Talk:Henley & Partners

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henley & Partners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161011120651/http://www.ifcreview.com/restricted.aspx?articleId=9184&areaId=34 to http://www.ifcreview.com/restricted.aspx?articleId=9184&areaId=34

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

NPOV & COI Dispute
I have read the disputed article and I am not able to find an NPOV nor a COI issue. The text is written objectively and properly backed by sources. I suggest deleting the maintenance template.

Have a great day. - User:Modurr —Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree in principle, whilst this article does seem to have been biased initially when setup, it appears that objective and has been adequately addressed a since flagging this. Looks like a dormant discussion on this 78.24.33.244 (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As an IP editor, you are not in a good position to be making this statement, or removing the templates, which I have reinstated. Edwardx (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Another editor beat me to it! Edwardx (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't find an NPOV or COI either. I think the page balances the pros and cons of what Henley & Partners does. Waterpr8f (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Since no person has responded, can I suggest we delete the NPOV & COI Dispute templates? Waterpr8f (talk) 11:45, 06 June 2019 (UTC)

Malta and Daphne Galizia case
I saw this on other pages on Wikipedia before: There are several companies/people blamed on Wikipedia that they are involved in the Daphne Galizia case. However, by now it is clear who the perpetrators were and those companies accused on Wikipedia have nothing to do with it. There are certainly other editors with more experience than me but I personally don't think that those blaming-paragraphs are correct. Can I suggest deleting them? Fisherman887 (talk) 19:55, 04 February 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is fair to have the discussions (pros- and cons) about the Maltese Individual Investor Programme under Criticism and Controversy but I agree, the connection to Daphne Galizia is outdated and misleading and the Shift News as a source might also be critical.Waterpr8f (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , why have you still not addressed the conflict of interest notice left on your talkpage in January 2019, over a year ago? Edwardx (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello . Thanks for the reminder and the simple answer is that I don’t see a COI. I don’t know the company other than from the outside. CbI programmes caught my interest several years ago and I do see great potential in them. The pages I used to edit where those that have the most information about the topics including the page of the industry-leader. While the positive benefits of CbI is also seen by many newspapers and experts, there still seem to be attempts on Wikipedia to defame rather than inform. If (any) allegations are justified, I do not have any problems with them. Yet I do think that if they are not justified and misleading, they should be deleted on Wikipedia. The sentence which I deleted is indeed very misleading and links a credible player in that industry with a murder. This is a very serious incrimination and by now, we know who the perpetrators are. I therefore started a discussion about this on the talk page a month ago and only one other editor replied. You did not engage in this discussion but just reversed the edits. I still think this sentence needs to be deleted. Fisherman887 (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I haven't heard back from you, neither here nor on my talk page. Please let me know what you think, otherwise, I'm going to undo your edit. Fisherman887 (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

UDP
I have tagged this article undisclosed paid; it has been heavily targeted by the GlobeClimber/KraYa sockfarm and suffers from promo issues. This is confirmed UPE, I can provide more detail to OTRS members on request. Blablubbs&#124;talk 09:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Resolving UPE issues
Hi, my name is Sarah and I work for Henley & Partners. I recently introduced myself to User:Blablubbs, who encouraged me to propose a redrafted, shorter version of this article to facilitate the removal of the "undisclosed paid" tag. My draft, which can be found at User:Sarah Nicklin/Henley & Partners, is heavily derived from this old revision from April 2018, which was just before the undisclosed paid editing began, as far as I understand. I made sure to leave in content that appears to have been added by legitimate editors.

I have several suggestions in mind for improving and expanding the article, but my first priority is to start over with a clean slate, and only then begin proposing changes here on the Talk page.

Pinging and. Please take a look at the draft and let me know if you think it's a constructive first step in resolving the article's problems, or if it doesn't go far enough, or even if goes too far. Thank you, Sarah Nicklin (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * RE Impact: Add the Global Citizen Award from the current version to your draft (The firm has also developed the annual Global Citizen Award, which consists of a USD 50,000 monetary prize. + sources), given that it has received independent coverage and is hence due for inclusion.
 * RE Criticism and controversy: Add H&Ps denial to the last paragraph of your draft from the current version (Henley & Partners denied these allegations, confirming that Low was never a client and was specifically rejected as such in 2015. + source), but replace "confirming" with "asserting" or similar. I'm happy that Henley & Partners was criticized from time to time [...] was removed from the criticism section in your draft given that it is only loosely related. 15 (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * RE Criticism and controversy: Add H&Ps denial to the last paragraph of your draft from the current version (Henley & Partners denied these allegations, confirming that Low was never a client and was specifically rejected as such in 2015. + source), but replace "confirming" with "asserting" or similar. I'm happy that Henley & Partners was criticized from time to time [...] was removed from the criticism section in your draft given that it is only loosely related. 15 (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Done! Thanks for your quick response. Sarah Nicklin (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , remove In addition to advising private clients and governments, Kälin is a speaker and writer[15] who is regularly quoted in the international media.[16][17][18][19][20] Having coined the term ius doni as a stand-in for citizenship-by-investment, Kälin introduced the concept of ius doni into the contemporary legal and political theory of citizenship by providing the first comprehensive academic analysis of the subject.[21] in and I'm happy for you to implement the changes (=copy over your draft article and replace the current version with it). It reads too promotional and the level of detail is unneeded, given that Kälin has his own article. There is also a possible sourcing issue with ius doni, which might be best discussed at Kälin's article. 15 (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I made the changes, per your instructions. Thanks again for your willingness to work with me on this. Sarah Nicklin (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Tags
Hi, are there specific parts you suggest should be rewritten or trimmed from the article? I am afraid that the tags themselves are not very helpful to me without any further explanation, particularly given the recent rewrite. Best, 15 (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article (as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quality_of_Nationality_Index) just read wrong to me. I picked all the tags which I thought are applicable to both of these articles. It's good that there was a rewrite, but there are still way, way, way too many minor details in these articles that need to be removed in order for the article to be read better. I don't have the time to edit these articles, but as someone who reads at least a hundred Wikipedia articles each day, these two articles just jumped out in my eyes as being written with too many details and in a promotional / advertisement manner. That's all. I appreciate the rewrite but it needs to be rewritten further. Ethanbas (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Criticism section
I'd like to request that the contents of the "Criticism and controversy" section be integrated into the History section, per WP:CSECTION.

Also, please remove the third paragraph (about The Shift News) entirely, as the two sources cited in the paragraph are both from The Shift News, which should not be considered a legitimate source of information about itself. (I also don't think the incident described here is noteworthy enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article about the company, but that may be a moot point due to the improper sourcing.)

Pinging - it would be great if you could weigh in here. Thanks, Sarah Nicklin (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , while I'm not sure about your claim of The Shift News' reliability, it doesn't look like it was picked up much by other media making it undue. I have removed it. Regarding the integration of the criticism section, I believe a chronological integration would be best? 15 (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, chronological integration of the Criticism section makes the most sense. (I can perform that integration myself if you prefer and permit.) Thanks for your edits here, and when you get a chance, please do take a look at Talk:Christian Kälin. Sarah Nicklin (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've gone ahead and merged the CSection into the history one. Feel free to suggest how it should be otherwise structured. Happy to include more information (also outside of the controversy) in the, as it mainly consists of the former controversy part. 15 (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of the Criticism section. I think the structure is great, except the final paragraph now appears to be related to the Malta Individual Investor Programme, when in fact it is about another topic entirely, and should probably be moved to directly above the "Malta Individual Investor Programme" heading.


