Talk:Dadvan Yousuf/Archive 1

Billionaire
According to blick news, dadvan is the youngest selfmade billionaire in switzerland. But actually there is no self made billionaire in the world who isnyounger than him. 213.55.220.228 (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

General quality of this article, including neutrality of speech
The qulity of this article is very lack luster. Firstly the language is in some sections currently rather colloquial than factual with phrases like "He bought 10 Bitcoins for €15 each and has been trading in Bitcoin ever since.", "...and was refused the diploma because his grades where way too bad." or the use of adverbs like "nevertheless". Generally the artical as a whole does not read like a Wikipedia entry and more like a continoulsy updated biography with some personal opinion sprinkeled in.

In addition, the phrase should be more like "Yousuf claimed to have bought 10 Bitcoins..." as some sources claim that the way he said he bought the bitcoins was not possible at that time. Factual statements with unchecked facts shall be avoided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.254.85.102 (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of personal opinion and the neutrailty of speach, although one might dismiss Dadvan Yousuf, his actions and claims, Wikipedia is obligated to keep a neutral style of speach and editing. For example phrases like "This is most likely a lie! given the requirements to study at this institution." (Including the displaced exclamation mark here), "Yousuf states in a video on a crypto platform that he has a license from the financial market authority Finma. That's not true, as Inside Paradeplatz reports (...)" or the absolutly horrendous sentences "At the time the video was shot, he was already in the SRO process. Hence the mention of Finma. To claim he was supervised by FINMA was nevertheless another lie by Yousuf." do not belong into any article.

And finally the formating is also rather off. Although this article describes aliving person, for which new information will appear over time, the inclusion of "February 17, 2022: <>" tags followed by a describtion of what happendend is not the style Wikipedia propagates. Althgough this style might make the inklusion of new facts easier, this update chain will at some point break the article and miss all chanches at maintaining a coherent red thread running through the text.

Until the neutraility problem is fixed i am adding the POV tag to this article. The other two issues are not overly severe, but it would be nice if someone could clean up this article. TeflonAnti (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)