Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)

Can we identify Paul Singer as a Donors Trust account holder?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Counting hands, we have seven editors supporting and fifteen opposing inclusion. More important, however, are the arguments made and our relevant policies, such as the argument made by SilkTork and others that this is a passing mention, and WP:BLP which is clear that contentious material about living persons must have both have the highest quality sources, and must be important to our article. That 22 editors are are arguing about this makes it clear that this is contentious; a passing mention in a source not primarily about the person is not the highest quality source; and a sentence mentioning that he has an account in a conservative political fund is not that important to our article which already has a large section about his notable activity in Republican party politics. Editor consensus and policy agree, leave it out. GRuban (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The Question

Should this article contain the following line or a similar piece of information under the Political Activity subsection;

Singer has an account with Donors Trust, a conservative donor advised fund.(ref)

Source:

Abowd, Paul (February 14, 2013). "Koch-funded charity passes money to free-market think tanks in states". NBC News. Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved March 10, 2015.

Source reliable as per consensus at RSN discussion. Source stable at target article and in other articles.

Background and Summary of Arguments

There has been an extended debate regarding the appropriateness of including the line above in this article. Former conversations on this topic can be found at: Talk:Paul_Singer_(businessman)#Donors_Trust and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Column_on_Donors_Trust_on_.28but_not_by.29_NBC.

The main arguments which support inclusion have been;

1. The information is verifiable
2. The information is relevant to Singer's political activities

The main arguments which oppose inclusion have been;

1. Having "an account" is ambiguous, and it's impossible to know if it's relevant to political activities
2. The information simply isn't notable and shouldn't be included

Format of Responses

Please format your responses as follow -

• Support Inclusion - Rationale. ISupportStuff (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2252 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclusion - Rationale. IOpposeStuff (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2252 (UTC)
• Alternative Sugestion - Suggestion. Rationale. IThinkOutsideTheBox (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2252 (UTC)

Standard RfC Disclaimer - This RfC should not be construed as a vote rather than an attempt to measure consensus. As always let's keep the conversations civil. Thank you in advance for your feedback!

Responses

• Support Inclusion - As nominator; the standard for inclusion is typically only that something be verifiable and not obviously in contravention with some other policy on WP. No one seems to disagree that this is tidbit is verifiable, and I haven't heard a good policy-based argument for exclusion. NickCT (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Inclusion - Paul Singer is noteworthy. Donors Trust is noteworthy. The relationship between Paul Singer and Donors Trust is noteworthy. Neutral, verifiable, reliable sources NBC News and the Center for Public Integrity agree the relationship between Paul Singer and Donors Trust is noteworthy. Hugh (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclusion. Another requirement for inclusion is relevance. CPI thinks it important in their article on Donors Trust (not on Singer), and NBC thought the entire CPI article was worthy of inclusion, which does not imply that specific sections would have been included if they had edited the article. I'm not sure we should trust CPI's opinion as to what is relevant; after all, legitimate newspaper articles on living persons include information which we would not include. For example, we don't include "favorite color" (except, perhaps, for an interior designer). WP:INDISCRIMINATE comes to mind. I haven't checked the specific guidelines recently, but the general rule is that, for something to be listed, it should be of interest to readers. Ideally, it should have sufficient context to indicate why it should be of interest to readers. I see no explanation as to why "having an account" at Donors Trust should be of interest to readers. Making a donation to/through Donors Trust might be of interest, although probably not, unless it is a significant part of his total donations, or a significant part of donations to Donors Trust. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclusion. There's no inherent notability in "holding an account." The source doesn't say that means that he made a donation to the group. We don't need this in the article to establish Singer's political activity or donations. There are plenty of sources here pointing to his affiliations, donations, political views and activities, etc., in meaningful and robust ways. The fact that he "holds an account" at a donor advised fund does not seem particularly notable. What does it mean to hold an account? Does that mean he gave a donations? How much? When? To what? If the original source had found these questions to be notable or interesting, perhaps they would have included that information in their reporting. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclusion. Summoned by bot. I don't see why it is "noteworthy" in any way. He probably also has an account with Netflix (Netflix is a noteworthy company!), a subscription to the Wall Street Journal (that publication is noteworthy!), and American flag lapel pins (American flags are noteworthy!). Do you get my point here? As said above, just because two things are noteworthy and intersect does not make that fact RELEVANT. Donors Trust is not a criminal organization and having an account there is not illegal. We know he's mostly conservative and he's a significant donor; Donors Trust is for conservative donors; tells us nothing. It seems to me that some people are obsessed with this idea likely because they think Donors Trust is shady (I'm guessing based on my two minutes of research into the group, am I right?) and they are eager to see people associated with the group smeared somehow. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Information that is briefly mentioned in passing, or in a long list, generally falls under being an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, the source is not clear as to whether it meant those listed were donors AND, or, OR members. Finally, although it's on NBC News, it appears to be written by The Center for Public Integrity. Its editorial mission appears to be "To serve democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of public trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism."[1]. This is obviously not a neutral editorial agenda and the source is not even reliable, especially for potentially contentious material about a living person. These types of advocacy sources tend to promote themselves as impartial journalists, but in actuality spin and mis-represent information to support whatever their editorial agenda is. CorporateM (Talk) 08:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Some guidelines we have on these matters are: Wikipedia:Relevance, WP:TOPIC, Wikipedia:Out of scope, WP:WEIGHT, and Wikipedia:Relevance of content. On doing a Google search for "Paul SInger" and "Donors Trust", I did come upon mentions, but none by what we would term a reliable source, and all the comments were in passing, and essentially about Donors Trust rather than Paul Singer. It appears to be a verifiable fact, but no reliable source has commented upon it in relation to Paul Singer. At this point WP:No original research and WP:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons come into consideration. Without a reliable source discussing Paul Singer in relation to Donors Trust, it would be inappropriate to use that information in the Paul Singer article. However, it would be acceptable to use the information in the Donors Trust article with the same weight and context as the original reliable source, that he, along with some others, has a Donors Trust account. (I note that the information is included in that article, but tagged as questionable.) For this article we have very little reliable information and no details other than he has an account, and even with stronger sources one would still question the relevance of inclusion. The arguments above for inclusion do not take into account that we are not the internet, we are an encyclopedia, so we select information carefully to avoid being indiscriminate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclusion. This relies for its significance on implication. What does Singer do with Donor's Trust? How does he use his account? We don't know. We only know he "has an account". No source is fleshing out that piece of information. It is fragmentary in the context of an article that is trying to report responsibly on the man. Bus stop (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Inclusion. His notability stems in part from his status as a '...investor, philanthropist, and political activist'; this would make his donations (and the way he makes them) seem obviously relevant to me as long as we can cite them to a WP:RS. Since we can do that in this case, I don't see the argument not to include. Yes, it's only mentioned in passing; but it's mentioned clearly enough to use as a source, and given that touches on part of Singer's core notability I don't see how its inclusion here (in passing, with similar weight to in the source) could possibly be considered indiscriminate. --Aquillion (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclusion I cann't see how this is "noteworthy." The wealthy generally donate to countless political campaigns and organizations, so to make an attempt to include a single group he holds an account with is absurd. If we go down this road we will need to include all of the organizations he has donated to and I doubt people will find that noteworthy. Fraulein451 (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Typically, this kind of information is not appropriate for inclusion, on account of a number of Wikipedia rules and guidelines, especially those protecting the privacy of living persons. But the businessman Paul Singer, the subject of this Wikipedia entry, has been involved in a major economic and political issue, and in the most notable manner possible. The notability rule reigns supreme here. It is impossible not to include any and all significant information related to the subject's political ideology and affiliations. -The Gnome (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
• Alternative opinion There's nothing relevant here to Singer's political activities. This only shows that he uses the donor's trust. This could suggest that he doesn't support any liberal causes. However this doesn't show that and if we don't have any sources to suggest that we shouldn't have this effort here to make this implication. To answer the blind question, is it acceptable in the article, it is acceptable in the article, however I wouldn't see it as acceptable if you were to put it in the political activity section. Perhaps it would be acceptable in the philanthropic section. The donors trust is considered is a philanthropic charity it seems. This reference should not be used in any way to suggest anything other than what the source says, specifically that he gives them money. We have no clue where his money is going there. It could only be going to "Foundation for Jewish Camp". We have no clue. We aren't trying to politicize his financial contributions in regards to Gay rights and there's more information there. He donates to the Donor trust, be careful how this is used.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The reliability of the source is questionable when it comes to the proposed content. This is the original version of the source. On the version chosen for use here some of the information in the original is missing. Reviewing both it seems that Paul Singer doesn't have an account with Donor's Trust, Paul Singers Family foundation does. The source does not support the information being proposed for inclusion in the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This has been covered in this thread already, but once more: the reliability of the source is not at issue here. The reliablity of the soruce has been litigated at WP:RSN here. The source was found by consensus to be reliable; the news agency is the Center for Public Integrity, and the publisher is NBC News. The reliability is that of NBC News. Vote however you like but maybe you don't want to vote one way for the wrong reason. 05:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Unnamed editor, NBC is republishing this. It was first published here. I'm not suggesting that the source isn't reliable, just that it isn't reliable for the information that is being proposed by this RFC. Your RSN by the way "litigated" the source in relation to the DT article not on the basis of BLP criteria. Criteria that would be important to follow with the subject of a BLP such as Paul Singer. Seems like a damn good reason to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Inclusion The point of Donor's Trust is that it cloaks how much money is being used for what, and it explicitly says it will only be used to support conservative causes, which is deeply relevant to his political activities. BurritoSlayer (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome! Say, your edit summary says one thing and your response says another. Please clarify. Thanks! Hugh (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@BurritoSlayer: ping Hugh (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Inclusion - it is irrelevant. Unless the source specifically states the amount of his financial contribution and exactly what it is used for, it is SYNTH. X pays into Y. Y pays into Z therefore X pays into Z?? Nope - SYNTH Atsme☯^Consult 07:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion per SilkTorc. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion I don't see a good reason presented for excluding this. Think of the reader. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. Here is the relevant quote from the source in question:

  Several wealthy conservatives who have attended Koch fundraising parties have Donors Trust accounts, including Amway co-founder and longtime booster of conservative causes Richard DeVos; hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer; and Philip Anschutz, owner of the conservative Examiner newspapers.