 * Aside from that, I would suggest further improving the undue weight problem in the Malta subsection by taking the following steps:
 * In the first paragraph of the Malta subsection, remove all three sentences about Arton Capital (from "Arton Capital, a competing firm..." till the end of the paragraph). This ended up being a complete non-incident: an appeal of the Maltese government's decision to hire H&P that was filed by a rival firm and eventually dropped with little fanfare.
 * Also in the first paragraph of the Malta subsection, add the following sentences to elaborate on the program itself: "The program provided citizenship to foreign individuals and their families who contribute to the country's economic development. The country later introduced more stringent conditions for acquiring citizenship, such as proof of residence in Malta for at least 12 months." (Source)
 * What do you think? Sarah Nicklin (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's a complicated matter which requires some background reading. There is a lot of (better sourced) material not yet in the article, I'll try to get around doing it in the next few days. 15 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Partially done. Trimmed the section about Arton Capital but did not removed it. While what they did is quite common, it was still reported on and should be included per WP:PROPORTION. Added the sentence you suggested with slight wording changes for npov and tense. See diff. 15 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposing changes to lead and History
Hi, this is Sarah from Henley & Partners, here again to propose a few more changes to the article, specifically to the lead section and the History section.

Lead:

Please add the following as the second sentence of the article: "It is the largest investment migration consultancy in the world." The source is the Quartz article that is already cited later in the lead. (This sentence should probably be followed by a paragraph break, though one might legitimately disagree.)

History:
 * 1) It looks odd for the History section to have one subsection ("Malta Individual Investor Programme"). I propose to remove that subsection heading, as the History section in its entirety is not so long that it requires subsections. Alternatively, there could be multiple subsections apart from just the one on Malta, but that would probably lead to overly short subsections, which is also not ideal.
 * 2) Add the following sentence as the second paragraph in the History section: Since 2006, the company has hosted an annual Global Citizenship Conference focusing on topics relating to residence and citizenship planning, the 15th of which took place in November-December 2021.
 * 3) Expand the sentence that begins "Following the successful restructuring..." (my addition in bold): Following the successful restructuring of the St. Kitts and Nevis citizenship program, Henley & Partners began to advise the governments of Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, and Cyprus on how to develop their own investment migration programs, and has since that time worked for and been mandated by several other governments.
 * 4) It is WP:UNDUE to have three whole paragraphs on the Jho Low incident at the end of the History section. Even the first paragraph alone is undue in my opinion, but certainly the following two paragraphs (which were added by an IP several weeks ago) are superfluous.

Pinging once again - thank you for bearing with me here! Sarah Nicklin (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * I want to keep the subsection as the paragraphs belong together and more generally because I dislike the tendency of history sections in articles on (extant) companies to become timelines in prose form. There is (or surely will be) information on post-2015 developments that can be added with a new subsection at the end of the history section.
 * Added with slight rewording.
 * Done.
 * I'm not surprised that you find it undue, but ultimately it has been widely covered by media, even if the actual connection of H&P to Jhu Low is more limited than I think media suggests. I have removed following two paragraphs.
 * While edit requests such as these don't take long, I don't see myself finding much time to spend on them (or indeed Wikipedia at all) in the near future. While you are welcome to ping me in future requests, it would be good to add the COI edit request template in the future to hopefully get a quicker response (but not hugely likely given the lack of editors working in this mostly mind numbing area). That's not to say your requests were difficult to handle, but it's mostly a time thing. Best, 15 (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long to reply! I noticed you may have missed the first part of my request, which was to add a sentence to the lead stating that "It is the largest investment consultancy in the world" (sourced to Quartz).


 * And perhaps, in the interest of adding information on post-2015 developments to the History section, we can also add the following sentence: In February 2022, Henley & Partners, in partnership with Deep Knowledge Analytics, launched the Best Investment Migration Real Estate Index, an index that compares countries by how welcoming they are for people seeking a secondary residence or citizenship.


 * Thank you! Sarah Nicklin (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added the biggest firm part, will take a look at post-2015 stuff later and see what else I can find. Best, 15 (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please let me know your thoughts about adding the sentence I suggested on the company's most recently created index.


 * Also, I see that another editor added the Cleanup-PR tag to the article. This was very frustrating for me to see, since, as you know, a big part of the work the two of us have done over the last several months was to move the article away from reading like a press release. Can this tag be removed, at least until the editor who added it elaborates on where he feels the article is still problematic? Sarah Nicklin (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have added the index with some changes. Pinging regarding the PR tag: Is there anything which you would like to see changed? I realise there is probably more to be said re: Daphne Galizia and Passport Papers (can't believe I'm only finding out now...) either here or at the Kälin article, but that shouldn't have an impact on what else the article covers. 15 (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * To start with:
 * The article calls the firm both an " investment migration consultancy" a ''global citizenship and residence advisory firm" and an "immigration consultancy" Pick one and stay with it.
 * "is active in refugee related philanthropy and has been criticised for its core business model, which detractors believe to threaten the fight against cross-border corruption and crime." combines a positive attribute with a negative one. This should be separated.
 * The name of the firm is used too often. Replace most of them by "the firm" or "they" . Similarly for Malta Individual Investor Programme.
 * Some of the firm's publciations have separate articles inc WP, which means that just an identification for them is needed here. WP is hypertext, and uses links.
 * Add the 2021 reference:"Passport Papers: ‘To the clients, we say do the bare minimum’

Henley & Partners advise an undercover journalist about Malta's golden passports" Times of Malta April 23,2021
 * the article several times talks about charitable activities. This apparently amounts tto a single $1 million contribution to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. give the number in the text.   DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All done. I removed the tag accordingly. Let me know what you think. 15 (talk) 11:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Additions to 'Later history' and 'Publications'
Hello, it's Sarah again, with a few more proposed changes and additions.

Later history
 * Add the following sentence to the beginning of the subsection: In March 2021, the company published the Investment Migration Programs Health Risk Assessment Report, which analyzed the stability of 31 countries with investment migration programs, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 * Expand the sentence about the Feb. 2022 investment migration real estate index with a sentence about an earlier business index from Sep. 2021 (the following would replace the existing text for syntax and clarity): In September 2021, Henley & Partners, partnering with Deep Knowledge Analytics, launched the Best Residence-by-Investment Cities for Business Index, which compares and ranks 25 world cities for businesses looking to choose a headquarters location and other considerations. The two companies partnered again in February 2022 to launch the Best Investment Migration Real Estate Index, which compares countries for those seeking a secondary residence or citizenship.

Publications
 * In the second paragraph, correct "Henley & Partners Passport Index" to "Henley Passport Index"
 * Add the following to the end of that sentence: ", as well as the quarterly Global Mobility Report, which contains geopolitical analysis on trends influencing mobility patterns.

Pinging - thanks in advance! Sarah Nicklin (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have only implemented your first and third suggestions; Someone more confident may or may not do the rest.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Major changes made without consensus
Recently, this article was overhauled in a single edit with no edit summary and no Talk page discussion. Several very significant changes were made, including summarily replacing the primary description of the company in the lead, tossing out large chunks of well-sourced consensus-based content throughout the article and adding multiple paragraphs of WP:COATRACK content framed inappropriately as criticism of the article's subject.

The impetus for these changes appears to have been the recent publication of an investigative report by the OCCRP. While the OCCRP does have editorial control and other hallmarks of good journalism, most Wikipedia editors will surely agree that it is a biased and opinionated source (see the organization's own description of itself and its mission) and thus the content it produces should be given in-text attribution and appropriate counterbalance on Wikipedia - not used to effectively override other reliable sources and treated as the final word on the subject.

