Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Request for comment on “vulture” descriptor[edit]

Its clear from the below that there is small consensus that 'Vulture Capitalist' is a perjorative/negative label. It is also clear that there is a consensus the subject should be described as a vulture capitalist in the article. Either in the body or the lead, with a small majority (less than in previous discussions, of which there have been many) for the lead. Absent a clear policy-backed reason to exclude the information that would be in body from the summary in the lead, there exists no consensus to restrict the label to the body or remove it from the lead. The BLP does not prevent us from from stating someone has been described negatively when backed by reliable sources. Given the multiple previous discussions in 2016. I am recommending a moratorium on further RFC's on this issue for 6 months as of this date. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2017 (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.

Requesting input per this lead removal on August 15 with this rationale, which met with reversions from User:Nomoskedasticity, and a reversion from User:SegataSanshiro1, both citing prior consensus. They are referring to a two-year discussion about the use of “vulture” as a descriptor in the lead of a biography. For the purpose of this discussion, I have a two-part question:

1) Is “vulture” a derogatory slur?

2) If so, does it belong in the lead of a biography (or corporate lead for that matter)?

In the hopes of keeping discussion pointed, I might strongly urge contributors from the prior RfCs to read the extended reasoning for my removal before adding their thoughts. Likewise, I'm sure scanning the old RfCs for new contributors would be a boon. Yvarta (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • It is a pejorative, and pretty universally considered such. It should in no way be used as a descriptor of Mr. Singer or any living person. I also noted in the past that The New York Times specifically uses "scare quotes" around the term, and the qualifier "so-called." [1] Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive232#Paul_Singer_.28businessman is elucidatory of the issue. Calling any living person a vulture is, and has been, a derogatory slur. I am aghast at the continuing anti-WP:BLP attitudes held by some editors. Collect (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If I can draw your attention to an earlier RfC (there have been many, both on this talk page and outside it) which had the same premise as this here, the closer wrote: There is consensus to use the term "vulture". The majority argument is that the word is used by reliable sources WP:RS. The minority opinion cites WP:BLP, but BLP is not a policy against inclusion of information found in reliable sources. Its purpose is to make sure those sources exist and are used. The lede of BLP clearly sets this forth. There have also been a good handful of discussions on this matter outside this talk page and all have concluded similarly. I fail to understand what has changed, it just seems like the latest attempt to roll the dice and see if things come out differently this time. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "vulture as in "vulture capitalist" is an insult. It's appropriate to use it in the article, since there is good sourcing, but it is not appropriate to use it in the lede. Ledes should be relatively neutral, because in a short paragraph it's harder to give context. On the other hand "vulture fund" is a description of a company, and is a standard term, and one widely applied to the type of firm in question. It's not really prejudicial. Since he and his fund are not really all that separate--he's the one who sets the policy, the actual meaning is not all that different, but the tone is. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Look, the fact that a person is living does NOT mean we must compose a hagiography. Are we supposed to pretend that Putin never invaded the Ukraine, Bill Clinton never had an affair and that some of the third-world countries where Mr Singer has made his money aren't as corrupt as they come? I am an uninvolved editor by the way, summoned by the bot. I thought I recognized the name, and yes, I have seen some of these stories in some of my own editing. on Congo and Peru. If Mr Singer is not a vulture capitalist it's hard to know what one would look like exactly. The sources are very strong. Greg Palast is an authority in the field and wrote a book about this. He may even have coined the term. And generally speaking the Post and the Independent are almost always considered reliable, especially for in-depth reporting. You currently do have some weasel words: "some people say." That's asking for a who template. The usual rule is not to say anything potentially defamatory about a living person UNLESS it is both true and pertinent. In Singer's case it clearly is pertinent -- this is who he is. We're not talking about some unfortunate accidental notoriety from a single event in his youth, which is on the other hand a case that *clearly* calls for BLP protection. So I think with four stellar references for the "vuture" appellation, you could consider it proven, but ok. If someone is still worried, quote someone saying so, Palast for example. This is the way these usually get resolved afaik. Elinruby (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I worry the arguments may have veered somewhat off track. I think we can all agree that the press, historians, and detractors have ‘’all’’ extensively referred to EMC, Singer, and other businessmen just like them all as vultures, in extensive literature. Are we going to add “he has been referred to as a vulture capitalist" on the page of every businessman associated with this industry? Its a catchphrase that helps bring attention to a very dry topic for many readers, and has helped many writers get attention for their material, but that does ‘’not’’ make it appropriate for a lead of an individual or corporation. Extensive literature has been written calling George W. Bush a war criminal, to cite an earlier example of mine, but that is still only appropriate for a balanced section in content, not a paragraph summation of the whole of a page’s controversy section. Vulture has an instant connotation, academic context or not, that is ‘’always’’ derogatory and sensational. That is the central argument behind my reversions. Yvarta (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I am always amazed by the number of people who appear to believe that the WP:BLP policy prevents Wikipedia from presenting any information that might remotely be construed as negative. What would you call Putin? Pinochet? Donald Trump? I don't know if you realize that you are actually asking for an exception to the policy. It is certainly true that people do say this. Very good sources have published stories that were the result of extensive research and that is the term that these sources use. Why pray tell would this man be treated any more worshipfully than the morally corrupt dictators who ran the debt up in the first place? He's right that some countries' leaders have been extremely irresponsible but he doesn't go after the leaders... he goes after the people who were already stuck paying the bill after their treasury was looted. There was already a lawsuit in progress against Congo Brazzaville's president and his family when Singer sued the *country*, for the president's actions actions, not the dictator whose family owned millions of dollars in Paris real estate, some of which had probably already been seized as criminal proceeds by the French authorities. There was nothing to prevent him from filing a claim against assets that had already been determined by the French to have been bought with funds from the the Congolese treasury. But he went after a country with something like 50% unemployment and a per capita GDP of about $2500. Oxfam said he essentially sucked up all of the Congo's foreign aid for the period, also, so not only was the country desperately poor they couldn't get help. I mean. A New York court ruled he bought up Peru's debt with the intention of suing and trying didn't try to seek alternatives[1] Nor is the term controversial anywhere but wikipedia, or possibly just this page. Some of the unimpeachable references for the term (at least six for that sentence) are staid financial publications writing somewhat sympathetic profiles. Why does the term upset you so much? And what would *you* say instead? By the way, the "defender of the 1%" thing was a direct quote from one of the sources. If it didn't have quites around it it should have. In fact the lede is so close in wording it's just this side of plagiarism. Meanwhile, Si/nger sued for $100 million an the obscure jurisdiction over a $3 million debt Bosia says that he bought illegal from *another* dictator[2]
