Talk:Néstor Kirchner/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

unlock

shouldn't be locked if only because of the macarronic english and repetitive style, written i guess by argentineans... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.140.189.112 (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Issue with dates

I noticed that it said that Nestor Kirchner was president from 2003 to 2009, despite the fact that it said his wife was elected in 2007. In the box on the side it said he assumed office as the First Gentleman of Argentina on 10 Dec 2007, which was the date he stepped down as President, however it says his wife didn't assume office until October 28 2007. I haven't checked the other dates, but I really don't know how to use the editing tools. Last time I tried to edit something it completely messed up the page, so could someone change the date? He was president from 25-May-2003 to 10-Dec-2007

Sorry I couldn't be of more help, I'm still learning how to use Wikipedia.

Terry11 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Corrections

Corrections to the "Néstor Carlos Kirchner Ostoic" article: Who is his father? It only says he is Swiss. Nestor Kirchner, at first Intendente of Río Gallegos city, after Governor of Santa Cruz Province and finally President of Argentina Republic, is a member (and has been allways candidate) of the party "Partido Justicialista" (wich has a lot to do with the other meaning of the english word "party" -"fiesta" in spanish-). The "Partido Justicialista" was founded by Juan D. Perón (a militar who by that moment had been supporter of three dictatorships and an important member of one. After that, Perón was democratically-elected President three times, but with an interruption in his second period because of a military coup) in order to eliminate the "Partido Laborista" (a party created by the proletariat with the mission of stablishing Perón´s first candidateship for President) and concentrate in his hands the control of the entire workers movement. Perón´s presidences and his previous performance as a dictatorial government secretary had common-line facts like serious attacks to expression and press freedoms, political persecutions in parties and trade unions, intensive Hitler-style political propaganda in children public education, firms expropriations, meetings between Juan Perón and Mussolini´s staff to receive political education, etc. He died in 1974 far before ending his third presidence, being succeeded by his wife María "Isabel" Martínez, who had met Perón in a nightclub in South America were she worked as a prostitute, and was assesed during her less-than-three-years presidence (because of a new military coup in 1976) by her minister and friend José López Rega, astrologist and "wizard" who had met Perón while he worked as a showman in the mentioned nightclub. So, going back to President Kirchner, after Perón´s death "Justicialista" party has allways used Perón´s image and name as a flag, and though Kichner is member of that Peron-users party we can´t say he is a "Peronist" (from the previous lines you can get a clear explanation of the difference between "Justicialista" and "Peronista") because we don´t know his real ideas and because it is actually absurd to speak about the existence of a "Peronist" ideology. Anyway even if "Peronism" were a philosophy we should analyse Kirchner´s government decisions to put him the "peronist" title, instead of just doing it because of his memebership to the giant-ideological-diversity party called "Justicialista". And, in third place, it is clearly absurd to speak about a Peronist leader with leftist leanings, taking into account that Peron´s "regime" was full of rightist leanings, features and events. Finally, we can (and we must) search the "leftist leanings" of Kirchner in his government decisions and facts. Taking into account, for instance, his hardly-transparent agreements with the IMF and the foreign Oil companies, we get the result of a "rightist leanings" President.

---

I think we need to be careful - we shouldn't really say his family were probably Ustasha Croats unless we know. Secretlondon 15:35, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

The estonian version seems to have more stuff on his mother - but as I can't read estonian I'm not sure what it is. Secretlondon 18:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Updating the article

As it stands the article is really only about the manner of his election. 12 months on I'm sure we can add more to this.

From doing a little research his government seems to be characterised by:

• Popularism
• Coming to terms with the "Dirty War" such as repealing amnesty legislation and turning the ESMA into a museum
• The removal of various military officers
• Attacks on the IMF and other institutions
• Closer relationships with Venuzuela and Brazil
• The energy crisis and the formation of a state energy company

Does anyone else want to contribute to this? Secretlondon 18:50, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

- Designated Ministers with hard-line socialist (international) tendencies in the 1970s. Some of them even jailed in 1976.

- Economic recovery, so increased popular hope and electoral success (2005).

--Zzzzzzus 14:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)zzzzzzus

Peronist Party is a very complex phenomena. It is not a leftist neither a rightist party. In fact, is more like an unmbrella movement that covers a broad political spectrum. President Kirchner is clearly on the center-left part of the spectrum. The only thing that all Peronist governments have had in common is a broad support from the working class, notwithstanding the ideology.

-A comment for the first commenter of this discussion: I really don't see the relevance to this discussion of your comment about the Peronist "Party" as "fiesta". Of course it is not like American or European parties, it is a truly Latinamerican party. You may not like that, but you can't deny it represents a really large group of Argentine population. Is that democratic, or not? JorgeLuis 03:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Full payment to the IMF

I have trimmed down a bit the new paragraph by Sanmarcos regarding the payment to the IMF announced yesterday (15 Dec 2005):

"It has been said that both Brazil and Argentina had been planning on canceling their debt separately, but the Argentine government chose to do it after the initial acceptance of Brazil´s proposition in the worlwide financial market. The move to independicize Argentina from the IMF, long seen as a `leech` to Argentina´s economy, was widely accepted by society, subsequently rising Kirchner´s popularity by a few, but significant percentage points."

