Jump to content

Talk:Boudougate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DYK nomination

[edit]

Clarifications needed in article

[edit]

There are a number of places in the article where I am not clear what is supposed to be conveyed or what is meant:

Development:

  • Paragraph 1:
    • First sentence: "whose real owner may be Amado Boudou." If this is part of her accusation, did she say Boudou was the real owner rather than her ex-husband? If so, try wording it "and claimed/alleged that the real owner was Boudou."
    • Fourth sentence: "considered" is an odd word to use here; "said" or "said he believed" or even "said he considered", but presumably he's made a statement of some kind, so the wording should reflect this.
  • Paragraph 2:
    • First sentence: When was this appointment made?
    • The second sentence puts the printing in the future: when are they supposed to start? If they have started, when did it happen?
    • Third sentence: the text "as the complicated fiscal context of the enterprise would not allow it to be up to the standards required to work with the state," is unclear. Does it mean just that Ciccone had shaky finances? Or were the financial problems at the root of other problems that would prevent them from meeting the standards. This needs explanation; "complicated fiscal context" is very unclear.
  • Paragraph 3:
    • Second sentence: "and not Fabián Carosso Donatiello, who resides in Spain since years ago." Who is Donatiello and what does he have to do with the apartment? If he is the supposed resident of the apartment, this needs to be explained, along with how long he has been resident in Spain and thus not in the apartment: "who has resided in Spain since [year]" or "who has resided in Spain for [several/many/?] years"

Political repercussions:

  • Paragraph 1: Please explain why a Kirchnerist majority matters in blocking impeachment, and link "Kirchnerist" so the reader can figure it out. (It's his party, right?) Also, why do the people in the second sentence matter? Are they Kirchnerists, important opposition politicians, or independents who have sway?
  • Paragraph 2: The decrease of 10 points: are these poll numbers? This should say not only what sort of numbers these are, they should give either his starting or current numbers to give context: 75 to 65 isn't much of a drop; 40 to 30 is quite severe. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Thank you for addressing most of the queries I raised. I have just made some edits to the article, mostly clarifying the changes you have made. Please check them all for accuracy, and especially Paragraph 2, the third sentence. Since I can't read the original Spanish, I'm basing my edits on what I think the English means to convey, and that isn't always safe.

What still needs to be dealt with is the second paragraph, second sentence: I think it's important to say whether Ciccone has actually started printing the money from the March 2012 contract, and if they haven't yet started yet, when they are scheduled to do so.

Also, the issues in the Political repercussions section that I listed above have not been fixed.

Once these three have been dealt with, the article will be ready for approval. I'm looking forward to seeing it as a DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final report: all issues have now been addressed. Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

Most of the cited sources come from the same newspapers, which are both known to oppose the actual government, thus making the article biased to their point of view. 186.59.195.26 (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those newspapers do not "oppose" the government, they are just independent. The notion that the press is "opposing" them for publishing information about the things that are wrong is just paranoia. That's a press standard in all democracies in the world: only a dictatorship considers the independent press a "threat" as Kirchnerism does. Cambalachero (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Independant does not mean unbiased. Every discourse has its own purpose (may it be known or hidden), but that is not what I mean to discuss. Suppress the part between commas of my initial commentary, and the point stil holds. 186.59.195.26 (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's pointed in the article, that Boudou says he does not know Vandenbroele, and claims that it is all a conspiracy of Clarín. But he does not go beyond that childish rant: he did not explain why did Vandenbroele paid the TV cable at his apartment, the reasons for the irregular moratorium to Ciccone, the firm "The Old Fund" led by a random old man who did not even know he was registered as leading that firm, etc. The article reflects this: there are several proofs against Boudou, and his only answer is "Clarín lies". I have yet to hear a functional alibi from Boudou that actually explains things, instead of using mere abusive ad hominem rants. Cambalachero (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what is pointed out in the article, but that does not relate to my observation, and the rest of you answer does not pertain the point.186.59.158.98 (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And which is "your observation"? That you do not like the newspapers? That's not enough to claim the article is not neutral. Exactly what is supposed to be wrong with the article? Cambalachero (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowblum Amado Boudou is our vice-president. It has a controversial political life. Boudougate is a deconstructive situation for Argentinian's "pride". In this context we must be aware that *one thing about neutrality is that "the most of the sources are from the same side" of a political sector of Argentina, and *other quite different is that 16/16 (that means 100%) of the journalistic sources of this article) are from one same owner (the other 2 links are .gov's and they point to our Constitution, making a total of 18 links in this article). —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a matter of personal taste. I will repeat what I have already stated: article is biased to the POV of the sources. Apparently I will have to find some others myself and edit the article accordingly, as you, as the main author, seem quite pleased with the position reflected.186.59.171.188 (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make it go in circles. As I already said, the point of view of Boudou has already been described. Clarín and La Nación are the most respectable and highest sold newspapers of Argentina, and they are not affiliated to any political party. You need to actually state something incorrect in the article, rather than make rants about the newspapers.
By the way, that comment of La Nación and Clarín having the same owner is laughable. I defy anyone to try to prove that nonsense. They are competitors, like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, or like Graduados and Showmatch Cambalachero (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget to read Wikipedia:Canvassing before begining to recluit people. Cambalachero (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You belive this is a circle, but we haven't even moved from the starting point. I would call it a dot. By finding " some others" I meant sources, not people. No need to be throwing wikipedia rules at me, chill. 186.59.203.140 (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, as long as you don't point something actually wrong, then the discussion does not advance. So far, you simply pointed that you don't like the newspapers, and nothing else. I pointed several things: that they are respected newspapers, not affiliated to any political party, that they are independent of each other as well, that Boudou's opinion is already mentioned in the article... and you just dissapear for a week, and return a week later restoring the template and bickering that we are not done yet. Cambalachero (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Cleanup templates are not meant to be used as "badges of shame" Cambalachero (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boudougate. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boudougate. 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:

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) 00:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boudougate&oldid=1200289679"