Talk:Nicola Horlick

1960

Another version has her born in December, in 1960, as Nicola Gaylord. Yet another has her born in Nottingham, also in the December of 1960. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Her original name seems to have been "Gayford". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC) The FSA has Nicola Christina Karina Gayford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Penny

Penny Hughes' achievements, selling bottles of Coca-Cola, are all very well, but it is not clear why they are viewed as relevant to the article on Nicola.

The reference to Penny Hughes has now been taken out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not working

The site called bramdiva.com seems to be non-functioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.109.137 (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC) The site bramdean.com no longer gives the share price or the amount under management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.171.194 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC) The article should be kept up to date. I leave this to experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

They fought

When speaking of two of Nicola's grand-parents, the article now says "they fought with the British in the Middle East". I am not sure if a grand-mother of Nicola saw any action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.11.197 (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC) The word "with" seems to mean "on the same side as". The whole passage about Nicola's grand-parents needs independent sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

By "independent", I mean independent of the word of Nicola and Suzanna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

Following a message on our Help Desk from the subject of this article, I sought advice on the BLP Noticeboard. In the past 24 hours various changes have been made to this biography, in the main very constructive. One edit correctly removed a bare list of links to interviews, profiles, and articles about Nicola Horlick. I have looked for these (not all were available), and where there is useful information, used that to flesh out this biography. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey. She must know somebody with a digital camera ! Can’t she get them to upload an image or two to Wikimedia Commons so that we can use it in the article about her? Before someone finds one that is unflattering. Aspro (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Noteworthy individual?

Does this person need a Wikipedia entry? Is it because they wrote a book and had 6 kids mentioned in the media? Or do all investment fund managers who write one book get a Wikipedia article, out of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.97.50 (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ran away

Nikola ran away from Cheltenham Girls' School. See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/passedfailed-nicola-horlick-1293645.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.187.17 (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this early profile. Interesting reading. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Changes over the past year (Madoff scandal)

In May 2017, Nicola Horlick attempted to amend her own article, and when that was reverted, tried another tack, as described in an above section. I did what I could to improve the article, both removing dodgy material and adding more from newspaper profiles etc. It appears that the problem has come back, however, and so have Nicola Horlick's attempts to take action, which have led to User:Nhorlick being blocked.

I can trace two consecutive edits here, by IP 92.17.171.45, which I find particularly troubling. One rolls back the article to before my carefully sourced additions, and the other adds contentious material.

A few days ago Nicola Horlick tried to approach Wikipedia by creating Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nicola Horlick, but since that isn't the right way to negotiate our systems, it was struck down. She's a trained lawyer: I can't imagine how other people caught up in a BLP difficulty could find their way to the right part of the behind-the-scenes encyclopedia.

Note that in her Request page, she asserts that " The British press seemingly became confused and were unable to differentiate between Bramdean Alternatives and Bramdean Asset Management. " - i.e. related but separate businesses, only one of which she was responsible for. References for this would help our job of providing an accurate overview.

I think the best way I can handle this is to go back to where the article was at the end of my work here, because I know that that version had OK sources and was non-libellous, and evaluate all the changes since. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have now done this. I note that the section that the subject objects to was removed by User:Gtstricky (" removing BM section per BLP. no connection without refs") before I got around to my fine-tooth-combing of the article a year ago. I have looked at all the changes since, and aside from the back-and-forth of the subject herself, there has been nothing of moment added or removed, just useful gradual tidying of refs and links. Anyone who wants to argue for the re-insertion of the troubling section will have to supply rationale as per WP:BLP. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into this. Horlick's connection to the Madoff controversy—whatever exactly that connection might be—is mentioned in enough sources that I think it should be described at least briefly in the article. As Horlick has noted, it seems there has been some confusion in the press about the whole affair, so circumspection is definitely warranted. I'll try to slog through the sources within the next few days and get an accurate description of what happened written up, if possible. Given how sensitive this has proven in the past, I think I'll post a proposed wording here before adding it to the article. I would appreciate any review or commentary you or other editors could provide. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is a version which looks fine to me, please comment and I'll put it up shortly:

Main article: Madoff investment scandal

− Horlick set up alternatives boutique Bramdean Asset Management in 2005, which ran into trouble after it emerged its multi-asset fund had exposure to Ponzi scheme operator Bernard Madoff. Bramdean Alternatives, part-managed by Bramdean Asset Management LLP, had invested about 9 per cent of its assets (about £10m) with the US trader Bernard Madoff by December 2008. While Horlick claims she was not responsible for the hedge fund portfolio, others disagree on whether due diligence was appropriately carried out. This was managed by RMF, which was part of Man Group. On 11 December 2008, Madoff was arrested and later charged with criminal securities fraud. As a result, Bramdean shares lost a third of their value. In an interview on the BBC's Today programme on the Monday following Madoff's fall, Horlick blamed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the loss..

− − Horlick lost control of Bramdean Alternatives on 19 November 2009; Aberdeen Asset Management assumed management of the trust after Elsina, an investment company owned by Vincent Tchenguiz, successfully ousted the board trust at an extraordinary general meeting in June 2009 after it was caught up in the scandal surrounding Madoff.The move marked the conclusion of a high-profile scrap between Elsina and Horlick.79.76.152.129 (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

<unindent> Thanks for putting this up here for discussion, Anon. I've spotted some problems. Lord Bolingbroke might have a view as well.

