Talk:EcoHouse Group

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove defunct Sao Paulo and Dubai offices, replace with new Shanghai and Kuala Lumpur offices http://www.ecohousegroup.com/contact.php Stevecastro (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Technical 13 (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think what was wanted was the COI edit request as at Anthony Armstrong Emery. It seems a bit remarkable given that Stevecastro has happily stuffed the page full of PR, but has an edit request for an uncontroversial fact, and even I would suggest they just go ahead and do it. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to put without protected edit section however it came up automatically and didn't know how to change it. Can anyone tell me for future reference how to add it for COI instead? On this occasion, just wanted to double check that info should be changed as on company website and didn't require third party reference. Stevecastro (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You got it right elsewhere; {{request edit}}. And thanks in advance for following the COI rules, but if you genuinely propose just to change two city names, I would go ahead and do it. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other page I asked on the help chat and another admin changed it for me. Stevecastro (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Hey everyone, I was on Anthony Armstrong Emery's page earlier, looking for some things that could be updated, and came across this article about him and EchoHouse Group. [1] There's some information in here that I think we can use to expand this article with! Adamh4 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the line "they do not appear on the 2013 Inteligência Empresarial da Construção list of the hundred largest construction companies in Brazil" in the lede, but then also read a Financial Times article [[2]] states that EcoHouse is "one of the largest property and construction companies in northeast Brazil." These two statements conflict with each other, does anyone else thing a change could be made here? Adamh4 (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. The FT article appears to be entirely sourced from Emery; if you read it, does it not strike you that that statement might have come straight from his own mouth? Pinkbeast (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand how you interpreted like that, the prelude to that statement is a brief history of Emery's life, which is information that a reporter would receive from a secondary source as opposed to directly from the person being interviewed. Also, that statement is followed directly by a quote from Emery; if the claim was straight from Emery's mouth, it surely would have been quoted as well. I think the FT article is a credible source. Adamh4 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed, then, by the degree to which they investigated his grandmother for such a piece, but if you want to insert that into the article citing that FT article, fair enough. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'll go ahead and take out the statement "they do not appear on the 2013 Inteligência Empresarial da Construção list of the hundred largest construction companies in Brazil" and replace it with the quote from FT. Adamh4 (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are completely mistaken to take out that statement. My point is the opposite; it is overly credulous to suppose the statements in the FT article not directly attributed to AAE did not, necessarily, come from him; the statements about his grandmother are an example of ones which, while not directly attributed to him, obviously do not represent investigative journalism. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum; they don't necessarily contradict each other (if, eg, few of the largest construction companies in Brazil are in the northeast). Pinkbeast (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks for helping me figure the situation Adamh4 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

Hello again, stumbled back across this page and noticed that it says EcoHouse was founded in 2009, and its source makes no mention of this. I found a Telegraph article [[3]] that says it was founded in 2007. Should we make an edit to fix that? Adamh4 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems sensible. I wonder why the Telegraph is so keen to provide free plugs for Ecohouse? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and make that small edit if that's okay with everyone Adamh4 (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More History Changes

I think the sentence in the history section that says "In January 2013, EcoHouse reached a joint investment agreement with Conisa Constructions..." should be edited to say "In January 2013, EcoHouse acquired a 50% stake in Conisa Constructions," as noted by this source [4]. If we have the specific information of how much the investment is, I think that's an important detail to be included. Let me know what you all think. Adamh4 (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna go ahead and make that small edit, if anyone has any input, let me know. Adamh4 (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the source of the confusion here, although I could be wrong, is that that article says that Armstrong has the right to buy a 50% stake (ie, a controlling interest), not that he has yet, and that Conisa's new developments in 2013 will be half-and-half. But perhaps you speak rather more Portuguese than I do? Pinkbeast (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right Pinkbeast, that is my mistake -- I appreciate the help. Glad we can work together on this. I'll let you know if anything else comes up. Adamh4 (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corsina Merger

Hey everyone, The part of the lede that mentions claim that Ecohouse is one of the largest construction companies in Brazil could use some background information on how it got there -- this article [5] explains that it reached that point after merging with the construction company "Corsina." I'd like to add in a small sentence about this merger in the lede as well as the history; let me know if you all agree. Adamh4 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, no, although I apologise for the delay in replying. As mentioned, that Express article does not seem well researched; they can't even spell "Conisa". I checked the Jornal de Hoje Conisa article with a Portuguese speaker, and it says much more what it did before your edits. We are now also in a difficult position where the article says they merged with Conina, they have a 50% stake, and they have an option to acquire a controlling interest. This is highly inconsistent. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move Information

I think we should move the paragraph that says "On visiting EcoHouse's social housing projects..." from the History section to the Social Housing section. The rest of the information in the History section is referring to specific dates, which that does not, making it look out of place. It would fit better in the Social Housing sections because it is talking about social housing, and not necessarily a specific moment in the company's history that was very crucial. What does everyone think? If you all agree, I can make that change soon. Adamh4 (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

http://tribunadonorte.com.br/noticia/armstrong-a-investigado-por-fraudes/297343 and http://tribunadonorte.com.br/noticia/ecohouse-deixa-da-bito-de-r-300-mil-no-a-verda-oa/297344 might be useful to a Portuguese speaker looking to improve the article. The details of what they say are beyond me. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on EcoHouse Group. 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}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 16:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]