Some of these things need to be sourced. The last part seems rather dubious; the announcement was made only yesterday in the afternoon, and there's no way to measure the acceptance of society, though of course every economist, politician and self-appointed analyst has given an opinion already in the newspapers. I'll gather some of those and post them on Economy of Argentina and/or Argentine debt restructuring; this (Kirchner's) article is not really the best place. Maybe there should be an article Relations between Argentina and the International Monetary Fund... Sounds like the title for a tragicomedy. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It would look much more like a tragedy than a comedy... Say, it would be good to ad something about the loose of importance of the IMF after Russia, Brazil and Argentina (the 3 biggest debts) canceled their debts in order to gain national political and economical freedom. Mariano(t/c) 11:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

By now you've probably seen what I wrote already. I'm trying not to be POV, and trying very hard not to be editorial. Argentine debt restructuring is a bit incoherent now, but I suggest we leave some things as they are until the payment is effectively done and the calculations and speculations on consequences are finished. I'll try to touch up the verb tenses and get something done on Economy of Argentina and Argentine economic crisis. Maybe this thing could be split into its own article one of these days, if it keeps growing. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It's OK, you'll have more (an more stable/reliable) info soon, no need to have everything hourly updated. Good to have someone not so sports-centered! ;o) Mariano(t/c) 12:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Croatian Mother

Newspaper Nacional article New President of Argentina of Croatian descent: "His mother is Marija Ostioć from Punta Arenas, where a croatian comunity from Brač is located." Mariano(t/c) 08:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

History

It is widely known that Kirchner is said to be a former member of a proto-guerilla organization called Montoneros.

No, it's not widely known. Menem accused him of being so, but that's not enough to add it to the article. Mariano(t/c) 09:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Montoneros was a violence-motivated group with a lot or persons taking different roles in the organization (known by them as the "Orga"), so it is not easy to say who was part of Montoneros, as it is not clear in some cases. Probably Kirchner was not a Montoneros officer, but a supporter and a friend of the Organization. This was considered a Montonero member anyway by the Armed Forces and also by some montoneros.--WikiDCM 13:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Kirchner was a member of the "Juventud Peronista" (Peronist Youth), a peaceful left-wing student organization during the 1970's in Argentina.

Some members of the JP also had ties to Montoneros (which was also left-wing and peronist, though more violent and radical), however a large majority of the JP did not have ties to this group.

Menem's accusations have never been proven, and are widely regarded as a desperate attempt to damage Kirchner's image during the presidential campaign. Nothing more, nothing less.

--Lobizón 00:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

First, It's not fully correct to say that Montoneros was a left-wing organization, as the founders were related to Tacuara, a well-known right-wing university group. The overall classification of peronist groups (especially those formed by young people) is not easy to establish.

Second, "desperate attempt" is a subjective affirmation. I don't think it is a desperate attempt, because the issue is actually argueable, as it is not proved nor disproved. Moreover, it is not "widely regarded" as you said: many people think there was a connection between Kirchner and Montoneros back in 70's. In fact, some Montoneros are part of its staff. WikiDCM 15:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

POV and bias to be discussed

I've reverted changes made by Deriva (talk · contribs) and invited said user to discuss in this talk page. I contend that while the article maybe biased, those changes have simply introduced a different bias. The article is now fairly "correct" in the factual level. We need a well-thought discussion and a consensus to work on the finer points. For the opinions on Kirchner, we need sources (many sources, from a variety of POVs). We're not trying to prove anything about Kirchner, Menem, Duhalde, or anyone else, just trying to get the facts right. One thing I would propose is to eliminate all kinds of causal speculation or analysis on topics such as the effects of Menem's policies, comparisons with K's policies, etc. The reader can find that kind of analysis, more in depth, in other articles. This one is already rather long. I'd also have the words "left" and "right" erased, except when quoting someone's opinion directly. They're ridiculous oversimplifications and simply don't work for Argentina. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

POV and bias

I have reverted Pablo's reversion of my editing and am now here to discuss such editings. The main purpose is to eliminate judgement or bias and also to adjust some inaccurate statements. I discuss them here:

1) I eliminate the reference to Kirchner controlling Hyperinflation through monetary policy while being a governor in Sta. Cruz, since inflation is a currency effect of economy prices and cannot be controlled by provincial monetary policy. Only country wide monetary policy can have an effect on a currency price as a whole.

2)I eliminate best and lowest as refered to distribution of wealth and poverty in Santa Cruz, since you say in the next line that it was second to Buenos Aires (if it is second, it cannot be best).

3)I eliminate far-reaching as referred to the neo-liberalism model, since it is an adjective and therefore an opinion.

4) The expression careful is also an adjective and not necesarily true.

5) Not speculation is lso not necesari9ly correct since it is an opinion and also it is known that Kirchner did support some speculation (an government level speculation was to move the state funds outside of the country to avoid devaluation).

6) I changed "later tried to imitate" since there is no proof of causality to this statement, it is just an opinion.

7) I also edited "to confront the problems facing the country because it is a campaign statement and not necessarily what the quoted division of the Peronist party stood for or did.

I have to leave now but will continue with the comments later.

Deriva, it's clear from this and from the comments in your talk page that you don't understand what the "spirit of Wikipedia" is (as you called it). This is an open encyclopedia but not a forum for opinions. Did you even read what I wrote above? Did you read any of the policies that Wikipedia editors are supposed to comply with? There are many things in the article that could be deleted, reworded or fixed. Nobody owns this page, but editors who have been working here for some time have the right to disagree with your changes. That's why we have a talk page, to try to form a consensus. I'll respond to the seven points above now:

1) Needs a source (what economic measures did Kirchner take?) but it's not obviously wrong.

2) OK, should be expressed correctly.

3) Adjectives are not only opinions, and not necessarily biased. I'd say most people would call Menem's neoliberal measures "far-reaching", either for the good or for the bad. Or would you say that 10 years of neoliberalism can be erased in a few years?

4) I don't remember where that was, but see above.

5) It's very clear what speculation means. The national economy under Menem/Cavallo was practically designed to aid financial speculation. When speculative funds began entering Argentina again, Lavagna put up controls to avoid short-term financial speculation. Again, could be better expressed but it's not wrong.

6) Probably OK to delete that.