The difference with Singer compared to other figures in the industry is that he is by far the most high profile figure, the public face of the industry if you will. The greater part of articles out there make reference to vulture funds - it is arguably what he is most known for and leaving such a key piece of information out of the lede is absurd, more so considering that the same argument you have made could also be made for philanthropy. Are there any Fortune 500 people out there who don't claim to be philanthropists? Whether the term is derogatory or not is somewhat irrelevant since it is never used in WP's voice, but simply reflecting what RS say. Read the page on Tony Blair for good reference on how pages of controversial people still reflect RS, and make note that the invasion of Iraq is there in the second sentence since it is what he is most known for, rather than what we have here where it's tucked under some philanthropic dribble. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I was a bit shocked to read that Singer "helped expose corruption in Congo". Ok, the corruption, was there, he didn't cause it, but he made an awful lot of money from it. I mean the man bought $30 million in debt then got a judgement for 400 and claims he is acting pro bono publica? Not.Elinruby (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It is a pejorative: Summoned by a bot, but I've been involved with this discussion in the past and hold firm to my previous rationale that the term is derogatory and shouldn't be used in the lead section of Singer's BLP. Any additional justification you need from me to support this vote, please feel free to dig through the last 2 years of RFCs surrounding this topic. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I am beginning to understand why everyone is so annoyed. "Vulture capitalist" it is not pejorative since that term implies that the name is untrue. Let's try this another way. The weasel words in the lede need to go so it should be rewritten anyway.Do any of the people objecting to vulture capitalist have a proposed alternative? Nice man? Let's actually look at BLP shall we? It says "we must get the article right". There is no question that he has been called a vulture capitalist. One of the references calls him the king of vulture capitalists. BLP says "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." I may not like the particular sentence but there are nine, count them, nine sources. Fortune, Bloomberg, Palast, the Independent, and the Oxford University Press more that meet this criterion.I consider CNBC ok and I do not know the other book publisher[3] but we aren't hurting for spectacular sourcing. The policy says "anything contentious must be "explicitly referenced to a reliable published source." Fair enough; apparently "vulture capitalist" is contentitios, but wow, indeed it is explicitly referenced. We have that five times over at a minimum. OH and the Guardian at the end there makes six. In fact the article has in my opinion POV problems, but they are the reverse of what is alleged. His business model is *not* insisting on full payment.See above. He sued the Congo for $100 million in debt over $3 million he shouldn't have bought in the first place. He doesn't fall into one of the exceptions. to the policy. He isn't a victim, or notable only for one thing. He has been found guilty of breaking the law but the wikipedia article doesn't go there. He's not a private person. He gives paid speeches, appears on TV, makes flamboyant political donations and files outrageous litigation that is a matter of record.
The Observer articles that paint him as a victim are questionable to me btw, and I don't see any other support in google about "jew-baiting". Need a reliable source for that.But sooo...he pays 11 million for Peruvian debt. He claims losses of $7. He loses a+nd appeals. He wins this time and is awarded $58 million; Come to find out, he bought that debt also from someone who was not authorized to sell it to him, and in order to collect he seized the president's plane when he was fleeing murder charges. President Fujimori gave him $56m from the Peruvian treasury to ransom his plane back. Nice. I nominate Singer for Santa Claus, and assistant-substitute tooth fairy on his days off.
If there ever was a vulture capitalist it's Paul Singer. And as for calling other people venture capitalists.... if the shoe fits... I have written all this up because I spent some time recently in the articles for both Congos and the idea that the Congolese people just need a sharp lesson seems rather offensive to me. The fact that Singer portrays his lawsuits as some sort of public good is even more nauseating. That is all, and I am out.Elinruby (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Holy cow! Is this fight still going on? Another RfC! A pox on both your houses! J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby, would it be inaccurate of me to simplify your argument to: “It is a slur, but it is accurate and sourced, and therefore should be included?” Again, this discussion is not whether or not he “is” a vulture. The issue is on using the word “vulture” in place of “purchases distressed debt and pursues the full value.” At the danger of sounding like a broken record, the term is associated with evil, a despicable predatory nature, and Bill Sikes-level greed (and now, per the Samsung issue in 2015, anti-semitism as well). I worry the central question is being diverted by facts unrelated to the issue. Yvarta (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
you're overthinking this. The issue is to accurately portray what reliable sources say. If you find any that support his contention that he's some sort of crimefighter and just trying to teach these irresponsible Africans to manage their money, you can add them also. Otherwise all we have are your worries about his reputation and/or feelings. Or whatever. I am not all that concerned with pleasing a billionaire who would prevent humanitarian aid to a country as devastated as Congo was. Please. Worry about global warming or floods in Louisiana. Paul Singer has a couple of billion dollars he can use to console himself. I'm more concerned with an accurate portrayal of events, which we don't seem to have here, at all. I just can't take your concern seriously, especially since they fly in the face of the policy you are trying to cite. WP:PUBLICFIGURE, hon. Elinruby (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Wow, it's good to see someone is finally making sense here, Elinruby. At least now after 2 years or so it has gotten to the point where people aren't claiming that the term can't be used at all because all these countless sources are "biased." If you go back to older versions, it reads like satire. With regards to the Congo section, I have been saying for a while now that it would be good to get a hand from an editor involved in Wikiproject:Congo who might be able to help out with more sources since it seems obvious that the Congolese POV isn't accurately represented here. There is also no mention of the anti-Argentina lobby which was involved in some pretty shady tactics [2]. Moreover, there is no mention that the holdout strategy to block payments to 93% of creditors who negotiated, and that's what caused the default (ie. Elliott ensured that Argentina COULDN'T pay debts), nor is there any mention of the RUFO clause which would have meant that Argentina's debt would have skyrocketed overnight if Singer had been paid when he demanded. POV problems throughout. And yes J.D.Crutchfield, we're still here having the nth discussion on the use of a word and I have a feeling this won't be the last, maybe next time we could discuss if we should use the Latin name for vulture because it's more neutral. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not very familiar with what happened in Argentina. My Spanish is toddler-level. Definitely not up to translating in the technical and perhaps contentious material we were seeing on Panama Papers. But I do speak French very well and was appalled enough to spend some time on it is all. I am not in Wikiproject Congo and I doubt many people are on the English wikipedia. Certainly the pages needed a lot of work and still do. It's pretty steep going, entire coups and scandals missing. Offshore mining companies that.... don't get me started. Elinruby (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from arguing that the viewpoints of others “don’t make sense.” Civility makes all editors feel comfortable in contributing. Yvarta (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I dunno......argh, must assume good faith, must assume good faith. Yvarta, you need to
