Jump to content

Talk:Gupta family

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mail & Guardian article

[edit]

This Wikipedia article features at length in the Mail & Guardian today in the article Guptas get put through the spin cycle by Phillip de Wet (the article is initially behind a paywall). "It appears that minions have been hard at work, polishing the family's reputation in cyberspace." The M&G notes that OakbayRep (talk · contribs) made "an attempt to make the changes by proxy (and leave fewer digital fingerprints)" but this failed. This refers to this attempt to get Discott (talk · contribs) to make the edits on their behalf, which Discott politely refused. Zaian (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zaian, gosh, I am in the news. I have been meaning to add to this talk page for some time a reference to that discussion on my talk page. This discussion can be seen on my talk page here. If it should happen that some time in the future this link is broken or does not point to the discussion in question it would likely be because I have moved it to my archive page and forgotten to update the link here. I am sorry that I have not done this sooner as I feel it is important information about the evolution of this page that everyone who is interested in this issue deserves to know. Thanks for putting up a link to the page on my talk page where we discussed this issue. Thanks again for sharing. Too bad the article is currently behind a pay wall.--Discott (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gupta family

[edit]

Below is a copy of the discussion on my talk page mentioned in both mine and Zaian's comments above and mentioned in the Mail & Guardian article. I have posted it hear as I feel it is important to make this more easily accessible to people who are interested in the evolution of this Wikipedia page article. Also this discussion should rather live on its relevant article talk page here than on my personal user talk page. The original of the below discussion can be seen at my talk page here.--Discott (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Discott, I’ve seen that you recently created Gupta family and that you’ve made several additions to it over the last few days. As stated on my user page, I am a representative of Oakbay Resources and Energy and would welcome a discussion with you on certain areas of the article which might benefit from some balance. I’ve been working on a few possible additions to the current version in my sandbox. As you’ll see, I’m suggesting additional content supported by reliable secondary sources, not proposing that anything is removed.
The main points of what I’ve proposed are:
  • The inclusion of some more companies owned/part-owned by the Guptas under ‘Interests’ (note that three of these rely on a primary source, namely Oakbay’s 2015 Annual Report – that’s the only time I’ve used one here).
  • The Gupta family’s response to allegations of undue influence on the presidency.
  • A response by India’s High Commissioner to the Waterkloof air force base controversy.
  • Some more detail on Oakbay’s mining operations.
  • Zuma’s response to the allegations surrounding Nhlanhla Nene’s dismissal.
  • Mosebenzi Zwane’s response to allegations surrounding Tegeta.
  • Some more detail on the recent court order.
These proposed additions are highlighted in blue; there are a couple of strikethroughs as well.
If you could have a look at these suggestions and leave feedback there or on my talk page that would be much appreciated. I will follow Wikipedia policy on COI editing at all times. Thanks. OakbayRep (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OakbayRep. Thank you very much for the feedback and input. I have looked through the working page on the Gupta family on your sandbox. I think you have made a number of valuable additions to the Gupta family article which add a great deal of depth and help promote a NPOV, and therefor should be used on the main space article. So good in fact I would guess that you are a long time Wikipedia editor (not that that matters very much to me either which way). Good job. I from what I have seen of the article on your sandbox as of writing this message I feel you should add all of the proposed additions to the page in question.--Discott (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Discott, thanks very much for this feedback. Strictly speaking as a COI editor I’d prefer not to make a direct edit to the article itself, but I’ve now amended the sandbox to remove all the mark-ups and strikethroughs. I have also made a few punctuation changes. Would you be happy just to transfer this straight across? Hope that’s okay.OakbayRep (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Discott: hi again, just wondering if you might be okay to transfer what’s here (it's ready to go - no highlighted text or strikethroughs) to the main article space? I know you gave me the go-ahead to do it myself but with my COI I’d prefer to leave it to you if possible. Let me know otherwise I’d be okay to do it if necessary. Thanks very much. OakbayRep (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OakbayRep, I feel that it would be better if you rather made those contributions. I think that it is not a series breach of COI and if others have any concerns about it then we can discuss it on the article's talk page. There is precedence for this kind of thing so I am sure people will be okay with it so long as it adheres to other editing conventions and rules which it seems to me as though it does.--Discott (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Discott, no problem at all – that’s done. Thanks again for looking at it. OakbayRep (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Discott, there are a few things that could do with updating in Gupta family – see here in my sandbox as before for a marked up version with additions in blue. Let me know what you make of it. Regarding your discussion here – isn't it standard policy that COI editors don't make direct edits to pages? I'm happy to make any changes we agree but I was under the impression that strictly speaking that's not something a COI editor can do. OakbayRep (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OakbayRep, it is very kind of you (although not necessary) to let me know every time you wish to update a particular page on Wikipedia. It is indeed standard policy that COI editors should avoid making edits on pages that concern them but it is also not set in stone from what I understand. What is set in stone is that one should never plagiarise. Apart from the fact I am simply not comfortable editing Wikipedia on anyone's behalf (especially someone with COI regarding the article in question) I cannot add the content you have written as it would be plagiarism which is a pretty serious offence on Wikipedia. As such I would advise -and this might not be very good advice as others on Wikipedia are likely to know the policies regarding COI and paid editing in particular better than me- to continue to edit the article yourself. Keep in mind however that the policy regarding paid editing points out that "paid editors must follow the guidelines on COI very carefully." I suggest you do just that. However you seem to be pretty adapt editor already judging from your style of editing and knowledge of Wiki bureaucracy & rules. As for the content you have suggested adding. There are a few additions which seem out of place on a Wikipedia page such as the mention that SizweNtsalubaGobodo is "South Africa's biggest black-owned auditing firm." Don't know why that is relevant to the page in question other than to present the company in a possibly positive light, which means it could be (rightly in my view) interpreted as being promotional which as you know is not allowed on Wikipedia. I could comment on every proposed addition but that would be more effectively and better done on the Wikipedia page its self. As is the nature of Wikipedia. Having said all of that a number of your proposed edits do seem to promote a greater level of NPOV and update the article some what which is a good thing.--Discott (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Discott, thanks for your response. I've updated the article. I see your point about the mention of SizweNtsalubaGobodo and I left that out. I get your reasoning for not editing on another's behalf, but thanks for replying anyway and ping me if you have any concerns. OakbayRep (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Discott – just to make you aware that I've added some new info to Gupta family, namely some of the figures that were reported this month from their annual results, some new info regarding Eskom and the CEO's response to the termination of their banking relationships. Thanks. OakbayRep (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OakbayRep - please discuss changes to Gupta family the article at Talk:Gupta family, not here. No-one "owns" a page and it's not appropriate to ask one user for permission to update it - your edits have to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, and it's up to the community as a whole to keep an eye on that. Zaian (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@OakbayRep: Zaian's point that no article is 'owned' by any one on Wikipedia is absolutely correct and I would like to echo it. I have said it before (perhaps not strongly enough) and I will say it again that these sorts of things are better discussed on the relevant article's talk page. I strongly suggest that you move these updates to the Gupta family talk page so the broader community can participate in them more easily.--Discott (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from family

