Some of these things I have already changed or deleted. A province really does not have a monetary policy (though it can do some things e. g. about the availability of cash) and the phrase was too general to begin with, so that's gone. I changed "did nothing to stop" to "did not work to stop", though your criticism is valid. Note however that, when De la Rúa took office, Argentina was already in recession or on the brink of it, and the government concentrated on contractive measures from the start. Then came the corralito, etc. On the whole, the measures were intended to stop the collapse of the economy and all the economic analysts and the IMF were recommending them. I don't remember any major economist recommending an alternative course of action. Note also that "economic collapse" doesn't refer only to the critical period November 2001 - February 2002, but to the whole recessive period (1999-2002) and some time before and after. We should agree on a phrase that links De la Rúa's measures with the crisis without falling into any of:
"... did not work to stop the economic collapse."
"... ended up precipitating the economic collapse."
"... ultimately caused the economic collapse."
"... were intended to cause the economic collapse." (!!)
"... had nothing to do with the economic collapse" (!!!)
Then the "import-dependent" thing. Consider this: right after the devaluation, neighboring countries had to help us get medicine. The public hospital where I worked initially could not get X-ray film from the providers, and then only by paying in cash (and in dollars). Argentina then and still now is incapable of sustaining economic growth without importing certain forms of technology. I'd say that's rather import-dependent, though we may be speaking of different things. What do you propose?
What's the problem with the religious aspects of the Supreme Justices? The previous justices were all old, male, and ideologically conservative, and in addition some had ties to the right wing of the Catholic Church. And now two of them are women, one is the president of the Court and the other is a militant atheist in her own words. The clarification is intended to show the reader that the changes introduced in the Supreme Court were really important. Argibay's atheism in particular was even reported as a salient fact in international media. In a country where the Church attacks anyone who dares speak of women's rights, having these two women at the top of one of the country's government branches is extremely significant.
The qualification "historical" for the payment to the IMF is that (correct me if I'm wrong) Argentina had never decided to pay so much to the IMF or anyone else, not only at the same time but also ahead of schedule; and this payment has re-defined the relationship of Argentina with the IMF and swept with many assumptions about the economic future of the country that were valid before the payment.
I'm glad we're discussing this here civilly. Understand that no-one here is (that I know) affiliated with a party or a person (if someone is, it doesn't show), and that we don't have an ideological police, or a bureaucracy that you have to go through before correcting what you believe is wrong in an article; but when an article is not very new and deals with an important topic, you have to consider that most of the content is "settled" already and should be treated carefully, to avoid being (or being seen as) disruptive. It's perfectly OK for us to discuss over the tiniest details here.
Please sign after your comments and replies (here) using four tildes (~~~~). When you save the page they'll be converted to your username and current date/time. It's easier to keep track that way.  (Talk)