Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)/Archive 1

1355:.) 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. – 2811:. Content need not only be true and verifiable, it needs to be noteworthy and significant, meaning, among other things, it needs to have achieved significant coverage in reliable sources. The assertion that "I believe people have accounts at Donors Trust in order to make contributions so I think it does imply that" is just a personal opinion without verification. Based on the available sourcing, we cannot verify what it means to have an account at Donors Trust. Does it mean he is signed up for their email list? That he gave them a million dollars? We just don't know, and its speculative to say that "having an account" is 2829:"we cannot verify what it means to have an account" You are here litigating that we can't be sure what "holding an account" means? Really? It doesn't matter, because all the proposed content says is "holds an account." It's plain English. Are we pretending we don't know that Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund have minimum deposits? If I said "X holds a Swiss bank account" I think you would know what I mean and I trust our readers to know what it means. Let's wikilink this DT account holder to DT and vice versa. Simply it is an improvement to the encyclopedia. 732:. This information could belong in a BLP if it was well sourced. However, it appears that it relies on a single source (Nation) with a clear POV. Rather than indicate a well-established relationship between Singer and Romney, the source uses innuendo and inference to create this linkage. Singer's fund and Singer the individual are two separate and distinct entities. One possible solution is to have a section on EMC and, within the body of that section, briefly mention some of its high profile investments. Beyond that, we begin to overreach the scope of a BLP. 2198:

participants will state their position. In other words, if you are going to respond to arguments from people who are volunteering their time and brain energy, don't bombast them with rehashed arguments and dominate the discussion. The neutral closer will no doubt understand every argument being made without having to read it as nauseum. Furthermore, I'm going to petition for an admin to close this now, so they can be prepared to make a decision when the RfC runs a course, or should they deem the consensus is rock solid towards one position or another.

2673:. Personally, I'm a tad surprised this addition would be controversial. That the guy contributes to political advocacy groups or "donor advised funds" or whatever you want to call them, doesn't strike me as all that amazing. The argument for removing the material seems to be that it is "not important". Couple counter arguments; 1) It likely is important by virtue of the fact that it's mentioned in an RS, 2) "not important" is not a policy-based argument against inclusion. The standard for inclusion in the body of an article is simply that something be 31: 2958:." What? According to their website, "DonorsTrust was established as a 501(c)(3) public charity to ensure the intent of donors who are dedicated to the ideals of limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise. As such, DonorsTrust provides an innovative charitable vehicle for donors who wish to safeguard their charitable intent to fund organizations that undergird America's founding principles." 1725:. Describe NML as a fund whose investment strategy includes distressed assets in its portfolio, or whatever it actually does. Also mention NML has been called a VF by x,y,z per Stalwart above. We should not lead with a perjorative description, even with attribution. This is not rocket science. Write a dispassionate and neutral description of NML first, then get into the notable opinions of NML. 3320:- Hmmmm.... Ok. To carry your analogy; Say I wrote a BLP article about you, and in that article there was a "Opinions on Exercise" section, you don't think it would be OK to say "Champaign Supernova has five gym memberships", even if we didn't know whether you were using those memberships? Why not just put the sentence in, then let the reader decide what it means? 1088:, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." If you like, I can move this discussion to the BLP noticeboard. But I don't think your unusual interpretation of policy will gain much traction there. 604:

profitable deal described. We don't need verification that Singer was personally responsible: if he, as CEO of the company, wasn't aware of any of this, then that's just as significant in a bio. If you'd like to point out in that section that there's no evidence that Singer knew of the deal, I'd have no objection.

2757:- Perhaps your understanding of Donors Trust is different than mine, but I believe people have accounts at Donors Trust in order to make contributions so I think it does imply that. But regardless, the section is about his politics. Having "an account" at Donors Trust is relevant to your political position. 2879:

doesn't say content in the body of an article has to be noteworthy. No where does it say anything about "significant coverage in reliable sources". What it says is that certain things (e.g. definitions, slangs/idiom guides, advocacy, scandal mongering, etc etc) don't belong. Which one of those things

2197:

I've stated no opinion on this matter, and I may not opine whatsoever. Regardless, my interest here is to see this dispute resolved amicably. I would appreciate discussion from the primary participants to be held in this discussion thread instead of the "voting" thread where the majority of the RfC

955:

Mr. Singer, professorial and soft-spoken, used a gathering of business and government leaders at the conservative Manhattan Institute to lash out at “indiscriminate attacks by political leaders against anything that moves in the world of finance.” Government efforts to “take over and run” the economy

490:

The page already includes Singer's $ 1 million donation to the Republican's presidential campaign in support of Romney but I don't see how this automatically creates a "relationship" between the two. How close of a relationship do Singer and Romney really have? Singer has donated and fundraised for a

486:

I understand you see this section as relevant and there are connections but Singer and Elliott Management Corporation are two different entities. Singer's page is a BLP and is independent from the corporation. I don't think that Elliott Management Corporation's actions should be reflected on Singer's

305:

as well. All additions/deletions of the article's content need to be accompanied by an independent, reliable source that verifies the information. I recommend that you post any suggested edits here on the talk page first in order to get consensus before editing the article itself. Please feel free to

3383:

Sure, I think an RFC is a good idea. "Having an account" certainly doesn't pre-suppose anything financial. Based on the source, it doesn't even say it's a financial account. To jump from a source saying he "has an account" to us deciding that this means "he has given money to this group" is just not

3298:

