Talk:Adriana Salvatierra

Spotchecks
, I realized after I passed this for GA that I should have also done a couple of spotchecks, so I decided to go ahead and check a couple of citations. One issue came up:
 * "For the 2014 general elections, the MAS nominated Salvatierra as Carlos Romero's running mate on the party's list of Santa Cruz senatorial candidates. She served as Romero's alternate senator for just four months between January and May 2015. On 26 May, President Evo Morales appointed Romero to serve as minister of government, leading Salvatierra to occupy his vacant seat" is cited to this page. I don't see full support for everything in that cite.  It doesn't give the January date for the start of her time as alternate, and doesn't mention MAS or Morales, and doesn't talk about candidacy, only about her taking over Romero's tenure.
 * I have added a citation indicating the date on which elected alternate legislators took office, stating the names of each and what department they hail from. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This still doesn't cover everything. It doesn't say she was nominated as Romero's running mate, or that MAS nominated her, or that she was a candidate at all.  It doesn't say that she began serving as an alternate in January 2015.  And it doesn't say that Morales appointed Romero; that's a minor point since he was the President at the time, but it would best to cite it because it's not necessarily the President who makes these decisions in every government. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "It doesn't say she was nominated as Romero's running mate"
 * Oxígeno states that she "was alternate for Carlos Romero"; the word "running mate", then, applies electorally speaking. We wouldn't refer to Joe Biden as Barack Obama's vice president until after they were both elected. In the same sense, we wouldn't refer to Salvatierra as Romero's alternate until after they were elected.
 * Then perhaps I just don't understand the terminology here. Here's how I'm reading this; tell me where I'm going wrong.  The article says she was nominated for the 2014 general elections, so that nomination must have happened before 2015.  Los Tiempos says she was sworn in for the 2015 session, so are you saying that this implies that she must have been a candidate to be elected, so we don't need a citation for her having been a candidate?  I can see that if "alternate" is the name for the elected position, we don't use it for the candidacy, but I don't see any citation that talks about the candidacy at all.  And although I'm aware from elsewhere in the article that she was a member of MAS, there's no way to tell that from the given citation, so even if we agreed that we don't need to cite her being a candidate, a reader of this sentence doesn't see anything to support those details in the given citations. How about if we just shorten this to "Salvatierra was elected as Carlos Romero's alternate senator in the 2014 general elections", adding "as a member of MAS" if you want since a separate citation for that should be easy.  The Los Tiempos cite does show she ran in the election. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "or that MAS nominated her"
 * I believe that WP:WTC applies here. Every surrounding piece of information both before and after this paragraph lends credence to her being a MAS senator, (member since 2006, served as a MAS senator, president of the Senate under the MAS, etc.) to the extent that it could be considered "cited elsewhere in the article". Personally speaking, the second and third spotchecks would also apply here, but since those are already resolved, I won't challenge them further.
 * I agree this is one of the more minor points, but as I say above I think it's best to be thorough. Maybe this is an argument for adding the citation: if it's truly obvious to the reader by this point in the article, why do we mention it?  And if not, why wouldn't we expect to cite it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "or that she was a candidate at all"
 * I'd say see above, but Los Tiempos does state that all listed alternate senators were granted credentials "for the 2015-2020 legislative period"; that is, the legislature elected in 2014 to fulfill that term. Had she been appointed to serve due to a vacancy, then that would necessitate a citation.
 * I'm striking this; I think you're right -- I was focused on the "nominated" part of her candidacy, but yes, Los Tiempos proves she must have been a candidate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "doesn't say that she began serving as an alternate in January 2015"
 * See the first name listed under "Santa Cruz" in Los Tiempos.
 * Yes, the dateline on the article covers this, plus her name; I should have realized that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "it doesn't say that Morales appointed Romero"
 * Given that only the president has the power of appointment, and Morales was the then-president, I'd say this would fall under "subject-specific common knowledge". In that case, only the fact that Romero was appointed and to what position he was appointed to would necessitate a citation, both of which are noted by Oxígeno.
