Hi, I am posting on behalf of Oasis Management. I am asking to reconsider the language of the 4th paragraph of the "Background" which appears to violate WP:UNDUE given the level of detail and overall weight compared to the rest of the article. I'd like to suggest that the content be summarized in a more encyclopedic manner as follows:
- In September 2011, the Securities and Futures Commission publicly reprimanded and fined Oasis and Fischer HK$7.5 million ($961,767) each for trades done in 2006 relating to Japan Airlines shares, which appeared to have been intentionally driven down to benefit Oasis. Oasis and Fischer did not admit wrongdoing but accepted SFC sanctions and took voluntary measures in 2007 to prevent similar events reoccurring.[1]
Would be grateful for the input of the wider community. SandraMurphy33 (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done: the existing text seem broadly reasonable to me. Thank you for your patience with this edit request. Rusalkii (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Rusalkii, nice to meet you. Thanks for your feedback! If you have a minute, I ask that you take a closer look at the language currently used in the article, which includes a lot of detail about allegations (such as timing and dates) as well as non-neutral speculation, such as the following wording "The trades appeared intended..."
- The fine and allegations occurred almost twenty years ago and don't define the firm or its background, but currently take up a large paragraph and the majority of that section, all based on a single source. Certainly the events should be covered by the encyclopedia entry, but in a factual, neutral manner. Thanks again for your time on this. SandraMurphy33 (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- "appeared intended" (or rather very similar language) features in your suggested rewrite - I don't see a meaningful difference between that and "appeared to have been intentionally". Including details such as timing and dates is not inherently a problem, and in this case it is not just a random date but meant to emphasize that it occurred immediately after a particular announcement which happened on that date.Your "relating to Japan Airlines shares" wording removes the actual specific thing that they are accused of doing. On closer review, I've change the first sentence to your proposed wording to avoid the "They were also publicly reprimanded" awkward wording, but kept the rest as is. Rusalkii (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