  It only mentions the subject of this article in passing. As stated by Atsme the conclusion raised would be WP:SYNTH, and would more context about other political activity of the subject it appears to be fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As for WP:BLP is the donor list of Donor Trust public available knowledge; as it is not, we should not advance it here. Do a search on "Donor Trust" and "Paul Singer", less than 100 hits on google, and many are from non-reliable sources. Therefore, zero weight should be given.
  FYI came here via a RfC.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. Not clear what having an account is supposed to mean; surely not WEIGHT-y to take this datapoint and place it into a BLP. Agree with SilkTork, among others. Cool Hand Luke 21:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion - no inherent notability, its not clear what the imputation is, and its generally not noteworthy. Flat Out talk to me 00:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support We want to have as much relevant information provided to researches as possible, and the proposed test is highly relevant and informative. There is no good reason not to include the information, and it is too informative to not include. Also you should explain briefly why this is even a question in your RFC. If there are editors suggesting the text should not be included, you should explain why in the RFC so that people being called by the bot can quickly review what their issues are. As it is, the text should be offered to researchers, it is relevant and there are no reasons not to include it. TrainsOnTime (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Inclusion Yes it is relevant. People who look for information on this politician should know that he's part of an anti-American corporate agenda, and not providing such information leans toward violating WP:NPOV if the issue to not include is politically motivated. The information is real, valid, legitimate and will alter people's voting behavior so it should be included. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Inclusion. The article is about Donors Trust, not about Singer. Singer is mentioned only in passing - he doesn't even get his own sentence. The article also doesn't say how much he donated to it, or whether he even donated anything at all. This feels like WP:SYNTH. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Re: applicability of WP:INDISCRIMINATE to current discussion. The proposed content is discriminant; it discriminates between all Donors Trust account holders, and the Donors Trust account holders identified as of interest to their readers by NBC News and the Center for Public Integrity.

Re: what "holds an account" means. All the proposed content says is what the source says. It is plain English. Content at Donors Trust and donor advised fund may help clarify the meaning for those who might be unsure, from which we could perhaps lift a few words to Paul Singer if you feel it is necessary. Hugh (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be synthesis, if NBC says Singer holds an account, and some other source says what "holding an account" means, we cannot combine them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No one is combining anything. Again, all the proposed content says is what the ONE source says. It is plain English. It is noteworthy. Hugh (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

True, it says he has an account. What is "an account"? Why should I care? And, if you add a reason (from a different source), why does the explanation of what an account is not constitute synthesis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Account" is an English word, and the source is in English, and the proposed content is in English. Are you confused about what an account is, or are you worried someone else might be? The sources NBC News and the Center for Public Integrity thought they were being clear to their readers. Does context offer you and our readers any clues, a fund with minimum deposit requirements for clients? Any attempt toward consensus here by elaborating to clarify you will rebuff as SYNTH? Hugh (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if "account" meant "financial account", the statement that Singer made donations to/through Donors Trust doesn't strike me as interesting, nor would a statement that Obama donated (personal funds) to a similar liberal charity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that you don't think it's interesting. It does strike me as interesting. Also, and perhaps more relevant, noteworthy reliable sources NBC News and the Center for Public Integrity thought it was interesting to their readers. Not sure what this has to do with Obama. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

May I ask after the basis in policy or guideline for this criteria of striking oneself as interesting? Where does WP:UNDUE mention interesting to editors? All I find is proportion to reliable sources. May I respectfully remind participants that their reasons for their position is more important than their vote. Hugh (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI @HughD: at this point, once something has been removed, the impetus is on you to to prove why it is relevant and belongs rather than the other way around. That you think it's interesting does not mean it is to other people. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Sure, but can we please bound our discussion within policy and guidelines, or must I overcome any old objection you might have? I would like to learn more about this criteria you cite of individual interest. Where can I read more about it? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: please see WP:IINFO. As has been said, not every single piece of sourced information is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your commitment to dialog informed by policy and guideline. May I ask, which subsection of WP:IINFO do you feel is applicable here? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

NBC News and the Center for Public Integrity reviewed federal filings with hundreds of charitable contributions and identified a few as worthy of bringing to the attention of their readers. Why else did they do that? Hugh (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

A "mention in passing" in a noteworthy, reliable source is a mention in a noteworthy, reliable source. The proposed content is not drawn from a list, it is in the text of the body of the source. (In any case FYI lists and graphics in reliable sources are reliable sources.) The source of the proposed content is NBC News, a highly reliable, highly noteworthy source if there is one. The proposed content was published by Center for Public Integrity after an investigation of hundreds of contributions in many federal disclosure documents. This is exactly what "discriminate" looks like. The proposed content was published by Center for Public Integrity because Center for Public Integrity thought the proposed content was important to their readers. The proposed content was published by NBC News because NBC News thought the proposed content was important to their readers. This is exactly what "due weight" looks like. Hugh (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No one is mis-representing anything. All the source says is that Singer holds a Donors Trust account, and all the proposed content says is that Singer holds a Donors Trust account. This one is easy, guys. Hugh (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The proposed content is neutral. Hugh (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: -

re "He probably also has an account with Netflix" - Straw man argument. Having a Netflix account isn't relevant to your politics. Having an account with Donors Trust is.

re "and they are eager to see people associated with the group smeared somehow." - I don't see how this would count as smearing. If I mentioned that Al Gore held a Greenpeace membership under Gore's "Environmentalism" subsection, would I be smearing him? It's simply a factoid relevant to Gore's Environmentalism.

@CorporateM: -

re "mentioned in passing, or in a long list, generally falls under being an indiscriminate" - Reference please?

re "these types of advocacy sources tend to promote themselves as impartial journalists" - Maybe. But the fact remains that the particular sentence we're inserting can be backed by other sources. This RfC isn't about the reference. That's been discussed and determined to be reliable. NickCT (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If anyone brings forth a really compelling source, I would be open to changing my mind. However, doing a quick Google search, all that came up were similar sources with brief mentions and advocacy sources, Sourcewatch and similar riff-raff. CorporateM (Talk) 17:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, what would compel you? I mean, beyond NBC News? New York Times? Washington Post? And may I ask, what is your basis in policy or guideline for this personally compelling source criteria? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@NickCT: - How exactly is it relevant to his politics? It's trivial, equivalent to being on a mailing list of a PAC. There is no information that he's ever used the account or that he himself even registered the account or is aware of it (one of his gazillions accountants could have registered it). And AGAIN, Donors Trust is not illegal, it's not a hate group, it's not particularly notable. There is nothing particularly interesting about a person being associated with it. Until there is some kind of relevant attached information (eg actual donations—like the other donations listed) then the fact that he has an account with Donors Trust definitely does not belong in WP:BLP. As pointed out, WP is not a compilation of every possible sourced factoid you can find about someone. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: -

Would Singer's public record tax filings be a "compelling source"? Did see my comments above regarding Singer's PF 990 filing?

@Wikimandia:

re "How exactly is it relevant to his politics?" - Is that a serious question? Donors Trust's stated purpose is to support conservate political advocacy groups. How is being involved with them not relevant to your politics?

re "Donors Trust is not illegal, it's not a hate group, it's not particularly notable" - Neither is Green Peace. But if Gore belonged to Green Peace, it still might be worth mentioning it under his "Environmentalism" section. It's relevant and verifiable, and that's all that matters at the end of the day. NickCT (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@NickCT: As far as I know, this is not a group that has "membership" like Greenpeace, NRA, ACLU etc. It's more like a having a Charles Schwab account, except with the purpose of getting money from rich people to conservative causes. That's what donor-advised funds do. If he were on the board of directors, then yes, that would be relevant. They could have signed him up as a promotion for all we know. We have NO information about how much money he has donated or where it has gone. I'm sure there are donor-advised funds for liberal causes too; please find me a Wikipedia BLP that mentions someone "has an account" with one of them and I will be happy to go delete that line. As has been explained ad nauseum, simply having an account somewhere is not notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No public tax records would be the opposite of a compelling source. Secondary sources are the primary basis for building an article. A profile story where this BLP is the subject of the article, which includes it, would most likely suffice. In a case like that, we would defer to the judgement of the source. If they felt it was worth including in a biography, than we should as well. CorporateM (Talk) 18:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The source for the proposed content IS a secondary source, a highly reliable, very noteworthy secondary source, NBC News. Singer IS the subject of the source to the extent that the source is an investigation of the donors and account holders of Donors Trust. Singer is one of the account holders considered noteworthy by NBC News and the Center for Public Integrity. Hugh (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A BLP source need not be a profile. Most of the content of this article is drawn from sources which are not specifically profiles of the subject. Hugh (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

NickCT, could you point me to where on the Donors Trust website it says that "Donors Trust's stated purpose is to support conservative political advocacy groups"? Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of the content in this article has one ref. One ref, broken link. Who would support deleting this sentence?

Singer sponsors the University of Rochester Singer Prize for Excellence in Secondary Teaching, the Harlem Children's Zone, the Success Charter Network, and the Police Athletic League NYC.

Hugh (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is really the appropriate place to be discussing other content issues. You can start a new discussion topic with its own subheading, but this area is reserved for discussion of the ongoing RFC. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova: -

re "could you point me to where on" - See here. Specifically line reading "donors who are dedicated to the ideals of limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise".

