Talk:Jorge Horacio Brito

Reverted

There were some suspicious edits made that I reverted. I've dealt with sock puppets in the past and don't care to have someone whitewash the page. The edits were also poor quality. If there is a pressing issue take it up on the talk page please. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop reverting edits for no reason. If its libellous its libellous on the part of the newspaper, which Wikipedia considers a reliable source. If the newspaper is wrong it will publish a correction. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out when I made the correction, some of the sources: for example: http://www.revistaeconomica.com.ar/files/numeros-anteriores/n120-2011.pdf/ are broken, moreover other sources are simply from obscure or questionable websites (igdigital, urgente24, opisantacruz) NOT from reliable sources (which I've been trying to find on this subject but seem scarce for this afirmations). The sources are, also, in spanish without any clarification, for example, I eliminated a sentence that said "he has not been charged, at least in part, allegedly, because .. and his personal connection to the judge in the case", while the article explicitly says "A su vez, Brito no es amigo de Ariel Lijo", "Brito is not a friend of Ariel Lijo (the judge in question)", so yes, it's poorly sourced and libelous, which is why I eliminated those parts (and not others). You should take into account that since this refers to a living person, special care about these type of contentious material without proper sourcing should be taken. Arankwende (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Feel free to add whatever you want. But please stop removing sourced content. Its one thing to edit it and improve it; its another to completely remove it. Also, we've been over the POV accusations before. You should really understand that I writer about political corruption. Not just in Argentina. I have written about several nations. If I find notable information, I like adding it. Brito has been implicated in Boudougate and Lazarogate. Thats notable. I apologize if this appears as a bias. I do my best to avoid that, but when writing about political corruption thats often difficult. To be clear, the removal of notable, reliably sourced information about corruption, however, could also be considered POV. If you'd like to collaborate on a page that has this new information without removing reliably sourced content, Im more than happy. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I am reluctant to add back the FELABAN section since it relies on a primary source. I know its best to avoid primary sourced, with some relevant exceptions, but probably not in this case. Is there a secondary source available? DaltonCastle (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We've had this conversation many times; but I suppose you're not likely to stop engaging in POV-pushing and highly slanted editing in violation of BLP and Neutrality guidelines. While you continue to slander Argentine public figures on Wikipedia and make sure any articles about them read like op ed hit pieces, many of your other edits on the other hand dote on right-wing hacks like The Weekly Standard's Matt Labash, as well as running interference for far-right pressure groups like the Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Americans for Tax Reform, and of course the Donors Capital Fund - all of whom are known to employ internet trolls (some of whom almost certainly troll Wikipedia).

While restoring undeniably neutral, relevant content you deleted (even the infobox!) I nevertheless made an effort to weave some of your additions into the article. You've done enough editing to know that we're not here to push innuendo or violate BLP guidelines. That said gossip is quoted in a newspaper or other is no excuse to push it on Wikipedia. Today's media is highly politicized - all the more so in Argentina - and you can find op eds to suit almost any theory these days. That does not automatically warrant their use - as you know very well.

Good chatting again, Sherlock4000 (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I have protected the page for 24 hours to give everyone a chance to determine which is better out of this version and this version, and resolve any other disputes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do you have to be so hostile here? I understand your concerns and have tried to work with them, but you won't even meet me half-way! Please keep the conspiracy theories off of here. I cant reiterate enough, I write about political corruption. I am not slandering anyone. If it was slander, then it was done so by all the major newspapers that published the reports. And yes, these are notable newspapers. Just because they have a political bias does not mean they are non-notable. The Wall Street Journal and The Huffington Post undeniably have bias. But everyone considers them reliable sources. Have I used non-RS in the past by accident? Probably. And i'd be willing to omit that information. But Clarin, Urgente 24, Perfil, etc are reliable sources. They didnt get their information from nowhere. When I find information about corruption, in Argentina or elsewhere, I add it. Now I have stated that I am willing to work with you in finding a proper compromise. But I am concerned that your edits completely remove reliably sourced content without leaving any mention whatsoever, and I dont think I am alone. This new version uses several non-RS's to add apparent puffery to the page. Under certain circumstances this is acceptable, but not when you remove reliable sources to add said info. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me,I believe that you can't write corruption in cases that haven't been proven at a Court. That is why there are parts of the article that should be removed or changed. What do you think, Sherlock4000? There are also some references that are dead or are unreliable and even there is information that should have a reference and it has none.

