Jump to content

Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Political activities

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

Your deletion includes three well-formatted, noteworthy, reliable source references including the The New York Times and The Nation WP:RS. The content you favor is so extremely general as to convey no information to our readers WP:RF. Do you favor your generalization precisely because it is such a neat summary it completely subsumes every possible more specific content regarding any grantee that any editor might find anywhere, in any reliable source, therefore, there is no need for any more specific detail? Of course you understand "summary style" is not intended to frustrate detail when supported by weight in reliable sources. WP:DUE We can revisit this summarization as we approach maximum page size guidelines. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
May I respectfully make a suggestion, spend a few minutes with those three sources and suggest an alternative summarization of them. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason to narrow the focus of Singer's donations to just "politicians who favor a strong military". Singer, as a top political donor, has given to countless political causes including libertarian organizations and libertarian politicians. You and I both know, many of the libertarian organizations and politicians oppose strong military. My alternative summarization would say something along the lines of, "Singer has given millions of dollars to politicians" but that of course wouldn't be necessary as it is already discussed throughout the article. We can't cherry pick sources to support inclusion of favored content. Meatsgains (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
We agree, we cannot cherry-pick sources. Here we have:
  1. Thomas Jr., Landon (January 25, 2007). "Hedge Fund Chiefs, With Cash, Join Political Fray". New York Times. Retrieved March 18, 2015. Mr. Singer is a self-described conservative libertarian who has given millions of dollars to Republican organizations that emphasize a strong military and support Israel.
  2. Clifton, Eli (April 7, 2014). "GOP Pro–Gay Marriage Funder's Other Agenda: Bombing Iran". The Nation. Retrieved March 18, 2015. ...his other advocacy agenda: the Middle East, and a hawkish foreign policy agenda he funds through an array of think tanks.
  3. Blumenthal, Paul (April 23, 2014). "Wall Street, War Hawks Fund Challenger To Only Anti-War, Anti-Wall Street Republican". Huffington Post. Retrieved March 18, 2015. Singer has sought to position himself as a GOP power player by backing candidates who agree with certain key stands: support for gay marriage and immigration reform, a hawkish foreign policy and opposition to a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine.
  4. "Meet the wealthy donor who's trying to get Republicans to support gay marriage". Washington Post. Singer is staunchly pro-Israel.
"Singer gives to some politicians" grossly understates noteworthy RS. RS goes into more detail than the most-general of all possible generalizations. We have plenty of room under page size guidelines to offer our readers a bit more detail, a few more words, about the kinds of politicians favored. Hugh (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@HughD: First, the contentious material should be removed from the page until a consensus is met on this issue however, I do not want to engage in an edit war. Second, only one of the sources you provided makes the connection between Singer's contributions and "a strong military." The issue at hand does not involve page length, but rather, inclusion of selective and unnecessary details. Anyone can read the article to be informed on his contributions. Meatsgains (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Including the claim is redundant and already touched upon throughout the article. The entire Political activities section accurately covers Singer's political contributions. Meatsgains (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Meatsgains. The political activities section is a good overview of his views/contributions/activity. The sentence in question seems redundant and has a WP:NPOV tone. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Singer has given to a mix of groups, not just politicians who favor a strong military and Israel. His political contributions are already covered throughout the article. Meatsgains (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It is preposterous that possibly negative information doesn't belong on a BLP. There are articles that solely criticize or ridicule their subjects through the use of reliable sources. You have no reason not to include this sourced piece apart from WP:DONTLIKEIT. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Think I agree with Bataaf van Oranje. Meatsgains seems to have a pretty clear pro-Singer bias. Not sure why. The only requirement for this kind of information is that it's verifiable. Meats continuously makes the argument that negative information about Singer is somehow "not relevant". NickCT (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
My point exaxtly. And it's definitely unusual how much attention has been spent on keeping this page neutral. Anyhow, Singer currently seems to fall under WP:PUBLICFIGURE:

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

This should take away much of the confusion. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Bataaf van Oranje - Indeed indeed. I think we've reached consensus for inclusion of the material in question. NickCT (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
...and it was reverted again. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Prinsgezinde: - Ok. I restored. I'll restore any removal which is not discussed here first. NickCT (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Contentious material should be removed from the page until a consensus is met. If the consensus is to add it back, then we can restore it to the page. Meatsgains (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Meatsgains: - You are the only person arguing against the material in question. Please cease removing it. This is bordering on tendentious editing behavior. NickCT (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@NickCT: Read further up in this thread. I am not the only one opposing its inclusion. I will not remove the content because I don't want to be accused of edit warring but a consensus should really be met first. Meatsgains (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Meatsgains: - Oh.... I'm sorry, there was you and Safehaven86 versus me Bataaf van Oranje, Jimjilin, Hugh, Nomoskedasticity. That's over 2 to 1. That's consensus. But more importantly, you have a persistent history of excluding negative information about Singer from this article with the explanation that you feel it isn't relevant. Surely experience from past discussion has suggested this isn't a good strategy? What you're doing really pushes some WP:OWN, WP:NPOV and WP:BATTLEGROUND borders. NickCT (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Support inclusion of financial support for strong military and Israel. Support inclusion of venue, US court. Support inclusion of Argentinian POV on debt claims for balance. WP:DUE and WP:PUBLICFIGURE are determinative here, not WP:DONTLIKEIT. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

