Talk:Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

Anti-Kirchner bias
Half the content of this article is absolutely unacceptable. Statements like "The media that promotes the Kirchnerite propaganda is divided into three main groups. First is state-owned media, which is used solely by the governing party. Second is new, private media with very low audiences, which stays in business only due to the financial support of the government" is a perfect example of that.

Additionally, half the article is unrelated to the "public image of Kirchner".

I will remove the content one more time, and do not put it back in; this entire article needs a major cleanup by an unbiased writer, who can thoroughly source their content. The current article is in no way whatsoever compliant with Wikipedia's NPOV policies.

Μαρκος Δ (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * All the contents that you removed are well referenced. If you think that there is a problem with NPOV, detail which is the other point of view, referencing it with reliable sources. Neutral point of view does not equal whitewashing, and the things detailed did take place during her presidency. There's no reason not to call a spade a spade. Cambalachero (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you're clearly anti-Kirchner. Contributors to this article should remain neutral. And the point is not that this controversial information is published here, the problem is that it is not in a controversy section - which should be added, either here or on her main article. The article makes her sound like an oppressive, autocratic and unpopular mobster, while the truth is that her approval ratings were relatively high. How is this not even mentioned once? That is the kind of information that belongs in a "public image" article, unlike your conspiracy theories about how she manipulates the media.


 * When you originally wrote this article, it contained: "''The Kirchner government controls nearly the 80% of the Argentine media, either directly of indirectly. The Clarín group publishes the Clarín newspaper, the largest selling one in the country, which is not aligned with them.


 * The government tries to enforce a controversial media law that would force Clarín to sell most of the assets and loose licences. The law was initially sanctioned as a competition law for the media, but critics point out that it is only used to further the campaign against Clarín."


 * Are you seriously trying to sell this as non-biased? "She controls 80% of the media and harasses opponents, hurr durr," is simply not good enough. While this specific part is gone now, you've made it very clear that you have an agenda.


 * Μαρκος Δ (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That's simply the truth. Yes, she tried to create a network of supportive media, and to destroy the media that did not praise her, as it can be verified in reliable sources. Note that authoritarian leaders may be popular, but still be authoritarian anyway. Which is not the case of CFK: you claim that she has a good image, but this poll says otherwise. Neutral point of view is not about concealing the well documented facts that someone may not like to hear.


 * As for agendas, let's make a deal. You stop making assumptions about me, and I will ignore the fact that you claim in your user page to be a socialist, a political movement that is well known for harboring authoritarians and populists, and which may suggest that you may have an agenda in your attempt to whitewash Cristina Kirchner. Cambalachero (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hahahah, my friend, you are proving my point. By associating me as a socialist with "authoritarians and populists", you are proving that you're not unbiased. On the contrary, you just admitted to having something against leftists, and presumably Kirchner. Which, like I said, more or less disqualifies you from contributing unless you can prove that you're willing to do so in an unbiased manner - put your personal opinions aside and stick to facts.


 * While I don't contest that some of the information about media censorship etc. might be true, I would like to repeat what I said before: place it in a "controversies" section. For as things are now, the entire article is an anti-Kirchner rant, which is not up to Wikipedia's standards. Do you understand?


 * Again, this is an encyclopedia, not a place to express your personal opinions on the Argentine ex-president. I'm European, and have no relationship with Argentine parties or leaders; for me, it would be just as natural to vote for UCR and Cambiemos (after all it has progressive elements) as FpV in an Argentine election. And if you're still convinced I have an agenda, I suggest you take a look at my contributions history. There are for instance no edit wars about ideology or similar, like you and I are having here.


 * I suggest you create a controversies section, and if not, I will do so myself. Should you revert that, I will contact moderation.


 * Oh, and the BBC claims Kirchner had over 50% approval in 2015 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-34623236). Cheers. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Soapboxing aside, you have just said that you do not dispute the info about media censorship, so there is no reason to delete it. As for a controversies section, have in mind that segregating information into other sections because of their perceived POV is discouraged at Neutral point of view. By the way, the opinion poll that I linked is more recent. Cambalachero (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you reading what I'm writing at all? I said that I do not object to the all contents, but to the fact that it's clearly written with the aim of discrediting Kirchner. Just admit it. Leave the article as it is now – I will work on it later, including rephrasing and removing biased and unsourced content. Once I'm done, tell me if you have objections. Aside from the obvious bias, the article needs major cleanup, as its layout and structure is dreadful, borderline visually painful. And please, just please, check the Neutral point of view section literally 1cm below what you linked.


