Wikipedia:Peer review/Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner/archive1

Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe there is good reason to see it as biased, and clearly anti-Kirchner. To be frank, it appears to me like it could need a partial rewrite, by someone other than the article contributors so far, that including myself. I'm no expert on Kirchner; I simply noticed the unserious language used in this article.

The user who has so far refused revisions – and who has been the main writer behind the article – has stated, among other things, the following:


 * "The supporters of the Kirchners are proud of their blind loyalty to their leaders"


 * "... 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"

Furthermore, the article is in my opinion little other than a rant about everything said user perceives as wrong about CFK, and he/she fails to employ encyclopedic language. Naturally, there have been multiple contributors, but said user is of concern, as he/she actively blocks the article's revision.

This (very much unfinished) draft for a rewrite has been rejected by the user, due to its use of the word "alleged" when referring to allegations against Kirchner, as he/she would prefer such allegations to be stated directly as facts.

It's clear that something must be done about this.

Thanks, Μαρκος Δ (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As I have seen in the discussion, it seems that the problem is that this user prefers to use "politically correct" language, while I prefer to call a spade a spade. For instance, the sandbox version talks about an "Alleged cult of personality" and cites the BBC as a reference; but the BBC says "there is undoubtedly a personality cult centred on the current president herself" (note that by "current" they were talking about Cristina Kirchner, who was president when that article was written). So, who says that this is something "alleged"? Who disputes the existence of that cult of personality? See WP:ASSERT. Note that every sentence of the article is referenced to a reliable source. I have asked this user to focus on specific points, so I can provide any clarification required, to no avail.


 * I also find it unfair to say that I'm "blocking" the article. I'm the main contributor, so of course that I will explain my edits as needed. But this user deleted huge blocks of texts and asked for some time to write a new article, and I accepted that. I only restored the contents when a week had passed and the user had made absolutely no edits about the topic, neither in the article or elsewhere. Cambalachero (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)