For example, this paragraph is completely misleading and the references are dead: "He was named Chairman of the Board of Directors in June 1988 and cultivated close relationships with leading officials in the governments of both Raúl Alfonsín and Carlos Menem. During the Menem presidency, Brito came under criticism for allegations of favorable treatment for one of Macro's largest borrowers, leather manufacturer Emir Yoma (Menem's brother-in-law), particularly after Macro's 1995 rescue by the Central Bank of Argentina. Under Brito's leadership, Macro Bank grew steadily with the acquisition of numerous provincial banks privatized during the 1990s, including the Bank of Salta (his native province) and of neighboring Tucumán Province."

Part of the information given in this paragraph is unsourced and then should be considered doubtful. It is said that 'Brito explressed interest in the purcharse...' How relevant can be this information since an encyclopedia should show real facts, not hypotetical ones?:

"He also serves as chairman of the board of directors of YPF, long the largest petroleum producer and refiner in Argentina. Brito was among those who expressed interest in the purchase of 20% of the Madrid-based Repsol's ownership of the former state oil concern, when these shares were offered for sale in 2007."

The following paraghaph cites and unreliable source as OPI Santa Cruz and gives information that it's not neutral and misleading. In the other hand, how Wikileaks can be considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia? This part should be removed:

"Brito was mentioned in cables written in 2008 and 2009 by the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires, later made public by Wikileaks, as having had a close connection to the late President Néstor Kirchner and a less intimate relationship with current President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Macro Bank also maintains a branch in the Bahamas, which changed its name from Pasó de Sud Bank & Trust Company to Macro Bank Limited. This Bahamas bank held at least US$10.4 million for the firm Austral Construcciones owned by businessman Lázaro Báez, the central figure in the “K-Money” scandal. The bank's activities in this matter were investigated by judicial officials in Liechtenstein for corruption, but the investigation was terminated when a firm registered in the Seychelles, Trade 24 Limited, assumed the blame for any irregularities.".

This media information in almost written in conditional, i.e. that it could not be taken seriously. Moreover, a newspaper is not a reliable source to consider that Madero Center was built by Vizora since its official webiste says nothing about it. Tu sum up, that information it's not verifiable

"Macro Bank participated in the construction of Madero Center, a Puerto Madero mixed use development midrise in which Brito owns an apartment, as do his son, President Cristina Kirchner, Vice President Amado Boudou, and partners in the London Supply firm (which was implicated in Boudougate)."

All those paragrpahs should be removed as it is not sure that the information it's true. So, it makes the article misleading and biased. --Superagente86 (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Hi, Superagente86:

Well said - especially since that is, after all, the policy on biographies of living persons: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.

"Poorly sourced," of course, refers to verifiability - which in Argentina is particularly problematic since the repeal of criminal libel and slander if presented in the context of public interest (which has been twisted to mean almost anything pertaining to public officials or even those in the private sector, if they're famous enough). While this repeal earned Argentina plaudits from Human Rights watchdogs, since it eliminates any possibility of prosecuting those expressing their views about public affairs, it has unfortunately set the stage for a virtual food fight of allegations against public persons in Argentina ([1]).

This legally-sanctioned lack of journalistic accountability is what makes using Argentine op eds -or non-Argentine pieces citing Argentine op eds- such a poor choice when adding harmful content about living persons here on Wikipedia. As you pointed out, said allegations are more often than not supported by nothing except hearsay, usually anonymous (which of course could be the op-ed writer himself). In many ways it's analogous to using Fox News as a source for unsubstantiated -but still very harmful- allegations against, say, President Obama or anyone else they don't particularly like.

