Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)

Untitled

I just created this article on Feb 17 after watching democracy now. I have never started a page (as you can tell). Any help would be much appreciated. An article on Michael Sheehan and Debt Advisory International would also be helpful. Thanks to anyone helping get this article formatted right. Bestonadventures 17:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There are several things wrong with this article, not the least of which is its unprofessional tone.128.36.52.135 06:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)David

I agree. The tone of this article really is unprofessional. It sounds biased and not at all like what one would expect from an encyclopedia.Lesbianadvocate (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't accuse the author of intentionally doing so, but this page reads like a PR puff piece, not an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.102.34 (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up this page

Hello, given the comments here on the talk page, I wanted to step in and make some improvements to the page. As I have identified in both my username and in my userpage, I work in the financial services industry, have met a number of figures, including Paul Singer, and have done some work with his funds.

Obviously, I intend to abide by all Wikipedia rules, keeping in mind especially WP:BLP and WP:COI. However, there is clearly some basic low-hanging fruit that can improve this page dramatically and bring it up to wikipedia standards. I look forward to discussing the page with other people. Hedgefundfriend (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Clean up?

Dear HedgeFundFriend

Is a 'hedge fund friend' the right person to "clean this page up"? Presently, as noted above, this article reads like a PR piece for Singer, and very much not like an objective biography. I am going to start the ball rolling with a few changes to try to get a more balanced tone. If you or someone else has the time and knowledge and objectivity then please continue. Harry "Snapper" Organs (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I've just discovered that User:Hedgefundfriend was banned as a sockpuppet account -- further reason to regard his edits with suspicion. Cgingold (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Links to consider

Just some links I came across, putting them here for reference later. I'll add some of these (though others are clearly not suitable; just for information). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] The Sound and the Fury (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits from an official source

Hello -- I am affiliated with the Paul E. Singer Foundation. We at the Foundation would like to make some edits to this page to clear up some factual inaccuracies and add context. We are happy to make these edits in conjunction with the Wikipedia community, and we wish to do so in a spirit of transparency, openness, and fairness. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SingerFoundation (talk • contribs) 23:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for your message and for disclosing your affiliation. If you haven't already, reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest will be helpful. In terms of making edits to any pages affiliated with Paul Singer, I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as well. All additions/deletions of the article's content need to be accompanied by an independent, reliable source that verifies the information. I recommend that you post any suggested edits here on the talk page first in order to get consensus before editing the article itself. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Safehaven. For now, I'm going to undo your edits to my edits to the Philanthropy section, because as I explained on your Talk page, the previous information was incorrect due to a confusion between the Paul E. Singer Foundation and the Paul and Emily Singer Family Foundation, which are distinct entities and not related to one another. I will post additional suggested edits for discussion when I have more time. SingerFoundation (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I checked the sources for the material you deleted, and they do mention the Paul Singer Foundation. While it is possible the sources themselves may be wrong, keep in mind Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. The facts stated in the article, with references to reliable sources, cannot be removed unless you can introduce some alternative compelling sources stating that the original sources were in error. Your edit stating that "Paul Singer is a committed philanthropist" is not in line with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. While Paul Singer may indeed be a committed philanthropist, that can be shown neutrally via discussion of his philanthropic activities, and not by simply making the claim. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Lee Fang

I removed the statement below because I don't see how ThinkProgress can be considered an RS.

Lee Fang, writing for the progressive political blog ThinkProgress, claimed that 'the rise of Singer’s political profile can be traced to his work as a top donor to pro-Bush character-assassination (sic) groups like the Swift Boat Veterans."

I am up for discussion on this and would like to know why it should be included on the page. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Romney and Delphi

I removed the Romney and Delphi section and its contents because this type of information does not belong on Paul Singer's personal page. Delphi was an investment that Elliott Management Corporation made. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've restored this section, as it is directly relevant to Singer, and not just his company. This reference in that section includes:

Romney's windfall from the bailout is directly tied to his relationship with Paul Singer, the billionaire hedge fund manager who donated $1 million to the Republican's presidential campaign in April.

This reference says:

Singer's fund bought, for twenty cents on the dollar, Delphi bonds -- lots of them. With Delphi under Singer's control, he threatened to shut it down unless the taxpayer bailed it out -- holding General Motors and Chrysler hostage, because if Delphi shut down, the companies would lack steering columns and other essential parts. After getting his way, and a $7.3 billion bailout from the public, Singer then closed all but five U.S. plants to move these operations and 25,000 jobs to China. Mitt Romney's investments in Singer's fund help make this loss of American jobs possible.

Since it's talking about Singer's direct involvement, and not just something the company did with or without his consent, the section should stay. Ruby Murray 07:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've also added the original Nation article in this reference that the two above used as a source, and it discusses Singer's direct involvement at length. Ruby Murray 08:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand you see this section as relevant and there are connections but Singer and Elliott Management Corporation are two different entities. Singer's page is a BLP and is independent from the corporation. I don't think that Elliott Management Corporation's actions should be reflected on Singer's page. The quote you pulled from the Huffington Post stated that the Romney's invested in "Singer's fund," which is EMC. Again, Singer's fund is not directly tied to Singer but rather the corporation.

The page already includes Singer's $1 million donation to the Republican's presidential campaign in support of Romney but I don't see how this automatically creates a "relationship" between the two. How close of a relationship do Singer and Romney really have? Singer has donated and fundraised for a number of different clubs, organizations, and individuals.

Yes, the sources you used are reliable but the the quote, “Mitt Romney's investments in Singer's fund help make this loss of American jobs possible” is not from a neutral point of view. It is a bias statement from a progressive contributor to the Huffington Post. Wouldn't you agree that this reads more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia? Let me know your thoughts. Meatsgains (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Huffington Post quotes were both POV and unnecessary, so I've replaced them with a more neutral description. But Singer's personal involvement in the Delphi incident is detailed in the original Nation article, so the section is relevant for a BLP. If you think the section needs further improvements in wording for NPOV, then let's fix that, rather than delete the section. Ruby Murray 06:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

To start off, the original Nation article is heavily slanted in opposition of Singer. Each time the hedge fund (EMC) is mentioned, the article intentionally tagged Singer's name to it to make him appear as the bad guy. I pulled a number of biased quotes from the Nation article that are specific in stating the corporation's involvement.