7) Completely OK, but what you wrote in its place was also biased. The causes of the split of the PJ should be dealt with elsewhere. I'd say K took advantage of the de facto breakup of the party, but that's my opinion only. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I now continue with the reasoning behind my changes, but let me first react to your discussion of my previous points. I agree with almost all you say except for:

My original point 1, was that saying that "kirchner as a governor "concentrated on eliminating hyperinflation through monetary policy and deregulation, which Carlos Menem, who was elected president in 1989, had been doing at the national level" is wrong and should be deleted. And it does not need a quote since, control of hyperinflation (which is a national currency issue) cannot be done at the level of provincial monetary policy. Inflation is an effect of relative prices on a country currency and does not have any relationship with provincial monetary policies. This is conceptually wrong: how can you affect the international price of the peso directly through monetary policies (control of the levels of circulation of currency and similar acts) at the provincial level? It is theoretically incorrect and not a matter of opinion. Therefore I think that statement should not be included.

In point 7 I agree both mine and the other point could be seen as biased and therefore propose trimming the phrase to end at "an initiative supported by Kirchner" without qualifying it.

Now to the rest of my suggested changes:

8) Saying "This measures did nothing to stop the Argentine aconomic collapse" when refering to the measures by De la Rua, implies an opinion that there was a situation of imminent collapse when he took office that is not necessarily much more than an opinion and that could be confronted with many opposing views from all sides of the political spectrum. Therefore, it is better to say, as demonstrated by the quick debacle of the economy, that his measures helped promote the collapse.

9)Saying "sinking the heavily import-dependant argentinean economy even deeper" when referring to the devaluation is problematic. What is dependant on imports are consumer prices not the economy. The discontent had to do with the natural rage of a population that suddenly became constrained in its consumption patterns. But note that the argentine economy is really export dependant since its per capita income is attatched to cycles of expansion in exports of agricultural products. A lot of the actual expansion actually has to do with this. Therefore, it is better not top express this in this confusing way, or better to avoid it in whole.

10)I would also avoid qualifying the religious aspects of the judges elected since the fact that a judge is an avowed atheist is a charged image for many readers and therefore a source of bias.

11) Finally, I eliminated "in a historical decision" as a qualifier for the payment to the IMF because it suggests positive or really trascendental implications and therefore introduces bias. I do not see a need to qualify the payment unless someone wants to make a serious analysis of it, and that is possible a theme for another page.

Hope some of this helps make the page better. I have not make the changes directly this time, since they were already reverted twice.

Some of these things I have already changed or deleted. A province really does not have a monetary policy (though it can do some things e. g. about the availability of cash) and the phrase was too general to begin with, so that's gone. I changed "did nothing to stop" to "did not work to stop", though your criticism is valid. Note however that, when De la Rúa took office, Argentina was already in recession or on the brink of it, and the government concentrated on contractive measures from the start. Then came the corralito, etc. On the whole, the measures were intended to stop the collapse of the economy and all the economic analysts and the IMF were recommending them. I don't remember any major economist recommending an alternative course of action. Note also that "economic collapse" doesn't refer only to the critical period November 2001 - February 2002, but to the whole recessive period (1999-2002) and some time before and after. We should agree on a phrase that links De la Rúa's measures with the crisis without falling into any of:

1. "... did not work to stop the economic collapse."
2. "... ended up precipitating the economic collapse."
3. "... ultimately caused the economic collapse."
4. "... were intended to cause the economic collapse." (!!)
5. "... had nothing to do with the economic collapse" (!!!)

Then the "import-dependent" thing. Consider this: right after the devaluation, neighboring countries had to help us get medicine. The public hospital where I worked initially could not get X-ray film from the providers, and then only by paying in cash (and in dollars). Argentina then and still now is incapable of sustaining economic growth without importing certain forms of technology. I'd say that's rather import-dependent, though we may be speaking of different things. What do you propose?

What's the problem with the religious aspects of the Supreme Justices? The previous justices were all old, male, and ideologically conservative, and in addition some had ties to the right wing of the Catholic Church. And now two of them are women, one is the president of the Court and the other is a militant atheist in her own words. The clarification is intended to show the reader that the changes introduced in the Supreme Court were really important. Argibay's atheism in particular was even reported as a salient fact in international media. In a country where the Church attacks anyone who dares speak of women's rights, having these two women at the top of one of the country's government branches is extremely significant.

The qualification "historical" for the payment to the IMF is that (correct me if I'm wrong) Argentina had never decided to pay so much to the IMF or anyone else, not only at the same time but also ahead of schedule; and this payment has re-defined the relationship of Argentina with the IMF and swept with many assumptions about the economic future of the country that were valid before the payment.

I'm glad we're discussing this here civilly. Understand that no-one here is (that I know) affiliated with a party or a person (if someone is, it doesn't show), and that we don't have an ideological police, or a bureaucracy that you have to go through before correcting what you believe is wrong in an article; but when an article is not very new and deals with an important topic, you have to consider that most of the content is "settled" already and should be treated carefully, to avoid being (or being seen as) disruptive. It's perfectly OK for us to discuss over the tiniest details here.

Please sign after your comments and replies (here) using four tildes (~~~~). When you save the page they'll be converted to your username and current date/time. It's easier to keep track that way. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Partisan?

This is for Bakersville (talk · contribs): please don't use edit summaries to launch accusations. If an anonymous editor removes something just saying it's POV and you don't believe it is, explain it here. Most importantly, if you really believe that "the whole article is ridiculously partisan", then you should be rewriting it completely. By expressing yourself like that, you're deriding the work of all the previous contributors. If you have a problem with Kirchner, there are plenty of forums where you can talk about that. This article aims to show 1) verifiable facts about Kirchner and 2) opinions about Kirchner verifiably expressed by notable people in notable public media. It's not a place to denounce or exalt Kirchner. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: I've edited the reference to cronyism. References for the "many accusations" are needed. Then also, saying that K has been "accused of cronyism" and then beginning the next sentence with "His cronies are..." is a terrible display of POV. We also need references for the origin of the use of "penguin" for K supporters/cronies/whatever; I've always thought it was due to its Patagonic origins. Does someone know when the term was first used in the media? —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer: The Kirchner article is undeniable positive in its tone as the article on Menem is undeniable negative. It is not my intention to denounce or exalt anybody. Included two references from newspapers. Just wanted to add that paragraph to give a more fair and balanced view on his leadership style. It is not my intention to rewrite anything completely, as obviously somebody took time to put together this information; and while it portrays a very positive view on Kirchner anyone has the right to present it at he/she see fits.