Yes, my point is that we don't know what it means to "have an account," so we can't know if that's notable since it's undefined and ambiguous. Many people have library cards or gym memberships but they never go. We can't establish the notability of "having an account" unless we know what that means,

2436:

I'm curious why a self-published source tag was placed on this article. I see at least 50 secondary sources here, the bulk of which appear to come from well-established newspapers and media outlets. What are the objectionable sources? Where they exist, let's remove them rather than tagging the whole

834:

The bottom line here, at least from what I'm seeing, is that this critical commentary is at minimum misplaced. There may be merit to describing it somewhere in Romney's biography since he was the primary subject of discussion, but in Singer's case, there is not enough weight to consider it worthy of

588:

The article made the reader full aware of Singer's ties with the hedge fund but I couldn't find a quote that stated Singer was personally responsible; it was Elliott Management Corporation. The original article would say things like "Singer's fund", "the Singer syndicate", or "Singer and company" to

2353:

I'd have to disagree. It seems users are divided into three categories on this RfC: those who support the inclusion, those who support a revised inclusion, and those who oppose inclusion. I fall under the oppose category and think the closing admin has a difficult decision to make that only becomes

3452:

I think you're missing my point about accounts. Not all accounts are financial, by any stretch of the imagination. All gyms are for working out. One can have many types of accounts, financial and non-financial, and the source we have here doesn't say, so we can't "take a guess." But anyway, we can

1803:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all

1561:

My understanding is that the Huffington Post isn't necessarily reliable, New York Times and Bloomberg reveiw are definitely reliable, therefore it stays, and yes I know "Vulture Fund" is a derogatory term (I work in the financial industry), but we're here to report what reliable sources state, and

1506:

that focuses on distressed debt - a term that can be loosely defined as the debt of companies that have filed for bankruptcy or have a significant chance of filing for bankruptcy in the near future. The term "vulture fund" is loaded and biased. If anything, I would suggest a compromise that states

1224:

says "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.) Meatgains, you are simply arguing that any commentary on Mr. Singer's activities that might be considered "negative" must be kept out of the article at all costs, and your argument

494:

Yes, the sources you used are reliable but the the quote, “Mitt Romney's investments in Singer's fund help make this loss of American jobs possible” is not from a neutral point of view. It is a bias statement from a progressive contributor to the Huffington Post. Wouldn't you agree that this reads

158:

Hello, given the comments here on the talk page, I wanted to step in and make some improvements to the page. As I have identified in both my username and in my userpage, I work in the financial services industry, have met a number of figures, including Paul Singer, and have done some work with his

3140:

My arguments for not including this material are about notability and due weight, not about sourcing. The NBC vs. CPI debate is irrelevant. Wherever this information appears, it's trivial. It's not noteworthy. My point is that "holding an account," absent any definition of what that means, is not

817:

An encyclopedic article is not the place to make determinations regarding what a person knew or did not know as this is pure conjecture. The issue is whether a specific deal undertaken by a company with which the subject of a BLP is associated should be given undue weight in the BLP. It seems the

192:

Is a 'hedge fund friend' the right person to "clean this page up"? Presently, as noted above, this article reads like a PR piece for Singer, and very much not like an objective biography. I am going to start the ball rolling with a few changes to try to get a more balanced tone. If you or someone

92:

I just created this article on Feb 17 after watching democracy now. I have never started a page (as you can tell). Any help would be much appreciated. An article on Michael Sheehan and Debt Advisory International would also be helpful. Thanks to anyone helping get this article formatted right.

2786:

It's hard to imagine how someone who didn't believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy" would find interesting that a conservative would "have an account" with a conservative charity. If it were asserted that he gave millions, that would be different. The claim has been made that the fact that a

2334:

I agree with Nomoskedasticity here: the closing admin should be able to distill a clear decision from the discussion. In fact I don't think there's much actual disagreement between those who formally list themselves as supporters and as weak opposers; see also my comment on the form of the text

603:

Singer has more than just "ties with the hedge fund". He founded Elliott, and he's the CEO. References in the article state that Singer personally (not his company) donated $ 1 million to the Romney campaign. The Romneys invested in Singer's company. Singer's company and Romney made the mutually

1181:

Although the creditors are often referred to as "vultures," the pejorative is highly misleading. They are bondholders with the law on their side, seeking nothing more than repayment of debts voluntarily entered into by Argentina. Elliot Management, for example, is a multi-billion operation that

441:

Singer's fund bought, for twenty cents on the dollar, Delphi bonds -- lots of them. With Delphi under Singer's control, he threatened to shut it down unless the taxpayer bailed it out -- holding General Motors and Chrysler hostage, because if Delphi shut down, the companies would lack steering

2303:

I think that this topic needs to be revisited with the recent striking of the edits included in this RfC. NinjaRobotPirate and I agreed to a possible rewording of the statement on July 18th, does anyone else feel like the way this is written needs to be reviewed again, and possibly rewritten?

