Talk:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine politics.

If you would like to participate, you can improve Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Removal of "Trivia" and other tidbits

Unflattering yet well sourced trivia about Mrs Kirchner's wardrobe is constantly being removed from this article. May I know why? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmagno (talk • contribs) 15:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Max, don't take it personally but it look that you are a single purpose account fixated with Mrs. Fernandez de Kirchner wardrobe. First, IMHO I don't find the issue newsworthy. Second, as far as I can tell from being an avid reader of Argentine news, she has not been nicknamed "Imelda". Bakersville (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I'm not really fixated with Christina Kirchner, it's just that I thought I'd get started on a topic I've recently read something about (that topic being Mrs Kirchner in general, not just her wardrobe). On a related note. In a blatant act of vigilantism, my even more recent addition of the opposition's response to the maletinazo (see below) has been arbitrarily removed by a fellow with the conspicuously partisian name "Peron".

What do you say to that?

"High ranking members of the main opposition parties have denounced the Argentine government's harsh response to the scandal and its criticism of the US as a "smokescreen" and described US involvement in the affaire as merely symptomatic. Identifying corruption in the Argentinean and Venezuelan governments as the root cause of the scandal.[1]"

I've now phrased the article more defensively, clearly differentiating fact and allegation (of course it is no fact that the Argentine government is corrupt, far from it).

Oh my god!! Noosphere's been at it now. In his opinion my contribution is : " unrepresentative trash-- public opinion in Argentina is overwhelmingly with Fernandez"

Does that mean, that if Noosphere thinks that public opinion goes against an article (or part of it) such article has no place in Wikipedia?

The paragraph reflects the take of the opposition on the diplomatic impasse between US and Argentina and I agree with Max that is legitimate addition. The paragraph doesn't make an assertion that the position is a widely held view in Argentina. It can also be added in a criticism section. Bakersville (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm most obliged, Sir! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmagno (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The later half of my latest contribution has now been deleted and replaced with a reference to Cristina's poll ratings. I'm not saying the poll ratings are irrelevant, but I don't see why they should replace half of my contribution, especially as it was impeccably sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmagno (talk • contribs) 17:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious, you anticipated my complaint! Obliged once again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmagno (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The second half of the para on the opposition's response to the maletinazo should remain. The opposition clearly thinks that corruption is at the heart of the scandal and there is no reason to hide this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmagno (talk • contribs) 11:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC) It is quite ridiculous to argue that it needs to be removed for economy of words, especially given the seriousness of the corruption alleged.--Maxmagno (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failure to adress more controversial issues

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has been criticized for being a sort of embassador to the country(something the article states), which is seen as not acceptable (due to time constraints) for someone who already holds the office of senator.

She has also been criticized for being superflous and even of neglecting her duties.An example being the time when she was seen(and photographed) in DISNEY WORLD with her daughter and a friend of her daughter during debates in the Senate over the budget) Those particular pictures also gained her a quite unpopular image (albeit only for a few weeks) in the left wing (of which she proclaims herself a militant) because she was in a place normally identified with big corporations and american imperialism

Also, the only polls that show her as a clear favorite for the presidency are goverment founded ones(her husbands pupularity ,however , is undisputed)

In short i belve a sign should be placed stating that the article is generally biased.

Please forgive my poor english,it is not my native tongue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridio (talk • contribs)

[edit] About her studies

There is a text that says as follows: "Although it is claimed that she is a lawyer, details about whether she graduated or not are unknown and her academic records have not been released by the school". A similar text was placed in the spanish article, and proved as vandalism, or something even worse. For the ones who do not speak spanish, I will explain again the reasons.

The controversial text provides a reference, this site. Providing references is crucial when adding such information. The problem is that the reference is a lie: the article does not say what it is refereced it would say. It does not state about her graduation being unknown or her records not being released. It suggest the idea, employing speculation, circunstancial evidence, faulty logic, conditional syntax; but it carefully keeps from making any clear statement that would send them to justice because of defamation. In fact, it does quite the opposite, and does state a disclaimer about them just speculating and not formally accusing her of not having a degree, wich makes the whole article pointless as a source of information for Wikipedia.

Cristina Fernandez having a degree, on the other hand, can be referenced with her profile at the Senate of Argentina itself.