My reversion of "controversial payment to the IMF"

I've reverted the addition of a reference to the "controversial" nature of the IMF payment. There's plenty of info about it in Argentine debt restructuring that we cannot include in here to make this a proper and balanced reference - if we want to keep it short. Moreover, the editor wrote "historical but controversial", as if those two things were on the same plane and opposed to each other. I'll make a link to the proper place. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The decision was historical and controversial -- Both references are balanced and should be included.

Additional thoughts to consider adding

I think we need to add a reference to the fact that he seems to be in a crusade against the military (J)

We also need to reflect the fact that his personal style is such that is looking for a fight(J)

Need to mention that during his tenure he has reverted the privatization process (Aguas Argentina, Enarsa, etc.) -- It is fact the participation of the state in the economy has gone up substantially since he came to power. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.232.213.103 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 30 May 2006.

It's difficult to explain how completely inappropriate and unencyclopedic it would be to call Kirchner's stance with the military "a crusade". My opinion is that he has been confrontational, which might not be such a bad idea when a group of military people gather to insult him and to celebrate state terrorism. We need to have verifiable and well-expressed opinions, quoted as such; what we have is shallow criticism like this and rather biased like this. My personal bias (note that I'm stating it explicitly): the military is not a branch of the national government; it's an instrument of the state, and its Commander in Chief is the President, so if he deems necessary to remind them in strong terms that are to be utterly subservient to its CiC, he's fully entitled to do so. Back to the idea of a "crusade against the military", note that even the guy in La Nación acknowledges that "the hypothesis... that Kirchner wants to finish off the Armed Forces seems without grounds... [T]his year the Army's budget has increased from 120 to 280 million pesos."

Kirchner has not reverted the privatization process. Each of the re-statized companies has committed multiple violations of their concession contracts (we can argue that they would've gotten away with it under other governments, while K's jumped at them at the very first opportunity — but that'd be speculation and original research). Most of the things privatized in the 1990s are still in private hands and there's no plan (that we know of) to re-nationalize them. The government is also trying to develop certain fields (e. g. trains) through concessions to private companies, not by creating state companies (with the exception of the strategically important field of oil survey and exploitation).

All the above can be mentioned, of course, without making it sound as if K had a horrible plan to turn Argentina into a Soviet state or something. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

With respect to Aguas Argentinas, the contract violations can be discussed at large from both sides of the issue. The result is that the company is now in the hands of the Argentinean government. If that is good or bad policy, it can also be discussed. Many countries have state owned water and sewage treatment plants and they are not "Soviet States". It's just better to call things for what they are.

Super K

Shouldn't we have something about the Ley de Super-poderes? After all, it reflects one of hte biggest critics to his style. Mariano(t/c) 07:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

User:For Our Nation's Honor changed the article into a redirect to Emperor Penguin while disguising it as minor edits with plausible explanations. I don't know how to report the user for any banning etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongreilf (talk • contribs)

You should place a warning in his/her talk page. You can learn how in WP:VAND or WP:-(

But you shouldn't care much, in a couple of weeks he will be crowned officially and there'll be no problem

For Our Nation's Honor 19:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha funny. The user above has been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. I'm keeping the comment above just for the record. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed redirect (9/30) but picture seems to be messed up. User talk:Bakersville

Fixed that. Our friend created several "disposable" accounts just to use them one after another for vandalism. I've semi-protected the page again. I only regret that so many good usernames are being used up. What does a vandal do when not vandalizing, I wonder? Damn, it's Saturday night and I'm tagging sockpuppets... —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 03:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup, protection

I've placed the references inside the text for better tracking, following the newest convention (see WP:CITE and around there). The text is getting a bit messy; in particular, some of the "personal style and ideology" is difficult to separate from the review of the presidential policies. I also don't like how the article is turning into a series of opinions by one or another newspaper, and especially how Kirchner is presented as a left-wing anti-market autocrat -- which may be true according to U.S. right-wing newspapers, but hardly reflects the whole picture. I mean, Kirchner is also criticized by the Argentine left, so he must be doing something unfitting for a proper left-wing anti-market autocrat. :) I intend to work on this and ask others to help some pretty extensive changes. I want to add and re-arrange, rather than remove.

PS: I just saw again Mariano's comment about the superpoderes. Yes, we should have an explanation of those. As of now, everything there is is one largely exaggerated phrase by The Economist.

Then there's the issue of semi-protection. Should I lift it? —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The Economist is a very well regarded international publication. I don't find it largely exaggerated. You are most welcome to quote another source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bakersville (talk • contribs) 09:56, 21 September 2006.

I didn't say anything about the quality of The Economist, but I have to note that it is a right-wing economic newspaper, and that it is an exaggeration to say that Kirchner can now manipulate the budget "as he sees fit". What Kirchner can and cannot do, and does and does not do, with his attributions, must be explained in detail, not through a one-liner.

Please add new comments after, not inside, other people's, and sign them with four tildes ~~~~ —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of sad that you think that see everything through the lenses of something being right-wing or left-wing.