  • PLEASE show me where in the BLP policy it says we have to avert our eyes from actual facts. WP:PUBLICFIGURE in fact says exactly the opposite, right? So why why why are we here? And since we are here, let us address the problems of NPOV and weight in the article. Also:
  • You need a better source for that anti-semitism you are so worried about. The Observer is....dubious. And your other souce appears to be a blog of someone who has no particular expertise in any of this. I'm willing to believe it but it has definitely not been demonstrated.
  • You need to include the 16 million euro fine in France for financial hijinks[4]
  • you don't mention either the WR Grace asbestos cases or the *other* Congo which is even poorer and which he also extorted.
  • I think it is notable that he spent $15 million on PACs alone this election [5]
The answer to your RfC is no. No no no. You are wasting people's time. All you're doing by insisting is making people wonder about your objectivity, imho. Also you seem to be quite a new account, which is interesting, in that you s9 fluently just rebuked someone for commenting on editors and want to instruct us in BLP. Hmm, I'd been on Wikipedia a long time before I even found out it existed, But sure, maybe you are just bright....... except that you are totally misreading it. Oh well, not my problem and good luck with this you guys. I am off to edit Glencore, which is another vulture investor. Elinruby (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
You remain off topic. Personal opinions on vulture funders, this biography, or the hedge fund industry at large don’t matter here. If you wish to discuss general improvements to the page, take it to a different location. This conversation is about the connotation of a word, and whether that connotation makes it appropriate for the brevity of a bio/corporate lead. Yvarta (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, your concerns are misplaced and seem to have little to do with fact. Incidentally, how did such a new account as yours come to formulate an RfC that is practically word-for-word the same as a previous user's objections in another forum? Just curious. It is ok to be a paid editor or to have a conflict of interest, you know, but you are supposed to declare it and edit in good faith. Unless you are one of the few who has an approved alias of course, must assume good faith. But you do take no account of other editor's concerns. It has become clear to me on reviewing the history if the page that this question -- this exact question -- has repeatedly been asked and answered and any disagreement is considered off topic. This seems to me to be an abuse of the editing process as it discourages the addition of legitimate information. Many people have declined to participate further citing this behaviour. For example: you cite BLP. Where in BLP does it say that there can be no information that might be considered derogatory? This is not an off-topic question. It goes to the heart of the change you are trying to make. Elinruby (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
About your bias insinuations, in the past I might have gotten up in arms - but after over six years of IP editing, I'm used to being treated a bit less than equal. I might remind you to not question the neutrality of others without good reason (i.e. diffs), and that if you have questions about COI, it is best to ask them on the relative privacy of their talk page. Yvarta (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
it seems to me there is good reason. What was the IP? Elinruby (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Yup, it's clear that this page (and this topic in particular) needs some kind of outside intervention or moderation, it's gotten really out of hand now. Just for the record, here's a list of all the discussions on this matter prior to this one (not including discussions on Vulture fund - there's plenty more there):
In all discussions which include uninvolved editors, the consensus has been overwhelmingly in favour of following reliable sources and using the term vulture fund on this page. The efforts of a few editors to repeatedly bring this subject up until everyone else gets tired of it and gives up shouldn't be how consensus functions. I hope this can me "stickied" on this talk page for future reference and that this issue can finally be laid to rest. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I heartily enjoin you to join the discussion, SegataSanshiro1, instead of simply repeating the arguments of others or attempting to denigrate opinions you might not agree with. You link so many RfCs, a clear sign that editors see the "vulture" issue as a problem and something worth bringing (continuously) to the community's attention. Perhaps the problem is that previous RfCs never focused the discussion enough to reach a constructive consensus before WP:NOTFACTIONS set in. To you specifically, I must ask - how does the "editorial judgement" described in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons not include lead descriptions in its purview? Before starting this RfC, I went through the pages of numerous biographies with leads encapsulating extreme controversies, and the most expressive descriptors I found, cited or not, were "aggressive" or "unpopular." But saying "Person A is commonly referred to as a dirty animal?" How can we, as editors, prefer that sentence over a perfectly neutral (and more useful) definition which is 'equally' covered and supported in the sources? I still fail to grasp the argument that "vulture" is required in the lead to communicate a concept, any more than "loan shark" is necessary to describe a payday loan company. In both cases, we have plenty of words to describe the criticism/academic sourcing in more nuanced ways. Yvarta (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
This is not a discussion, or you would be giving consideration to other editors' points of view. For instance you have yet to explain why WP:PUBLICFIGURE would not apply to this extremely well-sourced statement. It also occurs to me to wonder why you made a request for comment, since you don't seem to *really* want comment, just validation for your hagiography. I am an uninvolved editor, summoned by *your* RfC. I am trying to explain to you that BLP does not allow you to delete derogatory material based on your feelings or your personal research. The BLP policy says derogatory material must have at least one good source; there are *nine* on that sentence, and that is assuming the term is in fact derogatory, which I question very much. Elinruby (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I clarified which editors started the discussions just to clarify that while "a clear sign that editors see the "vulture" issue as a problem," it is always the same two editors who seem to have an issue with it and don't like the consensus - this is just another case of trying to create an appearance of controversy when there in fact isn't any. The first two discussions were created by an editor in order to stop Meatsgains from disallowing the use of RS using the vulture fund term and yet two years and 9 discussions later, that's still where we are. Given how you somehow managed to learn how to create an RfC within days of having an account and were drawn to this page immediately, I don't think I can assume good faith and must conclude that you have another account - if not then please explain (as you have been asked before) how it is that you acquired advanced knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies within days and how it is that you were drawn to this page. I will not participate in the discussion because every point you're making has been raised before (in this case, the argument that saying Singer owns a vulture fund somehow equates to Wikipedia calling him a vulture) and refuted endlessly. One of the discussions got shut down because the vocal minority brought nothing new to the table - it was evident that they were rolling the dice and hoping for a different outcome with the same arguments and information - the same should happen here. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Editing is not compulsory, so you are definitely not obligated to contribute your opinions. Before you leave, however, I'm a bit bemused by the sudden focus on COI - you and the other page watchers certainly seemed content with my re-organizing the page earlier, before I kicked the bees nest apparently. As I mentioned above to Elinruby, if you have questions about nefarious motives or my editing history, please direct them to my user talk page, or an appropriate forum. I have no problem being Checkusered or answering polite questions, but I do have problems getting off topic. Yvarta (talk)
You quack like a duck. I can't answer for page watchers, since I am not one of them, but... ok, let's assume I am paranoid and you are editing in the bestest of good faith. This still leaves the question of why we would not follow Wikipedia guidelines. I await your answer. Elinruby (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
