Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

"Independent" sentence

Let's sort it out, rather than continuing to muck about. We don't need to quote from the Independent, my paraphrase was perfectly acceptable and drew on a closely related portion of the Independent article. Deleting an article because you can't afford it isn't a policy-based editing approach. Adding a quote for "balance" also isn't an obviously great thing to do. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Very happy to delete the sentence, but you can't just start with a quote (or a paraphrase of a quote) from a single journalist as if this gave a fair summary of the situation. I didn't delete the WSJ reference, I just deleted it from this sentence as it couldn't support a quote from the Independent (or for that matter Bloomberg) and it wasn't at all clear what it was doing there in the first place. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Vulture

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.

---

Does the term 'vulture capitalist' or other terms involving characterization as a 'vulture' violate WP:NPOV? More specifically, does it violate the neutrality standards of a WP:BLP? Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes- Neutrality being a fundamental (core) principle of Wikipedia, the use of this term cannot, under any circumstance be used in a biographical article. Such a term is propagated by agenda-laden individuals, institutions, and media and should deserve no place in an encyclopedia, least of all when respectable quality sources treat it as a non-neutral term themselves. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Maybe, but what's more important is WP:DUE. If someone's called something but a huge swath of sources, with certain limits, we would be reticent not to mention that, even if it's solely applied by detractors. What else is important with a WP:DUE assessment is determining how prominently the mention should be featured. I think it's pretty likely all the mentions in the lede are inappropriate, but some mention in a broad criticism section may be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• No - This is a widely used term, slightly facetious, with some descriptive basis and not particularly derogatory. The term is used by journalists, financiers, governments, and the public. See Vulture fund. SPECIFICO talk 02:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• No per Specifico but is the living person complaining about it? In any case I think it's reasonable to move it outside of the lead.II | (t - c) 02:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Pretty simply, who do the sources ascribe the term's use to? Affected countries or other financial or social parties who are clearly attributed by the sources concerned. If we present a non-neutral term as fact then we need to counter that fact per WP:BALANCE, using “secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.” This cannot be achieved with using the term, given there is no easy way of countering such facile pejorative terminology. We wouldn’t say "Singer calls such people idiots because their governments irresponsibly spend and are not willing to pay the loans back" - this leads to very poor encyclopedic content and should be avoided. Singer has in fact more often than not declined to comment, and therefore finding a countering viewpoint in reliable sources is extremely hard to do in this case. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Again, we would be going against WP:NPOV: “a neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view.” Precisely, “vulture”, a derogatory pejorative, is a point of view (a very infantile one to say the least), and even though one might tweak the language to somewhat represent a contrary viewpoint, it is heavily partisan (check reliable coverage about the term's use) and as such, would tilt the article (the lead in particular, which is what most people read) towards a negative view of the subject. Meatsgains (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• No -- NPOV requires that we give proportionate weight to the perspectives available in reliable sources about a person (or entity), and the fact that "vulture xxx" is widely used in sources about Singer means that it must be used in our article about him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• No - use of the term 'vulture' does not necessarily violate the neutrality standards of a WP:BLP. The way it is used in this article is fine because it is stated that it is used by critics and there are many sources to back it up. Additionally, the term vulture here has a specific technical meaning - the buying up of bad debt.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Having said that, three uses of the term in the lede with only two in body of the article is unbalanced. One mention in the lede would better reflect the contents of the article.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• No -- NPOV requires that we give proportionate weight to the perspectives available in reliable sources about a person (or entity), and the fact that "vulture xxx" is widely used in sources about Singer means that it must be used in our article about him. However, I do agree with Jonpatterns that it does not need to be used three times in the lede.Whiteguru (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• No - The term is not intrinsically pejorative, but even if it were then it could be used if its use was supported by reliable sources and the manner in which it is used is not undue. But note that Singer is not a vulture capitalist, he runs a vulture fund, which are different things. And more to the point, why oh why are we having this debate yet again? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• No: as long as the term is enclosed within quotation marks and clearly attributed to somebody other than Wikipedia. With apologies to Jonathan A Jones, the term is intrinsically pejorative: it likens Singer or his company, or both, to a hideous creature that feeds on corpses. It's nothing but pejorative, and its occasional generic use by vacuous journalists hasn't neutered it (yet). On the other hand, many people find "vulture capitalist" an appropriate metaphor for investors that acquire distressed companies and reduce them to cash, regardless of the assets squandered and the workers rendered jobless in the process. Their criticism of Singer and his business is relevant and notable, and should be represented in the article; but it should be made clear that Wikipedia isn't itself espousing their POV.

This appears to have become an annual ritual. The cure for democracy is more democracy! J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally I quite like vultures which "are of great value as scavengers, especially in hot regions". Scavenging corpses is a valuable service, whether performed by ornithological or metaphorical vultures. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Heh. But, honestly, nobody ever called anybody a vulture as a compliment! J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In fact "culture vulture" is definitely a compliment in the UK, but it seems more ambiguous in the US? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes - Vulture is an obvious derogatory term, which violates NPOV, and appears to have been deliberately placed in this biography in an attempt to taint its subject. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• No - For the same reasons as the countless other RFCs there have been on this subject. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• No - This debate has been recycled many times in the recent past. Wait a year until testing consensus again. NickCT (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• No - Wikipedia is not censored, and Neutrality is not about avoiding the use of certain words, its about "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias," all significant views from reliable sources on a topic. The use of a pejorative term in an article is fine, as long as the context is made clear – who is using the term and under what circumstances. LK (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes News reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic; what we're observing in this case is the vilification of Singer due to a few investments that have irked nations which are particularly prone to nationalism/populism-protectionism and very bad economic policy. Per wp:blp, this should have been removed long ago. The editing history suggests a handful of possessive and biased editors willfully looking out for the perpetuation of its use. Fraulein451 (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I love how folks blame what they see as a "bad" viewpoint on "a handful of possessive and biased editors" on an RfC where it seems pretty clear a majority supports the "bad" position. I wonder if these folks blame everything bad in life on some evil cabal. NickCT (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Previous RfCs

There have been previous RfCs about this issue. The most recent is:

• "There is consensus to use the term "vulture"."

