Talk:Derwick Associates/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Derwick Associates. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Balanced presentation
If the neutral point of viewis violated, one must keep in mind that Wikipedia should reflect the most relevant opinions based on verifiable information (books, newspapers, etc.). Personal opinions cannot be put in the articles. For this reason we don’t understand why certain information is removed, for example Derwick received the award for "Best Entrepreneurship in Latin America."
Would be ideal to reach a neutral point. Still it has not gone out a firm judgment, about the allegations that are being launched.,for what we see well that is appointed but always clarifying that has not gone out a firm judgment. This article has received also an Undue Weight Tag, this means that someelse also considers the last changes of an public IP not to be NPOV. The vast preponderance of the article is biased against the subject of the article. In fact, the article was reconstructed by one person only, and only for purposes of establishing his POV.--Tony3485 (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is important that there are a neutral point of view. Currently they are just trying to attack from a public IP, without to be a registered user. Until there isn't a final judgment, there should be nothing in this article.
That said, I proceed to add the award for "Best Entrepreneurship in Latin America."--Majogomezsz (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
According to this, I am going to restore information regarding the TCC. This piece of information was deleted just for the sake of attacking this company.--Tony3485 (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I realize you are both single-purpose users and more than likely are working for some PR company on behalf of this multinational company. That's fine. Your contributions, in terms of adding perspective, can be very valuable. But only if the sources you use are RS. The material you are posting about some award and other things that are coming from astrotufing news sites listed in references 11-15 aren't RS. As such they are not reliable. I am going to remove them. You can't just edit the page and remove sourced RS material because you think it is an "attack" on this company. Similarly, you can't add things you think are "balance" because they are public relations articles on paid websites. The fact is that there are dozens of newspaper articles in RS that indicate a growing scandal and from what I can see on google news, it has been reported in half a dozen countries. Please study WP:RS closely before removing anything further. I will delete the information that is sourced from non-RS materials. Thank you for choosing to come to talk page instead of just editing directly. This is the way to improve this article, through civil interaction and following WP. 27.122.12.72 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The same I can say about your single-purpose and your interest in only adding defamatory information. Regarding the sources you claim that they are not RS, please have a look at them again and you may see that these are completely RS. For Example, you claim El Economista as a non RS, have a look in its page, in alexa and also here https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Economista_(España). so you can see that it is the second financial newspaper in Spain. I can do the same with El Nacional and so on if you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony3485 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that the data grid has been deleted. This information is referenced in Analitica.com. According with the information in this talk page, this source has been considered RS. You can see above. For this, I proceed to restore it.--Tony3485 (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC) I've deleted old information claiming that the company has failed to complete five plants, because above it is said that 11 termoelectric plant has been finished already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony3485 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I've deleted a paragraph which made an accusation but was not referenced. This references does not regard Derwick, it is an article about a journalist. --Tony3485 (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Bad faith editing
Sorry, Tony, you can't just delete a paragraph with RSs which does indeed "regard Derwick". Let's see what it said:
"The first published allegation of wrongdoing by Derwick Associates occurred in 2011 when Venezuelan newspaper Ultimas Noticias's César Batiz published an investigative series alleging overbilling and odd transactions between BARIVEN and Derwick Associates. The investigation uncovered that the son of the government official awarding a power plant contract to Derwick had shipped a 1959 Porsche automobile using Derwick Associates office address on the shipment and importation paperwork. Days later an elected deputy to the country's National Assembly called for an investigation of how the Derwick contracts were awarded."
How is that paragraph either "not referenced" when it had two RSs or "an article about a journalist."
You are engaging in bad faith editing. I must ask you, for the record: do you have any connection to the company or to a PR entity involved with them? Why are you so eager, and have such a history, of repeatedly removing any sourced information about this company which covers matters that are in news outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, or RSs in Venezuela such as Ultimas Noticias or El Universal newspaper? I am putting the paragraph back in. I'm also subjecting the article to further review. If you continue to engage in this sort of editing I will flag the piece and seek moderation 27.122.12.72 (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Adding Wikianticorrupcion; the "anonymous' website
I'm adding a paragraph about this website inasmuch as the entire crux of the legal activity surrounding this company had to do with Wikianticorruption. Those who wish to calmly and civilly discuss are welcome to do so at talk.27.122.12.72 (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. And the mélange of sources, many of which do not support the claims made, coupled with anonymous "allegations" about living persons does not comport with Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Allegations of corruption
The sources in the "allegations of corruption" section is about a company, this is not a biography of living persons. The sources include 1) Semana, an RS, which is Colombia's leading investigation magazine--the equivalent of Newseeek 2) Ultimas Noticias, which is an RS 3) Reporters Without Borders, which is an RS and a highly respected NGO about the rights of journalists, 4) Nelson Bocaranda (to anyone who follows Venezuela it doesn't even require to read his wiki page to know who he is and how credible he is.