How civil of you. Which guideline are you referring to? Yvarta (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)\
BLP of course Elinruby (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support 'vulture fund' but recommend caution about 'vulture capitalist' "Vulture fund" is a widely-recognized term for firms that specialize in distressed debt, and is even widely used in a semi-neutral manner by writers who mainly write for a financial-industry audience (see [3], last paragraph). "Vulture capitalist" is a term I'm less familiar with though if this article is to be believed, it has a widely-recognized meaning which is definitely not "someone who runs a vulture fund" (though I haven't looked into that article's sourcing). Chris Hallquist (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
how do you read it then? Mind you, we don't usually use wikipedia pages as a source, but beyond that I am not sure I understand your point. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing, Chris Hallquist. As a followup question, in the context of your comment what might you consider "widely recognized?" I'm sure the term is known among Forbes readers, yes, but I question whether a class of young Argentinean school-children would jump to the academic connotation. Yvarta (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The Bloomberg article you are quoting from specifically says "a vulture fund (Argentina's words)." In other words, the author is quoting Argentina when he uses the term vulture. This is consistent with many other articles, which report that Argentina has repeatedly used the term vulture to criticize Singer. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@FuriouslySerene: the *nine* references for the term in the lead aren't all quoting Argentina. Several are are using the term in their own voice, and not always as a term of disdain, either. And again, what matters is what the sources say, right? WP:BLP Elinruby (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
You're not responding to my point about the Bloomberg article. Regardless, my review of reliable sources seems to shows that mainstream media sources do not refer to Singer in that way. For example, see these articles published in past few weeks that came up as most recent in Google News: CNBC, Financial Times, The Telegraph, Bloomberg, Mother Jones (a left leaning media source by the way), the Wall Street Journal etc. etc. I don't think it's accurate to say that Singer is called a vulture fund manager by reliable sources. He is called a hedge fund manager or hedge fund giant in the vast majority of these types of reliable sources. A mention of the word "vulture" seems rare and is mostly used by his critics. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove from lead, and carefully phrase it in body - Bot summoned. I agree with DGG. There's no reason it needs to be included in the lede. I think it's okay in the body to say that, for example, that some people refer to Singer's activities as "vultures." However, my review of reliable sources indicates that it is not a widely accepted term for Singer. Many highly reliable sources, like The New Yorker, the Financial Times, or the New York Times, seem to acknowledge the term is pejorative and only use it in the context of quoting one of his critics. I would say that it should be used in the body, but context must be given as to who uses it. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
FuriouslySerene, are you referring to vulture capitalist or vulture fund? Because with regards to vulture funds, there is no other name for them, it's the activity which Singer is most known for and that is backed up by countless references. With vulture capitalist, I can see where people are coming from, but we shouldn't confuse the two. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I am referring to the use of "vulture" only in the context of Paul Singer. I've edited my comment above to make that clearer. The most widely accepted name for Singer's business is hedge fund. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
yes but I don't think the terms are synonymous. A vulture fund is a particular type of hedge fund, is it not? But either way, what matters here is how the sources describe him. Solid mainstream journalists with impeccable reputations say he is a vulture capitalist. So far nobody has found brought even one source to the discussion that does not. Elinruby (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
As I've just commented above, I don't believe this is accurate. Reliable sources do not regularly refer to him as a vulture fund manager. Here is a selection of recent articles about Singer, none of which use the word vulture (I've reposted from my other comment to you): CNBC, Financial Times, The Telegraph, Bloomberg, Mother Jones, the Wall Street Journal and so on. The term "vulture" is used by his critics and is not typically used by reliable sources who cover the industry. As I've said, I don't object to using it in the body, but it should be given the proper context. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This was settled via previous RfCs. To raise this question again, one would have to anticipate a new RfC where the views given represent a drastic shift from the previous consensus (otherwise the views previously contributed would in effect be discarded). That doesn't strike me as a likely outcome here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Nope. Consensus can change, and the idea that any pejorative should be used about any living person is one where you and I have demurred on the past. This RfC is properly framed, and a charge that any RfC is invalid because one wishes past consensus to be cast in stone is contrary to WP:CONSENSUS. Collect (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
This is also contrary to WP:FORUMSHOP and pretty much every aspect of the "pitfalls and errors" section of WP:CONSENSUS. WP:CCC also states that "On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive." and that's what's happened over and over again here, sometimes multiple times in the same month. The last RfC was less than three months ago and we had an average of one RfC per month before that. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
One RfC on average per month? I am new to this dispute but I only see three RfCs total. The last RfC seems to have closed with no consensus reached as well. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I listed the RfCs above. There was an issue with a huge amount of forum shopping by one editor who took this discussion to every forum imaginable on Wikipedia outside this talk page at the rate of one a month since he would never get his way. The last discussion was closed by that same editor (who also opened the discussion) when it looked like things weren't going his way. All in all a bit of a mess. Sorry for the confusion, it's pretty hard to summarise. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so there are three RfCs total, and the last one was closed as no consensus (a closing which you dispute I surmise). I personally don't think a fourth RfC would be inappropriate in the circumstances. I have no opinion about forum shopping, but in some circumstances where there is a significant dispute getting additional opinions seems beneficial. Obviously I've stated I agree with the nominating editor so take that as you will. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
No, there are far more than three. Again, if you look at the list above, there's been plenty of opportunities for outside editors to get involved. There is no way the closing summary which you refer to can be taken seriously: with 15 editors involved, 5 were against and 10 in favour of using the term - though RfCs are not a vote, this seems extremely conclusive and I struggle to see how anyone can call this "no consensus" other than you and the extremely involved editor who closed the discussion. Additional opinions are not beneficial, they're disruptive. You can tally up the numbers yourself: before this discussion, a total of 38 different editors have been involved in discussions involving outside editors since the original RfC here. Of those, 23 have been in favour of using the term and 6 against (yes, it's nearly always the same editors) with the rest somewhere in between (I made a similar tally here and the case has only strengthened since then). I think it's pretty obvious that there is no controversy here and the numbers speak for themselves, please stop saying there is one. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
