Talk:Greensill Capital

Sources to add

 * https://www.wsj.com/articles/softbank-backed-greensill-delays-fundraising-11612554250
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-10/the-story-behind-lex-greensill-s-rise-in-supply-chain-finance?sref=CIpmV6x8

Credit Suisse circular funding
Hi, I just wanted to discuss with you the placement of the Credit Suisse circular funding story. Here are a few thoughts:
 * I think this story should appear after § Activities, so that the functioning of the Credit Suisse supply-chain funds has already been introduced to the reader.
 * I am aware that a "controversies" section is not the preferred way to proceed (although I like them a lot). In this case however, I wanted to add a second section about the ties of Greensill to GFG Alliance, which has been covered by all the good sources. I think the addition of this story would warrant a dedicated section that would include both the circular financing and the GFG ties (A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location.).
 * Finally, on a related note, I think we should be careful with the wording "conflict of interest", because the sources do not say these specific words (V/NPOV). JBchrch (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * JBchrch: thanks for saying all that. Sorry to have gone rogue and moved it without more consideration, you put in much more thought than I have. I've moved it back. — 13:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you MainlyTwelve. Absolutely no issue, of course 👍 --JBchrch (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits
, in relation to these edits :
 * The FT article does not use the term disproportionately. It says a lot of interesting things, but not this.
 * Per MOS:DATEUNIFY: Dates in article body text should all use the same format. In this article, we use Month date, year (April 9, 2021), so we should keep this format.
 * Reported to: the "reported" language is meant to distance Wikipedia's voice from the report's contents. If the report is uncontroversial (for instance when it has been admitted by the parties involved, such as the German towns), the text can be written in the active voice, as a statement of a fact. Accordingly, if we omit the mention of the report, it is not necessary to provide the date of such report. --JBchrch (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Use of the past tense : for the record
In the past 24 hours, two users (presumably sockpuppets of each other) have attempted to rewrite the lead in the present tense (Greensill is...) and to remove the "defunct" date in the infobox. One of the users in question stated on their talk page that sources needed to be provided to state that Greensill is in fact defunct. For the record (and for WP:NOT3RR purposes): 1. in my view, a company that has entered insolvency and liquidation is, for all intents and purposes, a "was" and not an "is" and 2. sources indeed describe Greensill as "defunct". JBchrch (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021
On the 2021-04-14, Tories rejected the house of common motion for a parliamentary committee to investigate government lobbying.

Cite text Greensill: Tories reject Labour plan for MP-led lobbying probe Cite link https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56743426

Cite parliament vote https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/992 82.20.200.79 (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

"Who" tag
Hi, could you please explain what you mean with the "who?" tag you added? JBchrch  talk  21:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added the reason to the tag for clarity. Stenn International doesn't have its own Wikipedia article, so the comparison is a little uninformative for those (like me) who are unfamiliar with the company. My apologies if my use of the tag was unclear. JezGrove (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries . Just FYI, the "who?" tag links to WP:WEASEL, which is why I was confused. Actually, it's pretty funny to me to have a "who?" tag next to a person or a company 😄. But I digress. I have now removed the mention of Stenn International, which was not necessary. JBchrch   talk  09:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , you have reverted my removal of the mention of Stenn International, but I tend to agree with JezGrove's concerns. JBchrch   talk  11:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As I said in the edit summary, we don't need a company to be notable or for us to have an article to mention it. If the FT thought it worthwhile mentioning that other similar companies exist, then it is worth mentioning. who is supposed to be used for when vague terms are used, not when a non-notable entity is mentioned. If the reader wants to know more, the company name is sufficient for them to their own research. If the company becomes notable in the future, then we are much better off having it mentioned here and therefore easy to link to, rather than removing it entirely, which would make it unlikely that it would ever be linked from here. SmartSE (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)