Talk:Paul Donovan (economist)

Untitled

COI heading removed as 1) no discussion initiated on the talk page and 2) content appears to be neutral

• Good point. The article has been created by accounts named "Donovanpa" and "Ubswikipedia", so accounts claiming to represent the subject and his employer. So a COI tag is appropriate. Blythwood (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• I thought the CIO tag was only appropriate if there was a question over the neutrality of the article (in conjunction with a suspected close connection). The article seems to be factual rather than subjective. I looked up the COI use page and the relevant section seemed to me to be

Use this tag to alert readers that the article may be biased by a conflict of interest, and to request help with an article that is biased or has other serious problems as a direct result of the editing done by the subject of the article or by a person with a close connection to the subject (e.g., public relations employees).

Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other

tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame or to "warn the reader" about the identities of the editors.

Does this article (regardless of author) breach the neutrality definition? It does not seem to me that it does. It is either factual, or factual and referenced reporting of the subject's opinions. (Apologies, new to editing. I saw a presentation by Jimmy Wales recently and became something of a convert).

• close ties between author and subject are a necessary but not sufficient condition for COI. Unless specific instances of bias / non neutrality can be identified on the talk page, the COI should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.149.1.241 (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• In the absence of evidence of impartiality or neutrality having been affected by the alleged (probable) links between the authors and the subject, COI removed. COI requires links AND evidence of a lack of neutrality. This article appears to be factual, using reliable and verifiable external sources throughout (including primary source evidence). Given that this is mainly a statement of facts, it seems difficult to discern evidence of non-neutral comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.134.66 (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to update the information about the pork prices in China

I kindly ask the active editors of this article to review and consider for implementation the following edit:

• To be edited:

The information which can be found at the end of the article: "The concern for the pigs in China angered many Chinese people and has led to him being removed from his post."

• Reason:

This sentence is not correct as Paul Donovan wasn't removed from his post but he was asked to take a leave of absence. Also – Paul and his employer (UBS) apologized for these words. If I can suggest an edit it would be as follows: "The concern for the pigs in China angered many Chinese people and has led to him being asked to take the leave of absence. Paul Donovan apologized for his words."

• The source to back-up the above information:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-14/ubs-puts-economist-donovan-on-leave-to-contain-china-pig-fallout https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-13/ubs-apologizes-after-analyst-comment-sparks-outrage-in-china https://www.ft.com/content/82a517f2-8e6d-11e9-a24d-b42f641eca37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or6PBT_VTqM WROanna1862 (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@WROanna1862: My suggestion would be the following:

While engaged in a discussion concerning Chinese consumer prices, Donovan commented that the pig virus causing the cost of pork to rise mattered to Chinese pigs and those who ate them. Donovan later apologized for his remarks before taking a leave of absence from UBS, saying "I made a mistake and I unwittingly used hugely culturally insensitive language." Patrick Winters and Benjamin Robertson of Bloomberg noted that "local rivals of UBS, which have been trying to take bigger piece of a business dominated by the established Western wealth managers, were quick to condemn Donovan's comments."

I think that covers a lot of aspects from that story thus far. Please advise if acceptable. Regards,  Spintendo  17:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

References

When ready to reply with feedback on the suggested changes, kindly switch the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no. Thank you!

Regards,  Spintendo  23:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thank you a lot for a quick response. The changes you proposed are factual and fully acceptable. Thank you and regards, WROanna1862 (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done  Spintendo  22:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to update the employment information

Could you please review and consider for implementation the following edit:

• From:

He was Global Chief Economist for the Swiss financial services firm UBS Wealth Management until 14 June 2019.

• To:

He currently is Global Chief Economist for the Swiss financial services firm UBS Wealth Management.

• Reason:

Paul Donovan was officially reinstated to his position.

• The source to back-up the above information:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49898296

Please advise if it is ok for me, an editor with conflict of interest, to implement such change directly.

Best regards, WROanna1862 (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

An IP editor has already made this change. Regards,  Spintendo  14:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)