That doesn't come remotely close to saying the group's "purpose it to support conservative political advocacy groups." You're taking generous poetic license. It doesn't say "conservative," "political," or "advocacy." Champaign Supernova (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you plan to re-litigate our Donors Trust talk page discussions of the lede here in this RfC? Donors Trust is not conservative? You want to get lawyerly and settle on non-liberal? How about non-liberal, I think that would be mean to our readers, but that would be an improvement to you? The article says "Donors Trust assures clients that their contributions will never be used to support liberal causes" and it's been stable by Donors Trust standards. Hugh (talk)

Your use of the term "re-litigate" comes across as a bad faith accusation of wikilawyering. Was that your intention? And no, I don't plan to "re-litigate" anything here. My point is that it's a bit hard to take arguments seriously when sources are being misrepresented. When someone says a source says something, and then none of those words are in the source, it's a bit baffling. Champaign Supernova (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A question is not an accusation. Hugh (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

And you didn't answer mine. I'll chalk it up to your evident frustration that your plan for this RFC backfired. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: -

re "Charles Schwab" - Nice parallel, but again I'm going to have to call straw man here. Virtually any type of person can have an account with Charles Schwabb. Only one type of person has money with an entity whose purpose is getting money from rich people to donate to conservative causes. That one type of person is conservatives. Being conservative is relevant to "Politics" subsection on a BLP.

re "how much money " - We do actually know how much money from primary sources, and from the fact that the minimum donation is 10k.

re "simply having an account" - I sorta take your point that just "having an account" is not usually in and of itself notable. I think you gotta admit though that there is a fundamental and rather important difference between having a generic bank account and having an account at Donors Trust.

@CorporateM: -

re "No public tax records would be the opposite of a compelling source" - I take your point that primary sources aren't ideal, but you are casting doubt on the secondary source. I'm saying since we can verify that secondary source with a solid primary source, why would you doubt the secondary? NickCT (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@NickCT: It's not a straw-man fallacy. Anyone can have an account with Donors Trust or Charles Schwab if they wanted to - they just have to a) want to and b) have money. As has been said, over and over and over, having an account is just not notable. Until there is confirmation he actually made a donation (minimum standard for every other donation), it's not going in the article. This has nothing to do with supporting Donors Trust or conservative causes, btw. I'll delete any trivia that someone has a donor-advised account out of any article on here ... if you could possibly find one. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to inform, it's not up to you, this is not an area where personal preferences or personal interests come into play. There's really no need for us to argue about whether or not this is notable. An extremely noteworthy, reliable source, NBC News, decided for us. This is very easy, very straightforward. WP:DUE is very clear, coverage in WP is proportional to reliable source. Leaving this fact out is only proportional to it not being in RS. Inclusion is forced by policy. We are obligated to fairly summarize RS. Hugh (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

"none by what we would term a reliable source...Without a reliable source discussing Paul Singer in relation to Donors Trust, it would be inappropriate to use that information in the Paul Singer article." The reliability of referenced sources NBC News and the Center for Public Integrity is not at issue. NBC News and the Center for Public Integrity ARE reliable sources that discusses Paul Singer in relation to Donors Trust. The referenced source is specifically about identifying the donors and account holders of Donors Trust. Singer IS the subject of the source to the extent that Singer is one of the account holders considered noteworthy by NBC News and the Center for Public Integrity. Hugh (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"mentions...all the comments were in passing" Thank you for your expressed commitment to discussion based on policy and guideline. Your characterizations of the source are personal judgements without basis in policy or guideline. Mention in a highly noteworthy reliable source is exactly what noteworthiness looks like. Not every sentence in Wikipedia article space need be a summary. We don't need to find a hundred words in a noteworthy reliable source before we can put one sentence in WP, we just need to find that one sentence. Hugh (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"On doing a Google search..." This technique of using Google search results to settle weight issues is not mentioned in WP:DUE. Hugh (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@SilkTork: - re "no reliable source has commented upon it in relation to Paul Singer" - That comment confuses me. Have the seen the NBC article the factoid was initially cited to? Few people seem to be debating the availability of a reliable source to verify this thing. re "we select information carefully " - That's sorta a shenenigans argument. Lots of information goes into BLPs with weaker sourcing than this. NickCT (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Yes, of course, be careful how this is used; the proposed content at the head of this thread makes no claims beyond what you suggest. Yes, Donors Trust is technically a public charity and the ultimate recipients are required to be public charities, so this content is more appropriate under the existing "Philanthropy" section. Thank you for your response. Hugh (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

But you have to consider the language being used in the RFC. The background summary argument, "The information is relevant to Singer's political activities." It's not. This provides no relevant information to his political activities. It doesn't even suggest that he doesn't support liberal causes. It says that he donates money this group. This argument is bunk. If the consensus is that this should be in the article the position that it is relevant to his political activities should be given no credence. It should not be reflected in the consensus that this is relevant to his political activities because this position is completely bunk. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: - re "The donors trust is considered is a philanthropic charity it seems." - I'm sorry, but did you ready any sources on this entity before making this comment. No body refers to it as a "philanthropic charity", everybody refers to it as a group support conservative political activities. The fact that its 501c status makes it "technically a charity" is moot. WP works by characterizing things/people as majority of reliable sources characterize them. It doesn't matter what a thing's "technical" status is. NickCT (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Well yes I did. One source in particularly, the Donors Trust. However if you don't like the word then change the damn thing to charity. Not all of the donor's trust activities are political, and we do not know where singers money in the Donor's trust went as far as can tell. None of it may have went to a political cause. All of it may have went to a political cause. Foundation for Jewish Camp has received funding from Donor's Trust. Interesting political organization there in that they aren't a political organization. Coming from a jewish family he might have donated to them. The source does not say where Singer channeled his money thru this trust. There's nothing here in to show any political standing. He uses this service. This is all this says.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: - re "One source in particularly, the Donors Trust." - Are familiar with WP:SELFPUB, WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO? Using Donors Trust as a source about Donors Trust is really bad practice, and advised against by any number of WP policies. Generally on WP we try to find neutral 3rd party sources.

If you do look at those 3rd party sources, you generally find terms like "secretive funding organization". Not "philanthropic charity". NickCT (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm very aware of those policies. I don't see their claim of being philanthropic to be an exceptional claim. I don't see that COI would apply in any obvious manner or autobiography. I am the one who forwarded that source. I do not work for donor's trust and I have no links to donor's trust. I don't use their service. There isn't a prohibition on the use of self published sources, only a set criteria on how and when they can be used. But this is all of course meaningless. If you do not like Philanthropic choose another damn word that fits. The greater point here that you are missing and you in no way cover is simply that this in no way shows any information that is relevant to Singer's political activities. While yes Donor's Trust is involved in funding political activities, there is the more and obvious, striking, glaring, and in your face fact that they also fund non-political activities. The source being discussed shows that Singer has an account with Donors trust. It does not show that he likes to wear pink socks with red shoes, it does not show that he prefers star shaped sun glasses, it doesn't show that he drinks Dr Pepper, and it does not show any information that is relevant to his political activity. As a person with a jewish background he could support Foundation for Jewish Camp. The Donors Trust, like Paul Singer, support the New York City Police Foundation, and so he could now use the Donors Trust to donate to them. He could support the Boycott's thru them, Juilliard School, Arts institute of Chicago, St Judes Research hospital, or The New York historical society. We don't know. Your source only mentions that he has a donor's trust account. While it could be political, it could be completely and absolutely political, we have no clue because the source doesn't cover this. This is not viable for the political activity subsection because it doesn't show any actual political activity. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: - Sure DT may also fund "non-political activities". That doesn't change the fact that they are solely notable for funding political activities. Can you find a single RS covering DT's funding of a non-political activity (other than a self published source)?

You're basically arguing that someone with a gym membership might not be using their membership for exercising; hence, mentioning gym membership under "Exercise habits" in a BLP, would be inappropriate.

Sure. You might be right. I'm sure there is someone out there who has a gym membership and isn't using it for exercising. But that's clearly fallacious reasoning.

Gyms are notable as places of exercise. They are not notable for other activities. DT is notable as a place that funds conservative political action groups. It is not notable for other activities.

If you're really going to argue that a membership to a group whose purpose is funding political action groups, isn't inherently a political thing, I think the onus is really on you to demonstrate that Singer is using his membership for something other than its usual use. NickCT (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I see your insistence that I find more than a self published source for the non-political groups that they donate to but this is not actually reflected in Wikipedia policy. [2] This stands as a reliable source to show that they donate to Julliard. WP:ABOUTSELF.

Most of the rest of what you have to say is largely irrelevant. DT may be notable for its donation to conservative political causes but again this is irrelevant. While they may not be notable for donating to non political causes like Julliard, they still do. WP:NNC Notability criteria does not apply to content within an article.

To steal your example, Gym Membership, A source saying that an individual has a gym membership doesn't prove that an individual uses a treadmill. That's original research. Unsourced speculation. There's no reasonable basis for your position that the onus is on me to prove that he doesn't do something. You suggest that it is political, the onus is on you to prove it is political. Your source here does not prove this. It only proves membership. Selectively cherry picking wikipedia policy, misapplying wikipedia policy, and ignoring the principles of wikipedia policy do not make for much of an argument. This is what you are doing. Hell you even call out policy that doesn't apply. wp:coi and wp:autobio? Now notability criteria? It's simple, the source, what does it prove? That he has a membership. What else does it prove? Nothing. He may very well use DT to fund conservative causes. This is unknown. Your source does not show this. I'm not going to prove a negative or a position that is not my own. It is not my position that he does not use DT to channel money to conservative political causes. It is my position that the sources provided here do not show that he does. It's unknown currently. Provide a source that shows he does. Your misapplication of notability criteria does nothing for your case. Quit trying to make a false dichotomy here. Also, quit pinging me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: - re "WP:NNC Notability criteria does not apply to content within an article." - I'm confused. This seems to support my point. Remember, the folks here are arguing to exclude b/c they don't feel this fact is notable.

re "A source saying that an individual has a gym membership doesn't prove that an individual uses a treadmill." - Good work carrying the analogy. But a treadmill is a particular type of exercise in the same way neoconservatism is a particular type of politics. We are not saying "Singer is a member at DT, so he must be a neoconservative". There's a difference between saying that "someone is going to a gym, so they are probably exercising" and "someone is going to a gym, so they are probably using a treadmill". One of those comments is fair and reasonable. Singer has an account at DT, and that's probably relevant to his political behavior.

WP:DUE tells us that we should present information "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." You seem to be holding a single self published source over all the third party RS that exists. Clearly UNDUE. NickCT (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the most spirited defense of the view that not all Donors Trust activities are political is in the National Review ref: (Zeiser, Bill (September 24, 2014). "Dark Money". National Review. Retrieved February 7, 2015.) It is a somewhat weak example of a 3rd party, non-SPS source in that it relies on an interview with Donors Trust's founder/president/board chair. I think Donors Trusts location on the political spectrum might be best described as "non-liberal," or "neutral to conservative," in that they explicitly state they will not work with "liberal" causes. Hugh (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"What else does it prove? Nothing." I don't agree that the proposed content is so devoid of information as to be useless to our readers. The subject of this article has his own foundation. He could give to a grantee directly, and we would never know about it, but it might cause problems for the grantee, which needs a wide base of support to show it is a public charity, as opposed to a private foundation, in order to maintain the deductibility of donations, which is an important development tool. Donors Trust and other donor advised funds leverage IRS rulings that as a sort of pool of donors, a grant from a donor advised fund to a charity does not jeopardize its status, even if the original source of the cash is an individual. He could give through his foundation, but that would leave breadcrumbs in the foundation's mandated disclosures. Also, intermediating a grant through Donors Trust rather than his own foundation has advantageous tax treatment as Donors Trust is itself a charity as opposed to a foundation; he can deduct more and offset his considerable income. I agree we don't know from RS the magnitude of his largess to Donors Trust or the identities of the ultimate beneficiaries, let alone their political activity. Yet the key notability of Donors Trust is its ability to intermediate large donations anonymously. Hospitals and schools, sure, but another key aspect of the notability of Donors Trust is the copious RS on its predilection for organizations that are pushing the envelope of political activity by charities. Noting when RS is contradictory or unclear on a question is something we do on WP when necessary. This article includes highly noteworthy sections on both his philanthropy and political activity. In part the proposed content serves our readers, who take the time to understand Donors Trust a bit, to inform them that we do not have a complete accounting of the subject of this article's philanthropic and/or political activities, that we probably never will, and that it is by his choice/design. Hugh (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Would you agree to include the proposed content in the existing philanthropy section? Do I understand from your comments that you support the proposed content, in general, but you feel you cannot support the RfC without implicitly endorsing the view that contributions to Donors Trust are political? Hugh (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@NickCT:, Stop pinging me. WP:NNC does not support you and you do not understand the principles of due weight. WP:NNC posits that notability criteria applies to the creation and retention of an article and that it does not apply to the content of an article. To explain this to you, To write an article about Robert Singer and keep it from being deleted, Singer would have to be notable. This is not the content of the article but the subject of the article that has to be notable. In short and simple terms, Notability criteria does not apply here unless you are suggesting that Singer is not notable. It does not matter if DT is notable for donating to conservative causes.

WP:DUE does tell us to present information "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This article is about Singer, the source says Singer has an account with DT, The source does not say that Singer has an account with DT that he uses to fund conservative political causes. You are applying undue weight to his status as an account holder to say that he undertakes an activity that isn't supported by the sources provided. Just because he eats a McDoanlds doesn't mean he eats a Big Mac. With Chicken McNuggets on the menu its better not to speculate. You can not verify the Big Mac here.

@HughD: What does it prove besides he is an account holder? Nothing this the correct answer. He could be this, he could be that, he could wear blue socks today. This is all speculation. We do not know. It's not devoid of information it provides information. It provides information, information that he is an account holder.

I can not endorse this RFC, because I do not support this RFC. This RFC asks, "Can we put this in the political activity section because it is relevant to Singer's political activities?" The source does not support this notion. Nick CT brings up a question of whether we should consider DT a philanthropic organization. The only source I've seen to suggest that they are is [3] this self published source.The question would be if we give weight to the position that they are. The way to answer this question would be to follow WP:SELFPUB 5 questions. To me all of the questions suggest that we can reliably consider DT philanthropic. I'm not opposed to putting, "Singer has an account with Donors Trust." in the philanthropy section. I don't like the tone of a conservative donor advised fund.I don't consider that this leads to an impartial tone. This could be amended to something along the lines of, a nonprofit donor advised fund that does not support liberal causes. Except for the fact that they don't support liberal causes the organization seems apolitical.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued engagement. "It provides information, information that he is an account holder." Thanks, we are substantially in agreement, and of course that's all the proposed content claims, but as I explained above, I think it conveys a bit more than that, although yeah it proves nothing. Beyond their own website, another important source for Donors Trust's status is the US IRS, which considers Donors Trust a 501(c)(3) public charity: as a condition of the tax deductibility of donations, while they are not strictly prohibited from any involvement in politics, politics cannot be their main mission, they are expected to be nonpartisan, and they cannot endorse or material participate in political campaigns. Though, again, Donors Trust is notable for funding orgs that noodle up to those limitations. Also I agree you suggest a more accurate improvement to the brief description here (as well as the lede of Donors Trust), but I'm not sure our readers would say we are doing them a favor, a nonprofit donor advised fund that does not support liberal causes is kind of a mouthful, and I think many readers and fellow editors upon seeing it and will wonder WTF, you mean conservative? Hugh (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That is more of a philosophical discussion if it conveys more or not. It's not overtly relevant to the actual discussion here. It not directly or overtly convey anything but that he has a membership. We can't use the source to say anything but. Basically we either need a better source or we need to quit trying to lead the readers to a conclusion. Ok IRS, so then it seems fine to post it in the philanthropy. Yes that is long winded, but it is accurate and impartial, and it doesn't attempt to lead the reader to any unsourced notion about Singer. The Donors Trust is not a conservative donor advised fund, but instead it's a nonprofit donor advised fund for conservatives. While it is for conservatives, it doesn't exclusively support conservative nonprofit charities. It specifically doesn't support liberal causes. Something along the lines of nonprofit donor advised fund would perhaps be better.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

re "WP:NNC does not support you" - Perhaps you haven't read the discussion above. A number of folks are opposing inclusion on the basis that the information simply isn't notable. You've just argued that inclusion in the body of article isn't dictated by the information's notability.

re "The source does not say that Singer has an account with DT that he uses to fund conservative political causes." - Again, you seem to be focusing on a single source. There are lots of sources available saying that DT funds political causes. No 3rd party sources which say it funds something else. To go back to the gym analogy, you seem be arguing that since a reference doesn't explicitly say someone is using a gym for exercise, we can't know having a gym membership is relevant to someone's exercise routine. That's a weird "double think" argument. If we have a source saying he has a gym membership, and lots of sources saying gyms are for excercise, isn't it just a reasonable assumption to assume gym memberships are linked to exercise?

Your McDonalds analogy doesn't hold, b/c McDonalds is notable for serving much more than big Macs. DT is only notable for funding political efforts. NickCT (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The majority of what you have to say is irrelevant. Yes I said Notability guidelines do not dictate the content of the article. I also linked the policy said this. WP:NNC again is this policy. What is the relevance of, "A number of folks are opposing inclusion on the basis that the information simply isn't notable."? So what if they do? How is that relevent to this discussion? Notability guidelines do not apply, wp:nnc. wp:nnc is a shortcut to a section of wp:n which are the notability guidelines. They explain everything in a very clear and easy to understand manner.

I seem be focusing on one source because I am. If you brought 50 sources that said, "DT funds political causes", I would point out to you that are all completely irrelevant to the discussion and then I would ignore them and continue focusing on the one source available. It doesn't matter if you have a source that says that DT funds political causes. We are not talking about DT. We are talking about Singer. Dt does fund political causes. They also fund nonpolitical causes. DT's website shows this. You don't like that DT website shows this. It is actually irrelevant if you like that or not. While under your personal policy you do not find this to be acceptable, It is acceptable under wikipedia policy. Your policy is not applicable here, wikipedia policy is. The policy is wp:aboutself. However just to go ahead and state the obvious, Hugh has linked a 3rd party source that shows that DT supports nonpolitical causes. Two reliable sources. One a self published source and the other a 3rd party source.You shouldn't do analogies.

To further waste my time with your analogy, Singer has a membership to a gym (donors trust). At this Gym he exercises (donates money). We do not know if he uses a treadmill (donates to conservative causes) there or use a stationary bike (donates to nonpolitical causes). You're not saying that he exercises. You're saying that he uses a treadmill. You have no evidence, no source, nothing to make this claim. While I am sorry that the McDonalds analogy was not written delicately enough for you to understand, but is still holds. Your argument is again that because he uses a certain company he must use a specific product, ignoring that they have other products that he can use instead. This is all based on your intuition and not any evidence. It's original research. What you are trying to promote is original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: - re "Notability guidelines do not dictate the content of the article" - Right. So whether we feel the information is notable or not, it can go into the body of a article.

You keep pushing this idea that DT does more than fund political causes. You are doing this on the basis of a single self-published source, and basically ignoring that the overwhelming number of sources stating that DT funds political activities. If you're failing to see how this WP:UNDUE, you're simply trying to ignore the point.

If the KKK put on their website, "We fund animal hospitals", you would essentially argue that we couldn't know KKK membership was relevant to someone's position on race, because they may just be in the KKK to help animals.

That's willful foolishness. NickCT (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, Do not ping me. Understand?

I'm pushing no ideas. I am pointing out the verifiable fact that DT does fund more than political causes. I have provided a source for verification that meets wikipedia standards. You don't hear that. Though there is no need for it, Hugh has provided a 3rd party source that verifies this. You don't hear that. You keep spouting policy alphabet soup in lieu of an argument. You quote wp:coi above. It does not apply. You quote wp:autobio above. It does not apply. You misapply wp:aboutself above. wp:undue This again is a policy that you do not understand. You are advocating synth and trying to exclude reliable sources without a reasonable policy justification. Your synth, as with all original research is prohibited. This article is about Paul Singer. This article is not about Donors trust. Putting this information in the article under the political activity section does not make a statement about Donors Trust. This makes a statement about Paul Singer. You do not have a reliable source to verify this statement about Singer. You have not tried to provide such a source. You have focused on filling this conversation with irrelevant and useless information. Malformed analogies.. Your KKK analogy is malformed. It borders closely to being an association fallacy. I don't know that you could actually call it an association fallacy as it isn't competently written. Are you going to insert Nazi's in the conversation next? DT does have the option for donors to donate to nonpolitical causes. Again this has been verified. Donors Trust is a Donor Advised Fund. Paul Singer the account holder decides which organization that the funds he gives to Donors trust will go to. Paul Singer could possibly give it all to conservative political organizations. But this is speculation, because we don't know. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Get a source or drop the stick.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: Thanks for your response. The proposed content at the head of this thread seems to me a very straightforward paraphrase of the source. One source. How is it WP:SYNTH? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You are quite welcome, HughD. The passage cited in the source: Several wealthy conservatives who have attended Koch fundraising parties have Donors Trust accounts includes a short list of some of the donors naming Paul Singer as one. It doesn't categorize the fund as a conservative donor advised fund which is the topic of this RfC. I didn't quite understand the relevance of such an insignificant passing mention or what the inclusion of such a statement attempts to relay to the reader. Another statement in the cited source suggests: Conservative foundations and individuals use Donors Trust to pass money to a vast network of think tanks and media outlets that push free-market ideology in the states which also doesn't support the RfC topic statement, "conservative donor advised fund", so SYNTH must be used to draw the conclusion that Donors Trust is a conservative donor advised fund because the source doesn't support that statement. Singer is a conservative who donates to a charity believed to pass money to a vast network of yada yada yada. And? Is there not a better source than passing mention in a Koch-funded charity article? Paul Singer donates to many different charities so is the plan to list all the charities to which he donates in this BLP or just the ones believed to have a political slant? If the latter, we get into BALANCE, UNDUE and NPOV issues. Hope that explanation helps. Happy editing! Atsme☯^Consult 17:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. That is helpful. Yes, the term "conservative" is part of a brief definition of a new term, Donors Trust, on first mention in this article, in conformance with WP:LINKSYTLE and is drawn from the lede of Donors Trust's wp article, not necessarily from the refs cited here. How would you feel if the proposed content above wer amended to strike "conservative?" Thanks. In conjunction with the idea from above of adding the content to the philanthropy section? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. My recommendation would be to cite the source with in-text attribution, Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution. Community consensus will determine inclusion of a passage based on WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALANCE and of course, relevance. In this situation, is it [Wikipedia:Trivial_mentions|trivial]] noteworthy? The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. because the article actually isn't about the BLP and only involves his name in a list. Good luck. Atsme☯^Consult 00:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIALMENTION is an inapplicable essay here. WP:NNC Notability guidelines do not apply to content with in an article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant noteworthy. Btw, even though notability guidelines do not apply to article content, there is mention that explains how content coverage (noteworthiness) is governed by WP:WEIGHT and other content policies. One other such content policy is WP:NPOV which states: ...discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. There are parallels. Call it what you will, but having Singer's name in a list in an article about Koch is hardly noteworthy. Atsme☯^Consult 03:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Noteworthy may be the word you were looking for it's just not a word used by wp:weight. WP:weight would keep us from saying, Singer has an account with Donors Trust, a conservative donor advised fund. under the political activity section. The reason for this is because including it under the political activities section and with the word conservative makes unsubstantiated claims against Singer. Making such unsubstantiated claims detracts from the NPOV. Mentioning that Singer has an account with Donors Trust, a nonprofit donor advised fund. or Singer has an account with Donors Trust, a donor advised fund. or Singer has an account with Donors Trust. is different. These claims have been substantiated. It wouldn't meaningfully affect the balance of the article included in the philanthropy section. If you wanted to exclude that you'd need another basis than weight.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't state it as fact in Wiki voice. As I said earlier, inline citation with in-text attribution...so and so included Singer on a list with other conservatives as having an account with Donors Trust. But again, so what? Who cares? While mention of his views is appropriate, we don't need to dissect every nook and cranny of his personal finances. A little privacy please per BLP policy. More attention needs to focus on the format and MOS of this BLP because it leaves a lot to be desired. It reads more like a hybrid list than a BLP. See examples of GAs on BLPs: Stanley Marcus, Charles Keating, and Joe Biden for starters. Atsme☯^Consult 23:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You would not present this as fact and I would not eat bubble gum off of the ground. Both are irrelevant. Paul Singer gives money to Donors Trust. The source validates this. Your argument based on inline citation with in text attribution? You'd have to be more specific as They plan on using intext attribution it seems. They provide the source they plan on using. Your argument isn't that the source is unreliable. Privacy per BLP? Could you link the portion of the policy that you are referring to? The rest of it's a bit of a rant that doesn't have an application to this conversation. Strive for coherence. I mean you linked wp:NNC to the word noteworthy. This is not applying a policy, just applying a blue link. The policy would be wp:undue and the other policies related to what is noteworthy. Apply those policies instead of applying blue links to the page. You just don't like it and that's fine. You don't have to. There is no requirement that you like things on wikipedia. Instead of telling me you don't like it, go ahead apply policy to your conversation and explain why this should no way be in the article based on policy. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

SJP, please restrict your comments to content when addressing me. Atsme☯^Consult 02:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, if you feel the above is a personal attack, here is a convenient link to WP:ANI. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

re "Do not ping me" - Hmmm... Little touchy about the pings, huh? Well I'm sorry. It's not meant to be harassing.

You seem to be a little touchy about a lot of stuff. I think I'd echo Atsme's comments in asking that you try to focus on the argument rather than the arguer.

re "being an association fallacy" - Listen, if you don't like the KKK example point to any other group which is notable for one thing. Say he was a member of the of the ACLU. I'm sure there are people who hold membership in the ACLU for reasons other than supporting civil liberties. But if Singer had a "Position on Civil Liberties" section, it would be entirely apt to mention membership in the ACLU even if we didn't know exactly what he was doing with his membership. The ACLU if chiefly notable as an organization that tackles civil liberty issues. DT is chiefly notable as an organization that funds political advocacy. You can't point to the ACLU's website, note that they arrange bake sales, and say "Oh. Maybe Singer is a ACLU member b/c he likes bake sales". That's simply an unreasonable inference. NickCT (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Touchy about pings? Not at all. I am perhaps a little touchy about having to indicate to you 3 times that I don't wish you to ping me. Well since you wish to echo Atsme, Let me direct you up to my response. There's a convenient link directly to ANI. If you feel personally attacked or that I have attacked anyone then by all means use that convenient link and report it.

I don't like your KKK example because not only is it bad it's nonsensical. If you would like to switch it to the ACLU then by all means do, however it's still bad and nonsensical. The only difference now is it doesn't seem like you are trying to insert bias. The KKK is a hate group. It's very likely that people get membership to do something related to hate. The ACLU is ect and the primary purpose of a membership is ect. The Donors Trust is a donor advised fund. It is a charity that administers charitable donations on behalf of an individual, group or ect. It's only stated purpose is to insure that it won't go to liberal causes. They have available the option for the donors to direct their fund to some conservative causes and some non-political causes. If you would like to suggest that Singer directs his donations to conservative causes all you have to do is provide a reliable source for this. The ball is in and has long been in your court. Provide the source. If not then drop the stick. There's need for any more nonsensical and convoluted arguments.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

re "The ACLU is ect" - what is "ect"?

re "They have available the option for the donors to direct their fund to some conservative causes and some non-political causes" - Again, the only reference you have the "non-political causes" is DT itself. The way you're stating it, it seems like you are applying equal weight to DT's self-stated purpose, and the purpose a dozen independent 3rd party RS's say about it. Clearly undue.

re "If you would like to suggest that Singer directs his donations to conservative" - I think the onus is on you to provide a source that says that Singers membership at an organization, which almost exclusively funds political groups, is being used to fund something other than political groups.

