Talk:Laura Chinchilla

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citing sources[edit]

Editors can use this wiki markup to properly cite sources:
<ref name=""> {{cite web
| url=
| title=
| publisher=
}} </ref>

<ref name=""> {{cite news  
| last=  
| first=  
| url=  
| title=  
| publisher=  
| date=  
}} </ref>

Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her Political Party was Listed Incorrectly[edit]

Her political party affiliation was listed as a clearly obsolete communist party. Fortunately, I promptly rectified this, switching it to the "National Liberation Party" (PLN), and the link to the correct party's article appears to be functioning properly. This is a very amateurish mistake. How could something like that happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.142.60 (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV Issues[edit]

See also: WP:POV

I'm not qualified to edit it, but this article seems to have obvious POV issues. The section on "Political Positions" is really only about three closely-related issues: abortion rights, gay rights, and church-state relations. After briefly mentioning her position, it then starts into a description of her detractors, or at least people who are concerned about her positions. Sections that claim to be about political figure's views should primarily be about their views, not their opponents. It comes very close to running afoul of the Coatrack policy. I'm not saying I agree with her -- it sounds as though I would not. But as president-elect she deserves a fair encyclopedia article. Darkstar8799 (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see POV has got worse, rather than better, since Darkstar8799's comment above was made. I'm going out on a limb and reverting the entire "Political positions" section. Take a look at the German, French, Italian, Spanish, and Dutch versions of this page (of the major European languages, only the Portuguese page resembles the English one -- probably because it was translated and imported wholesale).

I should also note that it's very likely that I wouldn't agree with Chinchilla on social matters, either. But we've all got to do a lot better on the ol' objectivity!

Anyone fancy translating sections of the Spanish page -- so far relatively free of polemics? Ksimons (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since when has it been POV to document a politician's positions? Please refer to George W. Bush and Barack Obama for comparison - their views on a wide range of issues are documented, and sourced. Please DO NOT delete whole chunks of sourced material without consensus - many Wikipedians consider that akin to vandalism. 123.100.94.36 (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content that is there now, recently the article was checked and tidied, is completely neutral , it is a simple write but it is npov if anyone wants to add some other stuff feel free but there is nothing wrong with the content that is there. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very much about family policy and almost nothing about her stances on other political issues, e.g. on economic policy. Surely unbalanced, but I won't start an edit war over this.--Asketix (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is there is totally ok, feel free to add something if you think it is under represented, adding templates is of little value to an article unless there is a major issue which clearly in this case there is not. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to 123.100.94.36's comment -- it's been a while since I looked at this, and it has improved. Agreed, it's not POV to document a politician's positions. The problems with the "political views" section fall into two areas. One, A nation's president is often influential across a broad spectrum of political issues, both foreign and domestic. Domestic policy includes economic issues (fiscal and monetary policy, taxation, industry, labor relations, etc.), law and order, education, civil rights, the environment, attitudes toward indigenous peoples, and so on. To limit the article's scope to three closely-related social policy issues limits its usefulness to Wikipedia's readers. A reader who wants to know if she is going to attempt to continue Oscar Arias' prominence on the regional and world stage, or how her election might affect Costa Rica's growing eco-tourism industry (for example), isn't going to be helped much by such a narrowly focused "political views" section. The second problem is the "Wikipedia:coatrack" problem: a section about political views in a biographical article should document that person's views, not mention them briefly and then launch into a discussion of their critics. The fact that she has those views doesn't improve things -- the problem is not one of factual accuracy, but one of excessive weight given to those topics, and especially to critics of her views on those topics. But as I said, the edits after my comment seem to be moving it in the right direction. Darkstar8799 (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University[edit]

We need a citation for her being a graduate of Georgetown University. When we have a source, we can add Category:Georgetown University alumni and/or Category:Georgetown University Law Center alumni. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source; Christian Science Monitor, Look at the "Who she is" section.

Here's another from the university's blog; Georgetown Voice It's title is actually all about her being a Georgetown grad. This "georgetownvoice.com" blog is not an official Georgetown University publication. This should not count as proper reference.

