as of today she is our president. I will rephrase some bits of texts to show this fact.Baka toroi (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Campain Donations

Any thoughts on if/how this should be incorporated into the article?

BUENOS AIRES -- U.S. authorities have charged five foreign men as unregistered Venezuelan agents in connection with an alleged scheme to smuggle $800,000 to the election campaign of newly inaugurated Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, federal officials in Miami said Wednesday. [2], more here [3]. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 19:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added it earlier today. It is in the first paragraph of "Election to Presidency". Bakersville (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

President - Reference to OPSM Poll

I think it's hardly neutral to write: "The Argentine public as a whole gives high ratings to Fernández de Kirchner". On the basis of a poll of only 1100 adults conducted by a little known polling company called OPSM. Perhaps the contribution should be phrased more carefully. E.g.:

"In a recent poll of 1100 Argentine adults conducted by OPSM on (please specify exact date) 57.8% of interviewees rated the start of Cristina Kirchner's presidency as "Very good / Good""

More importantly, the poll should not be included in that section of the article altogether, unless it was conducted after 12 December 2007, which is when the "maletinazo" became public. Currently the contribution states no date, raising the obvious suspicion that the poll was carried out before 12 December 2007. The article cited does not mention the date on which the interviewees were questioned (perhaps some where questioned before and others after the event).

I'm currently trying to find some info on the web about the polling organization OPSM. Thus far I have only found extremely unflattering blog posts. I'll carry on looking though, till I find something more objective and verifiable.--Maxmagno (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"First Lady" is not an "office"

The infobox needs to be fixed. --Damifb (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Farmers' Protest, March 2008

I recently edited an existing entry where I clarified that the violence that erupted at the Mayo Square involved government sponsored thugs and that the police wilfully turned a blind eye. These editions should remain. Follow these links for my sources:

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/nota.asp?nota_id=999066&origen=relacionadas

AND

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/nota.asp?nota_id=999067&origen=relacionadas

AND ANOTHER

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/EdicionImpresa/politica/nota.asp?nota_id=999018&pid=4186310&toi=5825

I shall in due course re-amend the article and insert the appropiate references. I hope it will remain this time.

(Maxmagno (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

(217.207.172.180 (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

IMHO your edits were not in compliance with WP:NPOV policy. Please read the section "Let the facts speak for themselves". Particularly I object to the use of the adjective "thugs". Regarding the absence of police and changing it to "wilfully turned a blind eye", after reading today news, I would not object to it. Bakersville (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, wilful blind eye stays and thugs goes out. Mind you though, I was actually using "thugs" as a noun... but let us not start splitting hairs.

(Maxmagno (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

I tried again, using "government sponsored thugs" as my best translation of "grupos de choque". Please note that a thug is someone who behaves as such (and a noun, in this context). Under the circumstances a fitting word.

(Maxmagno (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

After reading the sources and other news, particularly the government defending the assault on the protesters, your last edit is fine with me. Bakersville (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention that this is a current event, and should be treated as one, according to Wikipedia policies.--200.127.120.200 (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's a current event. Why point out the obvious? The para even mentios the date of the events. All no excuse for removing verifable, well sourced and objective words.

Again I'm being anonymously deleted. Can the para about the fuerzas de choque please be protected! (Maxmagno (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

I see no reason why the language in the phrase "government supporters carrying sticks assaulted the protesters while the police wilfully turned a blind eye." should be muted, when this is exactly what was reported from top grade journalistic sources. I have therefore returned the article to the orgiginal wording.

(Maxmagno (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

The government denies this, and I'm sure not every single source said that. Please stop adding things like that and try and keep it neutral.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 15:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course the government denies it, but the government is just another source.

The media (LA NACION) one of the countrries most higly regarded newspapars affirms it, however (read the article "La policia abservo pero no intervino").

If you think that the government's denial has a place in the article, then add a line and a referrence to that effect, but don't just trample on other peoples contributions, as a means of expressing your or the government's views. Especially when the contributions you are fiddling with comply with editorial guidelines.

It is true that not every source said that, but a number of very credible sources said it and they are all clearly referenced for users to see. If source unanimity were to be a quilifying requirement for contributions, then there probably woud not be any.

