→Request for comment on “vulture” descriptor: move ref-list to bottom, add comma |
SegataSanshiro1 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
:On the contrary, your concerns are misplaced and seem to have little to do with fact. Incidentally, how did such a new account as yours come to formulate an RfC that is practically word-for-word the same as a previous user's objections in another forum? Just curious. It is ok to be a paid editor or to have a conflict of interest, you know, but you are supposed to declare it and edit in good faith. Unless you are one of the few who has an approved alias of course, must assume good faith. But you do take no account of other editor's concerns. It has become clear to me on reviewing the history if the page that this question -- this exact question -- has repeatedly been asked and answered and any disagreement is considered off topic. This seems to me to be an abuse of the editing process as it discourages the addition of legitimate information. Many people have declined to participate further citing this behaviour. For example: you cite BLP. Where in BLP does it say that there can be no information that might be considered derogatory? This is not an off-topic question. It goes to the heart of the change you are trying to make. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 23:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC) |
:On the contrary, your concerns are misplaced and seem to have little to do with fact. Incidentally, how did such a new account as yours come to formulate an RfC that is practically word-for-word the same as a previous user's objections in another forum? Just curious. It is ok to be a paid editor or to have a conflict of interest, you know, but you are supposed to declare it and edit in good faith. Unless you are one of the few who has an approved alias of course, must assume good faith. But you do take no account of other editor's concerns. It has become clear to me on reviewing the history if the page that this question -- this exact question -- has repeatedly been asked and answered and any disagreement is considered off topic. This seems to me to be an abuse of the editing process as it discourages the addition of legitimate information. Many people have declined to participate further citing this behaviour. For example: you cite BLP. Where in BLP does it say that there can be no information that might be considered derogatory? This is not an off-topic question. It goes to the heart of the change you are trying to make. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 23:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
::Yup, it's clear that this page (and this topic in particular) needs some kind of outside intervention or moderation, it's gotten really out of hand now. Just for the record, here's a list of all the discussions on this matter prior to this one (not including discussions on [[Vulture fund]] - there's plenty more there): |
|||
::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive203#Paul_Singer_.28businessman.29 Paul Singer (businessman)] (04/07/14) |
|||
::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Singer_(businessman)/Archive_1#RfC:_should_the_article_Paul_Singer_.28businessman.29_mention_that_his_company_has_been_called_a_vulture_fund.3F RfC: should the article Paul Singer (businessman) mention that his company has been called a vulture fund?] (16/07/14) |
|||
::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Singer_(businessman)/Archive_3#RfC:_Should_use_of_the_term_.22vulture.22_be_added_to_a_BLP.3F RfC: Should use of the term "vulture" be added to a BLP?] (12/10/15) |
|||
::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Singer_(businessman)/Archive_4#Copy_edit Copy edit] (30/11/15) |
|||
::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive232#Paul_Singer_.28businessman.29 Paul Singer (businessman)] (02/12/15) |
|||
::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_56#Paul_Singer Paul Singer] (15/12/15) |
|||
::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_132#Talk:Paul_Singer_.28businessman.29.23Copy_edit Talk:Paul Singer_(businessman)#Copy_edit] (24/01/16) - in this one I provided some nice tables as illustrative material showing that on all discussions including and after the 16/07/14 RfC, consensus has been in favour of using the term in the article, with the exception of a handful of editors who keep cropping up. |
|||
::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Singer_(businessman)/Archive_6#RfC:_Vulture RfC: Vulture] (29/04/16) - this one was closed by the creator of the RfC so the closing remarks do not accurately reflect the discussion, which was overwhelmingly in favour of using the term. |
|||
::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Paul_Singer_(businessman) Paul Singer (businessman)] (30/05/16) |
|||
::In all discussions which include uninvolved editors, the consensus has been overwhelmingly in favour of following reliable sources and using the term vulture fund on this page. The efforts of a few editors to repeatedly bring this subject up until everyone else gets tired of it and gives up shouldn't be how consensus functions. I hope this can me "stickied" on this talk page for future reference and that this issue can finally be laid to rest. [[User:SegataSanshiro1|SegataSanshiro1]] ([[User talk:SegataSanshiro1|talk]]) 02:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
Revision as of 02:59, 22 August 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Changes in lead, August 15, 2016
- Greetings! You may have noticed 2 significant changes in the lead today:
- 1) I replaced "a passionate defender of the 1%" in favor of the more exact "has written against raising taxes for the 1% and aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act."