According to the first source, she received a master's degree from Georgetown University in public policy. She received her bachelor's degree from the University of Costa Rica

Hobapotter (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get the citation exactly right. She got a Master in Public Policy degree from the Georgetown Public Policy Institute [1] at Georgetown University [2]. Sorry, I don't know how to format those hyperlinks properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.204.249 (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox problem[edit]

The second vice president-elect of Costa Rica, Luis Liberman is not showing up in the infobox. I checked and his name is in the text of it. Problem with wiki-formatting?--TM 00:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

addition for discussion[edit]

Concern about Ms. Chinchilla conservative views on social issues[edit]

After her election Chinchilla has reportedly courted the most conservative sectors of the country. For instance, she visited the Virgen de los Angeles shrine located in the city of Cartago one day before and the day after her election. During the last visit to the shrine, the highest authorities of the Roman Catholic Costa Rican Church declared her “Hija predilecta de la Virgen María” (Favored daughter of the Virgin Mary). Church authorities did not report if other elected Costa Rican politician has ever been granted an equivalent title before. After a meeting with elected congressmen from Evangelical Christian parties she issued a press statement saying that she reaffirmed “her position of not promoting or supporting law initiatives contemplating opening up issues such as abortion or same-sex marriage.” She also noted that she supported the view of the Evangelical Christian political leaders that the establishment of a secular State is not a priority issue, and that it will not be included in the legislation agenda promoted by the executive branch of government that she will conduct [1].

Paola Brenes, a social psychologist and gay rights’ activist has pointed out that Ms.Chinchilla’s discourse on same-sex marriage attempts to create misinformation among the Costa Rican population. In fact, the Asamblea Legislativa is currently considering a law proposal that will permit civil union contracts for gay people. This project does not include any reference to same-sex marriage, though. Seidy Salas, from the Colectiva por el Derecho a Decidir warns that “the interference of conservative groups is a hindrance not only for the secular State and the civil union law proposals, but also for other urgent legislation such as the approval of the chapter on sexual and reproductive rights of the General Law of Health, the regulation of emergency contraception and the pressing need to implement a national program of sexual education” [2].

Abelardo Araya, president of the Movimiento Diversidad, a pro-gay rights group sent an invitation to Chinchilla to meet leaders of the Costa Rican gay rights’ groups. Until now she has not met any leader of this group, although she has met many other players in the Costa Rican political arena to exchange views.

Rodolfo Cerdas, a political scientist and op-ed collaborator of the newspaper La Nacion said that Ms. Chinchilla should separate her own views on religion from the obligations that she has with the republic. He has also expressed concern about the influence that “fanatical religious people” could have in the future administration of Ms. Chinchilla [3]

discussion[edit]

I do wish people wanting to add content would at least format the references a bit. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The header is not very neutral and could be better, there was no internal links added and basically the whole thing reads very opinionated and POV. What we want is opinionated NPOV additions, reporting her comments and actions not what some partisan opposition think. The whole of the first three paragraphs are cited to one opinion piece. The last paragraph is about the opines and concerns of Rodolfo Cerdas that he feels might happen, this of course is of no value to the article unless it was to happen. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

refs[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.semanario.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/mainmenu-pais/2044-sectores-sociales-temen-que-se-acreciente-intolerancia-externan-preocupacion-por-acercamiento-de-laura-chinchilla-a-grupos-conservadores.html
  2. ^ http://www.semanario.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/mainmenu-pais/2044-sectores-sociales-temen-que-se-acreciente-intolerancia-externan-preocupacion-por-acercamiento-de-laura-chinchilla-a-grupos-conservadores.html
  3. ^ http://www.nacion.com/2010-02-28/Opinion/PaginaQuince/Opinion2284114.aspx

Political views[edit]

She is specifically against extending marriage to same-sex couples. She may "support traditional heterosexual marriage" but that is not what she is known for. Implying that by supporting same sex marriage rights one is somehow against heterosexual marriage is quite POV.--TM 04:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps it is, no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And POV should be eliminated to the fullest extend possible. No worries. EDOTca1 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed content[edit]

This has been removed without explanation, as it is uncited I won't put it back but it is an important part of her life, pre political. if asnyone can cite it, please do and replace. Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to entering politics, Chinchilla worked as an NGO consultant in Latin America and Africa, specializing in judicial reform and public security issues. She went on to serve in the José María Figueres Olsen administration as vice-minister for public security (1994–1996) and minister of public security (1996–1998). From 2002 to 2006, she served in the National Assembly as a deputy for the province of San José.

