Talk:Rosan Roeslani

Add section - Diplomatic duty
Add a diplomatic duty section - little coverage about this. &#91;&#91;User:Gtgamer79&#124;&#60;span style&#61;&#34;color:#&#123;&#123;subst:#invoke:random&#124;list&#124;darkblue&#124;black&#124;brown&#124;darkred&#124;darkslategray&#124;indigo&#124;maroon&#124;midnightblue&#124;limit&#61;1&#125;&#125;&#59;&#34;Gtgamer79 &#60;/span&#62;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;User talk:Gtgamer79&#124;talk&#93;&#93; • &#91;&#91;Special:contributions/Gtgamer79&#124;contribs&#93;&#93;) (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ONP GT79 &#123; background-color: #ffa500&#59; color: #ffffff&#59; font-weight: bold&#59; &#125; (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Allegations of "Missing money"
Several editors have removed details of allegations of "Missing money". If there is any doubt about this there are plenty of reliable sources available to support the allegations.


 * I want to encourage writing that covers both sides. News sources are not legal facts. I see the sentence, 'The firm decided that if Roeslani repaid the money, no legal action would be taken,' placing Wikipedia as the mouthpiece of the firm. This clearly violates Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines.


 * I suggest deleting this sentence because it sounds threatening and, in fact (since 2015 until now), there has been no legal action against Roeslani. Rahmatdenas (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why should we create many explanations from the Firm, while the case itself is just an allegation? Rahmatdenas (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am fine with deleting the sentence "The firm decided that if Roeslani repaid the money, no legal action would be taken". I would also be fine with adding a sentence which explains why Roeslani refutes the allegations. But you cannot delete the material, which has been widely reported in secondary sources, setting out the allegations unless you believe that The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Financial Times and Bloomberg are all unreliable sources. Dormskirk (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for Removal of Defamatory Content
To Whom It May Concern,

Subject: Request for Removal of Defamatory Content in the Wikipedia Article Titled “Rosal Roeslani” 

Introduction

I am writing to formally request the immediate review and removal of outdated and defamatory content from the Wikipedia article titled “Rosan Roeslani.” This content, which violates Wikipedia’s guidelines for biographies of living persons, includes unsupported allegations and misrepresentations that must be addressed without delay.

The content in question is sourced from outdated and misleading media articles and does not adhere to the verifiable and reliable sourcing that Wikipedia requires, especially for claims about living individuals. Furthermore, these claims are presented as allegations without any substantiated evidence from judicial proceedings or equivalent authoritative sources, which is ill-intended and damaging.

Factual Inaccuracies and Misrepresentations

The disputed section erroneously reports – “ ''One of its subsidiaries is Bumi Mineral Resources (BRM), a mining company that produces precious metals and base metals. In 2013, it was variously reported that $173 million had allegedly gone "missing" or that "mysteriously vanished" or that a withdrawal was "unauthorised" from Berau Coal Energy (a subsidiary of Bumi Mineral Resources) under Roeslani's leadership. Roeslani disputed the claims.”''

These claims are not only outdated and unsubstantiated but also categorically false and slanderous for the following reason:

1.   Media Misrepresentation:

Those sentences were taken from news reporting that were taking place during a period of media war between two opposing sides competing to win their respective business interest while beating the other at all costs. As far as the media reporting was concerned the issue in question i.e. the allegation and investigation of missing funds was never concluded, or the conclusion was never publicized. However, notwithstanding what any side said about the other in the media war, the facts remain that the company in concern has been dissolved in 2017 without any pending matters and no legal action were ever taken by and against any party. To avoid misleading and ambiguous read, we have attempted to take that paragraph out while also correcting other inaccuracies on the page regarding Mr Roeslani. However there have been a few other contributors who insisted to put the initial text back for no apparent reasons other than questioning ours.

2.   Errors in Company Details:

While we respect the credentials of the said contributors as long-time, experienced, and continually active contributors/editors in relation to Wikipedia, we must regret their lack of genuine care, let alone understanding on this matter before adding the said paragraph on the Wikipedia page of Mr. Roeslani. And this is easily shown by their ignorance to explain the background and context of the said issue, their carelessness in putting the companies name wrongly (the correct company name is PT Bumi Resource Minerals, not Bumi Mineral Resources; and the right stock code or abbreviation is BRMS, not BRM), their vagueness in explaining the relations between companies and the missing fund, as well as again their too apparent lack of care in describing subject matter company, namely Berau Coal. It wrongly referred Berau Coal as a subsidiary of Bumi Mineral Resources (BRM). Even if the said contributors did get the company name correctly, in fact Berau Coal was not and has never been a subsidiary of Bumi Resource Minerals (BRMS). Having got all these key facts wrongly, how could one be claiming to understand the issue at hand? More so, how could they convincingly spread such negative information and claiming that their actions are commendable, relevant, and value-adding to the readers of Wikipedia? Not to mention that the information was inserted only almost 10 years after the event was taking place and more than seven years after the company in concern was dissolved. (According to Wikipedia record, the questionable paragraph that was added on October 1, 2023, which by coincidence was the time that Mr. Roeslani was just appointed to lead the presidential campaign of Mr Prabowo Subianto).

