Talk:Kirchnerism

Factuality
I think the article is quite good at explaining the basics, but more details are needed, and especially many, many more references. Examples from the latest provincial elections where K and anti-K candidates crossed party lines would be nice, as well as the dual position of the Socialist Party. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This article should be expunged from wikipedia completely, for being a piece of political propaganda with ZERO factual basis. All quoted publications are highly politized publications (FOR and AGAINST) with no factual value. Also, It should be known to the international community, that the kirchnerist government has constructed an unprecedented cult of personality, based on the repression of dissident media, and sustained by an army of state-run and tax-payed journalist, publications and commenters. This is a fact proven beyond doubt, which turns free-to-edit articles into yet another platform for political whitewashing and misdirection. An example, for instance, is the lack of mention of the numerous trials against several members of the government for embezzlement / corruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.22.238.120 (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ideology
if you stop changing the article and leave it like it was originally, i'm more than willing to discuss it. please, we can face this like grown-ups.--camr nag 08:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My edits
Someone (who doesnt appear to be a mod or have any official standing on wikipedia... but is an Argentine will strong political views :rolleyes:) has threatened to "block" me for my last edit of this article. I believe he has no such power, but since I am new to wikipedia, I will waste my time responding to that abuse and justify my edit:

Human Rights - Evidence presented that Kirchnerists support human rights is that they prosecuted their political opponents. If those guys were guilty, and they were, that is all above board, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they did it out of high-minded principle. I think that this qualification deserves to be included in view of the need to present a NPOV.

Economics - I merged two similar entries "Rejection and neoliberalism" and "Industrial developmentism", which were couched in ideological terminology, into a single piece about their economic policies, which I described as socialist/state planning. I'm not sure how this can be objectionable in an article with a "Social democracy" bar down the side.

Changed "rejection of free trade agreements" to "protectionism": they mean the same thing, but in far fewer words.

Changed "Defence to Mercosur", which isn't even grammatically correct, to "Regionalism", which is the correct objective terminology.

"International alignment" to "Foreign policy" and again replaced clumbsy ideological terminology ("non-neoliberal" ???).

Birth control w/e - again, changed vague ideological propaganda terms ("progressive") to simple description of the policies supported.

IANVS: Discuss the changes here rather than engaging in a childish edit war. 188.220.113.25 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Anonimous editor: Please reach a consensus before editing. Your statements are of polemic opinions. --IANVS (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the existing article are polemical opinions. Read my justification above. If you disagree then discuss it before reverting. You can't demand that I have everyone agree with me before I can change the article, when you are the only person disagreeing and you refuse to dispute any specific change! 188.220.113.25 (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

--

Because I'm sure you will come back around here (and I hope you do mind learning some WP editing policies by then), I decided to spend some precious time to tell you why do I think your editions are mostly WP:POV, and eventually WP:OR.

For the record, all your editions are, at least, polemic statements that should be discussed here first so as to reach some WP:CONSENSUS. Moreover, I suggest you gather a few reliable sources to further support your claims.

Your proposed editions:

Human Rights - The prosecutions you mention were advanced by the Argentine Judicial Power, as it has the constitutional attribution to prosecute criminals for the sake of public interest. Furthermore, the law that gave way to reopen Human Rights violation processes was ruled by the Argentine National Congress, not by the Executive power. See: here. As you can see, these human rights processes are entirely legal and enjoy wide institutional support. They have nothing to do with contemporary politics nor were aimed at government critics. As for the high-mindness, or lack of it, of anyone involved in this, well, I don't think that is a relevant issue for the sake of the article.

Economics - The economy of argentina is not State-planned, although the State is in fact an important economic actor. Neither it is plausible to infer that this would be a kirchnerist objective (remember WP:OR and WP:RELIABILITY). Both policy descriptions you deleted are, on the contrary, well established governmental goals, and you will easily find multiple references of it.

"Rejection of free trade agreements" and "protectionism" do not mean the same thing: your statement is absolute POV. Argentina continues to open its foreign trade through bilateral or multilateral treaties (see Mercosur, for example) that nonetheless cannot be truly considered as "free trade agreements", for they do not fully or significantly abolish trade barriers for the bulk of trade items.

"Regionalism" would be right. I agree with you on this.

"International alignment" to "Foreign policy" That's fine for me. But your adjectivation of Venezuelan and Bolivian Governments is absolute POV. This section can be merged with the previous one.

Birth control w/e - These polices you take as the core issue are only cited as examples of a wider range of what are usually considered progressive policies. I don't like either the terminology, maybe we could find some better description (liberal?)