If you disagreed with the closure, you could have pursued WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and requested a review at WP:AN. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: One RfC was "no consensus" the other was "very weak consensus". That is not a "strong consensus" at all. Collect (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware such a policy existed. I'll try that now, though I'm not sure how a discussion that's been resigned to archives will be met by admins, but it's worth a shot since it should have been done immediately. Thanks. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I just realised, I had indeed done this when that RfC was closed in such a ridiculous way. It looks like I didn't formulate it correctly though. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Again, the "no consensus" RfC was the conclusion made by the editor who opened the discussion who then decided to close the discussion. If you have a quick scan of the different editors who weighed in, it is clear that this was closed like this because the discussion wasn't going his way at all. The "weak consensus" (not very weak) was two years ago, since then consensus has strengthened in favour of actually following sources, rather than ignoring them. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
This sort of tendentious misrepresentation -- asserting that "one RfC was [closed as] 'no consensus'" when in fact that close was offered by the partisan editor who initiated the RfC -- is likely sanctionable. At a minimum it is ignorable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Woo Haa! You said that the consensus was established that the person could be described as a "vulture" in the lead. Now you say "but that RfC was fraudulent" even though no one has made any different close for it. Sorry -if you feel my mention of a close of a consensus is "sanctionable" (you do not dispute the close there exists) - then take action. Until then, I suggest you simply let this RfC run its course, as Wikipedia policy says to do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I would have done that if I had known that was possible. I assume other didn't because they're tired of this discussion by this point. I believe that was the eighth one. Is it possible to do now or is it too late? SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove from the lead - 1.) The term is a derogatory slur used by detractors (who disagree with Singer's investment strategies) or quoted from detractors, most of the time including it in quotation marks. 2.) No, it does not belong in the lead of a BLP. At best, it could be moved to the body of the page but only if attribution to the opinion is provided. The pejorative isn't tolerated on any other hedge fund manager's BLP so why are we allowing it on Singer's?
Mitt Romney was hit with the slur "vulture capitalist" repeatedly, yet it isn't in the lead of his page. In fact, it is used only once at the bottom of the page and is rightly attributed to a detractor. I'm not suggesting we add "vulture" to every venture capitalist's page - the solution here is simple, remove it.
Also, the argument that "there was already consensus" is stale. Cleary with new eyes on the page, consensus is shifting and as everybody knows consensus can change. Meatsgains (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep both (in lead) Wikipedia is not censored. From what I can see, multiple reliable sources use the term in relation to the subject and this tag or description is a significant part of the subject's coverage. Accordingly, I don't see why we should remove it. This RFC btw is pretty badly formatted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree Wikipedia is not censored - which is why vulture is covered in the body of the page, currently in the "business model" section. Seeking to understand your argument, are you of the opinion that a BLP lead is not subject to extra editorial considerations? Yvarta (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, you need to understand the difference. "Vulture fund" is very commonly used - it is not derogatory. Same with "vulture capitalist" - although the term recently might have acquired a negative connotation - I don't see it as derogatory enough to not include. I'm not from the West, so it is possible I see things from a different perspective - but that is what Wikipedia is all about. Secondly, we go by weight. If multiple reliable sources have described him as such, we need to mention that as well. Our job is not to hide descriptions but to reproduce what most sources say. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I do indeed understand the difference. About use in the lead, however, if a child or student reads it and has never encountered the term "vulture fund" before - what possible grounding do they have to jump to a complex academic definition? They will assume it means "evil fund," and ascribe no other useful meaning. I also fail to see how removing "vulture" from the lead would be in any way censorship. All those sources mentioning vulture also ascribe the term an actual definition - is there a reason why you wouldn't find this more nuanced and neutral definition acceptable in "vulture's" place? Yvarta (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Again, we can't cater to people whose vocabulary is limited. We don't reduce the standards of the encyclopaedia, we expect people to learn and I also disagree with the simplistic conclusion that people will assume "evil fund" when there is nothing evil in it. The term is not derogatory otherwise mainstream media (that too in the US which I feel is overly politically correct) wouldn't use it. I don't see a good enough reason to substitute the term here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
You well ought to note that the best sources use "scare quotes" for the term, and do not use the term "vulture fund" "in their own voice". Collect (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Check recent news stories about vulture funds - hardly any use scare quotes. There's a reason for internal links, so people can go to vulture funds (note - not derogatory) and vulture capitalist to learn more about them. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with your premise that because the term is common, it is not derogatory - I also disagree that people should feel the need to "click away" for a full definition, when there is a fine definition in the body of the page waiting for them lower down. LemonGirl, I feel you continue to ignore connotation, or refuse to acknowledge it. If you don't mind me nitpicking, you still haven't answered my specific question - is there a reason you feel the definition of vulture does not work well in the introduction? Is there a reason that doesn't fit your needs? (also, the mainstream media has no need to avoid deragatory terms whatsoever - they simply put "quotes" on a term if they want to avoid getting hell - excluding perhaps the tabloids I was embarrassed to find on the page). Yvarta (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Yvarta, could that same logic not be applied to other terminology in the lede such as "distressed securities" which the average reader won't understand? The same could even go with "hedge fund" - most people will have heard the term, but how many will actually know what one does? WP is here to inform, that's why links are provided (look ledes on pages like Mitosis for example) but if you feel that strongly about it, something in brackets similar to the definition provided by Google could also work. Please note again, that if you do a quick news search for vulture funds, you will find a general absence of scare quotes. Note also that the recent Huffington Post addition (not sure who added the source) gives Singer's job description as "the vulture fund manager" (no quotes). SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The Huffington Post is no better than a tabloid, dear. Better if we stick with Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times. Also, to clarify, I have no problem with "confusing" terms in the introduction. I do have a problem with words that are widely seen as slurs, which will lead to skimmers assuming that term was chosen by academics because Singer and his firm "act like vultures" and are inherently nefarious. Yvarta (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Please don't call me "dear". And no, it just has a POV, much like Forbes and Wall Street Journal have a pro-market POV - it's our job as editors to balance these out and represent all POVs with due weight. Also, it is used by academics extensively. We went through this on the W2W discussion for vulture fund, there is no other widely agreed-upon term. Why are we discussing this anyway? I thought we were going to discuss uses of "vulture" which attribute Singer specifically, not common terminology. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I remain confused by your comment? I was under the impression I started this discussion specifically to address common terminology, with Singer's specificities largely irrelevant. Yvarta (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep in lead - Sorta amazed that this subject has been RfC'ed so many times. Not sure I've ever seen a proposal put forward and struck down so many times at RfC. Anyways, the question of whether the term is pejorative is meaningless. Whether or not some term is pejorative isn't really for WP editors to decide. All that really matters is whether it's a term that the RS's have used in the past. There are a large number of mainstream RS's which use the language we're using. That strikes me as appropriate. We follow RS's on WP. That's just what we do.... NickCT (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, possibly change wording - There aren't a lot of sources calling him a "vulture capitalist", but there are a number of sources saying he is the head of a "vulture fund". The word "vulture" is supported by sources; the question is the wording. Instaurare (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep in lead - While it is true that a "vulture capitalist" is often (even usually) a perjorative, it appears to be following the reliable sources that are available. Mr. Singer, like so many other individuals, has both laudable and lamentable traits and I don't see a reason to avoid using a clear, precise term that reliable sources themselves use to describe some of the more lamentable ones. Heterodidact (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Creator Comment - Thank you all for contributing so far, of all opinions (RfC creator here). A typical RfC without a landslide is expected to last approximately a month, and so we are now nearing that time. From my view, there is still a great variety of opinion - I had been hoping that by this point, we might have settled on a consensus that was so clear and sensible it would be mutually satisfying to all of us. However, I also didn't want to sit on the discussion and pick at every opinion I disagreed with, so I've held back from over-engaging. Now that we are nearing four weeks, I would like to attempt to summarize both angles, both to help clarify my own thoughts and perhaps spur some clarification from others.
Anti-vulture in lead angle - From my perspective, there is now some strong agreement that as vulture is a negative animal epithet, it should be replaced in the lead by a definition of the "vulture fund" neologism when used on a bio/corporate page. The argument here is that vulture is a loaded word when used in a descriptive or personal way - as such, it is better in the lead to prioritize a neutral alternative, while leaving the phrase to be explored in the body of the page. Another element of this argument is that censorship is avoided because the concepts captured in the phrase "vulture fund" are equally captured in the definition, with references equally supporting both, excluding cases where "vulture" is simply quoted in the press as a slur.
Side note: Case studies include Mitt Romney, who had "vulture" removed as a lead descriptor in favor of the more commonly used "hedge fund." In this case, however, there is no recommendation to remove the description of Singer's business practices and their reception from the lead - simply the singular word. Far-reaching impact: it might give a precedence in the future for other editors, for example, to keep "vulture fund" from public figure leads such as Donald Trump.
Pro-vulture in lead angle: The opposing argument (and I welcome clarification if I am off base), is generally one of several arguments, depending on the person:
  1. "Vulture fund" and "vulture capitalist" are not deragatory terms when applied to a person, as the phrases have recently acquired an academic definition and common use in the business press (and tabloids)
  2. Singer is inherently evil, and although vulture has negative connotation, "vulture" accurately captures who he is - as such, not including it in the introduction would be censorship.
  3. The press frequently refers to Singer as running a vulture fund, and as such, it is simple censorship not to include that in the introduction.
All three of these arguments I believe I have broached sensible counter-arguments to - and so while I respect the variety of opinion, I am not entirely sure how to proceed on the next step of this consensus building. Perhaps there are other editors who would like to chime in, and help clarify how I may be misinterpreting arguments, or what may be missing from both sides? Thank you. Yvarta (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Are you being serious? SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
With respect, Yverta, I think this RfC has come up to a clear consensus in favour of "vulture fund" and agnosticism leaning to inertia on "vulture capitalist". I would suggest that your summary of the arguments to date is at best irrelevant, and at worst spin that would inflame participants in the discussion - for example, I can't find support for your characterization that pro-"vulture capitalist" commentators approve of the term on the basis of Mr. Singer's "inherent evil", as you put it. Heterodidact (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove "vulture capitalist" from lead. There's not enough usage to have it in the lead [4], especially in a WP:BLP, and in the lead it's a BLP-vio. Also, the major contributor to this article is Argentinian [5]. I am neutral about "vulture funds" in the lead [6]. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Not suitable as a term for a person I think that is fairly clear. "Vulture fund" reasonably and clearly defined, and used in quotation marks, may be usable, but "vulture" anything applied to a person is pejorative in esse, and not usable at all. Collect (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm -- you've already "not-voted" -- in fact you were the first person to do so in response to this RfC. A double-portion of cake is unseemly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I had not made any prior "bolded comment" and at least one person seemed to indicate their tally did not include my opinion. The purpose of the "bolded comment" is to ensure that such a misapprehension of my precise position is not accidentally perpetuated. As a result, you are welcome to become a tally whacker and strike out my first comments here if you find them now confusing either in tone or nature. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC) .
  • Keep in lede exactly as it is now as of 6:24PM PST 9-13-2016 - Summoned by bot - it reads fine - it explains that the vulture term and vulture capitalist terms are used by various media sources, and wiki-links for more info. Given the popular usage of the terms, I think it's balanced. It's no different than arguing for the term high yield bonds versus junk bonds.Timtempleton (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I might argue that the term "junk bond," while seeming similar to what we are talking about here, is not the same. The term vulture gives someone the attributes of that word. "Junk," in this situation, does not apply that connotation to an individual, because it is a description of a "bad investment," not a person or company, and therefore is unlikely to be a problem in most leads under WP:BLP. And even though "junk" may not have same pointedly slanderous connotation as vulture, I would also argue that "John Johnson is known in the press for being a junk bondsman" would also be up for debate in terms of neutrality (especially as "junk bond" redirects to a more specific and neutral definition, which could be alternatively used in a lead). Yvarta (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The term is not "Vulture" - it is "Vulture capitalist" and "Vulture funds". There is a difference between the terms. "Dog" and Dog fight" for example are not the same. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed they are different, I agree. My argument is that "vulture capitalist/fund" automatically inherit the connotation of their individual parts, as well as having new meaning per being neologisms. Yvarta (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, then your argument is wrong and too simplistic. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep previous RfC consensus decision. It is gaming the system to keep on bringing up the same question when nothing fundamental has changed. Darx9url (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I notice now the link has archived, but note there is a discussion currently ongoing about whether this RfC is gaming the system, and whether a prior consensus was reached. Yvarta (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2016 (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.

