Talk:Shaun Bonétt

Removal of Alert Tags
Three alert tags were removed after edits were conducted by JohBD. Please note: In relation to “Conflict of Interest” alert tag that JohBD is not connected with the subject and has reviewed the content of this article to ensure no other editor has promoted their “own interests”, including “business or financial interests”, or “external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers”. See policy at 

In relation to the “written like an advertisement” alert tag the content has been significantly reduced and any text that resembles an advertisement removed to be brought in line with the policy that content should be written in an “objective and unbiased style, free of puffery”. See policy at .

In relation to the “underlinked” alert tag the content has been reviewed and hyperlinks inserted where relevant according to the policy that dictates linked are “needed to aid understanding of the article” and integration with the encyclopedia. See policy at . An internal link has been added to the Wikipedia Sovereign Military Order of Malta and the second is the request for prospective Heartfelt Foundation page .--JohBD (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly I find much of what you said impossible to believe. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Addressing the issues related to this article: cleaning, restructuring and styling.
I have addressed the issues related to this article by cleaning, restructuring and styling. Then, I removed the warning tags as suggested here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_with_possible_conflicts_of_interest Sony Orlov (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Another spa pretending to have no connection. Pathetic. Please ask your lackeys to stop the wankery duffbeerforme (talk)

Tags?
Hi all. There's been a good amount of cleaning done on this article recently; do you think the tags are still warranted? I don't see any glaring issues with the page's tone. Pinging recent editors, , and. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I reckon leave them. Cleanup is still a work in progress. See "In January 2014, Bonétt opened Apple Inc.'s largest retail flagship store in Australia in Precision Group's MacArthur Central in Brisbane." Nope. That's not what happened. Apple opened it. Bonett, CEO and MD of Precision Group, just made a comment to the media. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate your desire to cleanup this article, User:Duffbeerforme, and thank you for your efforts. I felt that I did a thorough job of trying to remove anything that seemed promotional from this article but noticed that you restored the tags. Would you kindly delineate here, the sentences of the article that you have an issue with? I'd be happy to correct these so that we can get the tags removed, which should be the goal of this article. Thanks for your help! A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 04:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I'm going to go ahead and remove the tags as I believe I've sufficiently addressed any former promotional-sounding content by rewriting the article completely. If you have any additional concerns, you are welcome to note them here. A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 17:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Given your long history of overly promotional writing and your ongoing status as a paid advocate, you are not the one who should be removing these tags. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I will admit to not being a fan of the rewrite. The quotes seem awkwardly placed—The family "migrated to Australia in the midst of the doctors' lockout back in 1978", for example, is an idea that can easily be stated without relying on a quote. Per WP:LONGQUOTE, using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style, and quotes shouldn't replace plain, concise text. Thanks, /wiae   /tlk  13:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to work with you, User:Wiae, to replace some of the quotes with regular text. The reason why I used quotes, initially, was to replace any promotional appearing text with verifiable words used by the author of the source. Would you be willing to replace that quote with text that you feel conveys the same point? User:Duffbeerforme, I appreciate your concerns, but for articles that I have been paid to do, I have appropriately disclosed that. This article is not one of them and so I would ask that you respect my comments here. From looking at the talk page, it seems that you suspect other editors that have worked on this article (such as User:JohBD and User:Sony Orlov) of being paid advocates. It is much more desirable to use on this talk page, rather than  in the article itself. I'm going to go ahead and remove  from the article, but I will leave  until User:Wiae and I have completely fixed the article. You're welcome to state your concerns (if any) here rather than reverting. In the mean time, User:Wiae and I will work to genuinely improve the quality of this article. A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 16:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't mind working on the text over the next days. I don't have any special expertise in dealing with conflicts of interest so the issue of the tags is one I won't chime in on right now. Thanks, /wiae   /tlk  23:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And I've restored the COI tag and have bought up the issue at the Conflict of interest Noticeboard. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already explained to you that it's preferable to have that tag on the talk page, rather than in the article itself and that's why I moved the tag to this talk page. Also, you restored the advertisement tag despite User:Wiae stating that he's going to work on the text over these next few days, along with myself. Please be aware that after another revert, you will have breached WP:3RR and I'm politely warning you of that. WP:CLEANUPTAG states that "Tags should be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it, or, for simpler problems, a remark using the reason parameter as shown below; tagging editors must be willing to follow-through with substantive discussion." I'm going to go ahead and undo your edit, assuming good faith that you didn't see that I moved the tag to this talk page. At this point, I encourage you to actually work on the article, rather than placing tags on it and then going away, which anyone can do. I would appreciate your cooperation for the sake of the project. A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 02:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edit removing the tag, as your rationale above reflects a lack of understanding of what the tag is for, which is to alert readers to the likelihood of biased content and to attract independent editors to clean up the article. It can serve neither purpose on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, the tag is only relevant on the talk page for historic reasons to highlight potential paid advocates who have edited the article. Since I completely rewrote the article mostly using the words of the sources in quotes, such a tag isn't needed anymore. The advert tag might be necessary, temporarily, until Wiae brings further revision to the article. When that's complete, that tag can go too. A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 14:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is 100% incorrect. As a paid editor you need to understand the purpose of the COI tag.  Go read the instructions for it and stop insisting that something that is utterly false is correct - you will see they say nothing about using the  template on the talk page.  It is used on the article.  [User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the quotes that felt out of place per WP:LONGQUOTE. Still not sure about this "Heartfelt Foundation"—they don't appear to have a website and I can't find any other press on a charity with that name whose mandate is to help other charities. /wiae  /tlk  15:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Better sources needed
I've tagged sources 17 and 18 as possibly needing to be replaced by a better source. Both were written in the last month and say that he is a knight of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. However, I can't find older sources that verify this claim. Now, it very well may be true, but the reason I'm a little suspicious is because the Shaun Bonett article stated that he was, until I removed it for lacking citations last month. I wonder if this might be a case of citogenesis. Thanks, /wiae   /tlk  13:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On a related note, an editor has added a new source for this claim: the 5 July 2011 edition of The Maltese Herald. I've found this, but I'm not sure if this is the entire paper or just the first page. Either way, it doesn't mention Bonett at all. If anyone can verify this source it'd be great. /wiae   /tlk  04:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Wiae, I've acquired an original version of the paper and it mentions Bonett in the following sentence: "Among those taking thier vows were a number of persons of Maltese background. These included Mark Boffa, the son of Dr George and Laura Boffa, businessman Shaun Bonett, Fr Leonard Testa's nephew, Frank Testa and Queenslander, Mr Anthony Gerada." I think adding this to the reference will help, since the paper isn't available online.-- A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 17:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's great; thanks! /wiae   /tlk  17:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the two mentioned at the start of this thread. They are from the author summary, a section provided by the authors rep and as such is primary. The claim has been questioned so primary sourcing from the subject should not be relied on. The The Maltese Herald cite(local Sydney publication for Maltese Australians) has been marked as dubious as this is from mid 2011 for something that supposedly happened in early 2010. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Order of Malta
I cut the content below from the article and am pasting it here for further discussion:

In addition, Bonétt was invested into the Sovereign Military Order of Malta in 2010.

This is very weak sourcing for a strong claim, and I just searched and found no WP:RS that discuss this. I checked out the website of the order here and two things come to mind. The first, is that even their "lowest" ranks are people who (according to their site) are people "who do not profess religious vows or the Promise, but who live according to the principles of the Church and of the Order." Those principles include "nobility of spirit and conduct". At minimum, the longterm effort by Precision Group to abuse the public-good mission of Wikipedia for promotion, and the lack of disclosure of conflict of interest and SOCKing by editors who have come here to do that on Precision's behalf, somewhat belies claims to "nobility of.. conduct." Secondly, their site notes that there are many "mimic orders" and urges caution about claims around affiliations. So this should not be in the article until we have much better sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

