Talk:PIGS (economics)

The definition is WRONG. I usually stands for Ireland!

That's how it is most commonly used, because the original four countries who got into trouble where Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. Italy only got into trouble later, when its bond rates were rising, too. Even one of the sources used here speaks of Ireland instead of Italy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8510603.stm Also, see this: http://www.acronymfinder.com/PIGS.html Seems there is some confusion about the acronym, and this should be noted in the article. Gray62 (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, since nobody objected, I was bold and added the alternative reading "Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain" which is increasingly used since 2008 (when Ireland got into problems first, with Italy following later). This usage can be found in countless media and economics reports, I added some refs for that. Gray62 (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten it for a number of reasons. One was that the change broke the meaning of second sentence. In the scale of things, also, use with Ireland is a recentism (however, a notable one). The third sentence did explains the change in context of use since 2008 and lists Ireland. However, I've moved this up to the second sentence and explained use of Ireland in place of or alongside Italy explicitly. The section on History also explicitly gives PIGS as "Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain" since the financial crisis. --RA (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This looks good to me now. Thanks for polishing this up! I only reinserted the Krugman ref (which became lost), which is notable, imho. Hmm, just a question: Is there an alternate editor for Wikipedia which makes it easier to edit articles with a lot of refs? I find that very difficult and time consuming with the build in one. Hard to find the wikipedia text between all the references, especially for a small time editor like me who isn't accustomed to this... Gray62 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Thanks also.

There is a project page on tools here, including citation tools and editing tools. I have tried some of them, which IIRC can hide citations while you edit, but eventually I returned to the standard editing tool. You may have more luck than I did. You could also try asking on the tools talk page. Folk there are likely to be more knowledgeable than me. --RA (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, FYI, acronymfinder.com is not a reliable source. --RA (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I respectfully disagree. Pls see their "about" page: http://www.acronymfinder.com/about.asp Awards, partnerships, widely used by other reliable sources, entries have to go through an editorial review process - this looks quite solid to me. And in the context of showing the real world usage of an acronym, quoting the site makes sense, imho. We wouldn't think twice about this if it was a PRINTED source, right? So, isn't this simply discrimination of online sources? Hmm. Or is there a consensus here that Acronym Finder shall not be seen as a reliable soource? No misunderstanding, imho that's not important enough to have a big argument about it, I'm just curious. Gray62 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

To my eyes, it would fail RS. While it may be edited, so is Wikipedia. The question is: who edits it? Are they reliable? And who publishes it? Is it a akin to a self-published source? These questions affect printed material also.

I see a question was asked about it on the reliable sources noticeboard, but with no response. --RA (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW this is not to dispute what Acronym Finder give, only to say that there are more reliable (better)sources that support the same statement. That's my 2c, anyway. --RA (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Bloomberg, The Economist and The Independent are not "original research": PIGS, in the economic sense, refers to Ireland. Gray62 also said PIGS refers to Ireland. The term PIGS, in the past, was used to designate the countries of the Mediterranean sea without any reference to their economies: the economic aspect was not the basis for designating a particular category of countries. --Naumakos (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

PIGS/PIIGS

Many newspapers, which are not scientific, often inappropriately used the term PIGS. We have to use these sources, but we must be careful, because very often, in this matter, some journalists are superficial.

Indeed, Ireland (and not Italy) is included in the term PIGS: to indicate Italy we use the term PIIGS. Though often, reporters who are not specialists tend to interchange the names.

Now let's recap. The ability of a country to finance its debt depends on two variables:

• The annual government deficit;
• Interest payments: how much a country must pay to finance its debt on the market.

Italy had the lowest budget deficit in Europe, after Germany (-5.3% in 2009, -4.5 in 2010, -3.9 in 2011). Ireland has had a greater deficit (-14.0 in 2009, -17.0 in 2010, -11.0 in 2011).

Interest payments. The difference between the yield of Italian government bonds and German 10 years (spread BOT / bunds) was at most 575. Ireland has reached 2200 points: it was forced to seek help of 85 billion euros in 2010, the European fund EFSF. Italy has never asked for help and will not do so. Even today, Ireland spends more than Italy, to finance its debt.

The confusion stems from the fact that Italy, in July 2011, appeared close to a major political crisis, but not to an economic crisis. The political crisis was due to the controversy between the President Berlusconi and Economics Minister Tremonti, who was considered the guardian of the public accounts.