I would request that the edit in question be reverted (of course, I will not do so myself due to my conflict of interest) and the changes discussed here on the Talk page first. Pinging and  as a courtesy. Thank you, Sarah Nicklin (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * (1) Editors are under no obligation to preemptively seek out the input of Henley employees before editing this page. You do not WP:OWN this page. (2) OCCRP is a clear RS. You do not do yourself any good by making false claims as to the reliability of the source. (3) Tagging editors that you've had good relations with or have an expectation of helping you is WP:CANVASSING. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I've made absolutely no attempt to assert ownership of the article, nor have I said anything to that effect. You are making significant changes on a controversial subject in an article that has been actively edited, and you should be seeking consensus for those changes first (per WP:CAREFUL rather than WP:BOLD).
 * I didn't say OCCRP is unreliable. I said it's biased and opinionated, akin to many of the advocacy groups listed at WP:RSP, and therefore should require in-text attribution and should be used more minimally and with greater care.
 * 15 has been the most active editor here by far over the last year, which makes it relevant to ping them in this situation. They have not shown bias toward or against the article's subject, and the fact that they have been WP:CIVIL toward me in our interactions should not be a disqualifying factor and certainly does not count as canvassing. (And in case you didn't notice, I pinged you too.)
 * In any case, I do hope some other editors will weigh in here so we can get to a consensus-based version of the article rather than the current version. Sarah Nicklin (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some good additions (eg. recent OCCRP reporting, St Kitts and Nevis passports) and some unexplained removals and changes, particularly wrt the lead--barring an explanation of changes falling in the latter category, I will undo those later. 15 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am looking at this page following a request by Sarah Nicklin. I have read through the diff, and thought the lead changes were a significant shift in tone that moved it away from being a summary of the existing article by focus on the single new source. Given 15 saw a similar issue, I have reverted this. On the source and body text, I am not sure the source needs that specific handling, however there are potential tone and BLP issues in the new body text, and some areas where text was removed without explanation. I have made some changes there, restoring removals and removing the list of specific individuals, but have not gone through the other text. CMD (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The new changes distort what reliable sources say about the company, include WP:OR about the greatness of the company that borders on advertisement (including claims that the company is responsible for massive GDP growth in the Caribbean when the cited source does not mention Henley and specifically mentions tourism), highlights the company's philanthropy in the lead when it just amounts to a $1 million donation (reported in a source of questionable RS status), and removes high-quality RS content about the company's clients under mistaken pretense that it amounts to BLP violations. All in all, an extraordinarily bad set of edits that were the result of a COI-account's WP:CANVASSing and which have turned the article into a NPOV-violating advertisement for the company that highlights the greatness of the company, obscures the company's practices under confusing language and surgically removes RS content about the company's controversial practices. The pre-canvassed version should be restored and if the COI account wants community input on the content, it should use regular untainted processes to do so (e.g. RFCs, 3O, NPOV noticeboard). Thenightaway (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No new changes have been made. That said, it's good to see explanations for the edits. Not sure being described as creating the citizenship planning industry is a mark of greatness. The tiny philanthropy sentence probably can go as pretty meaningless. I don't think the text suggests the company is responsible for the GDP changes. The list of specific named individuals does not add encyclopaedic information here. CMD (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems encyclopedic to cover, as RS do, that the company is helping money launderers, fraudsters and sanctions evaders to obtain passports and obscuring its role in doing so. That's precisely why the company's practices are so controversial in the first place. Thenightaway (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This can be covered without a list of living individuals. CMD (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Henley Passport Index
The merger proposal - I propose merging Henley Passport Index into Henley & Partners. I think the content in Henley Passport Index can easily be explained in the context of Henley & Partners, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Henley & Partners. The existence of the Henley Passport Index page is purely promotional. Thenightaway (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * and discussion
 * There is no reason for this merger. The page does not qualify any of the reasons as mentioned on WP:MERGE
 * (1)There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject
 * – Negative, the pages are not on the same subject. Both the subjects are notable enough to warrant a standalone Wikipedia page
 * (2)There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap.
 * – No, there is no overlap of information, Henley & Partners page talks about the company and the Henley Passport Index page talks about the index/report
 * (3)If a page is very short, and cannot, or should not, be expanded much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a bigger topic.
 * – The page is not short. Has plenty of information and citations
 * (4)If a short article needs the background material from another article for readers to understand it.
 * – This becomes invalid since the point above
 * I have contributed to this page before and the topic definitely holds encyclopedic value. The page was created in 2007, so for 15 years, I am certain it has helped readers. ANLgrad (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have contributed to this page before and the topic definitely holds encyclopedic value. The page was created in 2007, so for 15 years, I am certain it has helped readers. ANLgrad (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Quality of Nationality Index
The merger proposal - I propose merging Quality of Nationality Index into Henley & Partners. I think the content in Quality of Nationality Index can easily be explained in the context of Henley & Partners, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Henley & Partners. The existence of the Quality of Nationality Index page is purely promotional. Thenightaway (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * and discussion
 * Here again, the page does not qualify any of the reasons as mentioned on WP:MERGE. I have not contributed on this page yet, I will definitely research and add to it (or remove if required). On a simple google search, you can find this research paper about this index with 1616 downloads meaning that the information does hold value to the readers - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3578074 ANLgrad (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

My edits are being destroyed. I would like to bring this to attention
For all my edits on any other page, everything goes well. On this particular page, user:Thenightaway is always destroying my edits. I have already discussed on teahouse and wanted to post this here before taking it to WP:ANI. Such actions are definitely making me feel unsafe in this environment. I make sure that only key information with WP:RS sources are provided. I am politely requesting the community to help me with this. user:Thenightaway, I am also requesting you to participate in this discussion. You never replied to my discussion on Teahouse either. I am trying to understand why you only have a problem with my edits on this particular page. Although, my expertise lies in topics I have mentioned on my talk page, I only include important information and correct sources. ANLgrad (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no encyclopedic value in detailing the nature of all the different reports that this company produces. The reports are already mentioned – they do not need to be described in detail. The sources that you keep adding are bottom-rung sources that provide no information that substantiates that these reports are important; instead, the low-quality sources just repeat the contents of the reports in listicle-style clickbait stories (e.g. "These are the best and worst passports!"). If you want this content in the article, you need to seek consensus. Per WP:BRD, you cannot repeatedly reinsert contested content into the article. Thenightaway (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Firstly, these are reports which even countries take seriously and you can easily find that out by a simple search. So, they definitely have encyclopedic value without an iota of doubt.
 * 2 - I am not describing them in extreme detail. It's barely a line or two.
 * 3 - I have discussed this on teahouse and I was advised we can definitely add details if it doesn't warrant a new page.
 * 4 - I am aware of WP:OSE, but pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwatch rightly elaborate on significant report. Why are you not challenging my edits there? This reflects you have some negative bias for this particular company.
 * 5 - I am making edits as per WP:BRD and all my citations are WP:RS. I also provide relevant quote from the citation.
 * 6 - Most importantly - You mentioned "we are not giving entire paragraphs to some reports published by this company because moroccoworldnews.com reports on them." When you say, "we are not...." - I request you to let me know what you mean by that - do you mean you own Wikipedia? I am an equal contributor to this voluntary encyclopedia and there is no ownership of articles.
 * I request you to answer my questions that I have asked you in point number 4 and 6 above. Thank you. ANLgrad (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Re: (4) It's not my job to review all your edits across Wikipedia. Per WP:OTHER, it's completely irrelevant what kinds of crap exists on other pages. Re: (6) The rules of Wikipedia are very clear. If content is contested, it should not be re-added in the absence of consensus. You're flagrantly violating these rules by repeatedly restoring this contested content which does not have consensus. Thenightaway (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (4) - absolutely, it is not your job to review all my edits, so why only on this page? Again, I am hoping you will answer my question - why are you going behind my edits only on this particular page?
 * (6) - If the rules of Wikipedia are so clear to you, then why have you received so many warnings in the past for disruptive editing? Here are the examples
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thenightaway/Archive_11#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thenightaway/Archive_10#Edit-warring_on_Byron_York
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thenightaway/Archive_9#Continued_edit_warring
 * All my edits on all pages are constructive in nature and I don’t touch random topics. Also, I don’t appreciate you using language like “crap exists on other pages”. Please maintain a better tone in this discussion. I don’t think such casually rough language is encouraged on Wikipedia.
 * And when you say "we are not giving entire paragraphs to some reports” - do you mean you control Wikipedia? You make it sound like you are an authority and I am an outsider. ANLgrad (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Building up a section
Based on the discussion on teahouse regarding building up of Publications section and consensus for the same, I am pasting the discussion link here for others to refer to - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1171#Building_up_a_section ANLgrad (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Pelagic thank you for your bullet point suggestion. I tried both options you suggested, and the bullet point looks more appropriate. ANLgrad (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Pelagic wanted to let you know that I am still building up the section using bullet points.
 * ANLgrad (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Restore section that was deleted improperly
Hi everyone. I'd like to propose restoring the "Impact" section, which was deleted several months ago along with most of its content, with the terse edit summary "these are not rs." The content of the section that was deleted (not including the sentence about the Global Citizen Award, which was partly preserved elsewhere in the article) is as follows:


 * In 2015, Henley & Partners formed a multi-year partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) which entailed a $1 million donation by the firm. As part of the partnership, the firm also raises awareness for the refugee cause.

The claim that the prominent Maltese news outlets Malta Today and The Malta Independent are "not rs" is baseless, and the content itself is pertinent, encyclopedic and WP:DUE, so I would ask that the section be restored.

In addition, the Impact section could reasonably be bolstered by other encyclopedic information, as follows:
 * Move the sentence about the Global Citizen Award out of the "Conferences" section (where it is out of place) and into the Impact section, and elaborate with information from the existing reference, The Indian Express: The firm awards an annual Global Citizen Award, which consists of a USD 50,000 monetary prize given to an "individual who has made an extraordinary contribution towards improving the global community."
 * Add a sentence about the Hero Scholarship: In 2016, the firm partnered with the Antigua-based Halo Foundation and Saint Mary's University in Halifax to create the Hero Scholarship, whose stated aim is "to ease the financial barrier to tertiary-level education for students from disadvantaged backgrounds."
 * Add a sentence about the Andan Foundation: In 2017, the firm supported the establishment of the Andan Foundation, a Switzerland-based non-profit organization whose stated aim is "to increase self-reliance of refugees."

Thank you, Sarah Nicklin (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about those newspapers to comment on their reliability (and Thenightaway challenged one in an earlier thread, too), so I've asked at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion at RSN indicated no problems with these sources, so the material should probably be restored. (I have other stuff going on right now, but may look into it if no one else acts on this.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Restored the UNHCR and Global Citizen content under a new philanthropy section. Added Andan Foundation, with some modifications. Both sources are technically primary. Did not include the Halo Foundation bit, solely sourced to what appears to be a primary source. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)  (talk, contribs)  21:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixing misleading language in two places
Hi everyone. There are two places where I've noticed the language is still misleading. Sarah Nicklin (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) In the second paragraph of the St. Kitts and Nevis subsection, the article misleadingly refers to the country's citizenship-by-investment program as "the Henley and Partners scheme." As the sources make clear, the program was entirely government-run by 2014, Henley's contract with the government of St. Kitts and Nevis having ended the previous year. So the program could not be reasonably called "the Henley and Partners scheme," and in fact, the original 2014 warnings from the US and Canada regarding the program made no mention of Henley & Partners.
 * 2) *I propose changing the sentence from "...through the Henley and Partners scheme" to "...through the program."
 * 3) In the fourth paragraph of the Malta subsection, it says that "Henley worked for Low through a Cypriot intermediary." This is inaccurate. As the Guardian source says, Henley did not work for Low, but instead "referred him to a third agency" in Cyprus. This third agency is not characterized as an "intermediary" in the Guardian, whose reporting should be favored on Wikipedia over that of the OCCRP. And the final sentence uses value-laden language ("pocketed" rather than "received") and inaccurately states that the payment Henley received was for its "services to Low," when in fact the payment was an indirect real estate commission resulting from a transaction of the third-party agency involving Low (as the OCCRP source itself explains), not for services to Low himself.
 * 4) *To be fair and accurately reflect the facts as reported in the Guardian, I propose changing the final two sentences of the paragraph to: "Leaked documents in 2021 revealed that Henley referred Low to a third-party agency in Cyprus. Henley received 710,000 euros indirectly as a result of a subsequent real estate transaction involving Low."
 * ✅: Both of those seem like improvements, better matching the source material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Resolving issues
Hi, I’d like to start a discussion here on the current version of the article. It is very alarming that this page always seems to attract negative information in big chunks and positive/neutral information in minimal updates. There are tons of news stories which reflect Henley & Partners in a positive light, but don’t see its way on the page. There is no ownership of any sort, and therefore a neutral mix of edits should be allowed and tolerated on the page. Recently, a few lines with sources which were neutral and fact-based have been removed. Removal of such content doesn’t seem to be appropriate and fair. I urge the Wikipedia community to check and add it back as this is unfair. In the Malta subsection, a huge piece of negative information has been added with undue weight to the English PEN statement along with a blockquote which is not required. In that case many positive blockquotes should be added too. This is done just to sabotage the page and if someone can be kind enough to correct this. Sarah Nicklin (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It also consults on general immigration law and policy as well as visa policy and the negotiation of associated treaties. The company's Residence and Citizenship Practice Group advises individuals and their advisors such as law firms, banks, and family offices on alternative residence and citizenship.
 * It has been criticised for its core business model, which detractors believe to threaten the fight against cross-border corruption and crime, which the company dismissed. Henley's immigrant investor programs in Malta and in St. Kitts and Nevis have stirred controversy, despite economic benefits to both the countries.

Fixing page for neutrality
Hi everyone, this is Sarah from Henley & Partners here again to propose a few more changes to the article. I'd like to propose fixing of the information that was recently added. I am hoping other editors will pitch in here so we can get to a neutral version of the article. Pinging and  to help please. Thank you. Sarah Nicklin (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) In the Malta subsection, a huge piece of negative information has been added with undue weight to the English PEN statement not following WP:PROPORTION and WP:UNDUE. I would request that the addition of the entire information be reverted and the changes not to be added again without consensus.
 * 2) Also, this line - She was assassinated later that year. – need not be on the page as this has nothing to do with the subject. The SWI swissinfo.ch source says that ‘Neither Henley and Partners nor Christian Kälin have been the subject of legal inquiries.' The whole truth should be presented and not just the half-truth of the news story. Please remove this.#The entire blockquote from the English PEN statement is redundant. If we are block quoting information then I can suggest a lot of blockquotes that can be added on the page. The English PEN story is misleading as the organization is more concerned about actions of Maltese government and not Henley. Please read the background at the end of the story to understand the context. Please remove the block quote.
 * 3) Besides, I don’t get why the page has to be a subject of only criticism. There are tons of news stories which reflect the subject in a different light, but don’t see its way on the page. Unexplained removal of neutral lines also doesn’t seem to be reasonable.
 * 4) Also, a few lines with sources which were neutral and fact-based have been removed. Please restore them as they were factually correct, appropriate and sourced.
 * The content in question is sourced to RS and sticks strictly to what is said in those RS. The Wikipedia content does not say or suggest that company that you work for was subject of legal inquiries. Thenightaway (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree, though I think the amount of verbiage could be pared down a little, simply as a matter of article length. PS: I am not a one-stop-shop for getting COI edits performed. I've been willing to help a little in a few cases where I thought the material was egregiously viewpoint-pushing, but I do not have an ongoing interest in working on this article or Christian Kälin, subjects I have very little interest in (or knowledge about, or sources about which to work with), and I have much bigger fish to fry, like totally overhauling the Tartan article .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thenightaway if it is in RS, then you are just putting out half of the information. This is the concern I am outlining here. The line about assassination has nothing to do with the company. If you have used that line from the RS then you should also have mentioned that the company was not subject to legal inquiries. This is misleading the readers. @SMcCandlish your response and recommendation to pare down the verbiage is much appreciated. Sarah Nicklin (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mentioning "that the company was not subject to legal inquiries" is actually a fair point; the journalist's murder seems unrelated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The journalist was assassinated for her reporting on corruption in Malta. That's the reason why RS bring up her assassination when reporting on Henley conspiring with Maltese politicians to file SLAPP lawsuits against her. Her investigations into Henley is mentioned in the second sentence of Daphne Caruana Galizia's lead. It would be strange to omit what happened to her when (i) RS explicitly mention Henley and her assassination, (ii) her own lead mentions it, and (iii) it would inform readers who may not be aware of who this person was. The only one served by omitting this content is the company that tried to financially cripple her with lawsuits and who now want to hide that fact. I have nothing against mentioning that the company has not been subject to legal inquiries, as that's what the RS say, but it would be egregious to omit RS content that the PR people at this company want to hide from readers. Thenightaway (talk)
 * @SMcCandlish your viewpoint is much appreciated here. @Thenightaway by your last reply you made it crystal clear that you have a negative inclination towards our company by saying that our PR wants to hide this from the readers. Please declare if you have a WP:COI association with any other parties involved on this page. (1) RS doesn't mention Henley was in any way involved in the assassination, these are pure allegations by you. (2) You are also misleading this discussion by stating that her investigations into Henley is mentioned in the second sentence of Daphne Caruana Galizia's lead. The lead on her page does not mention Henley at all. It talks about her work on investigative journalism on government and corruption, at large, in Malta. (3) And, if you really had nothing against mentioning that the company has not been subject to legal inquiries, you would have included that in the text when you included this information in the beginning itself. You have made it crystal clear that your prime intention is to only put our company in bad light which is against WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Nicklin (talk • contribs) 07:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with cutting short the amount of words in this context to maintain article proportion. Can't validate that the journalist's murder was related to company. Taking a look. Brenthaven (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Brenthaven your viewpoint and looking in is appreciated here. I'd like to request that the paragraph about the SLAPP lawsuit should have a shorter version specially the word 'conspire' should be removed as it is incorrect, not mentioned in any of the references and looks like just a WP:OPINION. Can you also look into #4 of my request and restore the neutral lines that were removed. And when you get a chance please do take a look at a similar discussion Talk:Christian_Kälin Thanks in advance! Sarah Nicklin (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging - it would be great if you could weigh in here. Thanks Sarah Nicklin (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Taking a look. Brenthaven (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Appreciate you taking a look. The word 'conspire' should be replaced with a neutral word in the line In 2017, Henley conspired with top Maltese politicians to launch lawsuits against investigative.... The RS sources talk about discussion and not a conspiracy. So, the appropriate word should be 'discussed' rather than 'conspired'.
 * Pinging @Brenthaven and also @SMcCandlish. It would be greatly appreciated if you could weigh in here. Thanks in advance! Sarah Nicklin (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A word does not have to be used in sources to be used in Wikipedia, it just has to accurately summarize what the sources are saying. In this case, I think it does. Frankly, your employer really seems to have stepped in it, publicly, in a big way, and I can't help white-wash that.  The only alternative term is probably collude, which I doubt you'll like any better, but it is actually the better choice, because conspire has both an everyday definition (what is meant here) and a strict legal one, and some readers might interpret it as the latter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish As you rightly pointed out, the word conspire can be interpreted in different ways by the readers. I am not requesting a whitewash here. But, this was a discussion as per sources. Conspire also means an unlawful act. Collude is almost similar in meaning to conspiracy, maybe without a particular legal definition. In no way discussing about taking a course of legal action can be an unlawful act. In fact it is just the opposite, which is taking or exploring a route through the law. To avoid misinterpretation by the readers, the word ‘discussed’ is appropriate, hence my request for neutrality.


 * Also worth noting that it is added by an editor who is only adding negative context about us. If the editor’s intention was neutral, the editor would have added the same information on all related party pages. We are the only pages that are victimized here. All I am requesting is to neutralize it by replacing ‘conspired’ with ‘discussed’. Sarah Nicklin (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sarah Nicklin, I have modified the Caruana Galizia paragraph with this diff to put the word "collusion" into her voice instead of Wikipedia's. I also expanded it somewhat, including this ...
 * In May 2018 company representatives told a European Parliament delegation that was investigating the rule of law in Malta, "The point of the email was to ask the government if they would be ok with a legal action H&P was planning to take (which can have political repercussions)."
 * ... to ensure your company's views are represented. I forgot to add the from the swissinfo.ch source that 'Neither Henley and Partners nor Christian Kälin have been the subject of legal inquiries.' I'll go do that right away. I'll be monitoring this thread in case you have other suggestions and concerns. Regards, Xan747 (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Xan747 If you read the thread carefully, the request has already been updated and the only point of discussion was the replacement of a single word ‘collude’ with ‘discuss’. There have been multiple editors who agreed on truncating it as per WP:PROPORTION and worked on it to pare down the verbiage. In no way have you addressed the request, but in fact you brought the part back to square one thus ruining efforts of multiple editors who were addressing this issue. Your edits are neither in line with my request, nor in line with WP:PROPORTION. Kindly restore the page back to the previous version which was worked upon by SMcCandlish. Sarah Nicklin (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sarah Nicklin, I have read your request and am drafting a response. Regards, Xan747 (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sarah Nicklin,

So it is clear to everyone, I am reproducing in full the paragraph in question from just before my first edit, and as a result of my last edit:

By SMcCandlish at 17:10, 21 June 2023:

In 2017, Henley colluded with top Maltese politicians to launch lawsuits against investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia who was reporting on Henley's programs in Malta. Leaked email exchanges between top Henley officials (including CEO Christian Kalin), Malta prime minister Joseph Muscat, Justice Minister Owen Bonnici and Individual Investment Program CEO Jonathan Cardona discussing launching a SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) lawsuit against Galizia that was intended to financially cripple her for her reporting.

By Xan747 at 22:38, 2 July 2023:

In May 2017, Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia accused Kälin of "collusion" with top Maltese politicians to threaten her and "three media houses" with lawsuits over their coverage of the company's activities in the country. She said that she had obtained leaked email exchanges between Kälin, Malta prime minister Joseph Muscat, Justice Minister Owen Bonnici and Individual Investment Program CEO Jonathan Cardona wherein they planned to send threats of filing "financially ruinous and extremely cumbersome" SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) lawsuits in UK courts. She said that the emails also discussed sending legal threats to opposition MP Jason Azzopardi, but that a decision was ultimately made to focus the threats solely on herself. In May 2018 company representatives told a European Parliament delegation that was investigating the rule of law in Malta, "The point of the email was to ask the government if they would be ok with a legal action H&P was planning to take (which can have political repercussions)." As of February 2023, no legal inquiries have been initiated against Henley or Kälin. In September 2020, her son, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Matthew Caruana Galizia, provided a court of inquiry with copies of her notes, some call logs, and the leaked emails. He testified that Henley had picked the UK for its "friendly libel laws" and because it wanted a "sympathetic judge".