References that I've removed since they're no longer being used as sources
Storing them here for posterity. /wiae  /tlk  15:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV
I've rewritten the page so that only things asked for in Template:Biography are included. Anything not asked for in Template:Biography was removed. It was rewritten as factually as possible (per WP:NPOV) and every statement has a reference (per WP:V). If you have any comments about this revision, let me know. CerealKillerYum (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reverted that. You have restored a bunch of promotional content and trivia that we cleaned when we dealt with prior, socking paid editors working on this article and related ones. 20:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Trivia, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, is "Details, considerations, or pieces of information of little importance or value" . Is being the richest person in Australia under the age of 40 in 2007 "something of little importance or value"? Hell yeah it is. Is forming a contract with a bank for a purchase of property, even if the bank is in China, "something of little importance or value"? Once again, yeah it is. Both things don't advance society in any way but we're not here to judge what society should value. The guy did achieve those things or did those things, notable news outlets did pick up on it and reported it which, therefore, grants him notability and inclusion into WIkipedia.


 * I'd argue that the old revision (which the page has been reverted back to) contains more trivia than my barebones version. For example, the current version states "Shaun Bonétt also negotiated the establishment of a Tiffany & Company outlet in Adelaide Central Plaza, along with three other international retailers" which was something I omitted. Like I said above, I followed exactly what Template:Biography asked for. If the template deemed that a subheading should exist on biography pages, I think that's a good enough reason to include it.


 * WP:PROMOTION defines 5 categories for promotionalism: 1.) Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment 2;) Opinion pieces 3.) Scandal mongering 4.) Self-promotion 5.) Advertising, marketing or public relations. Here, #4 and #5 are applicable.


 * It is obvious that the dude or others connected to him have paid people in the past to write about him but, as WP:PROMOTION says "remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such (self-written biography) pages just like any other." It goes on to say "Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable." Was my edit possessing overly abundant links? No, links were only added to facts to meet WP:V and no more. Was my edit containing references to autobiographical sources? No, they were references to notable news outlets. The standards of the encyclopedia applies the other way as well: you can't deem that every editor for a page is a proxy for the entity as a means of self-promotion just because there were COI editors in the past. There needs to be an external relationship, as stated in WP:COI. I, myself, have none. (I, apparently, just picked the unpopular side! But, hey, that's what keeps the encyclopedia good.)


 * WP:PROMOTION #5, Advertising, marketing, or public relations, says "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." If you'll read my edit again User:Jytdog, you'll see that every sentence is written as factually as possible, in as neutral as I can be and free of hyperboles, metaphors, overly-important-sounding-adjectives or anything else that can be deemed puffery. Like I stated above, every statement is backed by a reference to meet WP:V.


 * So, if you could, re-read my edit and compare it with that is currently published. I think you'll find that my edit is much more factual about the subject than this one which, for it has the promotional tag, must mean that there's promotionalism in it.


 * Template:Advert states that users should "Add this (tag) to articles that need help from other editors because in whole or part they are advertisements masquerading as articles." It doesn't say that the tag should be there forever. In fact, I'm pretty sure "help from other editors" means that the page needs to be edited to meet Wikipedia guidelines so that it is no longer promotional and, when it does, the tag should be removed.


 * So, if you've read my edit and found anything promotional about it, let me know so we can work together to fix it. This page needs to move forward and not be stuck at a perpetual witch hunt on if the next editor has a COI or not. CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I read your edit. You added many things back that were already discussed here and we decided not to include, like the Knights of Malta thing via the press release for the award .  Please review your own edit in light of past discussions you can find here in Talk, including the archives.Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC) (redacted Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC))
 * That press release was used to cite his wife and children. Anyone viewing the reference would be interested in his personal life, not the fact that he had an award. The fact that he won the award was purposely excluded from the distinctions subheading. CerealKillerYum (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Stylistically I am opposed to having content about busisness people naming their wife and kids. Really not related to why they are notable for the enyclopedia and is more personal webpage stuff. And editing-wise using press releases is not the way to go. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Shaun Bonétt. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afr.com/real-estate/commercial/investment/bank-of-china-backs-gold-coast-centre-apple-a-likely-tenant-20150226-13q3ly

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Personal life
He’s been married again to Lydia Simosi, and reportedly to Pearl Thusi CollinsStreet (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)