Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Copy edit

I just saw Nomoskedasticity reverted my recent copy edit. I'm glad to see most of it remained unchanged - as the article deserved a nice (and brief due to time constraints) update. I noticed a particular sentence was reinstated. Why was this the case? I also arrived at the notion that the sovereign debts subsection occupies 67% of the EMC section, which seems to be a case of undue weight, considering sovereign debt accounts for less than 2% of the hedge fund capital, according to the New York Times. This appreciation falls under Wikipedia:Criticism as well.

Once I saw the revert I perused the talk page and saw a long editing history concerning the lede sentence issue. It baffles me as to how this seems controversial. Examining the sources seemingly supporting that claim: 1) Financial Times quotes Cristina Fernández using "vultures" as a catch-all term not referring to him precisely, then quotes "a person who has worked with him" saying "Singer chafes at the term" - neither supports the statement. 2) The CNBC source quotes Kyle Bass, Elliott's direct competition saying "I wouldn't say it's borderline immoral. It is." Again the author appears to have contacted a spokesman for Elliott who declined to comment. Furthermore, the source again quotes Bass: "I wouldn't say that we're opposed to the vultures' position" - again refuting the statement. 3) The Observer simply describes the Samsung cartoons ("Samsung has created a “vulture” character to lambaste Mr. Singer") and again says Elliott's representatives did not care to comment. Can I ask why we are reintroducing a sentence that clearly does not state what the sources specified say? I'm look forward to your comments on these 2 related matters. What did the Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor? "Make me one with everything." FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with removing the part you're referring to ("a characterization which Singer rejects" -- right?). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: Hello! Thanks for getting back to me. As a matter of fact, no. I was referring to the entire sentence, which is unsubstantiated by those 3 citations. It seems bizarre to have that stated in the lede when the article appears to have a relatively adequate encyclopaedic tone throughout its bulk. What I mean by this is that having such a subjective characterisation (using 3 faux citations) does not relate with what the rest of the article conveys; as such it is to be interpreted as WP:OR (not quite, given the references are invalid). Furthermore, I don't quite understand why the majority of the article's content discusses Elliott Management's minor workings in 3 countries, when that could easily be merged with their corresponding article. Considering the 2% figure I cited above, this seems heavily undue, most of all given this is Singer's biography. Please tell me if I'm missing anything. Thanks again for your help. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What percentage of Singer's profits is driven by sovereign debt is of little importance. The fact is that all these cases were major international news stories, provoked comments from important figures around the world, and has no doubt been discussed endlessly at financial institutions and households of the people it affects. Singer is one of the most well known Vulture fund managers, one of the biggest advocates for the industry (almost its "posterboy") and tends to draw more flak than other figures in the area.

For these reasons, I do not think this has undue weight at all, but do agree that almost all of it needs to be re-written and possibly re-referenced. I've said multiple times, the article would benefit a lot from incorporating sources from the relevant countries. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello SegataSanshiro1. Just a little note: he's a hedge fund manager, not a "vulture" fund manager. Also, it's not a percentage of his profits, rather a percentage of the Elliott Management hedge fund's capital, a very important difference. I'd be glad to review sources, such as my unheeded attempt above, but I think it'd be more fruitful to consider policy and not how it's "been discussed endlessly at financial institutions and households of the people it affects" - something with which Wikipedia has nothing to do whatsoever. Again, I see no sources indicating he is an "advocate for the industry"; what I do see are sources partially quoting him while discussing how hedge funds work - as a direct consequence of him drawing flak. We should not mirror the flak, we should present a neutral and encyclopaedic collection of facts, like a proper encyclopaedia. I agree the article needs rewriting and partial rereferencing (some of the citations are quite good). As for relevant countries, they could be represented in due regard, but we have to be careful given nationalist sentiment usually trumps neutrality. I believe non-actors are usually the best sources to be found. I reiterate my thanks for your comments, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

