Talk:Corruption in Argentina

American Task Force Argentina as a reference

I don't think American Task Force Argentina should be cited as a reference in this article, as it is a lobby group for vulture funds with clear and morally questionable economic interests. 168.96.149.34 (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Class rating

Would anyone be willing to take another look at the assessment here? I think it is above a C-Class rating, and have reviewed the criteria for a B rating. I think it meets those standards. However, I didn't want to jump on this and do it myself since I made major contributions to this page. I will check back routinely for any updates on this. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the rating to B class. No one looked at this so I took it upon myself. If someone disagrees I will gladly work with someone to improve the page. However, I believe this page meets the criteria for B class. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Nisman

The death of Alberto Nisman should be removed from this article. It is a scandal, yes, but not a corruption-related scandal, which is the focus of this page. Cambalachero (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cambalachero! Your concerns and using the talk page are appreciated. However, there is no Scandal in Argentina page, and corruption does not only refer to situations involving finances. Any example of a leader abusing authority is corruption. Nisman was scheduled to give a testimony of his findings on Kirchner obstructing justice in the Buenos Aires Jewish Center Bombing. The day of Nisman’s death he prepared arrest warrants for both Kirchner and Timerman and then was found dead. The issue is exploding in the media because credible sources challenge the liklihood his death was a suicide, given the circumstances. Is this not considered dishonest conduct by someone is power? DaltonCastle (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and added this section back. I think this is a clear example of alleged government abuse of power that falls under the category of corruption. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You're free to think whatever you like. The fact remains that Nisman's death is still very much under investigation. And while conspiracy theories abound - ranging from the incongruous (that he was killed to be "silenced" after he had already submitted his complaint and all wiretap transcripts to the courts; these are in fact available online) to the lurid (that Nisman and Diego Lagomarsino -the owner of the gun- had been lovers, and that this was a crime of passion) - no one here is in a position to frame this as a "government abuse of power" or anything else. When prosecutors reveal their findings, and if these involve corruption (public or private), then we'll revisit the matter. Thank You. Sherlock4000 (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your concern on this page. However, several major newspapers, considered reliable sources, draw suspicion of government activity in this case. This isn't some barstool hearsay that was overheard by a crock-pot blogger.. Its a legitimate theory supported by several points of view. Yes, it is alleged.. but it is alleged by reliable and notable sources. I believe it is therefore completely reasonable to keep it on the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a confusion here, over the meaning of "corruption". It does not equal "abuse of power"; it's just one form of abuse of power, but not the only one. I propose the following guidelines when adding cases:

• The case must involve an illegal use of the financial resources of the state to benefit individual people (either the officeholders themselves, or people close to them). It should be a case of bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, embezzlement, drug trafficking, money laundering, or human trafficking (or a combination of several of those). If there is no such financial gain involved, the case is not listed. For example, the death of Nisman (as said early, even if the suspicions about the government were true, they are not related to financial gain).
• The case must involve an actual use of the resources of the state. A crime commited by an officeholder before or after having a political office, or which he/she made without taking advantage of it, shall not be listed. For example, the car bought by Boudou, which has falsified papers.
• Cases do not need to have a sentence against the officeholder. If the case is still open, archived because of the statute of limitations, or with a sentence declaring the accused party innocent, it is listed anyway, clarifying those results. The continous existence of the scandal in the media is enough to report it. Cambalachero (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Corruption is defined as any abuse of power through dishonesty or misconduct. Not necessarily for financial gain but generally for something gained. In this case, although not proven, it is alleged that the administration was covering its tracks because it wanted favourable terms with Iran. This is clear-cut corruption. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Who defines corruption in such a broad way? Our article on Political corruption, and Transparency International, both include the financial gain as part of the definition of corruption. Cambalachero (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Merriam Webster. I am going to make more progress on this section and add details that will indicate its relevance. Please be patient while I put this together. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop removing the details of the Nisman case. It is notable, sourced reliably, and related to corruption. Now if all doubters are convinced there was no wrongdoing, then the info can be removed. However, currently, several major organizations, news agencies, and government departments around the world, as well as large numbers of Argentines. If this changes, I will be the first to take down the case. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• You have the cart before the horse here: factual indications that the Nisman death was the result of corruption must exist before this section is included, rather than including it and then waiting for evidence to surface. This is all the more so because BLP guidelines apply. I might add that at this point this is obviously being motivated by your POV - especially given your history of writing one-sided hit pieces against Argentina, for one, and fawning pieces related to the far-right opinion rag, The Weekly Standard, on the other. If and when evidence does surface to indicate complicity - whether it be public, private, Argentine or foreign - then I shall gladly revisit the matter with you. Thank You. Sherlock4000 (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are you trying so hard to keep this information off the page? "As many times as it takes"? Takes for what? Ive explained why this is staying on the page, and yet you keep removing it.