Could you please sign your comments, and moreover, contribute or criticize the article instead of feeling sorry for me (which is rather rude)? "Right-wing" is a common generalization. Many articles cited here call Kirchner "left-wing" and "populist", which are two rather vague terms as well. I'd rather do away with such terms completely, myself, but I think they are useful for quick discussion, when semantic rigor is not an absolute requirement as in articles. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, Bakersville, it is already rather obvious that you're definitely not pro-Kirchner. Since neither am I, I think we should be able to agree without removing perfectly sourced comments. I have no idea if you can read Spanish, but in case you don't, and for the benefit of others, I will translate some of the relevant text from La Nación:

The meeting was behind closed doors and lasted over 45 minutes... Listening [to Kirchner] were the executives of six multinational corporations: Exxon Mobile, Barrick Gold, Occidental Petroleum, AES, Lockheed Martin, Cargill; of a investment fund, Eton Park; and the heads of two Argentine firms: Paolo Rocca, of Tenaris, and Jorge Brito, of Banco Macro. According to consul and organizer Héctor Timmerman and Minister of Federal Planning Juli De Vido, the businessmen listened, took note..., did not ask anything, thanked [Kirchner] for his economic management and announced investments.

The head of Occidental oil company, Ray Iraní, remarked that he is planning to increase its production in Santa Cruz...

Barrick Gold's CEO, Gregory Wilkins, complimented the government... His company is waiting for a San Juan commission to complete the environmental studies to activate its mining operations...

... Cargill noted that it is planning to invest US$330 million in [Argentina].

—Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I read Spanish (but thanks anyhow for your effort translating the paragraph), and it is not clear to me from the "La Nación" article that it merits to say that Kirchner was generally well received. The article continues with the title "sin analistas financieros". By reading the whole article I would say that the reception was mixed. In the press in New York the reception wasn't that great, apart from the WSJ editorial (which anyhow is always critical of Kirchner) the tabloid New York Post was also rather negative. That's not a personal criticism of Kirchner, it is just a conclusion based on facts. Not need to get testy. And coming back to your depiction of The Economist as a biased "right wing" magazzine, please note that The Economist endorsed the candidacies of Al Gore and John Kerry in the last US presidential elections. —User:Bakersville

As you implied (I'm digressing), "right" and "left" really don't say much in and of themselves, and certainly not across borders. Judging from what I hear and opinions I've read, and based on Argentine standards, Republicans would be the extreme right and Democrats the moderate right on most respects. I didn't mean that The Economist is wrong, only that it exaggerated K's control of the economy somehow, and that it seems like they're criticizing his policies just because they violate their idea of what "proper" capitalism should be, i.e. for ideological reasons. The positive view of Argentine economy on the part of a number of CEOs and their willingness to invest (more) in Argentina seemed necessary to point out, as these are pragmatic individuals -- they're not going to stop investing just because K doesn't like free markets, and they're not going to invest if Argentina is doing things wrong, regardless of how much K sugar-coats the pill talking about capitalism to look less leftist. The visit to NY did bring some benefits (mostly PR, but that counts), which the article at present overlooks, alongside the criticism. I defer to you on how to phrase it; I don't wish to argue on a minor point.

I repeat my question above: Should I unprotect the page? Since we're working on it, it seems best to do so (cautiously), so others can contribute as well. I can semi-protect it again if vandals strike. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of cronyism

I've just removed the following:

Kirchner has been accused of cronyism for his tendency to appoint friends and family members to high level cabinet positions (for instance, appointing his sister Alicia Kirchner as Minister of Social Development).

Since a user added a {{fact}} tag to this, I set out to look for sources of this "accusation". There were none; so I followed the rules. Sure, a couple of blog posts and fringe political groups accused Kirchner of nepotism (which I also searched for) and cronyism, but there was not one op-ed about it, nor any media reports of other politicians or political analysts. In some cases I found (very Argentine-typical) characterizations of Peronism as based on cronyism since its inception.

If some notable character has actually gone on record denouncing Kirchner's choice of collaborators, please reinstate the text above, with the source. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

172 edits

The IMF reference is much better worded now. But the comparison with other Latam leaders is always contentious. Not all leaders with a self proclaim left leaning are similar. Vazquez and Bachelet are very different to Chavez and Morales. There are different opinions where Kirchner stands in this spectrum and they should be reflected in the article. Bakersville 22:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits.

I would like to ask the contributors of this article to avoid pushing their versions without respecting other people's contributions.

172, you removed a {{cleanup}} tag I added. In my edition I pointed out that the article needs some work, specially in the tone, its content, and references. You removed it asking for for an explanation of the tag, which in turn is not an explanation for having the tag removed.

Do you really consider the article doesn't need a clean up? You could have brought the issue to the talk page instead. Yes, I could also add a section here detailing what I mean with 'tone, context and references', but I believe you failed to assume good faith in my doing.

I truly consider the article needs perhaps not an entiry re-write, but definitelly a clean-up. For instance, the opening section includes a misplaced paragraph (Responding to pundits...) some poor writting (governor of a remote Patagonian province) and even a potentialy biased paragraph, claiming that the poverty increased sharply before him, and then also sharply dropped during his mandate (probably an efect of an abrupt crisis such as the one that ocurred in Argentina). Also, important info has been lost, such as the beef restrictions, probably due to the size of 172's edits.

--Mariano(t/c) 17:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, please offer explanations before you insert tags in articles or promptly after flagging them. Why is referring to Kirchner as a "governor of a remote Patagonian province" before his election as president poor writing? Kirchner was the governor of Santa Cruz Province, which is a remote territory in Patagonia with a partly subantarctic climate. The fact that he was a "governor of a remote Patagonian province" offers insight as to why he was unknown shortly before the presidential election in 2003. There is also no disputing that poverty increased following the economic crisis in late 2002 and has been falling under Kirchner's mandate. Regarding the beef restrictions, I removed content on the restrictions placed under 'ideology and leadership style.' Expanding the content on the restrictions where it is relevant elsewhere in the article is fine 172 | Talk 18:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Cows are good so what?

