Talk:Relato K

Existence of the "Relato"

The lead said that "The Relato K is Argentine propaganda that promotes Kirchnerism." It was changed by Μαρκος Δ to say "The Relato K (Spanish: K narrative) is a term employed by anti-Kirchnerists to refer to the alleged propaganda apparatus of the former Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner". The edit summary said "The theory of the "Relato K" is exclusively supported by anti-Kirchnerists, and the lead should clearly state that".

NB - Relato K *IS* the Spanish so (Spanish: K narrative) is backwards. At best it should be (English: K narrative). Lamona (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. The Kirchners do not deny the existence of this propaganda network. Their view of it is that it is something justified, according to premises from the relato itself. Read Cristina Kirchner here: she claims that journalist media is more powerful than the state propaganda. The relato K, then, is simply there to compensate for the alleged lies of the press. See also here, a Kirchnerite newspaper bring three Kirchnerite intellectuals to discuss about the "Relato". Ricardo Forster said that all governments have a "relato", which would make Kirchner's one a legitimate one because there wouldn't be anything new about it. He also points that there is a limit to the ammount of lies a propaganda can tell for staying credible (which is right, but departs to the wider topic of propaganda as a general concept), and that propaganda may only work on people who is unthinking, naive and other derogative concepts (which is fact close to the truth; just replace those insults with "iliterate" or "poorly literate", and yes, propaganda is more effective among that people). Alejandro Horowicz considers it a tool in the great struggle between "the people" and those against the people. Horacio González' opinion is so complicated to read that it sounds like proof by verbosity to me; the part that I could get more or less clear is that the Kirchners crafted the "relato" to counter the press coverage of the conflict with the rural sectors (wich is correct). Cambalachero (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

CFK stated that private media in general is more powerful than state propaganda. Yes. That article is about how she wishes to help small, independent media groups to grow, by lowering VAT. Not once does she mention the "Relato K". You claim that she does not deny these allegations, but has she ever actually been asked? If you can find a transcript of her actually saying something like "Yes, I run a state propaganda machine to brainwash the masses", then I will accept your claim. Otherwise, I won't, and I will keep treating your opinions as just that – opinions, not facts. Your other source is in Spanish – which I will disregard; I do not read it, nor should I have to, as this is the English-language Wikipedia. You and I have been through this discussion before. Your language is thoroughly non-encyclopedic when you write about the Kirchners, and you present your personal opinions (which are, for the record, clearly anti-Kirchnerist) as facts. You are openly anti-Kirchnerist, and so I added to the introduction of the article that the term "Relato K" is a term primarily used by anti-Kirchnerists. No problem there. Just so you know, I am not going to waste my time on this again, so if you refuse to allow neutral language in the article, I will simply let you have your own little, politically charged sandbox. Virtually nobody reads these obscure articles anyway. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

She said, and let me quote: “Last year, 30 billion pesos were spent in private advertising, way more than official propaganda. Media conglomerates captured most of it, and this compromises the way information is delivered”. Although the emphasis may be on the private advertising, she has admited that there is state spending on official propaganda. Thus, it exists. She did not call it "Relato K", but that's not a problem; the article is named after the most common name used for that propaganda system. Even the second link starts by detailing how the term has become widespread, used by both several unrelated media and political leaders. Speaking of which, if you disregard that second link, that's up to you. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, a source is not rejectable simply because of not being in English, if it is relevant. You said that "the theory of the "Relato K" is exclusively supported by anti-Kirchnerists", simply based on your own asumptions; I replied that no, they do accept and embrace it, and provided a reference where they do so. Yes, it is in Spanish, but we are talking about something that takes place in a Spanish-speaking country anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight

I suggest adding different sources to each claim that is only supported by Mendelevich; he virtually exclusively writes negatively loaded pieces about the Kirchner(ist)s. We have discussed him before, and other contributers seconded the view that he is generally given undue weight in Cambalachero's articles. Adding sources from Clarín also seems strange, considering their conflict of interest with the Kirchners. If there is a conflict between Team A and Team B, then you don't cite Team B's version of the story as truth. You need third-party, independent, and absolutely preferably English-language sources. It is, however, true that they are a large media group, and they shouldn't be disregarded entirely – however, as with Mendelevich, they are undoubtedly given undue weight. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's be clear on something: the "relato K" is a fringe theory, and must be treated as such. One thing is the good or bad political image that Kirchner may have at some specific moment; another thing is their Tolkien-like notion of a perpetual war between the people and imperialism. So yes, a good wikipedia article about a fringe theory details the opinion of reliable authors about the fringe theory and debunks their nonsensical claims as such. The reason why I cite Mendelevich so much is that he wrote an actual book about this propaganda, instead of just a short article for a newspaper or a small paragraph in a biographical or historical article. Cambalachero (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

