Talk:Global Jet Luxembourg

Wealthy Russians?
"It is the preferred operator for private jets controlled by wealthy Russians including Igor Shuvalov." This sentence was added in this edit by an IP, supported by two sources. I'm relying on machine translation, but one of them seems not to mention the subject anywhere at all (instead it's talking in general terms about how unpatriotic it is for Russian billionaires to register their jets overseas). Ths other source does mention Global Jet a couple of times, and it does contain the 'in passing' assertion that it is "No. 1 among Russian billionaires", but in an article as short as this I would question whether this information is WP:UNDUE - we've got four sentences of prose, so including this devotes a quarter of the article to the company's supposed links to Russian oligarchs, based on a passing mention in a Forbes article. I'm not looking to whitewash anything, but this doesn't seem appropriate to me - pinging all unblocked editors who have edited this article since the assertion was added:, , , , , , ,. Girth Summit  (blether) 06:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Girth Summit: Thanks for the ping. The worst thing on this page is long term sockpuppeting, till now there are three linked accounts with blocks in place but IP wasn't warned about WP:COI. I reverted this edit, but sadly didn't revert enough to neutral article's wording. I think a semiprotection is suitable. A09090091 (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the socking - to be clear, I came here from the SPI, and just blocked the latest sock. I guess what I'm saying is that I can see why anyone associated with the company would take issue with the page as it currently stands. Cutting dubious content from the article doesn't equate to giving the COI socks the puff piece they want, and it might actually reduce their motivation for coming here. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What you laid out there makes sense to me. I don't see a reason to keep that in. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The reason for my revert was the deletion of whole sections for no apparent reason. --Serols (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah - I'm not criticising the reverts, the changes were massively promotional - I'm just questioning whether this particular sentence warrants reinstatement. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting here that I've removed the sentence. Happy to discuss further if anyone disagrees. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)