• "One of the hedge funds profiting from that bailout—
$1.28 billion so far—is Elliott Management, directed by 
Paul Singer."
• "Mitt Romney investing at least $1 million with Elliott"
• "Singer’s Elliott bought Delphi debt"
• "Elliott’s purchases cost just 20 cents on the dollar of their face value."
• "the hedge funds, under Singer’s lead, used their bonds to buy up a controlling interest in Delphi’s stock."
• "the Singer syndicate took Delphi public at $22 a share"
• "Singer’s fund investors scored a gain of $904 million"
• "Singer’s funds and partners, combining what they’ve sold and what they hold, have $1.29 billion in profits, about forty-four times their original investment."
• "GM also forgave $2.5 billion in debt owed to it by Delphi, and $2 billion due from Singer and company upon Delphi’s exit from Chapter 11 bankruptcy."
• "Delphi’s management—now effectively under the hedge funders’ control"
• "After the hedge fund takeover of Delphi"
• "The Romneys were invested with Elliott Management"

The article made the reader full aware of Singer's ties with the hedge fund but I couldn't find a quote that stated Singer was personally responsible; it was Elliott Management Corporation. The original article would say things like "Singer's fund", "the Singer syndicate", or "Singer and company" to make it appear to the reader that he was the only one responsible. I realize he is the director of EMC but it is the decisions of the corporation not solely his. I just don't see how the information about the hedge fund's involvement belongs on his personal page. Meatsgains (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Singer has more than just "ties with the hedge fund". He founded Elliott, and he's the CEO. References in the article state that Singer personally (not his company) donated $1 million to the Romney campaign. The Romneys invested in Singer's company. Singer's company and Romney made the mutually profitable deal described. We don't need verification that Singer was personally responsible: if he, as CEO of the company, wasn't aware of any of this, then that's just as significant in a bio. If you'd like to point out in that section that there's no evidence that Singer knew of the deal, I'd have no objection. Ruby Murray 09:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added cites from Fortune, Forbes and the New York Post, which say essentially the same thing: Singer was responsible for the Delphi deal. Ruby Murray 10:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Does the "Romney and Delphi" section belong on Singer's personal page?

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

---

Should the "Romney and Delphi" section be removed? Meatsgains (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

(old) Survey

• Support keeping the section.
• Oppose, it does not belong on a BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This information could belong in a BLP if it was well sourced. However, it appears that it relies on a single source (Nation) with a clear POV. Rather than indicate a well-established relationship between Singer and Romney, the source uses innuendo and inference to create this linkage. Singer's fund and Singer the individual are two separate and distinct entities. One possible solution is to have a section on EMC and, within the body of that section, briefly mention some of its high profile investments. Beyond that, we begin to overreach the scope of a BLP. Factchecker25 (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Singer and EMC are completely independent from each other when it comes to a BLP. Why is there a section on the Romney Delphi deal on his personal page but none of EMC's other deals? Seems like there is a motive behind adding this information to his personal page. Meatsgains (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Making the claim that Singer had a "reputation for strong-arming his way to profit" and not including examples of his other investment endeavors violates WP:POV and should be removed from the article (unless additional sources are available to balance the POV of the paragraph.) Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 17:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Singer had knowledge of Elliott Management Corporation's deal but that isn't cause to put it in his page. I'm sure he has knowledge of every deal that comes through EMC. Does that mean that every deal he's ever known belongs on his page? I don't think so. Let me hear your thoughts. Meatsgains (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • An encyclopedic article is not the place to make determinations regarding what a person knew or did not know as this is pure conjecture. The issue is whether a specific deal undertaken by a company with which the subject of a BLP is associated should be given undue weight in the BLP. It seems the consensus view is that it should not as it violates NPOV. Factchecker25 (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• The bottom line here, at least from what I'm seeing, is that this critical commentary is at minimum misplaced. There may be merit to describing it somewhere in Romney's biography since he was the primary subject of discussion, but in Singer's case, there is not enough weight to consider it worthy of more than, at most, a mention in passing at this time.   — C M B J   04:12, 5 January 2014 (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.

"Remove POV content from a BLP"?

Would the person who made this edit please explain his or her rationale? Note that the deleted material is sourced to the New York Times and the Guardian, two sources that are likely to hold up well if their reliability is disputed. Also you might want to take a look at WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

While I respectfully agree that yes, the information is properly sourced to the New York Times and the Guardian, I'd have to disagree with the use of the term "vulture capitalist". Using this term is both a violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Your edits seem to put an unnecessary, negative spin on the page. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject. By adding "vulture capitalist", the article reads much more like a tabloid rather than an encyclopedia, wouldn't you agree?

Also, nowhere in this source does it state that "Singer has said that he hopes to elect officials who will oppose government regulation of finance." I don't doubt the legitimacy behind this claim, but the article does not explicitly make this bold statement. We must be careful to not make such assumptions. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

::For some reason you have linked to page 2 of the NYT article. In the opening paragraphs, on page 1, it says:

Mr. Singer, professorial and soft-spoken, used a gathering of business and government leaders at the conservative Manhattan Institute to lash out at “indiscriminate attacks by political leaders against anything that moves in the world of finance.” Government efforts to “take over and run” the economy through more regulations, he warned, threatened to ruin the United States’ standing as the world leader in finance.

As the head of a $17 billion hedge fund, Mr. Singer, a self-described Barry Goldwater conservative who is 66, is using his financial might to try to change those policies. He has become one of the biggest bankrollers of Republican causes, giving more than $4 million of his money and raising millions more through fund-raisers he hosts for like-minded candidates who often share his distaste for what they view as governmental over-meddling in the financial industry.

If you would like to propose an alternate wording, I'm fine with that. But nowhere in NPOV or BLP does is say to exclude information that is deemed by an editor to be "negative." It does say that if must be properly sourced and not given undue weight. BLP says explicitly, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Here are some additional source citations on the connection of Singer to vulture funds:

Financial Times: "Mr Singer chafes at the term “vulture fund”. (Good quote, should go in article.)

Huffington Post: editorial by the foreign minister of Argentina, who says, "Paul Singer could be branded as the inventor of vulture funds." (Also should go in article.)

