Talk:Patricia Bullrich

English usage needs improvement.

a short edit pass would help. 73.37.127.39 (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Political positions

@Cambalachero and the IP address. We can discuss here. I believe that the sources that describe Patricia Bullrich as a radical rightist are extensive, some primary and others tertiary. I think the other ideology can be discussed because there are fewer sources. And it seems to me that adding history of Montoneros, or justifying their political positions is unnecessary. Hidolo (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's just wait a bit. So far it seems just an IP doing a one-time vandalism, and nothing more. Perhaps he's already gone for good and we can go on with our lives. If he's still around and wants to challenge my edits in the talk page, we may explain things, but it would be pointless to do so if he's not. Cambalachero (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I will place above the text you have written, the ideology described by the media and political analysis. And I will improve the text Hidolo (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The text you added does not really say much. It's just a word salad of varied right-wing political positions, with little to no explanation. Because, as I have noticed so far, the sources do not provide it either: they merely mention them as a passing-by adjective, and continue with their article. The problem with such weak referencing is that it can be easily misleading. Take for instance the text "...and hard-line conservative ideas on cultural matters". Two references for it, eldiario.es and CNN. eldiario describes her as "una conservadora de línea dura", and CNN describes her as "hard-line conservative Patricia Bullrich". What do they mean with that? "hard-line conservative" as in Ultraconservatism, as the wikilink suggests? "hard-line conservative" as just a conservative who is more hard-liner than Larreta, the other guy mentioned in that sentence? "hard-line conservative" as in conservative plus with a hard-line policy towards crime? Even more, if we go and check the page about ultraconservatism, they describe it with traits that do not seem to apply to Bullrich, such as anti-globalism, anti-immigration, conspiracy theories, etc. In any case, neither of the sources say that. Similarily, "...liberal and even ultra-liberal economic thoughts..." cites an article from Open Democracy, which uses that exact terminology, but without being precise on which are exactly those proposed "ultra-liberal" (as opposed to just liberal) ideas. Again, just text rhetoric, nothing specific. And an even worse case, you described her as both anti-populist and right-wing populist!

What if, instead of those weak passing-by mentions, you bring sources where Bullrich herself acknowledges being authoritarian, anti-populist, far-right, populist, liberal, ultra-liberal, and ultraconservative, what does she understands for those concepts and which are the trains of thought that made her embrace them? She wrote a pair of books in recent years, "Guerra sin cuartel" and "De un día para otro", surely she will focus at least one or two chapters to explain her political positions. Cambalachero (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The sources that do not explain the reason for what is cited are also usable, what we can discuss are the labels of right-wing populism, and ultra liberal and ultra conservative.  But the extreme right label has multiple sources (within these there are also sources that explain why, such as [ht]) Hidolo (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Is that your argument? I have just explained why it is a bad idea to use references that only mention things in passing. You ignored all the arguments and just replied "they are usable", giving no reason. Cambalachero (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Like without giving any argument? The primary sources are, sources that are allowed on Wikipedia, with those vast, but there are also other sources placed that explain the content well. If you want to know what the term far-right refers to, just access its corresponding page. We are not here to explain why it is extreme right, that is what the sources are for. Hidolo (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

And, as I pointed out, the sources are not explaining anything, they are just making passing-by comments, and as such they are not useful to reference the passages you want to reference (they are useful, yes, but to reference the information they actually talk about, such as the 2023 elections). By the way, many of those pages are opinion pieces, and should not be used to reference facts, regardless of which newspaper wrote them. Cambalachero (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Patricia Bullrich/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cambalachero (talk · contribs) 18:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: The Blue Rider (talk · contribs) 19:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Stability

• Last edit on 24th of October, it was a revert but didn't result in a edit war.

Images

• All images are relevant, correctly tagged with the copyright status and have good captions.

Copyvio

• Earwig's Copyvio Detector points to 29.1% mainly due to a quotation.

Early life

• Though not mandatory for a GA, consider linking Pueyrredón family.
  •  Done
• The sentence Although it was a wealthy family, Alejandro and Julieta divorced.... needs some clarification, for example, why are they no longer wealthy family after divorce? Both Alejandro and Julieta come from wealthy families. Did the mother got the custody of Bullrich? Is that why she had to adjust to a simpler lifestyle? When did they get divorced, that is, how old was Bullrich?
  • There are no further details about that, but it seems clear to me. Alejandro was likely the main source of income for the family, so when they divorced things got difficult for Julieta. As for her own family, perhaps it was not that wealthy (have in mind that their ancestor was a national hero from two centuries ago, which is fine and all, but not as if you were the daughter or the granddaugther of the inventor of Coca-Cola when it comes to money), or perhaps she felt, like many others, that going back to your parents' home after leaving it (and having a daughter to boot)is a real mega-bummer and tried to manage herself on her own. Speculation, yes, but in the direction that what we actually know and reference makes sense just fine. As for her age, it must have been when she was a kid, if she took a job at a fast-food as a teenager.
• Add some words on what is Peronist Youth.
  • I removed that part. I did not notice that it overlaps with the next one.
• If she abandoned a potential career in field hockey then she must have been a good player. Are there no sources about her field hockey years?
  • No, and I doubt we would find any. She was not a professional player in leagues that the press would care about, just a good player at school, the neighborhood hockey team, or whatever. Leaving sports to focus on something else was important for her biography, not for the sports themselves.
• Decapitalize the "r" in "Argentinian Rock".
  •  Done
• She introduced Fabiana Cantilo to Argentinian rock and it seems like she partially became a rock singer. You should state in direct words that her introduction of rock to her cousin had a direct impact on her musical carreer.
  •  Done

