Talk:Buddy Fletcher/Archives/2012

Hobart V. Folkes Jr.
This seems like it might be valid and I am unsure what to do. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 02:09, 2008 September 20
 * There seems to be a content dispute regarding this matter. Is there a source supporting the deletion?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment with User talk:Treyfaison asking for a source about the deletion, since the info as it is currently is properly sourced. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Folkes was referred to as his "partner" (duration 10 years) in a 2004 New York Times article about Fletcher. From NY Times  "Before his marriage to Ms. Pao, Mr. Fletcher lived in the Dakota with Hobart V. Folkes Jr., his partner of more than 10 years, according to a New York Times article in 2004 on Mr. Fletcher’s philanthropy." http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/the-money-manager-who-is-suing-the-dakota/?ref=nyregion#preview

Original 2004 article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E7DA153FF93BA25756C0A9629C8B63

``` — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrancisDane (talk • contribs) 21:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuit Against Dakota; Financial Situation; Did he make good on $50M Pledge
I think a new section should be added concerning his law suit against the Dakota. Also, the financial information he gave the Board implies that he did NOT fulfill his pledge of $50M. Is there any way of verifying whether he did in fact fulfill the pledge??? His financial situation appears to be very shaky, so I wonder if the statements re his net worth have to be re-evaluated. FrancisDane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

Unbalanced advertisment in violation of NPOV
Because of user:Bbb23 repeated removal of well sourced content this article is misleading. It notes the subject's victories in court in the lede but omits the major problems at his hedge fun from the same section. The same editor has tried repeatedly to remove this content completely despite it being added by two editors. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The advert tag is unsubstantiated as are the accusations of non-neutrality. The fund's unfavorable ruling is recent news. There was way too much information about it in the body. Whether it belongs in the lead is a more difficult issue, but I would prefer to see what happens with the incident to see if it's sufficiently noteworthy to be placed in the lead. I've reworded the body to be leaner, more comprehensible, and better sourced. I'm leaving your poorly worded addition to the lead for the moment because I (and you) are running up against WP:3RR. Although the subject of the article is closely associated with the fund, this is an article about him, and not about the fund. Plus, as I understand it, the fund that was declared insolvent is a fund within a group of funds, and it's not clear how that affects the overall merit of the group. I'll wait to see if any other editors comment on these issues. Meanwhile, I suggest you tread carefully with your silly accusations.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please restore the NYT source you removed and any other sources you deleted form the article. The article is poorly sourced, yet you've removed much of the content that was well sourced. It related to an extraordinarily notable aspect of the subject's life, recent or not.
 * You deleted ALL the sourcing related to it from the lede and have attempted to minimize it in a disingenuous way that is inconsistent with the numerous sources provided. Your actions have gone against two editors, so you are clearly in violation of policies related to editing.
 * It's his fund and he is the CEO. Please cease attempting to mislead our readers. If you have a source that dissasociates him from the fund please provide it. I've actually read the sources and his web profile. If you have information from sources on how many funds there are and what type there are please provide it and stop engaging in wild speculation.