This is especially unacceptable if said gossip is "anonymous" in nature, and this is usually the case with the allegations Dalton posts on Wikipedia. What's more, this article is far from the only example of malicious and improper editing on his part; I recently noticed the same on Eduardo Elsztain's article, complete with the following mouthful: Elsztain himself has been depicted as a corrupt “Kirchnerista” and a member of the “Argentinian Jewish mafia” (!).

I might add that this was put there without even a token source and, for maximum effect, placed in the last sentence in the lead. The tone, as you can imagine, is typical of nearly all of his edits on Argentine-related subjects.

Getting back to Jorge Brito, I concur with your suggestions and the very thoughtful rationale you provided for these changes. I'd even support deleting the Wikileaks paragraph as it stands now since, as you pointed out, it's being indirectly (and poorly) sourced and was moreover clearly framed so to cast aspersions that are not supported by the judicial record or any other actual, verifiable fact.

Thanks again, Superagente. Let's keep in touch.

All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record there are sources backing Elsztain as having connections to the mafia. But that is not a very important detail. So your main point it appears is that due to the nature of the Argentine media that it is hyper-partisan reporting, it sounds like? On the one hand I can see how this is an issue, but on the other, major newspapers in any country have to have some journalistic integrity of some sorts. La Nacion, Perfil, Periodico Tribuna, Opi Santa Cruz, etc are all considered reliable sources and are used time and time again across hundreds, if not thousands of Argentine-related pages. So not using them because they are critical of certain officials seems like cherry-picking. Plenty of pages have criticisms from major newspapers so long as its not from some unreliable source. Im concerned that these edits remove any mention of wrong-doing. You are not concerned about his implications in Boudougate? Its got extensive coverage in several reliable sources and as such, some version of this should be added to the page. Despite these newspapers having a bias, this doesnt mean they fabricated the claim that Brito is named in the Boudougate lawsuit several times. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The fake, unsoruced, biased and not proven information has been erased. The Boudougate is an important issue, but Wikipedia is not the place to talk about since the trial has not finished. By now, all the information known comes from the media, but it has not been proved that it's true. When the trial finish this kind of information would be relevant here in Wikiepdia. --Superagente86 (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a user, Dewritech, who it's not letting me to clean the article of biased, not proven and unreliable sourced contents. I told him to read this Talk page buy he does not seem to read any of my messages. I would appreciate if Sherlock4000 can help me with this matter, can't you? Many thanks, --Superagente86 (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I will say here that the only valid removal of content I see is this. It is the only one to remove poorly sourced material. If any content must be removed from the article, this would be the content. All the other information removed was well cited information. If you have doubts of the quality of the sources, bring it up at the WP:RSN.

Also, changing "He has similarly invested in local luxury hotels, country clubs, and other upmarket real estate," to "Another important buildings erected by Vizora are..." here, sounds way too POV to me. Tying in the word important there is a sign of support that is not included in the original sentence. It is a step away from a neutral article. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, I found the archive of [2]. The content is found at [3]. This makes all the content, except that following the reference, that has been removed has a source. I will see if I can find an archived version of [4]. If an archive can be found, then all the information belongs in the article. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Disputed content

• He was named Chairman of the Board of Directors in June 1988 and cultivated close relationships with leading officials in the governments of both Raúl Alfonsín and Carlos Menem. During the Menem presidency, Brito came under criticism for allegations of favorable treatment for one of Macro's largest borrowers, leather manufacturer Emir Yoma (Menem's brother-in-law), particularly after Macro's 1995 rescue by the Central Bank of Argentina.

• Under Brito's leadership, Macro Bank grew steadily with the acquisition of numerous provincial banks privatized during the 1990s, including the Bank of Salta (his native province) and of neighboring Tucumán Province.

