Talk:Secretariat of Intelligence/Archive 1

Moving
This should not have been a new article. Secretaría de Inteligencia de Estado should simply have been moved to the new name. -- Necrothesp 18:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, did not know about that, I am pretty new to Wikipedia. Still, Secretaría de Inteligencia de Estado and SIDE should point to Secretaría de Inteligencia and S.I, since most people still use the old names. --San Marcos 03:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Content
The article contains a lot of baised, irrelevant information. For example the article outlines various cases in which there are rumors of SI (side) involvemenment. Nevertherless, this information comes from some local newspapers that do not have any reliable source. Pagina12 for examples is an left wing newspaper which always intends attack the SI in their articles. The idea of this article is to inform about the SI, not to outline rumours that are spread about it, wikipedia should be an objetive source of information, further reading can be done in these newspapers websites. Furthermore, the secret laws have been abolished by the senate, so the information present in the article is old. Nabu 13:13, 28 August 2005 (GMT -3)


 * I am sorry, most of the information comes from the press, all of the information on the article is proven. Newspapers are not rumors tabloids. Many of these were admitted by SIDE itself, and proven in judicial investigations (AMIA Case, Piqueteros, Brives) And seeing as *I* wrote 100% of the article, and collected all the information, and you, nothing, I believe I should have a word. Check the sources, it is all proven information. Also you keep vandalizing the page, anonymously, changing work that has been done. Let's end the controversy. It's up for an editor to see what stays or not. Don't vandalize the page again. And learn how to properly edit a Talk page before doing so, as well as try reading the previous point. Also I am going to have to change a the wording of the page, seeing as you tirelessly try to change it back. --San Marcos 21:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, most controversial points have been solved, but the article still needs editing --San Marcos 22:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This issue has been solved. --San Marcos 07:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)