Talk:K money trail

K money trail was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 3, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Argentina High‑importance

	Argentina portal This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentina. If you would like to participate, you can improve K money trail, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on June 5, 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Balance Needed[edit]

This article is too much anti-K gossip with out facts and needs its description and analysis equilibrated. So I put the balance needed tag at the beginning. Monkeypuzzled (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even the 'Government reactions' section is biased. This article reads like a gossip column not an encyclopedia. Monkeypuzzled (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy itself took place mainly in Periodismo para todos, but most references used are from the coverage of La Nación, which does not have ties with Lanata, and it is in fact a newspaper of record. On the other hand, Página 12 and similar newspaper are fringe media that nobody reads, and only stays in business because the government finances them in exchange of their support. Thus, they have a conflict of interest in this. As for the reactions, those were precisely the reactions, the things the government has said in response to those investigations. Cambalachero (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothernico (talk • contribs) 04:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify a bit further. The main idea of the government is basically that the Dirty War (a conflict in the 1970s between the army and guerrilla groups) is still going on, with renewed factions and methods. The government would be continuing the fight of the guerrillas, against those that would be continuing the fight of the military junta. And under this angle, everything that goes wrong for the government (the high inflation, the scarcity of several products in the markets, the massive demonstrations, the disasters caused by collapsing public services, the raise in crime, the newspapers giving bad news, the defeat in the recent elections, the judiciary repealing certain laws as unconstitutional, etc) is because of such forces and their hidden conspiracies. Of course, such vision is a fringe one, only held by media financed by the government to voice this nonsense, and who would go into bankruptcy if they lost this support. For everybody else who does not a conflict of interest involved, Occam's razor prevails, and things are just as they seem to be. The Dirty War ended three decades ago, inflation is caused by the standard causes of inflation, newspapers with bad news means that bad news are taking place, and a TV report about an embezzlement case is not a threat to democracy or a veiled coup attempt but a TV report about an embezzlement case. Check any trustworthy international media, and you'll find the later vision. Check the most trustworthy media in Argentina, and you'll find the later vision (as mentioned, La Nación has no ties to the media that made the original report, and it is a newspaper of record; Periodismo para todos has received Martín Fierro Awards). Check the most watched news sources, and you'll find the later vision: Clarín is the most sold newspaper in Argentina, La Nación is the second, and Periodismo para todos is the most watched political TV program in Argentina. In fact, if things have not changed since last I heard, it may be the most watched TV program in Argentina in 2013, of any genre.

This does not mean that the vision of the government should be ignored. It should be included, yes, and it is included, but without undue weight. Cambalachero (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added new references to the article, plus the necessary denials to the sayings of Lanata. I incorporated more information about Panama authorities and the banks involved.Moya13 (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what I said about government-controlled media can be seen here, at the New York Times, if someone needs to confirm that I'm not exaggerating. As for Moya1, a new user created on the fly to join an ongoing discussion and who is already using wiki slang is very likely to be a sock puppet. Cambalachero (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anothernico, Moya13, do you have something to say in this discussion? Cambalachero (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources come from several different newspapers, personal opinions should not count. Do not understand why erase what you do not likeMoya13 (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said what is wrong with Página 12, Infobae and other government-financed media, and why they can't be used as references in politics. Cambalachero (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you say something does not mean it is the truth, the information is referenced by means recognized, Página 12 is the third most popular newspaper in the country and also La Nación.Moya13 (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check the sales of the ten most sold Argentine newspapers on the last August 2013 here. Clarín sells 238,483 newspapers each day, and La Nación sells 159,848. Diario Popular gets almost the third part of Clarín's sales, and many others follow: la Gaceta, La Voz del Interior, La Capital, etc. Página 12 is not even in the list. Cambalachero (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you not to delete information referenced by multiple sources, Argentina national and foreign newspapers, their only sources are the newspaper La Nación, to use a single information is unreliable, if you want to add add information but not delete or change the information add other users. I think his attitude is very negative and uncooperative a reliable article but an opinion pieceMoya13 (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said what is wrong with the sources that you add: they are both unreliable, with a conflict of interest, and nobody reads them. You can't add such sources to the article just to have more variety. If you want to add other sources, consider sources such as CNN or the New York Times. Cambalachero (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe that someone can argue "nobody reads them" to deny sources like Pagina 12, a well known Argentinian newspaper that is used all across other articles in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is to inform, not to convince people Fedemika (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Route of the K-Money/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 05:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since this was nominated in June and the only two attempts at reviews were politically motivated vandalism (basically), I will take care of it before the New Year. As I usually do, I will print it out and review the hard copy, so it may be a while before I can comment. But I am reviewing it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Happy New Year, Feliz Aňo Nuevo. I have made some minor copy edits and now I have reached my decision.