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Further comments

• Many of the objections to "vulture" above relate to the term in the abstract, rather than as it is used in the article. Let's look at the actual article. The word "vulture" appears seventeen times in the article as it stands at the moment, but twelve of those instances are in the titles or headlines of sources, and appear only in the notes, so there is no question of their being attributed to Wikipedia. (Whether or not the selection of these sources reflects any bias is not the issue presently under discussion.) Of the remaining five, three are in the lede, and two in the body of the article. I propose that those be dealt with as follows:

1. His hedge fund Elliott Management Corporation (ECM)—specializes in distressed debt acquisitions and for that reason is also known as a "vulture fund"[footnote omitted] or an "activist hedge fund.[fn. om.]" Delete everything after "acquisitions". Could be taken as an assertion by Wikipedia that the characterization "vulture fund" is appropriate. Better to introduce the term in later sentence regarding detractors.

2. & 3. Detractors consider him to be a "vulture capitalist"[fnn. om.] and "vulture financier."[fn. om.] Delete everything (except relevant footnotes) after "'vulture capitalist'". There's no real difference between a capitalist and a financier in this context, and no need to catalogue the variations on "vulture capitalist", especially not in the lede. This criticism should, however, be dealt with in greater detail in the body of the article. Note that this instance refers to criticism of Singer himself, while criticism mentioned in the body is of his company, ECM. Lede should summarize article, so article should develop lede.

4. Its [ECM's] business practices have been described by detractors as having the characteristics of a "vulture fund", a characterization which Singer rejects.[fnn. om.] Replace with "Detractors have called ECM a 'vulture fund', a characterization Singer rejects.[fnn.]" This is purely a stylistic revision, the use of "vulture" here being appropriate and neutral.

5. . . . Samsung published numerous depictions of Singer as an anthropomorphic vulture on its corporate website. Leave unchanged. Fairly reports on Samsung's representation.

This proposal of course presumes a negative resolution to the RfC, and doesn't offer a compromise solution, so I have presented it as comments, rather than as a formal proposal. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I broadly agree with your informal proposals. However, I think vulture capitalist and vulture financier (vulture fund) are different concepts. The former buy up failing businesses and the latter (failing) bad debt. Paul Singer's business seems to be the latter. 2) and 3) could become Detractors consider him to be a "vulture financier". - the sources may use the terms differently to how they are defined on Wikipedia.°Jonpatterns (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I broadly agree as well. Just some clarification on Jonpatterns' point; though Singer is best known for "bad debt", he has also bought up failing businesses such as Delphi Automotive [1] so he would fall under both categories under your definitions. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jdcrutch: thank you very much for your pertinent comments. I value your individual consideration of each instance of "vulture" use. I agree with the notion that number 1 could be taken as "an assertion by Wikipedia that the characterization 'vulture fund' is appropriate" - this was one of my main concerns regarding the use of the term. Regarding instances 2 & 3: I am unaware of the nomenclatural intricacies involved, but still maintain it is not the place of an encyclopaedia to pass on judgement (even though it is used by media); language used here should be above such terminology. Objective representation of criticism should absolutely be included in articles, but must be written in an appropriate manner. My assertion is that the same can be said without resorting to the use of the word "vulture". I also agree with your assessment that criticism mentioned in the body is of ECM, hence this instance of the word being in the lede is undue in its own regard. This is agravated by the fact we have at present these two separate characterisations, which seems silly considering the sole reason why Singer is called a "vulture" is due to the fact ECM deals with distressed securities. Finally, the last instance seems within reason. I look forward to your reply. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for these kind responses to my comments and suggestions. I read the articles, vulture capitalist and vulture fund, with considerable surprise. They seem to reflect, or perhaps even to be, attempts at pasteurizing the term "vulture", as applied to capital—that is, at killing a vivid metaphor, and neutralizing it as a rhetorical device. I've never before heard "vulture" applied to capital in such a mealy-mouthed way. In my own experience, "vulture capitalist" is a (perhaps rather obvious) play on "venture capitalist", and is always intended as a damning denunciation of capitalists (whether "financiers" or "funds" or what-have-you) that acquire distressed enterprises, and, as the accusation usually goes, dismember them, fire all the workers, and sell off the assets, without regard for the effects of their actions on workers, their families and communities, and society at large. Where the term is applied to buyers of distressed debt, it's because they are seen as accomplishing much the same social effects by forcing debtors into liquidation, or imposing drastic cost-cutting measures on them.

I would have expected defenders of these capitalists to argue that they are not vultures; but the two Wikipedia articles seem to concede (or to reflect a concession of) the term "vulture", with an argument that the vultures' role is misunderstood by critics. This co-optation is probably an effective strategy to rob the expression "vulture capitalist" of its rhetorical force, but I question the propriety of Wikipedia's participation in it.