1083:

That might be an argument for putting "vulture fund" in scare quotes, but not for eliminating it from the article, for the simple reason that all the sources I provided use the term "vulture fund" (what is the term you would prefer? Is there actually any less pejorative term for this specific

994:

If you would like to propose an alternate wording, I'm fine with that. But nowhere in NPOV or BLP does is say to exclude information that is deemed by an editor to be "negative." It does say that if must be properly sourced and not given undue weight. BLP says explicitly, "If an allegation or

973:

As the head of a $ 17 billion hedge fund, Mr. Singer, a self-described Barry Goldwater conservative who is 66, is using his financial might to try to change those policies. He has become one of the biggest bankrollers of Republican causes, giving more than $ 4 million of his money and raising

321:

Thanks Safehaven. For now, I'm going to undo your edits to my edits to the Philanthropy section, because as I explained on your Talk page, the previous information was incorrect due to a confusion between the Paul E. Singer Foundation and the Paul and Emily Singer Family Foundation, which are

268:

Hello -- I am affiliated with the Paul E. Singer Foundation. We at the Foundation would like to make some edits to this page to clear up some factual inaccuracies and add context. We are happy to make these edits in conjunction with the Knowledge community, and we wish to do so in a spirit of

2527:

issue. The NYT source does not verify the content that you added. You added: "Singer has been accused of funding opposition to radical Islam, in particular promoting the use of military force against Iran." I read the NYT article and found only: "Mr. Singer is a self-described conservative

343:. The facts stated in the article, with references to reliable sources, cannot be removed unless you can introduce some alternative compelling sources stating that the original sources were in error. Your edit stating that "Paul Singer is a committed philanthropist" is not in line with the 2545:

You missed this: As for the war in Iraq, he said, “America finds itself at an early stage of a drawn-out existential struggle with radical strains of pan-national Islamists.” How about: Singer has given millions of dollars to Republicans who favor Israel and a hawkish foreign policy.

442:

columns and other essential parts. After getting his way, and a $ 7.3 billion bailout from the public, Singer then closed all but five U.S. plants to move these operations and 25,000 jobs to China. Mitt Romney's investments in Singer's fund help make this loss of American jobs possible.

3705:

Great! Thank you. Are we going to reiterate reliability in the RfC discussion? In other news one of our esteemed collaborators and his trusty tag team revert partner are again baiting me into 3RR and have taken the issue of the profound ambiguity of the words "account" and "holder" to

2929:

have established there is no reason for inclusion of the fact (or, possibly, conjecture; the sources aren't clear) that Singer "has an account at" Donors Trust, as there is no indication of importance, significance, or whatever term you want to use for "belongs in an encyclopedia". —

927:

does it state that "Singer has said that he hopes to elect officials who will oppose government regulation of finance." I don't doubt the legitimacy behind this claim, but the article does not explicitly make this bold statement. We must be careful to not make such assumptions. Best,

802:

Singer had knowledge of Elliott Management Corporation's deal but that isn't cause to put it in his page. I'm sure he has knowledge of every deal that comes through EMC. Does that mean that every deal he's ever known belongs on his page? I don't think so. Let me hear your thoughts.

3481:" - Right. And all DonorsTrust's are for taking donor's money and giving it to political advocacy groups or political organizations or whatever you want to call them. So it follows logically that if you have an account with them, you are giving money to political organizations. 1084:

practice? It's no longer just for "business insiders" -- it's being debated all over the planet.) And as the Argentina crisis unfolds, you are going to see those sources multiply, and Mr. Singer is going to quickly become much better known than he presently is. Again, to quote

2149:"This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge contributors. Essays are not Knowledge policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." That is, the fact that somebody has stated something in a 3655:

and comment on whether you feel it's clear/concise and neutral. In particular, please comment on whether you feel we've captured all the main arguments. Unless there is an objection, there will be a 24hr review period starting from now before launching. Thanks in advance.

750:

I agree. Singer and EMC are completely independent from each other when it comes to a BLP. Why is there a section on the Romney Delphi deal on his personal page but none of EMC's other deals? Seems like there is a motive behind adding this information to his personal page.

920:. Your edits seem to put an unnecessary, negative spin on the page. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject. By adding "vulture capitalist", the article reads much more like a tabloid rather than an encyclopedia, wouldn't you agree? 589:

make it appear to the reader that he was the only one responsible. I realize he is the director of EMC but it is the decisions of the corporation not solely his. I just don't see how the information about the hedge fund's involvement belongs on his personal page.

1316:

I've protected the article pending close of the RFC above. I have no opinion as to whether the term should be included in the article, however regardless of that the material being added and edit-warred over by an IP was very inappropriately worded. And as I am

3365:- Well, 1) to "have an account" with someone (e.g. "to have an account at a bank") sorta pre-supposes that you have money with them. Seems a bit contorted to suppose otherwise. And 2) we know he has money with them because of the primary source I cited earlier. 1220:"Hedge fund" is a far more general term, which embraces a wide array of speculative activities. If there were only one or two sources that used the term "vulture fund" to describe NML Capital, there might be an argument for exclusion, but that is not the case ( 3778:

uses the same source for content of the form "DT acct holders include A, B, and Singer." So it is a stronger claim. It was fairly stable by DT standards until one of our collaborators on the RfC draft deleted it from DT, perhaps anticipating that the DT-:

3419:" - Well again, this seems hyper-semantic. Like arguing that having a gym membership isn't relevant to one's physical activity, b/c gym memberships can be used for things other than working out. I guess that's potentially true, but it seems a bit warped. 1450:

inclusion of this well sourced material, as long as appropriate care is used in phrasing and mantaining narrative distance as was done in the most recent version and in ensuring the article reflects the proper balance of views found in reliable sources.

1225:

does not jibe with Knowledge policy. Therefore, I will re-add the material after I have carefully re-formulated it based on all the new sources. If you want to continue this dispute you may then revert it, and I'll take it to one of the noticeboards.

