Talk:Brookfield Business Partners

The Saudi Connection

This edit seems problematical to me.

Edit summary is Wikipedia isn't the place for speculation - took out sentence, but the information was sourced to this CNN article citing among others Marco Rubio. So it's not speculation on our part, but reporting notable speculation on the part of US lawmakers in a public hearing.

It seem encyclopedic to me. I note that the removal is by an IP with no other contributions. Andrewa (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

In that nobody has commented, I have reverted the edit. Andrewa (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Hi Andrew. First off, by way of disclosure, I work for Brookfield Asset Management. If you look at the CNN article cited for the sentence in question, you'll see that the statement is in no way reflected in the source. I would appreciate if you could remove the sentence that you restored, as I am avoiding editing the article directly due to my conflict of interest. Thanks! Dvruthven (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and for the disclosure on your user page.

I did look at the source, before even posting here let alone taking action.

It's about Rubio's comments concerning Mohammad Bin Salman, and states a company with deep ties to Gulf countries. That company, Brookfield Business Partners, also owns Westinghouse Electric..

The sentence you and the IP want removed reads This company is reportedly related to the interests of the Saudi Royal Family, specifically Mohammad Bin Salman Al Saud, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.

I think rephrasing is in order, but not removal.

How would you express the connection? Are there other sources that should be cited? Andrewa (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewa: The CNN source states that Brookfield Business Partners has "deep ties to Gulf countries" - a phrase that seems too vague for Wikipedia. The actual connection to Saudi Arabia mentioned by the CNN source in the following sentence would be more appropriately placed (if at all) in the Westinghouse Electric Company article, since Westinghouse is the company that the sources state is "connected" to Saudi Arabia, not Brookfield Business Partners, whose only role in the matter was that it subsequently acquired Westinghouse.

I might suggest the following sentence for the Westinghouse Electric Company article: "In November 2017, it was reported that Westinghouse had joined a consortium bidding to provide nuclear power in Saudi Arabia." (Reuters report, S&P Global report). Thanks again,Dvruthven (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree that deep ties to Gulf Countries is too vague. If that's what a reliable source says, then that's what we report they say. I can understand your employers not liking it.

Agree that the bit about Westinghouse belongs in the Westinghouse article, but I think the bit about Brookfield similarly belongs in the Brookfield article. So let's concentrate here on what this article should say.

So I say again, how would you express the connection? Are there other sources that should be cited? And I mean, in this article. Andrewa (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Andrewa: Apart from this CNN article, there are no reliable sources that I am aware of that claim the existence of deep ties between Brookfield Business Partners and Gulf countries. I accept your point that CNN is considered a generally reliable source on Wikipedia, but I also question the reliability of this particular article, which makes a vague and tenuous claim of "deep ties" that is not made in any other reliable source, to my knowledge. And adding to my conviction that the CNN article should not be relied on with respect to Brookfield, the author also appears to confuse Brookfield Business Partners with Brookfield Asset Management, when it states that Brookfield Business Partners purchased "a Kushner family property mired in disastrous debt."

But if we are not permitted to question this CNN article's reliability, at the very least there should certainly be no reference in the Wikipedia article to "the Saudi Royal Family" or "Mohammad Bin Salman Al Saud, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia," as these details are not claimed in any reliable source. Thanks, Dvruthven (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree that there is room for improvement, and in time I'll do the rephrasing to better reflect what the CNN article actually says, and see whether there are other sources.

You could help with this process by suggesting here (as requested) what the article should say, but perhaps your employer would not permit this, and probably neither they nor you understand or wish to understand the subtleties of our content policies. In a sense we neither assume nor question this CNN article's reliability. We just report what they say.

