Talk:Douglas Hodge (businessman)

Large deletion

An editor has deleted nearly all the detail from this article, that is already heavily reported in RSs on the independently notable, public figure, ex-CEO of PIMCO.

See here.

This seems to me too heavy a white-washing deletion hand.

As WP:BLPPUBLIC says, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say."

And "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

I believe we should reflect these heavily reported details about his charges, arrest, and the sentence that attends such charges. --2604:2000:E010:1100:F9D8:B94A:BDC8:5023 (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: as you know, Neutral Point of View is a foundational principle of Wikipedia, especially in regard to Biographies of Living People which must be written "conservatively" and with "restraint". (See WP:NPF) Included in NPOV is the concept of WP:PROPORTION that states: discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

The IP stated that this person is "independently notable" as the CEO of PIMCO which would make that the major topic of the page. But more than half of the article that they created is devoted to a single news incident. Therefore, it was pared down [1] to reflect proportion. The heading remained as well as a summary of allegations with the more valid references.

I understand the IP may be enthusiastic about this recent news item -- after all, they seem to have created this page because of it -- but one's enthusiasm must stay within the boundaries of the encyclopedia. (This is why an editor also reverted another inappropriate addition by this IP.) I suggest the article be reverted back to the pared version in order to avoid violating our BLP policy. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@CactusWriter: roger. I am in agreement with the immutable principle of responsible WP:BLP, but am sympathetic to the IP's point about WP:PUBLICFIGURE and how that applies to negative coverage. This being said, I personally would favor trimming the article not for any BLP-based reason, but rather because some of the copious details are coming across as granting WP:UNDUE weight to the recent college scandal. Due to the relevant IP's fairly frequent activity and this discussion's appearance at Talk:2019_college_admissions_bribery_scandal#Hodge, some time should be allotted to hear their opinions of other editors. If this doesn't happen or consensus changes, I would support myself conducting a self revert or a major article trimming in a few days. Best.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: That sounds fine. I'll be doing the same editing on the Gordon Caplan and David Sidoo articles, as well. I notice that this issue is treated more appropriately (neutral and without the abundant sensationalistic trivia) at Bill McGlashan, Jane Buckingham and Felicity Huffman. By the way, just a reminder, UNDUE is very much part of BLP-based policy with a link on the BLP page. Thanks for your reply. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• [copying reply from scandal talk page; as suggested that discussion better focused here:]

He is independently notable as CEO of a company with a trillion dollars of assets under management. And there is at the same time a tremendous amount written about his involvement in the scandal. The article - before you deleted a great deal of heavily covered RS-supported material - was proportional in the coverage it gave to the RS coverage he received. Proportional does not mean "if 2/3 of the articles about the independently notable person deal with x, we can't have 2/3 of the WP article cover x." Just the opposite. We are proportional to the RS coverage. That is how we avoid editor biases creeping in, causing white-washing. This is all quite clearly reflected in our policy on BLPs of individuals of this sort, which is directly on point, WP:BLPPUBLIC: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say." Whitewashing the article to delete what the sources say, and bring the proportionality of the coverage of the event (in terms of the RS coverage of the person) to a lower level, is in direct contravention to BLP:PUBLIC.--2604:2000:E010:1100:EC2C:5500:2595:A372 (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are enthusiastic about this news story. You seem to have dedicated considerable time and effort into creating related biographies of the lesser known individuals. However, you have a misunderstanding of the overall concept of Wikipedia's BLP policy. It demands sensitivity to the individual and bios must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. This is not optional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: bios should be neither sensationalistic, nor the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The issue of the college admissions scandal certainly merits inclusion in these bios, but we do not add every quote and detail that one finds in a newspaper or magazine. Wikipedia biographies must adhere to the policies of WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION so as not to conflict with a neutral point-of-view. This means the section should be trimmed of the tabloid-like sensationalism, or, as defined by SamHolt6, the copious details. I suggest that you examine the way Bill McGlashan, Jane Buckingham or Felicity Huffman detail the story, and use them as models for presenting this story. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello all,I feel there is too much detail about the college scandal on this page. It has many unnecessary quotation and details. Is all this necessary?? I feel this section can be reduced to about 25% of its size. However, I don't want to do such large edit before discussing it here. Samuel Phineas Upham (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to trim out the excessive detail. As stated in the above discussion, the controversy section can be reduced to the essentials per WP:UNDUE. I also provided links above to three articles above that are better examples of Wikipedia BLP policy. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)