See the IMF site.--Naumakos (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Two central tenets of Wikipedia are verifiablilty and no original research. Regardless of whether Italy has received a bailout or not, since the mid-1990's it has been included in the term. For example:

"So, when in 1995 Italy — along with the other southern countries of Portugal, Greece and Spain — finally made it to the borderless Europe, signs of elation were palpable … The euphoria, however, did not last long. European clerks in Brussels soon started referring to the Giovannios-come-lately with an unflattering acronym: Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain — the PIGS, no less, as Linday Waters reported." — Roberto M. Dainotto (2006), Europe (in Theory), Durham: Duke University Press, p. 2, ISBN 9780822339274

The term predates the crisis by over a decade and includes Italy. Additionally, use of the acronym as Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain continued into the current crisis (even after Ireland became associated with the term in the media). Example:

"In early 2010 public focus moved from the external indebtedness of Eastern Europe and risks to its banking system to the public indebtedness of the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain) and the possible risk of sovereign default, especially in Greece." - Anders Åslund (2010), The Last Shall be the First: The East European Financial Crisis, 2008-10, Washington, DC: Peterson Institute, p. 29, ISBN 9780881325218

--RA (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that two central tenets of Wikipedia are verifiablilty and no original research. But the sources, newspapers from around the world, they say contradictory things ... Every journalist writes according to his personal opinions: all opinions are legitimate, but we have to rely only on scientific sources. It is certainly not sufficient ABC NEWS Business Correspondent, because I could cite a RAI NEWS Correspondent, a journalist from the Sun 24 hours, which says the opposite ...

Now, I understand what you mean. But the term PIGS, as manifested in our context, has a precise meaning. It refers to the economic crisis of 2007-2012. We, therefore, we use various terms referring to only one source: the International Monetary Fund, setting out in an impartial manner, the macroeconomic data of all the countries. --Naumakos (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For example, many sources say that "the i in the Pigs stands for Ireland, not Italy":

• Bloomberg: The “i” in the Pigs acronym stands for Ireland and not Italy, where higher private savings and better management of public finances ([http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=asChEF8jj3fg here);
• The Independent: "The i in the Pigs acronym for indebted states stands for Ireland and not Italy" ([http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/i-in-pigs-is-for-ireland-not-italy-insist-unicredit-staff-2051073.html here).

--Naumakos (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm ... so you say we should avoid newspapers as sources ... and then you go on to cite two of them?

The second citation I gave above refers explicitly to the period of the 2007— economic crisis. Here's another dealing with that period:

"The real problem came when this analysis was extended to the rest of the heavily indebted periphery — commonly referred to in such accounts as the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain) group. Ireland was sometimes thrown in as a second 'I'. This was unfair and inaccurate, particularly as regards Spain and Ireland, which had been running a budget leading up to the crisis." —John Quiggin (2012), Zombie Economics: How Dead Ideas Still Walk among Us, Princeton University Press, p. 229, ISBN 9781400842087

Anyway, I suppose I have now sufficiently demonstrated to you that (a) the term pre-dates the current crisis; and (b) it includes Italy (both before and now). The question of wether Ireland replaced Italy or not during the crisis (as suggested by the two newspapers you cite above) was given in the second line of the article before you changed it: "Since 2008, the term has included Ireland, either in place of Italy or with an additional I." --RA (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that should be avoided newspapers and magazines (although Bloomberg seems to be a scientific magazine), but in any case, I demonstrated how the same sources are contradictory. Therefore, we must inspire us to a scientific criterion.

Because the terms PIGS / PIIGS terms are likely to be interpreted in so many different ways as possible, I believe that we must be impartial and just look at the numbers, the macroeconomic data, without any interpretation.

Before the crisis, the term PIGS had a different connotation. He had not an economic character, but a geographical character. Because this article is titled "PIGS (economics)" I think it only appropriate to be guided to the economy and, in particular, the current economic crisis.--Naumakos (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that even a magazine as The Economist says that "Ireland, not Italy, is the I in the Pigs", is a proof of how this term is interpreted differently among the various sources. (here). So...If I bring you ten sources, and you took me ten sources, we can not come to anything. We need to develop additional criteria...--Naumakos (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Roberto Dainotto is Professor of Italian and of Literature at Duke University (not of Economics...) says: "when in 1995 Italy — along with the other southern countries of Portugal, Greece and Spain — finally made it to the borderless Europe doesn't know economics [...]". Now, he is wrong: Italy was among the founders of Europe in 1951 (with Portugal, Spain and Greece have entered in the year 80). From this point of view, too, Italy has nothing in common with the other three countries.--Naumakos (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"Therefore, we must inspire us to a scientific criterion." No. That would be original research. We take a neutral point of view.

Differing view of whether, since 2008, the I stood for Ireland or Italy was already shown in the article: "Since 2008, the term has included Ireland, either in place of Italy or with an additional I." You removed that line and altered the article to read: "Since 2011, the term has included Italy, with an additional I." That is factually incorrect and explicitly contradicted by reliable sources. Italy has always been associated with the term.

Since you enjoy the Economist, here is what an an article from 2008 has to say:

"A particular worry is what could be called the PIGS—Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, Europe's negative version of the fast-growing BRICs."

As that reference shows, contrary to what you believe, use of the term has always been economic in character. Here's another example (also involving the Economist):

"As the Economist reported during the Maastricht negotiations, the limits were chosen by an alliance of German, Dutch, British, and other officials with the intention of "keeping the PIGS out." "PIGS" alluded to Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain, where were deemed to be prone to fiscal profligacy and infation." — Bradley W. Bateman; Toshiaki Hirai; Maria Cristina Marcuzzo (2010), The Return to Keynes, Harvard University Press, p. 62, ISBN 9780674035386

Finally, the "borderless Europe" that Dainotto refers to is Schengen, which took effect in 1995 (see here).

