No edit summary |
Robert McClenon (talk | contribs) →Anti-Kirchner bias: third opinion |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
::::::::::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. [[User:Μαρκος Δ|Μαρκος Δ]] ([[User talk:Μαρκος Δ|talk]]) 17:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC) |
::::::::::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. [[User:Μαρκος Δ|Μαρκος Δ]] ([[User talk:Μαρκος Δ|talk]]) 17:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
===Third Opinion=== |
|||
A [[WP:3O|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? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:44, 4 June 2016
Argentina Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
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.
- 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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure. 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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight 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)