@NickCT: Nomoskedasticity stated that there "isn't consensus for it", making it 3:4...hardly a consensus. Meatsgains (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Meatsgains: - Sorry. Not sure which edit we were talking about. Moving this discussing to the appropriate section you started below. NickCT (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent activity to lead

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

Hmmmmm.... I didn't realize you'd removed both POV's. That's probably OK. Though I think I'd support both descriptions being left in.
Actually, if you're going to remove both POV's, I'd probably just remove the entire paragraph. Mentioning the recent case in the lead is probably WP:RECENTISM.
Regardless, both me an Nom put that material there. You should get consensus here before unilaterally removing it. NickCT (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
"vulture" is not of itself necessary, true. It would be necessary if it can be linked to a proper article describing the term, put into quotation marks and verified by a WP:RS to be significant, or self-described (none of which appear to be the case). However, mentioning Singer's enormous contributions to some clearly specific political funds is a must. While it's important to avoid violationg WP:BLP, I agree with NickCT in that it's not much of a solution to simply remove an entire piece of text without a proper consensus. Our end goal is a collection of information, not a blank page. Words can be replaced or left out entirely to make a sentence more neutral. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Bataaf van Oranje is definitely correct that explicitly calling Singer a vulture (i.e. calling him a vulture in an unattributed way) would be pretty grossly against WP:BLP; that said, mentioning that some notable entity (i.e. the Argentinian government) has called Singer a vulture, particularly when so many other other have, strikes me as due. Lots of mainstream source have noted Singer in relation to the term "vulture". Surely it's right we give some nod to that in the lead? NickCT (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree -- it's one of the main items that gives rise to coverage in high-quality sources, over a sustained period. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Then I totally agree it warrants a mention. Yes, I specifically made my comment in regards to the article's neutral tone. Mentioning a notable source or person having made a claim is perfectly valid; how much attention it should receive is described by Jimbo under WP:DUE:

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

Frankly, I see NickCT following the rules, engaging in discussion and following consensus whereas those who are actively reverting new inclusions insist on honoring the status quo. I wonder if a lot of this reluctance just comes down to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Anyhow, it's good we're actively discussing the changes. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I have taken almost all of my recent edits to the talk page to discuss and reach consensus. I'm not partaking in WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I just have an issue with using the negative term "vulture". It is an attack, is derogatory, and violates WP:ICW, which notes that "if something is found in an article about a person using a pejorative term... it shall be promptly removed." Meatsgains (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a BLP, please be mindful. Meatsgains (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, there was an RfC submitted and closed last year regarding use of the pejorative with the final decision to leave it off the page. Meatsgains (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
"final decision to leave it off the page"??? What are you smoking? Whatever it is, I'd like to try it. "The weak consensus is to allow use of the term" -- no doubt you'll have something to say about "weak", but we can also discuss "consensus" and "allow", and we then won't get to "final decision to leave it off the page". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Nomoskedasticity and Meatsgains: - Hahaha.... I don't know what Meats is smoking, but I know I want some. I hope he has enough to share.
I too would interested to hear how Meats arrives at his interpretation of that RfC. NickCT (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Rather than take jabs at me like that, lets focus on the content. I did misread the RfC and I apologize for my comment that the final descision was "to leave it off the page". I was incorrect in saying that. Meatsgains (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Meatsgains: - We only take jabs at you cause we feel so much wikilove for you bro. NickCT (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah the wikilove, of course haha. Anyways, the content is WP:COATRACK and belongs on the company page under the sovereign debt section, not on Singer's BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Meatsgain: - Ok Meats; here's a question. When you scan through RS, do you more often see Singer's name mentioned in association with "vulture" or do you see "Elliott management corporation" associate with "vulture". If the latter was true, I'd agree with you. If the former, then we're just duly reflecting what is in the RS. NickCT (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
@NickCT: Elliott Managment's name is more often associated to "vulture" than Singer's in reliable sources. Yes, the sovereign debt cases Elliott Management was involved in are notable (and already covered) but adding a description of the investors as "vultures" is an attack. Again, this is a BLP and including the statement violates WP:ICW and is WP:COATRACKING. It would be appropriate on the company's page not his personal page. Meatsgains (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@Meatsgains: - re " Elliott Managment's name is more often associated to "vulture" than Singer's in reliable sources" - You simply going to assert that, or provide evidence? Here's the simple search engine test:
"Elliott Management" vulture - 507
"Paul Singer" vulture - 1,110
Could you be specific about which portion of WP:ICW you feel is violated? And I don't see how WP:COATRACK really applies. NickCT (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The search engine test is not applicable in this situation. Just because "Paul Singer" or "Elliott Management" appear in an article which also includes the term "vulture" does not mean the term is being used in that instance to describe either subject.
I stated earlier in this thread the portion of WP:ICW this violates - "if something is found in an article about a person using a pejorative term... it shall be promptly removed." Meatsgains (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Citing an essay is not a great way to influence discussions here -- particularly if other editors disagree with you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Rather than citing WP:ICW as policy, we can use the essay as a reference and advice. I did cite WP:COATRACK as policy. If we allow the pejorative "vulture" to be included, we run the risk of opening up the page to WP:ATP. Meatsgains (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, I'd like to reiterate, "vulture" is describing the activities of the company in sovereign debt cases, not Singer personally. This is a BLP and the content would be better placed on Elliott Management's page. Meatsgains (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Reliable sources connect Singer to his hedge fund in publications when treating the "vulture fund" idea. This is unsurprising, given that he is CEO of the fund. I understand you would like to separate Singer and his hedge fund in this connection, but the available sources don't support doing this, in my view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
There are certainly reliable sources [1] [2] [3] [4] that do not mention Singer when Elliott Management is described as a "vulture". Meatsgains (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Meatsgains: - re "The search engine test is not applicable in this situation" - This is infuriating. You asserted that RS's more frequently use "vulture" in relation to the company instead of Singer. I asked for evidence that that was the case. Instead of providing evidence you simply refuted what I present as evidence to the contrary.
I'm not going to argue that search engine testing is perfect. But it's better than what you have........ which is nothing.
re WP:ICW - The specific line you're citing deals with racial epithets. I don't think "vulture" deals with race or ethnicity. Unless of course Singer comes from a line of vultures.
re "activities of the company in sovereign debt cases, not Singer personally" - It's fine that you think that, but many people think the actions of his company reflect on him as evidenced by all the RS that use his name in relation to the "vulture" characterization.
re WP:ATP - So I take that you think using the term "vulture" would make us fall afoul of the "primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" portion of WP:ATP? Really??? This page obviously is not primarily here to criticize Singer. You seem to think WP:ATP prevent us from including anything potentially negative about an individual. It does not. NickCT (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The search engine test does not apply here because the term "vulture" could be used to describe any subject within the article, not just Singer or Elliott Management because they happened to be mentioned. Of course this isn't always the case but I can guarantee there are a number of articles this takes place. When sources describe Singer as a "vulture", they are referring to the activities of Elliott Management. Describing investors as "vultures" also violates WP:TONE in that "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." Do you really think these companies or investors would describe themselves as "vultures"? I don't think so. Meatsgains (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable sourced material additions

