Jump to content

Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

RfC: Should use of the term "vulture" be added to a BLP?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There are comments on past RFC's. RFC's findings are not forever, consensus can change, but it is not guaranteed to change. 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. AlbinoFerret 21:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Currently on Singer's page, the term "vulture" is described as having "attained widespread recognition throughout the media, and even within intergovernmental organisations, international financial institutions and numerous governments." Should this statement be added to a BLP? Meatsgains (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an RfC on different content. Please re-read the RfC statement above. Meatsgains (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Third time's a charm, and in the mean time remove tonnes of sourced content and not even bother finding better sources or discussing it (again...). For anyone reading this talk page, it makes Singer come off far worse FYI. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's a WP:BLP violation to use this pejorative term to describe Singer. Sources including the term are referring to his company and not to him as an individual, so if anything, use of the term should be included on his company's page, but not on his personal biography. Attempts to add the term here smack of POV pushing, let's stick to the facts and not use fanciful language to criticize a BLP in Wikipedia's voice. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • support here from RFC-bot. Although we should be careful to not put words into people's mouth, and correctly attribute the phrasing (primarily the Argentinian government, but also other sources directly) Singer's funds are widely refereed to as vulture funds, singer has commented on that name, others have commented about his commenting, etc. I easily found a dozen or so WP:RS that use the phrasing. WP:NPOV practically requires we include it.
Sources attributing it to the argentinian government [3][4][5][6][7]
sources attributing it to someone other than the argentinian government (or in addition to) : [8][9][10]
Sources using the phrasing in their own voice: [11][12][13][14][15]Gaijin42 (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, to add to the sources given by Gaijin42, the term "vulture" is commonly used in Argentina by the press to refer to Singer, by pro-government and anti-government newspapers as well as pro-market papers: [16] - "owner of the vulture fund", [17] - "head of the vulture fund Elliott Management", [18] "the 'Vulture' Paul Singer" and "owner of the vulture fund Elliott Management", [19] - "multimillionaire who represents the vulture funds", [20] - "the vulture financier Paul Singer", [21] - "the vulture Paul Singer", etc.
While obviously English language sources are favoured, these should be used to make clear in the article that it is all of Argentina, and not just the government, that refers to Singer directly as a vulture. It would be interesting to ask someone from WikiProject Republic of the Congo and WikiProject Peru what terminology is used by the press in those countries to describe Singer there and avoid the pro-market bias of the US media. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, please reread the RfC statement. I'm requesting other users' input on whether the statement, "the term has attained widespread recognition throughout the media, and even within intergovernmental organisations, international financial institutions and numerous governments" should be included on a BLP. Thanks Meatsgains (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Why then is the title of the RfC: "Should use of the term "vulture" be added to a BLP?"? It seems somewhat misleading. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I could have phrased the RfC heading better, but the statement is what users should be discussing. Since when do we base an RfC off of a heading? Meatsgains (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Not relevant

I hope you're being paid well for this Meatsgains, I admire the dedication. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop making false accusations about my editing and focus on content here. Meatsgains (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
SegataSanshiro1, your accusations against Meatsgains are not appropriate here on the article talk page. Please consult WP:NPA and focus on content, not contributors. If you feel you have legitimate concerns about another user's edits, air them in the appropriate place, which would be here. Unless and until you take any concerns you have to an official noticeboard for administrator's attention, it's distracting and uncollegial to make such accusations here. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It is easily addressed, as I have done here [22] - Cwobeel (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Result of Previous discussion

The weak consensus is to allow use of the term. It is weak because the context as to how the term be used was not clearly set forth in this RfC. (Is the term really "widely" used? That is a question for the EMC article.) Presumably the RfC was read with the "Purchasing sovereign debts" section in mind, but some editors !voted as if any usage of the term was acceptable simply because sources had used the term. (An example of improper usage is in the Timerman quote. His opinion piece in TheWorldPost actually says "...Singer could be branded as the inventor of vulture funds;..." and Timerman as a government official in Argentina has a dog in the default fight so his status as RS is weakened.) Other editors said "support" with conditions. Considering that the "oppose" editors correctly point out the derogatory, non-descriptive nature of the term, the section needs re-writing to avoid UNDUE use of the term least WP become a vehicle for those who have less than the highest regard for Singer. – S. Rich (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)'