Besides, this portal is not a reliable source. It must be noted that none of the mainstream media of Argentina, either for, against or neutral towards Kirchner, have given room to any of this speculations. It is entirely an issue raised by a semi-unknown internet site. 190.30.21.5 15:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The link you provide for her studies says she studied law, not that she actually graduated. Nobody disputes that she studied law, but there are several strong indicators that she never graduated: 1) When asked about her graduation records, she claims they got lost. 2) When asked about her graduation diploma, she never produced it. 3) She had lots of study mates. Excluding her husband, none have declared they know of her graduation. Many say they shared her studies for the early years, but she later disappeared from college.

All this does not PROVE she never graduated, but there´s not the slightest evidence that she did either. I will add a "references needed" to the section so if anyone has any pointers to a reliable source that demonstrates she obtained her degree, it can be completed. 201.253.223.235 (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "De Kirchner" Article title

What is the source of the Swiss-German Kirchner family ever using the name "de Kirchner"? AFAIK the Kirchner family is not a noble family. Boris Bratcevic 15:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In Argentina, married women usually add de + husband's last name to their maiden names. It's not German, it's Spanish for "of". —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Why did we drop "de Kirchner" from the article title? Both of the subject's official websites use that name, as does the New York Times and other U.S. papers. I don't see any discussion about the move. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone moved it, no discussion. I'll put it back. Over here the media use both names (with a slight preference towards the longer version, I'd guess); some go with "Cristina Kirchner"; some write "CFK" for effect; others just say "Cristina". —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Normal practice in Latin America is that her last name is "Fernández de Kirchner". The mainstream media realizes this can be confusing and they tend to refer to her on TV and newspapers as "Cristina". Either call her Kirchner or Fernández de Kirchner, but not "de Kirchner". --Lizzard 05:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It should be "Cristina Fernández" imo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.136.214.96 (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Every time I come here she seems to be called something different. We use common naming here and it appears that even in Spanish she is known as Cristina Kirchner, and most certainly is in English. Our policies thus dictate that even though her correct Spanish name according to Spanish naming rules may not include the word Kirchner (as current) that this must be superseded by the overwhelming common usage. This is not different to Eva Perón]], and I think the article neds to be called Cristina Kirchnere, SqueakBox 17:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure the current title is actually the most used name to refer the subject. On this BBC article [1] she is mostly mentioned as "Mrs Kirchner", with her husband's name. Italian news reports also mentioned her as Cristina Kirchner. I would therefore propose to rename this article to "Cristina Kirchner" per WP:COMMON. --Angelo 18:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Her official site calls her "Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner", as does her Argentine Senate site. This is also the form given by the official election body of Argentina. A review of English-language journalism sites indicates:
While I think there's an argument for Fernandez based in part on Latin American name customs, it's clear that in official contexts she uses the long form with both names, and that's also what most news outlets call her. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] President?

Why is Cristina Fernández said to be the 55th president of Argentina, if she'll take office in December? Unless there's a Wikipedia policy about elected officials, I'm going to put the infobox back to how it was before. The president until December 10 is Néstor Kirchner. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. She's just the president-elect until inaugurated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

There is no proper citation for quote #9 on the page, currently; the bit about "Hillary was able to position herself nationally because her husband was president." I'd love to see that quote in Spanish and/or to have even an approximate date for it. --Lizzard 05:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Challenges ahead

I've had my edits undone by an anonymous user and I got this message as explanation:

me tomé el tiempo de leerlos y lo del desempleo "estructural" no es mas que una opinión particular
muy distinto de un hecho, ademas de tener todo un tufillo a viciado terrible
201.253.147.134 (talk · contribs)

Translated: "I took the time to read [the sources I provided] and the thing about "structural" unemployment is no more than a [private? personal?] opinion, quite different from fact, besides it all smells terribly of bias."

I don't agree with this but I won't revert anymore, lest I start an edit war. I'm starting a discussion about this. One of the topics is structural unemployment, the other is crime. Structural unemployment in Argentina is caused mainly by lack of education. Industries need qualified personnel and can't find it because many young Argentinians had to drop from school in the 1990s and early 2000s, technical education has been going downhill for years, and there's no organized contact between higher educational institutions and industries that could employ their graduates (except for private universities, whose students are all affluent middle- and upper-middle-class and often already have contacts). Job creation has been a great achievement of Kirchner's but has decelerated and it's well known that there's a hard core of structural unemployment — people who've been unemployed for years and won't find a stable job, ever, unless something is done to address their specific problem. I can find plenty of sources for this, but logically most of those won't speak of this as a challenge to Cristina, because her victory is just days past.