A vast amount of material was added sourced to Media Matters and Greg Palast. Neither reliable for BLP. Palast is not a BBC reporter, he is a freelancer and this is published by his own site with no editorial oversite. Great for reading about conspiracy theories though. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No, he's a high profile journalist and a long-time critic of Singer. Though these are opinions and claims from his own personal site, this has been clearly stated. His opinion is noteworthy, as is his criticism of Singer - which has been clearly marked as his alone in the interests of neutrality. Please do not whitewash criticism of Singer from high profile journalists. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
"Opinions" and "claims" from a Singer critic sourced to an independent freelancer website... I have trouble seeing how this is notable/reliable. Meatsgains (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Meatsgains, SegataSanshiro1, and Capitalismojo: - Guys. Without commenting on the material in question, could we potentially avoid blanket revisions? I'm having a really tough time figuring out which content is considered objectionable, and I think people are reverting content changes that they're not actually opposed to. NickCT (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Providing Fujimori with his getaway vehicle has been widely reported, and there is another source reporting that, there's no opinion in that matter. Otherwise, the opinions of a notable person are relevant. Gordon Brown is a notable person, and he has criticised Singer, thus his opinion should be included. Palast is a well known journalist, and his opinions are also notable - especially considering the vast amount of stories he has done on Singer.
NickCT, that seems reasonable to me. It is best to highlight specific parts considered troublesome, and then work from there as I have outlined with the "philanthropy" section above. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
"His opinion should be included"? Why? Can you cite specific policy for why it should be included rather than assuming "his opinions are notable." Thanks Meatsgains (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
[5] here's the Korean Times independently confirming what Palast says, including the attack on asbestos victims, which should be included ASAP. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for avoiding the blanket revisions guys. For the record, I strongly support the first couple edits by User:Nomoskedasticity and Meatsgains (see [6], [7]). It's not OK to use "vulture" in an unqualified way. That said, I'm not sure I agree with Meat's later edit (see [8]). As mentioned in sections above, if enough RS's point out that you've been called a vulture, it's notable and hence OK to include in a qualified way. WP:BLP doesn't mean we have to scrub all potentially negative information about a person from their article. NickCT (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed but the sources SegataSanshiro1 added did not explicitly describe Singer as a "vulture" and as discussed earlier, that content should not be included in the lead. Meatsgains (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@SegataSanshiro1: Again, the source you provided is an opinion piece and does not confirm anything. Meatsgains (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with NickCT. The fact that he's been called a vulture by numerous people should certainly go in the lede. As NickCT says, blanket reversions are extremely unproductive and so is scrubbing all negative information about Singer - this isn't supposed to be a nice piece of PR for the guy on his charitable endeavours. I think we should continue discussing the Palast issue, which I think should be included as per WP:common sense (he is a notable journalist threatened by the person in question and Singer deems him important enough to keep a file on him). I'm going to re-add the other parts you have removed, especially being on the board of the Manhattan Institute - it seems very suspicious to me that you would want to remove that, but I will continue to assume good faith. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, information regarding his recent spat with Samsung should be added. The conflict was extremely personal and depicted him as a vulture killing people in the Congo, while he accused them of anti-Semitism. That's a highly notable conflict, so I'll look into that more along with the high profile case against the asbestos workers. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Rather than these back and forth reversions, can I suggest that NickCT make an edit on what to keep and what to remove? It seems he has been very objective in this and based on his user page, has a reputation for achieving neutrality. I'd rather get this conflict out of the way so we can focus on adding more content to the article and achieving a further balance of views. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@SegataSanshiro1: - Thanks for the vote of confidence SegataSanshiro1, but I think we're going to be able to reach consensus on this issue. Why don't we give discussion a little more opportunity. I'm going Afk for the next 12 hrs but look forward to picking up this discussion tomorrow! NickCT (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure thing. Well I re-inserted my edits, with the exception of the Palast statements, which seem to be the focus of the objections by Meatsgains. I'm willing to put that aside for now and focus on the other content so that we can reach consensus on it, but I would appreciate it if Meatgains would stop reverting the other edits in the mean time because there is a lot of non-objectable content there (eg. the insider trading fines used Reuters as a reference and that story was picked up by multiple outlets). SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The "Climate change denial" subsection is WP:COATRACK. Singer's chairmanship at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is already noted in the "Board memberships" section. If people want to read more into Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, they can click on the wikilink. There is no reason to describe the institute as "a right-wing think tank which supports hydraulic fracturing and downplays the effects of man-made climate change." We can't cherrypick issues the institute researches and it certainly does not deserve to be on a BLP.
The claim that "Brown had called the behaviour of Singer's Vulture Fund Elliott Management 'morally outrageous' with regards to their activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which saw a lawsuit for over $1 billion of debt payments in the severely malnourished and war torn country" is taken completely out of context. First off, it is written with a clear POV. Second, the source states, "according to the World Bank, the top 26 vultures have managed to collect $1bn from the world's poorest countries and still have a further $1.3bn to collect. Gordon Brown has described the payouts as 'morally outrageous'" - Brown is not specifically talking about Elliott Management thus violating WP:SYNTHESIS.
Lastly, "Singer told the Financial Times that he firmly believes that the world will end from an electromagnetic pulse" falls under WP:TRIVIA as it is a miscellaneous fact. Not sure how that content improves the article.
Let's get other users' input on your recent additions to the lead before adding it back. This was discussed earlier on the talk page.
The contentious material needs to remain off the page until consensus is reached. Thanks, Meatsgains (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The improperly referenced material (media matters) can not be added, we must find another (reliable) source to include such. The rest of the material is clearly contentious and requires a consensus to add. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Meatsgains, looking through this talkpage in its entirety for the first time, it seems like you have been "protecting" Singer's personal autobiography from criticism for at least a couple of years now, just after a sockpuppet and a COI were banned. I have asked you once, and I will ask you again, do you have any conflicts of interest with editing this article? SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually hadn't seen this "unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." so understand now, why everything is immediately removed on this page, (Redacted) rather than using an encyclopaedia to do his PR for him. I'll be waiting, keyboard at my side for that glorious day. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
As a note, BLP policy applies to talk pages as well. See your addition "and its talk page" above. Perhaps that suggests removing/refactoring over-the-top opinions as to the subject's character? .... Capitalismojo (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Paul Singer is a Psychopath. This is not my opinion. He has all the characteristics of a psychopath (lack of empathy, lack of remorse, compulsive lying, failure to accept responsibility for actions, etc.). This is fact. Mr Singer's slimy little minions - I know you're reading this, so please sue me for defamation (as you do everyone and everything who stands in your way) so I can prove it in court. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, you've made your opinions of Singer very clear and you are not helping your case on getting the contentious material back on the page. This talk page is not for slamming the subject, please take a look at WP:FORUM. We are here to discuss content and improve the quality of the page while leaving emotion and opinions out. No, I do not have a conflict of interest in editing this page and I'd appreciate it if you didn't make those false accusations. Meatsgains (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Whoa, there. Let's focus on article content. Your proposed additions include some good ideas, let's work together to improve sourcing. May I remark that the sources seem to be from search engine results. Let's follow up with searches of newspaper and magazine archives and books. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Lack of criticism