 * NPOV is a very important policy and it's important that we not distort content so as to make articles innaccurate and misleading. Your actions have deliberately skewed the article content and you've repeatedly removed sources and verifiable content based on those sources. You should also disclose and conflict of interest you may have with relation to this subject. Your grievous violations of Wikipedia policies may have serious legal implications. As noted in the sources you removed this individual and his hedge fund are being investigated by various legal authorities and many millions of dollars are at stake. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're funny. "Serious legal implications"? Again, be very careful of what you say. You're just digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to post this issue to a wider audience. I would be happy to work elsewhere and let others deal with your abusive editing. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In addition to restoring the sources you removed such as Andrew Ross Sorkin's article in the New York Times covering problems at his Hedge Funds and other legal disputes involving a film company, content from this article should also be included to balance what is a very misleading article. By Richard Bradley in Boston Magazine March 2012 Buddy Fletcher: Financial Genius — or a Fake?; Young, African American, and rich, Buddy Fletcher was a dream alumnus for Harvard — a Wall Street philanthropist who gave millions to endow professors and support civil rights. And then his whole world came tumbling down. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * His life was and is lived chronologically, not in sections. The way the article is constructed, it implies that the litigations, philanthropy, and awards were not part of his career as a trader and money manager. The negative aspects mentioned are made even more negative in the article by giving them their own section and dedicating more text to them than the other aspects of his life. Let the time order of his life dictate the hierarchical section headings. Also, I can't imagine that the article is a GA level thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature given, among other things, how people will write positive things when someone gives away lots of money. To better presents views fairly and without bias, take the career, litigations, philanthropy, and awards information in the article and rearrange it all chronologically. That will help put things in context. You then will be in a better position to decide what information to keep in the article, what information to remove, and how much article space to devote to different events/aspects of his life. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This content was also removed: Fletcher has been the subject of sexual harassment lawsuits from two of his property managers. ref /ref Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Are these litigation events of any enduring biographical or encyclopedic significance to the subject himself? Generally, being accused of something isn't enough unless the accusation itself garners significant coverage. Also, the level of detail (figures, procedural history) at which certain litigation events are related here is WP:UNDUE, and probably WP:COAT. Using chronicles of court manoeuvers, even from reliable sources, is not preferred because 1) before the judgment actually occurs, reports can only repeat allegations, and any side can allege anything; 2) the litigation itself does not seem particularly notable or noteworthy to justify separate sections bloated with procedure and figures (if it were in fact worth so much prose, many sources would be available to support much less glut); and 3) the reporting on litigation generally centers around the fund as a corporate entity, not on the subject of this article. Other sources focus on the subject and mention litigation. Despite claims above proposing to treat person and the fund essentially as a single subject, the burden is on the proponent of the idea to show as much; otherwise, one's a company, and the other — the person — is the subject of this article. See also WP:BLPCRIME particularly in regards to sexual harassment lawsuits (the civil nature doesn't much matter when these are the accusations). Being haled into court might take up a substantial part of this subject's life, but that doesn't mean it's encyclopedic to include all or even most of it because the noteworthiness of the litigation is otherwise moderate at best. As a final note, I wholeheartedly agree with the approach endorsed by Uzma Gamal, above, and I think Bbb23's edits have been even handed. Candle's legal threat comment, accusation of COI, and advertising banner are wholly inappropriate. So was the apparent copyright infringement. JFHJr (㊟) 18:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problems at his fund are far more notable than his winning a $1.3 million judgment in arbitration. I haven't seen any objections to the judgment in his favor being included, so it seems reasonable that his funds being insolvent be included in the lede and that other legal troubles he's had be included in the article. Losing $100s of millions of dollars in investor money is kind of a big deal. See Jon Corzine and Lee Mozillo articles for example. WIthout even looking I assume the ledes note their financial improprieties. If they don't then they should. Same applies here. When we find out where the money went and why this guy's fund is insolvent we can update the article with that information. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly these are not new issues. Here's an article from July 2011 http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-13/wall_street/29984297_1_hedge-pension-funds-sec It's troubling that BBb23 has still not restored the NYT source he removed. His attempts to distort the article have not been helpful at all. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Revert