 * Finally, it's not like Kirchner has fallen from 50%+ to 0.5% approval after she left the presidency. Do you even believe your own words? Μαρκος Δ (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If that's your plan, then make your alternative article in a userpage sandbox and bring it here for consideration when you are ready. I'm not sure which is the "unsourced" content you plan to remove, as all the article was fully referenced. And yes, I'm familiar with due and undue weight: all the sources that I have listed are major and reliable sources (if you don't think so, mention a specific one you have concerns with and I will detail why it can't be considered a fringe source; rather than such a broad and generalist claim). And no, the poll does not say that she has a 0.5 approval rating, you should read things more carefully: it says that the approval minus the dispproval gave her a difference of just 0,5, when the others have a much higher difference between positive and negative image. "Cristina Kirchner is a highly divisive political figure in Argentina", as the article already said. The problem with polls in the article is that they are highly volatile and get outdated in days, that's why I skipped them and sticked to things which are more permanent (such as her being divisive, and the state policies implemented to boost her political image). A source that discusses the flow of her image in time may be a better option than either of the ones we have brought here. Cambalachero (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In other words, posting that poll was completely redundant from your side, as it did not in anyway debunk my claim that her approval was 50%+. But I'll do as you suggested, and write an alternative article, which we then discuss at a later time. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, being a divisive figure means that both her positive and negative images are high, so detailing only the approval or disapproval figures would be misleading. Cambalachero (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I know what a divisive leader is. But as long as her approval is above 50%, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that her disapproval is lower than that. If her approval is 40%, her disapproval is anywhere from 60% and below. It's simple, and not misleading. Apart from that, I agree that it's even better to include both approval and disapproval if possible. It's just that I said her approval was 50%+, and you said "nuh-huh, look at this," and linked to a poll that showed 0.5%. If the numbers are not comparable, why send it? Please don't answer, this arguing is exhausting.


