Jump to content

Talk:Legatum

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

Competitors, similar firms?

[edit]

What firms does Legatum compete with, or share similar characteristics with? The article seems pretty bare-bones without some frame of reference or comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.43.64 (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no information about where the funds invested come from (one family, rich people all over the world, or anything else), whether Legatum advertises for investors, or much else about how they work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.42.64 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interests

[edit]

This whole article is a blantant case of WP:COI. The creator and maintainer of this page is a user named Legatumltd. --Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We note the points above, and acknowledge our association with the subject. That said, we are unclear how this article falls short of Wiki standards: Legatum is involved in a wide range of public activities, which have been catalogued and referenced by independent third-parties; so far as possible, we have attenpted to avoid any langauge that is not verifiable factually or self-promoting (we would certainly welcome guidance on which words or phrases are deeemed to be unsuitable). In short, we find little difference between this article and those of, for example, Blackstone or Berkshire Hathaway. Legatumltd (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference is that those articles cite reliable sources rather than making unsourced claims which make heavy use of weasel words. I'd recommend reading the wikipedia policies on reliable sources and weasel words, and possibly also WP:NPOV before you make any more edits. Cazort (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problems do still exist clearly in the article, see all the advertising like for example "researches and promotes the principles that drive the creation of global prosperity and the expansion of human liberty". Many of these valuations come obviously from themselves or non-reliable sources (like a gulf news life-style article). Also the few reliable sources seem to be there just for the show, not to make a really comprehensive article about the org (like for example the as ref used guardian article that is a simple name list of think tanks and has no real infos about the organisation). --78.54.230.82 (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The COI stuff, which is most of it, needs to go. Hunc (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legatum. 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) 06:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Legatum. 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) 13:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Language and structure

[edit]

Hi all, I made some minor formatting changes to this page a couple of days ago and noticed a couple of elements that might need changing. The first relates to some of the language on the page, particularly in relation to advertorial language and the sources used. I can identify some of these if that’s helpful and make the necessary edits. This has already been highlighted above.

The second is that the introductory paragraphs don’t seem to follow the form of other private business pages, leading in with more general information. I notice the “disaster capitalism” term particularly has been subject to a bit of an edit war – it seems to be taken from an Op-Ed by Simon Nixon not a piece of Times reporting, so probably falls within the scope of use of op-eds and sources so is probably better removed or moved to somewhere where it can be made clear this is from an op-ed and the opinion relates to Simon Nixon (it’ll look a bit odd with an opinion being in the introduction - other business pages are a good comparator). For an introductory section the sources could focus more on the general performance of the business and it’s nature – I’m sure there’s available sources for this.

I’ll wait for comment from the community. Thanks! Kahlesh366 (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kahlesh366. Almost all of this page seems to be advertorial, and the editors seem to be a mixture of wikignomes and more or less obvious CoI accounts. A severe trimming seems to be overdue.
The piece from the Times is mainly opinion, but it isn't a blog and should be reasonably reliable for a matter of fact not directly related to the opinion... but maybe indeed it should be attributed to Simon Nixon. Sylvia de Jonge (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sylvia for your inputs! I'll start making some minor changes now, including cleaning up and making the language more encyclopedic. I'll also clean up the introduction and attribute the quote to Simon Nixon, but as it is opinion would you mind if I moved it into the body of the article? I'm just trying to get consistency across similar business/fund pages (like Man Group). If there's any specific elements of the page you think are too advertorial let me know and I'll look at them first. Kahlesh366 (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve changed some advertorial language, removed some dead links, and moved this and re-worded it into some encyclopaedic language in the history section. I'll now begin to build out the introduction section and continue cleaning up. As always, any feedback from the community just let me know. Kahlesh366 (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The Financial Times may be a useful source for further work. Sylvia de Jonge (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, firstly I have updated some of the language which has been identified as advertorial language. Secondly, the second maintenance template was inserted just after a lot of info on the Legatum Institute was added in Sept 2017. This content has since been extensively cut back and edited, by myself and other members of the Wiki community. And so it can reasonably be concluded that the template is no longer relevant. I’ll wait for comment from the community. If no one has any relevant points to raise I think its best to remove the maintenance templates at the top of the page. Thanks! Kahlesh366 (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

removing unsuitable material

[edit]

At this edit I have removed a lot of material that was uncited, duplicate, or relevant to other parts of the Legatum brand but not to this article. It seems that the various conflict-of-interest accounts have not been very careful to distinguish between Legatum itself, the subject of this article, and the Institutes, Foundations etc that use its name. There is more work that needs to be done on this article, but I will leave it here for a while. Sylvia de Jonge (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sylvia, good edits and they make sense. There is definitely some confusion on the content between various pages. I've bulked out the introduction section slightly and I think that will be it for now! Kahlesh366 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legatum&oldid=1208134415"