I undid the vandalism and linked to the subject's curriculum vitae on her Facebook page to provide supportive citation for the deleted information. --174.16.36.202 (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. When this gets renominated, I think the case needs to be presented that shows the proposed name is most commonly used per the policies and guidelines here.Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Chinchilla → Laura Chinchilla Miranda — Hispanic people use both family names (Chinchilla and Miranda in this case). Compare her Spanish language Wikipedia article called Laura Chinchilla Miranda --O'Dea (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:UCN. Most Spanish speakers ("Hispanic" is for people in the USA) have two family names but don't necessarily commonly use them. English sources for the article use "Laura Chinchilla". Not that it's relevant, but the Spanish Wikipedia article, Laura Chinchilla Miranda, was only moved to that location a little over a month ago without discussion. — AjaxSmack 01:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - She is much more commonly known as Laura Chinchilla. Off2riorob (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Latin Americans sometimes chat informally using their first family name (primer apellido) but always use both names in formal circumstances and when completing forms, and this full version appears on their birth certificates, cedulas, bank cards, passports, and so on.
The entry for apellido (surname) in a Spanish dictionary says, "In the Spanish-speaking world people commonly use the last name of both their father and their mother (in that order). Thus, if Pedro García Fernández and María Piñedo Saavedra have a daughter called Eva, she will be known as Eva García Piñedo. This custom is followed in all official documents, though in everyday use many people use only their first surname."
In the Costa Rican La Nacion newspaper article announcing that Chinchilla Miranda had won the presidency, the first sentence reads, "La liberacionista Laura Chinchilla Miranda se convirtió ayer en la primera mujer que ocupará la silla presidencial en Costa Rica" (my emphasis). (Translation: Laura Chinchilla Miranda is the first woman to become president.)
You will notice that Laura Chinchilla Miranda uses her full name at her own Facebook page. We may take direction from her own preference, which she is surely well suited to justify.
Therefore, in an encyclopaedia entry, which is a definitive and formal description, the formal usage is proper. If this were a chatty magazine article, the other approach could be said to be adequate.
The article about WP:UCN is about, and cites examples of, names from the anglophone world where things work differently.
The fact that the Spanish Wikipedia article was moved a month ago could suggest that someone in the Hispanophone world agrees with me. Furthermore, in a world of picky Wikipedia readers, no-one has seen fit to undo the move. The person who moved the article is a Wiki administrator from Valladolid; perhaps you would like to challenge him to justify his decision. In his edit note justifying the move, he wrote that it was mejor (better). But, really, I wish to argue my point on its own merits, recognising formal Spanish practice. I argue for the quality and integrity of Wikipedia as a respectable source of definitive information. Any searches omitting the segundo apellido Miranda will be directed automatically to the proper page.
On the separate question of what Hispanic means, I find this definition in the Wikipedia Hispanic article: people of countries formerly ruled by Spain. But, please, I do not want to be sidetracked into the vexed argument of the differences between Spanish, Latins, Hispanics, and Chicanos and will respond no more about that question. I find that from asking Latinos/Hispanics/whatever about labels that some of them disagree with each other about definitions and some even don't know and just shrug their shoulders. Let us set aside that difficulty for another time. --O'Dea (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment the previous user is also the nominator so as such does not get to vote twice. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True. However, I don't always assume that a nominator agrees with a nomination. It's good for him or her to be clear. — AjaxSmack 16:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The workings of Spanish Wikipedia are not really relevant here and neither is Spanish language usage. English Wikipedia is thoroughly a part of the Anglophone world with use of English (WP:UE) enshrined as policy. Using common names (WP:UCN) is also policy and if you notice the references section of the article, the mentions in English articles are almost exclusively of "Laura Chinchilla". If policy is to be ignored in this case, there should be special reason. — AjaxSmack 16:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for reasons above. It is embarrassing to see such Anglocentrism in action in opposing remarks which seeks to efface a person's actual, formal name because she is not from the English speaking world. Must you be reminded that she is a head of state and is due some respect? There is a world in which English is not spoken and where people structure their names differently. Saying that this is an English encyclopedia is not an argument. --174.16.36.202 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • — 174.16.36.202 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • It may be embarrassing but such Anglocentrism is policy (WP:UE) and an important part of serving Wikipedia's English-reading readership. WP:NAMES addresses this case directly with he example of "Fidel Castro", not "Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz" given. Wikipedia is not required to show any more "respect" than the other English sources it relies on for verifiable usage and sometimes even less is called for (also see WP:NAMES). If you have a problem with English usage in general, take it up with those sources that Wikipedia derives its usage. — AjaxSmack 20:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing about Spanish family names in WP:EU (which is about spelling, not names). As for WP:NAMES, I'll see your Fidel Castro and raise you...
