Talk:Gustavo Ferraro

LinkedIn and Quotes
This article is based on LinkedIn being the primary source to provide a background of the subject. That LinkedIn doesn't exist (may have at one time but not there now). I tried finding a bio elsewhere but in looking at this entry more closely it looks like the intent was to disparage. And the content is bordering on Fringe theories. I came across this looking at the parties involved in the recent news about the Argentina Bond crisis. The entry skirted the orphan tag by being linked with no sources to substantiate the claim that was made on 2 pages just to satisfy the orphan tag. If I can't find any bio info to support this obvious WP:SOAP it will be flagged for speedy deletion.--SimpleStitch (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Slow down there.. Lets discuss. The article is not BASED on LinkedIn, the LinkedIn source was used to give more background on his early career. Yes, it is an issue that it is gone and we should look for other sources, but this is not cause to delete the article. Ferraro has been in the news, credible news I should specify, and is a notable character at this point. I am more than willing to work with you to improve the page, but we cant call for speedy-deletion under these circumstances. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello again all! User:SimpleStitch, I noticed your recent edit that removed info due to its poor sourcing. Although I agree with this policy in general, it appears as though the info is supported in the following source at the end of the paragraph. I believe this is enough to add this info back, but I wanted to get you in on the discussion first. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi DaltonCastle, there are bigger problems with this article. Lines like 'Gramercy was described as having promised “to give political cover to the Casa Rosada” – the Argentinian White House – “and to conceal the agreement with the vulture funds" - is not about the subject and will be removed.  It is who you said LinkedIn said he worked for but not about him, plus no facts are presented in that statement.  Also all your citation are quotes which are opinions of the writers (and not Wiki worthy and will be removed) like 'A November 2013 article noted that it was Ferraro who had had the “extravagant idea of getting the bondholders who entered the two exchanges that implemented Kirchnerism to finance part of the payment to the holdouts, with the idea of avoiding a new default that would liquefy their holdings.”  I admire your vigor and constant attack against the Argentina debt crisis but airing your grievances should be done on a blog, not Wikipedia.  We still don't have a substitute for LinkedIn so I looked at others in this category and saw a pattern where you have developed other pages in similar fashion.  This article is not also neutral and will be flagged as such. --SimpleStitch (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I recently added back what you had removed. Although your concern and commitment to make Wikipedia a better place is appreciated, we can't just remove everything we don't think should be in an article. The sourcing provided does follow WP:RS policies and therefore merits its placement in the article. Changing the wording is different. Or if you find other sources that bring more balance to the page go ahead. But please, let's not be so hasty here. I would love to continue the discussion here and cooperate on developing the page further. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry DaltonCastle, they do not follow WP:RS at all and the fact that you put them all up with a blanket statement is a blatant WP:EW. This entry and Luis D'Elía, Raúl Jaime, etc. The list goes on with your same format. I have no choice but to report you and all these entries to Noticeboard.--SimpleStitch (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Since this was mentioned on the COI notice board, I put a note on Talk:Argentine debt restructuring about it. This subject needs attention from someone up to speed on the Argentinian financial crises. If reliable sources indicate the subject of this article played a substantial role, that deserves a mention. If not, not. John Nagle (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello all. Simplestitch, I suppose I can understand the concern you have, but please don't escalate this. I have a long history of working on pages related to political corruption across the globe. I have no external relation that would constitute a conflict of interest and simply edit this page because it is of interest to me. Ferraro is heavily covered in the media and many of the sources you removed (Infobae, Clarin, Argenpress, La Politica, Mining Press, Finanza Online, Rio Bravo, EnerNews, Agrositio) are certainly considered reliable sources, especially in Spanish language Wikipedia. Even if newspapers have biases, this does not disqualify them as RSs. When I develop pages within the scope of corruption I do my best to add information from many sources and points of views.

I hope you can see this point of view and understand that his involvement in the debt restructuring is notable and covered by reliable sources. I hope we can reach an agreement.DaltonCastle (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point of Wikipedia. We are not debating sources. We are removing sources that are opinions and theories of the editors. I am fluent in Spanish so I read all of them. Wikipedia is not a place to show opposing points of views, it is for facts. Think Encyclopedia. This entry is not Wiki worthy.--SimpleStitch (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. But Ferraro's involvement in the debt restructuring is notable. Sure, the authors of the articles have an opinion, but the fact that it made it into a newspaper means there is some merit. We can present them more as in question, but it is not fair to simply remove them. We can also try to add opposing viewpoints if they are presented in reliable sources. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not a point of view, those will not go back up. Just because writers mentioned their theories does not make it Wiki worthy. You even failed to provide an alternative to support his background and that will be removed too and this is not a notable figure. It is entirely fair to remove them with REASON. You have failed to note the reason given to each item removed. Go back and read. Your effort to re-word any of that is irrelevant. Wiki is not for opinions or theories, PERIOD.--SimpleStitch (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I do partly see your point. And yet I still have to disagree. Maybe we can seek mediation? Get some more opinions on here? It is not a theory or conjecture that authors of major newspapers have made these claims. The fact that they were made in newspapers at all is significant. Wikipedia can be for theories and opinions when they are notable, relevant, and backed by reliable sources. Should we wait until someone takes a look at the page? DaltonCastle (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This not for your opinion. There are clear guidelines called What Wiki is Not. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, POLITICAL, scientific, religious, NATIONAL, sports-related, or otherwise. Opinion pieces, even if it is the New York Times, is not the medium for which Wikipedia was built. You have not presented facts in your biased section that was eliminated. Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping, does not belong on Wikipedia. Not for discussion. Also, you have failed to address the original and basic issue of no source for the subjects background and that is being eliminated. --SimpleStitch (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a soapbox, you are correct. But the facts were presented in as un-biased a manner as possible. If Ferraro was involved in the debt restructuring, or said to have been by major newspapers, it is notable. And actually, it IS up for discussion. Please be more civil. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that SimpleStitch has deliberately tagged stuff with citation needed - and then removed it entirely - despite knowing that it's supported by sources. That would be a very bad thing. Let's not repeat that, hmm? bobrayner (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Before you edit...
I have added back in what is undeniably reliable sources. I believe the others are still up for debate. If its defamatory, then it is the fault of a major newspaper which should publish a correction of their mistake. Since I dont see that, and these sources are undeniably accepted on WP, I classify them as Reliable Sources. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You miss the point. It's not just that sources must be reliable, but that allegations, suggestions of guilt by association, and conjecture should be kept out of BLPs - nor by the same token should edits seek to create an appearance of wrongdoing by selectively quoting mere opinions to that effect. That said, I'll delete only the last of the four re-insertions at this point. Regards, 98.166.157.157 (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)