I've performed a significant revert and copy edit per the discussion at the BLP Noticeboard. In particular, the edit was done to address concerns over undue weight and overall balance. The discussion at the noticeboard is currently ongoing, and I hope editors here will consider participating. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good job. Unfortunately, Candle has readded material back into the lead, making it even more prominent than it was. I've taken the first action on the article since dropping out because of 3RR issues and have reverted Candle's inappropriate edits, which he made without discussion. I've invited him to comment here and/or at BLPN. (I left a similar comment at BLPN.)--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At least $100 million going missing from his hedge fund is at least as notable as his philanthropy and $1.3 million arbitration settlement. It's been widely reported on and should all be included in the lede and body of the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than the SPAs who originally added the material, you're alone and bucking WP:CONSENSUS.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the BLPN discussion and removed the allegations. Now we have the most notable facts. I'm open to compromise and reorg, but I ask that you maintain the citations and make sure this notable aspect of the man's life and career is noted appropriately in the lede. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't remove anything. You restored, reworded, and reorganized material that had been removed by consensus, making the article in some ways (the lead especially) worse than before.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ...with an edit summary that called the events "highly notable." Query: if the company and corporate activities are notable, should they be the subject of a separate article? Facially, it seems the depth of corporate coverage would in fact be adequate, and that within the scope of a corporate article, more detailed information would be directly relevant to the subject. Otherwise, I've made another edit to offer a compromise to include Dakota in the lead, retain FAM, but omit the insolvency of a fund managed by FAM. The subject as an individual is more relevant to his own lawsuits than the insolvency of a fund managed by his corporate entity. It still appears in the body, but doesn't belong atop this person's biography. JFHJr (㊟) 19:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is agreement on the BLP noticeboard that references to Fletcher's sexual orientation violate WP:BLP "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." I see the orientation references, the last sentences under Personal and Education, were taken out by JFRJr and added back by Candle. There is no indication that the subject has self-identified with the orientation or that his orientation is relevant to his public life. It seems this topic would be subject to speedy deletion. I will check back tomorrow Candle to see if you have any thoughts that would somehow justify leaving this in. If not, I'll take it out then if it is still there.Coaster92 (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, this potentially libelous material should not be in a bio, so I took it out.Coaster92 (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus at WP:BLPN was to omit the category. Nobody discussed removing all mention. Would you mind providing the diff where I removed the material? I could be wrong, but I don't remember doing that. And what about it is libelous? JFHJr (㊟) 05:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added back the material about his partner, although I didn't include everything that was originally in there because I didn't see that it was necessary. I also added in the length of the relationship.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot of activity on the article since I last saw it, particularly by Phoenixskiclub. Too much for me to review everything, although if others want to question any of Phoenix's edits, they should do so. I did look at some of them, and at first glance they seemed okay to me. He removed a lot of puffery and appeared to make things more factual. I did, however, restore the Awards section, which Phoenix removed entirely. Another editor undid Phoenix's change, but Phoenix put it back in. The material was only recently tagged, and there's no rush to remove it. If the problems in the tags aren't resolved after a reasonable space of time, the section can be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This aricle in the Wall Street Journal and this article in Business Insider should be incorporate to cover the evolution of events. It is this man's hedge fund so trying to claim it isn't relevant to his article is preposterous. It belongs in the article lede along with far less notable $1.3 million arbitration award. The judge's stating that the fund was "virtually worthless" should also be added back. These are very notable events in this man's life. Obviously. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This article also has some interesting tidbits. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hedge fund manager
The article is a biography of a hedge fun manager, yet reliably sourced content on his funds going belly up is being removed. Why? Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to engage in another lengthy conversation with you about the similar material and the same concepts. There have been previous discussions on these issues, both here and at BLPN. I don't feel like rehashing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A new source was added. If you think content related to it should be removed you'll have to explain yourself. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's nice to know you haven't changed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have an explanation on why this article shouldn't have accurate information on this hedge fund managers hedge funds or should I go ahead and restore the content you deleted? Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, another editor deleted it. Then it was put back in, and I deleted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

LGBT?
This article was in the categories Category:LGBT businesspeople and Category:LGBT African Americans, but I can't see any claim or reference in the article which refers to Fletcher's sexuality. I have removed the categories - they should not be re-inserted without reference to reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Buddy lives with his partner of more than 10 years, Hobart V. Folkes, Jr., on New York's Upper West Side." DHN (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)