re "There's need for any more nonsensical and convoluted arguments" - Agreed. Please stop offering them. NickCT (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Pardon, Etc... The only reference I have is a reliable source by wikipedia policy. If you don't not like this policy start an RFC or take some action to get it changed. And while this reliable source is the only I provided (to repeat this for again) Hugh provided a third party source above. But I don't expect that you hear any of this. While you "think" the onus is on me, it's more than clear under the BLP that the onus is on you. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source. Even with your original research your case fails to meet this simple standard. Btw, I'm not posting your comments and appending your signature to them. Your not the first editor to post nonsensical and convoluted arguments. No need to try to pass the buck.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: Regarding your opinion that WP should respect the anonymity, may I ask for the basis in policy or guideline? All of investigative journalism is publishing facts that someone does not want to be made public, is it your opinion that all results of investigative journalism are prohibited? Hugh (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about which clause under WP:INDISCRIMINATE you feel applies here? The proposed content is not "indiscriminate." The proposed content was published by Center for Public Integrity after an investigation of hundreds of contributions in many federal disclosure documents. This is exactly what "discriminate" looks like. The source of the proposed content is NBC News, a highly reliable, highly noteworthy source; sufficiently noteworthy that multiple references are not necessary for inclusion. The proposed content was published by NBC News because NBC News thought the proposed content was important to their readers. This is exactly what "due weight" looks like. Hugh (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, @HughD:, you don't make a case that this is not indiscriminate. You make a case that it is verifiable. Verifiability does not suggest that something is "discriminate". WP:INDISCRIMINATE points out that verifiability is not enough in itself for encyclopedic inclusion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. We agree, the proposed content is verifiable. We agree, verifiability is not everything. I will attempt to re-paraphrase the above stated reasons why this content is discriminate. Recognize the content is the result of investigative journalism. Although Donors Trust does not divulge its account holders, contributions to the fund may be included in the IRS filings of the donors themselves. The investigative journalists poured over many, many federal disclosures. Of all the contributors to Donors Trust, NBC News considered a few to be significantly noteworthy to share with their readers. Neither the NBC News source, nor the proposed content here, is an indiscriminate list of all donors, or of all donors they found. In short, the proposed content is discriminate for Wikipedia for the same reason it was discriminate for NBC News. No offense, but to me frankly this is pretty straightforward. If it is not to you, please ask for further clarification and I will try again. WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists 4 sub-cases, it might help me understand your issue if you could please identify which sub-case you feel is most applicable here toward demonstrating the proposed content is indiscriminant. Thanks again. Hugh (talk)

It may very well be "discriminate" at the DT article (note of course that I'm not saying it is or isn't), however this again is the Paul Singer article. One detail is provide by this source about Paul Singer. No actual context is provided. Now at the end you leave it to me to pick one of the four examples it would fall into. This tactic is faulty. There are no hard and fast rules at wikipedia. Not every possible example of indiscrimination is provided. You're trying to argue the letter of policy, but in application of wikipedia policies its well known that the actual spirit of the policy is more important than the letter.

Of course I'm just pointing out that your argument does nothing to show this is not indisciminate. However I just noted that this is a reprint of a CPI story and not an NBC story. I notice in the original printing more information is provided. Graphs and such. [4] Looking at the original print I do have to ask if Paul Singer actually has an account at all or if the Paul Singer family foundation is who has the account. Well it's actually clear that the Paul Singer Family Foundation has an account, but does Paul Singer actually have an account?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@BiologistBabe:, Can you show that Singer having a Donor's Trust Account, "will alter people's voting behavior"? Do you know of an election, Political Action Committee, or the like that his money that he has given to DT has went to? The sources under discussion do not show this information. There is no evidence that here taht Singers patronage of Donor's Trust will alter people's voting behavior.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2015 (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.

RfC: Should use of the term "vulture" be added to a BLP?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There are comments on past RFC's. RFC's findings are not forever, consensus can change, but it is not guaranteed to change. 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. AlbinoFerret 21:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Currently on Singer's page, the term "vulture" is described as having "attained widespread recognition throughout the media, and even within intergovernmental organisations, international financial institutions and numerous governments." Should this statement be added to a BLP? Meatsgains (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• We've already had this discussion [5]. Meatsgains knows this, because he had to acknowledge that he incorrectly portrayed the way the last RfC on this issue was closed [6]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an RfC on different content. Please re-read the RfC statement above. Meatsgains (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Third time's a charm, and in the mean time remove tonnes of sourced content and not even bother finding better sources or discussing it (again...). For anyone reading this talk page, it makes Singer come off far worse FYI. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - A BLP is not the place to add such description. Inclusion would be WP:COATRACK. Meatsgains (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: It's a WP:BLP violation to use this pejorative term to describe Singer. Sources including the term are referring to his company and not to him as an individual, so if anything, use of the term should be included on his company's page, but not on his personal biography. Attempts to add the term here smack of POV pushing, let's stick to the facts and not use fanciful language to criticize a BLP in Wikipedia's voice. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• support here from RFC-bot. Although we should be careful to not put words into people's mouth, and correctly attribute the phrasing (primarily the Argentinian government, but also other sources directly) Singer's funds are widely refereed to as vulture funds, singer has commented on that name, others have commented about his commenting, etc. I easily found a dozen or so WP:RS that use the phrasing. WP:NPOV practically requires we include it.

Sources attributing it to the argentinian government [7][8][9][10][11]

sources attributing it to someone other than the argentinian government (or in addition to) : [12][13][14]

Sources using the phrasing in their own voice: [15][16][17][18][19]Gaijin42 (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support - The previous discussion already came to the consensus that an attributed use of "vulture" in the lede was appropriate. Let's just do it an move on. NickCT (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support using the term "vulture fund" to describe his aggressive lending practices. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support of using a term widely used to describe him. Strong simply because consensus has already been reached in a previous discussion to use the term in the article. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, to add to the sources given by Gaijin42, the term "vulture" is commonly used in Argentina by the press to refer to Singer, by pro-government and anti-government newspapers as well as pro-market papers: [20] - "owner of the vulture fund", [21] - "head of the vulture fund Elliott Management", [22] "the 'Vulture' Paul Singer" and "owner of the vulture fund Elliott Management", [23] - "multimillionaire who represents the vulture funds", [24] - "the vulture financier Paul Singer", [25] - "the vulture Paul Singer", etc.

While obviously English language sources are favoured, these should be used to make clear in the article that it is all of Argentina, and not just the government, that refers to Singer directly as a vulture. It would be interesting to ask someone from WikiProject Republic of the Congo and WikiProject Peru what terminology is used by the press in those countries to describe Singer there and avoid the pro-market bias of the US media. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, please reread the RfC statement. I'm requesting other users' input on whether the statement, "the term has attained widespread recognition throughout the media, and even within intergovernmental organisations, international financial institutions and numerous governments" should be included on a BLP. Thanks Meatsgains (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Why then is the title of the RfC: "Should use of the term "vulture" be added to a BLP?"? It seems somewhat misleading. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I could have phrased the RfC heading better, but the statement is what users should be discussing. Since when do we base an RfC off of a heading? Meatsgains (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Not relevant

I hope you're being paid well for this Meatsgains, I admire the dedication. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Please stop making false accusations about my editing and focus on content here. Meatsgains (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC) SegataSanshiro1, your accusations against Meatsgains are not appropriate here on the article talk page. Please consult WP:NPA and focus on content, not contributors. If you feel you have legitimate concerns about another user's edits, air them in the appropriate place, which would be here. Unless and until you take any concerns you have to an official noticeboard for administrator's attention, it's distracting and uncollegial to make such accusations here. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It is easily addressed, as I have done here [26] - Cwobeel (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Result of Previous discussion

The weak consensus is to allow use of the term. It is weak because the context as to how the term be used was not clearly set forth in this RfC. (Is the term really "widely" used? That is a question for the EMC article.) Presumably the RfC was read with the "Purchasing sovereign debts" section in mind, but some editors !voted as if any usage of the term was acceptable simply because sources had used the term. (An example of improper usage is in the Timerman quote. His opinion piece in TheWorldPost actually says "...Singer could be branded as the inventor of vulture funds;..." and Timerman as a government official in Argentina has a dog in the default fight so his status as RS is weakened.) Other editors said "support" with conditions. Considering that the "oppose" editors correctly point out the derogatory, non-descriptive nature of the term, the section needs re-writing to avoid UNDUE use of the term least WP become a vehicle for those who have less than the highest regard for Singer. – S. Rich (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)'

This is simply a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it with one editor that has persistently denied any balanced views on the subject matter taking the helm on this discussion yet again. Since that discussion a mere year ago, numerous other sources have been indicated calling Singer a Vulture in different contexts. The most important of these perhaps is the South Korean case which has been completely ignored in this article. We should focus on adding new content and not have discussions stalled every time a single editor decides to throw down increasingly desperate hurdles. Based on the previous result and the context in which this is occurring, can we just close this pointless discussion and move on? SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Your continuing personal attacks are inappropriate. Please cease. Multiple editors disagree with your approach. I have carefully read the refs. The most reliable don't refer to the subject as a vulture. They refer to his funds as "vulture funds" and to him as the inventor of "vulture funds". Capitalismojo (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a personal attack, this is simply pointing out that we're going through a discussion that has already been had just because one editor doesn't agree with the consensus. Your points about the use of the term are valid, but Meatsgains is attempting to remove all references to the term (even though there is already consensus to use the term, which this editor repeatedly ignores) and not just the usage of the term outside the context you have described: Should use of the term "vulture" be added to a BLP?. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I am speaking of your continuing efforts describing other editors as paid shills and the suggestion that only one single "desperate" editor stands in the way of your truth. You are likely to find great trouble here if you follow this unconstructive path. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, the editor in question has rather aggressively pursued eliminating negative information from Singer's page. I think Sega could be forgiven for his/her perspective. That said, we should always WP:AGF and never accuse anyone of being "paid". NickCT (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2015 (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.