Lastly if you are so keen on keeping it neutral, then at least please don't refer to an "incident", when it is obvious that there were many. Make it "incidents".

(Maxmagno (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

Exactly, the government is another source and Clarin , the other most highly regarded newspaper, is another one. If one side says black and the other white, Wikipedia's has to remain grey. Besides, you should try looking at the bigger picture, all this you are adding looks a lot like recentism. And for the record, I have no political view whatsoever, so please keep it civil and stop accusing.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 16:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Point taken on wikipedia's greyness, yet I see no "black on white" contradiction between your Clarin Article and the La Nacion Articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmagno (talk • contribs) 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC) (Maxmagno (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

While La Nacion published D'Elia's cursing, graphic descriptions of what happened and the fact that some random person called them "mercenaries", Clarin focused on the facts and kept criticism ("le había pegado una trompada") to the minimum, plus they published a civil explanation from D'Elia on why they were protesting, instead of his cursing.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 16:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll come back to that. On a related note, I'm pretty sure that the "paro de la abundancia speech" which prompted the first wave of pot-banging was on the 25 of March, i therefore amended this.

(Maxmagno (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

OK, so different reporting styles lead to different articles. But where is the black and white you talk about?

(Maxmagno (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

If we were to use Clarin and ignore La Nacion this sentence: "and the police was accused of wilfully turning a blind eye." would have to go (black), and if we were to use La Nacion and ignore Clarin your original sentence "government supporters carrying sticks assaulted the protesters while the police wilfully turned a blind eye." would be appropriate (white). But because we want to be grey, we mention La Nacion's statement as an accusation instead of as a fact, listening to both sides.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides, don't let that confuse you. If La Nacion chooses to publish an ad verbatim account of events, then surely that does not undermine the quality or credibility of their reporting. If someone shouts vile abused and is later quoted as having done so, then that surely is not less factual than a muted account of what happened (presumably to avoid stepping on official toes).

(Maxmagno (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

If it can be of any help in this dispute, I have tWo points to make 1. The agression on protesters is pretty much factual. 2. However, the "Fuerza de Choque" term is used in the Joaquin Morales de Sola open ed. As such is an opinion of JMS. Conclusion: IMHO the fuerza de choque, thugs paragraph should be either deleted or changed with just the facts, for example that D'elia -a former official of Mr. Kirchner adm. and close follower of F. de K.- assaulted the protesters and wasn't censured by the government. Bakersville (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yamanbaiia, I think I've trace our disagreemnt to the root. The Clarin article and the Nacion article ("... la policia no intervino") relate to the protests of 26 of March. That part of the wiki-article, however, relates to the protests of the 25th of march. The only article that relates to the 25th is "Cazeria por ganar la plaza" and this contains a reference to "la permisividad policial", the willful blind eye. Though an allegation in that article can of course be refuted by another source, then the Clarin article is not it.

In any case, I think the article could stay as it is, and given no recent amendments from you i suppose you share this view.

Nevermind whether they were carrying sticks, what I was fussed about was the inclusion of the words violent and that incident should be insidents as they were many.

Bakersvile: 1. I agree with you. 2. The fact that the passage tries to convey is that journalists (and politicians I think there is a short quote from Elisa Carrio in one of the arts) have formed the view that the "fuerzas de choque" were behind this and that "fuerzas de choque" are groups which operate at the behest of the government. I think it does that job. If later in history tougher evidence linking government and fuerzas de choque emerges, we can rephrare and re-refer, but should we not leave it for the time being? (Maxmagno (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

I still have problems with "widely reported" see WP:AWT and "government sponsored thugs" that is not fully supported by the source. We can leave the sentence for now and see if we have any other ideas/opinions in talk. Bakersville (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have similar reservations, but I cannot think round them. You see, fuerza de choque is not readily translated.

(Maxmagno (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

Looks like no matter how we phrase a reference to the oppression of the 25 and 26 March pot-banging protests it will be anonymously deleted. Very mature...

(Maxmagno (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

OK, I've tried again, clearly differentiating fact from report and opinion. The article is neither complete nor balanced if the reference to the March 08 protests does not contain a mention of the oppositions take on the conflict and the involvement of figures like Luis D'Elia and the men he commands.

