This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business 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.
Why do people keep on removing relevant sourced content about the expropriation from articles about YPF? This is supposed to be an encyclopædia, not an Argentine government mouthpiece. bobrayner (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Why do people insist on pushing their pet opinion pieces - and from obscure hacks at The Economist and "Seeking Alpha" - as if these were somehow notable or facts in themselves? If the gentleman would bother to read the article, he'd find that reservations and objections expressed by those actually relevant to the event are already covered. This is indeed an encyclopædia, not a forum for mere presumptions based on irrelevant op eds. Thank you. Sherlock4000 (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
It is funny that cites of "the Economist" are not considered objective enough in an article with major pieces copied from press releases of agencies as objective as CESA.This article demands a neutral overall reviewing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Sherlock4000 is stilleditwarring to remove the warning about neutrality problems, even though other editors have expressed concerns about the neutrality of Sherlock4000's article. Sooner or later, this article will be brought in line with what independent sources say, rather than the Argentinian government. bobrayner (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Personal attacks: "a constant right-wing POV pusher"
Sooner or later, these articles will be brought in line with what independent sources say, rather than the Argentinian government. bobrayner (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
When calling others liars, Bob, remember that you yourself can easily be shown up to be one: first, because one look at the 'Renationalization' and 'Dispute' sections (which you've either never read, or are willfully mischaracterizing) will show that both viewpoints are duly covered; and second, because these repeated deletions of news I've added over time (real-world, well-sourced news - not your malicious, completely unencyclopedic op-eds) shows your motives where this article and some others are concerned. Now, if someone wanted the article to read like an Economist attack opinion piece, I imagine they'd be disappointed - but then they'd have no business on Wikipedia, would they?
Your ridiculous op-ed hack pieces from 2012 (see above) are not going back in, Bob - especially since these last three years have proven them -and you- wrong. And deleting my edits (of significant, real-world news - not anonymous op-eds) using underhanded summaries like "going back to RallyMax's version" only demonstrates that your only real interest in this article is to sling mud any way you can and delete any news that fly in the face of your personal opinions. That's what this is about.
You know, instead of dwelling on your ideological hangups against YPF and Argentina in general you, as a Briton, should instead worry about the state BP left Britain's once great oil and gas sector in since Thatcher sold it off for peanuts to Wall Street in 1985. The 75% collapse in British output in what, 30 years ago, was the world's 6th largest oil producer, is truly one of the great stories of the modern-day energy sector, and of course is worth an article in itself. So much so that I dare say that Britain experience with BP was probably one of the motivations to renationalize YPF, since Repsol was clearly taking YPF down the same path. The facts then, and the results now, have demonstrated the wisdom of having done so.
I think we need to cool off and take a look at the guidelines. I will paraphrase what I consider the most pertinent. "We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. [...] In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context...." There is no way that it is acceptable to cite Argentinian sources regarding the relative level of Repsol's investment in its various subsidiaries, yet the very first sentence of what one commenter here described as a neutral section does just that. It would be perfectly acceptable to set forth what Argentina says about Repsol in one section, and to set forth what Repsol says about Argentina in another section, so long as an overall balance is achieved. In this case, there is also a consensus among internationally respected experts (it's not generous to Argentina's position, to put it mildly) -- this can summarize the dispute after the positions have been laid out. Because some left-leaning experts take issue with what most right-leaning and centric experts are saying about this particular dispute, I think it would actually be proper to qualify the consensus summary with a short statement that other respected experts disagree (and this is true, and some of them have some decent points). Ideally, it would look like this: "Argentina claimed that Repsol blah-blah-blah. Repsol has claimed that blah-blah-blah. Many international experts disagree with Argentina's position blah-blah-blah. However, some prominent scholars believe that Repsol blah-blah-blah." Anyone care to take a stab? Rallyemax (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
And the article looks much better than it did a few months ago. It's almost there, in fact. Rallyemax (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)