Talk:Blackstone Inc./Archives/2020

Recent vandalism
and

I've undone some vandalism by 2606:a000:8b80:2300:8c41:2a17:11e9:8298 prior to your recent edits. Since it was done manually, I'd request you to make your edits again. 115.187.37.161 (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Thjarkur (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Corporate PR guff & rain-forest info
98% of this listing is clearly done by Blackstone's PR people. Have added some information and citations regarding their investments in companies clearing the rainforests. Will be interesting to see which of Blackstone's PR people steps up to try and whitewash it. Colinmcdermott (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason you put that information in the opening sentence of the article, rather than the The_Blackstone_Group section?  Spencer T• C 02:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I know the PR team would much rather it was buried at the bottom of the page, but this information is notable enough to be in the first part. the Amazon isn't burning itself. Colinmcdermott (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I am another user who edited [User:Colinmcdermott|Colinmcdermott], who is posting inflammatory, accusatory links in the header section. They belong in the controversy section. The header section is for a high level definition of what the firm is. Not a place to list controversies. There is an entire section dedicated to that already ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoracle102 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * There are two problems.
 * First, This information needs to be neutrally summarized in the body before it is added to the lead.
 * Second, WP:CSECTIONs should be avoided if at all possible.
 * From this, information about deforestation should be included in the article neutrally, according to reliable sources and WP:DUE. Then it can be better assessed how to explain this in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell, I moved the links to the controversy section to satisfy WP:CSECTION. Unfortunately I don't believe the linked articles are credible enough. I will leave it to others to insert more appropriate links. --Theoracle102 (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? This is the exact opposite of what WP:CSECTION advises. The goal should be to neutrally summarize content without putting it in a "criticism section". The existence of such a section is a problem to be solved. Expanding it is not helpful. Further, this information is already in this section. By shuffling it off to the very end of the section, you have created a redundancy with the third paragraph  in the section. Grayfell (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell thank you for your help - just to issue a note of caution we are clearly interacting with a PR person from Blackstone in MR Theoracle102. I imagine they have a whole team of people instructing him. I suggest we ignore their input from now on. Not credible sources? The Guardian is not credible? It is probably the most credible news publication in the UK, if not the world. In case there was any question about how prominent this is, please see: https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/warren-colleagues-examine-role-of-private-equity-firm-blackstone-in-deforestation-of-amazon-rainforest and https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2019.12.16%20Letter%20to%20Blackstone%20Group%20re%20private%20equity%20investments%20and%20Amazon%20deforestation.pdf Colinmcdermott (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Colinmcdermott you have now reverted both my change, and another user change within 24 hours. That is twice. How is this not warring? Grayfell, posting this in the lead as you mentioned before it has been accepted in the body is strange. Right now it adds a fork in the definition of Blackstone. I propose moving it back to controversies, as did two other users. I'll let you do any future reverts as it is clear no one can come to a consensus with Colinmcdermott Theoracle102 (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I have a useful link for you: shill. Colinmcdermott (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, I do not appreciate the ad hominem attacks in the edit messages as well, or this talk pageTheoracle102 (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Either sign in to your real account, or admit you are a paid shill. Until then. Please stop leaving messages on my talk page I am not intesested in communicating with you, only one of us is getting paid for it. Colinmcdermott (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyway... For convenience, here are the currently cited sources:


 * name=Intercept-20190827 -
 * name="Politico-20191216" -

I have not included the press releases from Warren. Press releases and government documents are usually primary sources and should only be used as support. Independent sources should do all the heavy lifting.

Are the rest of these sources reliable, and can they be used in context?

If so, what exactly are all these sources saying, and how can this be neutrally summarized? To determine due weight, how do these sources compare with all the other sources used in the article? Grayfell (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll chime in here, as I'd like to move past fighting with each other Colinmcdermott. Just went through your sources a second time, and the guardian one is by far the best one. I would use that one for now.

From what I read, it looked like Blackstone invested in two Brazilian PE companies in 2018/2019 (~40% ownership IIRC). These companies were accused of deforesting the Amazon.

Hidrovias is a logistics company according to google. Hidrovias was invested by two Brazlian PE firms, of which Blackstone took ~40% stakes in said PE firms. I would include the specifics of the claim (the road through the forest is the crux of the original accusation) as well as Hidrovias's denial that the road is operated by the Brazilian government.

"Blackstone has previously been targeted for investments in Hidrovias, a Brazilian infrastructure company, which has previously been accused of having links to deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. Blackstone has denied the accusation, saying in a statement: “The erroneous claims and mischaracterizations were blatantly wrong and irresponsible.” On Tuesday, the company reiterated its position that Hidrovias was not involved in a road through the Amazon rainforest used to transport soy grown on illegally deforested land and had won awards for its sustainability efforts. “Hidrovias does not own, control or have any interest — direct or indirect — in the road in question (BR-163). This road has been operated by the Brazilian government since 1976. The company did not build this highway, nor are they paving it,” Blackstone said."  Finally, I really believe this should be move to the 2010 section or controversy section, since right now it sits between Blackstone being defined as a private investment firm which create a random fork in the article. Theoracle102 (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Just saying that the Guardian one is 'the best' is insufficient and vague. At a glance, several of these sources meet WP:RS, and as an encyclopedia, we should summarize sources across different time-frames if appropriate. At least a couple of these sources also specifically refer back to the Intercept one. When a source is repeatedly cited by other sources, it is an indicator of significance.
 * Avoid WP:SYNTH. If reliable sources discuss Hidrovias directly in relation to Blackstone, summarize this source's conclusions and nothing else. Do not add WP:OR about some other company, especially not that other company's PR.
 * As for the quote from Blackstone, these kinds of htings are almost always treated by sources as light-weight, and for a good reason. Quotes like this should rarely be emphasized, since Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations, or at least, it isn't supposed to be. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC) fixed important error Grayfell (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Grayfell. I took a look at you are correct, the Intercept article is referenced by all the sources, and has the most information. Changing the current wording from "ties" to explaining the road in question, who owns it, and why Blackstone was criticized would give more context.