current use of VULTURE in this BLP[edit]

Archiving in relation to above RFC. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2017 (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.

number of sources have branded him a "vulture capitalist",
largely on account of his role at EMC, which has been called a vulture fund.
Samsung published numerous depictions of Singer as an anthropomorphic vulture on its corporate website
With Singer termed a "vulture capitalist"
EMC has been described by detractors[20][23] and the press,[15][17] as a "vulture fund"
Depending on your own views, that makes Singer an activist investor, or a 'vulture capitalist.'"[5]

In footnotes:

"The vulture capitalist who devoured Peru – and now threatens Argentina; Could Paul Singer destroy another economy?"
"Vulture funds await Jersey decision on poor countries' debts"
. "Can you make an ethical case for vulture funds
"Vulture funds – the key players"
"The Vulture: Chewing Argentina's Living Corpse
"Fujimori paid and the Vulture Funds gave him the plane to flee from Peru," said Toussaint". Telam.
Vulture Fund Founder Singer Helps Back Giuliani Bid".
' Vulture funds' threat to developing world".
Vulture funds – the key players". (yep - duplicated use of vulture by duplicating the same cite)
"Argentina welcomes home ship held in Ghana by US ' vulture fund'"
This Vulture-Fund Billionaire

Is seventeen uses of vulture quite sufficient in a BLP? Collect (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Did we really need another section discussing this issue? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
You are seeking to make sure the lead contains multiple uses of vulture so I daresay you ought not complain that the seventeen uses - including deliberate repetitions - is noted. Collect (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Most of these are sources, but thanks for pointing out that the use of the term is extremely well sourced in relation to Singer. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
And note that most are not about him as a person, and that "scare quotes are used as a rule by reliable sources - did you know why "scare quotes" are used? Collect (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Greetings Collect - I think you are well meaning, but I suspect the mentions of vulture at this point are just the result of random additions. The sensational articles tend to get the most exposure in the media, and so people are more likely to get emotional about the story and feel the need to come add it to Wikipedia. I suspect it could naturally be balanced out somewhat if an editor took the time to add more "Career" information - for example, adding in business dealings that are more mundane and attract less attention in the press. Yvarta (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Um... what about WP:DUE? You're basically saying you want to add a load of fluff to this article to take attention away from the no-no word you don't like? That's not improving an encyclopedia, that's making it worse. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that is what Yvarta is saying at all. What you deem "fluff" others would consider significant information. I've said it before but Singer is covered extensively in reliable sources covering his long-term investments, positions, political donations, etc. without describing him or his business with the pejorative. The sources that use "vulture" were cherrypicked Meatsgains (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that's what some of us mean either. We're trying to discuss the use of "vulture" as a descriptor of a human being. "Vulture" is as such a charged word in the sense that we're liable to annex this valued meaning to a word that is used in the context of a business endeavour. Handling a vulture fund is not the same as BEING a vulture. I am utterly amazed people fail to see that. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"Handling a vulture fund is not the same as BEING a vulture." - yes, I agree. That argument is dead and buried (looking at you, Meatsgains). Perhaps something productive would be to identify the sentences which do indeed call Singer personally a vulture from those that describe his vulture fund. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

