This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Every piece of information displayed on this page are fact. -
Not all - changed alligator to crocodile. No alligators in Zimbabwe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.8.120.133 (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
This article is so ridiculously biased I don't even know where to begin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.124.17 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This is very biased. Did Mr Rautenbach write this himself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.36.218.34 (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I agreed with previous users that the earlier version was a disgrace so I tried to rewrite from a more balanced and credible perspective (though I'm sure there's a lot that I missed). I gave the writer the benefit of the doubt and tried to check all claims, but few of the original citations checked out. I couldn't really work out what happened with the Nuanetsi Trust so left that very vague with lots of sources – would be great if someone can get to the bottom of it! And I couldn't find much detail about what Rautenbach's current holdings are. Jlalbion (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
There has been a lot of reverting back and forth on this page -- for many years, but especially after I overhauled it a couple months ago. When edits insert new claims, I've been checking them carefully and removing them when:
Green Fuel is controversial and I suppose Rautenbach is a controversial man, so we should be careful about citing and using independent sources when citing. I'm totally open to the possibility that the current article might seem unfairly anti-Rautenbach, and I welcome edits to improve the article's neutrality in content or style, but I don't think the solution is to add positive claims which are not substantiated (or to remove negative claims which are substantiated).
Something that might turn down the heat is moving Green Fuel and related controversies to a separate article, so that Rautenbach's page doesn't get engulfed by them. Happy to do that if there's consensus it's a good idea. Jlalbion (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I came to this page yesterday in light of the Suisse secrets revelations, published a few days ago. What I found was a poorly written BLP
similar to what has been noted on this talk page over the past 13 years before.
In a series of 10 gradual edits over more than 2 hours I copy edited the tone, beginning in the personal section, placed a flag for ((advertisement)), flags for inline references, added the customary BLP sections, added missing dates, added sourced information and finally rewrote the lede based on the body.
Today I found that all edits were reverted by User:Contri20, not once, but three times, after first restored by User:Asartea here and after restored by an unregistered IP here. Contri20 reverted each time with a meaningless edit summary "Restoration of article", thus not responding to the issues raised in their edit summaries (NPOV). Contri20 did not respond to a Asartea´s welcome message on Contri20s talk page.
In his 1 month of registering, Contri20s contributions have been limited to Rautenbachs page (single purpose account) and consisted mostly of reversions or as in his first edit, additions without chronology and sources with dead links Contri20 has reverted the cautious edits of User:Jlalbion to improve the page since November 11,202, and subsequent rescue by User:Edwardx.
I have placed an edit warring notice on Contri20s talk page.Wuerzele (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The content of the article seems to have been written by a PR firm as it is very positive and doesn’t refer to the shadow side of his business Hippolinae (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)