Italics added to highlight addition of material defending Henley's actions. Now to address the concerns in your original edit request:
 * 1) The English PEN blockquote had been removed at the time of my edit. I did not restore it. As of this writing it has not been restored.
 * 2) Likewise for mention of Carunana Galizia's assassination. The line from  swissinfo.ch source that says, "Neither Henley and Partners nor Christian Kälin have been the subject of legal inquiries." was added by me.
 * 3) The page wasn't, and isn't "a subject of only criticism".
 * 4) The "few lines with sources which were neutral and fact-based have been removed" were not clearly specified in the original request, so I took no action. It is not apparent that any other involved editor did either.

You later requested to change "conspire" to "discussed" because, according to you, that's the term RS used. SMcCandlish argued that RS need not use a term for Wikipedia editors to use it, and their edit changed "conspired" to "colluded", using Wikipedia's voice. I personally feel that such a loaded term should not be done in Wikivoice, but clearly attributed inline to source(s). I found that colluded is the term Carunana Galizia used, so I changed the first sentence of the paragraph to put the collusion allegation into her voice. This is entirely proper and consistent with Wikipedia policy--but it did make the sentence wordier than it had been before.

That brings us to the overall length of the Malta section. There were not "multiple editors who agreed on truncating it as per WP:PROPORTION", there was one: Brenthaven, and their main truncating edits were the PEN blockquote and the assassination mention, neither of which I undid because I agree with them. The only other editor who expressed that the section could be shorter was SMcCandlish, "simply as a matter of article length", not PROPORTION. I don't think the article is too long.

In sum, I dispute that my edits "brought the part back to square one thus ruining efforts of multiple editors who were addressing this issue." I added information in defense of your firm in almost equal proportion to information critical of it. That did have the overall effect of increasing the size of the Malta section, but hardly undid the efforts of other editors.

Reviewing my edit, there is some fat that can be trimmed on the basis of wordiness and extraneous information, and I will get to work on that when I'm done with this note. But I think the substance of my edits gave additional necessary context to the episode that are not only reliably-sourced, but entirely WP:DUE.

Regards, Xan747 (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sarah Nicklin, I modified the paragraph in question by removing wordiness and extraneous detail from the sections critical of the company, expanding the company's comments in defense of itself, and moving the defense into its own paragraph for better visibility. I will be happy to respond to any further concerns. Regards, Xan747 (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Xan747 your statement that there were no multiple editors who agreed to truncate the verbiage is incorrect. I am pasting below comments made related to this matter -
 * Brenthaven - "I agree with cutting short the amount of words in this context to maintain article proportion. Can't validate that the journalist's murder was related to company."
 * SMcCandlish - "Tend to agree, though I think the amount of verbiage could be pared down a little, simply as a matter of article length."
 * The paragraph should be either restored back to the version by SMcCandlish or truncated with context to the article length and proportion. Sarah Nicklin (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sarah Nicklin said: your statement that there were no multiple editors who agreed to truncate the verbiage is incorrect.
 * My statement was, quoting you: There were not "multiple editors who agreed on truncating it as per WP:PROPORTION"
 * The part I bolded makes a difference. Please do not exclude it again as if it never existed.
 * I stand by my edits, for reasons already given. Regards, Xan747 (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Xan747 that was precisely my point about WP:PROPORTION. Truncating the verbiage was agreed by two editors. Three chunky paragraphs on an accusation is absolutely not warranted on the page basis the overall article length as agreed by other editors too.
 * The last version by SMcCandlish was appropriate which addressed our request and was in agreement. It should be restored. If your purpose and intention is to help addressing this request, kindly restore it back to the last version by SMcCandlish. Thanks Sarah Nicklin (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of others, here again is the disputed section as it stood when you filed your edit request:
 * In 2017, Henley conspired with top Maltese politicians to launch lawsuits against investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia who was reporting on Henley's programs in Malta. Leaked email exchanges between top Henley officials (including CEO Christian Kalin), Malta prime minister Joseph Muscat, Justice Minister Owen Bonnici and Individual Investment Program CEO Jonathan Cardona discussing launching a SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) lawsuit against Galizia that was intended to financially cripple her for her reporting. She was assassinated later that year.
 * The human rights organization English PEN released a public statement on 1 May 2018 about Caruana Galizia and Henley:
 * "Prime Minister Joseph Muscat is also pursuing a libel case against Caruana Galizia's son Matthew Caruana Galizia. The Shift News, an independent media outlet launched after Caruana Galizia's assassination which has pursued a number of her stories, is currently facing the threat of a financially crippling SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) from the Jersey-based firm Henley & Partners, who had taken legal proceedings against Daphne Caruana Galizia prior to her death. PEN is seriously concerned about the fact that senior government officials including Prime Minister Joseph Muscat are insisting on trying 34 libel cases against Daphne Caruana Galizia, which have now been assumed by her family. PEN believes that these proceedings are in direct reprisal for her work in investigating corruption within the current Maltese government."
 * Just now I trimmed and tweaked the English PEN paragraph to make it more clear, and in particular that Henley wasn't the sole focus of The Shift's continuation of Caruana Galizia's investigations. I also made two other edits to pare back the first paragraph. Here is the result:
 * In May 2017, Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia accused Kälin of "collusion" with top Maltese politicians to sue her and "three media houses" over their coverage, and also opposition MP Jason Azzopardi. She published leaked email exchanges between Kälin, Malta prime minister Joseph Muscat, Justice Minister Owen Bonnici and IIP CEO Jonathan Cardona planning threats of "financially ruinous" SLAPP lawsuits in UK courts. In September 2020, her son, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Matthew Caruana Galizia, gave a Maltese court of inquiry her notes, call logs, and the leaked emails. He testified the UK was chosen for its "friendly libel laws" and desire for a "sympathetic judge".
 * In May 2018, English PEN and The Guardian reported that Henley had threatened to sue Malta-based The Shift News, which continued many of Caruana Galizia's investigations after her death, including her reporting on Henley.
 * As you can see the amount of text has been reduced by almost half: a substantial trim. Now here is the SMcCandlish version you wish me to restore:
 * In 2017, Henley colluded with top Maltese politicians to launch lawsuits against investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia who was reporting on Henley's programs in Malta. Leaked email exchanges between top Henley officials (including CEO Christian Kalin), Malta prime minister Joseph Muscat, Justice Minister Owen Bonnici and Individual Investment Program CEO Jonathan Cardona discussing launching a SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) lawsuit against Galizia that was intended to financially cripple her for her reporting.
 * On 1 May 2018, the human rights organization English PEN released a public statement about concerns around the libels cases, from senior government officials of Malta and Henley & Partners, faced by Caruana Galizia’s family and The Shift News, an independent media outlet.
 * They are now almost exactly the same size.
 * Since my last correspondence I have not changed the following paragraph that I added and expanded after SMcCandlish's final edit:
 * In May 2018 company representatives told a European Parliament delegation that was investigating the rule of law in Malta, "The point of the email was to ask the government if they would be ok with a legal action H&P was planning to take (which can have political repercussions). As a concessionaire of the IIP programme, we wanted to inform the government. We would not go ahead with something like that unless we got at least an informal 'OK' of the key decision makers." As of February 2023, no legal inquiries have been initiated against Henley or Kälin.
 * The net change is about one sentence less from when you opened this edit request, but now roughly a third of the text devoted to the episode brings wp:npov it previously lacked.
 * Which brings me to my next point: Item 4 in your original request said, Also, a few lines with sources which were neutral and fact-based have been removed. Please restore them as they were factually correct, appropriate and sourced. I think I know which ones you're talking about, and am inclined to restore them, but you need to specify exactly what text you wish to have added back.
 * That said, please note that I'm under no obligation to fulfill any of your requests verbatim, nor is any other editor--we all have our own editorial discretion, especially with COI requests. Regards, Xan747 (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sarah Nicklin I see that the point on conspiracy was addressed. Regarding the word replacement for collude, SMcCandlish has a fair point. “Collude” has a lesser legal connotation than “conspire”. If there was a word between “collude” and “discuss”, that could be a better fit, but for now, I agree with SMcCandlish. I agree with the content proportion issue. I have adjusted content in proportion to article length as per WP:BALASP and adherence to WP:YESPOV with aim to inform not influence. Line about no legal inquiries on the company is contextually incorrect. It pertains to a murder, an event which seems totally unrelated to the company. Brenthaven (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Brenthaven, "collude" is the exact word Caruana Galizia used in the cited reference, so as far as I'm concerned that's exactly the word we should use.
 * I would argue that the line about no legal inquiries directly related the controversy surrounding Henley's role in the IIP. Here is the Google translated text of the relevant citation:
 * “It disgusts me. Henley and Partners is a hacker firm. It targets states where institutions are fragile to expand its business,” says Matthew Caruana Galizia. A Pulitzer Prize winner, he is the son of Daphne Caruana Galizia, a famous investigative journalist who long investigated golden passports before she was murdered in 2017.
 * According to him, the passport sales program has generated an unhealthy climate and suspicions of corruption. "The institutions have been weakened by the collusion between Christian Kälin and the political world in Malta", he denounces. After the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, several Maltese politicians had to resign. Neither Henley and Partners nor Christian Kälin have been the subject of legal inquiries.
 * It's arguable that it refers to both the IIP and her assassination. Whatever the case, for NPOV I think that we should restore: As of February 2023, no legal inquiries have been initiated against Henley or Kälin.
 * Finally, please consider returning the English PEN statement back to this version: In May 2018, English PEN and The Guardian reported that Henley had threatened to sue Malta-based The Shift News, which continued many of Caruana Galizia's investigations after her death, including her reporting on Henley. I think stating it this way makes it more clear that new threats of litigation were issued against other parties after her death. Xan747 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with your point on Jason Azzopardi, which you had brought up initially. I changed that.
 * Agree with use of word collude. Not necessarily because Caruana Galizia used the same word in cited reference, but based on editorial judgement and the broader perspective of the matter. I'd like you to note that this rational is not valid for the use of word collude - "collude" is the exact word Caruana Galizia used in the cited reference. I have retained 'collude', but based on it's meaning and the reasoning provided by @SMcCandlish.
 * The google translated text you have highlighted doesn’t establish a direct correlation for legal inquiries for IIP. Additionally, so much defense to the company is not required either. Bearing WP:BALASP, I also shortened overly described text in company’s defense.
 * About threats being issued, the line in the previous paragraph already covers the ‘threat’ aspect from ‘SLAPP’ lawsuit perspective. I was in two minds about the line on planning threats of financially ruinous SLAPP lawsuits in UK courts, on whether to use ‘threat’ or ‘action’. Perhaps ‘action’ is better suited. The PEN statement accurately summarizes the matter with a purpose to comply with WP:YESPOV to avoid editorial bias, while also describing a dispute without engaging in it. Brenthaven (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The google translated text you have highlighted doesn’t establish a direct correlation for legal inquiries for IIP. Additionally, so much defense to the company is not required either. Bearing WP:BALASP, I also shortened overly described text in company’s defense.
 * About threats being issued, the line in the previous paragraph already covers the ‘threat’ aspect from ‘SLAPP’ lawsuit perspective. I was in two minds about the line on planning threats of financially ruinous SLAPP lawsuits in UK courts, on whether to use ‘threat’ or ‘action’. Perhaps ‘action’ is better suited. The PEN statement accurately summarizes the matter with a purpose to comply with WP:YESPOV to avoid editorial bias, while also describing a dispute without engaging in it. Brenthaven (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