It seems to me that Wikipedia should treat of "vulture capitalist" and "vulture fund" purely as terms applied by critics to persons or institutions described in neutral terms elsewhere. To suggest, as these articles do, that they are appropriate encyclopedic terms, but that their meaning really isn't so bad, is not neutrality: it's a subtle attack on the critics who first used the terms.

As to whether or not the present article should distinguish between "vulture capitalist" and "vulture financier" or "vulture fund", it's my impression, as I suggested above, that the critics who employ these terms (as opposed to people who are trying to kill or neuter the "vulture" metaphor) make no such distinction: that all come under the rubric of "vulture capitalist", because their activities are seen as being analogous, and the social effects of their activities are seen as being essentially the same. Because Wikipedia, in my opinion, should not be calling anybody a vulture, but should merely report on others' use of the epithet, it should make no more distinction than the critics do.

As to whether criticism (and with it the term "vulture") applies to Singer personally or to his company, the answer, of course, is both, and the article should reflect that reality. Critics appear to view Singer as the representative or symbol of his company, or his company as an extension of himself, and to attribute the conduct of the company to the man. Whether or not that's accurate should make no difference, because Wikipedia should merely be reporting on the controversy, not deciding whether or to what extent criticism is properly directed. Naturally, if Singer, or ECM, or credible analysts argue that the criticism is misapplied, Wikipedia should also report that. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually the first vulture funds invested in distressed real estate: see for example Investors in 'Vulture' Funds Face High Prices, Low Returns from 1997. The extension to "vulture capital" may well be a play on "venture capital" as you suggest, though I have never seen clear evidence of that. The move of vulture funds from distressed real estate to distressed sovereign debt is also a relatively recent phenomenon, and it's that which has brought them into public vilification. Singer is very effective at distresed sovereign debt, largely based on his understanding that bonds issued in different jurisdictions would have different bankruptcy provisions, a fact which seemed to escape the minds of the issuers. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wall Street engages in certain language that's might be compared to what's heard in football lockerrooms or at country club cigar lounges. As a thought experiment, please consider the arguments above if the term in question were "junk bond" or "hostile takeover" or many others. Would anyone argue against using the term "junk bond" if it's used by a RS reference? SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones may be correct, but, for what it's worth, Google Books finds an instance of "vulture capitalist" from 1978. One can read only a snippet of the article, but it clearly uses "vulture capitalist" as a play on "venture capitalist", and the context seems to involve small businesses, not real estate. (Google Books also locates an instance from 1885, but it's likening all capitalists to vultures, preying on the oppressed proletariat.)

@SPECIFICO: The term "junk bond" reflects society's general opinion of the securities so described. It carries no moral opprobrium. "Vulture capitalist" is a highly judgmental expression, and has not been universally accepted as the proper characterization of the persons and institutions to which it is usually applied. If the latter term is used by a RS, Wikipedia may properly quote it; but Wikipedia should not engage in moral judgment of its subjects. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

As it goes Wikipedia calls "junk bonds" High-yield_debts, but a nicer term for Toxic asset hasn't yet been found.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Opprobrium is OR. Surprising about the junk bond euphemism. The "junk" moniker was coined with at least as much snark as "vulture" -- see Rudy Giuliani. And consider also Junk food wherein brand names are used and the term conveys mucho opprobrium. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Funny, I sense a significant moral difference between "not worth very much" (junk bonds) or "not very nutritious" (junk food) and "feeds on corpses" (vulture anything). J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what's funny, but the suggestion that named food companies produce ingestible "junk" possibly rotted wood, broken glass, or soiled paper, sounds nasty to me. In fact, junk bonds are nowhere near that bad -- they're just risky. The majority of the earth's humans join the birds of prey viz a viz the corpse-munch thing, so I'm not understanding the relevance here. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Jdcrutch — SPECIFICO: Thank you both for your comments. SPECIFICO specifically , I think we're all old enough to understand that opprobium is certainly not OR. We wouldn't even be discussing this whole issue if it were. Now, going back to the long and interesting arguments presented above, I think a thorough analysis of the term's usage is both necessary and compelling, and we can work on what you've both presented above. We can focus on the philosophical aspects involved in financial nomenclature at a later time, wouldn't you agree? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think "junk bond" is at least as loaded a term as vulture fund. Why? Because Junk Bond refers to the bond itself, and by extension the corporate issuer and its franchise and stakeholders. Junk! But "vulture fund" refers to an action, which is objectively attributable to an individual or entity, and that activity is to keep a hawk-eye out for potentially profitable discards and to realize value where less astute and opportunistic observers see only waste. What's the bad association about "vulture" -- only personal opinion, i.e. OR, unless we have a suitable RS that establishes "vulture" as denigration, in which case the consensus here should be reconsidered. With respect to the linked Irish Times bit, the criticism is not directed at the vultures but at the originators of the bad debt and the initial investors who enabled the defaulted loans. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to discuss the connotations of "junk bond" at a separate venue. As regards this RfC, it's quite simple, really: if the term weren't pejorative, we would just use words like investor or capitalist. A quick review of all sources broaching the issue should be indication enough its use is at the very least controversial. If you require more direct evidence "vulture" is considered pejorative, see [2] among a myriad other sources. I would very much want to focus this subsection at Jdcrutch' quasi-proposals above. As you suggested above, I am precisely trying to make editors "reconsider" their interpretations of the issue, given there is substantial evidence "vulture" is used as denigration. I believe you've already more than aptly stated your views. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten a little sidetracked. I believe the discussion is on whether the term should be used in this article, not the differing views from editors on if the term is appropriate and the intricacies of its meaning. This is the eighth discussion which has emerged and on this topic, with the exact same points raised and on the last one I provided some useful tables to show the varying levels of support and just how much it's been discussed to death here. There is no doubt in my mind that this discussion will yet again maintain that the term is appropriate to be used, and yet again that a very vocal minority (some clearly in good faith, while others clearly not) will do everything possible not to respect that consensus and prevent it from being enforced in article space. Given that this is the case, would it not be more apt to accept the overwhelming support for its inclusion, but appease its opponents by attributing the term when it is used? That way this issue can finally be laid to rest. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It may be worth adding a Template:FAQ to the talkpage stating the consensus on 'Vulture' if that is the case. °Jonpatterns (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that, SegataSanshiro1. I do believe we were making headway with Jdcrutch above, before getting sidetracked with more profound considerations. I second your calls for the issue's resolution. We need to move on from the premise "vulture" can be held into account by a number of people, be they readers or editors, and rethink the prose accordingly, as the 8 previous discussions urge us to. Careful consideration of its use is what I'm striving to promote at this point. Bertrand Russell held that it's healthy "to hang a question mark" on things one has long taken for granted - questions like this can only make an article better. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the need for discussion, it's more that having the same discussion repeatedly is unlikely to yield differing results, nor does it help that certain editors are adamant that sourced information should be removed in clear violation of WP:RSUW simply because it doesn't fit their worldview. I suggest if we are to move things forward, we follow the guidelines: integrate all significant sourced opinions, give them due weight and if a term is controversial yet used very frequently to describe the subject matter in reliable sources, then it should simply attributed since no one is demanding that it be done in Wikipedia's voice. With that reasoning, we can make significant advances which would likely spill over into the vulture fund and Elliott Management pages. There have been a significant number of editors involved in this article who no doubt would be of a collaborative mindset provided obstacles weren't constantly thrown in place and this page could finally be brought up to a good level. Again, I stress, at this point it is clear that the suggestion that "vulture fund" be excluded from this page and others is bordering on ludicrous at this point, but I'm sure we can have far more productive discussions on how it's included, and I maintain that attributing the term to detractors (though this isn't always the case) is the very clear way to move forward. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Slightly modified proposal

