Talk:2014 Cristina Fernández de Kirchner's speech at UN

Need your help

@hadi.anani I'm going to complete this article. we're going to have at least two main sections. First section will deal with the content of her speech and the other section is the reactions against it. Mhhossein (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Islamic state

There is a misunderstanding in the article. It says that Kirchner claimed that the US may want to oust or kill her, and it's written as if she said it in the UN speech. That is not correct. In the speech, she claimed that ISIS was after her, because of her friendship with the pope. Some days later, at Buenos Aires, she accused the United States and that the alledged threat from ISIS was not real, that if something happens to her we should "look to the North". Yes, the same ISIS threat that she warned us herself about. Yes, it makes little sense, but conspiracy theories usually have this problem. Cambalachero (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: Thanks for your cooperation. Could I have the sources supporting your claims? Mhhossein (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability

Reliable secondary sources have covered this issue, so it deserves to stand alone as an article. Mhhossein (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I still doubt its notability as a stand-alone-event. Kirchner tries to hold speeches on different occasions, has ongoing problems with consistency, believes in conspiracy theories and so on. We do not have any USP here. Serten (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Serten: None of the above tarnishes the notability. By the way, what do you exactly mean by conspiracy theories? Mhhossein (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, those claims that either ISIS or the United States want to kill her, are that: conspiracy theories. Same goes for those claims that the Argentine economy is being disrupted by foreign forces, which goes against basic knowledge of how does the international economy really works. Cambalachero (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability is surely an issue. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. The topic is based on "Press TV", thats Iranian state propaganda content and a sort of extended Pallywood outlet but nothing reliable. I have asked to have it blacklisted and raised doubts on the sources noticeboard with regard to the reliability. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Point is, that the article does not mention the major points, e.g. Kirchner trying to blame Israel and the US for the connection between Iran and diverse bombings in Argentina instead of gettig along with basic facts. Instead, the article is being used as a vehicle to place other speeches of Kirchner - e.g. in reactions. Her reactions on twitter, e.g. about Obamas having some shunshine for her looks, but avoiding to listen to her, are so ridiculous and helpless, they shouldnt be mentioned just for BLP reasons. To push fringe stuff like this on the main page has a WP:snow problem. Serten (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Serten: Of course the topic is not based on Press TV and just two sentences of this article is from this international news agency. So, saying that main source for this article is Press TV looks like propaganda! To put you in the picture I should tell you that most of this article is based on the UN News Center. For many other sources used, you might go the References! there you'll see that besides UN News Center, sources such as Israel Nation News, The Guardian, Telam and Clarín make most of this article. As for claim that the article does not cover the main points, it should be said that most of what she said and nearly all the major points is reflected in the Content section. I mostly used the UN outlet to cover the issue. If you think some point is not mentioned it means that UN has not dealt with some points (I don't think so). Of course reactions against this lecture had to be covered here and you might add any other significant parts not mentioned here, using secondary third party reliable sources! By the way, the atmosphere of whitehouse is not a criteria for writing in wikipedia, as far as I remember! The facts should be written so that every one know what's up! Mhhossein (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

First Press TV is a propaganda outlet and not a news agency. Sleuth is as well far from being reliable. The rest of the sources might be used for anecdotal evidence on Kirchners article or on the bombing entries, but fail significance for a separate entry. Serten (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC) PS.: OK, I forgot the Lyndon-la-Rouche sect, they seem to have registered her speech as well. PS.: I have boiled down the entry to the essentials.

Is it your personal Idea about Press TV and Sleuth or you can support your claim using secondary third party reliable sources?! I think I'd better analyze how the sources are used in this article:

• UN News Center, Israel Nation News and Clarin make the 'Content' section.
• The Guardian, Haaretz, Clarin and La Nación are used for 'Reactions'.
• 'Censorship' is made using sources such as; Press TV (one sentence), Sleuth (one sentence), La Nación and Telam.

And clearly the lead part is an abstract of the whole, as you know. So, Where's the problem? Mhhossein (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your version has an undue weight problem. You forgot to mention the uselessness of "Sources" like (Michel Chossudovsky's "Global Research". La Nacion and Clarin have been quite critical about the issue, that wasnt mentioned appropriately. Serten (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC) PS.: I did some corrections based on Cambalachero's comments at the AFD, but I don't see any chance for survival for the first version.

For the record, @Serten:, I reverted back to Mhhossein's version. Yours, in my opinion, is entirely negative and therefore a WP:BLP violation. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You dont need to refer to iranian sources to write something positive, right? Serten (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Main page: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard § Iranian_state_propaganda

Although there is no consensus on the unreliability of Press TV, I omitted the only sentence used by this source and replaced it by that of News Wire. Mhhossein (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverts

If you want to have content inserted, its up to you to provide reliable sources or quote them appropriately. Iranian state propaganda and fringe websites do not fall under "reliable", as confirmed on the noticeboard. Insofar a revert to the previous version is not in line with basic WEP principles. Avoid further rvertrs as 3R applies. Serten (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I know the rules. This is you who is violating the wikipedia rules by mass removals without any consensus. Please respect the rules. as you know, there is no consensus on the problem you claimed for Press TV. Even if this is right (it is unreliable) you could remove just one or at most to sentences! such a mass removal without consensus is not civil. Mhhossein (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to keep the bullshit version, its up to you to get the article through the AFD. Serten (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You've jumped into a wrong conclusion. I don't insist on any specific version. I'm trying to respect WP rules. I mean to discuss the problems one by one. Mass removals wont change any thing and we'd better gradually edit the article to give it the qualifications. By the way, I think 'Bullshit' is a slang and hence not polite! Mhhossein (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I use that slang word as in "On Bullshit", will say in a scientific sense. Serten (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)