• He also serves as chairman of the board of directors of YPF, long the largest petroleum producer and refiner in Argentina. Brito was among those who expressed interest in the purchase of 20% of the Madrid-based Repsol's ownership of the former state oil concern, when these shares were offered for sale in 2007.

• Brito was mentioned in cables written in 2008 and 2009 by the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires, later made public by Wikileaks, as having had a close connection to the late President Néstor Kirchner and a less intimate relationship with current President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Macro Bank also maintains a branch in the Bahamas, which changed its name from Pasó de Sud Bank & Trust Company to Macro Bank Limited. This Bahamas bank held at least US$10.4 million for the firm Austral Construcciones owned by businessman Lázaro Báez, the central figure in the “K-Money” scandal. The bank's activities in this matter were investigated by judicial officials in Liechtenstein for corruption, but the investigation was terminated when a firm registered in the Seychelles, Trade 24 Limited, assumed the blame for any irregularities.

• He has similarly invested in local luxury hotels, country clubs, and other upmarket real estate,

• Macro Bank participated in the construction of Madero Center, a Puerto Madero mixed use development midrise in which Brito owns an apartment, as do his son, President Cristina Kirchner, Vice President Amado Boudou, and partners in the London Supply firm (which was implicated in Boudougate).

References

Removal was labled Erased fake, biased or not proven information or not sourced. Reuters, Perfil are RS; and no indication that OPI and IG are not RS. For Contexto I haven't found an archived version yet. With Orduin, all information with references belong in the article. Thanks to DaltonCastle for constantly assuming good faith.-- Dewritech (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the sourced disputed content is that those sources refers to information that has not been proved by any judge yet. The media in Argentina denounces many cases of corruption but they should not be included in Wikipedia until the trial finishes. The "Boudougate" was a scandal for the press, but the Courts of Argentina are still investigating. Moreover, Argentine press is radically biased, particularly the small website of news OPI Santa Cruz. On the other hand, one of the sources are Wikileaks, a certain unreliable source. --Superagente86 (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course Wikileaks is an unreliable source. However, there is never a link within ref tags that leads to Wikileaks. Wikileaks is never itself used as a source, and therefore, the information associated with it is correct. Also, the information backed by OPI Santa Cruz is also backed, at least in part, by IG Inversor Global. -- Orduin ^Discuss 16:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Still, this information is not proved yet. I don not understand why Wikipedia should give information about facts that are in dispute now. What if a judge proves that this kind of information is wrong? Wikipedia should provide official and neutral information. If this information is proved afterwards it's OK to put it, but until then it should be avoided. Regarding the line "He has similarly invested in local luxury hotels, country clubs, and other upmarket real estate", there is no source that indicates that Vizora was involved in those kind of projects. It seems that many users think that is more important to have a source than the content itself. There is many misleading and biased information in Argentine newspapers and that is why contributors must be cautious. Corruption is an important issue, but Wikipedia is not the place to denounce it until it is fully proved. --Superagente86 (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You may want to study WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:V. Your edits do not meet WP:CON.-- Dewritech (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I studied all of these and I consider that my edits meet all the requirements. Many thanks! --Superagente86 (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Restored edits

A recent sock puppet investigation revealed that several users active on this page were the same person abusing policy to circumvent policy. They have all been blocked for this activity. I have restored much of what this person wanted removed. HOWEVER, I recognize that there may be cause to edit the page further. And I am willing to compromise here unlike the now banned editor. But, I expect that our coming discussions will be civil and productive, unlike this user who was overall disruptive, accusatory, and uncivil. Lets work to improve the page without resorting to bad behaviour. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Page protected

