User talk:188.154.174.32: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Hoping for cooling: new section |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
That's none of your business! |
That's none of your business! |
||
So, tell me, what's yours? |
So, tell me, what's yours? |
||
== Hoping for cooling == |
|||
I've written a first note on the smear subject on the article [[Talk:Philipp Hildebrand|talk page]]. I agree with the direction of "89..."'s comment above. The reality of the trades doesn't seem in contest. The question basically seems to be how it plays within the marriage; and it was a joint account. So no question HBlocher played hard with it (and the forces of state may play hard back, going after the whistleblower; maybe going after HB himself as a conduit as far as I know) (and HB wasn't alone; I'd quoted a German newspaper via AP/WP; looking at [[Handelsblatt]] now it doesn't look like a [[tabloid journalism|tabloid]] smear-er); I'll allow still though now, ''maybe'' it was a "smear"; but there was basically a nugget of "really bad looking reality"; and the "smear" accusation from Hildebrand was and is in the body of the article; and, smear or not, he resigned; overplaying the "smear" now just seems like whining. |
|||
I know I'm not agreeing with you. Do you think the article can develop from where it is now, in something like this framework? With footnotes please. Straight opinion from editors just isn't allowed. Cautiously, opinion from respected "opinion makers" is good, with citation. Is that a way forward? I hope. |
|||
I don't know the ''nzz.ch'' citation you made in one of your edit summaries. Is it in English? I have to start with. Can it be brought in via summary info and citation? |
|||
Looking for ways .... Cheers. [[User:Swliv|Swliv]] ([[User talk:Swliv|talk]]) 00:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:53, 10 January 2012
"Smear campaign" implies that the reproaches were untrue; this however was not conclusively proven, even though it seems obvious that Blocher's campaign against Hildebrand was as least partially motivated by personal reasons. 89.217.200.183 (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)ham
Please stop changing back the sentence in the first paragraph. The alleged "smear" is mentioned later... 31.52.128.142 (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
What is your connection with the subject of the article? 31.52.128.142 (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
That's none of your business! So, tell me, what's yours?