1123:

calls Elliott Management a "multibillion-dollar New York hedge fund." Argentina’s president, Cristina Kirchner, is the one who calls them a "vulture fund" obviously in spite of the Supreme Court's recent ruling. It is not the source calling them a

995:

incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Here are some additional source citations on the connection of Singer to vulture funds:

2856:" - Why do you keep talking about what's interesting? It doesn't matter what's interesting. I don't find the fact particularly interesting. I don't find a lot of facts on WP interesting. Being interesting isn't a criteria for inclusion. 2067:

Additional note: this topic has now been debated on this page, at the BLP noticeboard, at the Administrators' Incident noticeboard, and now once again at this RfC. It inevitably converges on the same result every time. So after this,

373:

Lee Fang, writing for the progressive political blog ThinkProgress, claimed that 'the rise of Singer’s political profile can be traced to his work as a top donor to pro-Bush character-assassination (sic) groups like the Swift Boat

540:

article is heavily slanted in opposition of Singer. Each time the hedge fund (EMC) is mentioned, the article intentionally tagged Singer's name to it to make him appear as the bad guy. I pulled a number of biased quotes from the

3368:

I hate to say this b/c I don't like giving up on a good debate, but this conversation seems to be entering loony town. Not that that's necessarily your fault. How to you feel about an RfC to try to get some extra eyes on this?

2114:, if something derogatory is found in an article about a person using a pejorative term against that person's ethnicity, it shall be promptly removed." I wasn't asserting "vulture fund" as a pejorative term against a person's 1468:. The term has widespread usage and is clearly "encyclopaedic." The collection of sources using the term in relation to Singer's business is impressively large. There's no BLP violation if "negative" material is well sourced. 2319:

Changing the wording during the course of an RfC is a bad idea -- it becomes unclear how to close it, because what people expressed support or opposition for is no longer clear. I also don't agree that it's necessary here.

3323:

You have a somewhat rationale point here. But it seems wildly litigious and most certainly not supported by policy. Donating money to a conservative organization is clearly relevant to your political beliefs. Clearly.....

2175:

With regard to the comment from Two kinds of pork, you forgot to quote the reply from Only in death does duty end, who said "Not if multiple reliable sources also called it a whorehouse", which is precisely the case here.

3746:

Regarding the "reliability in the RfC"; if your question is "Is the RfC binding?". The answer is usually yes. In my experience if you can demonstrate consensus for something through an RfC, it is very hard to argue with.

2588:) 04:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC) If you don't have any objections I'll add: "Singer has given millions of dollars to Republican organizations that emphasize a strong military and support Israel." User:Jimjilin|Jimjilin]] ( 509:

I agree with you that the Huffington Post quotes were both POV and unnecessary, so I've replaced them with a more neutral description. But Singer's personal involvement in the Delphi incident is detailed in the original

1539:

was "NML Capital Limited, a subsidiary of Elliott described in some media reports as a "vulture fund",", which is not far from that suggested above, with further mentions of "vulture fund" confined to direct quotes.

1685:

inclusion of "vulture fund", NML Capital is a hedge fund. In order to maintain Knowledge's "encyclopaedic" format we should be presenting facts, not opinionated and loaded terms such as "vulture fund."

3104:" - That's a fair point. The sourcing is limited. Few other sources have reported on this. Looking a little more closely at the factoid, I'm guessing Abowd got the info from Paul E Singer Foundation's 3025:. Not too many sources can lay claim to a single source all by its lonesome generally establishing noteworthiness for inclusion in WP, but a few newspapers and a few news networks are in that number. 487:

page. The quote you pulled from the Huffington Post stated that the Romney's invested in "Singer's fund," which is EMC. Again, Singer's fund is not directly tied to Singer but rather the corporation.

426:

Romney's windfall from the bailout is directly tied to his relationship with Paul Singer, the billionaire hedge fund manager who donated $ 1 million to the Republican's presidential campaign in April.

3122:" - Please quit on this point. And stop trying to characterize the consensus. If NBC publishes the article, it is an NBC article. You've been around long enough to know that's how things work on WP. 1999:

and "Information that falls under any guideline listed under What Knowledge is not or several other Knowledge guidelines and has been added to an article can be boldly removed." Adding the term

1936:'s own article states that "The term is used to criticize the fund for strategically profiting off of debtors that are in financial distress." It is non-encyclopedic and not suitable for a BLP. 170:. However, there is clearly some basic low-hanging fruit that can improve this page dramatically and bring it up to wikipedia standards. I look forward to discussing the page with other people. 3710:

with massive deletes, basically knocking the article back to the uninformative version I found in January. Coming out on the talk page there as eyeing GA seems to be causing some apoplexy. Is

2127:, which said "...the article is about a person, so BLP does apply. If we said that Heidi Fliess ran a whorehouse instead of a bordello, that would be a BLP issue." It is the same situation. 347:

policy. While Paul Singer may indeed be a committed philanthropist, that can be shown neutrally via discussion of his philanthropic activities, and not by simply making the claim. Thanks.

1632:

inasmuch as Knowledge seeks to be encyclopedic, and more information is generally better than less provided that said information is suitably referenced and testable and verified true.

2393:

Per the suggestion of FreeRangeFrog below, is it time to request closure of this RfC? As previously discussed the RfC should if possible be closed by an uninvolved administrator.

1507:"singer runs a hedge fund focusing on distressed debt, whose critics have referred to as a vulture fund." Any additional mentions of the fund should refer to it as a hedge fund. 2719:

I need to go to a doctor's appointment in 15 minutes. Perhaps, I'll be back, afterwards. If you can provide any argument why this is relevant and important, I may reconsider.

2153:

is of no particular value in determining consensus. Of course you are free to use arguments taken from essays in structuring your own argument, but that is as far as it goes.