If you think differently, then please give your reasons and help work this out, don't just delete anonymously (whoever you are)!

(Maxmagno (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

It's fair enough to write that El Pais did not cite its source. However, if in addition to that you want to mention that the lady fared better in Argentine polls, then please provide a reference. Else this is not verifiable.

(Maxmagno (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

El País poll number seems indeed very low. I will be in the look out for other poll numbers to check it out. Also, I deleted the commentary "Critics call the couple's leadership style arrogant and authoritarian" It isWP:AWT and actually the whole paragraph says: "The Kirchners' leadership is widely credited with having helped bring Argentina back from the financial abyss. But the couple's economic policies, including high export tariffs and price controls, have angered farmers and others in business. Critics call the couple's leadership style arrogant and authoritarian.", which is positive in tone. We shouldn't pick and choose from a single paragraph what better fits ones political views. Bakersville (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Bakersville, point taken. A stray sentence is misleading. Nonetheless I think the para should be expanded, as at present is it picks and chooses only one quote form the lady, which hardly conveys the more ambiguos tone of the article. I might feel inspired later.

I am though left to wonder whose political views you mean...? Rest assured that my contributions are not politically motivated.

(Maxmagno (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

The whole section is biased, beginning with the fact that sources are strongly biased. Especially, the "highly respected newspaper" La Nación has an editorial policy which confrontates Kirchner's government (or any other left-center governemnt) without any regards to objetivity. The whole article is seen from a point of view that has more to do propaganda than to objective wikipedia's standards. The use of the words "fuerzas de choque" is excesive, as it makes one think of a sort of organized blackshirts, which cannot be compared to the incidents that did take place at Plaza de Mayo between followers of the government and rural supporters. 190.17.144.119 (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Falklands

Would it be viable to include a section or note in regards to her stance on the Falklands? --Kevin W. 06:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Falklands? In Argentina there are no "Falklands" there are some islands called Islas Malvinas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.250.180 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Malvinas/Falklands, Fernández considers that UK should return the Islands back to Argentina by diplomatic means. This view is in agreement with the position of virtually every Argentine politian, and any change in this matter is very unlikely. (190.17.144.119 (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC))

With respect to the Article on the Falklands/Malvinas oil crisis I wish(as a Falklands Islander myself) to respectfully object to the use of Malvinas in the English language version. The International community recognises the English name as 'Falkland Islands' and the Spanish name as 'Islas Malvinas'. I believe to use the name Falklands/Malvinas in the English version is simply political and offensive and not accurate. I have not checked the Spanish version. I fully accept the islands are under dispute but the names are not. There is also a Spanish and English name for the United States. You would not use the Spanish name of the USA in an English language version - even if there was an unresolved border dispute with Spain. I did change this but note it has been changed back. Would be grateful if we could amicably resolve this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevex74 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Re the above note the French entry... Les îles Malouines (Falkland Islands en anglais, Islas Malvinas en espagnol.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevex74 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite of our perceptions, the ISO 3166 designation is Falkland Islands (Malvinas) [4]. I think that "Malvinas/Falklands" is NPOV, but if is there not consensus I would suggest using the spelling accepted by ISO instead of that variant, and instead of favouring the denomination given by UK or Argentine. Rjgodoy (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel Falklands (Islas Malvinas) is more acceptable as it doesn't imply that the English should be Malvinas but rather states that there is an English and Spanish name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.25.221 (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Cristina Elisabet Fernández ¿Wilhem?

Are you sure that she decided to add to her name the mother's surname? References? I have some which say the opposite, for example, the biography of her published by the journalist Jorge Lanata in the daily Perfil:

Cristina Elisabet (without aitch) Fernández, born in La Plata, graduated from the Nuns's College of Mercy and had a rubier, Raul Cafferata, as a first boyfriend. She met Néstor the Spring Day of 1974 (...)

— ¿Simplemente Cristina?

