Talk:Banque Havilland

Page written by subject of page
This page has clearly been edited the bank to supress information from previous contributors. It now resembles a promotional page for the bank. There are serious issues with the impartiality of the page Wilderperson (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Qatar Leaked Emails
I've noticed that this article has been changed a lot in November last year by BoH and some anonymous users and decided on having a look at the cited article. Further to reading the article I'm a bit worried that there is not enough clear proof that Banque Havilland was actually hired even though it looks like someone associated might have been involved. In addition it seems like Havilland have rejected all the claims. I would like to propose that we remove the reference, which might be deemed as defamatory towards them, until someone can cite an article that makes reference to the issue by a real authority. Can someone please let me know if they disagree. I'll add the page to my references and get back later to make the change if required. JiminyCricket30 (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the 2017 entry further to the conversation I started on the page. If someone thinks it’s better to add I will but it needs to be neutral due to how it could be deemed as defamatory material. No clear evidence and I can see that Havilland have denounced the remark so I have removed. JiminyCricket30 (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I am having doubts on the user User:BoH. It seems that person has been reverting/editing the article multiple times. I have ask for the user to clarify why they have reverted or at least to discuss the subject concerning the Qatar topic to no avail. If the user insists on adding the paragraph can I at least propose something different. I still am of an opinion that how the topic is currently written can been deemed as defamatory material. [User:JiminyCricket30|JiminyCricket30]] (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It is understandable that Banque Havilland would reject all claims. Notice that you are a one-issue user, something that Banque Havilland and David Rowland (property developer) share a history of, with for instance User:Fatherhope55 cleaning up information. BoH (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I can understand your concern for a one-issue user but if you assume that all new users are wrong then I guess I'm wrong about the wiki spirit. Clearly you haven't read the above because you are not even replying to my original question. I was not even trying to remove the subject originally, I mentioned that if someone believed it was important then either we reword the paragraph or remove it if it was of no concern. I honestly just think what you have currently written is not neutral and could be viewed as defamatory material. I have checked the original article and there is no clear link to that organisation plus they are rejecting the claim. If you think that all individuals are lying, in addition to all the fake news circulating now days, then clearly you are not neutral towards this topic. Should I propose an alternative paragraph or do you insist on keeping what is already in place? JiminyCricket30 (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I clearly have read the above, but that doesn't mean you are right. For starters, you claim I have checked the original article and there is no clear link to that organisation. That is not true, as the article mentions:
 * The economic warfare involved an attack on Qatar’s currency using bond and derivatives manipulation. The plan, laid out in a slide deck provided to The Intercept through the group Global Leaks, was aimed at tanking Qatar’s economy, according to documents drawn up by a bank outlining the strategy.
 * The outline, prepared by Banque Havilland, a private Luxembourg-based bank owned by the family of controversial British financier David Rowland, laid out a scheme to drive down the value of Qatar’s bonds and increase the cost of insuring them, with the ultimate goal of creating a currency crisis that would drain the country’s cash reserves.
 * That is a clear link.
 * Then you state: plus they are rejecting the claim. Obviously they reject the claim, this would cause alarm bells in any organization. Their rejection does not mean anything in that respect.
 * You may propose a different text, but remember this is Wikipedia, so don't write like a lawyer working for Havilland. BoH (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)