--RA (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned, there are sources that say different things. Some believe that PIGS including Ireland, I showed you authoritative sources that confirm this (Bloomberg, The Economist, The Independent), other sources indicate Italy, and you showed me these other sources.

Given these contradictions, I believe it is necessary to conform to "higher-level sources." I then showed the macroeconomic data of Ireland and of Italy, as they are indicated by the International Monetary Fund, based on the two benchmarks to evaluate the economic soundness of a country (deficit and rate of interest on debt)

Any use of the term PIGS before the current economic crisis is not important, because in this article the term is treated with reference to the crisis in 2007-2012.

If you consider the news, the use of the term PIGS, with reference to the current economic crisis, was born with specific reference to Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. Subsequently, some have used the term PIGS indicating, in promiscuous mode, Ireland and Italy, while others have preferred to keep the old tradition PIIGS.

The fundamental issue is that there are sources that say different things: for this reason, the only solution is to consider international and objective sources, such as the International Monetary Fund.--Naumakos (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've directed you earlier to WP:V and WP:NOR. We are not here to sort out "contradictions" through our own original research. In any case, the sources are quite consistent. Prior to the current crisis, PIGS referred exclusively to Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain. Since the crisis, Ireland (and for a moment Iceland and Great Britain) also become associated with the term. That can — and already was — shown neutrally in the article.

I've revert your changes because (a) you haven't provided any evidence to support it except your own original thought; and (b) reliable source (the three you cited above, the five I cited above, and those already cited in the article) all contradict the change you made. --RA (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Bloomberg, The Economist and The Independent are not "original research": PIGS, in the economic sense, refers to Ireland. Gray62 also said PIGS refers to Ireland. The term PIGS, in the past, was used to designate the countries of the Mediterranean sea without any reference to their economies: the economic aspect was not the basis for designating a particular category of countries. --Naumakos (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Bloomberg, the Economist, etc. contradict the changes you are making. Please, look at the cited sources. If you want to propose changes, do so on the talk page. --RA (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

With respect to this edit. First, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Second, you should note User:Gray62 remark: "This looks good to me now. Thanks for polishing this up!" You are not altering the version he/she was supportive of.

I'm going to seek a third opinion. --RA (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not know what to do more than bring the authoritative sources such as Bloomberg, The Economist and The Independent, confirming that PIGS is used to refer to Ireland and Italy. I do not know what to do more than seek a compromise with you, so write that "PIGS is sometimes used in promiscuous mode to designate both Ireland and Italy." I do not know what to do more than say that the term has an economic sense (which is what concerns us here), which is different from its geographical meaning, also attested in a few sources, which was used in the 90 years to indicate European countries of the Mediterranean sea. I would like not only the article was modified according to my directions, but, really, you were convinced of the correctness of this information. Since, for professional reasons, I work about Economic Affairs of the countries of southern Europe, I can assure you that what I said you is really the right thing! Believe me.--Naumakos (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've requested a third opinion. --RA (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

The dispute is over whether the term PIGS originally included "Ireland" or "Italy" and when Italy became associated with the term.

The statements below, added by Naumakos, I think, are contradicted by reliable sources (I've underlined the particular issues):

• "PIGS (also PIIGS) is an acronym used to refer to the economies of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. Since 2011, the term has included Italy, with an additional I."

• "Originally, the term referred to Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain, which were notable as similar economic environments."

• "Since the European sovereign debt crisis, in 2011, with the addition of Italy, the term is used to group European economies facing particular financial crisis."

The version here, I feel, is more accurate:

• "PIGS (also PIIGS) is an acronym used to refer to the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. Since 2008, the term has included Ireland, either in place of Italy or with an additional I."

• "Originally, the term referred to Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, which were notable as similar economic environments."

• "Since the European sovereign debt crisis, with the addition of Ireland, the term is used to group European economies facing particular financial crisis."

Additionally, I believe the map Naumakos has added reflects Wikipedia:Recentism (and even then inaccurately) rather than a neutral historical perspective on the term.

35 sources with quotations are refernce in the version I link above. The following are particularly relevant, I feel (note the dates, also):

• "Greece and Ireland show best returns". Investment Adviser. March 15, 2007. In general, the weakest EU economies, called PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain), are best avoided in the near term. In recent times Ireland has also been associated with the PIGS countries and the acronym has been modified to become PIIGS. However considering Ireland's public debt as a % of GDP, it is an unfortunate comparison.

• Niels Ruben Ravnaas (2010-05-10). "Banket gjennom giganthjelpen". Na24. Retrieved 2012-04-25. Disse europeiske landene har i finansverdenen gått under økenavnet PiGS-land (Portugal, Italia, Hellas (Greece) og Spania) siden 1997. Etter at finanskrisen inntraff, og det ble økt fokus på europeiske lands statsfinanser, har også Irland og Storbritannia blitt knyttet til PIGS, noe som gjør at man nå både har samlebetegnelsene PIIGS og PIIGGS. (Translation: "These European countries have in the financial world gone under the nickname PIGS countries (Portugal, Italy, Greece (Greece) and Spain) since 1997. After the financial crisis struck, and there was increased focus on European countries' public finances, also Ireland and the UK have been linked to the PIGS, which means that you now have both collective term PIIGS and PIIGGS.)")

• S. Gurumurthy (May 26 2010), Too small is ‘too big' to fail, The Hindu, retrieved 19 August 2012, "PIGS in Muck" — this was how, using the acronym 'PIGS' for Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, the Financial Times London had titled an edit on August 31, 2008. … Unlike in 2008, now it is no more just PIGS that drag the EU down. The PIGS club has now expanded, with Ireland first, and ironically, Great Britain next, as the newly qualified members of the PIGS, making it PIIGGS (adding another 'I', for Ireland and another 'G', for Great Britain). {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Matei, Daniela (2010). "The Role of the Euro During and After Economical Crisis" (PDF). Economics and Applied Informatics (1): 87–92. PIGS, PIIGS and PIIGGS are acronyms that originally referred to the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain (PIGS). Since the financial crisis of 2007–2010, Ireland (PIIGS) and, more recently, the United Kingdom (Great Britain, PIIGGS) have become associated with the term. The term became popular again during the financial crisis of 2007–2010 when the economies of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain were seen as especially vulnerable due to high or rising government debt levels and a high government deficits relative to annual GDP.

--RA (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I'm from WP:3O. Naumakos, above you wished to use macroeconomic data to support the thesis that the "I" refers initially to Ireland. This cannot be done, unless there's a source that uses those macroeconomic numbers to support the idea themselves. Anything else is synthesis, a kind of original research. You say that newspapers insert their own biases, yet it's possible that the creators of the term had their own biases, too, and wished to include Italy despite Ireland being worse-off. That's why in this particular instance we can't synthesize these sources: We might introduce a meaning distinct from what was intended in the first place, even if the intended meaning was inaccurate in the grand scheme of things.

A brief skim over Google suggests that Italy is the most commonly accepted initial, and nearly all the sources that say "Ireland" are doing so as a clarification, e.g., "you've all been wrong this whole time!" It's not our job to correct public knowledge; all we can do is say others are attempting to correct it. In the meantime, we have to use what is considered common knowledge.

Futhermore, there are sources that say "Ireland has recently been introduced", which suggests that Italy had been common knowledge. The contrasting sources say that the "I" stood for Ireland, but are there any sources that say Italy had been "introduced"? If there aren't, then one of the I's in PIIGS would have no meaning, unless Ireland were introduced twice ;-) Logically, it's looking strong that that initial "I" stood for Italy.

As for the PIIGGS map, I guess that depends on the prevalence of the term. I myself have no objection to include Great Britain if PIIGGS is accepted nomenclature and not merely hypothetical or in-the-future. Otherwise, I'd wait just a while to see its use rises or falls. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The particularly contentious issue is this: some sources include Ireland, other sources include Italy. Thus, the sources which, in the past, included Italy, today also included Ireland, and vice versa.

However, some sources, which are specialized in economic matters, not only did not include Italy among the PIGS, but also explicitly specify that Ireland is to be included, not Italy. These sources date back to 2010. They say: "The “i” in the Pigs acronym stands for Ireland and not Italy" (here, Bloomberg); "The i in the Pigs acronym for indebted states stands for Ireland and not Italy" (here, The Independent).

In addiction, we can consider a source as "The Ireland Institute" (october 2010): "[...] This collapse cut government revenue in many countries, while government spending on public services and unemployment benefits grew. The result has been soaring public sector deficits, especially in the countries where the biggest bubbles were. In Europe, these were the PIGS countries: Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain."(here).

An other authoritative source is that of two famous Italian professors, Luigi Marattin of the University of Bologna and Simone Salotti of the University of Florence. In their essay, The Euro-Dividend: Public Debt and Interest rates in the Monetary Union, they wrote: "Such an unprecedented deterioration of public finance conditions is raising considerable concerns regarding the possible negative effect on interest rates. Particularly, there is a widespread concern in the European Monetary Union (EMU), where the conduct of the common monetary policy could be damaged by a generalized increase in yields on the capital market driven by the deterioration of national fiscal conditions. In early 2010, concerns about fiscal solvency of some EMU countries (the so-called “PIGS”: Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain), with the widening of within-EMU government bonds’ interest rates spread and talks of possible bail outs, is jeopardizing Eurozone’s financial stability." (page 2).

In any case, it is evident that the term PIGS is used in promiscuous mode to indicate both Ireland and Italy. As rightly said by User:Xavexgoem, the term PIGS was born in journalistic language and, therefore, has no real scientific basis, so it would be unnecessary to investigate the real macroeconomic data ...