 * Anyway, can we just let this rest for now? :P Also, my six finals are this week, so that alternative article probably won't be done before next week or so. I suggest we leave it like this – no reverting – for now to avoid futher arguing, then I come back to you in a while. Cheers. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A Third Opinion has been requested. Unfortunately, the lengthy discussion provides more heat than light. Can someone please provide a one-paragraph statement of what the question is? I do see that there was edit-warring over a section that referred to "Kirchnerite propaganda". To label an effort to establish a politician's image as "propaganda" is non-neutral (even if the campaign is propaganda). What is the question, briefly? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed the words "propaganda" and "cult of personality", and replaced them with politically correct terms. I hope that this will be enough to settle this discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This article has frequently, and by multiple users, been accused of serving as a mouthpiece for Cambalachero's personal, anti-Kirchner views. Some of his statements include "The supporters of the Kirchners are proud of their blind loyalty to their leaders". I have advocated for what would more or less be a rewrite of the article, which would look something like this unfinished draft, which would remove accusations and conspiracy theories against the Kirchners, which is included in this article currently; Cambalachero, however, argues against the use of the word "allegation" and "allegedly", and he says that these are "politically correct" terms that should not be used. I disagree, and believe the article should be more neutral. Someone other than Cambalachero should administer this article; he is solely responsible for its bias – take a look at this article's edit history, and that of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and you will see that he is unable to keep his personal views out of these articles. When I asked for a Third Opinion, it was mostly as a plea for help in dealing with him. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Whatever. As I had previously said, all the content of the article is referenced to reliable sources, so be more specific in your concern. Which source do you consider unreliable? Which passage do you consider a misrepresentation of the content of the source? Which reliable source says somethings that contradicts the things said here? By the way, articles do not have "administrators", I have no special autorithy over it, and never claimed to have. You deleted whole paragraphs and asked for time to write a new version, and I gave you that time (I only reverted your blanking when you stayed a whole week without touching the article anymore). You started a new section in your sandbox, and I incorporated it into the article, giving due credit. So again, if your have some concern about my behavior as a user, be more specific. Cambalachero (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's strange to see such a sudden change of tone from you; suddenly it's almost like you actually care to co-operate. Anyway, I recommend you start by removing every single reference to the book Relato K, whose author is described on the back of the book(according to goodreads.com) with the words "Pablo Mendelevich dice que el kirchnerismo es un profanador compulsivo de causas nobles." In other words, that book is clearly a non-neutral source, and I now understand where you get your influence; this rhetoric is clearly the same that plagues this article. I will now remove all sentences which are sourced solely by this book, then we can say we are done here. Apart from that, I officially give up – you're a fanatic. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The meaning of that phrase can be seen with more detail here. His point is that Kirchnerism usually takes issues with a strong social consensus, and try to turn them into factional issues on their behalf. More or less, like Chávez and Maduro when they compare their political rivals with nazis: there is a strong social consensus against nazism, and try to generate a similar one against their rivals (which, of course, are not so universally reviled). It's off-topic for the topic of this article, so let's go on. In any case, a perceived bias does not make a source to be unreliable. Reliability is not about being "completely neutral", but about having a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Mendelevich leads the journalism area of the University of Palermo (Buenos Aires), and currently works in La Nación and Radio Mitre. La Nación is the second highest sold newspaper in Argentina, and a newspaper of record, and Mitre the most heard radio. In the past, he worked in the newspapers La Razón (as the main writer), La Opinión, Puntal, and deputy editor of Clarín, the highest sold Argentine newspaper. He also worked in magazines such as Redacción, Debate, Status, Todo es Historia and Confirmado. He is also a founder of FOPEA (Forum of Argentine Journalists). He has all the credential of a respected journalist, so you need something better than just a phrase that you did not like.
 * And no, I did not change my mind. I still think that political correctness is horrible, and that we should call things by their name. Still, wikipedia is a wiki, we work by consensus, and part of that consensus is to let some minor things pass in order to achieve a version of the article that we can all be satisfied with. Cambalachero (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright, my final suggestion and offer: if you rephrase all the sentences which use Mendelevich into ones of the typoe "Mendelevich claims that..." rather than presenting them directly as facts, I'll let it pass. According to its Wikipedia article, La Nación is center-right, and goes as far as to tying the paper to the Conflict between Kirchnerism and the media. Using it as a source here, would be the same as using TeleSUR as the main source for the Hugo Chávez article – in both cases, the result is poor and one-sided. While I'm not going to object to its use here outrighright; I'm begging you to come to your senses and use source criticism. You're only citing people and papers who clearly are opposed to the Kirchners, and who fit your personal views. Just because Mendelevich has held prestigious positions, doesn't mean that he isn't biased. Also, this is not about "political correctness", it's about neutrality. I agree with you on your last point, however, that we need to compromise. Do what I have suggested, and we can get done with this. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No. See WP:ASSERT. Facts are not described as opinions, we do not say "According to Mendelevich, the sky is blue". And see WP:Equal validity, we can not compare La Nación and Telesur as if they had the same credibility. Cambalachero (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If you refuse, the POV tag stays. Sorry, but these actions of yours are unacceptable. I will immediately contact the Wikipedia administration. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You might also want to tell an admin about your potential canvassing behaviour . Your persistent removal of comments posted by others  does not help at building a collaborative environment either.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 19:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Firstly, those things are irrelevant here; we are now discussing what multiple users have described as your bias. Further, you are not one to lecture; in this dispute (not just here, but over several years on several CFK articless), your offenses are as bad, if not worse, than Cambalachero's and mine. When I removed his comment, it was done in good faith, as I believe they (clearly) belong here, and not where I filed the peer review application. Lastly, I have not been canvassing; my comment at Sushilover2000's page was a plea for technical assistance (I didn't know where to apply for admin aid, so I asked him as he had been involved in this discussion). I frankly don't see how that could be seen by anyone as an attempt at "influencing the outcome of a discussion", which is how WP defines canvassing. Like I've said countless times, leave this for now, and we'll wait for admin response. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I will be closing the Third Opinion request, because it appears that the editors are continuing to go back and forth without stating a straightforward question and that at least one of the editors considered this to be a conduct dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Changes, post-edit war
Cambalachero,

I've made some minor changes, which I think you will agree are for the better.