We can use a more visible example for this: Donald Trump, candidate to the presidency of the US (and who has already been compared with Kirchner by US media, see here). Like Kirchner, he had also proclaimed conspiracy theories that the press is trying to destroy him. So, what do we do about it? Do we give equal validity to his claims, or treat them like the conspiracy theories that they are? Do otherwise reliable sources like CNN or the New York Times suddenly become unreliable simply because Trumps says that? The Washington Post said it clear: "Conspiracy theories — and those who ascribe to them — are bulletproof. Anyone who doubts their veracity is seen as part of the “them” in the “us vs. them” dynamic of the conspiracy theorist's world." There's no such a thing as "independent, third-party" sources from a conspiracy theorist' point of view: for the Kirchners, newspapers from the US or Britain are part of the imperialist conspiracy that seeked to topple her, and so equally unreliable.

Another example: Daniel Schorr. Let's say that Wikipedia existed back then, and used him as a reference in the article about Richard Nixon. Should we suddenly consider him unreliable or with a conflict of interest when it was revealed that he was on Nixon's Enemies List? Should we keep removing all references from journalists or media that made it to the Master list of Nixon's political opponents? Cambalachero (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Since you agree that "relato K" is a fringe theory, then I'm sure you will allow for that to be mentioned in the introduction, which is what I attempted to do. If you don't like the wording, I suggest you come up with an alternative version. But it is extremely important that we highlight that this is the view of one side of the political isle, and not necessarily fact. But I also hope you see how you're contradicting yourself. You're simultaneously claiming that it is a fringe theory, while also claiming that it is embraced by Kirchnerists themselves. Can't have it both ways, buddy. Finally, if Mendelevich is the only one who has written much about the "relato K", then perhaps we should consider whether this article should just clearly state that this is Mendelevich and his ideological peers' opinion, as a fringe theory. And if that is the case, maybe we should even reconsider whether this conspiracy theory should even have its own article in the English Wikipedia. Again, I don't know how many people believe in this conspiracy theory about the "relato K", so you tell me. Either we make it clear that this is a fringe view, or we find a much, much wider variety of sources. (This was a response to your original reply; I won't bother responding to the second one, as you're clearly too webbed in your own conspiracy theories – which are, ironically, about how the Kirchners supposedly believe in conspiracy theories – to realize it yourself. That's delusion talking.) Μαρκος Δ (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstood it: the fridge theory is not the existence of the "Relato K" (which nobody denies), but the things that the "Relato K" says (the "us vs. them" doctrine, the alleged local and international conspiracies against Kirchner, etc). And no, this isn't the single book specifically about the "Relato K", but one which I have actually bought and can read and point page numbers for things said in it. There's also "Marmota" by Fernando Carnota, "10K" by Jorge Lanata, "Patria o medios" by Edi Zunino, "Propaganda K" by María O'Donnell, etc. Cambalachero (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

As for facts, let's consider this edit. That the relato tries to say that there are similarities between the presidency of Macri and the 1950s coup against Perón is a fact. And the things that you have removed are also facts, they are not opinions. We explain what does this fridge theory says, and then debunk it with the arguments pointed by a reliable source (which you did not even bothered to read, because you added a citation needed template for a paragraph that is already completely referenced by the reference at the end of it). When we write about the Moon landing conspiracy theories, we do not hold information back so that the conspiracy can have equal validity for a casual reader. Cambalachero (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You also said that the Kirchner's belief in conspiracy theories would be itself a conspiracy theory. Not quite. The Washington Post: "Argentina’s president resorts to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories". Israel News: "Argentine President Airs Conspiracy Theory Against Protesters". The Guardian: "Argentina president claims US plotting to oust her"Cambalachero (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

My friend, I think you misunderstand what encyclopedias are for. They are not supposed to be argumentative texts – your claim that "We explain what does this fridge theory says, and then debunk it with the arguments pointed by a reliable source". This is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles provide facts, not arguments. You are admitting to arguing against the Kirchners, even though this goes fully against the role of a Wikipedia contributor. This has been your problem from the start; you are unable to remain neutral. Has anyone ever told you that you should get your own blog? You should, and take your arguments there, since they absolutely don't belong here. Write a newspaper opinion peace, create a blog, post on your Facebook, do what you want – but do not put your arguments in Wikipedia articles.