His hedge funds and offshore companies are also well-known Vulture funds, as stated by countless sources. It does bare relevance since it is what makes it noteworthy - it's a contemporary issue of huge relevance, which he is at the forefront of and there are again countless sources indicating this. In part, the reason for which you say that there are mostly sources "quoting him while discussing how hedge funds work" is there has been an overwhelming (and somewhat undue) focus on financial industry sources, the types of outlets which give advice to investors or pundits rather than providing more comprehensive coverage which doesn't appeal to their readership. I don't fully understand what you're getting at with the "nationalist sentiment" and "neutral actors" statements - is it that somehow the free press in the relevant countries are involved in the process and can't be trusted because they come from these specific countries? I can't say I agree with the logic there if that's the case, but I take it that it's not. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Elliott Management's hedge fund might be considered by some as a "vulture" fund, which the sources used now do not state. I find your arguments tinged with bias. Please do present said "countless sources". The bottom line is misrepresenting sources to make a statement is just not allowed on Wikipedia. Now to your other argument: most of the sources used in the article are not financial industry sources, so I find your argument absurd. Financial industry sources in fact do not use the "vulture" term. Finally, yes, that is precisely my point. The "free" press in the relevant countries - whose democracies are very often called into question - cannot be considered reliable when there is such a fierce public opinion against these operators (the press is, after all, run by a small segment of the population and not by neutral editorial robots). Have you read these sources? Most of them could be considered quite heated opinion pieces. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: - Thanks for your comments. I think the bottom line is that there are dozens and dozens of RS mention that the "vulture" characterization/criticism. Given the frequent mention in the sources it seems neutral and due that we mention it here. If it was only the three currently cited, I might agree with you. If you don't feel the current refs are sufficient to support inclusion in the lead, have you looked for others? NickCT (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, NickCT, for your answer. I do not agree with your RS argument either, given the non-neutral quality of the term, which is the prime reason for my comments. Imagine Michael Jackson article's lede saying something along the lines of "Michael Jackson was considered by some a sexual abuser, a claim he denied". How on earth would this be justified? Same standards are to be used throughout the encyclopaedia.

As you yourself mentioned, the three sources used do not state what the sentence implies - that is enough reason for removal, at least until someone writes and substantiates a different text. Also, nobody's addressing the other issue I raised. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The analogy would only be apt if of Michael Jackson's primary "professions" through which he made his name and living had been "sex offender" and if those claims had been substantiated by evidence. This is more akin to if there were widespread criticism of his musical talents and if one of his primary aims had been to be a bad musician, which would be ludicrous to leave out of a lede if that were the case. Rather than just remove, it would be far more straightforward to simply incorporate other sources (maybe one of the many NickCT pointed to) or just to reword the phrase. The reason it does not currently substantiate word-for-word what the sources say is because it was amended numerous times. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The analogy is apt given the thousands upon thousands of sources talking about it. Sources need to be carefully analysed and selected for quality - that bit needs to be removed because it is semantically false. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@SegataSanshiro1 and FoCuSandLeArN: - Would agree with Sega here. The question is what a subject is primarily notable for. I'm not sure if it matters whether 2% of Singer's business is this "vulture fund" or if it's 0.2%. If a large number of sources note Singer for his "vulture fund" activities, then we're simply giving the issue WP:DUE weight by mentioning it in the lead. Similarly, following your Jackson analogy, if you could show that a substantial portion of RS covering Jackson covered him in the context of being a sexual deviant, then yes, you might consider the wording you proposed. I think if you looked at it though you would find that of the plethora of RS out there on Jackson, few would discuss his offender status. NickCT (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You clearly were too young to remember the coverage back then. Back to the issue at hand: precisely, "vulture" is used in a derogatory sense, and is thus non-neutral. Not accepting "vulture" is derogatory is a self-defeating notion, given there would be no use to the term weren't it for its negative connotations. We cannot have an obvious pejorative used on Wikipedia, not for Paul Singer, not for Hitler, not for the Dalai Lama. It is simply unencyclopaedic. Sources discuss it in exactly this sense - they usually play with a supposed "vulture" - capitalist dichotomy, and the only reason they do so is because the analogy is entertaining and entertaining reporting sells. Vulture is, at least until humanity succumbs to cultural suicide, always treated as a metaphor and is shown in quotation marks. Wikipedia is not a sensationalist venue; it is to be written in a neutral fashion. Another facile argument that apparently carried considerable weight during our previous discussions was the search argument. See results for Paul singer vulture vs Paul Singer -vulture; ≈26/1 ratio. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Not too young to remember, and the Vulture terminology has been in the collective lexicon since at least 2004 (I believe) when it was used by Gordon Brown to describe the Congo case. You've made your views clear on this multiple times now and let's not let this descend into yet another discussion into the usage of the term. I could equally make the point that it is cultural suicide to just write off anything like this as "good business" and also stress that Wikipedia is not a venue for the rules of the market to determine how information is presented (as you did with the 2% argument) since I would hope that knowledge can transcend our current collective ideological predicament. Consensus has been reached now in multiple discussions on the usage of the term and that should be respected - these circular discussions are highly unproductive. It would be far more productive to focus on areas in which we can reach agreement on, which I suspect are plentiful. One such area could be to bring in neutral editors familiar with the domestic press of Peru and Congo to improve those sections using sources from local media, which is currently completely absent from an article dominated by the US and UK press. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@SegataSanshiro1: You seem to be replying to comments I made to NickCT above. Please keep the discussion organised. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: - I don't know. Saying something is "derogatory" and hence unuseable is a dangerous game. If I said the term "sexual abuser" was "derogatory" (it probably is) could we not use it on Jackson's page? NickCT (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The "search engine" test argument is convincing by-the-way. But looking at the unique results from your search, it looks like "Paul singer vulture" wins. NickCT (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@NickCT: I don't see it as a dangerous game. "Sexual abuser" (like many other terms for that matter) has a complex definition and hence interpretation, especially considering cultural and legal differences accross the globe. "Vulture" on the other hand is clearly metaphorical and strongly value-laden. What do you mean by unique results? My cursory search provided 26 times as many results for Paul Singer excluding "vulture" than including it. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: - Would you object to the use of the term "loan shark" or mentioning that a tort lawyer had been called an "ambulance chaser"? I sorta appreciate your argument, but this doesn't strike me as something which is clearly pejorative. I mean, if someone had been called a "queer f***er" by a large number of RS's, I might understand not using that in the lead on the basis of it's clear pejorative and derogatory nature, but I'm not sure "vulture" really rises to that level.