In place of "colluded" in a phrase like "In 2017, Henley colluded with top Maltese politicians to launch lawsuits against investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia", we could probably use "cooperated" in Wikipedia's own voice, which has no negative connotation. But there is certainly nothing wrong with a direct quotation (as long as the translation is accurate, if English was not the original language used and the quotations are appropriate under WP:DUE) like 'In May 2017, Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia accused Kälin of "collusion" with top Maltese politicians to sue her', and "The institutions have been weakened by the collusion between Christian Kälin and the political world in Malta". We're not going to censor use of "collude" in original source material. Not sure I've got anything else particular to advise, because I've not been following these edits in great detail. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * As of Brenthaven's most recent edit, the sentence reads, In May 2017, Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia accused Kälin and other Maltese politicians of collusion to sue her, opposition MP Jason Azzopardi and three media houses over their coverage.
 * Two Maltese newspapers sources are cited, both written in English. One of them, the Malta Independent quotes her directly, I have in my possession evidence, in the form of email exchanges between the addressees of this message, that Henley & Partners' threat/decision to sue me in the UK courts was taken on instruction from, and in collusion with you, the Prime Minister, Joseph Muscat, his chief of staff, Keith Schembri, and the Justice Minister, Owen Bonnici. The same source also uses the word "colluded" in its own voice, in the lede.
 * The Times of Malta uses the word "discussing".
 * TL;DR: I'm happy with the current version because collusion is not in wikivoice, but the exact word in the source with inline attribution. The company's rebuttal is included, so we have NPOV. The only thing I might change is "over their coverage" to "to discourage further investigation of the IIP" to more accurately reflect that Azzopardi is not a journalist. Xan747 (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Current version looks fine with collusion. However, the idea of using 'cooperated' as proposed by @SMcCandlish also makes sense, can be used. Rather than using exact words from the two Maltese newspaper sources (once source uses 'collude' and the other uses 'actively discussing'), a neutral word like 'cooperated' is appropriate. Like I had outlined earlier, if there was a word between 'collude' and 'discuss', that would be appropriate. I wasn't able to spot the right word then, but @SMcCandlish, thank you for the suggestion.
 * @Xan747 thank you for suggesting, but the change from "over their coverage" to "to discourage further investigation of the IIP" is not really required since Azzopardi is accurately reflected as an 'opposition MP' along with his name linked to his individual page, which makes it clear for readers to know that he is not a journalist. Brenthaven (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Updating Company infobox
Hi everyone, this is Sarah and I'd like to propose a minor addition on the Company infobox to include two fields, Industry and Services. The current version does not include these two fields and are easily available on the company's website and media for the purpose of verification. Add
 * Industry - Consultancy
 * Services - Residence-by-investment, Citizenship-by-investment and Real estate advisory

Thanks in advance! Sarah Nicklin (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Reply 22-SEP-2023
Spintendo 18:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Recent removal of referenced content without explanation and misleading edit summary
I have restored content that was deleted by @Thenightaway an editor that has displayed sustained negative editorial bias on the page WP:TENDENTIOUS. Constant disruptive editing and possible vandalism. Well referenced neutral content should not be removed again without an explanation on the talk page. ANLgrad (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Contested content added back without consensus + Unexplained removal of referenced content
Hi Thenightaway, this is regarding your recent edits on the page.

Can you help understand why you have removed WP:RS referenced content from the lead paragraph "despite economic benefits to both the countries"? This line was WP:NPOV neutral and cited.