Like I said in the beginning, I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone like you, who has made it their mission to dedicate all their time and energy to "exposing" politicians they don't like. Let us just leave the article as it is now, tags and all, and let it be improved bit by bit, preferably by other users. We should see what other contributors think before we make further changes. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

My guideline for dealing with the conspiracy theories proposed by the "Relato K" (and those proposed by Chávez, Maduro, Rouseff, Trump and the like) is Wikipedia:Fringe theories. As for articles on fridge theories debunking their claims, I took Moon landing conspiracy theories as an example. Good luck telling them to remove the whole "The hoax claims" section for being one-sided and not giving equal validity to the hoax claims. Cambalachero (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

So far, I have provided all the links and references required. Μαρκος Δ has not provided a single one. He claims that Kirchnerites deny having a propaganda system, or that Mendelevich "virtually exclusively writes negatively loaded pieces about the Kirchner(ist)s", but did not provide any actual source to back those claims. Neither did he provide any source reporting that the claims made by this "Relato K" have any actual acceptance between independent scholars or academics. If no such source is provided in some days, I will revert his edits and continue working in the article. Cambalachero (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I would in fact, simply, advocate the deletion of this article from the English-language Wikipedia altogether. There are virtually no references to the term "Relato K" in English-language media whatsoever. I frankly believe this term is too obscure and irrelevant to have its own article. I recommend you get the opinion of other English-language editors on this matter, and have them weigh in here, before moving to revert my changes. We don't want another edit war.

EDIT: Here's proof of Mendelevich being an outspoken opponent of the Kirchners: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1618665-disparates-de-la-lengua-k-del-todos-y-todas-al-ingles-nacpop This should disqualify him from being called a neutral source; now let's move on. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has ever set such a rule. In fact, Wikipedia:Systemic bias would say quite the opposite: if some topic is underrepresenter in English-speaking sources but it is heavily notable within a non-English speaking country, and some user (like me) happens to have access to some of those sources, then by all means there should be an article about that. As for Mendelevich, you have simply linked an interview to that author, and made your own opinions. What about citing a page where someone else, some reputed and authoritative source, says that about him? After all, we are dealing with a fringe theory, of course that all uninvolved authors such as Mendelevich will criticize it. Cambalachero (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. I can't believe you. So if Party A says "Party B is evil", is it still okay to use Party A as a source for information about Party B? Are you seriously saying that we would need more sources to prove that Party A is biased? Find them yourself; it is obvious to me, and to all the users that we brought into the dicussion last time, that you are biased, and you exclusively cite sources that fit your personal view and agenda. Like I said, we wait until other users weigh in on the discussion before removing the Undue Weight tag. That could take months, but this won't be solved until we get multiple other, non-biased users to contribute. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not what is being said, that is a straw man argument. Nowhere in the link Mendelevich says that the Kirchners are evil. He explains the ways the Kirchnerite propaganda works. Propaganda whose existence is verified by several unrelated sources, and even embraced by Kirchnerite authors themselves, as proved earlier. And yet, you deny the existence of this propaganda, based on nothing but your own reasonings. Have in mind that the use of propaganda, in and of itself, is not inherently "evil", nor it makes the author evil. Think for example in the American people. None will deny the existence of the Uncle Sam poster, or refute that it was US propaganda during WWI and WWII, and yet, none of them will think any less of their country for the existence of it. Cambalachero (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not anymore. Now (2024) Donald Trump is more like Javier Milei than CFK. JPerez90 (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

About formulation

I believe it is inappropiate for such a controversial topic to be written in straighforward affirmatives sentences such as "Relato K is a system of propaganda buit by former president Kirchner", wich constitute the only introduction to te the page, without any nuances nor development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.139.81.223 (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)