Talk:PIGS (economics)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Neutrality

The neutrality of this article is contested. The article should not include pejorative innuendo about the reasons why journalists use the term. It should not include words like "aryan" or "racist" to qualify a group of people that coined/use the expression (an acronym!!!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibasameen (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pejorative innuendo? Are you joking? The term is an insult and an ethnic slur, what part of PIGS don't you understand? Its use and your defense of it is at best, insulting, at worst openly racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.128.230.42 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, it should not cover one point of view as if it were trying to answer articles elsewhere in the press, viz.

"It is not at all clear that it is in Greece's economic interests to impose fiscal austerity on an economy already in recession in exchange for the dubious benefit of lower domestic interest rates. Tighter fiscal policy would merely offset the positive impact of lower borrowing costs and hence there would be no positive economic impact in the short term. Further, the social disruption related to imposition of fiscal austerity on an unwilling Greek public would likely have a significantly negative impact on investment and growth in the longer term.

"... Once again, the 'rescue package' proposed by the EU and IMF [31] will protect foreign investors at the expense of the local Greek economy.

"In essence, in exchange for cheaper funding from the EU, Greece and other countries, in addition to having already lost control over monetary policy and foreign exchange policy since the Euro came into being, would also lose control over domestic fiscal policy. EU economic domination would therefore be complete."

This is clearly an opinion piece, and has no place in an encyclopedia. If the author wishes to insert these views, let him link to them on another site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.14.240.135 (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

BUDGET SURPLUS

Spain has had a Budget Surplus during the last years and right now the Public Debt is just 37% of GDP while Britain has a Public Debt of 47% of GDP, Germany and the US a Public Debt of 67% of GDP...so Spain´s fiscal discipline has been demonstrated when others failed.

And about current account, Italy´s current account deficit is much smaller than the US or the UK.

Anyway, being part of the Eurozone, there is not a "national" current account deficit as can be applied to Britain because the whole Eurozone has a current account surplus.

Add that Spain and Greece have been two of the nations with higher income and GDP growth of all Europe, more than the UK and much more than Germany. Spain´s average GDP during the last ten years reached 3,7%, more than the US´s 3,6% and average growth of Spain´s income per head has been higher than the American...

I'm very suspicious of why Spain is in the unsavory PIIGS category in the English speaking press. Listed a figures I just read off of the BBC, of all places:

  Nation   Debt as % of GDP      Budget Deficit as a % of GDP
    UK       68.6                         13
Greece       112.6                        12.5
 Spain       54.3                         11.25
 Italy       114.6                        5.3
Ireland      65.8                         10.75
Germany      73.1                         3.5

    Source: European Commission/ Economic Forecast 2009

It seems to me that Spain is more fiscally responsible than that category would have one believe. --Scipio-62 06:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

It shows the PIIGS nations in the EU. Iceland, Belgium, Latvia, the UK and the USA each had at least 1 major 2009 banking failures and closures (Northern Rock, Icesave, Lehman Broths, etc.). Belarus had a 20% overnight devaluation of the national currency on 2 January 2009 [3]. Both Germany and Egypt were going down with a heavy budget deficit on May 6th and February the 24th, 2010 respectively. For Sources and key, see the file page.

I tryed to do such a map and it is sourced. I have listed a states not in the EU, who are exsibating PIIGGS like simptoms or had an Iclandic style bank crisis. Have I summed up the European credit crisis, or is it to big for 1 map alone? Has my exsperiment even worked?--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the map. --81.100.123.90 (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

FREEDOM FOR INSULTING?

This article is offensive and does not provide any useful information, except the acronym and somebody's stupid joke. What if someone wrote something like Jews were called by Nazis PIGS? Would that be a constructive information? Please DELETE this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.67.153 (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Offensive or not, it's a term that is being used and people will want to know what it is supposed to mean. I personally hadn't heard the term before a few days ago when I saw some coverage of the current problems in Greece. I'd also point out that this is arguably not as offensive as the n-word which has an article in Wikipedia.Wjousts (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A quick search [5] suggests the term is used by journalists in notable publications. It is irrelevant whether the term is used to imply negative things about the countries included, even if you prove 100% that they are untrue (which would be original research). Adding context/criticism of the term and how it is used from a notable source would be beneficial of course. --86.142.97.137 (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Will anyone write an article about the economy of the SWINES too? SWINES = Scottish, Welsh, Irish (North), English Scum

hell yeah i find a pattern somewhere i erased a dumbass link ... please do not ban my ip. and yeah pigs come on... let us have invent another acronym like the fuks france united kingdom swizterland or finland uganda cape verte kenya sweden. and find a linkage in between.. havah agilah Salaam Aleikum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.119.76 (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If either of those terms were notable, rather than something you just made up, they would warrant an article.Wjousts (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wjousts if the term SWINE is an actual term it would be used (and not a bad plausability, but you have to add Cornwall).

All you need now is to have your economics paper published ;)Lihaas (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Similar designations have been created for other groups of countries, such as 'FUKC' (France, United Kingdom, Canada, in connection with their Universal healthcare and welfare programs). Why are they not mentioned in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SigSauerP226 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

PIIGS usage has resurged, entry needs to be updated

417 hits in news.google.com on 5 February 2010. Don't know entry evolution rules, but PIIGS is most common usage now; does entry get shifted over to new PIIGS wiki entry instead of being "Redirected from PIIGS"? Does another entry get created? Reference to "used mostly in 2008" should be struck since word is in common usage now once again. See large quantity of news regarding Greek debt, government wage cuts, strikes, money printing, hidden/secret debt (whether true or not), etc. Contrary to the contention in the article, Ireland's economy is weaker than Italy's and while both could be included in PIIGS, most knowledgeable with international economies would never replace Ireland with Italy. Whether it is offensive or not, it is now in common usage by the financial media and thus should NOT be struck from wikipedia. However, the entry needs to be refined, added to, etc.Rockshop (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)rockshop, 5 February 2010

I completely agree. The article should be renamed as PIIGS. This is the term that has been used in economics since at least the late 1990s.Camelbinky (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

this is a racist/nationalist acronym by british nationalist extremists

it's so obvious; they hate the euro, they hate the european union, now they regressed to this low level of pathetic attacks; calling whole countries PIGS? really? pathetic. get some sources to support it cause it's so obvious.

To see what kind of hatred some nationalists English hold for Greece check this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-de7q3fbn0 (part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4MAifsp-8E (part 2)

they openly,and agressively, libel greece without any representation.

--212.54.217.107 (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious to you. I suspect it could be true. But a so bold a statement needs a citation. -- Cjensen (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Politically incorrect, not racist

I don't think it is racist - aren't most of the people of the PIGS nations of the same (white) race? In fact, it is a succinct, accurate mnemonic for a group of European countries with large deficits. However, it is politically incorrect, in that it offends some people. Further, economists / commentators from the PIGS nations have themselves used this acronym.

Olive skinned is more like itLihaas (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

nordicism = anti-mediterranean = racism.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.174 (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to put Ireland on the map per the article

Or is the offensive word too self-offensive to the English? --94.70.65.212 (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jjok (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Google links

Would someone transform those Google links to more meaningful list of references? --Jjok (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Improvements

A number of article changes have been made to document the wide use of the term dating back decades. The term does not spring from 2008 or late 2009 as was in the entry. Let's be professional as to the changes here.99.144.243.71 (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about refs in lead, do they need to be removed or moved? I added them to support the text as it appeared, rightly it seems, that there was some misunderstandings about the term. Advise please?99.144.243.71 (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Corrective Policies?

I feel that some editors are making this article do more then it should. This is a term article to explain what the term means, how it came about, and why some people don't like it. It shouldn't have sections that argue how states can be removed from the term or a blow-by-blow account of what's currently happening to these individual country. Thoughts? --Patrick (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely, and have removed that section repeatedly, only to see it restored and rather wildly defended. It is what I plan to report on the OR/SYNTH noticeboard (mentioned above) when I can get around to it. I'm happy to see someone agrees with me now so it's good I waited. DinDraithou (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's good you waited. You should always attempt to resolve the issue on the talk page before looking for third parties. Your "edit war, then noticeboard policy" is wrongheaded. -Rrius (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel that some editors are making this article do less than it should. This is an article about a term, what it means, and the situation surrounding it. It should have sections about the economic situation involved, which would pretty obviously include the policies economists and other eurozone countries say should be taken. -Rrius (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

All of this can be done on the individual countries economic pages. Very few, and certainly no EU/ECB officials are suggesting a policy that applies to all of these countries so what's the point of collecting all these comments on this page? A country can leave PIIGS insomuch as a country can leave BRIC. The term will die out in a few years time. --Patrick (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This could not be properly handled at the country pages. Ideally, this should discuss the situations in those countries and how the failure of one could bring down the other, and the fall of these states could bring down the eurozone or even the world economy. What's more, a country cannot "leave" this grouping. It has to improve its economy. The fact that the term may fall out of use doesn't support your argument. If it will only ever be about a bloc of poor economies in this particular economic environment, then it makes all the more sense to discuss that economic environment and how they fit into it. -Rrius (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What you've just said Rrius confirms for me that this goes beyond original synthesis and into all sorts of things for you and maybe one or two others. Please read WP:Soapbox. You appear to be soapboxing. DinDraithou (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You must have no idea what any of those policies mean. This new soapbox allegation of yours is truly bizarre. Exactly what substantive position am I supposed to be advancing? Instead of throwing around policy names as though you know what they mean, why don't you advance a real argument? -Rrius (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with Rrius: some Irish-American Wikipedians seem to have taken offence at the allegedly “xenophobic” nature of the acronym, and therefore want to shorten the article and restrict its scope, or slice it into “individual” country-specific paragraph…..etc. or even worth, make it some kind of linguistics or semiotic orientated article where they delve on the acronym’s supposedly intolerant semantic roots, or the City of London traders being inherently anti-Catholic, … etc. …. I think that’s projecting too much onto a simple acronym used across Europe by traders and academics alike- many of whom are actually of Celtic ancestry! Rrius is right: it makes a lot of sense to discuss how this CATEGORY fits into the current EU economic circumstances- how it contributed to create it, and how in turn it’s influenced by it- hence the “Corrective Policies” paragraph without which that article would be meaningless Moorehaus (talk)

It just sounds like you're thinking of anything you can, Captain Straw Man. You've stuffed an awful lot of words in my mouth. DinDraithou (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I’m at loss for words to describe the clearly unconstructive (to use a polite word!) behaviour of DinDraithou: first he kept on vandalizing (“bye bye yet another time”) the paragraph on “Corrective Policies” without which the article would be meaningless...; and now he’s making up faux copyright issues to justify his erasing a pertinent picture- perfectly illustrative of the content of the article in general & of the paragraph in question. Moorehaus (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.158.109.191 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately, the allegation that the section is off topic has not been supported. There is an obvious connection between the term and the debt crisis. The term is not used to discuss these countries culturally or demographically. It is an economic term referring to the weakness of the five. It is only natural that there would be a discussions related to the other article. -Rrius (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the article should not become a place for grand visions. It's about a silly-sounding acronym, and the debate over whether the I should stand for Italy and/or Ireland, and who might or might not find the silly acronym offensive for whatever stupid reasons. No one has managed to articulate why it should be expanded beyond that. DinDraithou (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That is where we disagree. It is about more than the word as a word. It is about a term used in economic circles, which naturally includes a discussion of the situation surrounding its use. You seem to be in a minority of one in your belief, so why don't you let it go? -Rrius (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone else started this section, you know? Patrick and I are saying essentially the same thing. All you've done so far is support the emotionally invested Moorehaus, who as far as I can tell is mostly wild about defending his "brilliant" research. DinDraithou (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Middle, and accurate, ground. Describe the grouping and their economic relationship as med. agricultural economies with weak govs known for large debt and tax corruption - then point to those articles dealing with current related events. There is a decided diff between the grouping of like objects and popular current events. Article should stick to term - and not be a coatrack for everything else. 99.142.1.101 (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

BBC web page

I've added the UK and Romania. The UK is sourced by the BBC, so even it's press have accused it of being a PIIG. --86.29.139.55 (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Improvement - BRIC is an example of excellent coverage of identical term

As title indicates, I think future editors would be well advised to generally emulate the BRIC article. It's quite well done.99.151.172.170 (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Graphs

Does the person who added the two graphs recently want to comment on what the hell they are supposed to mean? They don't appear to make any sense with the vertical axis labeled with %. Spain and Ireland have about 125% employment? Japan's debt is over 200% of GDP? Clearly both of these are nonsense. It might be fixable, but I have no idea what point they are trying to make.Wjousts (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've commented out the graphs for right now because they screw up the layout of the article and they have no context. I think the original contributor wanted to make a POV point about why, in their opinion, the PIIGS label is unjustified (i.e. the PIIGS economies aren't that bad compared to others). If that's the case, they need to add something to the text that makes that point (and can refer to the graphs) and is properly sourced. Without that, the graphs are orphaned.Wjousts (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It wasn't clear what they meant and messed up the formatting of the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the graphs have popped up again and at least they are not messing up the formatting as much, but they still need context. Don't add graphs unless you're going to bother explaining what they are supposed to mean. Wjousts (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"some graphs", not "the graphs". I thought below the graphs is the explanation ("fiscal balance", "employment"). In addition the graphs themselves show titles which explain things. --Alex1011 (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)--Alex1011 (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Explanation needs to go beyond the point of saying what the graphs are. They need to explain why they are relevant and what point they are making in the context of the article. The bit you added about "Some PIIGS-states had higher increases in employment than major economies like Germany or Japan." does that to some extent, at least for the employment graph. The other graph still is non-obvious as to it's point and also isn't in English (or at least, the legend isn't).Wjousts (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The other graph is already mentioned in the introduction: "...especially in regards to matters relating to sovereign debt markets." This is now described by the graph (the legend of which I shall correct). The whole discussion about the PIGS is about public debt, to a minor extent about debt generally. --Alex1011 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The graphs were explained with clear references in the text following revisions which I made.

Removing them NOW makes no sense. And if you insist, for reasons of your own, to remove them now that they are clearly explained then at least take the time to remove the references to graphs which clearly appear in the text. If you want to edit then at least do a thorough job.

Also removing economic references to what are supposedly economic groupings makes no sense.

Could you please stop doing this. (Dearieme (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

The graphs aren't clear and they are so small as to be unreadable. Galleries are not proper ways of displaying images that are actually illustrating what is discussed in the text. Images should not be used in the way you are using them: you can't try to use them as a source for a claim made in the text. The text should also not provide the explanation for the image. If you can't explain the image in a caption, it is not worth having. Graphs should not be your summary of information. You can reproduce a graph produced elsewhere, but your graph of outside data is WP:Original research. Now, you don't have consensus for including your graphs, so stop adding them unless and until that changes. -Rrius (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop referring to them as 'my' graphs. I found them there and because someone asked what they meant I explained it exactly. If you wanted to see them bigger all you had to do was click on them. For some reason you didn't want them, didn't understand them and so you deleted them. Your purpose is unclear. (89.81.41.191 (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

The graphs helped make clear economic differences between PIGS, why don't you want that to be clear? What exactly is your problem with this? (89.81.41.191 (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

I am referring to them as your graphs because you are the one continually putting them in the article. They do not make anything clear. If you have to click on the graphs to see them, they don't really serve a purpose. Finally, if you still think my purpose is unclear, I'll tell you explicitly: I want this to be a high-quality article. The charts, as they've previously been included, detract from the article. For specifics, I would refer you back to the comment I left above. If you don't understand it, thgat is likely because you are new to Wikipedia. -Rrius (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And some nations that are no better than the P.I.I.G.S.!

It shows the PIGS nations in red, Ireland in mauve, the UK in pink. Iceland, Belgium and Latvia are in dark fawn after their major 2009 banking failures and closures. Germany (in flesh tint) was going down with a mushrooming deficit on May 6th and the Greek crisis has caused heavy collateral damage in Slovenia (in brown) on May 5th. Russia, Hungary, the Ukraine and Romania are in light fawn and were victims of the collateral damage such as sceptical stock markets and falling demand for there exports in early 2010. Have I summed up the European credit crisis, or is it to big for 1 map alone? Did my mapping experiment even work?

[[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] [[17]] [[18]] [[19]] --86.29.142.230 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that PIGS in it's latest (obviously pejorative form) is supposed to be about countries in the Euro Area. So the UK or Iceland don't qualify. I'm pretty sure that the grouping was resurrected in the 2007 reincarnation because some banks took a bet against the Euro and the whole PIGS thing is helpful in creating the impression that countries in the Euro area are in massive economic trouble (not true by the way, but that's beside the point). PIGS makes a nice headline, creates controversy and voilà the Euro gets sold. Don't know where that leaves the page by the way. (Dearieme (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

OK whatever,but you can't have the UK in the acronym and then say just a bit further down "The acronym has been criticised because economies with similar financial problems, often notably the United Kingdom,[10] are arbitrarily excluded". One or the other, either it is IN or it's NOT. Can't be both. (89.81.41.191 (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Is it PIGS, PIIGS or PIIGGS? PIIGS is the variant that has been criticised as being arbitrary, notably for neglecting the UK. I've clarified it. --RA (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not have 4 shades on the map showing the PIGS, Ierland and then the UK, who were indited as time went by and a 4th shade to show othere with PIGS like econmys, such as Latvia --Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Because this article is about PIGS (or PIIGS) which are Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain, by definition. That other countries have economies that are as bad or worse is irrelevant. If this was an article titled "list of countries with shitty economies" it would be relevant.Wjousts (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

O.K., let's start such a page- "Nations with nackered and ruined econamys"? --Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well not in those words, but it's a point.--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It shows the PIIGS nations in the EU. Iceland, Belgium, Latvia, the UK and the USA each had at least 1 major 2009 banking failures and closures (Northern Rock, Icesave, Lehman Broths, etc.). Belarus had a 20% overnight devaluation of the national currency on 2 January 2009 [4]. Both Germany and Egypt were going down with a heavy budget deficit on May 6th and February the 24th, 2010 respectively. For Sources and key, see the file page. For Sources and key, see the file page.

--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I tryed to do such a map and it is sourced. I have listed a states not in the EU, who are exsibating PIIGGS like simptoms or had an Icelandic style bank crisis. Have I summed up the European credit crisis, or is it to big for 1 map alone? Has my exsperiment even worked?--Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move (back?) to PIGS (economics)

Is there any opposition to moving this page (back?) to PIGS (economics). Some version of this page seems to have been there before, a history merge took place on the 15th of January this year.

PIIGS or PIIGGS are recentisms (and thus focuses on recent events and is lacking in sources), whereas PIGS is a the more established term. I'm not proposing any great change to the content of the article - or to remove PIIGS or PIIGGS from the introduction but the established topic is PIGS not PIIGS/PIIGGS. --RA (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, the move to PIIGS was done to help alleviate concerns that the term is racist, so you should take that into account before requesting a move. -Rrius (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If anything (as I outlined below), "PIIGS" should be where to move to, as this is the least common denominator: Eurozone only - neither UK nor Iceland -, but including all current "problem states" of the Eurozone. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"pejorative"

The word "pejorative" has been removed from the introduction and there is a HTML comment instruction editors: "Do not add the word "pejorative" to the lead. It has been discussed, and consensus is against it."

I don't see any record of this discussion. Also with the last revert it was said, "It is not for Wikipedia to decide whether the term is pejorative; rather, it is our job to note the controversy." This statement is quite correct - that is why the statement came with references:

• "The whole system is bankrupt. It's not just the so-called "PIIGS" states—a name that is a real provocation and an insult, for Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain—but even the United Kingdom." Link
• "And there’s excessive generosity in other financially ailing European countries known by the snotty acronym PIIGS, standing for Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain." Link
• "Greece is one of a group of European nations in financial difficulties-Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain, or PIGS, to use their rather nasty acronym..." Link

We can add to these the the acceptance by the Financial Times that the term is a pejorative one (link) and other from the international press linked in the article.

The current wording is that the term is used by "international bond analysts, academics, and by the international economic press". All of which is true. It an term that relates to economics. Of course it will be used by such people. That does not make it any less pejorative. Analysts, academics and the international press are not above such terms.

Introducing it in such a way presents it as a serious term, akin to the likes of GNP or EU. It is an example of a kind of peacock term - one that puffs up the subject up and makes it sound more important than it really is. --RA (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If the opening words of the lead are "X, Y, and Z are pejorative terms", that goes well beyond noting the controversy and explicitly takes sides. Just because those sources say it is pejorative does not mean that everyone believes it is. As I said and as had been said before, it is not our job to take sides. I realize you feel that it is pejorative, but that doesn't matter. It would clearly be POV to do what you think we should. The current wording of the lead goes back months and is the result of a discussion of this very issue. The list of who uses the term was included to counter the charge that it was merely used by racists to disparage Southern Europeans. If the discussion is not on the talk page, they you'll have to go back and look at the edit summaries and some of the talk pages of those involved in those edits. Finally, a recent version of the pejorative language tried to suggest that the term became fashionable during this crisis, clearly implying it is a recent invention. This despite the verified claims under "History" that it predates it by a large margin. -Rrius (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Just because those sources say it is pejorative does not mean that everyone believes it is." So we find sources that say it is not pejorative. Verifiability not truth.
• "As I said and as had been said before, it is not our job to take sides." Correct. So let's not.
• "I realize you feel that it is pejorative, but that doesn't matter." I haven't express an opinion and I don't intend to. It is reliable sources that support it being pejorative, not me.
• "The list of who uses the term was included to counter the charge that it was merely used by racists to disparage Southern Europeans." Ah, it was intended to "disprove" something, despite that something being supported by reliable sources? Essentially, what you have stated here is that it was intended solely to push an unsupported POV, one contradicted by reliable sources.
• "Finally, a recent version of the pejorative language tried to suggest that the term became fashionable during this crisis, clearly implying it is a recent invention." Again, this is what the sources say. Let's stick with the sources. Some things are coined long before they become fashionable. It is the sources that say it became fashionable over the last few months.
• "If the discussion is not on the talk page, they you'll have to go back and look at the edit summaries..." There is discussion on the talk page and, looking through it, it looks like consensus is that it the term is a pejorative. Co-indidentally, that is also a view supported by reliable sources. If you disagree, you should find sources that support your view.

--RA (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

First, try not to delete others' comments when inserting yours. It's a bit rude. Second, the fact that the term is used in a non-pejorative way by reliable, highly regarded sources is sufficient evidence that the editors of those publications do not regard the term as pejorative. Now, let's turn to your sources:

• Risk.net (which is questionable in terms of reliability anyway, does not support the contention. It says, "In recent months it has become fashionable to speak of the PIGS (or even PIIGS) economies in derisory terms." That's it. The sentence does not talk about the term as being pejorative. It says it has become fashionable to talk down the economies of those five countries.
• The second source is the opinion of Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who is a civil-rights activist and a member of the fringe LaRouche Movement. Her pronouncements in no way establish that the term actually is pejorative.
• The third source, the San Diego Reader, refers to the term as "snotty", which is not even necessarily the same thing as pejorative.
• The fourth source is a wholly unreliable source, apparently little more than a real estate agent's newsletter, says in the course of trying to convince people to buy property in the countries that the term is a "rather nasty acronym". Again, this is not proof that the acronym is pejorative.
• The fifth source is a Spanish-language opinion piece in which the writer says the term is offensive. That is proof that he finds the word offensive, not that it is pejorative.
• The sixth source is a Spanish-language source of indeterminate type calling itself "Portafolio.com.co". It explains what the word "pigs" means in English, and notes that the governments of the relevant countries say the term "PIGS" is "an injustice with overtones of racism". Again, we have someone's opinion that someone believes the term is pejorative, but nothing to establish that it actually is.

I've said twice now that it is not our job to take sides. You don't seem to see that there is a difference between saying "PIIGS is pejorative" and "some people think PIIGS is pejorative". The former is wholly inappropriate for us to say, especially on the paltry evidence you've provided; the latter is what the article has said for some time. As to your POV-pushing allegation, no. You are completely taking my words out of context. There was a long, drawn-out battle over the pejorative issue before. One editor said without any support whatsoever that the term's only use was as a racist epithet against Southern Europeans by the British press. Another editor, not me, established that the term had far greater currency than that, having been used not only within academia and the financial-services industry, but also in the press in some of the very countries at issue without any hint of insult. One of the sources you have for saying the term has became fashionable during the crisis says nothing of the kind, and the other only says it is in fashion now, which does not carry the implication that your version did. In any event, it is unnecessary to get into that kind of detail about the term in the opening phrase of the article. It is absurd to get into a discussion of whether it is pejorative or fashionable before finishing the first sentence, let alone before getting to what the acronym means. Finally, the discussion you point to was long after consensus was formed and was obviously ignored by other editors because the contributors there seemed more interested in impugning other editors than to improving the article. -Rrius (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• "I've said twice now that it is not our job to take sides." And I have agreed with you every time. Let's not take sides. There's no need to repeat yourself. You are preaching to the choir.
• "You don't seem to see that there is a difference between say 'PIIGS is pejorative' and 'some people think PIIGS is pejorative'." Oh, I do. The former is supported by reliable sources whereas, without reliable sources, the latter is an example of weasel words.
• "...especially on the paltry evidence you've provided..." The "paltry" evidence are the same "international bond analysts, academics, and .. international economic press" that use the term. Let's be clear about this, it is international bond analysts, academics, and the international economic press say is the term is pejorative, not me. Please supply reliable sources to the contrary if you disagree with them. Then we can consider your perspective.
• "Another editor, not me, established that the term had far greater currency than that, having been used not only within academia and the financial-services industry, but also in the press in some of the very countries at issue without any hint of insult." That's great. We can add the sources they used to the article in order to show that the term is not alway meant as a pejorative one. Where are they? Currently, we have reliables sources that explicitly state that the term is a pejorative one. It would be wonderful to have sources that explicitly stated that it is not. Remember, verifiability ... not truth.
• "Finally, the discussion you point to was long after consensus was formed..." Not to worry. Consensus can change. And let's stick with reliables sources.

Regarding the sources for when the term became "fashionable", both explicitly state that it became fashionable during the last few months and in the context of the current financial crisis. The original term predates that, I know, and we have sources to back that up, but specifically about when the term became fashionable the sources are explicit: within the last few months. If you can find references that contradict these, that would be wonderful. It would truly enrich the article. But not matter what, we stick to the sources say. --RA (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong; we absolutely do not agree. The sources for saying that it is a fact that "PIIGS" is pejorative suck. There is no basis for declaring that to be a dead certainty. Instead, they support the proposition that some people think it is pejorative. For you to say that the latter proposition is somehow not supported by reliable sources when it is the only proposition supported by the sources you provide, reliable or not, is just bizarre. You obviously don't understand what a lead section is for. Its purpose is to summarize the entire article, nothing more. As such, it does not need independent verification for list of analysts and the like. Those are more than adequately supported in the body of the text. What's more, they're supported by references to people using the terms "PIIGS" and "PIGS" in a non-pejorative sense, meaning they are referring to the countries at issue without any intent to slur them. In addition for providing support for the claim that "international bond analysts, academics, and the international economic press" use the term, it is also proof that not all of them believe it is a slur. Even the references that have at times supported the claim that some sources have stopped using the term say it is because of perceptions, not the reality, of its being a slur. Since reliable sources are in both directions, the only reasonable thing to do is to point out the controversy without stating categorically that it is a slur. If you truly believe that Wikipedia shouldn't take sides, you will recognize that point instead of persisting in trying to make the article declare something to be a fact that you simply cannot establish. -Rrius (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line: do you have reliable sourses that support your POV?

I've rewritten the introduction to remove the peacock terms and moved mention that term is understood to be pejorative to the last paragraph of the lead. I've also added a clause to say, "but [it] has been used in a manner that is meant solely as a term of art by some." I've marked that clause with the {{who}} template. Please add reliable sources to support your claim. --RA (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have answered that over and over and over again. First, many sources (already linked to) use the term in a way that cannot fairly be read to be intentionally insulting. Second, none of the sources you provide do more than support a claim that some people think the term is offensive. Therefore, it would be rank POV to categorically state that the term is pejorative, and would clearly be taking sides in the discussion—something you claim not want to do. -Rrius (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

OK at least we're getting some place. Your criticism of "widely" was fair and your change to it was well made. But please don't remove references as you did for with "pejorative" and please add references for where it is used "solely" as a term of art. Seriously: verifiability, not truth. It needs a reference.

It is not that it is used as a "term of art" that's in question - clearly it is a term of art, that's self-evidient to the extent that it belies stating - the problem is the idea that it is used "solely" as a term of art, without pejorative origin or connotation, that needs referencing. --RA (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't see the four references you added further down the article. They do fine there. Perfect.

It is only the "solely" in the intro that is left (and granted, I wrote that!). Would you be OK with replacing the "...but has been used in a manner that is meant solely as a term of art by some." in the introduction with "...but is currently common as a term of art in economic contexts." or similar? --RA (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Movement

Suggest to quickly move this page to Austerity Club? The term is used for the same PIGS in the news, and it's not offensive. PIGS will be a redirect, and we can leave the controversial name behind us, only a short mention will be enough. Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, [20] even France and the UK, are all recorded to be implementing austerity measures over the coming years. By reforming rigid labor markets and pension systems, all of Europe are joining the austerity bandwagon anyway, so there will be lots of content to be added, but as a wider coordinated action in all Europe, not as a few countries who happen to be outliers in the debt crisis. The north is in the crisis picture already, so they should not be excluded.

Move to Austerity Club as explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.254.208 (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment Both terms (in so much as they related to the current fiscal crisis) are neologisms and refer to a recentism. Neither are very suitable for an encyclopedia article and IMHO should be folded into Financial crisis of 2007–2010, 2010 European sovereign debt crisis or similar. --RA (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In that case, this article should be moved somewhere else quickly because it violates recentism. We can compromise to move this article to 2010 European sovereign debt crisis, on condition that new section will focus on the budget cuts, austerity measures, labor market and pension system reforms of the national governments of the EU-27. We can name the new section Austerity in Europe. Do you support? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.42.83 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 28 May 2010

It should be borne in mind that this article survived an RfD. I'll put up a move notice and see what the response is like. --RA (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The article should not be merged to any topic that covers a specific event or series of events.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Against PIGS and BRICs make for wonderful images of the current global economy and definition might be good. Also, the PIGS and "Sovereign Debt Crisis" concept go way beyond issues of austerity and economics. Keeping a spot where future contributes looking at how the mood of crisis was intentionally and cultivated for the goals of certain political and economic power center would be a good idea. As this article evolves future editors can add sections wondering how this hysteria was produced and managed. For example the common belief in the UK that the Euro was about to collapse because of government debt is currently being pumped by the Tory government for public support of cutting back public services to pay for large bank bailouts, rather than introducing new taxes on wealth and bank assets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rober1236jua (talk • contribs) 09:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I like how the British that predominately used the term now whine that it doesn't apply to them

with excuses like 'it's not in the euro'. It was never about the euro, it was about weakness. Now you change it because it doesn't suit you. --94.69.61.193 (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The City of London and New York speculate against the euro, ensuring its demise and the continued dominance of the US dollar and their grip on world power. I hope you enjoy your reduced wages and raised taxes, courtesy of the British and Americans :) 88.106.108.42 (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And today, this week, as the Euro moves up US investors are buying Phillip Morris on hope that cigarette sales in the euro zone will generate more profit. Public sector cuts will go to large extent to pump of smoking, health care will be cut in Europe and part of the profits from it will go to American cigarette companies Kind of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside eh? Rober1236jua (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-focused the Encyclopedia article and removed a great deal of extraneous flotsam.

The problem with the article is that everyone and their brother wishes to make it something it never was. The expression is nearly 25 years old - the controversy over it's use perhaps 2. The article should be pared back and not be a coatrack for posturing.

Using the principle, "Be Bold" I've sought to trim it and focus the article. It needed a reset. 99.142.7.232 (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment - but whao! ... that was very bold. --RA (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

How should we add, or subtract, from this core entry? 99.142.7.232 (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've thought often that the 'History' section merely repeated the introduction, that the Economics section was very weak and that the rating agencies section was a little too newsy. Generally, as I've said above, once we go beyond the "olive belt" meaning of the term we are into recent territory and neologism and I've proposed that this article be folded into another.

Some criticism of your bold copy I would have is that it falls short of NPOV. It presents the "this is a term like BRIC" perspective quite fairly (without over stating it). Unfortunately it does not state the the perspective that this (in so far as it relates to the current crisis) is merely a fad word and a pejorative one. It falls short of presenting that it was a pejorative one even before the current crisis.

Aside from NPOV issues, one big concern I have for this is that I have yet to see a secondary source say that this a term that should be understood like BRIC. (To begin with the economies included in PIIGS do not self-identify as such, like BRIC, and I doubt they are going to start holding joint high-profile multi-lateral summits anytime soon.) Yet there are plenty to support that this is merely a fad word and should be understood with pejorative undertones. I've seen some compare this term unfavourable with BRIC -for example the "STUPIDS" references, which you removed. --RA (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to wish to remove the term's entry entirely. 99.142.7.232 (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the article you object to. No doubt staying neutral and on subject makes it more difficult to merge away into the ether. And given the strong neutral academic usage - I'm surprised you seek to create a new reality around it by mis-characterizing it as a pejorative "fad" word. That it was briefly in vogue in UK tabloids as a not quite sly pejorative is true - but its neutral technical use predates this "fad". The controversy is covered, as is the technical use as a term of art. 99.142.7.232 (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Core article, focused and w/o flotsam:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.7.232 (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

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.

---

  Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain: PIGS

Since the financial crisis of 2007–2010:

  Ireland: included to form PIIGS

  The United Kingdom (Great Britain): included to form PIIGGS

PIGS and PIIGS are grouping acronyms used by international bond analysts, academics, and by the international economic press that refer to the economies of Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain, especially in regards to matters relating to sovereign debt markets. When rendered as "PIGS", the "I" originally refered to Italy, but has occasionally become an interchangeable reference to Ireland. Some news and economic organisations have limited or banned their use due to criticism regarding perceived offensive connotations.

History

The acronyms have long been used by bank analysts, bond and currency traders dating back at least to the period of the ERM and are used by some analysts, academics and commentators as a concise way to refer to the Eurozone countries of southern Europe noted for similar economic environments.

Controversy

The term has been actively denounced as an pejorative by the Portuguese Finance Minister, and some members of the Portuguese and Spanish speaking press. Members of the Spanish and other international economic press continue to use the term of art in its narrow and restricted economic sense as a grouping acronym like the related BRIC. Others however, notably the Financial Times and Barclays Capital have restricted or banned[21] the term.

As the phrase gained prominence some commentators have used numerous variations such as PIIGGS which includes Great Britain for various political, economic or social arguments.

See also

• BRICS
• Credit crunch
• 2010 European sovereign debt crisis

Websites

References

[[Category:Business terms]] [[Category:Country classifications]] [[Category:Development]] [[Category:Economic history]] [[Category:International relations]] [[Category:Investment]] [[Category:Economy of the European Union]]

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.

Rewrite

99.141.*.*, can you please outline the issues you see with the article in its current form and we can begin addressing it. A wholesale rewriting of fully-cited content really isn't on. Please engage in discussion if you see deficiencies in the current copy. --RA (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your additions regarding the economic crisis of 2010 have no place in an article about a grouping acronym dating to ERM. The article should have remained an encyclopedic overview of the term while retaining mention of the recent controversy over cultural sensitivity to the term during the current period of economic distress. 99.141.254.167 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Those were not "my" additions. They were the contributions of many contributors.

If you look above you will see that I (and others) are critical of an encyclopedia being so heavily concentrated on a recentism. Your rewrite returns the article to that trap. It describes the term, for example, as definitively including Ireland and as being about sovereign debt. Reliable sources say that is a meaning that has only become fashionable in the last few months. The term in established sense of the term does not include Ireland, for example, and is not about the sovereign debt markets.

In this manner, (aside from re-introducing issues to so with weasel words that have been discussed and resolved above), your rewrite gives over a mere single sentence to discussing the established sense of the term (described as "history") while in all other aspects it give the definitive sense of the term as being the recentism. That is unencyclopediac. If you want to write about recent events, please consider contributing to Wikinews.

I'm going to revert again. Before you revert once more please read WP:3RR. --RA (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The term is anything but a "recentism". Its use is common, neutral and longstanding(1)(2). Ireland is easily sourced as well:(3). It's publication and reference in a serious book on economics would seem to fully refute your unsupported claim that the term is "a few months" old. Your argument appears to be that the terms are new recentisms. I disagree entirely, they're nearly 25 year old neutral technical terms used as a grouping acronym by economists and international traders. 99.141.254.167 (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The sense in which the term refers to the current sovereign debt troubles is a recentism. That is the sense that I mean it is a recentism, something supported by the references you have removed from the article. As it was, the article focused too narrowly on recent events IMHO. Your rewrite has turned its focus entirely on those recent events and away from the sense described in the sources you link to above.

I have posted a warning regarding your breach of 3RR at User talk:99.141.254.167. Please describe what it is you want changed about the article and how you think it is currently deficient. --RA (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The term is, and always has been, related to sovereign debt markets. I'll also add that the article has no "recentism" nor any reference to recent events outside of the wikilink to 2010 European sovereign debt crisis. Your criticism is beyond me. I fail to see support for your claim that, "Your rewrite has turned its focus entirely on those recent events". Could you quote the passage you're referring to? Thanks.99.141.254.167 (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation please. Fiscal imprudence - yes. Inflation - yes. Labour market inflexibility - sure. But sovereign debt markets? Before the current furor? Citation please.

What is the recentismism? Saying the term is used "especially in regards to matters relating to sovereign debt markets". The inclusion of Ireland in a definitive sense. These are recent things. The introduciton is about recent events. The "Controversy" section is about recent events. That only leave one sentence that deals with the term in an manner that is not about recent events.

This is even before we begin discussing the unsupported statements and weasel words such as "for various political, economic or social arguments" in relation to GB, or listing "international bond analysts, academics, and by the international economic press" in order to puff it up. Saying that BRICS is a "related term" is simply laughable. Again, citation please. Your version is also full of ludicrously incorrect statements such as saying, "The acronyms [plural] have long been used" - PIIGS (two I's) is two to two-and-half year old at best, hardly "long been used".

Yet, despite these errors, you have not yet offered any criticism of the version you keep writing over. --RA (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Here you go:[22][23]

And what are you purporting that copy-and-paste of reference supports? Don't answer. I can see this is going nowhere. --RA (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to respond with good faith to your repeated assertions such as "ludicrously incorrect statements such as saying, "The acronyms [plural] have long been used", not to mention claims that "But sovereign debt markets? Before the current furor? Citation please." and this:, " Saying that BRICS is a "related term" is simply laughable."

1. BRICS is a grouping acronym used by analysts to refer to the related markets of Brazil, Russia, India, China. Just as this term is a grouping acronym for the related, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain.
2. The term PIGS has been used for more than a decade. The cites are clear, unequivocal and neutral.
3. The cites discuss, at length, national debt, ERM, bond markets ... sovereign debt.

Your unsubstantiated statements to the contrary do nothing to contradict numerous references of fact.99.141.254.167 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Good faith is good. I'm all for it. Don't believe for a second that I doubt your good faith.

On your points:

1. Is there a citation to support the statement that PIGS is "related" to BRICS as your text says? If no, that is an unsupported statement. If you are combing two sources to arrive at third statement, please see what is meant by synthesis and original research.
2. The acronym PIGS has been used for more than a decade. That can certainly be cited. Has the acronym PIIGS? There is a statement in the text you keep adding that says, "The acronyms have long been used... dating back at least to the period of the ERM...". Note the use of the plural (acronyms) in this statement. Is there a citation to support the satatement that these acronyms (plural) have been "long used" and date back to ERM? If no, that is an unsupported statement.
3. The cites discuss many things, including the sovereign debt markets. Do they say the acronym is used "especially in regards to matters relating to sovereign debt markets" before the current furore? If no, that is a statement that inflates current events and is a recentism.

These are statements that you have added (and merely a few of them). The burden is on you to support them.

You also still have yet to say what it is that you dispute with the version you keep over-writing with statements such as these. --RA (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

1. On BRIC's, They're both grouping acronyms. Here are some ref's [24][25][26][27][28]
2. On "recentism" of PIIGS:[29]
3. On debt markets ... Why do you think the terms are not related to the bond market? The entire system revolves singularly on a governments ability to borrow. It is the overwhelming dominant force that overshadows and drives everything. Interest rates are "debt" - as are essentially currencies obligations driven by rates, rates which themselves are expressions of "debt" parameters.

I hope this begins to move us forward. More shortly.99.141.254.167 (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

1. So that would be a synthesis.
2. The statement you added was that the acronyms (plural) had "long been used" and that acronyms (plural) dated "at least to the period of the ERM". That reference you link to say one of the two acronyms dates from the end of 2008. That is neither "long used" or from the period of ERM. So that statement is unsupported.
3. The burden is on you to show evidence statements that you add to the encyclopedia. If you cannot do so they will be removed. Please show that evidence that, prior to the recent events, the PIGS acronym related "especially ... to matters relating to sovereign debt markets".

--RA (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, aside from introducing these errors (and other issues) you still have not said what it is that you find problematic with the version you keep over-writing. Please do so. --RA (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Your point about recentism, and implicitly undue weight, has merit. PIGS has a far wider, deeper, and less transient existence than the popular press riffs off of the root. I've made a stab at correcting this. Is it at least in the generally right direction?99.141.254.167 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've also reduced "especially" to "often". I disagree with the reduction, I honestly feel it's less accurate - the word is almost exclusively a product of, and directly related to, government bond markets. The next notch down before removal would be the Wikipedia old reliable, "occasionally". Thoughts?99.141.254.167 (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't had a chance to reply and can only leave a brief comment now.

That looks much better. I still have some issues but the approach is a better grounding than the previous version from an encyclopediac point of view IMHO. The two things that jump out at me right now is defining the term as relating to sovereign debt markets (prior to the current crisis) and saying BRIC is a related term. The BRIC comment in particular is unsupported. Re: sovereign debt markets, I'll try to find a pre-2008 source that discusses the term.

There are also some peacock-isms and weasel words there but those can be ironed out in time. Nice rewrite. A very good basis for the article going forward. --RA (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed BRIC's separately, but here are some supporting ref's for the term relative to debt: [30] [31][32][33][34] On this question though one might be more challenged to find ref's that do not speak of debt. The term itself was born during ERM and ERM was all about debt. Indeed all nation states government economic markets boil down essentially to the price of ones government bonds. I do hope the ref's supplied above though are sufficient to support the more watered down description more recently added to the article. 99.141.254.167 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

BRIC's

There is a small comment in the article referencing BRIC's that has a request for support from the section above. For clarity I've created this subsection in order to support my basis for inclusion. Both terms (PIGS & BRICS) are simple acronyms that purport to concisely group economies noted for certain similar (within their group) features. Here are neutral references which use the terms together: "UK exports: The dominant PIGS and subordinate BRICs" [35] "Do BRICs (and Germans) Eat PIGS?"[36] "Of BRICs and PIGS"[37]

This reference from The Economist magazine, June 2008, is another, "One danger is that fractures within the euro area will distract the ECB from staying on top of inflation. A particular worry is what could be called the PIGS—Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, Europe's negative version of the fast-growing BRICs. The fear is that these countries may be in a hole they cannot easily climb out of and that the ECB will be pressed into running a looser monetary policy to save them.[38][39]Additional Ref's are available.[40][41]

I'll also note that my only argument is in support of the article's phrase, "... restricted economic sense as a grouping acronym like the related BRIC" and nothing more. I am only justifying, as required by a fellow editors request, my supporting basis for the simple statement.99.141.254.167 (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source that supports the statement that PIGS and BRIC are "related" terms. None of the above sources say that the acronyms are "related".

Also, can you provide a reliable source that supports the statement that "[m]embers of the Spanish and other international economic press continue to use the term of art in its narrow and restricted economic sense" - or is this an original interpretation and not something that is explicitly supported by secondary sources per Wikipdia policy? --RA (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are some quick ref's for Spanish economic press usage:[42][43][44][45], From Russia,[46], From China,[47], ... Ecuador,[48] etc...99.141.254.167 (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Also: I'm not following you on PIGS/BRICS. Can you clarify yourself and spell out your specific objection to the numerous ref's presented in support? Also please specify your basis for your syn tag in order for it to be addressed. I'm not sure what you believe is syn exactly, although I do think it's likely this. Thanks.99.141.254.167 (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia policy: "Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy." Sources must explicitly support what they are used to reference. You may not combine multiple source to support a statement not supported by any one of them explicitly.

Please provide a direct quotation from a single source that explicitly supports the sentence: "Members of the Spanish and other international economic press continue to use the term of art in its narrow and restricted economic sense as a grouping acronym like the related BRIC." None of the source you provide above explicitly support this sentence. You are drawing an original interpretation from these sources and combing them to form a synthesis. If I am wrong, you can simply provide a single quotation from one source that explicitly supports the sentence. Otherwise, the sentence is unsupported and must be removed per policy. --RA (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are some, translations are from Google:

1. "Those are reasons enough to trust that will arise as promising economies that will follow the BRIC group, comprising Brazil, Russia, India and China, in its ability to maintain the vigor of the global economy, a condition, then, makes reliable to international investors, in contrast to calls from the PIGS countries (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) facing high debt ratios and fiscal deficits and have enormous difficulties in maintaining economic stability."[49]
2. " We are in changing times, we talk about new economy, reorganization of capitalism, new economic centers, such as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) or the PIGS (Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Spain) what position to take to those changes? "[50]
3. "This was stated by HSBC's chief executive, Michael Geoghegan, presenting his strategy in Hong Kong. ... emerging are not the 'Bric' or 'Pigs', are a class of countries, which share a time of global economic growth, a changing patterns of wealth, changes in trade routes and share..."[51]
4. "This uncertainty has led experts to form categories according to the common behavior of certain countries in this economic swing. Thus, while Brazil, Russia, India and China form the BRIC powerful and Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain (Spain) embed PIGS, our country has become part of civets: Colombia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey and South Africa."[52]
5. "Today we bring you full commentary.... As you can see, the article generated a lively debate on the concept of reciprocity between BRIC dwellers and the environment PIGS."[53]
6. "The PIGS take over the BRIC"[54]

I trust that's sufficient.99.141.254.167 (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

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

The problems of machine translation aside, none of the quotes above explicitly support that statement. None of them discuss the international press, for example. None of them state how the international press continues to use the term "in its narrow and restricted economic sense" (presumable as opposed to some other sense).

Sources must be explicitly support the statement the accompany. Just provide one source that explicitly supports the sentence. Combining a hodge-podge of sources to support a statement that none of them explicitly state is synthesis. If you can't provide one source that explicitly supports the sentence, I will remove it from the article. --RA (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I feel that your demand is constructed in such a way as to be unattainable in any editing situation, whether here or at another article. Please, either reconsider your demand or clarify your position. Failing that, or if you desire me to, I'd prefer to escalate the matter to ANI as I feel we have moved beyond neutral intercourse.99.141.254.167 (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If reliable sources to support a statement are "unattainable" then the statement must be removed or amended. Verifiability, not truth. This is hardly too much to ask. Simply provide sources that actually support the statements you add - without any original interpretation or synthesis.

Now, I've removed all of the sources from the article so we can start with your text and a blank slate with respect to reliable sources. Simply add sources that support the statements made in the article. Otherwise, ANI is here. --RA (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Issue is now before the OR Notice Board, Here:[55] Please support your argument that this is SYN and OR there. 99.141.254.167 (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The item you object to is crystal clear, you state: "The sentence in the text is: "Members of the Spanish and other international economic press continue to use the term of art in its narrow and restricted economic sense as a grouping acronym like the related BRIC." and repeatably and specifically[56][57][58][59][60] object to this sentence as OR & SYN. It's now time to provide a reason and support your contention. 99.141.254.167 (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at the OR notice board. You opened that discussion, please keep discussion in one place. --RA (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing all sources

I am going to remove all of the sources from the article. In the rewrite they have been reassigned to statements that they had not originally been used to support. I'll mark statements that I feel as needing a reference with {{fact}}. Sources can then be re-added to the article where those sources explicitly support those statements. --RA (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've requested oversight at ANI. The section can be found here:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_requiring_extraordinary_reference_and_has_just_removed_all_25_Ref.27s .99.141.254.167 (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

99.141.*.* - I had intended to begin the process of re-adding references but have to do something immediate IRL. If you want to being re-adding reference then please do, but could I ask that you add a short quotation from each source that demonstrates that it explicitly supports the statement it is being used to support. The {{cite}} template may be of use in this respect e.g.:

• {{cite|author=J. Blogg |title=A Published Book|year=2001 |quote=A brief quote that explicitly supports the statement in the text}}

--RA (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just restored the version with sources. There's no deadline or emergency, so no need to make a huge change to the article without gaining consensus. Some of the text you removed were actually well-supported by the references, so I would encourage you to go through them one-by-one and remove the inappropriate ones, rather than making a large change, which deleted good sourced text.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I had intended to re-add references immediately (rather than leaving the article hanging) but real-life got in the way.

However, removing the references from the article not such a great change compared to this. That is 99.141.*.* rewrite of the article, which he/she will not discuss (see the edit history to see reverting between versions that followed).

Would you mind commenting on the two versions of the article:

• Version prior 99.141.*.*'s rewrite
• Version after 99.141.*.*'s rewrite

I believe that the rewrite requires discussion and needs to gain consensus (as well as introducing the problems with synthesis that I see). --RA (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the radical insertion of bloat, coatrack, POV and creep seems to have all started just a few weeks ago, here's the version from just before your "Version Prior" example:[61] .99.141.254.167 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"just before"? That version is from 7 weeks before your bold re-write. 32 editors worked on the article in the mean time. Please discuss your rewrite. What it is that you are unhappy with? --RA (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)99.141, Help me out here. You cite WP:COATRACK, so what topic is the coat?

RA, the problem I see with the longer article is mainly with Original Research. Example: "it was not until late 2009–early 2010 that the new acronym became fashionable." cited to [62] and [63]. The first source says nothing about the evolution of the term, and the second (from 1 April 2010) says only "In recent months, a new acronym has entered our lexicon - PIIGS". I don't think either of those sources support the new acronym becoming fashionable. We need works that describe the evolution of the term and the causes behind it, rather than stringing together various sources, which quickly becomes a novel synthesis.

I would encourage both of you to work from the larger version, and discuss point-by-point what needs to be removed, changed, or added. A unilateral re-write usually causes these kind of disputes, so let's try to start over with discussion.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 14:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds correct. I suggest the sentence be removed until an appropriate reference can be found for it. --RA (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the larger version per the suggestion above by LiberalFascist. Please discuss point-by-point what needs to be removed, changed, or added. --RA (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've stripped out statements that were not directly unsupported by references (this included all of the Economy section since that was very sparsely sourced) or removed references that did not directly support statements. I also combined the repetitive elements of the introduction and first section. --RA (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? The article is now unintelligible. And - numerous inaccuracies now exist. And all this to make a point about a sentence you disagreed with that said, "Members of the Spanish Press continue to use the term" ? What exactly is it that is driving this tantrum of destruction? 99.141.254.167 (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Spanish press sentence (which was much longer that what you quote above) was just one example that you took to AN/I and OR/N and were told in both places that it was OR.

Please give examples of the inaccuracies that exist. If OR is in the article, or sources are being used inappropriately, I will be happy to see content removed or amended. --RA (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your statement, that I was told at both ANI and at the OR noticeboard that the sentence was OR is FALSE. It never happened. Are you having fun making up this stuff? This makes you three for three.99.141.254.167 (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the version that you supported as, "That looks much better. I still have some issues but the approach is a better grounding than the previous version from an encyclopediac point of view IMHO."(1) Let's build a more focused and encyclopedic article. 99.141.250.125 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the change. As I stated above, please work with the other editors to come to a consensus version of the article. WP:BRD - you made bold edits, and were reverted, so you should now discuss the changes here before doing it again. I understand that you are frustrated by the current version, but Wikipedia is based on working together to improve articles.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 04:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth I considered the edit bold but worthwhile. The article lead is now complex and confused. I do not agree with the merge tag for a start. -84user (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The text in this version doesn't flow very well now, mainly because I was concerned with sticking to the letter of what the sources say without any degree of interpretation or inference. --RA (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the longer version of the article is not great, but a few authors identified problems with the shorter version, and it's not usually a good practice to wholesale delete referenced sections without any discussion.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 14:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused between when is the "short" and "long" version any more :-) At least there are more eyes on the article now. I proposed getting a 3O on the dispute between "my" and "99.141.*.*" versions and suggested we both get a summary together of what we see as strong/weak about the two versions. You seem pretty balanced, Josh, would you mind offering a 3O on our two "positions" over the weekend, if we got that together? --RA (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Confused? That makes two of us :). I'll call the versions "99" and "RA".

• General layout - I believe that the 99 version has more or less the correct sections put together, so I'm going to use that to discuss what I think should be in each section of the article.
• I would suggest that the opening section be taken mainly from the first paragraph of the RA version, but re-written. Move the specific history of that version, i.e. first used in 1997, revived in 2008, evolution of the term through PIGGS, PIIGS, etc. into the "History" section.
• The "History" section - add the specific information from the RA version here.
• "Controversy" - the 99 version is superior, except that it makes the connection between BRICs and PIGS through WP:SYNTH rather than through a source such as [64]. Fix the referencing issues, and this section should be OK.
• "Variations" - a combination of the two versions is probably good here.

What we can't allow to happen is what is in both versions of the article right now. Statements are being supported by 6 sources, which are being used to back up that the term is "still in use" or "used by X group" or "commonly used by X". If there's no source that says it directly, we can't have it in the article. See WP:SYNTH.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 04:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on the above plan to improve the page. After looking at the two versions, I agree with the general layout suggestion, and the second bulleted point above. I have not looked much at the History but do agree that the "99" version handled the controversy better. One of my remaining concern is the accuracy of some of the inline citations, and that is partly why I expressed my part-support for the bold edit by the IP address. I have doubts the use of the cites are up to the expected wikipedia standard. I just added a cite needed to a claim I could not find supported, but I suspect that's not the only one. It just seemed to me that starting afresh is often more productive than struggling with an admittedly poor page. -84user (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that in many cases a re-write from scratch is needed, but when I see an article with 37 citations I hesitate to suggest scrapping it, mainly because of the work that has gone into that version of the article. Nevertheless, I'm definitely not opposed to a re-write from scratch, although it will need to avoid the WP:SYNTH that is plaguing both versions.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 00:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't had a chance to post here as I promised I would. I broadly agree with the comments by both of you above. I wholly agree with the comment about multiple references being used to support statements like "still in use" or "used by X group" or "commonly used by X". For that reason, I can't agree with maintaining the second sentence in the Controversey section of the 99 version ("Members of the Spanish and other international economic press continue to use the term of art in its narrow and restricted economic sense ..."). None of the refs say this and the statement is based solely on a scan of multiple sources which are then thrown together to draw a conclusion about use patterns in the Spanish and international press.

Likewise, the opening sentence "...used by international bond analysts, academics, and by the international economic press..." does the same thing. In a previous version, this statement was referenced, presumably by looking at the authors of various publications and drawing a conclusion from that. Like the "Spanish press" sentence, it smacks of rhetoric and argumentation (i.e. associating the term with "prestige" actors in order that some of that prestige might rub off). This is repeated in 99 History section.

I'm dubious about the sentence that the term related "to sovereign debt markets". I think this is a recent attribute. Until the present (passing?) crisis, I believe the term referred to broader economic attributes of the economies of Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece.

Use of referencing throughout the 99 version worries me. It looks like references were simply pulled from the previous version in 99's rewrite without much effort in ascertaining what the references actually supported. This is why I removed all references from the 99 version and marked sentences requiring refs in order that it could be started afresh. The clouding of troublesome sentences with copy-and-paste references makes it very difficult to ascertain what is assumption, synthesis, unsupported or fact.

Commentary also concerns me. The sentences that form the Variations section in the 99 version contains multiple clauses and run-on sentences. These sentences are interspersed with references but the references do not support the additional commentary contained within the sentences. Some of these additions are bizarre: for example that Ireland was added "for comparative purposes" or that Britain is included "for assorted political, economic or social reports and commentary." The section also makes leaps in association between the time that these economies became associated with the term and specific events in those economies. No doubt associations exist but the explicit linking of specific events needs to be supported by references and not casually assumed.

Whole sentences suffer from these weaknesses. For example the long sentences in the History section that casually associates the term with ERM and the Eurozone. That is particularly messy since ERM preceded these countries joining the Eurozone and so the term cannot have been "a concise way to refer to [the] Eurozone countries" at the time of ERM (i.e. the Eurozone did not exist then and these country are not in ERM since joining the Eurozone). That section ends in a stream of references none of which appear to support the sentence ... and one of which is merely a part of a title of chapter seemingly added without regard as to what the contents of the book actually says (or possibly assuming to know what it says)!

The overall structure of 99's rewrite, I've said before, I support but the content and particularly the assumptive and synthetic approach to referencing is what worries me greatest and I see it being endemic in the effectively every sentence of the 99 text. There is scarely a sentence that I cannot point to as being SYN, assumption or mis-referenced and each section I see as being argumentative in style and approach. --RA (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Current use of term by "economic press"

Sentence under discussion: Members of the Spanish and other international economic press continue to use the term of art in its narrow and restricted economic sense as a grouping acronym like the related BRIC.<ref>"La web de Roubini propone la solución para los PIIGS: euro fuerte y euro débil".</ref>

Actually, I am aware of what the references state. Many have been added by me. I also disagree most emphatically with the newly found standard regarding a reference. Your standard would have us copy verbatim, word for word, that which we state here. For example the contention that a source must precisely state that "... members of the international and Spanish speaking press continue to use the term" when we have contemporary cites of members of the Spanish and other international economic press doing just that ... using the term neutrally and as a grouping acronym. My guess is the current gathering of disparate sentences would fail to hold up under the same standard. I can tell you its riddled with numerous errors and is largely an unintelligible coatrack at this point. Hence my returning it to an earlier and more concise edit while removing much of the detritus its collected over the last month or two. The question is do we start with this and pare it down while correcting its numerous errors and inaccuracies, or do we use the earlier and somewhat previously more stable and focused version as our base?99.141.250.125 (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could state what are the errors and inaccuracies that you see. Please say what they are. Also, as has been asked of you before, what is the coat that you see being hung on a coat rack? Please say what it is.

Regarding the "Spanish press" and other similar use of references, see Wikipedia:No original research: "The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below. ... Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (Emphasis in original.) References need to be explicit about what are used to support. --RA (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your position, that members of the Spanish and international economic press DO NOT use the term -- unless, and until, a secondary source explicitly states somewhere that "members of the Spanish and international economic press DO continue to use the term" is ludicrous. We say they use the term because that is precisely what the refs use, the neutral use of the term as a grouping acronym. Are you seriously contending that the term is NOT being used? Or are you just stepping through-the-looking-glass? 99.141.250.125 (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. I'll quote the first sentence: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This comes from very long-standing Wikipedia policy, so RA is correct that the sources cited do not support the assertion that the Spanish press continues to use the term.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 13:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask this more clearly, "Do you contend that the Spanish and other international economic press do NOT use the term"? 99.141.250.125 (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not merely that sentence, as I wrote above. Look at the History section, for example: TEN references and not one that supports the sentence directly. Wholesale synthesis - and counter factual to boot by confusing ERM and the Eurozone. It's farcical! And STILL we are waiting to hear from 99.* what his/her problem is with the text.

Your were flying close to the wind before 99.* but now your behaviour is disruptive IMHO. I'll give you an opportunity to respond before taking it further. --RA (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(to 99.141) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I'm not contending one way or the other, what I'm saying is point me to the sentence or paragraph in any of the sources that verifies the statement. Otherwise we are possibly violating WP:Neutral point of view by cherry-picking sources. Now, if a reliable source states that the Spanish and other international media are continuing to use the term as a grouping acronym similar to BRICs, then I have no objection.

Now, allow me to ask a question of you. Did you read the policy WP:SYNTH?  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(From IP99) We can, and do, quite easily cite reliable sources continuing to use the term. 75.57.73.130 (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Refusing to get the point is considered disruptive editing. The sourcing is in obvious violation of WP:SYNTH. Please find a single source that backs up the statement if you want to include it.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 05:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, refusing to specify a violation is disruptive. What, exactly is the vio? "Do you contend that the Spanish and other international economic press do NOT use the term"? My question, and supporting refs are crystal clear. Feigning obtuseness and waving policy around is not moving us forward. Take it to the SYN noticeboard and support your position.99.141.250.125 (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to underline my point. Your argument, that an "obvious violation" exists, is not a basis. It lacks reason, logic or even precedence.99.141.250.125 (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Also note as you build your case for any "obvious violation" regarding disruptive, I removed the sentence under dispute, in its entirety, while under discussion - some time ago. 99.141.250.125 (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged exactly what I have a problem with in the article.  --Joshua Scott (formerly LiberalFascist) 00:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)