Thank you again, Segata. We are making some advances here, and I appreciate everyone's efforts and collaboration towards achieving that. We can discuss the intricacies of copy editing this and all the relevant articles' contents in more detail later, perhaps while having virtual coffee/scotch over the next few weeks/months. I'd like to fall back on what Jdcrutch and others have touched on previously, mainly breaking down each instance of the term's use. We need to be mindful of the fact that as it currently stands, the lede carries 3 instances while the body does twice. My modified proposal (greatly based on Jdcrutch's) is as follows:

1. His hedge fund Elliott Management Corporation (ECM)—specializes in distressed debt acquisitions and for that reason is also known as a "vulture fund"[footnote omitted] or an "activist hedge fund.[fn. om.]" Delete everything after "acquisitions" - we are providing a brief overview of the subject and his livelihood, the details of which are more appropriately given farther down, as well as Jdcrutch's reasoning.
2. Detractors consider him to be a "vulture capitalist"[fnn. om.] and "vulture financier."[fn. om.] Replace with "Detractors consider him to be a 'vulture capitalist', due to the activities performed by EMC". I could go either way on this (capitalist vs. financier), truthfully, as we could debate on which is a more appropriate or accurate appelation. As to the point regarding whether the term should be based on his or his fund's activities, that is what we need to establish and could mean we might have to tweak the language a bit, but as it stands the phrase is redundant. We need to take into account that this is a BLP, so ascribing the term vulture to something his fund does seems odd to me. We should be talking about his activities. Again, we can discuss this in more detail.
3. Its [ECM's] business practices have been described by detractors as having the characteristics of a "vulture fund", a characterization which Singer rejects.[fnn. om.] Replace with "ECM has been termed a 'vulture fund', a characterization Singer rejects.[fnn.]"

I reiterate we can work on the remaining portions of the article informally later; my proposal endeavours to break the deadlock and come up with what is, at least to my mind and what I think we could all essentially agree on, a decent and more balanced approach to this BLP. I also look keenly on the idea of finally establishing some form of FAQ template once we are done with copy editing these matters. Thank you all again and I look forward to your comments. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

These look ok to me. Are you flipping your view on the RfC? If so please revise above and perhaps call for a close per WP:SNOW. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Mendaliv that using the term "vulture" in the lead is inappropriate and violates WP:NPOV. Meatsgains (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This looks fine to me, however if these adjustments are to be made then it is also important to consider WP:DUE. These changes allude to detractors, however their POV from RS (of which there are many) have been repeatedly omitted from this article for no valid reason. For instance, the opening lines of the sovereign debt section read:

Elliott was termed by The Independent as "a pioneer in the business of buying up sovereign bonds on the cheap, and then going after countries for unpaid debts", while Singer describes his business model as "a fight against charlatans who refuse to play by the market’s rules".