Calling several independent sources from three different countries (Colombia, France, Venezuela) a "melange" is disingenuous. There are PR people trolling this page and removing sourced information. Please stop.15cpw (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
reorganizing data
I am going to move "defamation campaign" beneath "allegations of corruption" in order to have it be chronological. After that I will put the Legal Activity. And at the end I will put the technical data that has been added27.122.12.73 (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Review of Talk Page Discussion and comment to anyone stopping by
This article, about a Venezuelan/Panamanian/Barbados/US company by the name Derwick Associates has gone through a fascinating development since it was originated. It went from describing a civil case brought by Derwick Associates against an anonymous website accusing them of Defamation to become an article that was all puffery and public relations.
Then history took a turn and a former U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela and senior State Dept. official sued Derwick in a NY Federal Court accusing them of paying bribes in Venezuela and engaging in all sorts of criminal activity including surveillance of journalists, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and he filed the case under the RICO statute, which is what prosecutors use when dealing with a "criminal enterprise" (usually the mob).
About six months later (if my nexis chronology isn't missing anything) another lawsuit was filed, this time by a human rights lawyer in New York (who apparently is also a columnist for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic and other sources used as RS on wikipedia). That particular lawsuit accuses Derwick Associates and its founders and investors of engaging in bribery in Venezuela at the highest level as well as maliciously defaming journalists engaged in investigative reporting about their alleged crimes. That lawsuit was filed in Florida State court. Anyone who has access to nexis or who can search for the information about Derwick and its legal troubles will find that it has been reported extensively in Spain, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, the U.S., and so on in RSs and in dozens of blogs and nonRS media to list.
In a fascinating (for me) turn, Reporters Without Borders, a highly reputable NGO based in Paris has published research indicating that Derwick (or someone who sympathizes with them) has successfully banned certain websites that talk about the allegations against them--on ALL cable and ISP companies inside Venezuela.
I also note, for the benefit of anyone actually searching about the company, that there also appears to be a massive effort to protect Derwick and its executives from anyone seeking information about them via google... someone has engaged in an ungodly amount of "astroturfing" on behalf of Derwick by creating multiple accounts for the company on heavily trafficked platforms including: Twitter, Spotify, Facebook, TwitPic, Reverbnation, Slideshare, PRweb, Newsvine, Jigsy, and lots of blogspot. They've even got a bizarre page on change.org with two bogus "petitions"
None of these pages appear to be used for corporate purposes and the entries (if any) are from months or years ago and appear to be SEO work. It's filler to clog up my google search engine so that any actual news coverage from reliable sources like the Dow Jones Newswire, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, the Associated Press, or even the Miami Herald do not show up in a search engine. See for yourself:
http://www.slideshare.net/derwickassociates https://twitter.com/derwickcorp http://derwick-associates.blogspot.com/ http://derwickassociates.jigsy.com/ http://derwick.newsvine.com/ http://www.reverbnation.com/derwickassociates http://derwickassociate hubpages com/ https://www.change.org/organizations/derwick_associates http://www.prweb.com/releases/Derwick-Associates/Spain-Expansion/prweb11297809.htm https://www.facebook.com/pages/Derwick-Associates-Venezuela/148888455271875 http://twitpic.com/photos/derwickcorp
There is obviously nothing illegal about creating the internet equivalent of "white noise" or astroturfing but it can lead someone like me to be extraordinarily skeptical, especially when I read from an RS that the company has persecuted journalists and had them offered bribes and when that didn't work, had the journalists harassed by the Venezuelan secret police: Here's one NGO
And here's a reporter for Monocle on the same subject: http://settysoutham.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/venezuelan-intelligence-defends-derwick-associates-from-the-deadly-peril-of-journalism/
Consequently, those I suspect are from Derwick's PR company (users Tony3485 and Majogomezsz) be on polite notice: you will be treated fairly here, you will be interacted with on good faith, you will be addressed with civility, but you will not be allowed (by me, at least, when I can get time off work) to do here, in an encyclopedia, what possibly you (or others) have been able to accomplish elsewhere on the internet. Obviously, the two single-purpose users that have been reverting my edits (and others they bring in) are going to continue. However, I ask anyone visiting or concerned about edit-warring, or balance, or NPOV that take these discussions with a very large grain of salt given the voluminous information that exists, the bad faith of the company with regard to covering up negative information rather than responding to it, the Reporters Without Borders involvement (https://wefightcensorship.org/censored/corruption-limits-venezuelan-internethtml.html), and the persecution of legitimate, independent, Award-winning journalists who have dared to write about what they believe are the illegal actions of this company and its principals. The two lawsuits against them are surely going to continue to get some coverage in RS media in the U.S. and I will update the information accordingly--including the responses and denials by the company and its executives.
Thank you for your patience and happy administrating/or editing 27.122.12.78 (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- How you can see, my user is quite old and I have made hundreds of edits, I can not say anything about your ip, since not even have you a user. Just trying to create neutral content in this article, because in no time I have denied the accusations against Derwick but it has not gone any judgment yet.--Majogomezsz (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLP and other violations emended
With any luck, this will yield a stable and WP policy compliant article finally. Claims about living persons must comport with WP:BLP and articles should never be filled with either puff not vitriol. Collect (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)