Article states:
Among other things, Chávez and Kirchner agree that "cows are good"
This is taken completely out of context. I suggest either explaining economical deals between Venezuela and Argentina (that involved cows at some point) or leaving out the statement. --Ben ^T/_C 10:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Billions, and decimal points

In the section on "Governor of Santa Cruz" the deficit at the time is given as: "1.200 million USD". This has two problems:

• In English, the decimal point is a period '.' and the thousands-separator is a comma ','; in other languages this is reversed. (So for example, there are 5,280 feet in a mile and 1,000 meters in a kilometer; and pi is 3.14159... not 3,14159...) I suspect that the deficit was $1,200 million, that is, 1.2 Billion (US) or 1.2 x 10^9.
• In American English, one thousand million is one billion, so we would write $1.2 Billion (see Billion) but 1,200 million $US would be unambiguous.

The Spanish language Wiki gives 1.200 millones de dólares (it doesn't say "$US") so I'll change the text here. Pete St.John 14:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I think that the "First gentleman" part should be removed from the infobox, as it isn't a political office. It is neither an elective office (like that of Presidents, deputies or governors) nor one with real and influential power (like a minister or a judge). It is just a protocolar role, with no political importance at all save for greeting people in ceremonies. MBelgrano (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy

I'm having a few problems with the last two paragraphs in this section. Even though El Mundo is sourced, I think saying "it was confirmed" is a bit of an overstatement. I've been living in Argentina for the last ten years and, cosidering argentine's media lack of scruples when it comes to bashing the government, I have never heard of this. I'm pretty sure it would have been a bit of an issue here if it was properly "confirmed". I couldn't find another source for this. Please, if someone can find one, I believe it would be really useful to give this paragraphs credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.148.107 (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed from "criticysm"

I've removed this:

The magazine The Economist is among Kirchner's foreign critics. In an August 2006 article, it stated, "Kirchner appointed a majority of the judges on the Supreme Court, then gained an effective veto over lower court nominations ... and on August 3, 2006 the Congress gave him authority to reallocate government spending as he sees fit."

There are several things wrong here: The court is widely regarded as impartial, even by the opposition. So it's wrong to use this as a proof of something. To understand why he had to appoint judges there would be the need to explain the context (Menem expanding the court adding friends as judges). The other point is that the Congress didn't give him authority to reallocate funding as he saw fit, there were limits. He could reallocate upto a percentage. If somebody wants something written about all this, I suggest he look for a more trustworthy source. Niqueco (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation?

I tried fixing the IPA per WP:IPA for Spanish, but this isn't an easy one. Anyone know for sure how it's pronounced? — kwami (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The "correct" way to pronounce it in Spanish would be exactly as the current IPA version. However, beign such a strange juxtaposition of consonants it is usually rendered as Kirshner (as in the previous IPA version). The "hypercorrect" pronounciation would be, of course "Kirjner", but it is rarely used. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 17:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

i think the previous one was better than the current one... i try to pronounce the "tʃ" and it's impossible task. i don't think anyone would pronounce it that way. sorry.--camr ^nag 18:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put it back. If anyone can come up with a ref, that would be helpful. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

with my little understanding of the german language, i believe it should be pronounced like "kirjner". but the thing is that there's not a uniform pronounciation here. some people say "kirschner" (me), some say "kirjner", "kirchner", "kischner", and so on. that's the main problem.--camr ^nag 20:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't interested in how it was pronounced in German, but how it's pronounced in Spanish. If there isn't a set Spanish pronunciation, then perhaps we shouldn't transcribe it at all, or note that it isn't settled. How do the Kirchners say it? — kwami (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

ok... i can't find it anywhere, but she keeps referring to her own husband by his last name. maybe you can find it in youtube. anyway, your proposition ("no set pronounciation") is just as good...--camr ^nag 18:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Reactions

A side comment, before I forget: Todo Noticias has recently mentiones that the words "Néstor Kirchner" were the most seeked words in Google. If this is confirmed, some printed or online source will surely mention this as well, and may be interesting to be pointed MBelgrano (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Section "Criticism and controversy"

Most sources claim that the shortage of water supply in Mar del Plata in May 2009 was the result of an accident; as per WP:UNDUE, the paragraph should be removed.--Darius (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the last 3 paragraphs should be removed from the section. Those types of sections should be about only opinions of sources, X, Y and Z saying that Kirchner was a bad president for certain reasons, and A, C and C saing that he was a good one for other reasons. Specific facts (things that, for good or evil, simply took place) should be mentioned only when they help to give context to an opinion, facts themselves don't act as opinions. Such facts, either embarrasing or auspicious, belong at the sections that are part of his biography, as long as their inclusion is not given undue weigth.

Besides, we should mention as well the opinions of other notable people that had a good opinion of him. It may be better to avoid those stated on those days, as the death of someone influence people into being deferential and silence their critics for the time being, only grossly ill-mannered misfits would openly manifest their disputes with a dead man during his funeral. But even if we skip recent opinions, support for Kirchner existed, it was not a minority opinion (I mean, not to the point of being left out of wikipedia, according to current policies) and should be adressed as well. MBelgrano (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

unneeded "protection"

Open up the article ! --Tomjknr1 (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

why? you can edit it... unless you want to do it anonymously...--camr ^nag 14:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I can not. --Tomjknr1 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The protection on the article will end on November 17, by then Kirchner won't be in the public spotligth so much as now, and will be less likely to atract vandalism. In the meantime you can use {{Edit protected}} on this talk page, or simply explain which changes to make (or even provide us with a proposed text for some specific section) MBelgrano (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Is not a good idea to open the article now. --Neo139 (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Translation

These article mentions somethign about his death: [1][2][3]Lihaas (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of corruption: The Kirchners' sudden wealth increase

From 2003 to 2009 the Kirchners made millions of dollars on skecthy real estate deals.

The UK-based telegraph reports that:

They accumulated a substantial property portfolio and other assets on which they reaped spectacular returns. From 2003 to 2009, their wealth is estimated to have risen from $1.7m to $12m.