[edit]

Hi – there are some well documented responses from the family and others which could be included. Can I suggest:

  • At the end of the third paragraph of the Relationship with Jacob Zuma section:
Likewise Zuma denies granting undue influence to the family.[1]
  • At the end of paragraph six of the Influence over Cabinet appointments section:
The report recommends that a full probe of Mr. Zuma's dealings with the Guptas should be conducted by a commission of inquiry, with the findings published within 180 days. Zuma and Des van Rooyen have since denied any wrongdoing.[2]
The Gupta family have said they welcome the opportunity to challenge the report’s findings in an official judiciary inquiry.[3]
  • Also recommend the following is added below the current paragraph in the Financial transactions section:
In a statement issued by Gupta family legal representatives Van Der Merwe Associates, the family contend that Gordhan’s application to the court is “fundamentally flawed”. According to the statement, errors made by Gordhan include the fact that six of the transactions flagged, totalling R4,1bn, refer to the Optimum mine before it was under the control of Oakbay and were not transacted by Oakbay or the family.[4]

OakbayRep (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made your changes. Wizzy…☎ 13:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "South Africa's Guptas to challenge influence-peddling report at inquiry". Reuters. 3 November 2016. Retrieved 1 December 2016.
  2. ^ Parkinson, Joe; Steinhauser, Gabriele (6 November 2016). "South Africa report cites 'worrying' signs of government corruption". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 1 December 2016.
  3. ^ Macharia, James (3 Nov 2016). "South Africa's Guptas to challenge state capture report at inquiry". CNBC Africa. Retrieved 1 December 2016.
  4. ^ "Guptas vow to clear the family name". Reuters. 18 October 2016. Retrieved 1 December 2016.
Hi Wizzy, thanks, and could I suggest a further addition to the Influence over Cabinet section, after the sentence: “Mr. Zuma's dealings with the Guptas should be conducted by a commission of inquiry, with the findings published within 180 days. Zuma and Des van Rooyen have since denied any wrongdoing.”:
Speaking on the publication of the report, Gupta lawyer Gert Van der Merwe said that the evidence in the report is “riddled with errors and is subject to rebuttal".[1][2]
  1. ^ "South Africa's Guptas to challenge influence-peddling report at inquiry". Reuters. 3 November 2016. Retrieved 20 December 2016.
  2. ^ Vollgraaff, Rene (3 November 2016). "#StateCapture report: Molefe-Gupta ties revealed". IOL. Retrieved 20 December 2016.
Thanks. OakbayRep (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armaments section edit

[edit]

I am really concerned that COI users are making edits/deletions to this page, using neutrality as an excuse.RodinsDrinker (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RodinsDrinker: There's no need to copy ScrapIronIV's entire message to you here. And do not make accusations of COI frivolously. --NeilN talk to me 20:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Frivolously" ? There was no reason to completely remove my entry. If the user felt that it lacked neutrality, editing the entry to be more neutral wiuld have been a better option. NOthing in my entry was based on hearsay.