The Hindu

Bloomberg

Tagesschau

USA Today

Mr. Singer's connection to vulture funds ("vulture capitalist" was your term, not mine) is probably his single most notable quality. Joe Bodacious (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The term vulture fund is a pejorative. It is a loaded word that suggests strong disapproval and is slang used by business insiders. Words or phrases such as these are in clear violation of WP:TONE. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act isn't referred to as Obamacare throughout the article because Obamacare has a negative connotation tied to it. It is the same situation. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That might be an argument for putting "vulture fund" in scare quotes, but not for eliminating it from the article, for the simple reason that all the sources I provided use the term "vulture fund" (what is the term you would prefer? Is there actually any less pejorative term for this specific practice? It's no longer just for "business insiders" -- it's being debated all over the planet.) And as the Argentina crisis unfolds, you are going to see those sources multiply, and Mr. Singer is going to quickly become much better known than he presently is. Again, to quote WP:BLP, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." If you like, I can move this discussion to the BLP noticeboard. But I don't think your unusual interpretation of policy will gain much traction there. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course all the sources you provided call it a vulture fund because you made sure to find the sources that call it that. There are plenty of articles out there [8][9] calling NML Capital, Elliott Management, and all the others, hedge funds. (I can provide more sources, if you need me too). In this article, Newsweek calls Elliott Management a "multibillion-dollar New York hedge fund." Argentina’s president, Cristina Kirchner, is the one who calls them a "vulture fund" obviously in spite of the Supreme Court's recent ruling. It is not the source calling them a vulture fund.

There is no arguing that "vulture fund" is a pejorative. It is very misleading and does not belong on Singer's personal page. Even this article by the Huffington Post states that it "is highly misleading" Below is a quote from the article:

Although the creditors are often referred to as "vultures," the pejorative is highly misleading. They are bondholders with the law on their side, seeking nothing more than repayment of debts voluntarily entered into by Argentina. Elliot Management, for example, is a multi-billion operation that manages university endowments and pension funds.

Best, Meatsgains (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Hedge fund" is a far more general term, which embraces a wide array of speculative activities. If there were only one or two sources that used the term "vulture fund" to describe NML Capital, there might be an argument for exclusion, but that is not the case (WP:PUBLICFIGURE says "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.) Meatgains, you are simply arguing that any commentary on Mr. Singer's activities that might be considered "negative" must be kept out of the article at all costs, and your argument does not jibe with Wikipedia policy. Therefore, I will re-add the material after I have carefully re-formulated it based on all the new sources. If you want to continue this dispute you may then revert it, and I'll take it to one of the noticeboards. Joe Bodacious (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In this case, there are no speculative activities when using the term "hedge funds" as NML's acttions are explicitly described multiple times throughout Singer's page.

There are just as many, if not more, articles citing NML as a "hedge fund" so that argument is moot (as stated before, I can find them if you would like me to). Meatsgains (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a basic misunderstanding here of the NPOV policy. It means that if numerous reliable sources take one view, and numerous other reliable sources take a different view, we include both views. It doesn't mean "exclude the view you don't like." Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI I have opened a discussion at WP:BLPN#Paul Singer (businessman). Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: should the article Paul Singer (businessman) mention that his company has been called a vulture fund?

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

---

Is it appropriate under Wikipedia policy to mention that Singer's company, NML Capital Limited, is widely described as a Vulture fund in reliable sources? Joe Bodacious (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support inclusion of the term, which is widely used in reliable sources Joe Bodacious (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The term is derogatory, not descriptive. Vulture fund is about as pejorative as the term "fat cat". It's inappropriate, see WP:ICW. Meatsgains (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of this well sourced material, as long as appropriate care is used in phrasing and mantaining narrative distance as was done in the most recent version and in ensuring the article reflects the proper balance of views found in reliable sources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The term has widespread usage and is clearly "encyclopaedic." The collection of sources using the term in relation to Singer's business is impressively large. There's no BLP violation if "negative" material is well sourced. QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Many reliable sources use the term. Darx9url (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. Singer runs a hedge fund that focuses on distressed debt - a term that can be loosely defined as the debt of companies that have filed for bankruptcy or have a significant chance of filing for bankruptcy in the near future. The term "vulture fund" is loaded and biased. If anything, I would suggest a compromise that states "singer runs a hedge fund focusing on distressed debt, whose critics have referred to as a vulture fund." Any additional mentions of the fund should refer to it as a hedge fund. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 16:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I could support that phrasing. If there's a direct quotation, then that's even better. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Note that the original phrasing just before the RFC was called [10] was "NML Capital Limited, a subsidiary of Elliott described in some media reports as a "vulture fund",[ref][ref][ref]", which is not far from that suggested above, with further mentions of "vulture fund" confined to direct quotes. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support My understanding is that the Huffington Post isn't necessarily reliable, New York Times and Bloomberg reveiw are definitely reliable, therefore it stays, and yes I know "Vulture Fund" is a derogatory term (I work in the financial industry), but we're here to report what reliable sources state, and they do state his is a vulture fund. Kosh Vorlon    16:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support Only to be used in direct quotations of reliable sources, otherwise the WP:LIBEL policy may be in play. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support If reliable sources refer to the fund as a vulture fund, then it is appropriate for the article state that fact. It is in no way libelous to report the public statements of reliable sources. Jojalozzo 12:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Absolutely Support inasmuch as Wikipedia seeks to be encyclopedic, and more information is generally better than less provided that said information is suitably referenced and testable and verified true. Damotclese (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. No BLP violation as long as term is attributed to sources. — goethean 19:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - if that's how it is described then that's how it should be described here. I'd also support, though, some attribution - "x, x and x have described y as a 'Vulture Fund'." If they want to use that term then we should quote them here using that term. Should resolve some of the libel concerns. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of "vulture fund", NML Capital is a hedge fund. In order to maintain Wikipedia's "encyclopaedic" format we should be presenting facts, not opinionated and loaded terms such as "vulture fund." Fraulein451 (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely NML Capital is what reliable secondary sources say it is… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. Describe NML as a fund whose investment strategy includes distressed assets in its portfolio, or whatever it actually does. Also mention NML has been called a VF by x,y,z per Stalwart above. We should not lead with a perjorative description, even with attribution. This is not rocket science. Write a dispassionate and neutral description of NML first, then get into the notable opinions of NML.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of the term!--Fox1942 (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per Two kinds of pork above; the term is certainly pejorative, but is widely used and should be mentioned, provided a less biased description is also given. Wallace McDonald (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support -- the term is widely used in reliable sources. It is therefore no violation of BLP to include it; on the contrary, it would be inconsistent with NPOV not to include it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The BLP policy says the following: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Here is a partial listing of reliable third-party sources which have describe NML Capital as a "vulture fund":

New York Times

The Guardian

Financial Times

Huffington Post

The Hindu

Bloomberg

Tagesschau

USA Today

New York Post

Forbes

Buenos Aires Herald

Lebanon Daily News

Global Post

Epoch Times

Joe Bodacious (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I also provided a partial list of reliable third party sources calling the term "vulture fund" a misleading, derogatory, pejorative.