Try going to the end of the list in your search results. That will show you the number of unique results. NickCT (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course I would. Those are great examples for non-neutral terms. We might see cases where non-neutral terms have permeated into legarl jargon, but that's a whole different matter. Why would you use "vulture" if not for its connotations? That is precisely the point! Regarding results, I don't see what you mean, I can't find what you allude to. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Well take the example of the lawyer for example. Say some lawyer works up a reputation for an extremely unscrupulous tort practice. His reputation gets so bad that a great number of the sources covering him specificly mention the charge that he is a prime example of an "ambulance chaser". You don't think that would deserve somekind of nod in the lead?

Try going to the "next page" in your google results. Keep going to the next page until you get to the end. Count the number of results based on how many pages deep you can go. NickCT (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. In case you think I'm making the search stuff up as I go, see here. NickCT (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Asbestos and vulture capitalism

This link has serious allegations about the subject's involvement as a vulture capitalist in asbestos compensation claims; should we summarize this someplace in the article, assuming we can find a non-self-published source? Finding such shouldn't be too hard since the relevant transactions are a matter of public record. --I A Huasca (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably, but Palast has been deemed non-noteworthy for this article for reasons unknown, even though doing a quick search he's been used as a source multiple times on other pages. Also, your user page which consists of "sock of longtime user for certain topics" might cause problems here. Nonetheless, I for one would like to see these relevant transactions if you come across them since leaving something like that out of an article would be bordering on absurd. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So Palast is verboten here even if non-selfpub? Interesting; might be worth taking that up more widely. Still, I doubt he's the only one to report on this. (My sock is perfectly acceptable for privacy reasons, per WP:SOCK#LEGIT; thanks, and I'll add that to my user page.) --I A Huasca (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You couldn't possibly source anything to that page, which is clearly self-published. If Palast has made equivalent statements elsewhere you might be able to source something to those. If you want to enquire about the reliability of a possible source then start at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Palast has written for The Guarian and BBC, but those sources have also been deemed unusable here in the past for reasons, even when naming Palast in the article as the person making the statements. There's a hefty list of sources which were also ignored here. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)