Talk:José Sócrates: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:59, 29 May 2005

Investigation

There is an ongoing investigation by the portuguese Polícia Judiciária regarding the alleged fraud case of Freeport Shopping Mall. This is a fact. http://www.correiomanha.pt/noticia.asp?id=149762&idselect=21&idCanal=21&p=94 http://online.expresso.clix.pt/1pagina/artigo.asp?id=24749505 http://www.tsf.pt/online/vida/interior.asp?id_artigo=TSF158728

Pharotek 03:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that Polícia Judiciária denied that Sócrates is even a suspect. muriel@pt 19:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please don't delete the sources from the discussion. And don't delete the info about the investigation from the main article. Pharotek 16:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The page should note that the Policia Judiciaria is also investigating the possible forgery of the document that implies Sócrates in the main investigation: http://semanal.expresso.clix.pt/1caderno/pais.asp?edition=1687&articleid=ES166803 (you need to register to see this, but I found a transcription [if you disregard the bolds] of that news article here: http://burrices.blogdrive.com/archive/363.html ). Also, Pharotek, two of your external sources seem to dissociate Sócrates from the investigation rather than implicate him as the page currently notes. - Serodio
That paragraph about the accusation made on him seems to have become a bit excessive since the whole thing seems to have disappeared from the papers. Anyone agree?

Page move

Why was this moved ? I've never seen him referred as José Pinto de Sousa, not even on the international press. Unless the editor gives any argument justifying the change, I'm going to revert it. ^wS 14:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

reverting is the right thing to do. The change was obviously made by someone bitter from Santana Lopes' defeat. It seems many of us Portuguese don't understand the concept of Wikipedia yet... :( Dehumanizer 15:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

most likely it was, but I'm going to wait until tomorrow by lunch time, anyway. ^wS 15:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

fine with me. Just so you know, this change made as much sense as changing "Aníbal Cavaco Silva"'s entry to "Aníbal Silva" (when everyone calls him "Cavaco Silva", and nobody would ever search for "Aníbal Silva" when trying to find info about him) - or "Madonna" (the artist) to her real name (making "Madonna" a redirect, and using her birth name throughout the entire article). Dehumanizer 15:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page move is completely insane. We need a sysop to undo the thing. muriel@pt 16:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I asked the deletion of the redirect. This move is absolutely wrong, according to wikipedia naming conventions that favour the most common form of a name. muriel@pt 16:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. Noel (talk) 19:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

templates

Can someone please fix the overlapsing templates please? (I don't know how to)Serodio 03:46, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 *The page should note that the Policia Judiciaria is also investigating the possible forgery of the document that implies Sócrates in the main investigation: http://semanal.expresso.clix.pt/1caderno/pais.asp?edition=1687&articleid=ES166803 (you need to register to see this, but I found a transcription [if you disregard the bolds] of that news article here: http://burrices.blogdrive.com/archive/363.html ). Also, Pharotek, two of your external sources seem to dissociate Sócrates from the investigation rather than implicate him as the page currently notes. - Serodio
+*That paragraph about the accusation made on him seems to have become a bit excessive since the whole thing seems to have disappeared from the papers. Anyone agree?
 == Page move ==