Peronist Youth years

• Add wikilink to Honorio Pueyrredon (optional).
  • Honorio Pueyrredón has already been linked in the previous section, it would be repetitive.
• What are the ideas of UCR? That should be made explicit.
  •  Done
• ...when Perón, by then once again president... → ...when Perón, who had once again became president...
  •  Done
• Who are the Montoneros and why were they expelled? That should be made explicit.
  •  Done
• ...the armed conflict... → ...an armed conflict....
  •  Done
• Why did the conflict worsened?
  •  Done
• If she rejoined Columna Norte then there should be a couple of words saying that she left for whatever reason.
  • It should be clear from the text: she rejoined it after being in prison for six months.
• In the sentence Patricia Bullrich had to be on the scene... it should be made more clear what exactly was her role on the attack.
  • As written, she had to be on the scene, pretending to be a casual student... meaning, she would be a cover agent, looking like a random uninvolved civilian, but would warn of incoming police or aid the attackers if needed. I thought that it would be a bit too much to go into so much detail, just by describing a guerrilla attack and saying that she was "pretending to be a casual student" any reader should be able to figure out the rest.
• Add a comma at the end of 1997 in In January 1997.
  •  Done
• The device worked... → The device exploded, injuring the mayor’s daughter, Ana María Noguer, and his daughter-in-law, Hortensia M. de Nogue...
  •  Done
• The fact that she has a partner is casually dropped by stating they exiled together. If available a sentence should be added that she has a partner, Marcelo Langieri, and wherever they met.
  •  Done
• Why did she go to exile?!
  • To avoid capture

Political career

• She disagreed with Dante Gullo on what exactly? Why was there a need to reorganize the JP in the first instance?
  •  Done
• Peronism lost the election? Isn't peronism an ideology or are you talking about the Justicialist Party here? I assume the latter, so you should make that clear. Ditto, on the next sentence.
  • Actually, when talking about Peronism the political party as a legal institution is almost meaningless, just an empty shell to comply with electoral bureaucratic requirements and little more. Peronism has gone to elections using the Justicialist Party, but also the Laborist Party, the Peronist Party, the Front for Victory, Frente de Todos, Union for the Fatherland... and nobody cares about that except as a minor legal technicality. Either supporting or opposing them, everybody understands it to be a single political group across history, Peronism.
• Elected deputy for which party? A clarification is needed.
  •  Done
• You give examples of bills she proposed, why those three and not other three? None seem to be notable so I don't understand the inclusion of those three.
  • Right, none of those bills would be worthy of a standalone article, that's why I didn't even leave redlinks for them. Mentioning them, however, helps to see what did she actually do as a legislator. It's specifically those ones because the short biography cited selected them; so I will trust they made a reasonable selection.
• She had conflicts... → She had disagreements...
  •  Done
• Clarify that she left the party over the disagreements by adding a conjunction, "so" for example.
  •  Done
• ...to join the... → ...joining...
  •  Done
• Add a interlanguage link to the Spanish article on Unión por la Libertad (optional).
• Add a comma after "then" in Since then.
  •  Done
• Clarify on what is a community policing project?
  •  Done
• Did the merge had a direct relation on the election of Fernando de la Rúa for presidency? If so, why or how?
  • No. The big parties in that electoral alliance, who took him to the presidency with their combined votes, were the UCR and the FREPASO. The UPT was just a minor party that was there as well.
• Add wikilink to Secretariat of Labour, Employment and Social Security (Argentina) (optional).
  •  Done
• Add deficit spending wikilink to deficit (optional).
  •  Done
• Do the sources go on what labour and education reforms the UPT aimed for?
  • Not really. Just political slogans like "we must work hard", "education is the future" and so, but nothing really specific.
• The article states that Bullrich relaunched the UPT in 2002, aiming for the 2003 presidential elections. and then immediately after it states The UPT did not take part in the elections. What made them not pursuing their initial goal?
  • Negotiations, it would seem. She ran for mayor, but within a party slightly bigger than the UPT, and to do so she had to decline her presidential candidacy (a filler one, anyway, she never had any real chances by then). Not that it helped her much, but that seems to be the reason.
• Are the mayors elected through the presidential election?
  • No, but parties may negotiate their candidates at both national and sub-national elections as part of a same and general deal. Sometimes national and local elections are held the same day, to take advantage that all the electoral infrastructure is already in place, but that was not the case with the 2003 elections.

Minister of Security (2015)

• by the triple crime → by torturing and killing three pharmaceutical businessmen
• Per MOS:QUOTE, you shouldn't use quotes when the text can be conveyed in your own words, so I suggest for those two big quotes into prose.
• This sub-section's English was a little off, I did some copyediting. Tell me if you disagree with any change.
• The title section should include the years of her term, presumably 2015–2019 if it was a four-year period. Additionally, there should be clarification on her activities or roles in the interim, as the next section jumps to 2023. I can also see that the "Minister of Security 2023" section currently only contains one sentence, which for that the review could be quick-failed due to a severe lack of breadth. I will allow one week to expand on these two gaps.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.