This article at the moment seems like a bit of a whitewash, with no mention of any criticism of Singer, despite being a hugely controversial figure, even within the financial world. Considering the sheer amount of stuff out there criticising Singer, I am going to be creating and adding to a criticism section. If anyone wishes to collaborate, then please feel free. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent contributions. We agree the article is non-neutral with respect to reliable sources. I enjoyed reading the Guardian profile you added as a source. I'm surprised it was not used as a source previously. Rather than a criticism section, I would be interested in collaborating on integrating significant viewpoints from reliable sources with the related material as per WP:CRITS. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I can start by gathering some sources and then see what to do with them:
  • [9] Two part investigative article outlining how Singer has used lobbies and politicians in a campaign aimed at "painting Argentina as an increasingly rogue nation in bed with Washington’s enemies" and includes setting up the American Task Force Argentina designed to smear teh country.
  • [12] Article stating that the Congolese debt payment of $1 billion acquired by Singer was equivalent to the entire Red Cross budget for Africa in 2011, statements from Gordon Brown calling it "morally outrageous". The DRC also has among the worst food shortages in the world.[13]
  • [14] another investment banker calling his behaviour immoral
  • [15] threats made to journalist and long-time critic of Singer
  • [16] same journalist describing a legal case where Singer sought to deny compensation to dying asbestos workers
Greg Palast (Guardian and BBC journalist) has a lot of articles critical of Singer, including the last two. ::SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
If there is consensus, I would also like to remove or condense some of the promotional material simply listed from his websites, like I did with "Community development". I think the "Military" and "Giving Pledge" sections should be removed, and just mention the donations briefly in a sentence or less - they don't seem to be as notable or significant as the gay rights activism and it's really not unusual for people like singer to donate to a number of causes to boost their public image. It's written like a promotion at the moment, or to puff up the positive aspects to whitewash criticism.
"Philanthropy" also seems like a bit of a weasel word or euphemism for "PR" or "political influence" to me, much like "corporate social responsibility". I know it is used often in the States, but it is usually used to mask ideological agendas, or as in this case, put a positive spin on an extremely repulsive human being. I would appreciate some input on a better title for that section. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Most of the sources you added for support are attack pieces from writers who are staunch opponents of Singer and investors, which brings their reliability on this topic into question. It is clear you are also a critic of Singer when you described him as an "extremely repulsive human being". Rather than remove the sections you are disputing, why don't we try and find additional RS for support. Your assertions that "it's really not unusual for people like singer to donate to a number of causes to boost their public image" and "but it is usually used to mask ideological agendas, or as in this case, put a positive spin on an extremely repulsive human being" are speculatory and there is no basis for support. Singer's BLP is not supposed to read like an attack page. Thanks. Meatsgains (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
At least some of the material added recently should stay; if Singer has attracted a significant number of opponents, that is a fact worth noting in the article. SegataSanshiro1, if you persist in voicing your own opinions here, people will naturally think you have an axe to grind. Stick to high-quality sources, and try to use neutral/descriptive language regarding the way he has been criticised. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Most sources come from reliable organisations and newspapers, whilst a few related to Greg Palast are clearly marked. His opinions are notable and are clearly marked as his opinions and not displayed as fact. When a prominent and noteworthy figure comments on the subject matter and it's noteworthy, then it should be included in the article. Please refrain from using double standards to squash any negative opinions or information about Singer, whilst leaving self-promotional statements referenced from his websites.

Yes, those quotes on here are my own opinions, hence why I include them in the talk page and not the article. I also think that, if analysed, Singer would also meet nearly all the requirements to be diagnosed as a psychopath, or corporate psychopath, but since there are no sources demonstrating that, it simply remains my opinion. Only objective edits go into the article. Singer's article is also not supposed to read like an official press release, so please don't make it look like one. Similarly, if you have any conflicts of interest then please disclose them.