• Huffington Post
• Oxford Reference
• The Law Dictionary

Vulture fund's own article states that "The term is used to criticize the fund for strategically profiting off of debtors that are in financial distress." It is non-encyclopedic and not suitable for a BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your list. Under NPOV, both viewpoints should be included, in relative proportion to how they appear in reliable sources. Joe Bodacious (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Meatsgains, could you please quote the precise section of policy which you believe would be breached by including this material? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding the term vulture fund falls under the guideline list of What Wikipedia is not and "Information that falls under any guideline listed under What Wikipedia is not or several other Wikipedia guidelines and has been added to an article can be boldly removed." Adding the term vulture fund falls under the specific guideline WP:INAPPROPRIATE, which states that "Text that is intended to attack or disparage the subject. For example, if something derogatory is found in an article about a person using a pejorative term against that person's ethnicity, it shall be promptly removed." Meatsgains (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that WP:INAPPROPRIATE is an essay, not policy, and in any event "vulture fund" is not a "pejorative term against [a] person's ethnicity". With regard to What Wikipedia is not please identify which section you believe applies. For example, do you believe that WP:NOTCENSORED supports your position? Or are you thinking of some other section? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional note: this topic has now been debated on this page, at the BLP noticeboard, at the Administrators' Incident noticeboard, and now once again at this RfC. It inevitably converges on the same result every time. So after this, WP:OTHERPARENT should apply. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Essays are not policy or guidelines that must be followed, but aren't they worthy of consideration?

Criticizing an organization with an unfavorable adjective that they don't apply to themselves is inappropriate. As stated before, it is a slang term used by critics, and is again inappropriate. WP:TONE states that an article "should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon."

In response to Jonathan, the pejorative term about "a person's ethnicity" was an example. The quote I pulled from WP:INAPPROPRIATE states, "For example, if something derogatory is found in an article about a person using a pejorative term against that person's ethnicity, it shall be promptly removed." I wasn't asserting "vulture fund" as a pejorative term against a person's ethnicity-it was an example.

I would like to bring up another example Two Kinds of Pork's brought to the ANI, which said "...the article is about a person, so BLP does apply. If we said that Heidi Fliess ran a whorehouse instead of a bordello, that would be a BLP issue." It is the same situation. Meatsgains (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

As it says at WP:INAPPROPRIATE "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." That is, the fact that somebody has stated something in a WP:ESSAY is of no particular value in determining consensus. Of course you are free to use arguments taken from essays in structuring your own argument, but that is as far as it goes.

Note further that in the section you quote "Text that is intended to attack or disparage the subject" links to the policy document WP:LIBEL, so the intended meaning is clear. Are you claiming that this material, impeccably sourced to multiple reliable sources, is libel?

With regard to the comment from Two kinds of pork, you forgot to quote the reply from Only in death does duty end, who said "Not if multiple reliable sources also called it a whorehouse", which is precisely the case here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I've stated no opinion on this matter, and I may not opine whatsoever. Regardless, my interest here is to see this dispute resolved amicably. I would appreciate discussion from the primary participants to be held in this discussion thread instead of the "voting" thread where the majority of the RfC participants will state their position. In other words, if you are going to respond to arguments from people who are volunteering their time and brain energy, don't bombast them with rehashed arguments and dominate the discussion. The neutral closer will no doubt understand every argument being made without having to read it as nauseum. Furthermore, I'm going to petition for an admin to close this now, so they can be prepared to make a decision when the RfC runs a course, or should they deem the consensus is rock solid towards one position or another.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Hi there. I came across this RfC after making some edits to the vulture fund page relating to Paul Singer. Is it worth noting that Joe Bodacious has been indefinitely removed from wikipedia for accusations of sock puppetry? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Joe_Bodacious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Herschelkrustofsky. I noticed he made several contributions to Paul Singer Vulture Fund and Argentine debt restructuring. In all three cases the information added by the user was related to Paul Singer - the user has been removed for similar work with another wikipedia BLP. Thoughts? Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 01:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, certainly if there are two !votes from the same person above, then one should be disregarded. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits struck through - routine. If they hadn't been responded to I would have removed them. Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment I think that this topic needs to be revisited with the recent striking of the edits included in this RfC. NinjaRobotPirate and I agreed to a possible rewording of the statement on July 18th, does anyone else feel like the way this is written needs to be reviewed again, and possibly rewritten? Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 05:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Changing the wording during the course of an RfC is a bad idea -- it becomes unclear how to close it, because what people expressed support or opposition for is no longer clear. I also don't agree that it's necessary here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nomoskedasticity here: the closing admin should be able to distill a clear decision from the discussion. In fact I don't think there's much actual disagreement between those who formally list themselves as supporters and as weak opposers; see also my comment on the form of the text before the RFC. Sure people have preferences for exact wording, but I can't see many people getting really excited over that: the argument is largely over the in principle question of whether the term should be included at all, with almost everybody adopting some version of "follow the sources". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. It seems users are divided into three categories on this RfC: those who support the inclusion, those who support a revised inclusion, and those who oppose inclusion. I fall under the oppose category and think the closing admin has a difficult decision to make that only becomes more difficult as the user who submitted the RfC in the first place is an accused sockpuppet. Fraulein451 (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Correction to my post above, Joe Bodacious is a confirmed sockpuppet, not an accused sock puppet.

Time for closure?

Per the suggestion of FreeRangeFrog below, is it time to request closure of this RfC? As previously discussed the RfC should if possible be closed by an uninvolved administrator. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is time for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC. It has not received activity since July 29th. Meatsgains (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2014 (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.

Protection

I've protected the article pending close of the RFC above. I have no opinion as to whether the term should be included in the article, however regardless of that the material being added and edit-warred over by an IP was very inappropriately worded. And as I am involved now to a certain extent, I cannot close the RFC, but someone should probably do so soon. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Self-published tag

I'm curious why a self-published source tag was placed on this article. I see at least 50 secondary sources here, the bulk of which appear to come from well-established newspapers and media outlets. What are the objectionable sources? Where they exist, let's remove them rather than tagging the whole article in a somewhat mystifying way. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't heard any discussion on this, and I still see no evidence of an issue with self-published sourcing, so I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Singer and Iran

Meatsgains, why do you feel this addition is POV? For example, why do you feel the NYT is not a neutral source?Jimjilin (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If you have no objections I'll add the material about Singer and Iran.Jimjilin (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times article you provided does not support the information you added. Meatsgains (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a WP:VERIFIABILITY issue. The NYT source does not verify the content that you added. You added: "Singer has been accused of funding opposition to radical Islam, in particular promoting the use of military force against Iran." I read the NYT article and found only: "Mr. Singer is a self-described conservative libertarian who has given millions of dollars to Republican organizations that emphasize a strong military and support Israel." Those are not the same thing. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You missed this: As for the war in Iraq, he [Singer] said, “America finds itself at an early stage of a drawn-out existential struggle with radical strains of pan-national Islamists.” How about: Singer has given millions of dollars to Republicans who favor Israel and a hawkish foreign policy. Jimjilin (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Your proposed contribution is still not accurate nor is it supported by the NYT article. Meatsgains (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It'd almost a direct quote from the NYT article! Please tell me specifically what you object to.Jimjilin (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC) If you don't have any objections I'll add: "Singer has given millions of dollars to Republican organizations that emphasize a strong military and support Israel." User:Jimjilin|Jimjilin]] (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing remotely approaching your suggested text is to be found in the NYT article. This is a classic case of WP:SYNTH. It is nowhere near a direct quote. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I quoted the NYT exactly.Jimjilin (talk) 13:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The content you added is already touched upon in later sections and is unnecessary. Meatsgains (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Donors Trust

It seems like there's been some back and forth on the inclusion of the Donor's Trust material from @Arthur Rubin, Champaign Supernova, and HughD:. Personally, I'm a tad surprised this addition would be controversial. That the guy contributes to political advocacy groups or "donor advised funds" or whatever you want to call them, doesn't strike me as all that amazing. The argument for removing the material seems to be that it is "not important". Couple counter arguments; 1) It likely is important by virtue of the fact that it's mentioned in an RS, 2) "not important" is not a policy-based argument against inclusion. The standard for inclusion in the body of an article is simply that something be verifiable, which this is. NickCT (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There are at least two reasons for exclusion:

1. "Having an account" does not imply making a contribution, nor should we allow the reader to infer that. "Having an account", in itself, should not be of interest to anyone.
2. In my opinion, it falls under WP:Handling trivia#Stand-alone trivia; even if he did make a contribution to Donors Trust; it's not much more interesting than that he opposed Obama in the 2012 general election, nor more relevant than his favorite color.

I need to go to a doctor's appointment in 15 minutes. Perhaps, I'll be back, afterwards. If you can provide any argument why this is relevant and important, I may reconsider.

Oh, and if you NickCT were invited here by HughD, as you were to other discussions, that was improper WP:CANVASSING. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: re "Having an account" does not imply making a contribution - Perhaps your understanding of Donors Trust is different than mine, but I believe people have accounts at Donors Trust in order to make contributions so I think it does imply that. But regardless, the section is about his politics. Having "an account" at Donors Trust is relevant to your political position.

re "WP:Handling trivia#Stand-alone trivia" - Can you clarify exactly which portion of that policy you feel the addition violates? Are you saying it cannot be integrated into the text without distracting from it? Because it's hard to see how a section on his political donations and affiliations distracts from a section about his political activity. NickCT (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine how someone who didn't believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy" would find interesting that a conservative would "have an account" with a conservative charity. If it were asserted that he gave millions, that would be different. The claim has been made that the fact that a noteworthy source makes note of a fact makes the fact noteworthy. That is absurd, unless the source has some claim to being unbiased. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It's been stated above that "the standard for inclusion in the body of an article is simply that something be verifiable." That's directly contravened by WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Content need not only be true and verifiable, it needs to be noteworthy and significant, meaning, among other things, it needs to have achieved significant coverage in reliable sources. The assertion that "I believe people have accounts at Donors Trust in order to make contributions so I think it does imply that" is just a personal opinion without verification. Based on the available sourcing, we cannot verify what it means to have an account at Donors Trust. Does it mean he is signed up for their email list? That he gave them a million dollars? We just don't know, and its speculative to say that "having an account" is WP:NOTABLE when we don't know what it means to "have an account." Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"we cannot verify what it means to have an account" You are here litigating that we can't be sure what "holding an account" means? Really? It doesn't matter, because all the proposed content says is "holds an account." It's plain English. Are we pretending we don't know that Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund have minimum deposits? If I said "X holds a Swiss bank account" I think you would know what I mean and I trust our readers to know what it means. Let's wikilink this DT account holder to DT and vice versa. Simply it is an improvement to the encyclopedia. Hugh (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin:

re "would find interesting that a conservative would "have an account" with a conservative charity" - Why do you keep talking about what's interesting? It doesn't matter what's interesting. I don't find the fact particularly interesting. I don't find a lot of facts on WP interesting. Being interesting isn't a criteria for inclusion.

re "noteworthy source makes note of a fact makes the fact noteworthy" - Again, you're talking about noteworthiness which isn't a policy based rationale for the body of the article.

@Champaign Supernova:

Thanks for attempting a policy based approach, but your misreading the policy. WP:NOTEVERYTHING doesn't say content in the body of an article has to be noteworthy. No where does it say anything about "significant coverage in reliable sources". What it says is that certain things (e.g. definitions, slangs/idiom guides, advocacy, scandal mongering, etc etc) don't belong. Which one of those things would you say the Donors Trust factoid belongs to?

I've had this argument a number of times and the outcome is always the same. If a factoid is 1) verifiable, and 2) not explicitly excluded by some other policy (e.g. NOTEVERYTHING), it can go in the body of an article.

@HughD:

"You are here litigating that we can't be sure what "holding an account" means? Really?" - Hear hear. For real. That's beyond nuts. People have accounts at Donors Trust to contribute to PACs/advocacy groups. That's Donors Trust stated purpose. Arguing that having an account doesn't make it likely that you're contributing to groups is taking a step into La La land. NickCT (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You NickCT and HughD have established there is no reason for inclusion of the fact (or, possibly, conjecture; the sources aren't clear) that Singer "has an account at" Donors Trust, as there is no indication of importance, significance, or whatever term you want to use for "belongs in an encyclopedia". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"People have accounts at Donors Trust to contribute to PACs/advocacy groups. That's Donors Trust stated purpose." What? According to their website, "DonorsTrust was established as a 501(c)(3) public charity to ensure the intent of donors who are dedicated to the ideals of limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise. As such, DonorsTrust provides an innovative charitable vehicle for donors who wish to safeguard their charitable intent to fund organizations that undergird America's founding principles." [11] I don't see anything in their stated purpose about contributing to PACs/advocacy groups. In fact, based on current campaign finance laws, it would be illegal for a 501c3 like this group to donate to a political action committee. But this is all beside the point. No evidence has been presented here that "holding an account," absent any contextualization, is notable or WP:DUE weight for a small factoid. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"conjecture" Oh, it's conjecture, now? Now we are litigating that the NBC News source is not clear that Singer holds a DT acct? Hugh (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"no indication of importance, significance, or whatever term you want to use" What you are looking for may be due weight I think. Hugh (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"no reason for inclusion" The proposed content was covered by NBC News. Not too many sources can lay claim to a single source all by its lonesome generally establishing noteworthiness for inclusion in WP, but a few newspapers and a few news networks are in that number. Hugh (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It's mentioned trivially in one source, which is not NBC news, but the Center for Public Integrity, if you care to take a gander at the WP:CONSENSUS here [12]. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin:

re "have established there is no reason for inclusion of the fact" - I feel like you might not be listening. The reason for inclusion is that the factoid is verifiable. That is the only requirement for inclusion.

@Champaign Supernova:

re "trivially in one source" - That's a fair point. The sourcing is limited. Few other sources have reported on this. Looking a little more closely at the factoid, I'm guessing Abowd got the info from Paul E Singer Foundation's PF 990 filing. So there is a publicly available primary source for verification.

re "which is not NBC news, but the Center for Public Integrity, if you care to take a gander at the WP:CONSENSUS" - Please quit on this point. And stop trying to characterize the consensus. If NBC publishes the article, it is an NBC article. You've been around long enough to know that's how things work on WP. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

My arguments for not including this material are about notability and due weight, not about sourcing. The NBC vs. CPI debate is irrelevant. Wherever this information appears, it's trivial. It's not noteworthy. My point is that "holding an account," absent any definition of what that means, is not inherently noteworthy. I've seen no arguments here that seek to address that point. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. NBC News is noteworthy. Donors Trust is noteworthy. Paul Singer is noteworthy. The relationship between Donors Trust and Paul Singer is noteworthy. The relationship between Donors Trust and Paul Singer is included at Donors Trust. Let's link back. It's an improvement to the encyclopedia. Hugh (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's included there because you added it. And notice the WP:INDISCRIMINATE tag next to the information. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

...AND completing the circle back to "not everything." Deep sigh. Hugh (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What? WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING are different policies. If only your "sighs" were policy-based responses to the points I've raised here. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova: -

re "notability and due weight," - If Hugh was trying to write a paragraph about this, I might agree that there would be some due weight issues. But to write a few words about it?

re "absent any definition of what that mean" - Ok. So is your point then that we should briefly explain what it means (i.e. "Singer has an account with Donors Trust, an organization which distributes money to conservative organizations")? NickCT (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my point is that we don't know what it means to "have an account," so we can't know if that's notable since it's undefined and ambiguous. Many people have library cards or gym memberships but they never go. We can't establish the notability of "having an account" unless we know what that means, and the current source isn't telling us. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova: - Hmmmm.... Ok. To carry your analogy; Say I wrote a BLP article about you, and in that article there was a "Opinions on Exercise" section, you don't think it would be OK to say "Champaign Supernova has five gym memberships", even if we didn't know whether you were using those memberships? Why not just put the sentence in, then let the reader decide what it means?

You have a somewhat rationale point here. But it seems wildly litigious and most certainly not supported by policy. Donating money to a conservative organization is clearly relevant to your political beliefs. Clearly..... NickCT (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

But that's my point exactly. The source doesn't say he donated, but that he "has an account." That doesn't necessarily mean he made a donation. Hence it's not notable. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova: - Well, 1) to "have an account" with someone (e.g. "to have an account at a bank") sorta pre-supposes that you have money with them. Seems a bit contorted to suppose otherwise. And 2) we know he has money with them because of the primary source I cited earlier.

I hate to say this b/c I don't like giving up on a good debate, but this conversation seems to be entering loony town. Not that that's necessarily your fault. How to you feel about an RfC to try to get some extra eyes on this? NickCT (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I think an RFC is a good idea. "Having an account" certainly doesn't pre-suppose anything financial. Based on the source, it doesn't even say it's a financial account. To jump from a source saying he "has an account" to us deciding that this means "he has given money to this group" is just not supported by the available sourcing. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova: -

re "Sure, I think an RFC is a good idea" - Ok. I'll see if I can draft one at some point in the near future. I'll give you a chance to review for neutral wording.

re "doesn't even say it's a financial account" - Well again, this seems hyper-semantic. Like arguing that having a gym membership isn't relevant to one's physical activity, b/c gym memberships can be used for things other than working out. I guess that's potentially true, but it seems a bit warped.

@HughD: -

Do you have any objections to proceeding to RfC? NickCT (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point about accounts. Not all accounts are financial, by any stretch of the imagination. All gyms are for working out. One can have many types of accounts, financial and non-financial, and the source we have here doesn't say, so we can't "take a guess." But anyway, we can let the RFC settle this. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova: -

re "All gyms are for working out" - Right. And all DonorsTrust's are for taking donor's money and giving it to political advocacy groups or political organizations or whatever you want to call them. So it follows logically that if you have an account with them, you are giving money to political organizations.

Anyway, this entire debate is silly since Singer's tax filings show he's giving money to the group.

I guess we'll have to rely on an RfC. Pity though. This one seems obvious. NickCT (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow. We can't agree on what "account" means let alone "holds an account." We are gong backwards. We are talking and getting farther apart. This is frustating. Sigh. Hugh (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: - re "We are gong backwards." - So let's RfC it. Move forward. NickCT (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

ok, let me do it, maybe look over my shoulder Hugh (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: - You can try drafting it if you want, but you really have to try very hard to make it clear and neutral. If it is unclear or not neutral, it will likely make the debate worse. You may want to let me take a first shot at drafting if you haven't done it before. NickCT (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree it would be best if you did it, but I want to byte the bullet anyway. I will sandbox it. Hugh (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: - Very well...... Let me know if/when you want me to review. NickCT (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of Pending RfC

@Arthur Rubin, Champaign Supernova, and HughD: - All those concerned with the recent lede debate. We will be launching an RfC in the near future. Please review that RfC and comment on whether you feel it's clear/concise and neutral. In particular, please comment on whether you feel we've captured all the main arguments. Unless there is an objection, there will be a 24hr review period starting from now before launching. Thanks in advance. NickCT (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: I re-posted the comment above after accidentally posting it initially on the Donors Trust talk page. Apologies for any confusion. NickCT (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Having received no comments regarding this RfC, I plan to launch in the next few hours. NickCT (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Great! Thank you. Are we going to reiterate reliability in the RfC discussion? In other news one of our esteemed collaborators and his trusty tag team revert partner are again baiting me into 3RR and have taken the issue of the profound ambiguity of the words "account" and "holder" to Donors Trust with massive deletes, basically knocking the article back to the uninformative version I found in January. Coming out on the talk page there as eyeing GA seems to be causing some apoplexy. Is Donors Trust perhaps a stronger test case of the admissibility of the proposed content? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: - re "Is Donors Trust perhaps a stronger test case" - Not sure I understand what the Donors Trust test case is. The argument at donors trust seems different that the debate here. Two different situations.

Regarding the "reliability in the RfC"; if your question is "Is the RfC binding?". The answer is usually yes. In my experience if you can demonstrate consensus for something through an RfC, it is very hard to argue with. NickCT (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I was asking if we should expect reliability of sources issues to be re-litigated in the RfC discussion. Hugh (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Donors Trust uses the same source for content of the form "DT acct holders include A, B, and Singer." So it is a stronger claim. It was fairly stable by DT standards until one of our collaborators on the RfC draft deleted it from DT, perhaps anticipating that the DT->Singer link might be used to support Singer->DT. Might DT as a venue have the advantage that the DT is the main subject of the source, and the proposed content? Might having DT->Singer help with Singer->DT? Hugh (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

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."[13]. 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. [14] 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 [15] 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. [16] 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.

Political activities

I have been in dispute with two other editors over the inclusion of content noting that Singer "has given millions of dollars to politicians who favor a strong military." Though the content is sourced, there is no reason to add only a select group to which he has donated to. This source reports that he has donated to a "mix of groups", not just politicians who favor a strong military and Israel. Meatsgains (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion includes three well-formatted, noteworthy, reliable source references including the The New York Times and The Nation WP:RS. The content you favor is so extremely general as to convey no information to our readers WP:RF. Do you favor your generalization precisely because it is such a neat summary it completely subsumes every possible more specific content regarding any grantee that any editor might find anywhere, in any reliable source, therefore, there is no need for any more specific detail? Of course you understand "summary style" is not intended to frustrate detail when supported by weight in reliable sources. WP:DUE We can revisit this summarization as we approach maximum page size guidelines. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

May I respectfully make a suggestion, spend a few minutes with those three sources and suggest an alternative summarization of them. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to narrow the focus of Singer's donations to just "politicians who favor a strong military". Singer, as a top political donor, has given to countless political causes including libertarian organizations and libertarian politicians. You and I both know, many of the libertarian organizations and politicians oppose strong military. My alternative summarization would say something along the lines of, "Singer has given millions of dollars to politicians" but that of course wouldn't be necessary as it is already discussed throughout the article. We can't cherry pick sources to support inclusion of favored content. Meatsgains (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

We agree, we cannot cherry-pick sources. Here we have:

1. Thomas Jr., Landon (January 25, 2007). "Hedge Fund Chiefs, With Cash, Join Political Fray". New York Times. Retrieved March 18, 2015. Mr. Singer is a self-described conservative libertarian who has given millions of dollars to Republican organizations that emphasize a strong military and support Israel.
2. Clifton, Eli (April 7, 2014). "GOP Pro–Gay Marriage Funder's Other Agenda: Bombing Iran". The Nation. Retrieved March 18, 2015. ...his other advocacy agenda: the Middle East, and a hawkish foreign policy agenda he funds through an array of think tanks.
3. Blumenthal, Paul (April 23, 2014). "Wall Street, War Hawks Fund Challenger To Only Anti-War, Anti-Wall Street Republican". Huffington Post. Retrieved March 18, 2015. Singer has sought to position himself as a GOP power player by backing candidates who agree with certain key stands: support for gay marriage and immigration reform, a hawkish foreign policy and opposition to a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine.
4. "Meet the wealthy donor who's trying to get Republicans to support gay marriage". Washington Post. Singer is staunchly pro-Israel.

"Singer gives to some politicians" grossly understates noteworthy RS. RS goes into more detail than the most-general of all possible generalizations. We have plenty of room under page size guidelines to offer our readers a bit more detail, a few more words, about the kinds of politicians favored. Hugh (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: First, the contentious material should be removed from the page until a consensus is met on this issue however, I do not want to engage in an edit war. Second, only one of the sources you provided makes the connection between Singer's contributions and "a strong military." The issue at hand does not involve page length, but rather, inclusion of selective and unnecessary details. Anyone can read the article to be informed on his contributions. Meatsgains (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Meatsgains, the article mentions Singer's support for gay marriage. I don't understand why you don't want to include Singer's support for a hawkish foreign policy agenda and Israel.Jimjilin (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Including the claim is redundant and already touched upon throughout the article. The entire Political activities section accurately covers Singer's political contributions. Meatsgains (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Meatsgains. The political activities section is a good overview of his views/contributions/activity. The sentence in question seems redundant and has a WP:NPOV tone. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Where does the article mention Singer's support for a hawkish foreign policy and Israel?Jimjilin (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That claim alone is POV and does not deserve to be on a BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you feel I am not representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources? I am just quoting/paraphrasing the NYT article and other articles.Jimjilin (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The term "Hawkish" is POV and does not belong on a BLP. Yes, the claim was published in reliable sources but the content is already covered throughout the page. Inclusion would place WP:UNDUE weight. Meatsgains (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