- 2) I removed “vulture” from the lead and replaced it with a (hopefully very neutral) summation of the page's controversy, on the grounds that the phrase is an obvious derogatory slur in the same manner as “loan shark" or "tyrant"
- I recognize the latter might seem bold, but I hope it won’t be misinterpreted as an act of aggression or disregard for the discussions above, which I did read (several times). I would like to point out that the RfD contributors largely focus on censorship and the wealth of sourcing, and never fully address the fact that there’s a derogatory statement sitting in the lead of a biography. Not to be sensational myself, but I’m a bit shocked something so nasty has lasted in the lead this long, especially since the term has a simple definition that can be easily and fully explained in bland terms.
- I can’t help but wonder if editors (perhaps those more focused on topics not under the umbrella of WP:Biographies) sometimes forget that biographies/company pages require extra sensitivity, particularly the lead, where summations are laid out with little context. Singer’s association with the vulture fund term is much more appropriate in the Business model section, where definitions and POVs can be balanced and explained at length without the constraint of brevity. Yvarta (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's hard to imagine that you haven't noticed the extensive previous discussions and RfCs about this issue. Changing the lead in this respect will require consensus, not bold action. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Bold action is always allowed, friend, especially when backed by a good argument. Consensus is of course wonderful, and we can seek it out again, considering consensus before was never concrete. Yvarta (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- There's no need to go through this again, there's no sign of consensus having changed after the countless amount of times this has been discussed and always given the same result. The last discussion was clear, it was only made unclear by the fact that it was closed by the same editor who opened it. You've made a lot of great edits Yvarta, but why not give it at least a few months before trying consensus again? I don't think this article has gone more than 6 months without one on this. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I respect that new discussion might seem tedious - having read through those RfDs, I really do. However, with respect, neither of you have responded by my points above, just attempted to stick with a consensus which was never firmly settled on in the first place (note the many people in the discussions who bring up the serious issue of slur). I regret such boldness, but this is a biography, and I can think of no rationale whatsoever for a slur in the introduction, any more than calling Hugo Chavez a dictator in an intro, or George Bush a war criminal in his. This is exactly the sort of situation where bold action followed by consensus building is ideal, as leaning towards caution is always ideal with WP:Bio. Yvarta (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- You're not the first first to take this view. But since there have been RfCs on exactly this topic, it's not appropriate take unilateral action that goes against the consensus already established. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Unilateral editing seems a harsh term in view of WP:EDITCONSENSUS, and as you point out, I'm not the first to have this view. I was under the distinct impression there are so many previous RfDs and two years of discussion because there is no consensus. Previous discussions also focus on issues of neutrality and censorship, not on the inclusion of a derogatory slur, and so a further discussion is absolutely necessary, it seems. I have too many energy drinks in me right now to post anything to RfD, later this afternoon probably. Yvarta (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- You're not the first first to take this view. But since there have been RfCs on exactly this topic, it's not appropriate take unilateral action that goes against the consensus already established. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I respect that new discussion might seem tedious - having read through those RfDs, I really do. However, with respect, neither of you have responded by my points above, just attempted to stick with a consensus which was never firmly settled on in the first place (note the many people in the discussions who bring up the serious issue of slur). I regret such boldness, but this is a biography, and I can think of no rationale whatsoever for a slur in the introduction, any more than calling Hugo Chavez a dictator in an intro, or George Bush a war criminal in his. This is exactly the sort of situation where bold action followed by consensus building is ideal, as leaning towards caution is always ideal with WP:Bio. Yvarta (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- There's no need to go through this again, there's no sign of consensus having changed after the countless amount of times this has been discussed and always given the same result. The last discussion was clear, it was only made unclear by the fact that it was closed by the same editor who opened it. You've made a lot of great edits Yvarta, but why not give it at least a few months before trying consensus again? I don't think this article has gone more than 6 months without one on this. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Bold action is always allowed, friend, especially when backed by a good argument. Consensus is of course wonderful, and we can seek it out again, considering consensus before was never concrete. Yvarta (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's hard to imagine that you haven't noticed the extensive previous discussions and RfCs about this issue. Changing the lead in this respect will require consensus, not bold action. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