974:

millions more through fund-raisers he hosts for like-minded candidates who often share his distaste for what they view as governmental over-meddling in the financial industry.

514:

article, so the section is relevant for a BLP. If you think the section needs further improvements in wording for NPOV, then let's fix that, rather than delete the section.

339:

I checked the sources for the material you deleted, and they do mention the Paul Singer Foundation. While it is possible the sources themselves may be wrong, keep in mind

1861: 3344:

But that's my point exactly. The source doesn't say he donated, but that he "has an account." That doesn't necessarily mean he made a donation. Hence it's not notable.

397:

I removed the Romney and Delphi section and its contents because this type of information does not belong on Paul Singer's personal page. Delphi was an investment that

1239:

In this case, there are no speculative activities when using the term "hedge funds" as NML's acttions are explicitly described multiple times throughout Singer's page.

1053:

is a pejorative. It is a loaded word that suggests strong disapproval and is slang used by business insiders. Words or phrases such as these are in clear violation of

2695:"Having an account" does not imply making a contribution, nor should we allow the reader to infer that. "Having an account", in itself, should not be of interest to 3501:

Wow. We can't agree on what "account" means let alone "holds an account." We are gong backwards. We are talking and getting farther apart. This is frustating. Sigh.

2239:. In all three cases the information added by the user was related to Paul Singer - the user has been removed for similar work with another wikipedia BLP. Thoughts? 661:

There is a clear consensus that the "Romney and Delphi" section should be removed from this page. However, as the section was entirely rewritten in the meantime by

2454:

I haven't heard any discussion on this, and I still see no evidence of an issue with self-published sourcing, so I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag. Thanks.

1242:

There are just as many, if not more, articles citing NML as a "hedge fund" so that argument is moot (as stated before, I can find them if you would like me to).

2335:

before the RFC. Sure people have preferences for exact wording, but I can't see many people getting really excited over that: the argument is largely over the

1918: 1759:

as per Two kinds of pork above; the term is certainly pejorative, but is widely used and should be mentioned, provided a less biased description is also given.

571:"Singer’s funds and partners, combining what they’ve sold and what they hold, have $ 1.29 billion in profits, about forty-four times their original investment." 2528:

libertarian who has given millions of dollars to Republican organizations that emphasize a strong military and support Israel." Those are not the same thing.

3569:. If it is unclear or not neutral, it will likely make the debate worse. You may want to let me take a first shot at drafting if you haven't done it before. 1661:- if that's how it is described then that's how it should be described here. I'd also support, though, some attribution - "x, x and x have described y as a ' 235:

Just some links I came across, putting them here for reference later. I'll add some of these (though others are clearly not suitable; just for information).

238: 3743:" - Not sure I understand what the Donors Trust test case is. The argument at donors trust seems different that the debate here. Two different situations. 1109: 1007:: editorial by the foreign minister of Argentina, who says, "Paul Singer could be branded as the inventor of vulture funds." (Also should go in article.) 3280:

re "absent any definition of what that mean" - Ok. So is your point then that we should briefly explain what it means (i.e. "Singer has an account with

1776:-- the term is widely used in reliable sources. It is therefore no violation of BLP to include it; on the contrary, it would be inconsistent with NPOV 574:"GM also forgave $ 2.5 billion in debt owed to it by Delphi, and $ 2 billion due from Singer and company upon Delphi’s exit from Chapter 11 bankruptcy." 79: 71: 66: 3085:" - I feel like you might not be listening. The reason for inclusion is that the factoid is verifiable. That is the only requirement for inclusion. 2221:

page relating to Paul Singer. Is it worth noting that Joe Bodacious has been indefinitely removed from wikipedia for accusations of sock puppetry?

448:

Since it's talking about Singer's direct involvement, and not just something the company did with or without his consent, the section should stay.

2969:. But this is all beside the point. No evidence has been presented here that "holding an account," absent any contextualization, is notable or 302: 285: 1876: 2903:" - Hear hear. For real. That's beyond nuts. People have accounts at Donors Trust to contribute to PACs/advocacy groups. That's Donors Trust 2772:? Because it's hard to see how a section on his political donations and affiliations distracts from a section about his political activity. 240: 115:

I agree. The tone of this article really is unprofessional. It sounds biased and not at all like what one would expect from an encyclopedia.

2093:

Criticizing an organization with an unfavorable adjective that they don't apply to themselves is inappropriate. As stated before, it is a

1258:

I think there is a basic misunderstanding here of the NPOV policy. It means that if numerous reliable sources take one view, and numerous

246: 3781:

DT. Might DT as a venue have the advantage that the DT is the main subject of the source, and the proposed content? Might having DT-: -->

236: 3277:

was trying to write a paragraph about this, I might agree that there would be some due weight issues. But to write a few words about it?

1954:

Thank you for your list. Under NPOV, both viewpoints should be included, in relative proportion to how they appear in reliable sources.

1866: 1613:, then it is appropriate for the article state that fact. It is in no way libelous to report the public statements of reliable sources. 139: 1907:

I also provided a partial list of reliable third party sources calling the term "vulture fund" a misleading, derogatory, pejorative.

1816: 340: 1034:

Mr. Singer's connection to vulture funds ("vulture capitalist" was your term, not mine) is probably his single most notable quality.

2166:, so the intended meaning is clear. Are you claiming that this material, impeccably sourced to multiple reliable sources, is libel? 2162:

Note further that in the section you quote "Text that is intended to attack or disparage the subject" links to the policy document

2101:

states that an article "should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon."