This is simply a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it with one editor that has persistently denied any balanced views on the subject matter taking the helm on this discussion yet again. Since that discussion a mere year ago, numerous other sources have been indicated calling Singer a Vulture in different contexts. The most important of these perhaps is the South Korean case which has been completely ignored in this article. We should focus on adding new content and not have discussions stalled every time a single editor decides to throw down increasingly desperate hurdles. Based on the previous result and the context in which this is occurring, can we just close this pointless discussion and move on? SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Your continuing personal attacks are inappropriate. Please cease. Multiple editors disagree with your approach. I have carefully read the refs. The most reliable don't refer to the subject as a vulture. They refer to his funds as "vulture funds" and to him as the inventor of "vulture funds". Capitalismojo (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a personal attack, this is simply pointing out that we're going through a discussion that has already been had just because one editor doesn't agree with the consensus. Your points about the use of the term are valid, but Meatsgains is attempting to remove all references to the term (even though there is already consensus to use the term, which this editor repeatedly ignores) and not just the usage of the term outside the context you have described: Should use of the term "vulture" be added to a BLP?. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I am speaking of your continuing efforts describing other editors as paid shills and the suggestion that only one single "desperate" editor stands in the way of your truth. You are likely to find great trouble here if you follow this unconstructive path. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, the editor in question has rather aggressively pursued eliminating negative information from Singer's page. I think Sega could be forgiven for his/her perspective. That said, we should always WP:AGF and never accuse anyone of being "paid". NickCT (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving content to appropriate section

I recently moved content noting "Singer's aggressive lending practices have been criticized by a number of politicians, journalists, business people and NGOs as having the traits of a vulture fund" from the lead section to the Elliott Management section, which covers his activities as a hedge fund manager. After being reverted, I am requesting other users' input on whether or not the content should be moved to a more appropriate section rather than the lead. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it should stay there. The lead should summarise the article, and without that sentence it does a poor job in that respect. The "sovereign debts" section is the biggest single section in the article -- the core issue of that section merits mention in the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The content I moved does not accurately summarize the sovereign debts section, it is just criticism. If we are going to include criticism in the lead, we need to also add Singer's perspective. However, rather than adding both, and the lead becoming convoluted, it would be better off moved to a different section. Meatsgains (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Meatsgains: - We could add Singer's perspective. Could you provide a link to some RS describing what Singer's perspective is? I think at this point, it's clear that having the content in question in the lead is WP:DUE. NickCT (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Distressed securities are only a small portion of their portfolio. Adding this to the lead would be undue and POV. I still maintain that the criticism along with Singer's perspective convolutes the lead and again would be undue. Meatsgains (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
And the term "vulture fund" is derogatory and we should not be labeling the subject or his "lending practices" as such. Meatsgains (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Meatsgains: - Appreciate the point. But it's a term which appears widely throughout RS. If we cut "vulture" b/c we feel it's pejorative, what prevents people from objecting to other words they don't like? NickCT (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd have to say nothing. I object to any article using a libelous term used to disparage a subject. Its unencylopedic. Meatsgains (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Meatsgains: - But meats, what's the yardstick to determine whether something is a libelous pejorative? Surely if the term is used by a bunch of RS it isn't libelous. If it was, the people printing it would probably get sued for libel. NickCT (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's simply your opinion Meatsgains. You got your RfC now, please respect its conclusions. As for the Vulture Fund terminology and whether its encyclopaedic or not is currently up for discussion, though the goings on over there seem to reflect largely what has happened here... Wikipedia isn't here to ensure that it doesn't offend a couple of members of the financial community - it's here to provide verifiable information backed up by sources. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
What is my opinion? If it wasn't derogatory, wouldn't hedge funds call themselves "vulture funds"? Its like calling a political donor a "fat cat". Meatsgains (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@Meatsgains: - It might be derogatory, which is why Wikipedia shouldn't use it in narrative voice. The point remains though, that if a large number of RS use the term in relation to Singer, it's appropriate and WP:DUE that WP does the same. NickCT (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Are we to add libelous terms describing individuals or their actions anytime it is supported in a reliable source? Meatsgains (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
And are you saying the information is due in the lead or just somewhere in the article? Meatsgains (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I swear we've just reached consensus on this for the second time now. Meatsgains, you might not like it, but you should just drop this now since you're being very disruptive. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
This section is on a different topic. I think you may be reading "vulture fund" and lumping all discussions into one. Please stop accusing me of being disruptive as I am trying to improve the quality of the page. Meatsgains (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
No Meatsgains, I was referring to the RfC directly above this one (the one you initiated) and the one before it (brought up multiple times in the above RfC) which both reached consensus on including the term in the article. I would have to disagree that you're improving the quality of the page and that instead you're making a lot of noise and bringing up the same concerns repeatedly to divert attention away from content which you deem to portray Singer in an unflattering light. Please cease from doing this, this is your last warning. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
One RfC, which I did not submit, asked if it is appropriate "to mention that Singer's company, NML Capital Limited, is widely described as a Vulture fund in reliable sources". Another discussion, not RfC, covered Argentina's description of Singer as a vulture and his practices as extortion. The next RfC asks whether content noting that the term vulture fund "attained widespread recognition throughout the media, and even within intergovernmental organisations, international financial institutions and numerous governments" warrants inclusion. Though similar, these are three different topics. Meatsgains (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Picking up the pieces