This shows Singer's viewpoint but does little to address any other notable viewpoints, of which there are many ranging from NGOs to TNOs and the sovereign nations in question. We also have many sources in the article which use the term "vulture fund" with or without quotation marks, attributed to third parties or otherwise, but this information has been persistently left out on the whims of one editor, often resulting in WP:SYNTH. Essentially, if we are to rework the lede, we must also rework parts of the main body to reflect what RS say and reflect other significant viewpoints which often happen to be rather negative. I think LK hit the nail on the head with "Neutrality is not about avoiding the use of certain words, its about "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all significant views from reliable sources on a topic. The use of a pejorative term in an article is fine, as long as the context is made clear – who is using the term and under what circumstances". Currently this is where this article is failing far more than in its usage of terminology. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe editors are going to have to reconcile themselves to the use of "vulture" in quotations from critics. It appears that this issue has been raised over and over again because a few editors are categorically opposed to the epithet's use. They must stop their agitation (whether by RfC, or by deletion, or otherwise), and content themselves with policing, reasonably and moderately, balance and attribution in its use. At the same time, editors who consider "vulture capitalist" to be a perfectly appropriate characterization of Singer must resist the urge to apply it to him (or his companies) here, including the urge to load up the article with quotations from RSs using the term, beyond what's consistent with proper balance (keeping in mind, of course, that balance does not always mean 50% on each side). It may be sufficient for the article to deal with the term just once, in a general way (plus a summary in the lede); or it may be more appropriate to address specific controversies severally, with representative quotations from critics as to each, as long as the coverage is appropriately balanced. I personally incline towards the latter alternative, but that's really a question for a separate discussion.

As for FoCuS's specific suggestions, I obviously support those that agree with mine. With regard to #2 (Detractors consider him to be a "vulture capitalist"[fnn. om.] and "vulture financier."[fn. om.], etc.), I would suggest, "Detractors have branded him a 'vulture capitalist', largely on account of the activities of ECM."

• I think "branded" is a more vivid verb, but still neutral; and, more to the point, it reflects the fact that Singer's critics don't merely consider him a vulture (i.e., in their private opinions), but have publicly and insistently declared him that.
• I think Wikipedia should stick with "vulture capitalist" in its selection of attributed epithets, as long as that accurately reflects prevailing rhetoric, because (a) I think most detractors who use "vulture" epithets in this context prefer it; (b) it keeps the epithet close to its origin as a play on "venture capitalist"; and (c) making distinctions between "vulture capitalists", "vulture financiers", "vulture funds", and "vulture what-have-you" tends to vitiate the metaphor (to "mainstream" it, if you will), and rob it of the rhetorical force which the persons who use it (and whom we're quoting) generally intend for it to have. (Persons who use "vulture" generically, rather than as a term of opprobrium, are probably not using it in the context of controversy, or any other notable context, and so their use of the term probably shouldn't be quoted or cited anyway.)
• The respective accuracy of the various terms seems utterly beside the point to me. People who call somebody a vulture are not ordinarily striving for precision: they're making a blunt rhetorical point.
• For purposes of the lede, "largely on account of the activities of ECM" adequately solves the problem of whether the term applies to the man or to his companies. People who call Singer a "vulture capitalist" generally don't recognize any meaningful distinction between the man and the companies, and, except for fairly abstruse legal reasons (limitation of liability, taxation, etc.), I rather doubt that Singer does either. (He's the head of the company, after all, not a passive investor.) Editors who consider the distinction important in this context can propose text demonstrating that, and we can discuss it further in this forum. For the time being, "largely" leaves open the possibility that some detractors do distinguish between man and companies.

Certainly both the lede and the body of the article should reflect all of these considerations, consistent with "consensus", as SegataSanshiro1's latest comment suggests, since the lede is properly a brief summary of the body. Any point made in the lede should be developed and elucidated in the body, and the body should receive at least as much scrutiny as the lede. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, branded introduces yet more animal imagery and introduces an awkwardly-mixed ruminant/raptor metaphor. Was "vulture capitalist" coined and first used to describe Mr. Singer? The proposed language could be interpreted to be saying that. SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I was really going for athlete-turned-actor-playing-wrongfully-drummed-out-of-the-army-cavalry-officer imagery, but I imagine Wikipedia's readers will be able to sort it all out. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Note

This latest analysis by Jdcrutch seems to be the most on point so far and is difficult to argue with. I also agree with the latter point: "it may be more appropriate to address specific controversies severally, with representative quotations from critics as to each, as long as the coverage is appropriately balanced". I feel at this point there is too much emphasis in this discussion on the lede, putting the cart before the horse as it were. We should examine the sources, balance out the parts in question in the main body (in particular the EMC section), see where we stand and then see how much emphasis should be put in the lede regarding these matters so we can reflect what's in the main body more accurately. We're getting a bit too bogged down in terminology which is unlikely to be used in Wikipedia's voice specifically anyway. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all again for your comments; kudos for the theatrical imagery too! I agree with you that the rest of the article needs improvement and further contemplation. This RfC was created with the lede in mind, though, and it'd be a shame to let this opportunity pass in my opinion. I'll tell you what, we can review and implement the above proposals that we all seem to essentially agree on for the lede, and we can then chip in with the rest of the article over the coming weeks. I know I have a bit of time available for this project. We might tweak the lede somewhat after that's for the most part done, but as it is we need a workable lede and it's as good a place as any to get things moving, not to mention that some of the above changes have to do with other sections as well. These changes are very succinct and would only take a few moments to implement. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, people seem to be on board with it so why not. Some other changes following the same logic as the others:

• I would also go ahead and remove "Since 2004 Singer became known as an influential technology company specialist-through well-researched, strategic and often profitable takeovers through a process of pursuit, acquisition and restructuring." - I haven't been able to check on the paywalled WSJ story, but the other article doesn't attribute any qualities to Singer himself, but rather his company and editors seem to agree that there's quite enough information on that in the lede as it is. We're also using terms like "well-researched" in Wikipedia's voice.