What could be, however, a remedy to resolve this contradiction, considering that some sources indicate Ireland and other Italy? Only to solve this antinomy I made reference to the macroeconomic data of the International Monetary Fund.

Things, then, are complicated because, in the past, the term PIGS existed but did not have the meaning which it has assumed in everyday life. PIGS acronym was to indicate the countries of the Mediterranean, toghether with a history and a common culture (the Roman Empire, the Romance languages​​, etc.).

I think we should make a synthesis of sources. My proposal is this: "PIGS is an acronym used to refer to the economies of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. Nevertheless, in the language of mass media, the term is sometimes used in a promiscuous way, to indicate both Ireland and Italy. Alternatively, the term PIIGS is used."--Naumakos (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I like your compromise, but it gives more weight to one interpretation. How about:

"PIGS is an acronym that refers to the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain.^[cite] [<--This reflects the most common use] Some economists use the "I" to refer to Ireland,^[cite] and the acronym PIIGS is also used to refer to both Italy and Ireland.^[cite]"

Would that be acceptable to both? --Xavexgoem (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe much in the rightness of the statement because, in addition to demonstrate the numerical superiority of those who include Italy, we should also demonstrate their superior quality, on which I doubt... for example, many newspapers are confused about debt and deficit and, consequently, damage sometimes wrong numbers ... the characteristic aspect that prevents Italy to be included in full in PIGS is the structural nature of the economy, which differs from other countries not only from a macroeconomic point of view, but also microeconomic (company structure, the service sector, etc..). In addition, Italy is one of the G8... In seeking a compromise between sources opposing each other, I think it is better to look for sources which are "higher-level", which are capable of expressing a greater weight than other sources. We can say: ""PIGS is an acronym used to refer to the economies of Portugal, Ireland (or, sometimes, Italy), Greece and Spain." What I do not agree with, more than anything, is the conceptual aspect of not distinguishing different characters of macro/micro economics.--Naumakos (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Bloomberg and "The Independent" (actually the Irish Independent) references are actually the same source. Both are quoting the same report by UniCredit, an Italy bank, and are syndicated articles. However, the issue of whether, since the current crisis, Ireland has become associated with the term, either alongside or instead of Italy, is not in question. It is not a consistent feature, however — and some sources are now suggesting the association is withering away (just like the association of Great Britain and Iceland with the term was fleeting). On the other hand, Italy has been associated with the acronym since its inception in the 1990s.

Xavexgoem, for that reason, I'm fine with your suggestion. (A tweak I might make is to add a rough date for the change in use e.g. "Since the financial crisis, some economists use the 'I' to refer to Ireland…")

Naumakos, I don't know where to begin. Multiple sources already in the article show the origins of the term in the mid-1990s. The association of Italy with the term is constant. Only in recent years have variants that used Ireland instead of Italy, or alongside it, appeared. Multiple (very reliable) sources cited already in the article attest to this.

As Xavexgoem points out, whether those sources are "right" or "wrong" to include Italy among the PIGS is not something we should worry about. Discussion of how some sources say Ireland is more proper that Italy (the UniCredit reference for example) would be a good thing to add to the body of the article. And how other sources say including Ireland is "unfair" (I'm quoting one there) should obviously also be discussed in the same place. --RA (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Naukamos, you've stated that PIGS did indeed initially refer to Mediterranean countries. So does the addition of "Since the financial crisis, some economists use the 'I' to refer to Ireland" suggestion above fit the context you're looking for? --Xavexgoem (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

PIGS was born in the 90's in journalistic language as an acronym to indicate the countries of southern Europe, similar to their history and their culture (civil law, as opposed to common law, etc.). An acronym, however, which was dispensed with any economic connotation. But, when the term PIGS was used again in 2008, it lost its geographical connotation and became an economic sense. As if there were two terms PIGS, one released the other.

Sources: things are very complex. For example, the major Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera, the headline (2010): "Italy? Do not confuse this with the Pigs" here). In France, Le Figaro includes Ireland (here). In conclusion, the sources are different...we need to develop a criterion that could solve the antinomies!--Naumakos (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Naumakos, the term has always referred to economics. (Also, FYI, nearly all European states use civil law.) Some further sources describing the origins and use of the term, including the origins of the recent association with Ireland:

• Carlo Bastasin (2012), Saving Europe: How National Politics Nearly Destroyed the Euro, Washington: Brookings Institution Press, p. 95, ISBN 9780815721970, The widely read financial blog of the Financial Times commented: "In the euro zone, there has always been a quartet of nations with a somewhat unstable rating position: the PIGS. That is, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. Rating agency S&P though, in a slew of rating renouncements this week, has affirmed Italy's A+. So we need a new vulnerable I on the cusp of downgrade. Step in, Ireland. With a AAA rating." In this psychological game of "group dynamics", there was an unconscious need to blame, isolate, and shame the weakest. The "PIGS" brand, born in the 1990s, was a suitable tool.