Nomoskedasticity, if you also believe that some of the edits are too strongly worded, then please feel free to tone it down. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest, I think it is clear that RS is sufficient to support subsections within "Sovereign debt" for the Congo, Peru, and Argentina to accommodate fair coverage of the subject's commitment to this business plan. Hugh (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ship seizure

Passaged restored per the following source: [17], "Argentina argued that the detention, used as leverage by NML to try and regain its money, was illegal and took the dispute to the Hamburg-based International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The body subsequently ruled in Argentina's favour, ordering the immediate release of the frigate." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please show me where in the source provided it states that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea "deemed it illegal". The quote you referenced above specifically notes that "Argentina argued that the detention...was illegal..." not the ITLS. Meatsgains (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Try reading both sentences. "The body subsequently ruled in Argentina's favour." Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This is quite similar to this edit [18] where there was also very dubious interpretation of sources, as I pointed out at the bottom of the "recent edits" section. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"ruled in Argentina's favor" not "deemed it illegal", isn't that borderline WP:SYNTHESIS? Meatsgains (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Or try reading the official statement from the tribunal [19] in which it states the numerous laws violated through the detention of the ship. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent series of revisions

Well, those that are agreed upon are agreed upon. Some aren't, and are in fact disagreed upon. Editors are encouraged to act on agreement and discuss disagreement in a new section. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2015 (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.

Hey Guys, so relating to my comments yesterday, rather than do blanket reverts, I'd like to examine the series of reverts from User:Meatsgains one-by-one, b/c I think some of them were probably appropriate and others weren't.

If you look at the reverts below and briefly state whether you agree or disagree with the revert, I'd appreciate it! Let's work towards consensus.

[20]

[21]

  • Disagree - Content removed could be reworked to make it a little more neutrally phrased, but the quote from Gordon Brown is relevant and well sourced. NickCT (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree - The source quotes, "So far, according to the World Bank, the top 26 vultures have managed to collect $1bn from the world's poorest countries and still have a further $1.3bn to collect. Gordon Brown has described the payouts as 'morally outrageous'." The quotation is describing payouts, not Elliott Management. Meatsgains (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree This looks like a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The source states: "Congo-Brazzaville has been a particularly fruitful target for vulture funds, being ravaged by conflict but rich in natural resources. One of the earliest cases against the country came in 1996 when $30m worth of Congolese sovereign debt was purchased by Kensington International Inc, a subsidiary of the well-established hedge fund Elliott Associates, headed by prominent vulture financier Paul Singer." The source is perfectly fine, though we could perhaps use a different part of it (instead of quote from Brown). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree - as far as I'm aware, this was the first time the term "vulture funds" was used and it was in reference to Elliott. Gordon Brown was UK prime minister and a prominent political figure for two decades, so all in all this is noteworthy. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether Gordon Brown is notable, but rather WP:SYNTHESIS because the information added is not explicitly noted in the source. Meatsgains (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
As per the comments of the other two editors, you're doing a lot of mental gymnastics to try not to include this reference. The article mentions Singer, Elliott is one of the companies Brown was referring to and also the primary vulture fund in perusing the debt payment Brown is referring to. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The edit in discussion is over the claim, "Brown had called the behaviour of Singer's Vulture Fund Elliott Management 'morally outrageous' with regards to their activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which saw a lawsuit for over $1 billion of debt payments in the severely malnourished and war torn country", which you added. This claim is not noted in the source you provided. I am not doing any "mental gymnastics". It is not our job to assume and add. A bold claim like this must be supported by multiple reliable sources before it can be added to a BLP and as of now, it isn't. Meatsgains (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

[22] EMP

That seems unlikely given the context and link to each edit under discussion. In fact, given the format established by Nick, this is precisely how I would expect any editor to respond to the discussion of individual edits. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree (support inclusion of EMP view with improved citation). Multiple RS. We are not asked to edit the subject of this article's views. He is not alone in his concern. Singer's belief that he knows how the world will probably end is significant, in itself and also as to what it is not: according to rs Singer worries less than most about, for example, nuclear conflagration touched off in the Middle East and global warming. Hugh (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree, seems like an important part of his life. Would also put emphasis on not being concerned about global warming, since he doesn't seem to believe it exists. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Your continued attempts to bring up global warming on Singer's BLP are unwarranted and would be WP:COATRACK. Let's stay on topic here. Meatsgains (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Your continued attempts to whitewash anything remotely negative about Singer are rather pathetic. There's an entire section on Elliott and on the Paul E. Singer Foundation, so there should also be a section on the Manhattan Institute, which he is chairman of. I agree that placing emphasis on this one issue is a little one sided, so it might also be worth highlighting some of the other things the organisation does, other than ignore evidence of global warming, much like you ignore evidence of Singer's wrongdoing. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