There have been so many edits because there's always one or two editors who really don't like what is said by countless reliable sources. If you count up the editors on either side (I did on one of the discussions) then it is abundantly clear that there is consensus. The "derogatory slur" argument is far from new, and it was argued that this is not an issue if it isn't in Wikipedia's voice. Some editors even argued that this isn't derogatory. If you're planning on having a discussion without bringing anything new to the table, it is unlikely to last long. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to kindly remind you that Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and that reasoning and sense matter more than vote count. It was hardly a landslide vote, with many of the comments wildly off topic, so I'm not quite sure why you seem so interested in mothballing further conversation. Either way, your thoughts are very welcome at the RfD. Yvarta (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Request for comment on “vulture” descriptor
Requesting input per this lead removal on August 15 with this rationale, which met with reversions from User:Nomoskedasticity, and a reversion from User:SegataSanshiro1, both citing prior consensus. They are referring to a two-year discussion about the use of “vulture” as a descriptor in the lead of a biography. For the purpose of this discussion, I have a two-part question:
1) Is “vulture” a derogatory slur?
2) If so, does it belong in the lead of a biography (or corporate lead for that matter)?
In the hopes of keeping discussion pointed, I might strongly urge contributors from the prior RfCs to read the extended reasoning for my removal before adding their thoughts. Likewise, I'm sure scanning the old RfCs for new contributors would be a boon. Yvarta (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is a pejorative, and pretty universally considered such. It should in no way be used as a descriptor of Mr. Singer or any living person. I also noted in the past that The New York Times specifically uses "scare quotes" around the term, and the qualifier "so-called." [1] Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive232#Paul_Singer_.28businessman is elucidatory of the issue. Calling any living person a vulture is, and has been, a derogatory slur. I am aghast at the continuing anti-WP:BLP attitudes held by some editors. Collect (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- If I can draw your attention to an earlier RfC (there have been many, both on this talk page and outside it) which had the same premise as this here, the closer wrote: There is consensus to use the term "vulture". The majority argument is that the word is used by reliable sources WP:RS. The minority opinion cites WP:BLP, but BLP is not a policy against inclusion of information found in reliable sources. Its purpose is to make sure those sources exist and are used. The lede of BLP clearly sets this forth. There have also been a good handful of discussions on this matter outside this talk page and all have concluded similarly. I fail to understand what has changed, it just seems like the latest attempt to roll the dice and see if things come out differently this time. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- "vulture as in "vulture capitalist" is an insult. It's appropriate to use it in the article, since there is good sourcing, but it is not appropriate to use it in the lede. Ledes should be relatively neutral, because in a short paragraph it's harder to give context. On the other hand "vulture fund" is a description of a company, and is a standard term, and one widely applied to the type of firm in question. It's not really prejudicial. Since he and his fund are not really all that separate--he's the one who sets the policy, the actual meaning is not all that different, but the tone is. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Look, the fact that a person is living does NOT mean we must compose a hagiography. Are we supposed to pretend that Putin never invaded the Ukraine, Bill Clinton never had an affair and that some of the third-world countries where Mr Singer has made his money aren't as corrupt as they come? I am an uninvolved editor by the way, summoned by the bot. I thought I recognized the name, and yes, I have seen some of these stories in some of my own editing. on Congo and Peru. If Mr Singer is not a vulture capitalist it's hard to know what one would look like exactly. The sources are very strong. Greg Palast is an authority in the field and wrote a book about this. He may even have coined the term. And generally speaking the Post and the Independent are almost always considered reliable, especially for in-depth reporting. You currently do have some weasel words: "some people say." That's asking for a who template. The usual rule is not to say anything potentially defamatory about a living person UNLESS it is both true and pertinent. In Singer's case it clearly is pertinent -- this is who he is. We're not talking about some unfortunate accidental