• Sarah Krouse (19 March 2012). "Investing in PIIGS: Portugal". Financial News. Retrieved 21 August 2012. The acronym "PIGS" was first coined in the 1990s to describe Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain – four peripheral European Union states with the weakest economies. In 2008, it became PIIGS when Ireland was added after its banking crisis.

• "PIGS slaughtered". Mining Journal. London: Aspermont UK. 21 May 2010. Retrieved 21 August 2012. With all this uncertainty, an unfortunate acronym is back in fashion (despite being widely considered to be derogatory). PIGS usually refers to the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, and dates back to the 1990s (when it referred generally to the southern economies of the European Union).
  The currently vulnerable economies of Portugal, Greece and Spain are again being grouped together due to high national budget deficits relative to GDP, and high, or rising, government debt levels. Greece has a government debt to GDP level of 120%, Portugal 90% and Spain 54%.
  Italy is not suffering to the same extent, and the country's economy returned to growth in the third quarter of 2009.
  Also, despite a rise in unemployment in March to almost 9%, Italian output has grown rapidly recently. For this reason, Italy is often replaced in the acronym, rather arbitrarily, by Ireland (which, in 2007, became the first eurozone country to enter recession).

--RA (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(I meant civil law in the strict sense: Germany and the German countries use the variant represented by the "Usus modernus pandectarum" - ABGB, BGB, ZGB - while Italy and other civil law countries derived it from the "Napoleonic Code").

Probably someone in the 90's made ​​reference to Italy due to the fact that Italy, in 1992, was hit by a crisis, which led the country to get out by EMS.

However, it seems that you brought a source that says: "For this reason, Italy is often replaced in the acronym, rather arbitrarily, by Ireland."

The use of the term PIGS with reference to the crisis of 2007 therefore includes Ireland.

On the other hand, we can not but consider that interest rates (10 years) of government bonds was at most 7.2% for Italy, while for Ireland it was 24.0%.

So I propose this compromise: "PIGS is an acronym that refers to the economies of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain, as a result of the economic crisis of 2007-2012. During the 90's, it was customary to include Italy rather than Ireland. Since 2007, as an alternative to the use of this acrontm, the term PIIGS has been used to refer both to Ireland than to Italy."--Naumakos (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Naumakos, you appear to have neglected to read the first sentence of the same source: "PIGS usually refers to the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain,..."

Again, we do not write either from the perspective of recent events or from original research.

I've added Xavexgoem suggestion to the article. I hope you will respect it. --RA (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have shown many important international sources which include Ireland and do not include Italy (The Economist, The Independent, Le Figaro, Corriere della Sera). I do not understand why you have to consider your sources as more authoritative than mine. Since there is no reason to be in a hurry, check if there are alternatives, because the definition that you would like to write is incorrect: not only from the economic point of view (deficit, interest rate) but also considering the sources I cited. I repeat again: PIGS, in the sense globally recognized, refers to the economic crisis of 2007 and, because of this crisis, it is Ireland to be included. We can also move the page to "PIIGS", so that there is no problem.--Naumakos (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of Ireland since the crisis is reflected in the second sentence: "Since the financial crisis of 2008, ..." This reflects the assessment of the third opinion and accords with the sources we both provided and those that were already in the article. --RA (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to have a cooperative attitude and I do not want to militarize the page, only to impose my point of view. Therefore, I did not edit anything of what you wrote (including the map), but "upgrade" the meaning of acronym definition: if you say that PIGS, after the crisis of 2008, refers to Ireland, then I think the current meaning of PIGS should be specified in the initial agreement, not the meaning it had in the 90s. Moreover, I can not do. Certain data are so objective that are not likely to be changed over to a certain extent. Each statement is accompanied by sources: The Economist, which is one of the most reliable sources in the world in the economic sector, Le Figaro, Corriere della Sera.--Naumakos (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The edit you made is contradicted by current reliable sources, cited above and in the article. Even by sources you cite immediately above. For example:

• The Economist of last April 2012: "Ask most people to name the rich-world countries with the worst public finances and they will single out Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain (aka the PIGS)."
• La Figaro of May 2010: "...la zone euro n'est pas seulement fragilisée par ses PIGS surendettés - Portugal, Italie, Grèce, Espagne -..."
• Even the Italian Corriere della Sera of May 2010: "...l'Italia fa certamente parte dei «pigs», il gruppo di Paesi che la stampa anglosassone identifica come i peggiori d'Europa. Pigs come «maiali» appunto, traducendo dal l'inglese. Pigs come Portogallo, Italia, Grecia, Spagna."