• With "In 1996 he began using the highly effective strategy of purchasing sovereign debt from nations in crisis (...)", I would delete the "highly effective" since it's not really Wikipedia's place to determine what is good business or not.

• "In 2015, Forbes rated Singer's net worth as $2.1 billion. In 2015, Singer was 327th on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans, 1006th among the world's billionaires, 350th of American billionaires, and the 16th highest earning hedge fund manager." - Again, if we're aiming for a summary, I would leave the first sentence and move the second to the "Personal life" section or anywhere that's more appropriate.

With that, as FoCuSandLeArN suggests, we can amend the lede and move on with the rest of the article, presumably coming back to the lede later. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Some quick comments:

• I think the 2004 date is important, though, as both WSJ and Reuters have singled out that year per Singer's directing investments into tech companies. Perhaps we could try with something like "Since 2004 Singer has shifted a portion of his fund's investments to technology companies".
• The source does use that terminology, but I agree with you that removing highly effective is more appropriate.
• I don't really know about this one. Business BLP's seem to usually include this information in the lede, as in some cases they are the main sources of coverage for these people. I'd like to see what others think about this.

Thank you once again, Segata! Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe attribute it to his company instead of him then and make it more brief? Essentially what you suggested. If I'm being a bit more difficult, I'd say it's not notable since there aren't many investment funds in the 21st century who haven't invested in technology and seems to trivial to include in the lede, being more suited to the EMC section. I'll follow the path of least resistance though and see what other editors think.

• Great

• I've checked the pages for Eric Schmitt, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Carlos Slim and Michael Bloomberg - all of which simply have their net worth, followed by (US?) ranking in the lede without the extra information, the exception being Trump who has nothing there and is the only person on that list less wealthy than Singer. The only page I could find in my brief search who has as much top-trumps-esque information in the lede as this page is Bill Gates, which makes far more sense considering he's been known as the world's wealthiest (or among) for the last 20+ years. I really think this should me made more succinct in line with these other pages and currently in this article this kind of WP:PUFF is used as a bit of a smokescreen, perhaps fanboyism if I'm being a bit more cynical. At least nowadays the entirety of the article doesn't come across this way, as it once did.

Thanks to you too, we're making good progress at last! SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean there are several sources playing with this 2004 date, but I assume it was carried on from the ECM section below. This could be modified or removed alltogether.

As for the rankings et al. I think a lot of people check these kinds of facts on Wikipedia. We could debate their incorporation and whether or not they appropriately reflect the subject's success or lack thereof, but rather than being a smokescreen I think these tidbits are just meant to reflect the banality of how society views its businessmen. I mean, we used to gauge businesses by the impact they had on society, say with the sorts of projects they commanded and the products or ideas they created. Now we tend to mind how many smartphones they churn out in China and how much money that makes them. Having said that, there is no real trend here. There are hundreds of thousands of business biographies out there, and none looks very much like the other. See Charles Koch, Lakshmi Mittal or S P Hinduja to name just a few; I am just afraid we might be concealing this arguably pertinent (that we might agree is not really very illustrative) information to readers who just want to see quick financial information in an hedge fund manager's bio. That being the case, this sort of information is time-dependent and usually expires annually. It might be best to find a more stable piece of information at this point. What do you think? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

WP should reflect how RS view the subject. The article is not "meant to reflect the banality of how society views its businessmen," and your opinion that the sources "reflect" that, without the sources themselves stating that view, is some kind of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The estimates of personal wealth, now published by many websites and periodicals, are just estimates. There's no publicly available information from this information can be drawn without myriad assumptions and estimates. Some of the editorial policies of the list-makers may be good enough or have gained wide-enough public acceptance to use their estimates in WP, but none of them is any kind of true or accurate measurement. BTW, the bit about the good old daze when corporations were judged by their good deeds is OR, and incorrect to boot. SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of both views on this, I was never suggesting it be removed completely, simply that the majority of it be moved elsewhere. FoCuS, two of the three examples you used are in the list of "top 10 wealthiest billionaires" (where as Singer is not) while the third article is rather poor. My suggestion is somewhere along the lines of:

According to Forbes, Singer's net worth as $2.1 billion, making him the 327th wealthiest American.

Then move where he ranks globally and among hedge fund managers elsewhere - it simply isn't needed in the lede. Again, the main reasoning being following a summary style for a lede (as suggested by the other edits) and WP:DUE given that he is most well known for lengthy lawsuits with sovereign nations, and not for being the 1006th highest ranked billionaire. As for the smokescreen, that's just my opinion on how this article has been handled in the past and I'm not saying we remove any relevant information, but rather give weight to the most notable things according to RS and not filling the page with puff. I honestly feel that we can start editing now and discussing as it goes on, SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again. I'll proceed with the edits later today (time permitting), and we can continue our dialogue regarding further copy edits to the article. Does that sound OK? Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with the edits stipulated above. Please let me know if I missed anything, as that was a lot of text to go through! I will now close this RfC. I sincerely wish to express my gratitude to all of you who participated in this discussion. I hope we can keep this up and continue improving the article collaboratively! Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yet again