 * I've added the word "allegedly" (even though I know you hate it, sorry) in front of the "religious figure" claim regarding Néstor. It's good that that sentence "Accordingly to Kirchner's detractors...", but if it doesn't say "allegedly", it sounds like this Wikipedia article is written by one of those detractors, as it validates their claim – and as we both agree, Wikipedia isn't supposed to take sides.
 * I removed the wording "propaganda network" and replaced it with "pro-Kirchner network", which doesn't change its meaning, but its tone. As you said yourself, you realize that it's non-neutral, so I take it you're fine with my edit.
 * The "Opinion polls" section was named back to "Approval ratings and popular support". That title is not biased in favor of Kirchner; obviously, just because the term "popular support" contains the word "popular", doesn't mean we're describing her as such by using the former. "Popular support" means "support in the people", which you as a Spanish speaker are probably aware of. Such support may be high or low, and the term "popular support" is used in both cases. The real reason for its reinstatement is that the original wording also covered the protests against Kirchner, as well as election results. "Polls" clearly only covers polls, and is therefore insufficient for that section, in my opinion.
 * Finally, why would Kirchner be in conflict with "non-aligned media"? If it is truly non-aligned, they wouldn't take a consistent stand against her, and as such there could not, per definition, be a conflict. I don't have any specific media groups in mind when writing this, including because the term "non-aligned media" is very, very broad. If she is at conflict with someone, then they are (again, per definition) her opponents – and thus this word should be used. This is my reason for replacing one instance of "non-aligned media" with "opponents" in the article.

By the way, don't you agree that we should restructure the article somewhat? I mean, in the direction of the sandbox proposal, where for example "Social media" would go as a subsection under the main section "Personal image", while "Approval ratings" would be placed under "Political image"? I think this would make for a far cleaner and tidier article.

I appreciate the more constructive tone recently, and noticed that you apologized for the ad hominem attacks. I would also like to sincerely apologize for calling you a "fanatic" and so on; I had no reason to do so, and it was childish. Cheers.

Μαρκος Δ (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, let's finish this. Cambalachero (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Issues tag
I have amended the PoV tag to a multiple issues tag though personally I question whether the article content should not be in the main biog page. The obvious issues are 1) the lead, is it really the most notable thing about her public image that she has been parodied, has there ever been a free-world politician who has not? … 2) The entire 'Slangs' section, apart from being incorrect English, is WP:OR. No sources are offered that this is a remotely significant aspect of her image, no hint of an explanation as to why, is this unorthodox Spanish seen as excessively gender-neutral, excessively informal, excessively ignorant? What is the English reader meant to understand as to why is it important? … 3) For what is effectively a WP:BLP article, the standard of referencing is poor. … 4) there are 11 uses of ' Mendelevich' this is over-reliance on one source apart from the issue of over reliance on a single source, none of the refs names the work from which these claims are taken. Is this a book? Pincrete (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The lead is simply a summary of the article. It says, for example, that she has been parodied in TV, because there is a section about that. The "todos y todas" thing is a phrase coined by her that was incorporated into everyday language by other people, even from other countries; that a significant thing. It's not just that she has a catch phrase. And feel free to point any specific reference that you find problematic for some reason, and then we shall discuss it. The name of the book is in the "Bibliography" section, as usual. Cambalachero (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes apologies about the book. Are you really saying that among the most notable things about this politician's public image is that she has twice been parodied? If yes I suggest you immediately propose it for deletion as trivia. Where are the sources that indicate the significance of the phrase? Why are you saying here that it spread and was coined by ordinary people, in other countries, but the article just says it is incorrect Spanish? How does her coining of a phrase connect to her public image?


