Cambalachero (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
: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]]. [[User:Cambalachero|Cambalachero]] ([[User talk:Cambalachero|talk]]) 19:32, 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]]. [[User:Cambalachero|Cambalachero]] ([[User talk: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. |
|||
::[[User:Μαρκος Δ|Μαρκος Δ]] ([[User talk:Μαρκος Δ|talk]]) 10:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:49, 16 May 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.