Untitled[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jip, sounds like self promotion --41.246.176.243 (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
totally self promotion, this is ridiculous! Its an example of how wikipedia is filled with trash. Should be entirely rewritten 162.213.136.97 (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

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)[reply]

Edit warring and Green Fuel[edit]

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)[reply]

Edit warring by Contri20[edit]

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)[reply]

This behaviour continued today and I filed a report at WP:AN3. The article is terrible - very poorly written, it reads like a PR puff piece, rather than a neutral encyclopaedia article. As this is a WP:BLP, everything should be sourced. Contri20 removed two CN tags without providing a suitable source. I see Contri20 also reverted a new introduction on the basis it "containing unfounded claims and those that are pure speculation", despite the fact that carried references from reliable sources. 86.173.116.122 (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for getting involved with this. This from 19 February is a recent version of the article with my substantial edits and expansions, which I put a lot of work into and which has some content that should probably be incorporated into any "final" version of the article. With that version I took a lot of care factchecking each of Contri20's additions to make sure anything reliable was kept in. Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time to spend on here these days, much less to make regular reverts of non-constructive edits. Jlalbion (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I should add that when factchecking I found that the vast majority of the claims about Green Fuel's positive impact (which remain in the article now) were not substantiated -- they cited irrelevant sources, non-existent sources, or PR officers. Jlalbion (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional content[edit]

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)[reply]

Agreed the article does seem to have been written by a PR firm. --Devokewater 17:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories