Jump to content

Talk:Derwick Associates

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

Table in middle of article

[edit]

There is a box in the middle of the article with a table that doesn't seem to add much. Whatever it is the source is http://www.analitica.com/noti-tips/8921474.asp which states as the byline: "Departamento de Asuntos Corporativo" That means "corporate Affairs Department. This is a press release. Further, Analitica.com is not an RS. I am removing the table. If someone can find the information table elsewhere then it's fine to include but, as is, this is coming out15cpw (talk)

undue weight tag

[edit]

I'm leaving this tag on so that the PR folks working the page can make their case about where the undue weight is. Anyone who watches Venezuelan news knows the impact and importance of the Derwick scandal, news-wise, in that country's history. My hope is that we can remove it at the end of this week.

[edit]

Ok no one has engaged in the talk for a while or addressed my concerns. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Derwick has paid for edits on Wikipedia. No one can deny this. A now-banned user willfully admitted to accepting payment to protect the online reputation of Derwick and its CEO on Wikipedia. Its not far-fetched, then, to have suspicion of other users active on this page also being paid for similar edits. It has been quite some time since any edits were made, but considering the efforts of some users to remove negative details from the page and add puffery, I believe a new investigation is justified. Since last I participated in this several suspected users have already been found to be sock puppets in separate investigations. What will it take to perk up other users' ears here? Righteousskills (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth mentioning in the article that the company paid for edits? In the past, when companies are discovered to have done this, it has been deemed appropriate to put it in the page. Righteousskills (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it hasn't been covered in reliable sources, we can't use it here. A blog post and our own research won't be sufficient. - Bilby (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but then is this enough to re-open an SPI? Or where can we take this to get to the bottom of it? I will reiterate: we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Derwick has paid for editing in the past. I believe that is sufficient evidence to at least arouse suspicion. There is some administrators noticeboard or task force that can look into this better. Righteousskills (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016; Bloomberg

[edit]

Hello, it has been some time. Just wanted to stop by and point out that reliable sources now confirm U.S. Authorities are investigating Derwick, though no criminal charges are filed and Derwick's attorney stated he had not known of the probe. Does this merit changing the final sentence of the last paragraph to mention the active nature, rather than the uncertainty of the case?

Righteousskills (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Righteousskills: What you propose does not make sense as both articles from Bloomberg make reference to the inquiry made to Swiss banks back in March (already in the article). The last sentence is sourced from a Wall street journal article published in April in which the attorney claimed that as a result of the inquiry the investigation was suspended. Neither one of the Bloomberg articles refute that claim. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]
  • Halvorssen, Thor, (4 January 2015). "Carta abierta de Thor Halvorssen a Henry Ramos Allup". Noticierodigital.com. Retrieved 5 January 2015.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).