He don´t say anything about a second surname. I think that it must be corrected. Daniel dj87 (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Fernández Wilhem de Kirchner

As far as I have seen, the President's complete name is Cristina E. Fernández de Kirchner. While her mother's maiden name is Ofelia Wilhem, it is not compulsory in Agentina to use both surnames, and, in fact, most people only have his/her father's. If nobody opposes, I shall proceed to change the name to Cristina E. Fernández de Kirchner. MarcosR (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the same problem about I asked in the previous post. I believe that no longer doubt that it was a mistake, so I'm going to edit the article. Daniel dj87 (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias in the presidency section

I marked this section with the POV template because several lines show the authors bias quite obviously. These lines should be changed to quotations if primary sources can be found, or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinJones (talk • contribs) 13:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

the new version of the page is quite better, but Elisa Carrió is given too much importance; she's quoted everywhere, like against the media law, against the DNA law... there's no quotations of support of her actions only against. seems biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.115.243.17 (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

First Lady

Her husband Néstor is currently listed as Argentina's first lady.

Although it's comical, shouldn't the infobox be changed to First Spouse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.32.94 (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Results of economic politicy

This Brazilian site [Paolera] has an interview made in 2005,about the possible results of economic policies.Agre22 (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)agre22

Relationship with the Media

This part has been removed, god knows why. It is clearly not up to date given the government's latest attempts at bearing influence on the media, but it should certainly not be deleted. The references support every word written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmagno (talk • contribs) 07:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It references everything AGAINST it, the UN was in favour of the law, so were many important organizations like RSF and all the universities of the country. If you're gonna write about the Media Law, include everything, not just what you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.115.243.17 (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think it is worth pointing out that the UN and "important organisations" were in fovour of the law, then please flesh out the article to mention this, don't just delete. Especially not anonymously. I'm not just mentioning what "I want" but simply the things I know about. I can't be expected to know "everything", so if you know other things include them. Don't just delete what I write.

Maxmagno (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A few comments on anonymous contribution from 76.91.189.163 to do with RSF and UN support for the highly controversial media law.

1. Call me cynical, but argentina.com.ar (at 51) is clearly a government controlled website disguised as a commercial one. There is even a caption at the bottom of the page disassociating the site from the government... why would anyone feel the need to do that?

2. Who on earth is Frank La Rue? I googled him and found nothing, obviously, no one particularly senior at the UN. No idea why his statement should be treated as something official let alone emanating from the UN.

3. The RSF source (at 52) that goes on about the need to repeal Law 22.285 says nothing in support of the new law, nor does it suggest that the old law concentrated ownership of the media. Frank La Rue (whoever he may be) dutifully lauds the Governments proposal, but does not link Law 22.285 to the supposed monopolies or oligopolies in the media.

I really can’t see how the passage can be allowed to stand in its current form. It should either be rewritten or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmagno (talk • contribs) 16:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I double checked and on other pages of argentina.com.ar it states that the "Precidencia de la Nacion" is responsible for the website. Quoting it is almost like allowing Cristina K to write her own wikipedia entry.

Until a different source for Mr La Rue's support for the media law can be found, the part about the UN has to go. I'll also amend the passage to reflect what was actually said in the RSF statement.

Maxmagno (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How come no mention is made of the fact left-wing terrorists got away unpunished for crimes during the Dirty War?

This still divides Argentine opinion and can be verified by watching the BBC Documentary that is available on youtube.--91.214.44.216 (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about the dirty war MBelgrano (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, but surely this page can have a sentence or two explaining that under her term many senior and junior officers of that period, have gone to trial or ended up in jail, but the ERP and other guerrillas have got away scot-free? I saw the documentary, and was shocked to see there is indeed a cover-up going on in Argentina, courtesy of Mr and Mrs Kirchner. --67.14.240.227 (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Note: The last name was incorrectly spelled as "Kirschner", now corrected MBelgrano (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't taking actions against X does not mean support for X. And you should have in mind that the executive power may facilitate such trials by making sure that the accused are available for any judicial request, or promoting the sanction or derogation of laws that would help the development of such trials, but they are always indirect means. It's the legislative power the one who sanctions law (the executive can only send proposals and execute the existing laws), and it's the judicial power the one who makes trials. Nestor and Cristina don't judge anyone by themselves, and can't be held responsible for outcomes or delays. There's a thing called Separation of powers. Besides, conspiracy theories are usually rejected in Wikipedia, and even more if they involve the reputation of living people. MBelgrano (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Kirchner - jewish?