1149:

There is no arguing that "vulture fund" is a pejorative. It is very misleading and does not belong on Singer's personal page. Even

3007:"no indication of importance, significance, or whatever term you want to use" What you are looking for may be due weight I think. 1831: 1004: 2041:

is an essay, not policy, and in any event "vulture fund" is not a "pejorative term against person's ethnicity". With regard to

1969:

Meatsgains, could you please quote the precise section of policy which you believe would be breached by including this material?

1351:

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

344: 322:

distinct entities and not related to one another. I will post additional suggested edits for discussion when I have more time.

1116: 665:(section now called "Delphi Automotive"), this issue may be moot. Anyone is free to remove the section at his own discretion. 242: 2907:. Arguing that having an account doesn't make it likely that you're contributing to groups is taking a step into La La land. 2339:

question of whether the term should be included at all, with almost everybody adopting some version of "follow the sources".

1804:

mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

1665:'." If they want to use that term then we should quote them here using that term. Should resolve some of the libel concerns. 1596: 1352: 398: 298: 47: 17: 1871: 1841: 1015: 550:"One of the hedge funds profiting from that bailout— $ 1.28 billion so far—is Elliott Management, directed by Paul Singer." 3412:" - Ok. I'll see if I can draft one at some point in the near future. I'll give you a chance to review for neutral wording. 1376:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

681:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

132:

I don't accuse the author of intentionally doing so, but this page reads like a PR puff piece, not an encyclopedia entry.

3458: 3389: 3349: 3304: 3254: 3210: 3146: 3063: 2978: 2820: 2427:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

862:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

417: 1836: 1381:

Is it appropriate under Knowledge policy to mention that Singer's company, NML Capital Limited, is widely described as a

1010: 2236: 254: 2883:

I've had this argument a number of times and the outcome is always the same. If a factoid is 1) verifiable, and 2) not

1856: 3114: 3048: 2225: 2203: 1821: 1730: 884:, two sources that are likely to hold up well if their reliability is disputed. Also you might want to take a look at 780:

and should be removed from the article (unless additional sources are available to balance the POV of the paragraph.)

1826: 998: 695: 669: 3099: 3040: 2966: 2961:

I don't see anything in their stated purpose about contributing to PACs/advocacy groups. In fact, based on current

2398: 2344: 2325: 2263: 2181: 2054: 1974: 1785: 1764: 1709: 1545: 1527: 1456: 956:

through more regulations, he warned, threatened to ruin the United States’ standing as the world leader in finance.

327: 281: 38: 2106:

In response to Jonathan, the pejorative term about "a person's ethnicity" was an example. The quote I pulled from

1262:

reliable sources take a different view, we include both views. It doesn't mean "exclude the view you don't like."

3651:- All those concerned with the recent lede debate. We will be launching an RfC in the near future. Please review 2763: 2703: 1337: 248: 120: 2863:" - Again, you're talking about noteworthiness which isn't a policy based rationale for the body of the article. 2476:

Meatsgains, why do you feel this addition is POV? For example, why do you feel the NYT is not a neutral source?

3642: 3469: 3454: 3400: 3385: 3360: 3345: 3315: 3300: 3265: 3250: 3242: 3206: 3202: 3142: 3090: 3059: 2974: 2868: 2816: 2664: 1881: 1806:

Here is a partial listing of reliable third-party sources which have describe NML Capital as a "vulture fund":

1348: 944:::For some reason you have linked to page 2 of the NYT article. In the opening paragraphs, on page 1, it says: 175: 2803:

It's been stated above that "the standard for inclusion in the body of an article is simply that something be

2599:

Nothing remotely approaching your suggested text is to be found in the NYT article. This is a classic case of

301:

will be helpful. In terms of making edits to any pages affiliated with Paul Singer, I recommend that you read

912:, I'd have to disagree with the use of the term "vulture capitalist". Using this term is both a violation of 143: 3246: 2876: 2808: 2524: 2146: 2107: 2077: 2038: 2004: 1959: 1911: 1897: 1413: 1390: 1287: 1267: 1230: 1150: 1093: 1039: 893: 823: 737: 562:"the hedge funds, under Singer’s lead, used their bonds to buy up a controlling interest in Delphi’s stock." 465: 432: 250: 1760: 924: 323: 297:

Hi there, and thanks for your message and for disclosing your affiliation. If you haven't already, reading

277: 94: 2934: 2795: 2738: 2199: 1726: 1473: 1221: 885: 3761:

I was asking if we should expect reliability of sources issues to be re-litigated in the RfC discussion.

3249:

are different policies. If only your "sighs" were policy-based responses to the points I've raised here.

2768:- Can you clarify exactly which portion of that policy you feel the addition violates? Are you saying it 2007:, which states that "Text that is intended to attack or disparage the subject. For example, if something 2962: 2608: 2533: 2459: 2442: 2408:

Yes, it is time for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC. It has not received activity since July 29th.

2394: 2359: 2340: 2321: 2259: 2177: 2069: 2050: 2046: 2042: 1996: 1970: 1846: 1781: 1705: 1691: 1541: 1523: 1452: 1020: 638: 610: 520: 474: 454: 352: 311: 103: 1851: 1025: 2638: 2570: 2514: 2413: 2312: 2283: 2247: 2132: 2020: 1941: 1637: 1563: 1515: 1438: 1360: 1247: 1211: 1074: 933: 808: 788: 756: 720: 691: 594: 500: 406: 383: 378:

I am up for discussion on this and would like to know why it should be included on the page. Thanks!