Now that the RfC is over, I was hoping we could get back to adding content to balance out the POV of this article and incorporate the criticism of Singer - which has been stalled repeatedly now. With the constant discussion, reversions and removal of content which has surrounded this page, a lot of reliable sources have been lost so I have taken the time to compile a list of these sources (discussed in this talk page or once previously used in the article) on here so we can begin to (re)incorporate them.

I don't know how to best manage this large list of (probably incomplete) resources gathered by multiple editors over the last year or so, but perhaps editors could incorporate sources, maybe make comments underneath them and then use the <s></s> markup to indicate that they have been either discarded or incorporated to make collaboration easier. Other suggestions welcome. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

General/Other

Article is completely one-sided. Meatsgains (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Possibly, but then using that criteria, shouldn't we remove all sources talking about all the wonderful charity work done by Singer? SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
His philanthropy is supported in non biased articles. Meatsgains (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Singer not mentioned. Meatsgains (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
True. This should probably be used on the Elliott page. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

About Argentina (and other things)

Information already covered in article. Meatsgains (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
This backs up the view that he's a "vulture capitalist" and that he has been "portrayed as a greedy vulture" SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the article says he's "portrayed as a greedy vulture" confirms it is written with POV. Meatsgains (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you are confusing Wikipedia with sources. It is the job of Wikipedia to be NPOV, not the sources which only need to be reliable. As editors we get different POVs found in reliable sources and through that establish a NPOV with different and opposing well sourced views. At the moment this page overwhelmingly features one POV: Singer's (which is also yours). Incorporating differing views will help balance the POV and improve the article. Furthermore, the article says he has been portrayed as such, which is fact (there's countless sources showing this) - we should also be reporting the fact that he has been repeatedly portrayed in this manner. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Singer only mentioned as running Elliott. Meatsgains (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
This should probably go on the Elliott page as well then. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Information already covered in article. Meatsgains (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a bit disingenuous to say the least. Here's some interesting quotes:
      • "He sued fellow billionaire Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies, known as SpaceX, hoping to take over the rights to two satellite-launch contracts Argentina had bought, valued at $56.5 million each. (SpaceX filed a motion to dismiss the suit.)"
Are we to include every dispute/suit Singer has been involved in? Meatsgains (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Well surely the fact alone that he has been in a lot is very notable. The recurring theme in many of these "Singer profile" sources is that he has been in many disputes, ranging from very prolific businesspeople and companies to sovereign nations and TNOs. This fact is almost completely absent from this article despite being present in almost every source. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
This lawsuit is ripe for inclusion, with multiple independent noteworthy reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 Done SpaceX lawsuit and multiple rs refs added. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
      • "DellaCamera, Singer’s former head trader, {...} remembers still more about their weekly portfolio reviews. “We’d go through every single position we had, religiously,” he says. They’d do it at the office or Singer’s home, where his cook would prepare dinner for colleagues. “He didn’t want surprises. And when he felt there was a surprise, he would get upset,” DellaCamera says. “You’re into position five, two hours into this meeting, and you’re tired a little bit, and it’s going well, he’s not yelling at you, so you’re feeling good. And you get to the position, and let’s say it’s an investment in a gold mine in Peru or whatever the hell it is.” Singer might stop and remember a detail about mine work that was supposed to have begun. “This is an insignificant mine, and you’re trying to tell him that, but you don’t want to tell him that. Once you know you’re digging yourself in a hole, he just pounces on you. Oh, God. And that’s when he gets angry. Because in his mind, it’s all about the basics,” DellaCamera says. “He wouldn’t throw things, but he would yell. ‘How could you miss this?’ He would make you feel very uncomfortable.”
Not sure how Singer making people feel uncomfortable is notable... Meatsgains (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
It says far more than that, don't play dumb. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
      • "In letters to his investors, Singer has cast a wide net of disapproval. {...} The Federal Reserve, he wrote elsewhere, is “a group of inbred academics” who have “lost any semblance, any wispy remnant of humility.” The U.S. and Europe are “headed for mass poverty and degradation of freedom.” Regulators “are quite sure to embarrass themselves again soon.” The government confiscating property “is not out of the realm of possibility.” Society itself might be undermined, he wrote this year, by a nation “disdaining the rule of law and paying whatever it wants to pay.”
      • "David Skeel, who studies bankruptcy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, says “a fair amount of Singer’s activities with developing-country debt have been immoral—trolling for claims and then pushing them to the hilt—but it’s hard to feel too sorry for Argentina.”
The criticism of his sovereign debt debts is already included in the article. Meatsgains (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Unlike the others, this specifically criticises Singer rather than Elliott/NML. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
      • "At the time, Occupy Wall Street protesters were still camped downtown in Zuccotti Park. Singer {...} called them “aging hippies, anticapitalists, and anti-Semites,” and “people desperately in need of potty training.”"
Far from notable. Meatsgains (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
As far as I recall, it was a very big and very significant global NSM. Singer's views on it seem pretty noteworthy, it's not like he's giving his views on the virtues of low fat as opposed to full fat milk. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
      • " At this year’s World Cup, according to a colleague, as the Argentine national team made its glorious push and its country teetered toward default, Singer was there, in the stadium. He was wearing an Argentina jersey." SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, not sure this is notable. Meatsgains (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I would have to disagree. Perhaps this is bordering on trivia, but surely extremely interesting to a lot of people reading this. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Samsung incident