Yes, I often write about political corruption, so what? But this isnt a matter of POV or BLP. Major organizations and a significant number of Argentines believe there is more to the story. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Merriam Webster is a dictionary. A dictionary seeks to provide a very short definition in just a couple of words. It is not the best place to seek answers to complex questions about topics (such as a definition of what is and what isn't political corruption), specially if trying to compare it with sources that provide such detailed definitions. Specially if we do not have conflicting definitions, but a detailed definition that says something that the bare dictionary entry does not. After all, surely Transparency International has a better idea of what is political corruption than Merriam-Webster.

Note that I'm not saying that Nisman's death is not noteworthy. I'm saying that it is beyond the scope of this page, because it is not related to corruption. It is appropiate at several other pages: the AMIA bombing, the presidency of Cristina Kirchner, the biographies of the people he accused, the 2015 elections (as this happens immediately before, and will surely be discussed in the campaign), the 18F demonstration, the "Je suis Charlie" slogan, the secretariat of intelligence, Nisman's own biography, etc. Cambalachero (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well does this change when you consider the allegation that the cover-up was done to improve relations with Iran for cheap oil? This certainly results in some type of material gain due to wrongdoing, if true. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Key word there being if - and the judge reviewing the complaint you're referring to just struck it down in its entirety for lack of merit. Moreover he specifically addressed the crux of Nisman's case -the assertion that Interpol had been petitioned to lift Red Notices against Iranian officials- by referring to Interpol's own Secretary General, Ronald Noble, who stated categorically that the claim was a lie. Since Nisman was no doubt aware it was a bald faced lie, the inescapable conclusion is that he had lent himself to a political hatchet job, willingly or not.

As you know very well (but of course, couldn't care less), Nisman's death is still under investigation. Accordingly, it remains extraneous to this article unless Judge Palmaghini and Prosecutor Fein reveal factual evidence to the contrary. We're not here to fan rumors and bad-faith impressions, even if you are.

That's what The Weekly Standard is there for; I'm sure they could use a talented writer like you.

Regards, Sherlock4000 (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That was rude and I'd like you to please remain civil. I'm not denying your points, but I'm saying there are several organizations and polls that believe there was a government hand in the murder. These views are covered in reliable sources, not on conspiracy-theory sites. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings; you work hard, you write very well, and I appreciate you for that. You've done quite a bit of editing, as should know that we're not here to serve as an echo chamber for opinion pieces or violate BLP guidelines - least of all to preempt an official, ongoing investigation by fanning rumor and innuendo. You're an intelligent man, and you no doubt know that today's media is highly politicized (and in Argentina, well forget about it!); you can find MSM op eds to suit almost any theory these days. That does not automatically warrant their use here. They remain theories, until hard evidence surfaces one way or another. When they do - and if they support a corruption motive - I'll be happy to work with you on it. My regards as always, Sherlock4000 (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Corruption in Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313133751/http://www.me.gov.ar/efeme/delatorre/biograf.html to http://www.me.gov.ar/efeme/delatorre/biograf.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227024756/http://tiempo.infonews.com/nota/39525/estafa-del-grupo-velox-800-millones-de-dolares-que-no-aparecieron-mas to http://tiempo.infonews.com/nota/39525/estafa-del-grupo-velox-800-millones-de-dolares-que-no-aparecieron-mas

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)