I am curious if she is Jewish? Is she? Nothing wrong with asking - I am Jewish myself and am simply curious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizanthrop (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
She is christian!

By law, presidents in Argentina must be Christian. Carlos Saul Menem converted from Islam to become president! --190.226.50.130 (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The requirement for the President of Argentina to be Catholic (not just Christian) was dropped by the Constitutional Reform of 1994. However, you eare right in both your statements: Carlos Menem converted from Islam to become President in 1989, and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is Catholic, not jewish. --IANVS (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject socialism banner

Please stop this topic of adding/removing the template of the wikiproject socialism. It's one of the most trivial things to edit-war about. I suggest that if you have differences about it, settle them by talking.

My opinion on this matter, by the way, is that wikiproject banners do not make any harm, and their scope does not need to be so precise as that of article categories. She may be a socialist president, as supporters state, or a president masquerading as socialist, as opposers state, but in either case it's a legitimate topics for users interested in socialism to write about --MBelgrano (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a strong enough link to socialism in the article to warrant a socialism banner, the word socialism or socialist does not even get one mention, so imo, no to the banner, although they are not much issue right down the bottom, they should only be added it they directly relate to the subject of the article and a fairly strong association can be shown, preferably also in the body of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Neutrality Discussed

Her speeches work with appeals to emotion, both at the beginning and the end. She makes frequent appeals to pity by mentions to the death of her husband and her own pain about it. The achievements of both Néstor's administration and her own are treated with hyperbole and compared with the 2001 economic crisis.[121] This section seems to have a strong use of weasel words. Please rephrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.205.67.103 (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This article seems written by TN, there is all about political confrontation and nothing else. the pbi growth in 4 years, the social plans, the debt swap, the nuclear plan, the reactivation of many industries dismantled in the 90s, a foreign policy even applauded by people like escude, her daughter using the Tango-10 for personal use (oops not that one), Farmers requesting a $4+/dollar  ? and the media law which is all good except for clarin of course. She has plenty of things in her debt but not all is bad and for the record I never voted for her --Jor70 (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with the previous user. This Article must be seriously revised. This is an example:

"Back to Buenos Aires, during the Argentina Bicentennial celebrations, Cristina Fernández did not participate on the military parade of 5000 troops (which includes delegations of Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia, etc.) on the 9 de Julio Avenue, which was considered a gest of contempt towards the Argentine Armed Forces.[72]"

Nothing to say of the inauguration of the bicentennial cultural centre? Nothing to say about the biggest popular party that the city ever lived? The immigration parade? The provincial parade? The bicentennial "de la guarda" parade? The inauguration of the gallery of the latin american patriots? The presence of almost every president of the continent?

This is only a very small part of the article that I consider that should be completed.

On the other hand there is way too much mention to supposed corruption allegations that were NEVER proved. It also mentions her signing the Bill legalizing same-sex marriage as if the congress that widely discussed, projected and finally approved this issue do not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.19.151.146 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I was who originally post this on the talk page long ago. Since then you can check all the more balanced stuff that we posted. The particular sentence you mention about her absence on our most important military parade of the 21st century cannot be denied. All the other things you mention are most welcome in the Argentina Bicentennial article. The congress pass law was vandalized since posted --Jor70 (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this lady is NOT very popular in her own land... so of course, we HAVE to speak about all the proven facts about her and her husbands multimillionare businesses??? 196.34.139.36 (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont know what sources are you using to state such affirmation but of course you are welcome to contribute with reliable and neutral references --Jor70 (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There was indeed a case against the Kirchners related to a rise of their money of nearly 572% during their terms, but Norberto Oyarbide ruled that there was no embelezzlement. See for example La Nación, or plenty others (it was a high profile news topic when it took place). We may not state as a fact that they commited a crime if the courts said the contrary, but the existence of the case itself may well be pointed if it isn't already. MBelgrano (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