See you later, --IANVS (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * May be for an American the rejection of neoliberalism is automatically socialist/state planning. I can assure you there are many many shadows of grey in the middle (for example, a you well said, social democracy). --Againme (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What?
After having just read this article, I still haven't a clue as to what Kirchnerism is. Surely there is a way to create a topic paragraph summarizing, without jargon, in broad outline, the major ideas?

For example, wasn't Kirchnerism behind Argentina's propensity to disclaim her national debt repeatedly? If not, the observation that this is not Kirchnerist would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltek (talk • contribs) 15:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

192.249.47.201 (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed unsourced part

 * During Cristina Kirchner´s first year as president and Néstor Kirchner as ex-president, the assets of the couple increased as never before: throughout 2008, their net worth grew from 17,824,941 to 46,036,711 pesos which implies an increase of 158 per cent. The initial assets when Néstor Kirchner assumed the presidency were of 2 millions pesos, the Kirchners’ assets increased by 572% since they arrived in the Government House in 2003.
 * Opponents have accused the Kirchners of exploiting political connections in their home state of Santa Cruz to buy municipal land cheaply and sell it at a vast profit.
 * Federal Judge Norberto Oyarbide was in charge of the investigation into illegitimate Kirchner assets in 2010, but despite many disparities involving large sums of money, Judge Oyarbide dismissed the case.

This article should be about the ideology, the policies, etc., not about the corruption of individuals who support this ideology. This belongs (if properly sourced) in the articles about the Kirchners, not here. bogdan (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Poor English
These sentences (which have been in the article since December 2010!)
 * This has led to many controversies, alleging that the Kirchners never were fully committed to human rights, especially during the last military dictatorship, and only when Néstor Kirchner became president and start make alliances with the left parties of the congress, and Madres de Plaza de Mayo, they started with a full campaign about this rights to promote his platform and gain the popular favor. However, it is documented that the Kirchners did claim for trial against human rights violators during the dictatorship, although it was late into it, in 1983, when its end was in sight.

don't make a lot of sense, either logically or grammatically. Could I appeal for someone (who understands whatever it is they are trying to say) to rewrite them in comprehensible English? -- Picapica (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Update tag
I've added an update tag, mainly because much of the article is written in the present tense, but clearly relates to past events.Pincrete (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kirchnerism. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102055909/http://www.convencion.org.uy/menu8-118.htm to http://www.convencion.org.uy/menu8-118.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources and ideology
Kirchnerism is simply not a socialist ideology as it has never, neither theoretically nor practically strived for any leftist policies that can't be instead classified as social democracy, which it does actually follow. Moreover, it makes no sense for a staunch anti-Marxist and pro-reformist such as Perón to give birth to such a hypothetical faction within Peronism.

As for the sources: It takes nothing more than reading the Wikipedia article for La Nación to determine their reasons to want to damage the movement. It is a right-wing paper. The author too is openly against the specific movement as per their own Wikipedia article. Besides, neither article ever calls the movement socialist, and the NYT doesn't even talk about Kirchnerism's positions other than vaguely recognizing the existence of the left-wing spectrum in the country, never even addressing Peronism let alone this specific movement.

I'm keeping my changes unless someone else would like to talk against them and my arguments. I am not questioning the legitimacy of La Nación or NYT as reliable sources as a whole, but the specific articles that I just analyzed and concluded on as irrelevant.

Fasscass (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing European-style socialism with what is considered socialism and the left in Latin America. You even go as far as questioning the authenticity of Kirchnerism as a Peronist movement or whether Peron himself would approve of it, which clearly says to me you have no idea what you're talking about. Kirchnerism is widely regarded as left wing populism either in local or international sources, Kirchnerist leaders are widely regarded as socialist figures within the pink tide movement and Kirchernist politicians run under the Justicialist Party ticket — the undisputed Peronist party since the beginning of the Peronist movement itself. --MewMeowth (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

--

Kirchnerism absolutely is as left-wing populist as ideologies come, indeed. Regardless, this does not mean the movement is socialist. Your claim of socialist figures acting under the label of Kirchnerism is simply false. There's actually a surprising amount of socialist parties outside of la Grieta that leftists logically would and indeed do side with instead. I remind you thus that the question of whether to classify Kirchnerism as left-wing and not centre-left relies solely on whether it is socialist and nothing else.

And I do know what I'm talking about. Some of my first history education involved Perón after all, given my place of birth.

--Fasscass (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Use of Political Party Infobox
I disagree with the use of the political party infobox here, and the other ways in which the infobox treats Kirchnerism as a political party (for example the "Seats in the House of Deputies/Senate" field. Kirchnerism is an ideology, not a party. While it is certainly important within the Justicialist party, it's not a synonym with that. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)