Talk:Johan Eliasch

message: Please don't use this article to gossip about Eliasch's family. See the warning box above. Melchoir 22:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage etc 

message: I am temporarily moving the following text out of the article because it appears to promote a POV. I did some research, and things aren't quite as simple as it is made to appear.
Note that the material was previously deleted without explanation by an anonymous editor. I wanted to restore it, but I've decided that I don't have the time to do it correctly right now. I do want to make sure that there's a record being kept.
This material should ultimately be re-integrated into the article, as there is certainly a noteworthy controversy that needs to be covered. However, it needs to be cleaned up first. If anyone is actually watching this talk page, feel free to work on it yourself or to offer suggestions. Melchoir (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazilian investigations/fines 

message: This edit has been repeated several times by anonymous editors (IP addresses). I have reverted it each time, as it removes some material, including a citation. I've also semi-protected the article in the hope that this will force the editor to explain the edit so that we may reach a consensus. Melchoir (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing by IPs 

message: Why is "Johan Eliasch was featured in the 2006 Planet Earth (TV series)'s Planet Earth: The Future,", even if true ("featured" being a WP:PEACOCK term), important enough to be included in the article?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDb is a useful reference: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1422382/fullcredits#cast  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.81.3 (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: False and irrelevant.  IMDb is not a reliable source, and it also sources things which are not relevant.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Planet Earth: The Future]] 

message: He did not found Rainforest Trust. Source 5 does not even say that. Rainforest Trust is a different organization: http://www.rainforesttrust.org/
Catk614 (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that there is more than one "Rainforest Trust" - This  article does not link to the Wikipedia article on Rainforest Trust which was founded in 1988 and is based in Virginia.I agree that reference 5 to the Sunday Times ends up at today's Times (back copies of the Times are only available on subscription), but this cache of the Sunday Times Richlist and this article in the Observer magazine both refer to his Rainforest Trust, which was founded in 2005.  I'll do some more investigation and correct the ref in the article - Arjayay (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Johan Eliasch. 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/20090607113248/http://www.globalstrategyforum.org/gsfbiography.asp to http://www.globalstrategyforum.org/gsfbiography.asp
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) 19:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm proposing a new section. I have wrote few lines regarding the controversy. If possible, please expand the contents.
==Controversy==
In June 2008, the Brazilian and international media reported that Eliasch had been issued a fine of R$450 million for alleged illegal deforestation in the Amazon region by IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources). Contrary to the media reports the fines were issued against the Brazilian company Gethal, and not against Eliasch. No allegations or investigations were ever conducted by IBAMA against Eliasch.
IBAMA subsequently reduced the fines against Gethal to R$274.2 million. Having concluded its investigations in 2013, IBAMA cancelled the R$274.2 million fines against Gethal.
According to TreeHugger, Eliasch told AFP that, "the illegal logging allegations are false, fabricated and unsubstantiated," as the logging stopped once the Swedish bought the firm. "Gethal has been fined because the company didn't comply with its management plan, which had been decided by the previous owners, which planned for the logging in the rainforest," the source stated.
In a press release note, Gethal stated that “the logging activity of Gethal Amazonas S/A had been out under the Forest Steward Council (FSC) guidelines, a certification that was obtained in 2000. The company was one of the first companies in Brazil to obtain such a certification”.
According to Gethal, technical expert reports were produced proving that the company never caused damage to the environment. Gethal stopped the logging activities in 2005, “when it came under Eliasch's control”. In 2008, a publication of Brazilian government documents shows IBAMA never made any allegations against Eliasch and cancels R$274.2 million fines against Gethal.
Following the controversy Johan Eliasch, continued to serve as the Special Representative of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on Deforestation and Clean Energy (2007-10) and published “The Eliasch Review: Climate Change – Financing of Global Forests” (October 2008).
- Rinat Shakenov 05:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Lack of NPOV. Says "alleged", etc. How has it turned out, then, since 2008? Did he appeal/pay the fine? Why didn't you use other info the from the third source: "The company said the fines have been annulled, reduced, or are still being appealed and that it no longer conducts logging operations."? Without the follow-up, it is unencyclopedic. Also seems non-neutral: what is the connection between the fine from the time he did not own the company, and his advisory/publishing activities? WikiHannibal (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Hi, I have not checked the new sources but the section you want to add can be apparently summarized (I mean the gist of it, not the exact wording) as something like: "Gethal was investigated facing a possible fine but after the investigation ended, Gethal was not fined. Eliasch did not own Gethal at the time when the activities under investigation took place." I do not understand why yould you want to add that nor how is that notable regarding the topic of the article. This is an encyclopedia, and not all info related to someone is important enough to be added to articles. The only reason for the addition I can think of would be to prevent other editors to add the same topic later in a not-so-well sourced way. But I think we do not need to add it just because of that. Perhaps other editors will see it differently. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new section 