As for crime, if you live in a big city you know it's a problem, and you know what causes it — poverty on one side, politicians' and police corruption and collusion with organized crime on the other. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

PS: I've semi-protected the page to avoid the stupid little edit wars going on about the proper way to name Cristina. A week from now, when the post-election turmoil is over, I guess the article will not get so much exposure. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] grammar

fix this: "what means that near the 70% of Argentine voters chose a woman for president" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.19.82 (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed as original research. Please source and return, SqueakBox 20:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, in this case the user is right, which can be confirmed easily by looking at the election figures (45% of the vote for CFK, 23% for Elisa Carrió = 68% of the vote went to female candidates). But I don't think this is well put. It sounds as if people were consciously trying to make a difference by voting for women. At best this could go on the article about the election, and then only as a footnote. I didn't see the sex or gender of the candidates dealt with as an important issue during the campaign. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Her name is Cristina Kirchner

GOOGLE:

  • "Cristina Fernández de Kirchner": 2 020 000
  • "Cristina Kirchner": 1 570 000
  • "Cristina Fernández" -Kirchner (probably not all referring to Cristina Kirchner): 947 000

Brother Johannes 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your "statistics" contradict the title of your discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.32.143 (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beritaz (talk • contribs) 11:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time Magazine Removal?

Why was my contribution that cited a Time article removed? Kaos85g's incoherent explanation was "The article citated (ref to time magazine) not correpond to reality." Uhh...What?! Time Magazine exists in reality. Not just wikiality. I'll put the tidbit back in again as soon as I can. Perhaps this was just a case of vandalism. Daveroo69 06:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just put it back and added another source just in case. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
maybe because it looks like a vague overgeneralization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beritaz (talk • contribs) 15:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote in the cities

I've rephrased the note about CFK not winning in the large cities. She won in almost every district in the country (by different margins), so her winning the vote in most of the large cities is not notable. What is "of note" is that she didn't win precisely in the three largest cities. I left Mendoza and Tucumán because 1) they were mentioned in the Página/12 article used as source, 2) Cristina herself specifically employed these two cities as counterexamples of the apparent correlation "urban middle class = anti-Kirchner vote". —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

original was better phrased —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beritaz (talk • contribs) 12:05, 2 November 2007
I don't think so, and I've explained why in the paragraph above. Please do bother writing more one line of text to delete text. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] President

Guys, as of today she is our president. I will rephrase some bits of texts to show this fact.Baka toroi (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campain Donations

Any thoughts on if/how this should be incorporated into the article?

BUENOS AIRES -- U.S. authorities have charged five foreign men as unregistered Venezuelan agents in connection with an alleged scheme to smuggle $800,000 to the election campaign of newly inaugurated Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, federal officials in Miami said Wednesday. [2], more here [3]. DJ CreamityOh Yeah! 19:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added it earlier today. It is in the first paragraph of "Election to Presidency". Bakersville (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] President - Reference to OPSM Poll

I think it's hardly neutral to write: "The Argentine public as a whole gives high ratings to Fernández de Kirchner". On the basis of a poll of only 1100 adults conducted by a little known polling company called OPSM. Perhaps the contribution should be phrased more carefully. E.g.:

"In a recent poll of 1100 Argentine adults conducted by OPSM on (please specify exact date) 57.8% of interviewees rated the start of Cristina Kirchner's presidency as "Very good / Good""

More importantly, the poll should not be included in that section of the article altogether, unless it was conducted after 12 December 2007, which is when the "maletinazo" became public. Currently the contribution states no date, raising the obvious suspicion that the poll was carried out before 12 December 2007. The article cited does not mention the date on which the interviewees were questioned (perhaps some where questioned before and others after the event).

I'm currently trying to find some info on the web about the polling organization OPSM. Thus far I have only found extremely unflattering blog posts. I'll carry on looking though, till I find something more objective and verifiable.--Maxmagno (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "First Lady" is not an "office"

The infobox needs to be fixed. --Damifb (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Farmers' Protest, March 2008

I recently edited an existing entry where I clarified that the violence that erupted at the Mayo Square involved government sponsored thugs and that the police wilfully turned a blind eye. These editions should remain. Follow these links for my sources:

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/nota.asp?nota_id=999066&origen=relacionadas

AND

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/politica/nota.asp?nota_id=999067&origen=relacionadas

AND ANOTHER

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/EdicionImpresa/politica/nota.asp?nota_id=999018&pid=4186310&toi=5825

I shall in due course re-amend the article and insert the appropiate references. I hope it will remain this time.