 * I'm going to strike this on the basis of "subject-specific common knowledge" as you suggest, but personally I would remove Morales' name -- I don't think it's needed, and I really hate to vary from just the facts a citation covers. But your call.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That all said, and while I'd personally stand by the claim's verifiability, for the sake of consensus I'm inclined to add a citation either way. I doubt I would find a mention of her nomination in any news article as most senators, especially alternates, are frankly enigmas for the majority of their terms, much less before being elected. The best I could do would be to cite the Electoral Authority's official list of elected candidates, in which Salvatierra is noted as the elected alternate senator for the MAS under Carlos Romero.
 * Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm alarmed by failing three of three spotchecks. Can you take a look at these and let me know if I'm mistaken? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "As president of the Senate, Salvatierra was a key figure in the political crisis that rocked the country after President Evo Morales and Vice President Álvaro García Linera jointly resigned from office in the face of accusations of electoral fraud in that year's general elections" is cited to this which doesn't mention her at all, and doesn't talk about electoral fraud -- instead it talks about Morales attempting to undermine democracy.
 * The source is only meant to cite the broader context (Morales stepped down after disputed election). I could move it further down so that the claim about Salvatierra herself is backed by Bolivia Verifica. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that covers the "key figure" part. It still says "electoral fraud", though, which is not supported by the NYT article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Salvatierra's motivations for resigning from her post have been the subject of heavy speculation. In the days preceding Morales' resignation, Salvatierra and Minister of Communication Manuel Canelas met with Antonio Quiroga and Ricardo Paz at Quiroga's office in the Plural publishing house to seek a solution to the crisis in the country. Anticipating a possible Morales resignation, Salvatierra raised her claim to constitutional succession, in which case she would convoke new general elections." is cited to which says nothing about speculation or about Salvatierra's claim or calling new elections.
 * Again, the claim is just context to the entire "Motivations" section as a whole. There is no article that simply states "Many of us in the media have been speculating on her resignation", rather multiple articles all give possible reasons. With checks two and three, the only reasonable solution I can see is adding a string a multiple citations that are already used later in the article, which I'm not partial to but would be obliged to add if you think it reasonable for verification.
 * I think it was a good idea to remove that first sentence. For the rest, I misread it first time round and it's fine; sorry I got that one wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I can see that you may feel that the context is covered by other citations, but all the article content does have to be sourced by the citations that cover it. You can do it with a string of citations, or bundle them into a note so there's a single note that in turn gives the sources.  One problem is that if you don't do that, others may edit elsewhere in the article, unwittingly deleting the source.  The main problem, though, is WP:V: the reader has to be able to check the information, and they can't do that if they can't tell where the source is.  Could you take a pass through the article and duplicate citations as needed to cover everything?  Then I can take another look through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair, I think those are the only two sections that will really need it. For the first, "key figure in the political crisis", I believe moving the NY citation down next to Bolivia Verifica should be enough. With the second, looking more closely at it, the section could still work with the sentence deleted all together as a transition is not necessarily essential. These are the only two "broader context claims" made in the article, so any other factual claims should have a directly corresponding citatin. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, let me know when to take another look. I recall promoting at least one other GA of yours; can you also check that?  I'll get to it sooner or later but you may want to look it over before I do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take another look anytime. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * One looks fine now; but I still have a couple of questions above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience with my nitpicking. More strikes and a suggested rephrase above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Rephrased. While agreeably a bit "nitpicky", I do still appreciated your thoroughness. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks good now. You had mentioned that this was the only area likely to give trouble with spotchecks, so I'll take a look at a couple of cite from elsewhere in the article next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A couple more: -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * FN 11 cites "Although not an active association in MAS leadership, the Southern Column was a major organization within the MAS' youth wing. Salvatierra described its work as "an opportunity to build another image of the Santa Cruz youth, which was not from the Youth Union, nor the one that kicked peasants or burned down the headquarters of the Ethnic Peoples Center"": verified; the source doesn't explicitly say major but I think it's implied by the numbers.
 * FN 13 cites "She later completed a master's degree in human rights and democracy in Latin America in 2022 and is currently employed at the Latin American Strategic Center for Geopolitics." Verified, but can you add an "as of" instead of "currently"?