That's one reason we cite sources. It allows the reader to make up their own mind to what degree they regard the information as reliable. There's some judgement required as to what sources are worthy of inclusion, but CNN is generally considered reliable in this sense. Andrewa (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Andrewa: As some time has passed, and since we both agree that the sentence in question is unsourced and problematic as written, I'd like to request again that you make the change - at least to rephrase the sentence in some way that actually reflects what is stated in the source. The reason I have not suggested any language to replace the current language is that I still believe the sentence should be removed altogether. The CNN source is unreliable in this context, a concept that Wikipedia policy appears to recognize in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Thanks, Dvruthven (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Your opinions are noted. In view of your disclosed COI, I don't intend to act further on them.

I repeat my offer to discuss rewording, and my agreement that this would improve Wikipedia.

But I can understand your reluctance to participate in this. Your employer just wants all mention of Marco Ruben's statement, as reported by CNN, removed. And I can understand that too. But this would in my opinion lessen Wikipedia, for no good reason that has yet been provided. Andrewa (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on alleged connection between Brookfield Business Partners and Saudi Arabia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the sentence "This company is reportedly related to the interests of the Saudi Royal Family, specifically Mohammad Bin Salman Al Saud, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia" be removed, rephrased or kept as is? See Talk:Brookfield Business Partners#The Saudi Connection for context. (Disclosure: I work for Brookfield Asset Management.) Thank you, Dvruthven (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC) 15:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• How bout "Brookfield has deep ties to Gulf countries and is competing to produce nuclear power in Saudi Arabia."? Unless there's a second source that notes the MBS-Brookfield link, we shouldn't here on WP. NickCT (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• There's a Guardian article here that discusses the connection between the Trump Family and MBS. It has a paragraph in it about how Jared Kushner is buying 666 5th Avenue from Brookfield Business Partners while at the same time the company was trying to buy a nuclear energy company in Saudi Arabia. Which needed approval from the Trump administration. Which they got around the same time they agreed to lease the building to Kushner or something like that. There's also this article. This article here and this one discuss the connection between Qatar, Brookfield, and Kushner. While none of that directly mentions a connection between MBS or Brookfield Business Partners, it at least establishes the connection between them and Saudi Arabia. I think its all worth including in the article. Including the connection to Kushner and the possibility of back room dealing with him and the Trump administration on their nuclear energy company buy as long as it can be done in a neutral way. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  Hi @Adamant1: A few corrections: The only connection between Brookfield Business Partners and Saudi Arabia is that Brookfield Business Partners acquired Westinghouse Electric Company, which had joined a consortium bidding to provide nuclear power in Saudi Arabia prior to the acquisition. None of the articles you cited mention any connection between Brookfield Business Partners and Saudi Arabia - or any other gulf country, for that matter - beyond the acquisition of Westinghouse. (The Guardian article you cited was an opinion piece.) Finally, Brookfield Business Partners had nothing to do with 666 5th Avenue - that was Brookfield Asset Management. Thanks, Dvruthven (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Dvruthven - "Brookfield Business Partners had nothing to do with 666 5th Avenue - that was Brookfield Asset Management" - although the former is a subsidiary of the latter! I just love the way you PR people think. A perfect exemplification of why, in my opinion, paid hacks should not be allowed to edit. KJP1 (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah I mean, I never said it was a direct line to MBS or anything. That's why I said to state it in a neutral way. In other words "In whenever Brookfield Business Partners acquired Westinghouse. A company bidding to build nuclear power plants in Saudi Arabia" or something. They are connected to Saudi Arabia through Westinghouse though and there was the connection between them getting the contract approved by the Trump admin at the same time they did a deal with Kushner on 666 Fifth avenue. The connection is mentioned a bunch of times in the same articles from reliable sources. No where did I say that directly ties them to MBS though. Also, I'm not an expert on this but from what I've read it seems like the company is really just "Brookfield" that Brookfield Business Partners and Brookfield Asset Management are subdivisions of. Although they are called subsidiaries, but id imagine in the investment world they would be more closely related then say different retail store brands would be. But it sounds like they are more arms of the same company then unique, autonomous entities. In the Brookfield Asset Management article it makes it sound like they are same thing and it doesn't separate there purchase of the energy company from the deal with Kushner. It just says "Brookfield" did both. Citation #4 in this article "Brookfield Agrees to Buy 70% Stake in Odebrecht for $768 Million" doesn't seem to separate them either. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Remove I find the sentence must be quickly removed as I cannot see any part of it as sourced in the linked CNN article. Especially that the company interests in Saudi Arabia are related to those of the royal family and specifically with those of the crown prince, or that Brookfield Asset Management is just the same as Brookfield Business Partners is not in the article and from your own words seems to me to be your personal inferences, which is OR and not allowed here. Something like "Brookfield has deep ties to Gulf countries and is competing to produce nuclear power in Saudi Arabia" seems to me to be more based on what the sources really state. 2003:F5:6F0E:7200:3461:3461:C6F3:C7C7 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin
• Preserve or Consider Other Rephrasing Proposals (Excluding This One Obviously) Hi y'all, I'm the original author of that sentence and I do not approve of the rephrasing that was proposed by Dvruthven. I understand that no company wants to be associated with politicians, especially a toxic one like MBS, because politics often hurt a company's business opportunities. However, as stated in my edit summary, I just used the CNN article and simply repeated U.S. Senator Marco Rubio's words. The article also mentioned that "...an answer that belies the iron control that U.S. intelligence services have concluded the young man (MBS) wields over the country." This whole article is about how MBS, the new ruler of KSA, has become increasingly reckless and irresponsible. Furthermore, the article also says that the Trump administration has ignored MBS' irresponsibility because of the ties between the Trump and Kushner families and the Saudi royal family. This allegation of collusion sounds very logical to me because the central evidence here is Brookfield's connections to both KSA and Kushner. The article says that Brookfield is a crucial link between the interests of Trump/Kushner and KSA/MBS. Indeed, the article's conclusion is that this triangle of collusion is composed of MBS/KSA, Kushner/Trump, and Brookfield. First, MBS likes Brookfield because Brookfield can bring them nuclear material which may be used to construct a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, Brookfield likes Kushner because Kushner is a close confidante of Trump and can help Brookfield sell the nuclear material. Lastly, Trump likes MBS because MBS buys tons of weapons from the US. The triangle can also be reversed. First, MBS likes Trump because Trump's support can give him much-needed legitimacy inside the KSA and around the ME. Moreover, Trump likes Brookfield because Brookfield helped Kushner escape bankruptcy. Finally, Brookfield likes MBS because MBS can help them turn around Westinghouse Electric Company, their troubled company. In conclusion, economy is essentially a series of links between various businesses like the Trump organization, Kushner Companies LLC, Brookfield, and Saudi Aramco. Also, I want to mention that Brookfield's summary on Wikipedia is "a business services and industrial company focused on owning and operating high-quality businesses." This completely lacks objectivity and sounds awfully like an advertisement to me. Brookfield is just a private equity company that hunts for distressed companies to sell them later on. It is public knowledge that Westinghouse's core business, especially those located in the Southeastern US, has suffered greatly because no one wants to use nuclear power anymore after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011. Please let me know what y'all think before I flag this summary as an example of commerical use of Wikimedia projects. Best regards, S realIK17 (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  Hi Steve, Neither the sentence in question here ("The company is reportedly related to...") nor any of what you wrote above is actually stated in the cited CNN source, making it original research. If you read the CNN source again, you'll see it only mentions Brookfield Business Partners once in passing, and certainly does not speak of any sort of "triangle of collusion," as you wrote. Dvruthven (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  Using all this to back up the statement currently in the article is Original Research. The QIA stake in BPY and Kushner 'bailout' do seem to be fairly widely reported so may be relevant to include in Brookfield Property Partners, but can't be used to back up a different statement or link with KSA/MBS, especially with a different Brookfield entity. -M.Nelson (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to add two points, as the originator of this RfC:

1. Regarding the suggestion that the company "is competing to produce nuclear power in Saudi Arabia," this may have been true of Westinghouse Electric Company, but it was never true of Brookfield Business Partners. The fact that the former is now a subsidiary of the latter does not mean that they are the same company and that actions taken by the subsidiary can be attributed to the parent.
2. Regarding the suggestion that the company "has deep ties to Gulf countries," while it's true that this statement can be found in a CNN article, I believe this source should be discounted based on WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The notion that Brookfield Business Partners is connected to Gulf countries is asserted in a brief, vague, out-of-context way in the article, and the claim cannot be found in any other reliable source, to my knowledge. (Adding to the confusion in the article, the author also appears to mix up Brookfield Business Partners with Brookfield Asset Management, when it states that Brookfield Business Partners purchased "a Kushner family property mired in disastrous debt.")

Even if you disagree with the above two points, I think there is already consensus that the sentence that currently appears (about Saudi Arabia and MBS) should be removed. Thank you, Dvruthven (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support removing the statement as it stands. The current statement comes from a single source and isn't widely reported, so isn't notable for inclusion, see WP:FRINGE#Reliable sources. The QIA/BPY/Kushner 'bailout' does seem to be more widely reported (some sources linked in discussion above) and may be relevant to include in Brookfield Property Partners, but doesn't support any connection with Brookfield Business Partners. -M.Nelson (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose removal - Fine with rephrasing. Strongly oppose removing. The Guardian piece is a wholly reputable piece by a US professor of journalism, and that it appears as an Opinion column in no way diminishes its validity, contrary to Dvruthven's contention. Their's is a clear attempt to influence the article in a way favourable to/desired by their employer, the article's subject. The attempt to hide behind company ownership structures is corporate obfuscation, pure and simple. This isn't surprising - it's what Dvruthven has joined Wikipedia to do. But it does need to be resisted. I shall look for additional sources that may assist rewording.KJP1 (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• The subject of this article is Brookfield Business Partners. If reliable sources do not link Brookfield Business Partners with Gulf/whatever, then they should not be included. Connecting the corporate relationships between these companies with the Gulf subject is WP:SYNTHESIS and this sounds a lot like an effort to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Merging the articles is an interesting idea which I'll reply to below. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

M.nelson - As my editing history shows, I don't spend time on here trying to Right Great Wrongs. From my time working at AfC, and more broadly, I do have an interest in paid editing. And I don't buy the corporate division argument. BAM owns and drives BBP, and your line that a page about the one can't contain facts about the other seems hopelessly weak. Why not, when they are really one and the same? KJP1 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not? WP:SYNTHESIS. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

M.nelson Cyrus Madon is a partner of the overarching company, head of BAM's private equity group, and CEO of BBP. Source BAM, [1], no synthesis required. I'll be frank, I'm starting to doubt your good faith. KJP1 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

KJP1 Bringing up another source just proves that you don't understand WP:SYNTHESIS. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, debating it between ourselves and the paid flunkey has become a bit dull. Let's see what others think. KJP1 (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Calling me a "flunkey" is yet another personal attack and it needs to stop. Dvruthven (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• [2] - This.
• [3] - And this.
• [4] - And this.
• [5] - while not directly relevant, this is a very interesting FT piece on the intentionally opaque corporate structure of BAM. To be borne in mind when their staff (such as Dvruthven) seek to blur the link between BAM and BBP. Also interesting to note that that DR’s own user page identifies her as working at BAM, on behalf of BBP. Nah, not connected at all. KJP1 (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• How can you claim that a source being an opinion piece in no way diminishes its validity? Opinion pieces can be cited to support statements of opinion, not to support assertions of fact, like in this case.

