# Talk:Patricia Bullrich

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

@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)

Post-nomination comment: For some reason, the script used to close the nomination did not update the talk page banner, nor added the GA icon. I fixed it myself, pointing to the closing here in the edit summary (so it is clear that I'm not promoting my own nomination), and then the bot reacted and finished the job. Cambalachero (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)