When I looked this over and printed it out, I didn't think I was going to pass this right away. It was going to be either "on hold" or fail. I had to read it closely to decide.

And, alas, while it has in many ways succeeded, it is not enough. The makings of a GA are there, but there are enough issues that I don't think giving the editors an additional week or so will be enough to fix. So another nomination will be in order.

First, the things that were done right:

It is meticulously sourced. Essential given the subject matter, a news story that made a complicated allegation of corruption and unjust enrichment against the sitting head of a large and regionally important country.

It is reasonably balanced, with enough representation of the response, such as it is, from Kirchner's supporters. Obviously, they're upset that this story even exists, judging by the vandalistic "reviews" this article got. So we're going to need to make sure that it stays that way.

It is well-enough written, no small accomplishment given the Scylla and Charybdis of a complicated alleged financial scandal and the writer (I think) not being a native English speaker. I made whatever changes I could to bring it closer to standard English that didn't touch on the facts, but I didn't need to make too many (although it still has a rather formal tone overall). I was able to understand how the alleged diversions of funds worked, which I was afraid I wouldn't.

Given all these positives, I am amazed that the Spanish article is so short (And also, it seems to have been titled after the case against Báez, not Lanata's story. Is there any reason for that?)

But now for the negatives:

I have already tagged the intro as being too short. It looks like whatever was written as a stub was not expanded as the article grew. Given the complexity of the scandalous allegations described in the article, that cannot stay.

The article really doesn't provide enough context for those readers not Argentinian or familiar with Argentinian media and politics. It might be useful (as well as standard editorial practice) to spell out the name of the AFIP in addition to describing it as the country's tax agency. It might be helpful also to explain, the first time the term is used, that "deputy" in Argentina refers to a member of the lower house of the Argentine National Congress (And also, is "judge" capitalized in Spanish, or in Argentina, if it's a person's title? In English that's fairly common, so it's jarring to see it always used in lower case).
And we can't depend on links to help us understand that La Nación is a major daily newspaper—I was reading it in hard copy so I had no clue and no way to get myself one. It might also have been helpful to give us some background on Lanata, as the article about him explains that he's often been critical of Kirchner. Ditto with Grupo Clarín.
Amd we might want to know what political party or faction Elisa Carrió belongs to before it becomes an issue with the case she filed.

And sometimes context is misplaced. The names of Oscar Parilli and Alejandra Gils Carbó are introduced, in full, into the narrative with no explanation as to who they are or why they're being mentioned. Only the second time is it explained who they are.

In one case there's more context than necessary. Summary style doesn't require listing all those soccer players, many of whom (I'd bet) aren't widely known outside of Argentina.

It's also in need of updating. The investigation into the Uruguayan angle has stalled since January 2014? It's now a year later. Have there been any new developments? Báez had showed no signs of preparing for a gubernatorial run during 2013? What about since then? And what of all the investigations launched? I think, in fact, it deserves another tag on top.

And its strict neutrality aside, there are places where it could be better. The Argentine public is usually apolitical? Says who? It can't be us.

Given all the dramatis personae in this article, I wonder if a more timeline-style format might be the better way to present the first part—what happened before, what happened on the three nights it aired, and so forth.

But that will have to wait for the next nomination. It's fixable, but it needs to be fixed.

✗ Fail Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

I propose changing the name of this article from "The Route of the K-Money" to "The K Money Trail", as this name seems to be preferred by English-language news sources.

I cannot find any well-known English-language sources using the name "The Route of the K-Money". Astaire (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]