Can you point me to the Wikipedia policy that states this? Otherwise I shall treat it as your opinion. KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Statements of opinion Dvruthven (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Try reading, and quoting, the whole section, "Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format". KJP1 (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian and NYT are not posted blog-style - these are clearly opinion pieces in newspapers. The first paragraph in that policy is relevant here: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• The first two new sources you cited (FT and NYT) are both opinion pieces, just like the Guardian source. And neither one makes any mention of Brookfield Business Partners by name. The third source is a government report that only mentions Brookfield Business Partners in order to state that it planned to acquired Westinghouse, a fact that is already noted in the Wikipedia article.

See above, and below. KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Brookfield Business Partners is a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management. It is not "corporate obfuscation" to say that they are two different companies that have different identities and do different things. That's why there are two separate Wikipedia articles for the two companies. It should be obvious that a news report about Brookfield Asset Management should not be cited on Wikipedia to support a statement about Brookfield Business Partners.

The distinction you attempt to draw is obvious to no one but yourself. The money BBP makes flows back up to BAM, and the direction and control flows down. BAM, or rather the partnership organisation that sits above BAM, is the controlling interest. Your attempt to obscure/deny the connection is obfuscation, exactly as I described it. Does your employer undertake PR on BBP's behalf out of a sense of altruism? KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Calling me a "paid hack," as you did above, is a personal attack and should not be tolerated. The fact that I am a paid editor - who is following Wikipedia's disclosure and behavior guidelines properly - does not give you the license to attack me. Dvruthven (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It isn't a personal attack, it's an accurate description of your role here. You joined to protect the interests of your employer, which plainly includes the interests of their subsidiaries. Your editing here, elsewhere, and on your user page, makes your purpose here very clear. Exactly what part of that is inaccurate? KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Calling them a 'hack' is a personal attack. WP allows paid editing and No Personal Attacks applies to all editors, not just unpaid ones. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

M.nelson - Hack writer, "A hack writer is a pejorative term for a writer who is paid to write books "to order". How does that differ from a paid editor? KJP1 (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

'Pejorative term' is right there. You can just as easily choose a WP:CIVIL non-pejorative term, but you choose not to, because you'd prefer to call names. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

M.nelson - I don't call names. I call it as it is. And a paid editor here, what they are. KJP1 (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose removal per KJP1. However the sentence could use some paraphrasing. Idealigic (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Appreciated. You're absolutely right that rewording is required. Working on that, and on the 666 Fifth Avenue Kushner deal, which oddly doesn't get a mention. KJP1 (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@KJP1 and M.nelson: Brookfield Business Partners had nothing to do with the 666 Fifth Avenue deal. The subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management that was involved in that deal was Brookfield Property Partners. Please check the sources so the facts are accurately stated. Dvruthven (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Posted a link to this RfC at Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Requests for comment -M.Nelson (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield Business Partners, Brookfield Properties

We currently have three separate articles on these, and possibly more. In a discussion on content of the BBP article, the paid editor working for BAM, User:Dvruthven, is seeking to argue that sources which discuss BAM cannot be used on the BBP page. Her argument would apply equally to BP. However, they are all subsidiaries of the partnership organisation which runs BAM, under a determinedly and deliberately opaque corporate governance arrangement. Dvruthen's argument seems odd to me, given that the corporate resources of BAM, namely herself, are clearly being used to support the interests of BBP. My question is simply whether having a multiplicity of articles, and accepting Dvruthven's argument, best serves our readers' interests, or BAM's? KJP1 (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• The question is, is each entity notable? I think there's a good chance that some or all of these entities would not pass WP:CORP. A Request for Merge would be a good idea to get some outside input. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with the merging. Shady companies often have opaque corporate structures, and Huawei is the most notorious one. Brookfield is a geopolitical player that seeks to profit from Middle Eastern conflicts. This is nothing new. The Persian Empire didn't conquer the Middle East just because they felt like it. It's all about the money. Best regards, Steve RealIK17 (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)