Talk:Oaktree Capital Management

Edit request
Hi, I work for Oaktree Capital Management and therefore have a conflict of interest.

In 2019, Brookfield Asset Management acquired a 61% majority of Oaktree Capital, all of the common Class A stock, which effectively delisted Oaktree from the New York Stock exchange, moving Oaktree from being a publicly listed entity to a privately held one. As such, much of the information in the current article is significantly outdated and will not be updated, and is of questionable relevance to its current operations and corporate structure as a privately held entity.

I'd like to propose the removal of the detailed funds charts, including Closed-end funds, Open-end funds and Evergreen funds, as well as those listed under the "Assets" headline, as they are no longer relevant and do not enhance the Wikipedia article as a whole.

Thanks for your help, LeiaVOaktree (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: If the charts and the assets section were removed, the article would be nothing more than a stub. Quetstar (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Potential removal of funds info
per request at my talk page I came to take a look. Could you clarify why the changes in ownership make the fund listing less relevant for the article? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * thanks so much for taking the time to look at this. That information may be historically correct but is no longer accurate or relevant. In general, public funds disclose fund performance for transparency reasons, and to allow stakeholders to track performance over time. In this case, the firm has been privately listed since 2019, which means that any updates or changes to this information will not be made public. As far as my understanding goes, regardless of the current status of the funds, the details mentioned don't add any real value to a reader from an encyclopedic perspective and are not related to the subject's notability. I believe WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here. If you feel that some of the information is notable in its own right, I propose including it in the history section, instead. Thanks again for your help, LeiaVOaktree (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I took out the detailed fund info. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your help with this. Much appreciated.
 * I see that you chose to leave the "Assets" table- was this because you feel it is still relevant despite the change in status? The figures can only be sourced from our own website (which, if I understood correctly, is generally frowned upon anyway), which discloses less (though more current) information than is currently listed here every quarter. Over the next year, the firm intends to restructure the amount of disclosure even further, so any advice I can offer on how best to update this may not be relevant several months from now. Given this information, it still seems to make most sense, from Wikipedia's perspective, to simply remove the table.
 * If you disagree, the current, most relevant figures can be found here: https://www.oaktreecapital.com/about, and I'm happy to advise/help format them to suit the article. Thanks again for your help, LeiaVOaktree (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This may be helpful for your future work. You had a proposed edit (and recommendation and supporting reasons) for removal of the funds info and I did it. You did not do any of that for the removal of the assets tables.   Now you've sort of done that and it looks cool to me and I'll take it out.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * , sorry for the delayed response. Thanks so much for your help and guidance on this.
 * I may have additional suggestions in the future. If so, can I reach out to you again? Thank you again for your help, LeiaVOaktree (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, happy to. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Tag removal
Hi there. I would like to open a discussion regarding the removal of the "advertisement" tag on the article. I realize this will likely require changes to the existing text- would it be helpful if I were to propose these changes? Or is it best if a neutral editor takes this on by themselves? Happy to help however I can.

Pinging who helped with my earlier request. Any guidance/assistance you can offer would be much appreciated.

Thanks for your time, LeiaVOaktree (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The wording has some of those types of issues. I'll see if I can help fix. North8000 (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I did a tweak or two, but IMO there really is such a problem here. What makes it not an easy fix is that the issue is subtle, and in lots of places in the article.   It's selection of what to put in does sound like Oaktree describing itself rather than an encyclopedia describing them.   Including lots of "first to..."   "largest in....."   "offers these opportunities to investors...." type stuff.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Request has been responded to. When issues above have been resolved, a new edit request can be posted. Z1720 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Tag removal 2
Hi again. After reviewing the feedback above, I've gone through the article and attempted to remove any non-neutral language and unsourced material. I've posted my suggestions in a userspace draft to make this process simpler. My revision includes the removal of sections "Investment philosophy", "Investment focus", and almost all of "Investment funds", as well as the removal of numerous details that could be deemed promotional or non-notable. I'm happy to discuss any of this further or answer any questions you may have.

Pinging again here, as he has been so helpful thus far.

Thanks again, LeiaVOaktree (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Proposing changes via a total rewrite of the article makes it very hard for the reviewer because it means they need to a "compare and contrast" between the entire two articles. I did a trick at your draft page to do that and all of the changes look good.  The second is that subbing in a total re-write can cause the evolution of the article to get obscured.   Since the changes were pretty much separate and evolutionary, I think that this will not be a problem.  I'll try to sub it in.  We'll leave review for the tag to be part 2.  North8000 (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I subbed it in.North8000 (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I took the advert tag off.  Looks much better now.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * thank you! I did debate between a long breakdown here, a marked-up draft, and a clean draft... Would love to hear which approach would have been best, in your opinion. In any case, I really appreciate you taking the time to look this over and to implement everything. Thanks again for your help. LeiaVOaktree (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Cool! Nice work! Answering your question, for most editors (or to have a better chance of getting people to make edits for you) I would recommend proposing as separate changes. In this case the planets aligned and it turned out fine how you did it.   BTW "the planets aligning" was all of these things:
 * You stayed on good & safe ground with all of your changes. A partial acceptance would have been messy
 * I'm experienced enough to do the whole analysis and to feel comfortable approving it.
 * Your edits were separate changes, not a whole reorganization.  If it was the latter would have been much harder to see/review the changes on and also made them hard to see in the article history. And "harder to see/review changes on" puts editors on yellow alert, doubly so with a potential-COI situation.
 * Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)