Wouldn't classify as an RS. Meatsgains (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I would either, I think the Mail is utter trash - but that's not for you or me to decide and the fact is that it's one of the UK's most read newspapers and meets WP's policies on sources. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is widely considered an unreliable source on Wikipedia. Just check the archives at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Quite rightly so. In either case, I had incorporated another source from Fortune into the article, so the Mail can be removed. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Jew-Baiting? Pretty unencyclopedic. Meatsgains (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Clearly no one is suggesting we use that terminology in the article. Besides, it's already being used as a reference, though it isn't being used to its full potential. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and incorporated these sources while attempting to represent both views accurately. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts of representing both sides but a cartoon about the subject is not notable. Meatsgains (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I fail to comprehend how in your eyes a conflict with the single wealthiest family in South Korea who own the majority of what is probably the world's largest technology firm accounting for 20% of the country's GDP is not notable. It's not the cartoons themselves which are notable, surely you can see that. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles in Spanish

Comments

Your intentions on this page are clear. We are not to turn this into an attack page. The criticisms you are wanting to add are about his company and do not belong on a BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Meat, most of these sources are actually about Singer himself if you take the time to read through them. Furthermore, I don't think you are in any position to criticise my intentions. Let's just get back to focussing on content because this has been drawn out for far too long now. As I said above, I have taken the time to collect together all these sources put forward by numerous editors at one time or another, if you or others have problems with specific sources, then feel free to discuss above and hopefully we can make some progress. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The majority of the sources noted above cover information already on the page. Other sources only mention Elliott's activities. The remaining sources are biased articles written with an obvious slant against him. Meatsgains (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, you stated that you took the time "to collect together all these sources put forward by numerous editors". Aren't these sources ones that you personally found covering content you attempted to add to the page a couple months ago? Meatsgains (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that's a very inaccurate representation of the sources. And no, some are collected by myself, others mentioned by other editors in the RfC you started and others were found by looking through the page's edit history over the years. Meatsgains, can I ask if you intend to dig your heals in with absolutely everything on this page until you breathe your final breath? WP:NPOV clearly states that we must represent all significant views on Singer. There is still a lot to add which is WP:DUE as there is still a clear lack of balance in this article. If you continue, I will have to report this disruptive behaviour. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
All significant views are fairly represented in the article and I 'd have to disagree with you that the page lacks balance. My editing has not been disruptive, maybe persistent, but not disruptive. I have discussed all activity/issues in a civil matter. Meatsgains (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
You are a prime example of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. What you are doing is slowing down discussion and preventing 'any view that disagrees with yours to enter article space. That is what's disruptive. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the recent edit history of this page, it seems clear to me that there is a concerted effort taking place to turn this page into an attack page. I'm frankly surprised more editors haven't gotten involved at this point. I would suggest it's time to take the disputes about this article to some other avenues to get more input from a variety of editors. Perhaps Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard? Safehaven86 (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what it is in the edits that you're referring to, but I feel that your recent edits were certainly a step in the right direction in removing promotional content from the page. Frankly, I'm a little bemused now and my patience with this page is wearing thin. This is the second time I have attempted to put all the sources on the table for editors to evaluate and incorporate as they see fit, but there have been constant digressions to the point where I feel as if I have been bludgeoned over the head to the point where I don't even know what we're discussing here anymore. By all means bring in more input as this has appeared to have reached a complete impasse once again. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Safehaven86: - re "attack page" - I'm also a little bit confused by this interpretation. The large majority of sources I'm seeing about Singer focus heavily on his questionable business practices. At the moment, the page only gives passing mention to this topic. We should really be working to balance the article by paying the topic due coverage so that it reflects the coverage it gets in the sources. Perhaps we should take this to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to see if we can deal with the folks ardently trying to censor any potentially negative coverage of this individual. NickCT (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