(Maxmagno (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

(217.207.172.180 (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

IMHO your edits were not in compliance with WP:NPOV policy. Please read the section "Let the facts speak for themselves". Particularly I object to the use of the adjective "thugs". Regarding the absence of police and changing it to "wilfully turned a blind eye", after reading today news, I would not object to it. Bakersville (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, wilful blind eye stays and thugs goes out. Mind you though, I was actually using "thugs" as a noun... but let us not start splitting hairs.

(Maxmagno (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

I tried again, using "government sponsored thugs" as my best translation of "grupos de choque". Please note that a thug is someone who behaves as such (and a noun, in this context). Under the circumstances a fitting word.

(Maxmagno (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

After reading the sources and other news, particularly the government defending the assault on the protesters, your last edit is fine with me. Bakersville (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget to mention that this is a current event, and should be treated as one, according to Wikipedia policies.--200.127.120.200 (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's a current event. Why point out the obvious? The para even mentios the date of the events. All no excuse for removing verifable, well sourced and objective words.

Again I'm being anonymously deleted. Can the para about the fuerzas de choque please be protected! (Maxmagno (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

I see no reason why the language in the phrase "government supporters carrying sticks assaulted the protesters while the police wilfully turned a blind eye." should be muted, when this is exactly what was reported from top grade journalistic sources. I have therefore returned the article to the orgiginal wording.

(Maxmagno (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

The government denies this, and I'm sure not every single source said that. Please stop adding things like that and try and keep it neutral.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 15:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course the government denies it, but the government is just another source.

The media (LA NACION) one of the countrries most higly regarded newspapars affirms it, however (read the article "La policia abservo pero no intervino").

If you think that the government's denial has a place in the article, then add a line and a referrence to that effect, but don't just trample on other peoples contributions, as a means of expressing your or the government's views. Especially when the contributions you are fiddling with comply with editorial guidelines.

It is true that not every source said that, but a number of very credible sources said it and they are all clearly referenced for users to see. If source unanimity were to be a quilifying requirement for contributions, then there probably woud not be any.

Lastly if you are so keen on keeping it neutral, then at least please don't refer to an "incident", when it is obvious that there were many. Make it "incidents".

(Maxmagno (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

Exactly, the government is another source and Clarin , the other most highly regarded newspaper, is another one. If one side says black and the other white, Wikipedia's has to remain grey. Besides, you should try looking at the bigger picture, all this you are adding looks a lot like recentism. And for the record, I have no political view whatsoever, so please keep it civil and stop accusing.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 16:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Point taken on wikipedia's greyness, yet I see no "black on white" contradiction between your Clarin Article and the La Nacion Articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmagno (talk • contribs) 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC) (Maxmagno (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

While La Nacion published D'Elia's cursing, graphic descriptions of what happened and the fact that some random person called them "mercenaries", Clarin focused on the facts and kept criticism ("le había pegado una trompada") to the minimum, plus they published a civil explanation from D'Elia on why they were protesting, instead of his cursing.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 16:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll come back to that. On a related note, I'm pretty sure that the "paro de la abundancia speech" which prompted the first wave of pot-banging was on the 25 of March, i therefore amended this.

(Maxmagno (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

OK, so different reporting styles lead to different articles. But where is the black and white you talk about?

(Maxmagno (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

If we were to use Clarin and ignore La Nacion this sentence: "and the police was accused of wilfully turning a blind eye." would have to go (black), and if we were to use La Nacion and ignore Clarin your original sentence "government supporters carrying sticks assaulted the protesters while the police wilfully turned a blind eye." would be appropriate (white). But because we want to be grey, we mention La Nacion's statement as an accusation instead of as a fact, listening to both sides.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides, don't let that confuse you. If La Nacion chooses to publish an ad verbatim account of events, then surely that does not undermine the quality or credibility of their reporting. If someone shouts vile abused and is later quoted as having done so, then that surely is not less factual than a muted account of what happened (presumably to avoid stepping on official toes).