The trouble was that many Argentines assumed that this wealth had been acquired corruptly, the result, it was claimed, of using influence over local authorities for financial gain http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/politics-obituaries/8090849/Nstor-Kirchner.html

I'm looking to add this into the article. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.123.4.230 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks like the page is protected and I cannot add it.

In any case here's another report which states that since the Kirchners took office in 2003 (Nestor first) their wealth increased by a facor of 700%

Please somebody add this info into this article.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.123.4.230 (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That is only the tip of the iceberg. The "Criticisms and controversy" section is absurdly short for someone like Kirchner. If you speak Spanish, watch this video to get a picture of how vast the corruption allegations actually are: http://molina-in.blogspot.com/2010/10/in-memoriam-kirchner-robando.html Kwertii (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's stick to reliable sources (not blogs). Do you have any to back up those allegations?

BTW, since you're already registered, maybe you could add this stuff into the article.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.123.4.230 (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Likeminas (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Death section

Just an opinion as an outside reader: Watching and reading the article, I get the impression that the "Death" section is getting extremely large; I would say disproportionally large compared to the rest of the article. An encyclopedic article should have balance in its structure, and I am afraid that this balance is in the process to be lost here. Recent developments and news should be reflected in an encyclopedic article, but they should not dominate it. His death is one of the issues that should be mentioned in the article in a comprehensive way, but not as if we have to do with a newspaper reporting every detail as regards his death, funeral, diplomatic missions participating etc. etc.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment on an edit comment I just saw in the article's history: " Please post your concern in the talk page before, are you proposing a "Kirchner death" article ??? we cant mention only one reaction." My question is: Why do you feel that you have to mention every single reaction?! This is no book for condolences. This is an encyclopedic article.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

We are not mentioning every single reaction, feel free to do a google news query and check yourself --Jor70 (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I support the creation of such an article. It is a valid fork of a section that's growing more than it should be in this article, and it's an event clearly notable in itself. MBelgrano (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Jor70, "Death" is the only section in the article with 4 subsections! I repeat: 4 subsections only for his death! The rest of the article has 56 citations, while this section has 51 on its own!!! Somebody reading the article gets the impression that the most notable event in Kirchner's life was his death! This is not logical; this is not accurate; this is not fair for Kirchner himself! It seems like his death overshadows everything else. This is the issue here; not google news! What has google news to do with what I am talking about?--Yannismarou (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

One of my customs around here, when I'm unsure of which is the best way to manage something in an article, is to check some other more visible article where a relative similar issue was at hand. The death can be managed as done with Pope John Paul II#Death and funeral (article section) and Funeral of Pope John Paul II (fork article).

Note, before you start screaming, that I'm not comparing Kirchner with John Paul II, only the reactions to their deaths (beyond the specific diferences, they were both heads of state, or something close to it, their deaths generated a myriad of reactions and condolences, and they took place in real-time for wikipedia editors, as opposed to massive funerals that are long ago archived in history) MBelgrano (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

We were talking about reactions, that the reason I mentioned google news. I agree that his life is not fully covered as his death so until someone complete his life work seems to me not fair to delete all the good work already done with his funeral coverage so I suppose Funeral of Nestor Kirchner would be in place --Jor70 (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the info to Death and state funeral of Néstor Kirchner. We can keep that as main article, and reduce the section here to a summary. By the way, a side effect of his death is that there are now many biographies of Néstor Kirchner at hand, better than newspaper talking about the news of the day, so expanding the body of the article should be easier now. I have kept one of those, and will use it later. MBelgrano (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Edition on Political terms for Argentinian context

I have seen that the article regarding Nestor Kirchner is semi-protected. Even though I made some edits where there is a paragraph that states:

Kirchner participated early on in the Justicialist movement (followers of the populist former President, Juan Perón) as a member of the Young Peronists, whose left-wing radicalism was strongly opposed to the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance and other rightist influences then dominating President Isabel Perón's domestic policy.

The word radicalism in the Argentine political background is not suitable to define Kirchner's views, since Radicalismo (Spanish for radicalism) in Argentine politics means the ideological dogma of the Unión Cívica Radical, which in fact is the historical opposition to Peronism.

Although the redirection clearly derives towards radicalization, within an Argentine context it is completely off-subject. I suggest to employ the word militancy, which in fact is used in the Argentine Spanish political vocabulary (militancia).

Plus, the term Young Peronists, is not the proper one since the Juventud Peronista or simply JP, should be translated into Peronist Youth.

I also edited this text: He in turn, also held close personal ties to right-wingers, notably Nélida Cremona, a conservative Peronist and Kirchner's godmother, and Manuel López Lestón, a former official in General Alejandro Lanusse's dictatorship, and Kirchner's uncle.

The term conservative in Argentina stands for the word conservador and is aplyied in particular to those adherents to the elitist and oligarchical goverments (See: National Autonomist Party and National Democratic Party (Argentina) prior to the emergence of Peronism (In Spanish: los conservadores) and were in general oponents to the first Peronist regime. In think that the word "orthodox Peronist" is the suitable since it is the expression applyied to those faithfull and loyal adherents to Juan Perón's beliefs (In Spanish peronistas ortodoxos), generally represented as the right wing of the movement.Periptero (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Guilt by association

I have recently removed the following paragraph from the early years, which was later restored: "He also had close personal ties to right-wingers such as Nélida Cremona, an orthodox Peronist who was his godmother and his uncle Manuel López Lestón, a former official in General Alejandro Lanusse's dictatorship."

This should be left out from the article. First, the relation with Lannuse is not clear, it's more like a guilt by association fallacy: the mere fact of being in the army of having an authority role in a state organization during someone's government does not mean, just by itself, to be related with the government or support it (there's a sligth difference between state and government). The accurate thing would be to say that Manuel López Leston was official, period.