273: 212: 171: 135: 116: 1106:

because you made sure to find the sources that call it that. There are plenty of articles out there

102:

There are several things wrong with this article, not the least of which is its unprofessional tone.

3792: 3770: 3756: 3723: 3700: 3685: 3665: 3652: 3613: 3592: 3578: 3549: 3535: 3510: 3496: 3484:

Anyway, this entire debate is silly since Singer's tax filings show he's giving money to the group.

3462: 3441: 3393: 3378: 3353: 3333: 3308: 3293: 3258: 3228: 3214: 3196: 3150: 3131: 3118: 3067: 3052: 3034: 3016: 3002: 2982: 2937: 2916: 2838: 2824: 2798: 2781: 2741: 2686: 2642: 2627: 2612: 2593: 2574: 2555: 2537: 2518: 2499: 2485: 2463: 2446: 2417: 2402: 2363: 2348: 2329: 2314: 2287: 2267: 2258:

Oh, certainly if there are two !votes from the same person above, then one should be disregarded.

2249: 2207: 2185: 2136: 2088:

Essays are not policy or guidelines that must be followed, but aren't they worthy of consideration?

2081: 2058: 2024: 1978: 1963: 1945: 1901: 1789: 1768: 1751: 1734: 1713: 1695: 1677: 1653: 1641: 1624: 1619: 1601: 1572: 1549: 1531: 1517: 1494: 1477: 1460: 1442: 1417: 1394: 1364: 1330: 1291: 1271: 1251: 1234: 1215: 1097: 1078: 1043: 937: 897: 852: 827: 812: 790: 760: 741: 724: 643: 615: 598: 525: 504: 479: 459: 410: 387: 356: 331: 315: 289: 258: 224: 202: 179: 147: 124: 106: 97: 3583:

I agree it would be best if you did it, but I want to byte the bullet anyway. I will sandbox it.

2954:"People have accounts at Donors Trust to contribute to PACs/advocacy groups. That's Donors Trust 2623: 2589: 2585: 2580:

It'd almost a direct quote from the NYT article! Please tell me specifically what you object to.

2551: 2495: 2481: 2073: 1955: 1893: 1593: 1490: 1409: 1386: 1324: 1318: 1283: 1263: 1226: 1089: 1035: 889: 819: 733: 244: 220: 3056: 3638: 3074: 2931: 2854:

would find interesting that a conservative would "have an account" with a conservative charity

2845: 2812: 2792: 2748: 2735: 2731: 2660: 2354:

more difficult as the user who submitted the RfC in the first place is an accused sockpuppet.

1747: 1469: 468:

that the two above used as a source, and it discusses Singer's direct involvement at length.

369:

I removed the statement below because I don't see how ThinkProgress can be considered an RS.

3752: 3696: 3681: 3661: 3609: 3574: 3531: 3492: 3437: 3374: 3329: 3289: 3127: 2959: 2912: 2777: 2682: 2604: 2529: 2455: 2438: 2355: 2278:

Edits struck through - routine. If they hadn't been responded to I would have removed them.

2222: 2094: 1687: 1667: 1107: 633: 605: 515: 469: 449: 416:

I've restored this section, as it is directly relevant to Singer, and not just his company.

348: 307: 198: 3788: 3766: 3719: 3588: 3545: 3506: 3224: 3192: 3030: 3012: 2998: 2834: 2634: 2600: 2566: 2510: 2409: 2305: 2279: 2240: 2163: 2150: 2128: 2016: 1937: 1633: 1581: 1508: 1434: 1356: 1243: 1207: 1070: 929: 804: 781: 772:. Making the claim that Singer had a "reputation for strong-arming his way to profit" and 752: 716: 687: 590: 496: 402: 379: 3714:

perhaps a stronger test case of the admissibility of the proposed content? Thanks again.

1321:

now to a certain extent, I cannot close the RFC, but someone should probably do so soon.

215:

was banned as a sockpuppet account -- further reason to regard his edits with suspicion.

3691:

Having received no comments regarding this RfC, I plan to launch in the next few hours.

2887:

excluded by some other policy (e.g. NOTEVERYTHING), it can go in the body of an article.

1522:

I could support that phrasing. If there's a direct quotation, then that's even better.

3561:- You can try drafting it if you want, but you really have to try very hard to make it 2098: 1614: 1279: 1054: 917: 2901:

You are here litigating that we can't be sure what "holding an account" means? Really?

876:

please explain his or her rationale? Note that the deleted material is sourced to the

2970: 2619: 2581: 2547: 2491: 2477: 2045:

please identify which section you believe applies. For example, do you believe that

1650: 1588: 1486: 1430: 1085: 913: 777: 666: 216: 167: 163: 3141:

inherently noteworthy. I've seen no arguments here that seek to address that point.

2633:

The content you added is already touched upon in later sections and is unnecessary.

632:, which say essentially the same thing: Singer was responsible for the Delphi deal. 3775: 3738: 3711: 3707: 3673: 3672:

Note: I re-posted the comment above after accidentally posting it initially on the

3281: 3184: 3176: 3168: 3160: 2707: 2232: 2218: 1933: 1743: 1662: 1382: 1001:: "Mr Singer chafes at the term “vulture fund”. (Good quote, should go in article.) 3748: 3692: 3677: 3657: 3605: 3570: 3527: 3488: 3433: 3370: 3325: 3285: 3180: 3172: 3164: 3123: 2922: 2908: 2804: 2773: 2723: 2678: 2674: 2229: 904:

While I respectfully agree that yes, the information is properly sourced to the

194: 162:

Obviously, I intend to abide by all Knowledge rules, keeping in mind especially

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2875:

Thanks for attempting a policy based approach, but your misreading the policy.

