Draft talk:Monacogate

Neutrality issues

Hey!

I have draftified the article as its current state violates the principles of neutrality and biographies of living persons. The article appears biased to me, as certain facts are presented in an incomplete manner that could mislead readers. After reviewing the sources and biographies of the persons involved, it seems that the content is shaped in a way that lacks objectivity. I've also examined other contributions made by this article’s author and found similar issues on pages related to Bouvier, Rybolovlev, and their dispute, where edits do not appear neutral. Additionally, there have been prior allegations regarding the author’s conflict of interest. I will invite fellow users from the Neutrality Project to review this case.

Always open and happy to discuss and work together on it. Li1411 (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, @Li1411!

I agree - this draft needs a careful, thorough review to get it in line with Wikipedia’s standards. The topic is tricky, and I can see how some parts could feel one-sided, especially with how certain allegations are framed. This isn’t something we should rush through.

I noticed you took out a few parts when you draftified it - should we think about reworking those sections instead of cutting them entirely? Some of the details might still be relevant if we adjust the tone or add more context. It’ll take some time, but this way we won’t lose important information that could add to the article’s depth.

I’ll be in and out, so I might not be able to work on this consistently, but I’ll pitch in when I can. I’d suggest we go section by section, taking a closer look at the language around Rybolovlev’s alleged misconduct and balancing it with more context on the legal outcomes and Bouvier’s side. Let’s work through this patiently and make sure each edit brings it closer to a balanced and factual tone.

Best, LucasJanssen4444 (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for joining the discussion! I am also only partly available, so no rush.

I’ve removed several sections because they weren’t directly relevant to the Monacogate scandal itself. Much of it focused on Rybolovlev’s biography which is better suited for his personal page, not here. Including such details in this article creates an imbalance and distracts from covering the specific allegations and events of the case.

Additionally, the way this content was framed wasn’t neutral. To keep things clear and objective, it’s better to link to his biography for background info and focus this page solely on the specifics of the case.

I will slowly edit the page, please feel free to add your corrections or comments. Li1411 (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I added the note about Bouvier’s ongoing legal battles in the lede to provide a more balanced perspective. Your version focused mainly on the dismissal of the case against Rybolovlev, which could make it seem like the entire controversy was resolved. By including the detail that Bouvier still faces legal issues in other jurisdictions and has consistently denied any wrongdoing, I aimed to show that the broader legal conflict isn’t fully settled yet. This addition gives readers a fuller picture of the situation and helps ensure the article maintains a neutral and comprehensive tone. Should the nature of the conflict also be mentioned? LucasJanssen4444 (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Good point, thank you! I have added a wikilink to the article about their initial dispute, I think it's enough information in the lede - those interested in more details can visit the article and read about it. However, the article about the Bouvier Affair has to be looked into as well - currently it looks not very neutral. I think the lede looks good now! Li1411 (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey! I have made some changes to the text, removing duplicate and irrelevant information. While verifying some details, I reviewed Rybolovlev’s page and noticed that it doesn’t appear neutral. The same user who worked on this article also edited that one, particularly the lede, which contains excessive information that doesn’t belong there and is phrased in a way that casts the subject in a negative light. We should revisit that page later to address these issues as well. LucasJanssen4444 (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You are right, I have mentioned that in my first message - the edits by the user seem like COI to me, so those articles will need our attention too. Li1411 (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey!

I wanted to flag an issue I’ve noticed regarding the edits made to the Bouvier Affair and the Yves Bouvier page. To me, the recent contributions by the user SilvanoTancredi75 seem clearly unneutral and don’t align with Wikipedia’s policies on NPOV and DUE.

To address this, I’ve added tags to both pages to indicate the need for further review and cleanup. I’ve also written to the user to explain these concerns and remind them of Wikipedia’s guidelines.

I think it’s important that we look into this more closely, as these edits could mislead readers or detract from the credibility of the pages. Ensuring that all content is balanced and presented fairly is critical, especially for a topic as contentious as this one.

Let me know your thoughts, and if you’re available, it might be worth coordinating efforts to review these pages thoroughly and address any problematic sections. LucasJanssen4444 (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)