(Maxmagno (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

If it can be of any help in this dispute, I have tWo points to make 1. The agression on protesters is pretty much factual. 2. However, the "Fuerza de Choque" term is used in the Joaquin Morales de Sola open ed. As such is an opinion of JMS. Conclusion: IMHO the fuerza de choque, thugs paragraph should be either deleted or changed with just the facts, for example that D'elia -a former official of Mr. Kirchner adm. and close follower of F. de K.- assaulted the protesters and wasn't censured by the government. Bakersville (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yamanbaiia, I think I've trace our disagreemnt to the root. The Clarin article and the Nacion article ("... la policia no intervino") relate to the protests of 26 of March. That part of the wiki-article, however, relates to the protests of the 25th of march. The only article that relates to the 25th is "Cazeria por ganar la plaza" and this contains a reference to "la permisividad policial", the willful blind eye. Though an allegation in that article can of course be refuted by another source, then the Clarin article is not it.

In any case, I think the article could stay as it is, and given no recent amendments from you i suppose you share this view.

Nevermind whether they were carrying sticks, what I was fussed about was the inclusion of the words violent and that incident should be insidents as they were many.

Bakersvile: 1. I agree with you. 2. The fact that the passage tries to convey is that journalists (and politicians I think there is a short quote from Elisa Carrio in one of the arts) have formed the view that the "fuerzas de choque" were behind this and that "fuerzas de choque" are groups which operate at the behest of the government. I think it does that job. If later in history tougher evidence linking government and fuerzas de choque emerges, we can rephrare and re-refer, but should we not leave it for the time being? (Maxmagno (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

I still have problems with "widely reported" see WP:AWT and "government sponsored thugs" that is not fully supported by the source. We can leave the sentence for now and see if we have any other ideas/opinions in talk. Bakersville (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have similar reservations, but I cannot think round them. You see, fuerza de choque is not readily translated.

(Maxmagno (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

Looks like no matter how we phrase a reference to the oppression of the 25 and 26 March pot-banging protests it will be anonymously deleted. Very mature...

(Maxmagno (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

OK, I've tried again, clearly differentiating fact from report and opinion. The article is neither complete nor balanced if the reference to the March 08 protests does not contain a mention of the oppositions take on the conflict and the involvement of figures like Luis D'Elia and the men he commands.

If you think differently, then please give your reasons and help work this out, don't just delete anonymously (whoever you are)!

(Maxmagno (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

It's fair enough to write that El Pais did not cite its source. However, if in addition to that you want to mention that the lady fared better in Argentine polls, then please provide a reference. Else this is not verifiable.

(Maxmagno (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

El País poll number seems indeed very low. I will be in the look out for other poll numbers to check it out. Also, I deleted the commentary "Critics call the couple's leadership style arrogant and authoritarian" It isWP:AWT and actually the whole paragraph says: "The Kirchners' leadership is widely credited with having helped bring Argentina back from the financial abyss. But the couple's economic policies, including high export tariffs and price controls, have angered farmers and others in business. Critics call the couple's leadership style arrogant and authoritarian.", which is positive in tone. We shouldn't pick and choose from a single paragraph what better fits ones political views. Bakersville (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Bakersville, point taken. A stray sentence is misleading. Nonetheless I think the para should be expanded, as at present is it picks and chooses only one quote form the lady, which hardly conveys the more ambiguos tone of the article. I might feel inspired later.

I am though left to wonder whose political views you mean...? Rest assured that my contributions are not politically motivated.

(Maxmagno (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC))


[edit] Falklands

Would it be viable to include a section or note in regards to her stance on the Falklands? --Kevin W. 06:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cristina Elisabet Fernández ¿Wilhem?

Are you sure that she decided to add to her name the mother's surname? References? I have some which say the opposite, for example, the biography of her published by the journalist Jorge Lanata in the daily Perfil:

Cristina Elisabet (without aitch) Fernández, born in La Plata, graduated from the Nuns's College of Mercy and had a rubier, Raul Cafferata, as a first boyfriend. She met Néstor the Spring Day of 1974 (...)

—¿Simplemente Cristina?

He don´t say anything about a second surname. I think that it must be corrected. Daniel dj87 (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fernández Wilhem de Kirchner

As far as I have seen, the President's complete name is Cristina E. Fernández de Kirchner. While her mother's maiden name is Ofelia Wilhem, it is not compulsory in Agentina to use both surnames, and, in fact, most people only have his/her father's. If nobody opposes, I shall proceed to change the name to Cristina E. Fernández de Kirchner. MarcosR (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the same problem about I asked in the previous post. I believe that no longer doubt that it was a mistake, so I'm going to edit the article. Daniel dj87 (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)