A passing mention? "Singer's business practices have been described by detractors as having the characteristics of a vulture fund" is in the lead, and there is a long 5-paragraph section on sovereign debts. I wouldn't call that a passing mention. It could be that the reason some editors are finding content primarily focused on Singer's involvement with vulture funds is because editors are looking for this type of content. When I Googled Singer just now, I found a wide variety of content. There's a lot of information on his political involvement, particularly his support of gay rights in the context of his Republican political activities. There's a lot of information on his wealth (wealth rankings, etc.) There's a lot of information on his advice for investing and how he runs his hedge fund (i.e. right now he's apparently telling people to buy gold). There is also discussion about his investment strategies, including vulture funds. But I don't see any reliable sources saying Singer has done anything illegal (according to our article, the U.S Supreme Court sided with Singer in his dispute with Argentina), so the opinion that Singer's involvement with vulture funds is "questionable" is just that--an opinion. I think it's probably a notable one, but we need to take care that this article isn't focused on trying to right great wrongs. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Safehaven86: - Sure it's an opinion. It's an opinion like "OJ Simpson might have done something bad to his ex-wife" is an opinion. But saying it's "probably a notable one" is a gross understatement. It's obviously a notable one, b/c so many RS exist which have noted it. I can do a careful count, but my guess is that about half the readily available RS's discuss Singer in relation to the questionable business practices. In my mind, that means half this article should cover him in the same context. Currently, it doesn't. NickCT (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, check out O. J. Simpson's page. Do you see anything on there about "many people still think O.J. did it!" Nope. He was found not guilty. Those are the facts. If editors have a personal opinion that vulture funds are evil and Paul Singer must be exposed for his involvement with them, then I would suggest such editors will have a difficult time complying with our neutral point of view guidelines, particularly WP:IMPARTIAL. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Safehaven, pretty much every article out there which talks at length about singer predominantly focuses on Vulture funds - that is what he is known for. Not including this here would be like not including philosophy in the article on Immanuel Kant and then spend 2/3 of it talking about some fund raising for charity he did once. What has gone on with this page consistently and persistently is whitewashing and throwing down the gauntlet to any editor who dares balance out this very lopsided article about Singer. Can we also leave out this whole analogy about OJ Simpson? Singer has never been accused of murder, it's just not relevant and continuing this tendency to get into ridiculous discussions whenever anyone brings up any actual content. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Safehaven86: - Half of Simpson's page is dedicated to the trial. If you applied the reasoning you're using for Singer to OJ, you wouldn't even be mentioning the trial. NickCT (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Look, the fact that edits like this have been made on this page causes one to wonder if editors are here to build an encyclopedia or to build an attack page. Nuance isn't that hard. All I'm saying is if you want your edits to be taken seriously, try a little harder to abide by Wikipedia's policies. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I added some tags in the most problem sections. I think a lot of this arose when the sockpuppet Hedgefundfriend and then the COI account SingerFoundation and shortly after this Meatsgains and Comatmebro began making more refined attempts at pushing POV and increasingly odd attempts at establishing "consensus", etc (beginning here). Fixing up the section that portrays Singer as the messiah of modern capitalism, and then the other which portrays Argentina as a hysterical banana republic. I'm glad huge the Philanthropy section was condensed, but the Political activity section puts a lot of undue emphasis on his LGBT activity even though there are far more sources tying him with the Koch brothers, PACs and republican candidates. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I think your latest tags are overkill. Hedgefundfriend last edited this page in 2010. SingerFoundation last edited this page in 2013. Both accounts have been blocked for years. It's not accurate to say "shortly after this" other editors began making attempts at "POV-pushing." By the way, you should link to those "other editors" you're accusing of POV-pushing. It's nice not to talk behind peoples' backs. As for their "odd attempts at establishing 'consensus'", give WP:CONSENSUS a read. It's not really odd at all, but an essential part of the Wikipedia process. I'm not seeing anything in this article that remotely connotes Singer as a "messiah" or Argentina as a "hysterical banana republic." It's possible your feelings on this subject may be too intense to allow you to view the article in an objective light. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Meatsgains and ‎Comatmebro (though the latter to a far lesser extent) - I'm not doing anything behind anyone's backs - they know my position by this point, there's no need to clarify it even more. It's extremely accurate to say "shortly after" since that was the first main activity on this page since those two accounts were blocked. I have no problem with consensus, what I have problems with are multiple discussions on the same issue which meatsgains just will not drop and then pretends like consensus has been established in his favour (whether or not we should use the term "vulture"). Or then a "concensus" established where the only people who have participated in discussion are these two editors and one person opposing them. Stop misrepresenting my views on that, I think this is swiftly becoming railroading - there is no need to act as Meatsgains' cavalry. Furthermore, with the tags, I exaggerate my view on here (which again you are attempting to discredit), but it should be clear to anyone from Argentina or anyone who has done significant reading on the matter that there is some serious systemic bias going on in that section and that the Argentine POV has not been incorporated at all. The commentary section is written entirely from Singer's POV and most of it is non-notable. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
SegataSanshiro1 Thank you for pinging me here - I have not contributed to this page in quite some time so I hope your "there is no need to act as Meatsgains' cavalry" jab was not directed my way...seem to be jumping the gun a bit there. If you wouldn't mind - could I have some time to wrap my brain around all of this, and then give my input where it seems appropriate? A quick read-through leads me to believe there is some tension between you and meats, and personally I'd not like to get dragged down into it. I respect your point of view on our other arguments (obviously related to this subject), I am assuming your edits are in good faith, and I'd like to keep all of this civil, if thats alright with you. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
No, the "jab" was not directed at you, it was directed at Safehaven86 who clearly wanted me to ping you to get the old free market gang back together. This page probably needs a few more active editors on it, but perhaps not as many where it is abundantly clear where they stand. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this any more either and I think the mission of certain people to get me to just give up on this page has almost been accomplished. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow, ok. Thanks for clarifying that you were intentionally directing a jab at me. Please be civil and WP:FOC. If you're unable to do so, your idea of taking a break from the article is an appropriate one. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I was describing it in the same way as Comatmebro since my previous statement had caused confusion - I have now put quotation marks around it to avoid further confusion. Can you please address the serious NPOV issues I have discussed above? There is a tendency on this talk page to get sidetracked from actual content, and if your intention - as you say - is to improve the page, then let's talk about those things. I also suggest - as you suggested - that a few of neutral editors to this page since it's becoming a farce. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I would really like to focus on content in this talk page discussion, but after recently going through Singer's page and talk page edit history, especially with edits like this, I can't help but question whether you are truly here to improve Wikipedia. I wouldn't say the page is in its greatest condition, but to say that the page has serious NPOV issues is quite far-fetched. Most of the content that you have been trying to add to the page constantly attempts to smear Singer and is quite frankly undue. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree this article is seriously non-neutral in relation to reliable sources, nearing promotional. Hugh (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Comatmembro, the idea that I'm "not here to improve Wikipedia" is a creative one to say the least. I have done significant edits to many articles and created many new ones. This article is the first time I have had to deal with controversial editing and the second time I have had to deal with free market POV pushers, especially one so adamant on whitewashing a page to the point of absurdity - so I lost my cool. Since then, I have not lost my cool - it's all a learning process. As is having a pack of rabid dogs biting at my feet.
Thanks Hugh for making the article seem less like an advertisement. It would be nice if someone else here could address content as well since it doesn't seem like that's what anyone else is here to do. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Saying in an edit summary that you are removing "weasel words" and promotionalism but actually removing a section ref'd to the New York Times about key legislative activity is inappropriate and wrong. Straighten up. Capitalismojo (talk)