3.   Lack of Editorial Diligence:

The persistence of these inaccuracies, despite clear evidence and corrections offered, points to a concerning lack of diligence among some Wikipedia contributors. This raises questions about their intentions and the accuracy of their other contributions. Especially when the next contributors were even more wrong despite being more resourceful by citing more links to past news reports, whereby the only common denominator of those news reports are they have equally slanderous and tabloid-like headlines. Just to give some perspective, even journalists and analysts who followed the issue closely during that period when the media war was taking place, all of whom admitted that a deal of that magnitude which involves financial engineering transaction that were so sophisticated were not easy to follow and to comprehend. Yet all of them had access to accurate, up-to-date data and real time explanations directly from the subjects of both sides. Having said that, one will not be too careful to question not only where and how these adamant Wikipedia contributors got their facts so wrong and their data so inaccurate. But more than that is to question what their real intentions are, and lastly who sponsored them to purposely defame Mr Roeslani? This is in line with Wikipedia guidelines on living person biography whereby paid writing must be properly and duly disclosed.

Reputational Impact and Legal Concerns

The inaccuracies and the continued portrayal of unverified allegations pose a significant risk to Mr. Roeslani’s reputation. It is alarming that such slanderous content has not been addressed in a timely manner, despite clear guidelines from Wikipedia on the handling of biographies of living persons. Not to mention, the issue at hand was taking place more than 10 years ago with amicable solutions for all parties,  anyone who wishes to bring this issue again must be questioned for their real intention, which easily cannot be positive for Mr Roeslani as the subject as their actions have been nothing but misleading the readers of and abusing the platform of Wikipedia as mere tool and stamp of credibility to back up their insinuation.

As shown by the Wikipedia page, Mr. Roeslani has since moved on with rebuilding his business group and reputation even more successfully than before. Not only his business group has grown improved, but Mr Roeslani personally too have received more trusts, confidence, and recognition both nationally in Indonesia and internationally. From being elected as Chairman of the powerful KADIN (Indonesian Chamber of Commerce), to being appointed as Indonesian Ambassador to the United States (it goes without saying that the level of vetting process for this appointment alone in both sides of Indonesia and the United States will far outweigh any type of scrutiny one can imagine), to being appointed Vice Minister of State-owned Enterprise, to being Awarded the Henry Bennet Distinguished Fellow, and numerous others.

The reference used to support this claim is not that of a recognized and accredited medial outlet located in the country of The Republic of Indonesia, rather with news outlets outside of The Republic of Indonesia that have unverified sources of such.

Complying with Wikipedia’s guidelines on biographies of living persons, content of this nature that is poorly sourced or controversial must be immediately removed, especially if it is potentially libelous. The presence of this content not only undermines the credibility of the article, but also is poorly written, inconclusive, and ambiguous, posing significant risk of reputational harm to the individuals and organizations mentioned.

Call to Action

Given the gravity of these issues and their potential to cause irreparable harm, I urge you to take prompt action to rectify this situation by removing the disputed content and conducting a thorough review of the article to ensure all statements are backed by reliable, third-party, published sources and public records i.e., judicial documents; particularly where the potential for damage to a person’s reputation is high. Given that Mr Roeslani’s highly respected reputation in Indonesia and internationally, the stakes are too high for too many people of similar importance if we don’t urge you to scrutinize and ban the said contributors from ever again borrowing, abusing and damaging the reputation of important figures as well as of Wikipedia itself.

Conclusion

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust the commitment of the of the Wikipedia community to maintain the accuracy and integrity of its content. Your immediate attention to this matter is crucial for upholding the standards of Wikipedia and protecting individuals from unjust harm. Thank you for your cooperation and swift action.

Please feel free to contact me at +62-878-8888-7178 (WhatsApp) and I will be happy to share my valid email address, (as Wikipedia discourages personal email addresses to be posted) should you require further information or clarification regarding this request.

Sincerely,

Thomas Jamail Tjamail (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi - Thank you for setting this out so clearly. I have simplified the material on the companies concerned so that Berau Coal is identified as a subsidiary of Bumi as set out in The Telegraph article of 15 October 2013. I will let other wikipedia editors take a view on the issue of inclusion / deletion as I do not have any real interest in the matter and am only reflecting what has widely appeared in secondary sources. The first mention of this matter on wikipedia seems to be this diff dated 6 June 2015 in the Asia Resource Minerals wikipedia article: I simply copied the material over from the Asia Resource Minerals article so that it appeared in the Rosan Roeslani article as well. On another matter, you say "While we respect the credentials of the said contributors..." Who is we? Please can you identify your relationship with any other parties who you may be representing in this matter. Many thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply and inquiry. The 'we' refers to myself, Mr. Rosan Roeslani, and his associates, who are united by similar views on this issue. We are particularly concerned about the timing of such allegations and their inclusion in a Wikipedia article, noting that Indonesia is not only the fourth largest country by population but also has a substantial online community. We challenge the so-called 'credible contributors' on their basis for disseminating information without clear understanding, which understanding they can not obtain when they got all the facts wrong. As it was proven, relying instead on 'copying and pasting' from very old media reports that themselves may lack factual accuracy has resulted in dissemination of misleading contribution/information to the readers. Please also note that Mr. Roeslani was a Bloomberg partner in Indonesia, which underlines his full understanding, commitment, as well as, respect towards promoting journalism best practices.
 * Furthermore, it is critical to question how contributors verify the facts, especially when such information surfaces after a decade without any relevant coverage in Indonesia or legal proceedings to substantiate these claims. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, contributors should disclose any paid contributions. We appreciate your openness and willingness to engage in this important dialogue. Our aim is to resolve these concerns swiftly and comprehensively. Tjamail (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If you are speaking on behalf of yourself Mr. Rosan Roeslani, and his associates, you should also disclose that on your talk page. In the meantime, I would welcome views from other editors. Dormskirk (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)