Moving content to appropriate section

I recently moved content noting "Singer's aggressive lending practices have been criticized by a number of politicians, journalists, business people and NGOs as having the traits of a vulture fund" from the lead section to the Elliott Management section, which covers his activities as a hedge fund manager. After being reverted, I am requesting other users' input on whether or not the content should be moved to a more appropriate section rather than the lead. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it should stay there. The lead should summarise the article, and without that sentence it does a poor job in that respect. The "sovereign debts" section is the biggest single section in the article -- the core issue of that section merits mention in the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The content I moved does not accurately summarize the sovereign debts section, it is just criticism. If we are going to include criticism in the lead, we need to also add Singer's perspective. However, rather than adding both, and the lead becoming convoluted, it would be better off moved to a different section. Meatsgains (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: - We could add Singer's perspective. Could you provide a link to some RS describing what Singer's perspective is? I think at this point, it's clear that having the content in question in the lead is WP:DUE. NickCT (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Distressed securities are only a small portion of their portfolio. Adding this to the lead would be undue and POV. I still maintain that the criticism along with Singer's perspective convolutes the lead and again would be undue. Meatsgains (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And the term "vulture fund" is derogatory and we should not be labeling the subject or his "lending practices" as such. Meatsgains (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: - Appreciate the point. But it's a term which appears widely throughout RS. If we cut "vulture" b/c we feel it's pejorative, what prevents people from objecting to other words they don't like? NickCT (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to say nothing. I object to any article using a libelous term used to disparage a subject. Its unencylopedic. Meatsgains (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: - But meats, what's the yardstick to determine whether something is a libelous pejorative? Surely if the term is used by a bunch of RS it isn't libelous. If it was, the people printing it would probably get sued for libel. NickCT (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's simply your opinion Meatsgains. You got your RfC now, please respect its conclusions. As for the Vulture Fund terminology and whether its encyclopaedic or not is currently up for discussion, though the goings on over there seem to reflect largely what has happened here... Wikipedia isn't here to ensure that it doesn't offend a couple of members of the financial community - it's here to provide verifiable information backed up by sources. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

What is my opinion? If it wasn't derogatory, wouldn't hedge funds call themselves "vulture funds"? Its like calling a political donor a "fat cat". Meatsgains (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: - It might be derogatory, which is why Wikipedia shouldn't use it in narrative voice. The point remains though, that if a large number of RS use the term in relation to Singer, it's appropriate and WP:DUE that WP does the same. NickCT (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Are we to add libelous terms describing individuals or their actions anytime it is supported in a reliable source? Meatsgains (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

And are you saying the information is due in the lead or just somewhere in the article? Meatsgains (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I swear we've just reached consensus on this for the second time now. Meatsgains, you might not like it, but you should just drop this now since you're being very disruptive. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This section is on a different topic. I think you may be reading "vulture fund" and lumping all discussions into one. Please stop accusing me of being disruptive as I am trying to improve the quality of the page. Meatsgains (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No Meatsgains, I was referring to the RfC directly above this one (the one you initiated) and the one before it (brought up multiple times in the above RfC) which both reached consensus on including the term in the article. I would have to disagree that you're improving the quality of the page and that instead you're making a lot of noise and bringing up the same concerns repeatedly to divert attention away from content which you deem to portray Singer in an unflattering light. Please cease from doing this, this is your last warning. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

One RfC, which I did not submit, asked if it is appropriate "to mention that Singer's company, NML Capital Limited, is widely described as a Vulture fund in reliable sources". Another discussion, not RfC, covered Argentina's description of Singer as a vulture and his practices as extortion. The next RfC asks whether content noting that the term vulture fund "attained widespread recognition throughout the media, and even within intergovernmental organisations, international financial institutions and numerous governments" warrants inclusion. Though similar, these are three different topics. Meatsgains (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Picking up the pieces

Now that the RfC is over, I was hoping we could get back to adding content to balance out the POV of this article and incorporate the criticism of Singer - which has been stalled repeatedly now. With the constant discussion, reversions and removal of content which has surrounded this page, a lot of reliable sources have been lost so I have taken the time to compile a list of these sources (discussed in this talk page or once previously used in the article) on here so we can begin to (re)incorporate them.

I don't know how to best manage this large list of (probably incomplete) resources gathered by multiple editors over the last year or so, but perhaps editors could incorporate sources, maybe make comments underneath them and then use the <s></s> markup to indicate that they have been either discarded or incorporated to make collaboration easier. Other suggestions welcome. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

General/Other

• Johann Hari: We must stop the 'vulture funds' that feed on the world's poor - The Independent

Article is completely one-sided. Meatsgains (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, but then using that criteria, shouldn't we remove all sources talking about all the wonderful charity work done by Singer? SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

His philanthropy is supported in non biased articles. Meatsgains (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• French stockmarket regulator fines Elliott hedge funds over APRR - Reuters

Singer not mentioned. Meatsgains (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

True. This should probably be used on the Elliott page. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Mitt Romney Profited By At Least $15.3 Million From Auto Bailout: Report - Huffington Post
• Was Romney Blind to His Adviser's Vulture Fund? - Huffington Post
• Vulture Fund Founder Singer Helps Back Giuliani Bid (Update1) - Bloomberg
• This Vulture-Fund Billionaire Is the GOP's Go-To Guy on Wall Street - Mother Jones

About Argentina (and other things)

• U.S. Hedge Funds Paint Argentina as Ally of Iranian ‘Devil’ part 1 part 2 - IPS
• The vulture capitalist who devoured Peru – and now threatens Argentina - The Independent

Information already covered in article. Meatsgains (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This backs up the view that he's a "vulture capitalist" and that he has been "portrayed as a greedy vulture" SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the article says he's "portrayed as a greedy vulture" confirms it is written with POV. Meatsgains (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are confusing Wikipedia with sources. It is the job of Wikipedia to be NPOV, not the sources which only need to be reliable. As editors we get different POVs found in reliable sources and through that establish a NPOV with different and opposing well sourced views. At the moment this page overwhelmingly features one POV: Singer's (which is also yours). Incorporating differing views will help balance the POV and improve the article. Furthermore, the article says he has been portrayed as such, which is fact (there's countless sources showing this) - we should also be reporting the fact that he has been repeatedly portrayed in this manner. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Kyle Bass big on Argentina; rips 'immoral' competitors - CNBC

Singer only mentioned as running Elliott. Meatsgains (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This should probably go on the Elliott page as well then. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Paul Singer Will Make Argentina Pay - Bloomberg Business

Information already covered in article. Meatsgains (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a bit disingenuous to say the least. Here's some interesting quotes:

• • • "He sued fellow billionaire Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies, known as SpaceX, hoping to take over the rights to two satellite-launch contracts Argentina had bought, valued at $56.5 million each. (SpaceX filed a motion to dismiss the suit.)"

Are we to include every dispute/suit Singer has been involved in? Meatsgains (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Well surely the fact alone that he has been in a lot is very notable. The recurring theme in many of these "Singer profile" sources is that he has been in many disputes, ranging from very prolific businesspeople and companies to sovereign nations and TNOs. This fact is almost completely absent from this article despite being present in almost every source. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This lawsuit is ripe for inclusion, with multiple independent noteworthy reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• • • "DellaCamera, Singer’s former head trader, {...} remembers still more about their weekly portfolio reviews. “We’d go through every single position we had, religiously,” he says. They’d do it at the office or Singer’s home, where his cook would prepare dinner for colleagues. “He didn’t want surprises. And when he felt there was a surprise, he would get upset,” DellaCamera says. “You’re into position five, two hours into this meeting, and you’re tired a little bit, and it’s going well, he’s not yelling at you, so you’re feeling good. And you get to the position, and let’s say it’s an investment in a gold mine in Peru or whatever the hell it is.” Singer might stop and remember a detail about mine work that was supposed to have begun. “This is an insignificant mine, and you’re trying to tell him that, but you don’t want to tell him that. Once you know you’re digging yourself in a hole, he just pounces on you. Oh, God. And that’s when he gets angry. Because in his mind, it’s all about the basics,” DellaCamera says. “He wouldn’t throw things, but he would yell. ‘How could you miss this?’ He would make you feel very uncomfortable.”

Not sure how Singer making people feel uncomfortable is notable... Meatsgains (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It says far more than that, don't play dumb. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• • • "In letters to his investors, Singer has cast a wide net of disapproval. {...} The Federal Reserve, he wrote elsewhere, is “a group of inbred academics” who have “lost any semblance, any wispy remnant of humility.” The U.S. and Europe are “headed for mass poverty and degradation of freedom.” Regulators “are quite sure to embarrass themselves again soon.” The government confiscating property “is not out of the realm of possibility.” Society itself might be undermined, he wrote this year, by a nation “disdaining the rule of law and paying whatever it wants to pay.”
    • "David Skeel, who studies bankruptcy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, says “a fair amount of Singer’s activities with developing-country debt have been immoral—trolling for claims and then pushing them to the hilt—but it’s hard to feel too sorry for Argentina.”

The criticism of his sovereign debt debts is already included in the article. Meatsgains (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Unlike the others, this specifically criticises Singer rather than Elliott/NML. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• • • "At the time, Occupy Wall Street protesters were still camped downtown in Zuccotti Park. Singer {...} called them “aging hippies, anticapitalists, and anti-Semites,” and “people desperately in need of potty training.”"

Far from notable. Meatsgains (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I recall, it was a very big and very significant global NSM. Singer's views on it seem pretty noteworthy, it's not like he's giving his views on the virtues of low fat as opposed to full fat milk. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• • • " At this year’s World Cup, according to a colleague, as the Argentine national team made its glorious push and its country teetered toward default, Singer was there, in the stadium. He was wearing an Argentina jersey." SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, not sure this is notable. Meatsgains (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. Perhaps this is bordering on trivia, but surely extremely interesting to a lot of people reading this. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Samsung incident

• Pictured: The 'offensive' Samsung cartoons of Jewish U.S. hedge fund boss which sparked anti-Semitism row in South Korea - The Daily Mail

Wouldn't classify as an RS. Meatsgains (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I would either, I think the Mail is utter trash - but that's not for you or me to decide and the fact is that it's one of the UK's most read newspapers and meets WP's policies on sources. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is widely considered an unreliable source on Wikipedia. Just check the archives at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Quite rightly so. In either case, I had incorporated another source from Fortune into the article, so the Mail can be removed. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Spat Between Samsung and NYC Hedge Fund Takes Nasty Detour Into Jew-Baiting - Observer

Jew-Baiting? Pretty unencyclopedic. Meatsgains (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Clearly no one is suggesting we use that terminology in the article. Besides, it's already being used as a reference, though it isn't being used to its full potential. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and incorporated these sources while attempting to represent both views accurately. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts of representing both sides but a cartoon about the subject is not notable. Meatsgains (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I fail to comprehend how in your eyes a conflict with the single wealthiest family in South Korea who own the majority of what is probably the world's largest technology firm accounting for 20% of the country's GDP is not notable. It's not the cartoons themselves which are notable, surely you can see that. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles in Spanish