NickCT — Jdcrutch — SegataSanshiro1: Hello there! I was wondering why NickCT just edited what we decided to copy edit a week ago, taking almost 8000 words of productive discussion, and which he himself took part in. What's worse, the edit summaries simply state "tweak". Perhaps someone could offer some insight as to why we have been set back, or is this simply because the user hasn't read the rest of our extensive analysis? I've reverted the edits in light of the RfC's very fresh discussion. I am simply dumbfounded at the obstacles we face while attempting to improve this article. We agree on something which we worked so hard on and then someone drops by and corrodes the very spirit of collaboration we've embraced. What's more astonishing is this taking place after said user claimed time and time again consensus needed to be adhered to. Thank you all, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I've restored NickCT's edits, which are an improvement and consistent with the talk page discussion. "Closing" an RfC by these same editor who opened it one week earlier is not appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, but consistent with what discussion? The one we had a few days ago led to a series of proposals which were agreed upon by all present. The RfC was closed uncontroversially given the proposals were unanimously accepted, and is wholly within protocol. I'm sure the other participants will accept this fact. What you and NickCT are doing here is disruptive and uncalled for, given consensus as of the last discussion stated otherwise. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Having a bit of cognitive dissonance with this one. Though I agree that NickCT's edits are an improvement, more reflective of sources and of reality, they should have been discussed in the pretty long discussion we had. That said, since the edits are now in place, there's nothing stopping editors from improving upon them so long as they coincide with consensus and sources - which these edits seem to do. SPECIFICO, I think you should AGF here, the discussion was clearly WP:SNOW and Focus was just being pragmatic in closing it. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not the one disparaging other editors. Simply stating the fact. If it were indeed snow then it would have been simple for any less involved editor to close it or for a note at AN requests for closure to summon a volunteer. Nowhere in the RfC or on WP for that matter does it say that the edit should not be tweaked or improved as NickCT ably accomplished. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there's nothing stopping him from doing so especially if it is an improvement. It's a far-cry from the edits made following previous RfCs which simply ignored consensus in favour of personal beliefs. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily agree with the outcome of the RfC, it was closed having met a general consensus. NickCT's recent edits go against the consensus users met on the RfC and should be reverted. Meatsgains (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Meatsgains, it's more than a little rich for you to bring up consensus now given that in the past you have been the sole editor to actively go against it regardless of discussion. Furthermore, you have a long track record of misrepresenting (sometimes to an extreme) consensus and the views of others when it best suits you. There is nothing in these edits which contradict consensus, and though I think it would have been better practice for NickCT to have discussed them previously, the consensus REMAINS that the vulture fund terminology should be used and you should try and respect that for once. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: - Echoing SPECIFICO's comments, closing your own RfC with your own interpretation after realizing that the POV you were trying to push with that RfC had clearly failed is obviously shenanigans. Please do not use your own perverted interpretation of that RfC to justify any of your edits. What you've done has nothing to do with collaboration. Your attempts to use an RfC to game the system failed. Deal with it. NickCT (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that FoCuSandLeArN was very unwise to close his own RFC, and I also share the view that his closure does not accurately summarise the discussion. That said, however, he is correct that there was some genuine progress during this discussion, and it would be sad if even that limited progress was lost. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: - My ears are open Jonathan. What do you see as the right outcome here? NickCT (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

In NickCT's reversion of my edit he states "using the word "detractors" suggests that only people critical Singer have used this term. This simply isn't so. A number of mainstream sources unrelated to Singer have used the term". I in fact agree with this assessment and that was probably a bad edit on my part aimed at keeping the peace rather than respecting sources. I guess I have been trying to play the pragmatist here to put an end to this ongoing saga. At the time, I figured that keeping my mouth shut and waiting for the RfC to close properly with the exact same consensus as always would have just resulted in another one down the line.

I hadn't examined Focus' closing statement until now (only the fact that he'd closed it, which I didn't have a problem with), and have to agree its somewhat dubious, particularly the result of the RfC being superseded and that it was not unequivocally answered. My interpretation of this latest RfC is that the consensus was that the term is appropriate, but discussion was focussed on how to use the term in a way more agreeable to a very vocal minority. We achieved something broadly agreeable, and NickCT was improving on that.

It would be nice if we could finally reflect sources and apply balanced coverage to the rest of this article. I still think we can do that with a bit less bickering. It would be a nice change and on a personal level, it might renew my enthusiasm for WP in it not just being a dick slapping competition. As Jonathan A Jones says, progress was made (in the very least in terms of civility) so we should try and continue that. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, it's helpful if participants address the forum, rather than one another, and avoid personalities. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• We had a thorough conversation about each specific instance of the term's use. We came to 5 very specific points which we all agreed to - yes, we all in fact did. 4 days passed and no further comments were added. I closed the RfC (which did not go the way I intended, might I add) and implemented the aforementioned edits. Now NickCT has reinstated the very instance we agreed to remove per consensus. How is this not disruptive? He should've made his point clear while the discussion was ongoing; making POV edits while ignoring the productive discussion we had is undermining the whole point of the extensive back and forth we've been having. We all made compromises, this is one of the pillars we all hold dear in this encyclopaedia. We made precise changes to the article's prose which are now being thrown down the drain for no apparent reason. These 2 edits by NickCT are by no means tweaks, they are reintroducing one of the exact instances we agreed on copy editing. I have made no personal allusions nor been unconstructive. I have always gone down the path of arguments and consensus. Please adhere to the same principles you demand from the rest of the editing community. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not discuss user conduct on article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Can we discuss the specific issue here? Reading the RfC above, I don't see any consensus against the edits I made. NickCT (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear on what we're talking about:

• Pre RfC: Detractors consider him to be a "vulture capitalist" and "vulture financier.

• RfC: Detractors have branded him a "vulture capitalist", largely on account of the activities of ECM.

• Post-RfC: A number of sources have branded him a "vulture capitalist", largely on account of his role at EMC, which is widely regarded as a vulture fund.