Capitalism, I would appreciate it if you stopped telling me to "straighten up". We've been through this on my talk page and you're misrepresenting what I did. As I have said multiple times - feel free to re-add the reference. I was shortening the section which had been given undue weight and was written in a promotional way - removing weasel words was a part of that. Clearly I'm not trying to fool anyone with my edit summary since there are many people patrolling this page scrutinising every word on it. Blanket reverting is highly uncooperative and so is engaging in an edit war over something which is very easily resolved (as I have pointed out repeatidly). This is turning very swiftly into a case of WP:POV Railroad to push me off this page. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree it is non-neutral relative to reliable sources that the subject of this article's support for gay rights has roughly equal coverage in our article with the subject of this article's impact on the people of Argentina. Hugh (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I have done what I originally suggested to Capitalismojo. I hope we can adopt this sort of cooperative attitude which I have been trying to abide by since the incident that people on this page are so keen on repeatedly pointing out. Hugh, More than proportional to the Argentina section, it should be more proportional to the "Political Activity" section it's in. Singer comes up again and again as one of the top Republican donors, with numerous party members visiting him personally for endorsement - his political influence goes far beyond supporting gay rights. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
With the Argentina section, my main problem is this paragraph:
"Argentina's Foreign Affairs Minister Héctor Timerman criticized Singer for attempting to collect on the debt.[31] The Argentine government repeatedly called Singer and other plaintiffs in these debt cases vultures and described their demands as extortion.[32] In his investor letter for the fourth quarter of 2012, Singer described Argentina’s response to the court's ruling as “defiant and acrimonious,” saying that its dismissal of the ruling as “judicial colonialism” was “puzzling,” given that Argentina had chosen “to submit itself to the jurisdiction of New York courts and to waive its sovereign immunity.”[33]""
It's written from the POV of someone looking to discredit the Argentine position - I can go through it word by word if rquired. It also paints it as a conflict between the governmnet of Argentina and Singer/NML rather than the people of Argentina. The rest of the paragraph does little to reflect the international reaction to this or all the goings on post-technical default. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Using my wiki math, there are two sentences in favor of the position of the Argentines, and two sentences in favor of Singer/NML in that paragraph. It looks to be written in a way that gives both sides of the issue due weight. Your favorite pejorative is even mentioned in the paragraph, and your arguing NPOV against the Argentines? That seems...off. Looking at the Argentina section as a whole, I think its pretty clear that the specific paragraph you are talking about should be removed entirely. If you read the section without that paragraph included, it reads as a timeline of events, cited by reliable sources. Wouldn't that follow WP:BLP more closely? If you are concerned that one side isn't getting enough attention, compared to the other side, why not make the entire page more encyclopedic, by simply removing BOTH sides? That paragraph is sweating with POV on both sides, so just get rid of it! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Well using my wiki cultural and political knowledge, that's not an accurate representation of the Argentine position (predominantly the government argues that it is mostly odious debt taken by the national reorganization process and that it maintains a commitment to pay the vast majority of creditors who agreed to more reasonable terms). Hector Timmerman is also hardly representative of 42 million people. It seems to have been written to portray the Argentine position as a hysterical one in order for it to be discredited, which is further backed up by Singer's position discrediting it. Essentially the entire paragraph is written from Singer's POV and it has systemic bias written all over it. The idea of throwing in the term vulture into the sentence also implies that it was a term invented by the Peronist government, when in reality the terminology goes back a long way. Sure, remove the whole thing - it's a very badly written paragraph, but that still then fails to account for the Argentine POV which this entire section has ignored. If we're going for just a timeline of accurate events then there's a few other things which should be removed. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Capitalism, please stop removing sources written by notable academics from respected institutions. The issue of Singer's activities in Latin America has yet to feature prominent views from the region, which I am trying to amend to have at least some neutrality in this article. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please, that is not my name.
Opinion pieces, especially opinion pieces that are described so in the link, are not RS for BLP articles. Furthermore the refs don't support all in the sentence even if they were RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Singer_(businessman)/Archive_3&oldid=1137074539"