message: proposing a new section.
==Controversy==
In June 2008, the Brazilian and international media reported that Eliasch had been issued a fine of R$450 million for alleged illegal deforestation in the Amazon region by IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources). Gethal was investigated facing a possible fine but after the investigation ended, Gethal was not fined. Eliasch did not own Gethal at the time when the activities under investigation took place.
In a press release note, Gethal stated that “the logging activity of Gethal Amazonas S/A had been out under the Forest Steward Council (FSC) guidelines, a certification that was obtained in 2000. The company was one of the first companies in Brazil to obtain such a certification”.
According to Gethal, technical expert reports were produced proving that the company never caused damage to the environment. Gethal stopped the logging activities in 2005, “when it came under Eliasch's control”. In 2008, a publication of Brazilian government documents shows IBAMA never made any allegations against Eliasch and cancels R$274.2 million fines against Gethal.
Following the controversy Johan Eliasch, continued to serve as the Special Representative of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on Deforestation and Clean Energy (2007-10) and published “The Eliasch Review: Climate Change – Financing of Global Forests” (October 2008).
Rinat Shakenov (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: Where should this section be added?  When you have that information, set "answered=no" in the above template. Aasim 22:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

text: @Awesome Aasim, we can place the new section in footer. - Rinat Shakenov (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Done Aasim 02:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2020 

message: I've tidied up the controversies so they're all contained under the controversies header. The controversies section is getting quite lengthy now so it might be wort taking another look at the lede to ensure that it sufficiently summarises the article's content. I've also noticed that Johan and Amanda Eliasch do appear in Jeffery Epstein's black book but so far there's just this primary source from the Internet Archive https://archive.org/stream/jeffrey-epstein-39s-little-black-book-unredacted/Jeffrey_Epstein39s_Little_Black_Book_unredacted_djvu.txt and no secondary sources for further context. So I'll air on the side of WP:BLP for now.Expressive101 (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies/lede

message: Currently we have an 'undo war' surrounding a claim that is being fought for inclusion in the article, but has been redacted by the journalist in question: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2020/06/10/favoured-son-prince-andrew-went-pampered-royal-society-pariah/
From my perspective, we should not be stating incorrect libel on WP as if it were true, when the mistake has been admitted. Thoughts? Griseo veritas (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Griseo veritas. For clarity, we are not at war. Wikipedia is not a battle ground. I reverted you twice, you reverted me three times. Therefore, I am conceding victory to you. I'm going to log off Wikipedia now, enjoy some fresh air and when I return I am going to edit some pages about trees, plants and creatures because the world's flora and fauna are what really matters here. I'm not going to edit this article anymore.Expressive101 (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course we're not—thus the speech marks, to note my lack of a better term :) Please note I have reverted edits twice, not thrice, as I respect the rule which would punish such an infringement. I hope you enjoy your fresh air and the ecology-related editing activities you have planned! Meditation may also help. Much love. Griseo veritas (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification RE yacht claim needed