This WP:RS referenced content that you have removed required an explanation in the edit summary. Can you help understand why you have not left an appropriate edit summary for this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henley_%26_Partners&diff=prev&oldid=1190101836 I would like to direct you to this page for better understanding of edit summaries WP:SUMMARYNO and WP:EDITSUMCITE

Also you have added contested content back to the page without a consensus. Disputed content should not be added back on the page without a discussion and consensus. I encourage you to understand other editor's perspectives also. I'd like to point you to the contested edits here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henley_%26_Partners&diff=prev&oldid=1187863893

ANLgrad (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Inserting "despite economic benefits" is argumentative WP:SYNTH and completely undue. It would be akin to fleshing out all the corruption scandals of the company in that same sentence. Simply saying the company's activities "have stirred controversy", without fleshing out the corruption scandals or the perceived benefits, is appropriate. Emphasizing one over the other is undue. Thenightaway (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The content that you want to remove from this page is peer-reviewed academic research published in esteemed outlets. You have provided zero reason for excluding this content. It's hard to see it as anything but whitewashing. Thenightaway (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have a WP:COI, such as being in the employ of Henley or otherwise affiliated with the company, you need to disclose it. As it stands, your edits here are singularly focused on adding poorly sourced puffery for this company while removing high-quality reliably sourced content that portrays the company's activities in a less favorable light. It's hard to see any principles guiding your editing, unless the goal is to whitewash the page and turn it into an advert for the company. Thenightaway (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Thenightaway, please do not bring the COI topic again and digress from the discussion. You have already brought this matter on the COI noticeboard recently, so you do not need to bring it up again here. I have no interest or relation to the company. By repeatedly accusing me to have a COI conflict, you may be violating WP:CIVIL and WP:BULLY.
 * Your response still doesn't address why you have not left an edit summary explaining removal of referenced content. I encourage you to read WP:SUMMARYNO
 * Your response also doesn't address WP:CONSENSUS violation. If a content is under dispute, you are not supposed to simply add the content back without a discussion or gaining consensus.
 * Since you mentioned I have added poor sources, can you show me an example of which particular reference you are talking about?
 * ANLgrad (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion from Teahouse
Based on the discussion on teahouse regarding addition of a line for neutrality - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1213#Showing_both_sides_of_the_picture_for_neutrality

Current text in the lead paragraph - It has been criticised for its core business model, which detractors believe to threaten the fight against cross-border corruption and crime. Henley's immigrant investor programs in Malta and in St. Kitts and Nevis have stirred controversy.

To fairly present the overall impact and for neutrality, the text above could be updated to read as follows-

It has been criticised for its core business model, which detractors believe to threaten the fight against cross-border corruption and crime. Henley's immigrant investor programs in Malta and in St. Kitts and Nevis have stirred controversy. According to a report by the International Monetary Fund, the program has helped St. Kitts and Nevis come out of a four-year recession.

As in WP:RS citation source - https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/st-kitts-and-nevis-citizenship

Viewpoints from teahouse

Remsense - I think this is likely a good start. Talk page discussion will likely further nuance how the points are presented.

ANLgrad (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Adding that sentence for 'St. Kitts and Nevis' is not neutral. Either the sentence should note all the corruption that Henley was involving in those two countries (which contributed to Henley's program ending there) and the purported short-term economic benefits or it should not flesh it out at all. Stating that Henley was the savior of those countries seems intentionally misleading and it's again unclear to me why you, an unaffiliated account, is repeatedly trying to add this kind of puffery to the page for this company. The sentence "Henley's immigrant investor programs in Malta and in St. Kitts and Nevis have stirred controversy." already captures the controversy and it does not need fleshing out. Thenightaway (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Thenightaway your point is invalid. Firstly, I am opening a discussion here and you should participate in it constructively. I am offended by you constantly telling me that I am adding puffery. This is by no means puffery. See the teahouse discussion where other editor @Remsense have commented that this is a good start. You seem to be the only editor who is intentionally trying to force your biased views.
 * You choose not to participate in the previous discussion where I have highlighted all your violations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henley_%26_Partners#Contested_content_added_back_without_consensus_+_Unexplained_removal_of_referenced_content
 * You have not made any attempts of gaining consensus of contested edits. And if other editors like myself are trying to add anything that you don't like, you call it puffery.
 * ANLgrad (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Addition to 'History'
Hi, this is Sarah from H&P. I am proposing one addition along with references. Please add a new subsection 'Antigua & Barbuda' under the 'History' section after 'St. Kitts and Nevis' subsection for chronological arrangement.

Antigua & Barbuda
In 2012, Henley & Partners designed Antigua and Barbuda’s Citizenship-by-Investment Programme (CIP) under a government mandate. Through the programme, the country received investments in several sectors which reduced dependency on traditional industries like tourism.

Thanks in advance! Sarah Nicklin (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Declined: The second source cited is not independent because its author is the CEO of the citizenship for investment program. The second sentence is vague and verges on non-neutral language. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Buidhe: thanks for weighing in here and I understand your point about the second line and the second source. Can you kindly add the first line and the first source.

Antigua & Barbuda
In 2012, Henley & Partners designed Antigua and Barbuda’s Citizenship-by-Investment Programme (CIP) under a government mandate.

Thanks in advance!

Sarah Nicklin (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Addition of one line along with reference in the 'History' section
Hi, this is Sarah again from H&P. I am proposing a one line addition along with reference from a reputed newspaper. Please add a new subsection 'Antigua & Barbuda' under the 'History' section after 'St. Kitts and Nevis' subsection for chronological arrangement.

Antigua & Barbuda
In 2012, Henley & Partners designed Antigua and Barbuda’s Citizenship-by-Investment Programme (CIP) under a government mandate.

Thanks in advance! Sarah Nicklin (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, this is Sarah requesting an addition of one line along with reference. Pinging Encoded and Shadow311 requesting you to look into this since you addressed my COI request on a related page for Christian Kälin. See |here and |here
 * Thanks in advance!
 * Sarah Nicklin (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Encoded   Talk 💬 07:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Encoded, thanks for weighing in on the request. Sarah Nicklin (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Encoded, thanks for weighing in on the request. Sarah Nicklin (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Addition of one line from an existing reference on page
Hi, this is Sarah from H&P. I am proposing one line addition for which a reference already exists on the page. Please add the below line at the end of the third paragraph of the 'History' section. This information can be verified from the existing reference number 16. In 2017, the Government of Thailand appointed Henley & Partners to handle the international marketing of the country's residence program. For your convenience, the third paragraph would read as below after the placement of the requested line. The company has advised the governments of Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, and Cyprus on how to develop their own investment migration programs, and has since that time worked for and been mandated by several other governments. In 2012, Reuters wrote that Henley & Partners is “at the center of the citizenship by investment movement”. In 2017, the Government of Thailand appointed Henley & Partners to to handle the international marketing of the country's residence program.

Thanks in advance! Sarah Nicklin (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Kline • talk • contribs 18:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kline, thanks for weighing in on the request.Sarah Nicklin (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Minor adjustment to organize the content
Hi, this is Sarah again from H&P. I am proposing a very minor adjustment in the History section. A sentence which already exists on the page can be moved under this new subsection. Please add a new subsection 'Thailand' under the 'History' section after 'Antigua & Barbuda' subsection for chronological arrangement. Please move the line from the third paragraph of the History section into this new 'Thailand' subsection to read as below.

Thailand
In 2017, the Government of Thailand appointed Henley & Partners to handle the international marketing of the country's residence program. Thanks in advance! Sarah Nicklin (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Sarah Nicklin (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)