all of whose Wikipedia articles are named by their full Spanish names, including both family names, primer and 'segundo and, furthermore, do them the courtesy of using accented characters not used in English. So, respect and good manners do not violate Wikipedia policy and can be extended to people, and has been done before now. I have chosen to illustrate my point with ten examples that I collected quite easily in a couple of minutes from list and category pages. If I had all the time in the world, I feel assured I could harvest a few hundred other counterexamples from this English language Wikipedia in which so many Hispanic individuals are recorded. --O'Dea (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive. If you find evidence that most English-language reliable sources use the full name for Laura Chinchilla, I will change my opinion on this move. — AjaxSmack 02:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to assert that claim, the onus is on you to supply the evidence to support your argument. I won't do your work for you. --O'Dea (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point. Are you saying I should provide evidence for your argument? I already provided evidence for mine in the form of common English usage as reflected in the English-language sources for the article or by a perusal of news stories. You can see that at Google news for example, not one source on the initial results page uses the name you propose.[3]
  • Oppose - per Off2riorob. She is commonly known as Laura Chinchilla in English. Ghits returns ten times more results for current article title than the proposed one. Snappy (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia policy article Wikipedia:ATA#Just_a_vote distinguishes between reasoned arguments and mere votes of support or opposition by saying, "This is not an argument...at all, it's a vote." Also, the same policy article says, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" The same article says, "Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion. Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy and practice to support their positions" (my italics). In short, your drive-by vote is not a reasoned argument and carries less weight than one. --O'Dea (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is the same as the one that Off2riorob made, which is that the subject is commonly known as Laura Chinchilla in English. Rather than repeating his argument, I used a common shorthand meaning my reason is the same as his. Your wikilawyering to try and dismiss my comment because you don't agree with it, is beneath contempt. Have respect for other peoples opinions. Btw, ghits returns ten times more results for current article title than the proposed one. Snappy (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not respect your opinion and you do not have the authority to order me to do so. You make it impossible to respect you when you make personal remarks such as "beneath contempt". I respect your right to hold your opinion, and there my obligation ends. I pointed out, correctly, that you committed a drive-by vote without making an argument. That is not my opinion, that is how your behaviour is described by the Wikipedia guideline. It is very short: I suggest you read it. I am not interested in personalising the discussion because it leads nowhere. --O'Dea (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:BASH. Snappy (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Spanish names work differently to English ones as described above and her Spanish Wiki page uses the full name. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a People Magazine article or journalism like some of the internet sources.. Ischium (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read this Wikipedia:UCN#Common_names common name is the way we name articles, not because they do it different in spain or because that is what they call her on the spanish wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that you make your point by asking "Have you read...?" because I wonder if you read what was written about that very issue already (at 13:14, 9 May 2010), above: "The article about WP:UCN is about, and cites examples of, names from the anglophone world where things work differently." Furthermore, a bulleted list of counterexamples was also cited (at 23:22, 11 May 2010) of articles where the full family names were used in en.wikipedia.org. So, I am afraid we are now going in circles because points are being repeated, which is a pity. --O'Dea (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you made a list and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We are going in circles because you refuse to cite common (WP:UCN), English-language (WP:UE) usage to support your position. Both of these are Wikipedia policies and you need some pretty compelling reasons why they should be ignored. — AjaxSmack 02:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Compelling reasons? I demonstrated those from the very outset. I believe my reasons are excellent; you don't. We disagree; that's fine. --O'Dea (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citing Facebook[edit]

I don't think it is correct to use facebook as a cityation, it looks official but it is an awful place to claim as an independant reliable citation, I like the content but not cited to facebook, comments? Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Facebook is good enough for a head of state, it is surely good enough for Wikipedia. People might say, with justification, that Wikipedia can be a bad source of information, but it can also be excellent. The same is true of Facebook.
Your justifications are inadequate: "I don't think it is correct..." and "it is an awful place" and "I like the content". This is just weak personal opinionating. These are simply not arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.36.202 (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook...it is not official, is it? It does not look like it..,, external links should only have her official externals. The big issue is she is the prime minster, her facebook should not be her personal website and is not also a wikipedia reliable link for any in-line content, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Laura Chinchilla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laura_Chinchilla&oldid=1195080306"