These sources contradict what you wrote, but are in accord with the version you keep changing. If you cannot approach sources neutrally, please stop. --RA (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you continue to cite sources where PIGS shows Italy is useless, because otherwise I'll bring you as many sources which indicate Ireland, and we do not end up more. I do not know how to say it. I told you that PIGS can be used in promiscuous mode to indicate both Ireland and Italy: then, or that promiscuity is indicated in the definition (Ireland / Italy), or we move the article to "PIIGS", or, because of a same kind of sources indicate both the one and the other country, we give more weight to the technical data (deficit and interest rate). The sources are very neutral and I have no interest in being partial.--Naumakos (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ireland/Italy

Obviously, the term PIGS is used to indicate in promiscuous mode Ireland and Italy. Therefore, it is quite arbitrary to say that "i" indicates the one or the other of the two countries. In addition, the key economic parameters Ireland delineate a more negative outlook than in Italy: interest rates, debt, banking, financial markets. This is confirmed not only by a lots of sources, but it is quite obvious if we consider the macroeconomic data (deficit: Ireland: -7,3 (2009), -17,0 (2010), -11,0 (2011), -8,3 (2012); Italy: -5,3 (2009), -4,8 (2010), -3,9 (2011), -2,7 (2012); source: IMF) and, above all, the fact that Ireland has received international financial aid, while Italy not only did not received them, but also contributed with a few billion euro to finance Ireland. We should indicate both countries, without going into disquisitions which could paralyze the necessary neutrality.--Naumakos (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is clear as to the origins of the term, its controversial reception in some quarters and the recent permutations that seek to riff off the acronym for "assorted political, economic, or social reportage and editorial commentary." The article is not however the place to make those same political arguments. It's a poor term that some find offensive - it is not however the encyclopedia's place to redefine the term in order to make a political argument.76.239.25.95 (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

We have verified several times that the term PIGS, in the media, indicates in some cases Ireland, in other cases Italy. It is absolutely biased and arbitrary indicating specifically the one or the other country, so: or we move the article (PIIGS) or we have to denote both countries. See Forbes: "The US as PIGS, what a tough, maybe slightly exaggerated accusation; the acronym stands for the European nations most behind the eight ball with respect to their financial condition– Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain originally– with Italy thrown in for good measure." - (1/06/2013). Or: "This paper sheds light on the export structure of the four European countries Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain, the so called PIGS countries" (Jens Oelgemöller, Institute for Spatial and Housing Economics, Center of Applied Economic Research, University of Muenster). We have recently reached an agreement...--Naumakos (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Naumarkos, the term predates the current crisis. In the longer established sense, the I only every stood for Italy. Since the current crisis (c. 2009), Ireland has been included, either as a substitute for Italy or alongside it. For a period, so too did other countries like the UK and Iceland. (If there was a C in pigs, no doubt Cyprus now would also.)

Most of this article suffers from the issues described in WP:NEOLOGISM i.e. it depends a great deal on editors analysis of "articles that use the term rather than are about the term". Consequently, it is a vying of editors opinions, based on their reading of newspapers and blogs, with few statements actually drawn from secondary sources. --RA (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Many of the references in the article as it currently stands do not support statements they are currently cited as supporting. It appears that over time, statements were changed but references were kept in place. As a consequence, the article looks very well referenced but is in fact now referenced at all.

IMO this bring the entire article in to disrepute and it cannot be trusted. --RA (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

To make things worse, there is also blatant source fraud. For example, "Italy" was changed to "Ireland" in a source here.

I'm going to invite comment to WP:BLOWITUP. I don't see how it can salvaged in its current state. --RA (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC: WP:DYNAMITE

I've boldly dynamited the article for reasons outlined above, specifically:

1. The article suffered endemically from issues described at WP:NEOLOGISM: it relied on "editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term)".
2. A great number (majority?) of cited statements were unsupported by the reference given. It appears that, over time, statements were changed to read something (completely) different but original citations were left in place. In some cases, it appears that existing citations were moved around inside the article to "support" newly added or rewritten statements, regardless of whether the citation supported the new/rewritten statement or not.
3. There appears to have been citation fraud, with editors changing what cited sources say or (as I said above) citing references to "support" statements they did not support (in any way).

For these reasons I did not think the article was salvageable in its previous from and blew it up and started it again from scratch.

I expect that to be contentious (specifically from one editor), so I am inviting this RFC to comment on the dynamiting.

Diffs to the article: before dynamiting and after dynamiting.

--RA (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree. This is an unjustified removal of content. The term is a neologism that has no scientific relevance, but we still need to adapt to a reality: the meaning of the word is not derived from a scientific consideration, but was born in the lexicon of journalism, and it is this meaning that we must consider. And that word is used, as we have seen in different sources, in different ways depending on the source, author and country.--Naumakos (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Naumakos, the problem is that the article was chock full of original analysis (e.g. use of references that use the word but are not about the word) and, even worse, fraudulent use of references (as I outlined above). Wikipedia article must be written using verifiable secondary sources. If secondary sources do not exist on a particular topic then we don't include it. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.

