Talk:Sun Capital Partners

I'm not a fan of this section anyway, since in time it is dated, but with no citations the whole thing should go.--BelBivDov (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Seeing a video about Friendly's by Company Man introduced me to Sun Capital Partners. And I'll need to look at the video yet another time to know how much SCP purchased Friendly's from the Tennessee Restaurant Company for during 2007 before I edit. Though I could let someone else do it. Kaden Bayne Vanciel (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've just added a POV template to this article, as it appears to be completely missing any criticism and information which may paint the subject in a negative light is either missing or has been removed.

The article has received quite a large number of edits which violate policies on conflict of interest, neutral point of view or promotional tone. While most of these seem to get reverted, some seem to have gone unnoticed. For example, the article used to have a Controversies section, before it was completely removed by an editor whose other contributions have been deleted as per WP:G11.

This missing information includes topics such as bankruptcies (e.g Marsh Supermarkets, Powermate, Indalex, Friendly's, Fluid Routing Solutions) and the resulting unpaid workers' pensions (covered, but only partially, by American taxpayers via the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation), as well as a United States Supreme Court case. (Non-exhaustive source for this)

It seems that while some of this information may not have ever been added, other pieces of information have been removed, leaving an article which may not necessarily have a "promotional" tone, but uses an encyclopaedic to selectively cover only aspects of the subject which portray it positively.

Assistance from more experienced editors would be appreciated to remove any WP:COI edits and/or content violating WP:NPOV, and also to add missing information which would help improve the balance of the article. B4shful (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Bradrhoads: attempted to update the article with acquisitions and divestments. However the tone was like a press release. the edit was reverted. But perhaps updated info could be expressed in an encyclopedic tone. Also there should not be inlin links to other company websites all through the article, instead footnotes for references should be included. So these comments are in addition to concerns about removing "negative" info. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is all super confusing to me. I was in the middle of adding the details that you suggested, but published to save my work, then was heading back in to add the controversies and citations, when my whole article was deleted. You must not remember how time consuming and difficult it is to learn and to try to contribute to this platform. I'm just learning. But I can assure you, I'm a financial news journalist, and am no stranger to being unbiased. When this community nukes hours of my life it makes it hard to want to continue. How do I now get that content back and send it to the right "filters?" This is so frustrating. Bradrhoads (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please tell me what to do. I can change the tone, to encyclopedic. And I was adding footnotes, and I can remove links to other companies, and convert them to footnotes. I removed NO negative information, and if needed, I can research and find negative information to add. What I've noticed is there is no context for the bankruptices. If you're a financial news journalist like me, you understand private equity intentionally bankrupts companies - that's the point - to sell off the pieces. So the wiki editors might think bankruptcies are "bad" - but they are just normal. BUt one can add the criticism of the practice, sure - but one must then criticize all private equity, because that's what they do. Anyway - trying tp add context, and would love someone to mentor me rather than lash out at me (not meaning you @Graeme Bartlett) Bradrhoads (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

See my comment at Talk:Marc_Leder#COI_tag_(May_2024). What we do NOT need is another article that is either a long list of acquisitions (the first version) or a linkdump of company records (the second one). The note from B4shful is appreciated. A look through the history shows that indeed User:Daisyrose2023 has been whitewashing both articles, and Bradrhoads has been tweaking or downplaying the same information that Daisy had removed earlier in the Leder article. Drmies (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply