Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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)

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.

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)