Second, even if Manuel Leston was truly supporting Lanusse, we are talking about his relatives. Of couse he had "close personal ties" with them, but in those cases the political ideas are left in a secondary level. Even if his uncle was Lanusse himself, having a close relation with him wouldn't mean anything about Kirchner's own political ideas. MBelgrano (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation

Can Spanish speakers say /rʃn/ or will they want to put a vowel after the /r/? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

/rʃn/ is correct, though argentine people pronounce former president's last name in many different ways.--Mónica Cervantes (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks profile

Could someone integrate the personality desciption about Kirchner on wikileaks into the article? [4]

thnx IKKe37b (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. Private reports that were not intended to be public but got exposed into public knowledge are not reliable sources They were not meant to be sources of anything to begin with. MBelgrano (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

i dont think that should go into the article. but i do think that an eventual cable giving reliable sources could be used. that those cables "were not intended to be public but got exposed into public knowledge" is neither here nor there regarding wp rule breaching...--camr ^nag 16:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The leaked cables cannot provide reliable sources because they are not reliable sources themselves. --IANVS (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WP rules require sources to have been published after passing a peer review, or published by reputable printing houses that would check the material before publication. This helps to filter potencial libel: if something is published by, for example, a major national newspaper, it may be unlikely that it would generate trials of libel or defamation. When I said that they "were not intended to be public but got exposed into public knowledge" I'm precisely saying that their usage as sources would be against WP policy. The cables have never been "published", nor intended to be by their authors, we know about them by other ways. And many of the things said in them could be clearly considered libel, if it weren't because libel laws do not reach things said in privacy. MBelgrano (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(un-indented) The guy is dead so WP:BLP doesn't apply here. And whether the information was never meant to be public or not is a moot point. What matters here is that they're published by a reliable source, so we can use them in WP. And as far as I know Wikileaks was having all the cables reviewed by the world's most influential newspapers. Le Figaro, The Guardian, El Pais, The New York times and Der Spiegel. I haven't reviewed the cable, but if it contains important information I'm sure one of those newspapers (particularly El Pais) has already published it. Likeminas (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the cables are not a reliable source, and the fact that they were never meant to be published, but things that were said in privacy and later exposed to the public spotlight, is precisely the reason for that. In any case, we are not short of reliable sources talking about Kirchner, just get into any Argentine library, go to the politics section, and there is plenty of books, authors and angles to choose from.

As for libel, Néstor Kirchner may be dead, but Cristina Kirchner is not, and she has been mentioned in those cables toguether with him. As you may know, those cables hold in doubt her mental sanity. Such a thing (about her or anyone else, for that mater) could have only been suggested in privacy, a source that states such a thing would lost any credibility at the least or get a visit from the presidency lawyers at the most. And even if Kirchner is dead, his family is still alive, stating libel against him may have legal consequences anyway. The idea of treating BLP in some specific way mean that we do so as opposing to biographies of people died a very long time ago. We don't need to consider libel when we write about Napoleon, San Martín, Bolivar, Washington, Nelson or Ferdinand VII, because they died two centuries ago; on the other hand, Kirchner died just two months ago. Little difference, isn't it? MBelgrano (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that the cables themselves are not reliable sources.

I hope that we can also agree that if a major newspaper publishes the contents of the cables, then it is no longer un-reliable and it might be used, given it is clearly attributed to the person making the statements.

There are some good sources discussing the cables, yet, given the information therein I’m not so sure how they could be seamlessly intertwined into the article. Likeminas (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Inquietud/personalidad/modo/trabajo/Kirchner/elpepuint/20101129elpepuint_13/Tes

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013743550_argentina23.html

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/52712

The content of the cables quoted by "El País" or "Buenos Aires Herald" is still the content of the cables, it does not turn into informated generated by these newspapers. The newspapers are only responsable for their own critical comentary of this. We still can't use the content of the cables to write about the perception of Kirchner, but we may use those articles to write about his relation with the United States diplomatic cables leak series of articles. And yet, is there something to write about that? Kirchner was already dead when this happened, and Cristina opted to keep an absolute silence about the topic, not making any comments about it. In the long run, when the wikileaks thing becomes yesterday news, mentioning in the Kirchner biography that there was a cable about him among the released ones and that there was no reaction to it, will be considered to be unneeded information that doesn't really add anything, and removed. MBelgrano (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A paragraph that is out of line

The article says Soon after taking office in May 2003, Kirchner surprised the world by standing down powerful military and police officials The world was not surprised, only some of Argentina's citizens. No source is offered for such generalization. Please correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.49.84.70 (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

History 2

The early life section says "With his wife, also a lawyer..." Is she a lawyer really? This is widely debated in Argentina and there is no public record that she finished her studies. To say that Cristina Kirchner is a lawyer seems POV to me. Gabe Lemag (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner#Lawyer? Cambalachero (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

I want that the Spanish version of Néstor Kirchner will translate to English then it will post to the English version of Néstor Kirchner. The purpose of that the article of Néstor Kirchner in English version will expand because the Spanish version of Néstor Kirchner article is more larger than the English version of Néstor Kirchner especially in the 2003 presidential election section of Néstor Kirchner because in the Spanish version of Néstor Kirchner is more picture and more detall than the English version of Néstor Kirchner. I am need 3 votes whatever you favor or oppose, thank you.--Joseph Solis 01:35, 3 April 2006‎ (UTC)

• The Spanish version of the page was heavily vandalized, and I think it's almost as unbiased as some sections of the English one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.254.225.185 (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2006‎ (UTC)

Chavez - Kirchner photo caption

Not biggie. But actually Chavez and Kirchner gave a Press Conference (as the concept is understood in Western Democracies) or is just something that somebody at the Presidency of Argentina office wrote there for lack of a better description? User:Bakersville 14:39, 14 October 2006‎ (UTC)