notoriety from a single event in his youth, which is on the other hand a case that *clearly* calls for BLP protection. So I think with four stellar references for the "vuture" appellation, you could consider it proven, but ok. If someone is still worried, quote someone saying so, Palast for example. This is the way these usually get resolved afaik. Elinruby (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I worry the arguments may have veered somewhat off track. I think we can all agree that the press, historians, and detractors have ‘’all’’ extensively referred to EMC, Singer, and other businessmen just like them all as vultures, in extensive literature. Are we going to add “he has been referred to as a vulture capitalist" on the page of every businessman associated with this industry? Its a catchphrase that helps bring attention to a very dry topic for many readers, and has helped many writers get attention for their material, but that does ‘’not’’ make it appropriate for a lead of an individual or corporation. Extensive literature has been written calling George W. Bush a war criminal, to cite an earlier example of mine, but that is still only appropriate for a balanced section in content, not a paragraph summation of the whole of a page’s controversy section. Vulture has an instant connotation, academic context or not, that is ‘’always’’ derogatory and sensational. That is the central argument behind my reversions. Yvarta (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am always amazed by the number of people who appear to believe that the WP:BLP policy prevents Wikipedia from presenting any information that might remotely be construed as negative. What would you call Putin? Pinochet? Donald Trump? I don't know if you realize that you are actually asking for an exception to the policy. It is certainly true that people do say this. Very good sources have published stories that were the result of extensive research and that is the term that these sources use. Why pray tell would this man be treated any more worshipfully than the morally corrupt dictators who ran the debt up in the first place? He's right that some countries' leaders have been extremely irresponsible but he doesn't go after the leaders... he goes after the people who were already stuck paying the bill after their treasury was looted. There was already a lawsuit in progress against Congo Brazzaville's president and his family when Singer sued the *country*, for the president's actions actions, not the dictator whose family owned millions of dollars in Paris real estate, some of which had probably already been seized as criminal proceeds by the French authorities. There was nothing to prevent him from filing a claim against assets that had already been determined by the French to have been bought with funds from the the Congolese treasury. But he went after a country with something like 50% unemployment and a per capita GDP of about $2500. Oxfam said he essentially sucked up all of the Congo's foreign aid for the period, also, so not only was the country desperately poor they couldn't get help. I mean. A New York court ruled he bought up Peru's debt with the intention of suing and trying didn't try to seek alternatives[1] Nor is the term controversial anywhere but wikipedia, or possibly just this page. Some of the unimpeachable references for the term (at least six for that sentence) are staid financial publications writing somewhat sympathetic profiles. Why does the term upset you so much? And what would *you* say instead? By the way, the "defender of the 1%" thing was a direct quote from one of the sources. If it didn't have quites around it it should have. In fact the lede is so close in wording it's just this side of plagiarism. Meanwhile, Si/nger sued for $100 million an the obscure jurisdiction over a $3 million debt Bosia says that he bought illegal from *another* dictator[2]
- I worry the arguments may have veered somewhat off track. I think we can all agree that the press, historians, and detractors have ‘’all’’ extensively referred to EMC, Singer, and other businessmen just like them all as vultures, in extensive literature. Are we going to add “he has been referred to as a vulture capitalist" on the page of every businessman associated with this industry? Its a catchphrase that helps bring attention to a very dry topic for many readers, and has helped many writers get attention for their material, but that does ‘’not’’ make it appropriate for a lead of an individual or corporation. Extensive literature has been written calling George W. Bush a war criminal, to cite an earlier example of mine, but that is still only appropriate for a balanced section in content, not a paragraph summation of the whole of a page’s controversy section. Vulture has an instant connotation, academic context or not, that is ‘’always’’ derogatory and sensational. That is the central argument behind my reversions. Yvarta (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- The difference with Singer compared to other figures in the industry is that he is by far the most high profile figure, the public face of the industry if you will. The greater part of articles out there make reference to vulture funds - it is arguably what he is most known for and leaving such a key piece of information out of the lede is absurd, more so considering that the same argument you have made could also be made for philanthropy. Are there any Fortune 500 people out there who don't claim to be philanthropists? Whether the term is derogatory or not is somewhat irrelevant since it is never used in WP's voice, but simply reflecting what RS say. Read the page on Tony Blair for good reference on how pages of controversial people still reflect RS, and make note that the invasion of Iraq is there in the second sentence since it is what he is most known for, rather than what we have here where it's tucked under some philanthropic dribble. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah I was a bit shocked to read that Singer "helped expose corruption in Congo". Ok, the corruption, was there, he didn't cause it, but he made an awful lot of money from it. I mean the man bought $30 million in debt then got a judgement for 400 and claims he is acting pro bono publica? Not.Elinruby (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- The difference with Singer compared to other figures in the industry is that he is by far the most high profile figure, the public face of the industry if you will. The greater part of articles out there make reference to vulture funds - it is arguably what he is most known for and leaving such a key piece of information out of the lede is absurd, more so considering that the same argument you have made could also be made for philanthropy. Are there any Fortune 500 people out there who don't claim to be philanthropists? Whether the term is derogatory or not is somewhat irrelevant since it is never used in WP's voice, but simply reflecting what RS say. Read the page on Tony Blair for good reference on how pages of controversial people still reflect RS, and make note that the invasion of Iraq is there in the second sentence since it is what he is most known for, rather than what we have here where it's tucked under some philanthropic dribble. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- It is a pejorative: Summoned by a bot, but I've been involved with this discussion in the past and hold firm to my previous rationale that the term is derogatory and shouldn't be used in the lead section of Singer's BLP. Any additional justification you need from me to support this vote, please feel free to dig through the last 2 years of RFCs surrounding this topic. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am beginning to understand why everyone is so annoyed. "Vulture capitalist" it is not pejorative since that term implies that the name is untrue. Let's try this another way. The weasel words in the lede need to go so it should be rewritten anyway.Do any of the people objecting to vulture capitalist have a proposed alternative? Nice man? Let's actually look at BLP shall we? It says "we must get the article right". There is no question that he has been called a vulture capitalist. One of the references calls him the king of vulture capitalists. BLP says "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." I may not like the particular sentence but there are nine, count them, nine sources. Fortune, Bloomberg, Palast, the Independent, and the Oxford University Press more that meet this criterion.I consider CNBC ok and
I do not know the other book publisher[3] but we aren't hurting for spectacular sourcing. The policy says "anything contentious must be "explicitly referenced to a reliable published source." Fair enough; apparently "vulture capitalist" is contentitios, but wow, indeed it is explicitly referenced. We have that five times over at a minimum. OH and the Guardian at the end there makes six. In fact the article has in my opinion POV problems, but they are the reverse of what is alleged. His business model is *not* insisting on full payment.See above. He sued the Congo for $100 million in debt over $3 million he shouldn't have bought in the first place. He doesn't fall into one of the exceptions. to the policy. He isn't a victim, or notable only for one thing. He has been found guilty of breaking the law but the wikipedia article doesn't go there. He's not a private person. He gives paid speeches, appears on TV, makes flamboyant political donations and files outrageous litigation that is a matter of record.
- I am beginning to understand why everyone is so annoyed. "Vulture capitalist" it is not pejorative since that term implies that the name is untrue. Let's try this another way. The weasel words in the lede need to go so it should be rewritten anyway.Do any of the people objecting to vulture capitalist have a proposed alternative? Nice man? Let's actually look at BLP shall we? It says "we must get the article right". There is no question that he has been called a vulture capitalist. One of the references calls him the king of vulture capitalists. BLP says "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." I may not like the particular sentence but there are nine, count them, nine sources. Fortune, Bloomberg, Palast, the Independent, and the Oxford University Press more that meet this criterion.I consider CNBC ok and
- The Observer articles that paint him as a victim are questionable to me btw, and I don't see any other support in google about "jew-baiting". Need a reliable source for that.But sooo...he pays 11 million for Peruvian debt. He claims losses of $7. He loses a+nd appeals. He wins this time and is awarded $58 million; Come to find out, he bought that debt also from someone who was not authorized to sell it to him, and in order to collect he seized the president's plane when he was fleeing murder charges. President Fujimori gave him $56m from the Peruvian treasury to ransom his plane back. Nice. I nominate Singer for Santa Claus, and assistant-substitute tooth fairy on his days off.