[23] Vulture

  • Disagree - This has been so widely reported by so many sources that WP:BLP concerns aren't really relevant here. As long as the statement is qualified, it can go in the lead. NickCT (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree - The pejorative "vulture" describes the actions of his company, Elliott Management. It is an inappropriate attack and it would be better placed on the company page, not Singer's BLP.
  • Disagree -- and let's try this a little more emphatically: Meatsgains, it is disingenuous to say that you "agree" with an action you have performed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, more emphatically, it is perfectly appropriate per WP:BRD for Meatsgains to comment, explain, and discuss his edits on the talk page. It is in fact expected and not to be discouraged at all. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree as to the edit removing the language calling Singer a "vulture" in wikipedia's voice. The ref's support "vulture fund" inventor, "vulture fund" manager, etc. As far as him personally being a "vulture" the only ref (Observer) that talks about the personalization of that descriptor is strongly criticizing it; refering to the usage as something out of Der Sturmer. So, to sum up, the use of "vulture fund" is so ubiquitous it should be included. If he is, in fact, the "inventor" of "vulture funds" as the body says, then that fact should be included in the lede. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree Strongly support including, in the body of the article, referring to the subject of this article or Elliott Mgmt as "vulture" with in-text attribution and multiple reliable sourcing. For now oppose including in our article referring to the subject of this article or Elliott Mgmt as "vulture" in Wikipedia voice or in the lede. Body 1st please, recommend we hold off on discussing the lede for now and circle back to the lede later. I could be convinced by multiple rs to support WP voice and inclusion in the lede. Hugh (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I am a little confused. You "disagree" with the edit removing "vulture" as a descriptor, but "for now" want to remove "vulture" as a descriptor. I read this as supporting the current edit[24] "for now", until strong RS inline refs support the descriptor and the material is in the body of the article, yes? Capitalismojo (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I support the use of the term "vulture" in the body with in-text attribution, even if the in-text attribution is to "several..."; let's look at the strength of the refs together and consider dropping in-text attribution and lifting to WP voice; then, later, let's consider our lede. Hope this helps. Sorry if I was not clear. Hugh (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree Should be included throughout and most certainly in the lede. Despite opinions, the fact that Singer provokes a strong reaction from his opponents should be included. One of the largest electronics companies in the world even published cartoons of him depicted as a vulture ready to murder people in the Congo. It's not just Singer being personally called a vulture, but also "distressed securities fund" being refereed to as vulture funds in anti-vulture laws passed in numerous countries, statements by the UN, OAS, etc. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
More sources: Bloomberg [25] "Singer has repeatedly been labeled a "vulture investor" by the emerging-market countries whose bonds he has bought and by development organizations such as Oxfam International that back forgiveness of poor countries' debt." - from 2008. New York Post [26] from 2007. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Greenpeace can be added to the list of NGOs [27] SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
"Vulture" and "vulture investor" are two different descriptions. The proposed generalized claim should not be added to the lead. Meatsgains (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I feel that you're clutching at straws now, I don't think many would make that distinction. Would having "has been described as a vulture in conjunction with a variety of different nouns by his opponents" be agreeable? SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The debate on whether the term vulture should be used in this article has been discussed here and was discussed a year ago, where there was a weak consensus to keep the term in the article. Despite this, Meatsgains has continued to ignore that discussion and this one, removing any reference to the widely-used and widely-referenced term. I think this is simply a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and further discussion of this takes away from being able to improve an extremely unbalanced article, focussing instead on satisfying the whims of one particular editor with a history of whitewashing anything negative about Singer. I move that we reach a speedy consensus on this one given that consensus was already reached a year ago with this exact matter. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

[28]

  • Partial Agree - There are two sentenced removed for sourcing concerns. I'm not seeing good sourcing for the first sentence, but the second seems OK. NickCT (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree - The Fortune article provided does not once mention that "It was also reported that Mitt Romney's financial disclosures showed a $1 million investment in in Elliot, while Singer also donated $1 million to his electoral campaign, whose campaign Singer donated to in 2012." Content is unsourced. Meatsgains (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree To first part. "$1 million etc..." fails verification. The second part about supporting libertarian causes is fine and ref'd to NYT. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Find another source there's plenty of watchdogs looking into donations and the investments of prominent Republicans. Mitt Romney disclosed his finances before the 2012 election, so it will have been published elsewhere. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A profile of a few hunder words:

Foley, Stephen (June 17, 2014). "Paul Singer: Argentina's nemesis is a tenacious tactician". Financial Times. Mr Singer, who counts former presidential candidate Mitt Romney among Elliott's investors, has parlayed his fortune into a major role as a donor to Republic causes, bankrolling political action committees that support mainstream Republican candidates and, in a personal and high-profile campaign, gay marriage.

More on Singer and Romney:

Palast, Greg (October 17, 2012). "Mitt Romney's Bailout Bonanza". The Nation. Retrieved August 6, 2015.

Singer Chris Christie and the Republican Governors Association:

Fang, Lee (March 18, 2014). "Pensiongate? Christie Campaign Donors Won Huge Contracts". The Nation. Retrieved August 6, 2015.

Hugh (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Palast and Fang are unreliable. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Why? SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

[29]

Threaded Discussion

@Meatsgains: - re "The quotation is describing payouts, not Elliott Management" - What?!?! It describes payments going to the "26 vultures" as morally outrageous. The 26 vultures of which Elliot Managements was one. As I'd said, the wording has to be changed to some like - Brown used the term "morally outrageous" to describe the behavior of creditors, including Singer's Elliot Management, to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which saw a lawsuit for over $1 billion of debt payments in the severely malnourished and war torn country. NickCT (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd have to respectfully disagree and argue that the source does not explicitly state Elliott Management or Singer and inclusion would be synthesis. Meatsgains (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@Meatsgains: - With respect, I think you're overplaying this a little. The source goes directly from talking about Signer to talking about the 26 vultures. It seems self-evident that Elliot Management is one of the 26. Are you really arguing this isn't the case? Really?
I can find another source if you like, but frankly, your protesting is more akin to battlegrounding than rational debate. NickCT (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't say whether or not that is the case but it is not our job to assume. The provided source does not describe Elliott's behavior as "morally outrageous". If we are going to add such contentious material, it will need another source making a connection between Elliott and the negative description and even then, it would be better placed on the company page, not a BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: - re "Content is unsourced" - So to be clear, you're only saying the first sentence is unsourced, right? That second sentence removed is OK? NickCT (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, agree with you on the second sentence. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the first sentence is unsourced and should not be restored. The second sentence may need another RS for verification if it is to be added. Meatsgains (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
There's a four-part Bloomberg feature (a source which I'm sure Capitalismojo and Meatsgains won't oppose) which highlights numerous issues covered here, among others. This includes the EMP issue, comments on his demeanour from employees (including his former head trader alleging verbal abuse), his statements in investor letters, political donations and the Manhattan Institute. [30] [31] [32][33] SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Excellent find! Hugh (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment On my personal opinion, he is so closely identified with his firm that information about the firm's doings is relevant here. This is not often the case, but it is for this investment firm , which he personally operates. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm not sure how user:Meatsgains views this[1] as an appropriate source since I removed it earlier as per WP:Blogs and has every single issue pointed out in the critical sources I provided, plus more. He has also waited for this discussion to die down to re-add promotional material and continue to whitewash criticism, even though consensus has yet to be reached on previous edits. This is becoming rather sad at this point. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like for you to read through WP:NEWSBLOG. You'll notice it states, "If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer", which is exactly what I did. If we are going to add one side of the term "vulture" it is only fair to add the other side to prevent bias. Your mass reversion did not improve the quality of the page. If you have an issue with specific edits, address it here. Each of my edits were necessary. Meatsgains (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
And how pray tell is the opinion of Patricia Adams notable and the opinion of Greg Palast not? This is exactly what was done in numerous sources citing Palast which you disregarded. You can't simply hold one set of standards for material critical of Singer and another set of standards for material favourable of Singer. They were not necessary edits, they were just another feeble attempt at making this article look like a PR puff piece for Singer instead of something remotely encyclopaedic. I am reverting the edits and will ask you to stop using Wikipedia as a mouthpiece for morally dubious economic interests. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I restored the previous version as it reflects what sources state but I left out the quote from Patricia Adams. Rather than revert, let's discuss in specific, what you have an issue with in this edit. Thanks, Meatsgains (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The information I removed was not supported in the sources provided, the information I restored is sourced to reliable sources, and I removed POV. What is the issue? Meatsgains (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that you appear to have made no effort to find a source for what you deleted. A source for the ship seizure bit is here. I have to pop out now; if no-one has implemented the edit by the time I get back I'll do it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much, but also trying to add POV through that opinion piece is a bit silly. FYI Nomoskedasticity, I had found some sources stating that the Government of Ghana sued Singer after the illegal ship impounding. I will try and find them again to add into the article. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Meatsgains, I am reverting your edit as you seem to have misread or been selective in your reading of the quote by the port director: “Since the GPHA as an entity was not party in the matter, any economic loss by the Authority as a result of the action taken by the creditors which sought to deprive GPHA of its revenue must be borne by them”, Adorkor said." - The Mercopress source said it was undecided, but the text in the article was referring to what the port director said, which is that NML should bare the cost of their illegal actions. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Adams, Patricia, Why Argentina's Rulers and Cronies Are Fair Game, Huffington Post, June 30, 2014
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Singer_(businessman)/Archive_2&oldid=684676858"