• Quién es el financista que "cazó" a la Fragata Libertad en Ghana - La Nacion
• Paul Singer y la pelea de los fondos buitre: "La Argentina es la única responsable de sus heridas" - Cronista
• El ‘buitre’ Paul Singer pone su fortuna al servicio de una victoria republicana - Perfil
• Quién es Paul Singer, el multimillonario que representa a los fondos buitre - Los Andes
• Los argentinos del Club Singer & Griesa - Pagina/12
• El Grupo Clarín comparte con el buitre Paul Singer domicilio en un paraíso fiscal - Ambito

Comments

Your intentions on this page are clear. We are not to turn this into an attack page. The criticisms you are wanting to add are about his company and do not belong on a BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Meat, most of these sources are actually about Singer himself if you take the time to read through them. Furthermore, I don't think you are in any position to criticise my intentions. Let's just get back to focussing on content because this has been drawn out for far too long now. As I said above, I have taken the time to collect together all these sources put forward by numerous editors at one time or another, if you or others have problems with specific sources, then feel free to discuss above and hopefully we can make some progress. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The majority of the sources noted above cover information already on the page. Other sources only mention Elliott's activities. The remaining sources are biased articles written with an obvious slant against him. Meatsgains (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, you stated that you took the time "to collect together all these sources put forward by numerous editors". Aren't these sources ones that you personally found covering content you attempted to add to the page a couple months ago? Meatsgains (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a very inaccurate representation of the sources. And no, some are collected by myself, others mentioned by other editors in the RfC you started and others were found by looking through the page's edit history over the years. Meatsgains, can I ask if you intend to dig your heals in with absolutely everything on this page until you breathe your final breath? WP:NPOV clearly states that we must represent all significant views on Singer. There is still a lot to add which is WP:DUE as there is still a clear lack of balance in this article. If you continue, I will have to report this disruptive behaviour. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

All significant views are fairly represented in the article and I 'd have to disagree with you that the page lacks balance. My editing has not been disruptive, maybe persistent, but not disruptive. I have discussed all activity/issues in a civil matter. Meatsgains (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You are a prime example of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. What you are doing is slowing down discussion and preventing 'any view that disagrees with yours to enter article space. That is what's disruptive. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the recent edit history of this page, it seems clear to me that there is a concerted effort taking place to turn this page into an attack page. I'm frankly surprised more editors haven't gotten involved at this point. I would suggest it's time to take the disputes about this article to some other avenues to get more input from a variety of editors. Perhaps Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard? Safehaven86 (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what it is in the edits that you're referring to, but I feel that your recent edits were certainly a step in the right direction in removing promotional content from the page. Frankly, I'm a little bemused now and my patience with this page is wearing thin. This is the second time I have attempted to put all the sources on the table for editors to evaluate and incorporate as they see fit, but there have been constant digressions to the point where I feel as if I have been bludgeoned over the head to the point where I don't even know what we're discussing here anymore. By all means bring in more input as this has appeared to have reached a complete impasse once again. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Safehaven86: - re "attack page" - I'm also a little bit confused by this interpretation. The large majority of sources I'm seeing about Singer focus heavily on his questionable business practices. At the moment, the page only gives passing mention to this topic. We should really be working to balance the article by paying the topic due coverage so that it reflects the coverage it gets in the sources. Perhaps we should take this to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to see if we can deal with the folks ardently trying to censor any potentially negative coverage of this individual. NickCT (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A passing mention? "Singer's business practices have been described by detractors as having the characteristics of a vulture fund" is in the lead, and there is a long 5-paragraph section on sovereign debts. I wouldn't call that a passing mention. It could be that the reason some editors are finding content primarily focused on Singer's involvement with vulture funds is because editors are looking for this type of content. When I Googled Singer just now, I found a wide variety of content. There's a lot of information on his political involvement, particularly his support of gay rights in the context of his Republican political activities. There's a lot of information on his wealth (wealth rankings, etc.) There's a lot of information on his advice for investing and how he runs his hedge fund (i.e. right now he's apparently telling people to buy gold). There is also discussion about his investment strategies, including vulture funds. But I don't see any reliable sources saying Singer has done anything illegal (according to our article, the U.S Supreme Court sided with Singer in his dispute with Argentina), so the opinion that Singer's involvement with vulture funds is "questionable" is just that--an opinion. I think it's probably a notable one, but we need to take care that this article isn't focused on trying to right great wrongs. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Safehaven86: - Sure it's an opinion. It's an opinion like "OJ Simpson might have done something bad to his ex-wife" is an opinion. But saying it's "probably a notable one" is a gross understatement. It's obviously a notable one, b/c so many RS exist which have noted it. I can do a careful count, but my guess is that about half the readily available RS's discuss Singer in relation to the questionable business practices. In my mind, that means half this article should cover him in the same context. Currently, it doesn't. NickCT (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, check out O. J. Simpson's page. Do you see anything on there about "many people still think O.J. did it!" Nope. He was found not guilty. Those are the facts. If editors have a personal opinion that vulture funds are evil and Paul Singer must be exposed for his involvement with them, then I would suggest such editors will have a difficult time complying with our neutral point of view guidelines, particularly WP:IMPARTIAL. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Safehaven, pretty much every article out there which talks at length about singer predominantly focuses on Vulture funds - that is what he is known for. Not including this here would be like not including philosophy in the article on Immanuel Kant and then spend 2/3 of it talking about some fund raising for charity he did once. What has gone on with this page consistently and persistently is whitewashing and throwing down the gauntlet to any editor who dares balance out this very lopsided article about Singer. Can we also leave out this whole analogy about OJ Simpson? Singer has never been accused of murder, it's just not relevant and continuing this tendency to get into ridiculous discussions whenever anyone brings up any actual content. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Safehaven86: - Half of Simpson's page is dedicated to the trial. If you applied the reasoning you're using for Singer to OJ, you wouldn't even be mentioning the trial. NickCT (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, the fact that edits like this have been made on this page causes one to wonder if editors are here to build an encyclopedia or to build an attack page. Nuance isn't that hard. All I'm saying is if you want your edits to be taken seriously, try a little harder to abide by Wikipedia's policies. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I added some tags in the most problem sections. I think a lot of this arose when the sockpuppet Hedgefundfriend and then the COI account SingerFoundation and shortly after this Meatsgains and Comatmebro began making more refined attempts at pushing POV and increasingly odd attempts at establishing "consensus", etc (beginning here). Fixing up the section that portrays Singer as the messiah of modern capitalism, and then the other which portrays Argentina as a hysterical banana republic. I'm glad huge the Philanthropy section was condensed, but the Political activity section puts a lot of undue emphasis on his LGBT activity even though there are far more sources tying him with the Koch brothers, PACs and republican candidates. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think your latest tags are overkill. Hedgefundfriend last edited this page in 2010. SingerFoundation last edited this page in 2013. Both accounts have been blocked for years. It's not accurate to say "shortly after this" other editors began making attempts at "POV-pushing." By the way, you should link to those "other editors" you're accusing of POV-pushing. It's nice not to talk behind peoples' backs. As for their "odd attempts at establishing 'consensus'", give WP:CONSENSUS a read. It's not really odd at all, but an essential part of the Wikipedia process. I'm not seeing anything in this article that remotely connotes Singer as a "messiah" or Argentina as a "hysterical banana republic." It's possible your feelings on this subject may be too intense to allow you to view the article in an objective light. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Meatsgains and ‎Comatmebro (though the latter to a far lesser extent) - I'm not doing anything behind anyone's backs - they know my position by this point, there's no need to clarify it even more. It's extremely accurate to say "shortly after" since that was the first main activity on this page since those two accounts were blocked. I have no problem with consensus, what I have problems with are multiple discussions on the same issue which meatsgains just will not drop and then pretends like consensus has been established in his favour (whether or not we should use the term "vulture"). Or then a "concensus" established where the only people who have participated in discussion are these two editors and one person opposing them. Stop misrepresenting my views on that, I think this is swiftly becoming railroading - there is no need to act as Meatsgains' cavalry. Furthermore, with the tags, I exaggerate my view on here (which again you are attempting to discredit), but it should be clear to anyone from Argentina or anyone who has done significant reading on the matter that there is some serious systemic bias going on in that section and that the Argentine POV has not been incorporated at all. The commentary section is written entirely from Singer's POV and most of it is non-notable. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

SegataSanshiro1 Thank you for pinging me here - I have not contributed to this page in quite some time so I hope your "there is no need to act as Meatsgains' cavalry" jab was not directed my way...seem to be jumping the gun a bit there. If you wouldn't mind - could I have some time to wrap my brain around all of this, and then give my input where it seems appropriate? A quick read-through leads me to believe there is some tension between you and meats, and personally I'd not like to get dragged down into it. I respect your point of view on our other arguments (obviously related to this subject), I am assuming your edits are in good faith, and I'd like to keep all of this civil, if thats alright with you. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the "jab" was not directed at you, it was directed at Safehaven86 who clearly wanted me to ping you to get the old free market gang back together. This page probably needs a few more active editors on it, but perhaps not as many where it is abundantly clear where they stand. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this any more either and I think the mission of certain people to get me to just give up on this page has almost been accomplished. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, ok. Thanks for clarifying that you were intentionally directing a jab at me. Please be civil and WP:FOC. If you're unable to do so, your idea of taking a break from the article is an appropriate one. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I was describing it in the same way as Comatmebro since my previous statement had caused confusion - I have now put quotation marks around it to avoid further confusion. Can you please address the serious NPOV issues I have discussed above? There is a tendency on this talk page to get sidetracked from actual content, and if your intention - as you say - is to improve the page, then let's talk about those things. I also suggest - as you suggested - that a few of neutral editors to this page since it's becoming a farce. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)