I've reverted, but, please, build the article up again using verifiable, secondary sources. If you cannot do that then please wait for others to respond to this RFC. --RA (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

*The "fraudulent" use of references you highlight and refer to was an obvious Vandal who was reverted on sight. Your other claim that Wikipedia is solely based on cribbed secondary sources is also wrong.12.144.158.19 (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Reject removal In fact for the same reasons as Naumakos stated above. The trouble can be avoided by creating some sort of timeline of the changing meaning. The Banner talk 12:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Naumakos' reasons were: "I do not agree." And "This is an unjustified removal of content." Without any further explanation.

We cannot write an article based on original analysis of newspapers and blogs. I have zero objection to anything being re-added to the article so long as it can be cited to secondary sources (i.e. those that are about the term, and don't just use, see WP:NEOLOGISM). --RA (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a policy clarification, with no comment on the appropriateness of the content of this article... WP:OR does allow for limited use of primary sources... we just have to do so with caution. While we need secondary sources for analysis and conclusions, we can use primary sources for appropriate descriptive statements about what those primary sources say. So, if the New York Times says "PIGS refers to Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain", we can say "The New York Times says the term PIGS refers to Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain" and cite the NYTs saying it. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. However, to give a practical example from the article before, fleeting examples of use in newspapers does not substantiate sentences like this:

"Members of the Spanish and other international economic press continue to use the term of art in its narrow and restricted economic sense as a grouping acronym like the related BRIC."

"...term of art..."? "...narrow and restricted sense..."? "...like the related BRIC"? Where does any of that appear in the fleeting use in the references given? It's all OR based on interpreation of use. --RA (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the fact that the previous content had some critical points (of which I am not the author) but what I do not agree is the definition of the term PIGS and, in particular, what country is indicated by the letter "i" , Ireland or Italy. Some sources indicate Italy, other Ireland. I think the article should be impartial, so we can not arbitrarily favor one or the other country, but, rather, we should consider all the sources that have some authority in the economic sector. For example, several sources indicate Ireland:

• The Economist: Italy has so far escaped the markets' wrath. Ireland, not Italy, is the I in the PIGS (with Portugal, Greece and Spain;
• Forbes: The US as PIGS, what a tough, maybe slightly exaggerated accusation; the acronym stands for the European nations most behind the eight ball with respect to their financial condition– Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain originally– with Italy thrown in for good measure;
• BBC: PIGS is a horrible acronym. But this is how the financial markets refer to the troubled and heavily-indebted countries of Europe - Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. (Some analysts use PIIGS to include Italy - Europe's longstanding biggest debtor.).

My proposal, therefore, was very simple: we can move the article to PIIGS, as on de.wikipedia, or, quite simply, we can indicate the promiscuous use of the term PIGS.--Naumakos (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support -- The article was in terrible shape. The previous content should be reintroduced piece by piece, if other editors desire. Given the small amount of content in the previous version and the extent of the issues that RA outlined, I'm surprised that anyone would object to this course of action. TippyGoomba (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support per TippyGoomba. The example given by RA above ("term of art" etc) is pretty typical of how sources have been misused by editors here. DeCausa (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - e.g. removal of map and graph. DexDor (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with a very short article on PIGS and PIIGS but I think PIGGS doesn't really have enough hits to warrant mention, and UK bond rates are near post-crisis lows again, with insane near zero-growth debt reduction policies, so I doubt they'll come back unless it's through another recession. EllenCT (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, thinking about this further, the article as it currently is is probably about the correct length and amount of detail. I don't think there is much that could (within policy) or should be added to it. DeCausa (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

RE: Britian - more-or-less agree. But what's interesting about PIIGS, PIIGGS, PIIIGGS, etc. is that, for a time, there was a almost a sense of satisfaction in adding adding (yet) another country to the list of "pigs". I recall a secondary source to that effect. I'll try to dig it up.

I agree that the article is at it's limit also. There's shag all secondary sources on the term. --RA (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems like the blow up was a good idea based on the points. Plus the first oppose points (No good reason on why it's no good not given) are listed in at least one guideline / essay as responses that hold no merit. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 21:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I was invited here randomly by RFCbot. Apparently a lack of suitable secondary sources collided with a misunderstanding of OR policy. Knock it down and start over at a size and scale commensurate with the available secondary sources. Consider renaming to something more generic that would encompass the range of usage (e.g. "Initialisms of the European debt crisis of the early 21st century") and use redirects from the acronyms. These neologisms probably will mean little in the coming decades. Jojalozzo 22:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article took its form over years of contentious debate with literally dozens of editors input and a large number of diversions to all manner of Wikipedia boards for oversight and input. User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid has seen his opinion on the article rejected many times and is now simply gaming the system. The article was a clear encyclopedic entry on a term that dated to the ERM and has been used neutrally in academic writing and only later became caught up in the politics of the economic worldwide collapse. The recentism that RA seeks to restrict the term and article to does not properly record the long and complex history of the term. RA has a long term political agenda here, one that has been rejected by numerous others for years. Now he seeks to upend the table and power through his personal agenda, years in the making. 12.144.158.19 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Adminstrator's Noticeboard

The removal of content based on an interpratation and invocation of WP:DYNAMITE at this article is the subject of discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard.12.144.158.19 (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)