Since this is also a subsidiary of a subsidiaries investment, I don't believe it belongs as the 3rd sentence of the article, but should be listed under international expansion/investments from 2010 onwards. Thoughts? Theoracle102 (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Glad to see the page is protected. Theoracle102 please stop communicating with me as requested I have no interest or desire to work with the Blackstone PR team. Can you imagine creating a brand new shill account 100% for the purpose of making Blackstone edits, and still denying it is a shill account ROFL. Colinmcdermott (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

In case anyone still was unsure about user Theoracle102 - allow me to quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Blackstone_&_shill_account_Theoracle102 "After an examination of the talk posting it is clear that this account User:Theoracle102, is an undeclared paid editor, or at the very least has a COI. New Editors don't come in a and then go straight into a contentious subject to argue a unpopular viewpoint, particularly when their account is created mere hours or minutes after the content is posted. scope_creepTalk 13:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)" - this user Theoracle102 and their other troll accounts have been harassing me via my talk page. Please stop this and stop editing this article which you are clearly being paid to do. Colinmcdermott (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Whether or not this is a subsidiary doesn't necessarily matter. Neither sources, not editors, are expected to treat these legal maneuvers as encyclopedically significant. Instead of using familiarity with the company to interpret sources, look at what these sources are actually saying and figure out how to summarize that. It appears most sources mention Warren, and also the political connections to Trump and Bolsanaro. Any good-faith attempt to summarize this larger issue will likely mention these aspects. All of this is in the larger context of climate change. This is encyclopedically significant because deforesting the Amazon is a direct threat to human welfare, so this should also be at least clearly indicated or directly mentioned. Grayfell (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Subsidiaries in infobox
These should be removed as inaccurate and incomplete. Hilton formerly was but not now ("Blackstone sold its remaining stake in 2018 for about $1.3bn" - https://www.ft.com/content/555f9a90-ded3-11e9-b112-9624ec9edc59) and there's no source to say that that Euro Garages ever was - it's possible that Blackstone Group has invested, but that doesn't make it a subsidiary. Peter James (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia paid editors / safety / COI
Hello all, this is just a quick note that this article has had hundreds of paid edits by Wiki editors and anonymous IP addresses clearly made by the Blackstone PR team.

If anyone contacts you via your profile or talk page to threaten you or similar - you can report this. The Blackstone PR team will and have used various dirty tricks to remove content.

There is also a special area on Wikipedia for conflicts of interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard

You can use this to report any paid editors or similar. Please consider your safety also when making edits. Colinmcdermott (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Blackstone PR team returns from hibernation
I see the Blackstone PR team has returned to making edits. I have removed what I could and also removed some duplicate content in the first paragraph. I would implore anyone in Blackstone's PR team to have a good think about which side of history they are on here.

"United States Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), member of the Senate Banking Committee; Representative Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.); House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.); House Natural Resources Committee Vice Chair and National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee Chair Deb Haaland (D-N.M.); Representatives Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Jesús G. "Chuy" García (D-Ill.), members of the House Financial Services Committee; and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; sent a letter to private equity firm Blackstone Group raising concerns about the firm's investments in Hidrovias do Brasil, a company that is playing a significant role in the ongoing destruction and deforestation in the Amazon rainforest in Brazil, which exacerbates the climate crisis. The letter, which continues Senator Warren's investigation into the effects of private equity investments in a variety of industries, requested information about the firm's structure, business practices, and finances as they relate to Hidrovias and similar companies." Colinmcdermott (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , my message here will also act as a reponse to your message on my talk page, as you have expressed a preference to keep the messages here. I have no intention of wading into the feud you seem to have with and, but I am aware of the reports on the Conflict of Interest and Edit Warring noticeboards. It is strange that the source you have sent me was from Sen. Warren's website. As you should know, Wikipedia's information is primarily based on secondary reliable sources, and press releases from a senator's website do not count as such. Moreover: it is not conducive to the health of the Wikipedia community to accuse editors (especially an administrator) of acting with a conflict of interest without concrete evidence. Just because editors act in a different way to you on this page does not equate to membership of a PR team. It is not acceptable to use ad hominem attacks. I am not saying that these claims are false: I have no idea. We all have our views on companies and politicians, but we cannot allow such views to seep into our editing. While the information regarding deforestation is deserving of being in this page, it is not deserving to be in the lead section. Just because you think that an issue deserves more attention does not warrant its inclusion in the lead section. I would also like to point out that standard procedure under WP:BRD is not to continue undoing reverts of edits you have made. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)