feel free to add it into the proper year if it isnt already --Jor70 (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, this was already mentioned in the article to begin with, in 2009. I have been planning to make a review of the article by those days, but so far couldn't find the time to do so. MBelgrano (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, i think this article should be revised. Dont believe me, just look the spanish page here in Wikipedia and you'll see the difference. Let's be fair, she has done really great things too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.162.147 (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added a template suggesting the article needs a cleanup - I'm no expert on Argentine politics but it's obvious that there are numerous style and neutrality issues throughout the second half of the article discussing the Presidency. I've also spotted quite a few typos and, while I've corrected the obvious ones, this whole thing should be proofread carefully to improve the general writing quality when somebody has time. --Pbrione (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi I just wanted to say that I agree that this article is *very* biased and honestly I think it harms they whole concept of "collaborative enciclopedia". The "public image" section is 100% biased IMH, it concist only in links to editorial articles from a single POV. Needles to say, I'm not neutral on this matter, but believe me, neither is this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.194.75.94 (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Excessive use of her first name?

Everything seems to be "Cristina" this and "Cristina" that. If an article on the POTUS always spoke about "George" or "Barack", it would be considered overly partisan and kind of tacky as well. What's all this "Cristina" stuff about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince In Milan (talk • contribs) 07:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this as well and altered the article to match other biography pages, which use the last name. Perhaps this is done to distinguish her from her husband, who was also president of Argentina. However, articles about George W. Bush refer to him in full once and then switch to "Bush," despite the much more confusing similarity to his father, George H.W. Bush. Zolot (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Is higly inappropiate to use "Kirchner" alone. She is known as Cristina, check any Argentine newspaper ( Clarin, La Nacion, etc). Kirchner alone is used for Nestor. I will revert the last changed until find any other consensus. --Jor70 (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a key difference between Bush and Kirchner. When Bush father ended his mandate, he ended his active political activity. It may be needed to notice which Bush is talked about at articles written from a general perspective of US history, but not at ones that are specific. During the time periods of either one's mandate, there is no serious doubt (beyond a mere theorical one) as to whom is being referred if we say simply "Bush" at high politics topics. On the contrary, both Néstor and Cristina Kirchner are being politicaly active during Cristina's government, so we can't employ the same system. MBelgrano (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Popular use of the familiar name in Argentina is not material. This is a matter of wiki standards, not popular usage. There are other ways to distimguish husband and wife, for instance by referring to the artcle's subject as Fernandez, or referring to the subject as Fernandez Kirchner. Bustter (talk)

Im not a native english speaker but I can see that referring a person by his first name is not very popular there unlike in spanish or portuguese languages. This is not an Argentine issue only: "Cristina" alone is very often mentioned by the latin american press too. Anyway I can accept changing the usage to "Cristina Fernandez" and adding the "Cristina" clarification on the lead . --Jor70 (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ease of reading for our readers take precedence over internal wikipedia standards. As pointed, the use of "Kirchner" alone may lead to confussion as to which Kirchner is being talked about, more so with ths case, where both ones work toguether. Fortunately, we don't need to "invent" any solution for this, simply apply what is already done by the press (urged by the same problem). "Kirchner" alone for Néstor Kirchner, "Cristina" or "Cristina Fernández" for Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and "The Kirchners" for both of them at once.

Nobody refers to Cristina simply as "Fernández" (there are other Fernández in the cabinet), much less as "Fernández Kirchner". Regardless of the value of such proposals, they could only be confusing for the casual reader, wheneeas the naming system already used by the press is completely natural for him MBelgrano (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Jor70, bear in mind Bill and Hillary Clinton. She tends to be called by her first name in the media. Salut, --IANVS (talk |cont) 20:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with both of you but as this was the second editor who complain about "Cristina", and seems to be so important for them I suggested I can live with "Cristina Fernandez". and I didnt realize of the Hillary example before, good point. --Jor70 (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still in favor of referring to her as Fernandez when it is clear who this means, such as in the figure captions and when there is no reference to her husband, and Christina Fernandez otherwise. The Hillary Clinton wikipedia page refers to both Hillary and Bill as "Clinton", when the context makes clear who it is. Similarly, the English press tend to refer to Cristina Fernandez at the beginning of an article, then switch to Fernandez. In English speaking areas, it is considered condescending and sexist to refer to a distinguished woman by first name in a context where men would be called by their last. Custom in Latin America could be applied to the Spanish version of this page, but I highly recommend following English convention on this version. Zolot (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Zolot. When I first noticed that she is called "Cristina" throughout the article I thought "Wow, that is sexist." Also, since this is the English Wikipedia, I would prefer the English Wikipedia conventions and maybe the conventions of the English-speaking press.