- If there ever was a vulture capitalist it's Paul Singer. And as for calling other people venture capitalists.... if the shoe fits... I have written all this up because I spent some time recently in the articles for both Congos and the idea that the Congolese people just need a sharp lesson seems rather offensive to me. The fact that Singer portrays his lawsuits as some sort of public good is even more nauseating. That is all, and I am out.Elinruby (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Holy cow! Is this fight still going on? Another RfC! A pox on both your houses! J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Elinruby, would it be inaccurate of me to simplify your argument to: “It is a slur, but it is accurate and sourced, and therefore should be included?” Again, this discussion is not whether or not he “is” a vulture. The issue is on using the word “vulture” in place of “purchases distressed debt and pursues the full value.” At the danger of sounding like a broken record, the term is associated with evil, a despicable predatory nature, and Bill Sikes-level greed (and now, per the Samsung issue in 2015, anti-semitism as well). I worry the central question is being diverted by facts unrelated to the issue. Yvarta (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- you're overthinking this. The issue is to accurately portray what reliable sources say. If you find any that support his contention that he's some sort of crimefighter and just trying to teach these irresponsible Africans to manage their money, you can add them also. Otherwise all we have are your worries about his reputation and/or feelings. Or whatever. I am not all that concerned with pleasing a billionaire who would prevent humanitarian aid to a country as devastated as Congo was. Please. Worry about global warming or floods in Louisiana. Paul Singer has a couple of billion dollars he can use to console himself. I'm more concerned with an accurate portrayal of events, which we don't seem to have here, at all. I just can't take your concern seriously, especially since they fly in the face of the policy you are trying to cite. WP:PUBLICFIGURE, hon. Elinruby (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Elinruby, would it be inaccurate of me to simplify your argument to: “It is a slur, but it is accurate and sourced, and therefore should be included?” Again, this discussion is not whether or not he “is” a vulture. The issue is on using the word “vulture” in place of “purchases distressed debt and pursues the full value.” At the danger of sounding like a broken record, the term is associated with evil, a despicable predatory nature, and Bill Sikes-level greed (and now, per the Samsung issue in 2015, anti-semitism as well). I worry the central question is being diverted by facts unrelated to the issue. Yvarta (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, it's good to see someone is finally making sense here, Elinruby. At least now after 2 years or so it has gotten to the point where people aren't claiming that the term can't be used at all because all these countless sources are "biased." If you go back to older versions, it reads like satire. With regards to the Congo section, I have been saying for a while now that it would be good to get a hand from an editor involved in Wikiproject:Congo who might be able to help out with more sources since it seems obvious that the Congolese POV isn't accurately represented here. There is also no mention of the anti-Argentina lobby which was involved in some pretty shady tactics [2]. Moreover, there is no mention that the holdout strategy to block payments to 93% of creditors who negotiated, and that's what caused the default (ie. Elliott ensured that Argentina COULDN'T pay debts), nor is there any mention of the RUFO clause which would have meant that Argentina's debt would have skyrocketed overnight if Singer had been paid when he demanded. POV problems throughout. And yes J.D.Crutchfield, we're still here having the nth discussion on the use of a word and I have a feeling this won't be the last, maybe next time we could discuss if we should use the Latin name for vulture because it's more neutral. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am not very familiar with what happened in Argentina. My Spanish is toddler-level. Definitely not up to translating in the technical and perhaps contentious material we were seeing on Panama Papers. But I do speak French very well and was appalled enough to spend some time on it is all. I am not in Wikiproject Congo and I doubt many people are on the English wikipedia. Certainly the pages needed a lot of work and still do. It's pretty steep going, entire coups and scandals missing. Offshore mining companies that.... don't get me started. Elinruby (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please refrain from arguing that the viewpoints of others “don’t make sense.” Civility makes all editors feel comfortable in contributing. Yvarta (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I dunno......argh, must assume good faith, must assume good faith. Yvarta, you need to
- PLEASE show me where in the BLP policy it says we have to avert our eyes from actual facts. WP:PUBLICFIGURE in fact says exactly the opposite, right? So why why why are we here? And since we are here, let us address the problems of NPOV and weight in the article. Also:
- You need a better source for that anti-semitism you are so worried about. The Observer is....dubious. And your other souce appears to be a blog of someone who has no particular expertise in any of this. I'm willing to believe it but it has definitely not been demonstrated.