 * ✅ Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Citizenship
There appears to be continued question as to whether Salvatierra remains a Chilean citizen. A few months ago, myself and another user conducted an investigation into the topic. The final result is transcluded here, with the summary being that she did in fact renounce her citizenship but Chilean bureaucracy has not yet legalized it (as of June 2022). I lean towards keeping the renunciation date (2019) on the article for one main reason: The information indicating her continued citizenship likely falls under No original research, and as such would harm this article's GA status. Bedivere has kindly uploaded the legal documents to Commons, which may counteract that point, though I remain cautious; perhaps a more experience administrator could clarify.

Transcluded from User talk:Krisgabwoosh: By the way, here is her Chilean birth certificate, just requested. I have to note that even when someone may renounce their Chilean nationality (and citizenship), it may be recovered at any time by requesting at either the Civil Registry or any Chilean consulate the removal of the renouncing subinscription/annotation. Bedivere (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This certainly an interesting find. I have to ask, though, if you could please explain how a birth certificate from 2004 indicates that she maintains Chilean citizenship today. The fecha de emisión gives 26 April 2022, but I assume that just indicates the date in which you accessed the file. I'm not familiar with Chilean documentation, so perhaps you could point out the location of the subinscription showing Salvatierra's current nationality and not, say, the nationalities she would have held when this certificate was issued in 2004. I should also note that for this article to pass as a good article, any reference to her regaining her nationality is probably going to require a non-primary source. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * She was registered a Chilean national in 2004. The certificate I uploaded was issued today. It is based on the original record, including all annotations it may have (it has none). The certificate is not the same as the birth record, from which the first is based, which may still be obtained for about three dollars, online, at the Civil Registry website, but from my knowledge, it only contains some additional information to that of the certificate (such as the specific time of birth, the specific place of birth, the age of their parents, the name of the person who requested the inscription, to name some). Had she renounced her nationality, that would be included in the certificate and in the original record. Now, finding a non-primary source would be troublesome since the media reported unanimously she renounced her citizenship (which she hasn't). Bedivere (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have an idea. Just for you to be sure about this controversy. I will make a request to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs asking about Salvatierra's presumed renouncing of her citizenship and what's the status of such request, if it was ever made. It will take about a month for them to respond, maybe less if we're lucky. Bedivere (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I commend you for going above and beyond for this. An official statement on the matter is about as direct as we'll probably get without having to make inferences based on her birth certificate. I'll await for their response and edit the article accordingly. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded yesterday (Tuesday) there are two documents related to the matter: * Oficio Reservado 8/2019 of the General Consulate of Chile in La Paz, which has attached the declaration of Salvatierra renouncing her nationality. It contains her Bolivian and Chilean birth certificate, formularies completed and signed by Salvatierra, copies of her Bolivian passport and Chilean ID card. * Oficio (DISER-DECIV) Público N.° 4850, by Subdirector of Consular Services, 2020, directed at the chief of Nationality Section, Department of Migration, which sends the documentation included in the aforementioned Oficio Reservado N.° 8/2019. I was given access to the 2020 document, but not to the documents it had attached. The 2020 document signed by Lorena Guzman Núñez requests an "Acta Literal" (literal act / a copy of the birth registry) with the annotation of the nationality renunciation, "as soon as possible, in order to notify the interested person". The birth certificate makes no mention of such annotation, though. As a result, it seems that Salvatierra did renounce to her Chilean nationality, but it hasn't been legalized yet. She hasn't so far requested to annul such renunciation. Bedivere (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Aha, wonderful. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that it all came down to slow Latin American bureaucracy—I remember the absolute slog of dealing with Bolivian customs back in the day. So she did renounce her nationality but it just hasn't been processed yet. I'd appreciate if you could forward what the Foreign Ministry sent to you to me, I have some uses for it. Aside from that, what do you think we do now? For intents and purposes, it appears she is no longer a Chilean citizen. Should we just remove the note on the article? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, legally she still is a Chilean citizen, besides the fact that she obviously does not want to be one. I think we should remove the note once Salvatierra actually loses the nationality. I can send the censored Oficio of 2020. Bedivere (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Send me the censored officio and I'll see what I can come up with using it. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * there you go Bedivere (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)