 * Specific points? It would be difficult to phrase the reasons for wearing 'widow's weeds' more prejudicially and it is unclear that some of that is sourced AT ALL, but do the mass of sources support that opinion? If not it is a conscious misrepresentation of the balance of available sources. Pincrete (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Why, yes, the way a politician is parodied in the media is an important part of that politician's image. It may be trivia at the main biographic article, but not here. The sources for the whole entry about the language thing are at the end of the paragraph. And note that it is not the article, or even the source, who is saying that it's incorrect Spanish, it is the Real Academia Española, a body that rules the Spanish language and has the ultimate autorithy to rule what is correct or incorrect (there is no similar body for the English language). The mere fact that the RAE adressed this phrase talks about its widespread usage. Cambalachero (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * These are the only two parodies? How was she parodied? These parodies were widely covered as affecting her image? These two parodies are more important than how or why she won several elections? I don't doubt that the phrase is 'incorrect', new uses always are, by definition. The Argentine public decried her for using a new phrase did they? They all found the use .... errrr, what? Image means how people see you, not what the RAE says about your use of a phrase.


 * The section 'Political image' starts 'Cristina Kirchner is a highly divisive political figure in Argentina', very possibly true. Divisive means some people support you strongly, some people detest you or your politics. There then follows 5 or 6 paragraphs of things some people DON'T like, some of which are just plain silly. A neologism isn't in the dictionary, … but that's why it's a neologism. It isn't good enough to say she or her supporters use 'incorrect' or 'new' Spanish. How, according to a reasonable balance of sources does that connect to her image? How did it improve, detract from or shape her image? More importantly, where exactly are the 5 or 6 balancing paragraphs about why the other people supported her strongly?


 * Frankly the only thing that this article communicates at the moment is that some people don't like her and that those people are the writers of the article. Pincrete (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * All that overreaction to the "in popular culture" is out of place. Barack Obama's article also has one, see Public image of Barack Obama. Bush even has a very specific article, Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush. As for why some people support her strongly, that should be clear: it's because they accept the "Relato K" as valid. In any case, most of that is simply a description of what is the "Relato K" and how it is distributed. Cambalachero (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Who mentioned popular culture? Do you mean the 'parodies'? The Obama section you link to is a long way down the page, not in the lead of a purportedly serious article, the Bush is a list. I don't object to mentioning satire, in fact I'm surprised there is so little (lucky lady to get off so lightly). If the examples given are especially notable, (to an uninformed English reader), I don't know why or what impact they had. If they are simply an 'in popular culture' list, then it doesn't matter, such lists IMO are just 'end of article trivia', that don't even pretend to be saying anything about the subject. Pincrete (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "In popular culture" is simply the name of the section we are talking about. Cambalachero (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't object mentioning to the satire/parodies, only to highlighting them in the lead. Bill Clinton was US president, he has featured in two press cartoons is a bit weak don't you think? UNLESS the cartoons - for example - featured a young woman in a blue dress and had a significant documented effect. I am saying that an English-speaking reader coming to this article is going to say 'So what? Every politician gets parodied' . Either these parodies are notable in some way, which is not made clear at present, or they don't belong in the lead. … … btw is an approx. translation of the neologism possible? The nearest I could get was a guess of possibly 'destituters' ie 'looters' or 'impoverishers', is the implication of the word taking, scavenging? Or possibly that they are destitute of ideas, bankrupt? Pincrete (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I never voted for any Kirchner but this article is really funny, all the argentines know that the government only have 3 channels (TV Pública, Encuentro -science, history & documentary shows- & Paka-Paka -cartoons & kids education shows-), the Clarín media group have more of 650 channels, journals, radios, etc,etc...the neologism thing is patetic, the word todas exist always, and you can read the word Destituyente also in 18th century books, if the RAE don't accept as term is another thing, to much latin america words not are accepted by the RAE...but neologism??? You say the "Relato K", and that is a neologism, a term made by the Clarín group and his journalists, maybe you can mention in some place of the article the U$S 10 millons that Lanata have thanks his labor to make Macri president, after the 2015 elections, if the international wikipedist don't know, 10 millons go from the Clarín Group bank account in the HSBC -Switzerland- to the bank account of the "independent" journalist Lanata in the HSBC bank of Miami, Florida

https://www.google.com/search?q=10+millones+para+lanata&oq=10+millones+para+lanata&aqs=chrome..69i57.3899j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=Lanata+10+millones152.170.24.22 (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)