I have protected the page for a week, possibly in the the wrong version, to prevent continued edit-warring. There appears to be a content-dispute over whether certain sources/content is acceptable and while either side may be mistaken about this, neithers' edits constitute vandalism and treating them as such is unhelpful. recommend that editors discuss the issue here, and use the services of WP:BLPN and/or WP:RSN to resolve the issue. Abecedare (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

amendment request

Hi all,

I am here in my OTRS capacity. I've been asked to pass on a draft in an email, Ticket:2015070710015592. Please find the full content for review at /draft. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for posting here. So, I am not opposed to you adding any content that is sourced. Just please do not remove any content that is reliably sourced. There was a confirmed account abuser and POV pusher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sherlock4000/Archive) who was trying to make this same edit. I suspect there was a conflict of interest as well considering the efforts the user, and their socks, went to change the page. Its become tedious to deal with this now-blocked user and he is destroying any potential goodwill he might have had, circumventing blocks, shouting down any compromises. Just please take note of this before further action. Thank you for posting first. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Changes made by a PR agency ordered by Macro Bank's representatives

Hello everybody! I work for E-Roy, a new PR agency who was hired by Macro Bank. Since there were unexperienced users who had been editing this article with no knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, we were hired by Macro Bank to improve the article, which clearly damages Jorge Brito's reputation with allegations that have only been mentioned by newspapers that have they own interests and try to hit Argentinean goverment with misleading information. The article here is sourced with many articles like that, but also was written with an intriguing style and is far away from the neutrality that Wikipedia requires There are information that is not accurate, like the place where Brito was born. He was born in Buenos Aires and not in Salta, as the article says without a source. In the other hand, the article implicates Brito in the Boudougate, a corruption scandal in Argentina, but in fact the judge who is investigating the case has considered that there are no evidence to implicate Jorge Brito, who just was arranged as a witness (See http://www.clarin.com/politica/banquero-Jorge-Brito-disposicion-Ciccone_0_1049895446.html). All the sources quoted here, which are in Spanish, talks about it in conditional tense, but the article affirms that he "has been implicated in Boudougate". This fundamental difference threatens the credibility of Wikipedia. Secondly, there is a reference to Wikileaks, which should not be considered a reliable source and the only reason to state it is to damage Brito's reputation. Thirdly, there are some references that are dead, like the 1, the 5, the 6 and the 42, for example. In the fourth place, there are some sources that can't be considered reliable, like OPI Santa Cruz, Urgente24, Seprin, Diario Veloz or La Política Online. Those are small websites that provides information from several unknown sources. With those sources the author of the article make a misleading tale which is only based on the media that quotes undisclosed sources. Lastly, the last part of the article is a number of irrelevant facts that tries to support corruption allegations that doesn't really exist on Argentinean courts. Those facts don't contribute to what is supposed to be a neutral biography. For all of this, I have changed the article and have left the reliable and qualified information as well as the information that is relevant for an encyclopedia.--Tuquoquefili (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Article neutralized

Hello! I have made a more neutral version of the article. The last version showed a little bit of partiality and the sourced content in Spanish was not fully related with what the article here said. I believe that the article needs more references in English or if there are in another language we shouldn't discuss if it's right or not to remove it but if that content is reliable or not or if it says what the author of the article states that the sources say. Now,the article is the same as the version in other languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HungryThai (talk • contribs) 21:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jorge Horacio Brito. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.revistaeconomica.com.ar/files/numeros-anteriores/n120-2011.pdf/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.diarioperfil.com.ar/edimp/0172/articulo.php?art=560&ed=0172
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.urgente24.com/228577-la-gran-pregunta-del-caso-ciccone-%C2%BFlijo-llama-o-no-a-jorge-brito
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://informadorpublico.com/2014/06/08/kirchner-y-brito-le-habrian-encargado-a-boudou-que-compre-ciccone/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jorge Horacio Brito. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518093001/http://www.vizora.com.ar/ to http://www.vizora.com.ar/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518090751/http://www.vizoranegocios.com.ar/ to http://www.vizoranegocios.com.ar/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140602032416/http://ijsa.com.ar/home.htm to http://www.ijsa.com.ar/home.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ijsa.com.ar/agricola.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jorge H Brito.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)