1. Your first sentence, about 2005, is sourced to a CityWire article 27 January 2017, about Horlick's 2017 business dealings. CityWire tacks on a couple of sentences at the end about 2005, which it seems to me might be exactly what the subject of the article is complaining about: media recursiveness, one poorly sourced assertion copying another, in this case a dozen years later.

2. Your second sentence is unsourced. If it relies on CityWire, see above. If it relies on the next source, see below.

3. Your third sentence offers a ref to a personal blog, Bronte Capital, with a tagline of "The sometimes eccentric views of John Hempton". Completely unsuitable for a BLP - the furthest thing from WP:RS. I have removed material from this source before, and will not hesitate to do so again.

4. Your fourth sentence has an unclear referent: "This was managed by RMF" - what is "this"?

5. The rest, about Madoff, seems accurate, but is not tied to Horlick's business decisions.

I'll look at your second paragraph later, as I haven't read those sources yet, but as it stands, no, I don't think this material can go into the article. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Re. 1 you complain of recursive media, are you saying the CityWire article is wrong on the 2005 point? Is anyone saying that? Is there any evidence it is wrong? What is the correct version? I don't think media recursiveness is, of itself, reason to remove something. "Tacks on" is not NPOV by the way, CityWire is a reputable publication.79.76.152.129 (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Re. 2 the reference for this is Horlick herself on the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7783236.stm, I will add this reference back in the correct place.

Re 3. the reference is not supporting any fact claimed it is a reference showing the opinion of others. I don't see a problem with that, it is undeniable Bronte Capital at least hold that opinion and have published it. 79.76.152.129 (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This reference seemed to go missing after 2011: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/superwoman-stung-by-hedge-fund-gurus-50bn-trading-scam-1064460.html I will put it back in as it is very relevant.79.76.152.129 (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This is, with the best will in the world, going to be really tediously long. I have Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons open in another tab and am trying to work with the spirit, as well as the letter, of "a high degree of sensitivity".

Re sentence 1: While CityWire is indeed a reliable source in the general sense, that doesn't mean that this article is the most appropriate to draw on. When I said "tacks on", I meant that the sentences towards the end of the article that you are paraphrasing was in fact taken by the reporter from elsewhere, presumably CityWire archives; it's a mangled cut-and-paste job - the grammatical errors in the 2017 article give it away. A news report (not historical analysis) is better if it is fresher and closer to the events. Media quoting media is, in my books, absolutely a reason to doubt anything. I've found a 2005 story from IPE (Investment and Pensions Europe), which I offer in case you wish to use it. As for "the correct version", we can only do our best. I can offer Nicola Horlick's version:

The facts are as follows. In 2007, Bramdean Alternatives Limited listed on the London Stock Exchange. The company had two asset managers - Bramdean Asset Management and RMF (part of Man Group PLC). I was the CEO of Bramdean Asset Management, which was responsible for a portfolio of private equity and debt funds for Bramdean Alternatives. RMF was responsible for a portfolio of hedge funds for Bramdean Alternatives. Bramdean Asset Management and RMF reported to the Board of Bramdean Alternatives (the Board was completely independent of both firms). RMF invested a total of $350m in Madoff funds for all of its clients including Bramdean Alternatives. I had nothing to do with that portfolio or with RMF. I was responsible for the other part of the portfolio. The British press seemingly became confused and were unable to differentiate between Bramdean Alternatives and Bramdean Asset Management. Hence it was reported that I had invested in Madoff. -- [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Nicola_Horlick%7CHer request for mediation

Re 2: This was unsourced. You have offered "'Superwoman' stung by hedge fund guru's '$50bn trading scam'" I don't know where you got the "(about £10m)" from; it isn't in the Independent article. I'm not saying you are wrong, but the insertion makes me want to check everything all the more thoroughly.

Re 3. No. The self-admittedly eccentric opinion of one person about another is the antithesis of what this encyclopedia is about. "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. BLP re self-published sources

Re 4. No response from you.

I'll leave the second paragraph till we've resolved this one. I've found some other sources, which anyone may wish to use: [1], [2], [3].

I remain unconvinced that our article needs anything more than a sentence saying that a company at arm's length from her was caught up in the Madoff scandal, as were many many other firms in the City, the US, and around the world. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for all the time you are putting into this. Re. "I can offer Nicola Horlick's version" and "this is, with the best will in the world, going to be really tediously long", are you connected with Nicola Horlick? Do you have any pecuniary interest in this edit? Also do you happen to know why the Independent article [4] went missing?79.76.152.129 (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have no idea where that Indy article went; if I had had it to hand, I would have used it when cleaning up the biography a year ago. (Although, given my memory, it is within the realms of possibility that I inadvertently deleted it. Highly unlikely, but possible, and if I did, I apologise.) I don't have any way to reach "the correct version" other than by weighing up sources; since NH had provided her version on one of our obscure backpages, I thought it would be useful to copy that here. My "connection" with NH is above - she raised an objection to Wikipedia's treatment of her, and I attempted to rectify it a year ago. I am curious in turn as to why an anonymous contributor chooses to focus on this article. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"if I had had it to hand, I would have used it when cleaning up the biography a year ago". Good, it is clearly a pertinent article for a bio about someone in the finance industry. And no need to apologise for inadvertently deleting it, I have put it back in. 51.9.50.140 (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Death of second husband

Nicola's second husband, Martin Baker, died on Monday or Tuesday, after a long illness with cancer.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11379135/City-high-flyers-husband-dies-cancer-12-year-old-daughter-passed-away-leukaemia.html Kateab (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Kateab Do you have a different source? Wikipedia generally does not allow the Daily Mail as a source(see WP:DAILYMAIL). 331dot (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)