As for readability: I am an international reader (from Germany) who follows both the German-speaking and the English-Speaking press and I have never come across an article in either of them that referred to her as "Cristina". Therefore I was confused by it and it didn't help my understanding - on the contrary. I assume that most international or English-speaking readers will make similar experiences when reading this article as it is.

Concerning "confusion" with her husband: Since this is the article about Cristina Kirchner, "Kirchner" should be exclusively referring to her, whereas it needs to be pointed out especially when her husband is referred to (we could use Nestor Kirchner, then). Of course, in the article on Nestor Kircher this should be the other way round. Afaik the situation is handled like that in all articles where there might be confusion, like in the ones on the Bush presidents, the ones on Hillary and Bill Clinton. Janfrie1988 (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hope there is not more Execessive use after the last changes --Jor70 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding presidential styles: The English version of this information is incorrect. In English, we do not say "Mrs President" for direct or indirect address. "Mrs" is generally used only with the (husband's) family name and is not combined with titles. So (in English) one can refer to her in the 3rd person as "Mrs Kirchner", "President Kirchner", or simply "the President"; however, (in English) she should be addressed directly as "Madame President". Please fix this. Ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_%28manner_of_address%29#Republics 213.112.58.32 (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Lawyer?

I believe there has been a fair amount of controversy regarding whether Cristina Fernández de Kirchner ever actually graduated from university, so calling her a lawyer just like that might be unjustified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.193.239 (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That was simply an hoax formulated during the electoral campaign, and quickly refuted. It's a common trick of electoral campaigns, to release those hoaxes to harm the rival's reputation¡, without giving him or her time to to clarify things. And it was a poor trick anyway: by that time some rigth-wing political figure whose name I forgot claimed to be an engineer, and was found not to be (and that case is properly confirmed). This trick merely tried to accuse CFK of the same thing. MBelgrano (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

really? that's why her folder "disappeared" when this was know? JDeus01 (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.elojodigital.com/contenido/8783-confirmado-la-presidente-cristina-fernandez-de-kirchner-nunca-se-recibio-de-abogada JDeus01 (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a valid reliable source for such an allegation on the Biography of a living person. Actually, that is not a valid source for anything. --IANVS (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

2003 election

There's a sentence at the begining that says "Fernández provided the main backbone to her husband's successful campaign for the presidency in 2003, against two other Justicialist candidates and several other competitors." Let's be clear, by this point Cristina Fernandez was completely unknown to the public. Even Néstor Kirchner himself was still a barely known politician. The "main backbone" that allowed him to became president was Eduardo Duhalde, who was determined to prevent Carlos Menem from doing so and provided Kirchner with all the support at his disposal. For example, the strange arrangement of the elections, allowing many PJ candidates to run directly in the main election instead of making primary elections first, prevented the loyalty to the party from increasing Menem's votes as it would have done if he was the sole PJ candidate. In comparison, what kind of help could Cristina offer to his husband?

I think it would be better to merely state the victory of Néstor Kirchner in 2003, without pointing his wife as if she influenced the results somehow. MBelgrano (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the sentence meant her role in the public campaign, not in the choice of the candidate. Obviously Duhalde was the one who finger chose Nestor in 2003 but once running it was Cristina the more visible figure . she was far more well known and popular per her senator job than him who for most of the people was a unknown patagonian gov . read e.g . La Nacion 7 oct 2002 conocida en el nivel nacional, tiene buena imagen en las encuestas y quiere ayudarlo a llegar a la Casa Rosada and I also found another reference but for the 2007 campaign, hers: La senadora que lidera holgadamente los sondeos de intención de voto --Jor70 (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cabinet

The section about the cabinet, if I'm not mistaken, seems to have been written during the transition period, with the new ministers added in the list afterwards. But by this point, it would be better to move it below, after the sections about the administration, and provide a summary of who are the ministers and the moments and circumstances when each one left or joined the cabinet. --MBelgrano (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)