With regards to this specific page. It is very difficult to assume that there are not going to be any COI activity on this page giving the involvement of a specific PR firm. RodinsDrinker (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation was frivolous. It's fair to assume that there may be Bell Pottinger editors at work on this page, but ScrapIronIV (talk · contribs) isn't one of them. Zaian (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I share RodinsDrinker's concern over COI editors editing the page. OakbayRep is a self confirmed COI editor for the company and it is my suspicion -and I don't make this judgement lightly- given that person's knowledge of Wiki editing bureaucracy and given what I know of a certain PR firms history, that they are likely a Bell Pottinger employee. I have observed a few other edits to this page which, whilst small, have also raised some suspicions. However most of those edits that I have observed have been reverted or significantly altered by subsequent edits which are not suspect. Whilst I am not necessarily against COI editing so long as it is done ethically, have increasingly found myself having strong concerns in this case and on this article. Having said all that I must add that I agree with Zaian and NeilN that ScrapIronIV is not a COI editor and that accusations on this page that he is are indeed frivolous.--Discott (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, it seems as though the Gupta email leaks -at least according to this article from the Timeslive (the Sunday Times)- states that OakbayRep was likely a Bell Pottinger employee.--Discott (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed separate article about Oakbay Investments

[edit]

Please see WT:WikiProject South Africa#Oakbay Investments where I have proposed creating an article about the company. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of recent events that need to be added/updated onto this page

[edit]

Due to the large number of recent events and revaluations related to this article's subject -the Gupta family- there is a need for some serious updating on this page. That and the increasing length of this article will likely mean that the page will need to be overhauled some what so as to keep the article both short and concise in line with Wikipedia's WP:TOOLONG policy whilst keeping all relevant information and updated it with new information. As part of an effort to help that process I have started the list below of recent events that should be included into the article moving forward:

Hope the list helps, please feel free to update it. --Discott (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discott see my propsal above to split out a separate article about Oakbay. The draft is at Draft:Oakbay Investments, but it is still fairly rudimentary. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dodger67, I think that an article split for Oakbay is a good idea and a good place to start. Thanks for starting it. Might also need to split some other sections off such as one for the Gupta email leaks or the Eskom/Trillian contacts contracts.--Discott (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "#GuptaLeaks: What does email trove mean for Zuma and South Africa?". Daily Maverick. 5 June 2017. Retrieved 2017-07-10.
  2. ^ "The New Gupta Emails Are A LOT. Here's What They Say, In 5 Quick Facts". Huffington Post SA. 1 July 2017. Retrieved 2017-07-10.
  3. ^ "Public relations firm Bell Pottinger apologises over Gupta contract". Financial Times. 6 July 2017. Retrieved 2017-07-10.
  4. ^ "How a London PR firm was forced to apologize for sowing racial division in South Africa". LA Times. 10 July 2017. Retrieved 2017-07-12.
  5. ^ "#GUPTALEAKS: HOW MILLIONS MILKED FROM FS GOVT PAID FOR SUN CITY WEDDING". EWN. amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism. 1 July 2017. Retrieved 2017-07-10.
  6. ^ "Corruption Watch slams KPMG, McKinsey conduct in Gupta saga". Fin24.co.za. 4 July 2017. Retrieved 2017-07-10.
  7. ^ "KPMG explanation of Gupta wedding audit 'unconvincing and inadequate': Corruption Watch". ENCA. 4 July 2017. Retrieved 2017-07-10.
  8. ^ "Now McKinsey SA director Vikas Sagar has been suspended over the Gupta scandal". Business Day. 9 July 2017. Retrieved 2017-07-10.
  9. ^ "'I told him I was not comfortable with that' - Gupta brothers accused of sexual harassment". The Sowetan. 6 July 2017. Retrieved 2017-07-10.
  10. ^ "Corrupting the country's soul, Zupta style: South Africa, you are on your own". The Daily Maverick. 12 July 2017. Retrieved 2017-07-12.
  11. ^ "Betrayal Of The Promise: How South Africa Is Being Stolen". Stellenbosch, South Africa: Stellenbosch University - Public Research Institute. 25 May 2017. Retrieved 2017-07-12.
  12. ^ "The President's Keepers: Those Keeping Zuma in Power and Out of Prison". Amazon. Cape Town, South Africa: Tafleberg Publishers. 29 October 2017. Retrieved 2017-11-03.
  13. ^ "Spy agency bid to block explosive book 'The President's Keepers'". Timeslive. South Africa. 3 November 2017. Retrieved 2017-11-03.
  14. ^ "'The President's Keepers': SARS to consider laying charges over exposé". Timeslive. South Africa. 3 November 2017. Retrieved 2017-11-03.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gupta family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions

[edit]

I reverted the recent additions by Riyaz Hashmi (talk · contribs) per WP:BRD. The content was a bit of a mess (typos, strangely formatted references, and a bit of uncited hagiography about the family origins). I salvaged a reference to the acquittal in the Nulane case. Zaian (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gupta_family&oldid=1207487354"