How about: "Singer has given millions of dollars to politicians who favor a strong military and Israel." I won't include hawkish though I don't understand your objection. This specific information is not covered elsewhere in the article.Jimjilin (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Singer has given to a mix of groups, not just politicians who favor a strong military and Israel. His political contributions are already covered throughout the article. Meatsgains (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It is preposterous that possibly negative information doesn't belong on a BLP. There are articles that solely criticize or ridicule their subjects through the use of reliable sources. You have no reason not to include this sourced piece apart from WP:DONTLIKEIT. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Think I agree with Bataaf van Oranje. Meatsgains seems to have a pretty clear pro-Singer bias. Not sure why. The only requirement for this kind of information is that it's verifiable. Meats continuously makes the argument that negative information about Singer is somehow "not relevant". NickCT (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

My point exaxtly. And it's definitely unusual how much attention has been spent on keeping this page neutral. Anyhow, Singer currently seems to fall under WP:PUBLICFIGURE:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

This should take away much of the confusion. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Bataaf van Oranje - Indeed indeed. I think we've reached consensus for inclusion of the material in question. NickCT (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

...and it was reverted again. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde: - Ok. I restored. I'll restore any removal which is not discussed here first. NickCT (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Contentious material should be removed from the page until a consensus is met. If the consensus is to add it back, then we can restore it to the page. Meatsgains (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: - You are the only person arguing against the material in question. Please cease removing it. This is bordering on tendentious editing behavior. NickCT (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@NickCT: Read further up in this thread. I am not the only one opposing its inclusion. I will not remove the content because I don't want to be accused of edit warring but a consensus should really be met first. Meatsgains (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: - Oh.... I'm sorry, there was you and Safehaven86 versus me Bataaf van Oranje, Jimjilin, Hugh, Nomoskedasticity. That's over 2 to 1. That's consensus. But more importantly, you have a persistent history of excluding negative information about Singer from this article with the explanation that you feel it isn't relevant. Surely experience from past discussion has suggested this isn't a good strategy? What you're doing really pushes some WP:OWN, WP:NPOV and WP:BATTLEGROUND borders. NickCT (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Support inclusion of financial support for strong military and Israel. Support inclusion of venue, US court. Support inclusion of Argentinian POV on debt claims for balance. WP:DUE and WP:PUBLICFIGURE are determinative here, not WP:DONTLIKEIT. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The same claim was added in two different areas in the article: here and here. I will remove the recent addition, as it is redundant. Meatsgains (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@NickCT: Nomoskedasticity stated that there "isn't consensus for it", making it 3:4...hardly a consensus. Meatsgains (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: - Sorry. Not sure which edit we were talking about. Moving this discussing to the appropriate section you started below. NickCT (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent activity to lead

It seems other users and I are having some issues with the lead on Singer's page. I decided to remove both POV's, both from and Singer and Argentina, because neither deserves to be included-especially in the lead. Argentina's POV uses the pejorative "vulture", which has already been discussed extensively on this talk page. Adding the term "vulture" violates BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmmm.... I didn't realize you'd removed both POV's. That's probably OK. Though I think I'd support both descriptions being left in.

Actually, if you're going to remove both POV's, I'd probably just remove the entire paragraph. Mentioning the recent case in the lead is probably WP:RECENTISM.

Regardless, both me an Nom put that material there. You should get consensus here before unilaterally removing it. NickCT (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"vulture" is not of itself necessary, true. It would be necessary if it can be linked to a proper article describing the term, put into quotation marks and verified by a WP:RS to be significant, or self-described (none of which appear to be the case). However, mentioning Singer's enormous contributions to some clearly specific political funds is a must. While it's important to avoid violationg WP:BLP, I agree with NickCT in that it's not much of a solution to simply remove an entire piece of text without a proper consensus. Our end goal is a collection of information, not a blank page. Words can be replaced or left out entirely to make a sentence more neutral. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Bataaf van Oranje is definitely correct that explicitly calling Singer a vulture (i.e. calling him a vulture in an unattributed way) would be pretty grossly against WP:BLP; that said, mentioning that some notable entity (i.e. the Argentinian government) has called Singer a vulture, particularly when so many other other have, strikes me as due. Lots of mainstream source have noted Singer in relation to the term "vulture". Surely it's right we give some nod to that in the lead? NickCT (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree -- it's one of the main items that gives rise to coverage in high-quality sources, over a sustained period. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Then I totally agree it warrants a mention. Yes, I specifically made my comment in regards to the article's neutral tone. Mentioning a notable source or person having made a claim is perfectly valid; how much attention it should receive is described by Jimbo under WP:DUE:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Frankly, I see NickCT following the rules, engaging in discussion and following consensus whereas those who are actively reverting new inclusions insist on honoring the status quo. I wonder if a lot of this reluctance just comes down to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Anyhow, it's good we're actively discussing the changes. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I have taken almost all of my recent edits to the talk page to discuss and reach consensus. I'm not partaking in WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I just have an issue with using the negative term "vulture". It is an attack, is derogatory, and violates WP:ICW, which notes that "if something is found in an article about a person using a pejorative term... it shall be promptly removed." Meatsgains (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a BLP, please be mindful. Meatsgains (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, there was an RfC submitted and closed last year regarding use of the pejorative with the final decision to leave it off the page. Meatsgains (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"final decision to leave it off the page"??? What are you smoking? Whatever it is, I'd like to try it. "The weak consensus is to allow use of the term" -- no doubt you'll have something to say about "weak", but we can also discuss "consensus" and "allow", and we then won't get to "final decision to leave it off the page". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity and Meatsgains: - Hahaha.... I don't know what Meats is smoking, but I know I want some. I hope he has enough to share.

I too would interested to hear how Meats arrives at his interpretation of that RfC. NickCT (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Rather than take jabs at me like that, lets focus on the content. I did misread the RfC and I apologize for my comment that the final descision was "to leave it off the page". I was incorrect in saying that. Meatsgains (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)