SegataSanshiro1, you already saw me distinguish the sources several weeks ago. As a friendly side note, I would strongly recommend you take some time to walk the dog before continuing to recommend changes to the Singer article. You've expressed difficulty remaining neutral/unemotional on this topic, which is very common and even understandable when a political topic hits close to home. But understandable or not, that emotion can make one confrontational, which only hurts consensus building, and never helps. Yvarta (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
See, this is one of the things that bothers me here -- you accuse him of ownership and railroading and who knows what... then you say something like this. Stop insulting him and deal with other people's positions. I have asked you questions and made suggestions that you have not addressed at all. Also your schoolmarmish tone is grating. "We" are getting annoyed enough to actually become involved in this and "we" have plenty of other stuff to do. Elinruby (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
If no-one points out incivility, it never stops, and situations deteriorate very quickly. Also, perhaps I missed one of your questions? I found it hard to distinguish your main points earlier, but I would be more than happy to go into the nitty-gritty of a point that is bothering you. Yvarta (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I am trying to conceive of a way that that might be so. Alright. Let's try this: your primary point seems to be that a hypothetical Argentinian child might for some reason be reading the English-language wikipedia and construe the term to literally mean that Paul Singer is a bird who eats carrion (?) not just a businessman who buys assets for pennies on the dollar from people who have no choice but to sell, and literally takes food aid from starving children. Is that right?
What do you think the odds of that might be and how large a threat might this be in your mind to Mr Singer's feelings, really? Isn't your hypothetical child much more likely to encounter mention of his own government saying this, since this would be in his language on a topic that affects him, and in media coverage he would more plausibly encounter? This is not, mind you, a rationale for using the term, merely a point on which I wish you would indeed go into the nitty-gritty. As for my suggestions, I will make another. Type ctrl-F "off-topic" and re-read the posts you have been dismissing. Elinruby (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Elinruby. I count five editors (more than those who want to censor the term from the page) who thought having another RfC was silly (SegataSanshiro1, Elinruby, Nomoskedasticity, SPECIFICO and Jdcrutch), hence why I started the discussion. It seems a little harsh to put it all on me - as I stated in the AN, if it were just me dissenting then I wouldn't have taken it there. Though I do have to agree with Yvarta that calming down a bit wouldn't do me any harm. The ridiculousness of this page has really tested my nerves and 99% of my editing has occurred on non-controversial pages, so not really used to this. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Mr. Singer's hypothetical feelings. My central argument is that the vast majority of readers will not associate vulture with an academic term, but with a slur, and as such, it does not belong in the lead of any biography as a descriptor. And Segata, as I cited weeks earlier, WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. And ElinRuby, if you have no issues you want re-addressed, please bring them up in a specific manner - you may have noticed the discussion is rather long, and being specific helps everyone involved. Yvarta (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
that will continue to be the case if you persist in feeling you have to reply to every post dismissing it off-topic. You *asked* for outside opinions. I "have no issues I want readdressed" -- although that is not what I said -- only in the sense that you haven't addressed anything I actually said in the first place.
Here's a nice specific question for you: what is your evidence that Wikipedia users as a group are incapable of identifying specialized terminology? I deal with specialized vocabulary all the time, and am unaware that we are supposed to avoid words than a primary school student would not know. Generally I deal with this with a wikilink. What's so wrong with that? For that matter, what is your evidence that the term is a slur? If you have some why then this RfC? Elinruby (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that polling is, I'm just pointing out that I'm not some 'sole editor standing in your way' as yourself and others have claimed. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Remove "vulture capitalist" from lead. There's not enough usage to have it in the lead [7], especially in a WP:BLP, and in the lead it's a BLP-vio. Also, the major contributor to this article is Argentinian [8]. I am neutral about "vulture funds" in the lead [9]. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2016 (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.

Fixing procedural oversight - deletion during RfC[edit]

Archiving in relation to above RFC. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2017 (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.

Hello. I just, again, removed vulture from the lead, as has been done several times these past few years. I believe these discussions are proof that there are valid "good-faith BLP objections” to the inclusion of vulture in the lead:

  1. Current RfC: ongoing
  1. Arbitration discussion on the validity of the prior consensus: also ongoing

On restoring deleted content, Wikipedia’s WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE reads:

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

These two discussions provide evidence that there is currently no clear consensus in favor of keeping vulture in the lead.

To make my thought process clear, this is not an attempt to silence or ignore voices in the RfC that I may not agree with. Singer is not the point of contention in the most recent RfC, but the broader concept of “vulture fund/capitalist” being used in a BLP or company lead as a descriptor - that discussion is still ongoing, and I have not closed it. This deletion is an attempt to fix a procedural oversight, until that RfC concludes.

Having analyzed WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE from every angle, I believe my action is entirely proper and in the best interest of the content and its neutrality, fitting both the nature of the guideline as well as its exact wording. I will be more than willing to revert my deletion, if consensus (i.e. the burden of proof) settles in that direction, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Yvarta (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted per BRD and long term status quo. Please stop POV pushing here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that "Vulture capitalist"/"Vulture capitalist" is a derogatory slur first. There is no consensus that it is and multiple previous RfCs have not demonstrated it. And as I have said before, you are constantly confusing "Vulture" with "Vulture capitalist"/"Vulture fund" and saying that the word apparently inherits some connotation. I will politely request you to withdraw and not waste any more time here. Your actions are exactly what constitutes Civil POV pushing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
POV pushing can, if you don't mind me saying, always be argued both ways in a contentious situation. If you have evidence that current consensus exists in favor of keeping the terms, please present it, in light of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Thank you! Yvarta (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The long term stable version is consensus. You tried to change it in the RFC, but it didn't happen. Please do not edit war. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
For goodness sake stop reverting! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Please provide evidence that a long-term "stable" (as you claim) version is evidence of consensus, and not the current RfC itself, or associated discussions on the validity of the RfC, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Thank you! Yvarta (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Apparently you haven't been editing Wikipedia for a long time to know that. There is no consensus that what you are trying to remove is a BLP violation. We go by WP:WEIGHT here. Please see previous RFCs as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I would agree with your assessment that there is no consensus that there is a BLP violation. That, I would think, is rather obvious as the RfC is ongoing. Note that until evidence of consensus is brought forth, the burden of evidence has not been supplied per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. I will stepping away from this discussion for at least a day to avoid becoming curt in my responses, but I will be happy to discuss in more detail when I return. Yvarta (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If there's another revert by Yvarta, I'll do the honours... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
@Lemongirl942: In response to the "long term stable version is consensus"... If anything, the long term stable version was the one prior to the pejorative being inserted throughout Singer's page. Once the slur was added is when users took the issue to the talk page and multiple noticeboards. Meatsgains (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I looked at this previous RFC which was formally closed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not close the above discussion and put an end to this nonsense (preferably a neutral editor this time). It's long overdue. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I would love for an experienced and neutral editor to close the RfC, after assessing all the relevant comments. Hopefully that will happen in due time. Yvarta (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Came here via WP:AN3RR. I don't see the need to remove this content as it's supposed by sources. If sources are a concern then this can discussed. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2016 (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.