Talk:Sculptor Capital Management

Controversy and Criticisms

These sections seem to be overreaching. The authors of both articles even use the words "speculate" and "suspicious" in their associations of Och-Ziff. This falls under the Wiki guideline of Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Kind of like charging the knife manufacturer with murder. Plus all the tangent parties that compromise the majority of the content, like Zanu-PF, Robert Mugabe, Walter Hennig and Tokyo Sexwale, have their own Wiki pages that address these issues. Any thoughts? --Monstermike99 (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monstermike99, that's interesting, but I think an article with a counter point of view is needed here to move further. Have you found any? --Stlamanda (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stlamanda - I get what you're saying, but that's not the problem. The issue is that they don't belong there at all. They are conspiracy theories and under Wikipedia:Fringe theories policy they shouldn't be there to begin with, regardless of what you find to "balance" it. One source with no witness quotes or supporting documents doesn't make a substantiation. Rjp422 (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm siding with Rjp422 more on this one. I read the articles in question again and there seems to be some concrete facts in it (like literally 1 line), so how about we just extract the non theory/speculative nonsense? And Stlamanda, good luck finding counters because I had no such luck. --Monstermike99 (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a counter/update for "Criticisms" that I did add. I think it balances that section.--Stlamanda (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely against keeping them in. To me there's no question it's a violation of the policy given the entire body of the stuff from the articles. Rjp422 (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rjp422 I think a compromise is order or at least a trim down first but you can flag for removal based on the violation if you wish to do so --Monstermike99 (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to participate in this discussion. What is the exact text that is under discussion here?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the sources say

The source of a controversial $100-million loan that allegedly made it possible for President Robert Mugabe to steal the 2008 Zimbabwean election is a major US institutional investor, the Mail & Guardian can reveal. The payment, which critics say helped Mugabe's Zanu-PF to buy votes and unleash a campaign of brutal repression in an election in which he faced almost certain defeat, was made possible by the New York-based Och-Ziff Capital Management Group....... It is surprising that Och-Ziff was willing to finance the Zimbabwean loan despite the likelihood that Mugabe, whom Western governments opposed implacably, would use it to fuel repression. Och-Ziff declined to comment.--Mail & Guardian 1
Yet fears have grown in recent weeks that the hedge funds that are blocking the deal – which have been identified as including Vega Asset Management, Och Ziff, York Capital, GreyLock Asset Management and Marathon Asset Management – do not consider the prospect of a disorderly default by Athens as a financial incentive to allow a voluntary writedown deal to proceed.----The Independent
Och-Ziff, a $28.4 billion (18.4 billion pounds) fund also based in New York, said in an emailed statement: "The Company and its funds do not have a material investment in Greek sovereign debt. The company and its funds have not been involved in any way in negotiations concerning the restructuring of this debt."...................Och Ziff and York are among a group of hedge funds which hold positions in Greek debt that collectively may have built up sufficiently large positions to scupper the bailout deal, several sources close to the debt restructuring told Reuters last week. ---Reuters
The Company and its funds do not have a material investment in Greek sovereign debt. The Company and its funds have not been involved in any way in negotiations concerning the restructuring of this debt.----OchZiff press release
Sexwale’s Mvelaphanda Holdings and Hennig’s Palladino Holdings, an obscure entity based in Turks and Caicos, a haven of corporate anonymity, are partners with United States investment fund managers Och Ziff in African Global Capital, a natural resources investment fund focussing on the continent.--Mail & Guardian 2
-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Thanks for breaking this out Keithbob, it will help me show all you guys what I'm talking about. I'm not saying Mail&Guardian and The Independent aren't notable left wing publications, I'm saying even the author hasn't presented any facts to his accusation, see below:

The first bullet, directly quoted from the article says "controversial $100-million loan that allegedly made it possible", please note "allegedly", also "The payment, which critics say helped", again speculation which as you pointed out below is a violation acccording to WP:CRITICISM.
Bullets 2,3 and 4, I think were addressed with Stlamanda addition.
The last bullet you've proved my point that it is far reaching. I would say the Guinea summary should look as follows - Palladino Holdings and Mvelaphanda Holdings, affiliates of OZ Management, are connected to a $25 million loan that Palladino lent to the state of Guinea in order to start up a state mining company. The copy after that clearly is for other entries, it's discussing 3rd parties that have their own pages.

- Thoughts everyone? --Monstermike99 (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I loved the section condensing, Keithbob. Your points are well-taken, as are the responses from Monstermike99. I agree on the Guinea cutdown, I say go for it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stlamanda (talk • contribs) 21:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Keithbob. I can live with Monstermike99's compromise on Guinea and I think the article is now closer to fact than speculation. Rjp422 (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks, I'm still getting up to speed on this conversation but, my main concern is that we stick with content that is close to what the sources say and that we don't assume or combine facts per WP:OR. I gather from the discussion above that everyone is now satisfied with the updated content and that it accurately reflects the sources. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatting of the article

I've reorganized the article without making an content changes.

I've removed many subsection headings per WP:BODY which says: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose."

Criticism section

Please note per WP:CRITICISM : sections dedicated to negative material may violate the NPOV policy and may be a troll magnet, which can be harmful if it leads to users with strong opinions dominating the article but may simplify maintenance of the article if unhelpful edits are limited to a single section. In 2006 User:Jimbo Wales weighed in on the question: "In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]