- You need to include the 16 million euro fine in France for financial hijinks[4]
- you don't mention either the WR Grace asbestos cases or the *other* Congo which is even poorer and which he also extorted.
- I think it is notable that he spent $15 million on PACs alone this election [5]
- The answer to your RfC is no. No no no. You are wasting people's time. All you're doing by insisting is making people wonder about your objectivity, imho. Also you seem to be quite a new account, which is interesting, in that you s9 fluently just rebuked someone for commenting on editors and want to instruct us in BLP. Hmm, I'd been on Wikipedia a long time before I even found out it existed, But sure, maybe you are just bright....... except that you are totally misreading it. Oh well, not my problem and good luck with this you guys. I am off to edit Glencore, which is another vulture investor.
- You remain off topic. Personal opinions on vulture funders, this biography, or the hedge fund industry at large don’t matter here. If you wish to discuss general improvements to the page, take it to a different location. This conversation is about the connotation of a word, and whether that connotation makes it appropriate for the brevity of a bio/corporate lead. Yvarta (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- I dunno......argh, must assume good faith, must assume good faith. Yvarta, you need to
- On the contrary, your concerns are misplaced and seem to have little to do with fact. Incidentally, how did such a new account as yours come to formulate an RfC that is practically word-for-word the same as a previous user's objections in another forum? Just curious. It is ok to be a paid editor or to have a conflict of interest, you know, but you are supposed to declare it and edit in good faith. Unless you are one of the few who has an approved alias of course, must assume good faith. But you do take no account of other editor's concerns. It has become clear to me on reviewing the history if the page that this question -- this exact question -- has repeatedly been asked and answered and any disagreement is considered off topic. This seems to me to be an abuse of the editing process as it discourages the addition of legitimate information. Many people have declined to participate further citing this behaviour. For example: you cite BLP. Where in BLP does it say that there can be no information that might be considered derogatory? This is not an off-topic question. It goes to the heart of the change you are trying to make. Elinruby (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yup, it's clear that this page (and this topic in particular) needs some kind of outside intervention or moderation, it's gotten really out of hand now. Just for the record, here's a list of all the discussions on this matter prior to this one (not including discussions on Vulture fund - there's plenty more there):
- Paul Singer (businessman) (04/07/14)
- RfC: should the article Paul Singer (businessman) mention that his company has been called a vulture fund? (16/07/14)
- RfC: Should use of the term "vulture" be added to a BLP? (12/10/15)
- Copy edit (30/11/15)
- Paul Singer (businessman) (02/12/15)
- Paul Singer (15/12/15)
- Talk:Paul Singer_(businessman)#Copy_edit (24/01/16) - in this one I provided some nice tables as illustrative material showing that on all discussions including and after the 16/07/14 RfC, consensus has been in favour of using the term in the article, with the exception of a handful of editors who keep cropping up.
- RfC: Vulture (29/04/16) - this one was closed by the creator of the RfC so the closing remarks do not accurately reflect the discussion, which was overwhelmingly in favour of using the term.
- Paul Singer (businessman) (30/05/16)
- In all discussions which include uninvolved editors, the consensus has been overwhelmingly in favour of following reliable sources and using the term vulture fund on this page. The efforts of a few editors to repeatedly bring this subject up until everyone else gets tired of it and gives up shouldn't be how consensus functions. I hope this can me "stickied" on this talk page for future reference and that this issue can finally be laid to rest. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/12/328/2499011/
- ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/business-15745003
- ^ did take a look; seems like a textbook
- ^ http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2014/07/28/elliott-le-fonds-vautour-qui-fait-trembler-les-etats_4463685_3234.html
- ^ https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?disp=D