I think this is a reflection of how things should naturally improve through collaboration. The first edit distanced Singer from his company and removed an instance of a term which is essentially interchangeable. The second edit clarifies (as per the sources) that it's not just detractors that use the term, but also standard news articles in the mainstream press press, then explains that this terminology is because his company is a vulture fund, whose qualities are attributed to him (as per the sources). Again, it would have been best if NickCT discussed these edits given the context of the RfC, but that doesn't mean there's anything objectionable here. This is all a bit of a storm in a teacup. Focus, rather than this having "thrown discussion down the drain" this is rather a part of that ongoing discussion. If you think these edits violate any policies, then point them out and we can work on it. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

In the RfC, users reached a compromise in deleting everything after "acquisitions" from the lead:

"His hedge fund Elliott Management Corporation (ECM)—specializes in distressed debt acquisitions and for that reason is also known as a "vulture fund"[footnote omitted] or an "activist hedge fund.[fn. om.]""

The claim that EMC "is widely regarded as a vulture fund ", has since been restored just days after the RfC was closed. I don't see how this is constructive. It goes against consensus users reached. Meatsgains (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The RfC was "closed" by a participant, with a conclusion that was not envisioned in the question and therefore not addressed in the responses. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: - I'm struggling to see the point here. Is it your contention that EMC is not widely described as a vulture fund? NickCT (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It was addressed in the responses, which I've included verbatim above. The issue I have is that users were discussing alternatives and reached a unanimous consensus, but after the RfC was closed and the changes agreed upon were made, the term "vulture" was added yet again. Thats simply unconstructive. I'm trying to compromise here but its incredibly difficult when others are not willing to budge. One use of the term "vulture" in the lead is more than enough - anything more is WP:UNDUE. I maintain that EMC should not be described as a "vulture fund" in the lead of a BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: - Wow. Honestly I thought I was making the lead less objectionable by noting that the label was getting applied to the business and not to the person. In other words, I would have thought there would be less objection to referring to EMC as a vulture, rather than Singer himself. NickCT (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding the term "vulture" again (twice in one sentence) is less objectionable? Meatsgains (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because as NickCT said, it's applying the term to the business and not the person. There's consensus to use the term (has been for ages now) and it's more about context than quantity - the context being very apt here. It's also not mindlessly ignoring sources, as you seem to be suggesting we do. You still failed to answer "Is it your contention that EMC is not widely described as a vulture fund?". SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The page currently applies use of the term to Singer personally by calling him a "vulture capitalist". Would others support removing "vulture capitalist" and keeping the description of EMC as a "vulture fund"? I have not once suggested we "mindlessly ignore sources". Please don't put words in my mouth. Meatsgains (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It's the sort of question that would properly be resolved by an RfC. But you can imagine what other editors would make of you starting another RfC at this point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity and Meatsgains: - Agreed. I think the right course is just to sit on it and re-RfC the subject in several months to see if consensus has changed. NickCT (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Shall we re-open the RfC since 1.) Focus' closure is being disputed by others and 2.) users were actually making some progress through the discussion? Meatsgains (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Focus should withdraw his closure and then request closure by an uninvolved editor at WP:ANRFC. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Why not withdraw the RfC's closure to allow further discussion since clearly there are issues that still need to be addressed? We'll take it to ANRFC after we've either made progress or the discussion goes stale. Meatsgains (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard

Hi all, I decided to open this up here whilst describing the situation in the most neutral way possible. The idea being to get an uninvolved admin to look over things and see if anything needs to be done or how to resolve this dispute. It would really be great if this could be the last time something like this has to be done to do with this page... SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It's been moved here. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I was going to suggest taking this to ANI. Thanks for taking it upon yourself to do so. Meatsgains (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Question for administrator

It appears that there are repeated calls for the reopening of this RfC, both here (above) and at ANI. Thank you very much.

--FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, at ANI I was more broad about the request for admin help. Re-opening might not necessarily be the best course of action, and I was requesting that the best course of action be determined - this could also be re-closing it. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is getting quite silly. There have been repeated RfCs about this issue. Far from re-opening the RfC, it shouldn't have been started in the first place. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The user who closed a previous discussion at DRN advised a new "well-published RfC". Meatsgains (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have a feeling an admin wouldn't be too keen on the idea of you rolling the dice again and hoping for a different result, but we'll have to see. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• The ANI thread got lots of eyes and I think this request is stale. If admin assistance is required, just tag it again. :-) Katie^talk 10:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• I was asked to come by and take another look at this, so here I am. First, it is a terrible, terrible idea to close an RFC you opened yourself unless it's withdrawn entirely, and that's not what happened here. It just muddies up everything, and causes bad feelings and bad vibes and bad juju every time. So don't do that again. Second, I reviewed the talk archives, and the BLPN thread, and the DR thread, and the ANI threads that have gone back two years over this issue (which is just crazy, BTW – two years?!?). I don't see where mediation has been tried, though I could have missed it, so you could do that. Or you could open yet another RFC and advertise it at WP:CENTRAL. Or you could slog it out here yourselves. Two years is long enough to figure out a way to put sourced material into an article in a neutral fashion. Get on with it so everyone can go do more productive things. Katie^talk 00:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Katie, the mediation discussion can be found here: here. The recommendation was to have another RfC, which is presumably the one here in question. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That's the one I saw. I should have been more specific and linked to WP:MEDCOM. If you haven't approached them yet, it might be a good idea to do so. Katie^talk 01:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)