2226:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Herschelkrustofsky

3784: 3762: 3730: 3715: 3646: 3599: 3584: 3556: 3541: 3517: 3502: 3424: 3274: 3220: 3188: 3026: 3008: 2994: 2926: 2892: 2830: 2727: 2668: 1925: 2561:

Your proposed contribution is still not accurate nor is it supported by the

2123:

I would like to bring up another example Two Kinds of Pork's brought to the

842: 662: 3487:

I guess we'll have to rely on an RfC. Pity though. This one seems obvious.

3284:, an organization which distributes money to conservative organizations")? 654:

RfC: Does the "Romney and Delphi" section belong on Singer's personal page?

559:"Elliott’s purchases cost just 20 cents on the dollar of their face value." 3105: 3156: 3108:

filing. So there is a publicly available primary source for verification.

3022: 2990: 2714:

in the 2012 general election, nor more relevant than his favorite color.

1580:

Only to be used in direct quotations of reliable sources, otherwise the

1157:

states that it "is highly misleading" Below is a quote from the article:

2653:

It seems like there's been some back and forth on the inclusion of the

1347:

The weak consensus is to allow use of the term. It is weak because the

1069:

has a negative connotation tied to it. It is the same situation. Best,

2989:"conjecture" Oh, it's conjecture, now? Now we are litigating that the 2490:

If you have no objections I'll add the material about Singer and Iran.

2369: 1429:

is about as pejorative as the term "fat cat". It's inappropriate, see

577:"Delphi’s management—now effectively under the hedge funders’ control" 193:

else has the time and knowledge and objectivity then please continue.

495:

more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia? Let me know your thoughts.

2787:

noteworthy source makes note of a fact makes the fact noteworthy.

2049:

supports your position? Or are you thinking of some other section?

545:

article that are specific in stating the corporation's involvement.

3219:...AND completing the circle back to "not everything." Deep sigh. 2791:

is absurd, unless the source has some claim to being unbiased. —

2711: 1704:

Surely NML Capital is what reliable secondary sources say it is…

2965:, it would be illegal for a 501c3 like this group to donate to a 2509:

article you provided does not support the information you added.

2861:

noteworthy source makes note of a fact makes the fact noteworthy

2217:

Hi there. I came across this RfC after making some edits to the

2015:

against that person's ethnicity, it shall be promptly removed."

1408:

inclusion of the term, which is widely used in reliable sources

3201:

Yeah, it's included there because you added it. And notice the

2124: 1649:. No BLP violation as long as term is attributed to sources. — 1536:

Note that the original phrasing just before the RFC was called

3021:"no reason for inclusion" The proposed content was covered by 2770:

cannot be integrated into the text without distracting from it

776:

including examples of his other investment endeavors violates

25: 3604:- Very well...... Let me know if/when you want me to review. 3083:

have established there is no reason for inclusion of the fact

1111:

calling NML Capital, Elliott Management, and all the others,

3187:. Let's link back. It's an improvement to the encyclopedia. 2223:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Joe_Bodacious

491:

number of different clubs, organizations, and individuals.

818:

consensus view is that it should not as it violates NPOV.

565:"the Singer syndicate took Delphi public at $ 22 a share" 553:"Mitt Romney investing at least $ 1 million with Elliott" 2755:"Having an account" does not imply making a contribution 1340:

mention that his company has been called a vulture fund?

568:"Singer’s fund investors scored a gain of $ 904 million" 2815:

when we don't know what it means to "have an account."

2654: 1537: 1115:. (I can provide more sources, if you need me too). In 873: 835:

more than, at most, a mention in passing at this time.

2730:, as you were to other discussions, that was improper 2710:; it's not much more interesting than that he opposed 1102:

Yes, of course all the sources you provided call it a

1611:

reliable sources refer to the fund as a vulture fund

686:Should the "Romney and Delphi" section be removed? 583:"The Romneys were invested with Elliott Management" 2880:would you say the Donors Trust factoid belongs to? 269:transparency, openness, and fairness. Thank you. 3780:Singer link might be used to support Singer-: --> 3432:Do you have any objections to proceeding to RfC? 2993:source is not clear that Singer holds a DT acct? 2368:Correction to my post above, Joe Bodacious is a 1182:manages university endowments and pension funds. 1485:inclusion. Many reliable sources use the term. 464:I've also added the original Nation article in 439: 424: 306:let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. 3540:ok, let me do it, maybe look over my shoulder 2692:There are at least two reasons for exclusion: 2437:article in a somewhat mystifying way. Thanks. 2228:. I noticed he made several contributions to 2097:used by critics, and is again inappropriate. 8: 1059:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 3417:doesn't even say it's a financial account 3299:and the current source isn't telling us. 1425:The term is derogatory, not descriptive. 580:"After the hedge fund takeover of Delphi" 3676:talk page. Apologies for any confusion. 3175:is noteworthy. The relationship between 3167:is noteworthy. The relationship between 2706:; even if he did make a contribution to 2372:sockpuppet, not an accused sock puppet. 3117:, if you care to take a gander at the 3051:, if you care to take a gander at the 2013:about a person using a pejorative term 303:Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3384:supported by the available sourcing. 3273:re "notability and due weight," - If 2764:WP:Handling trivia#Stand-alone trivia 2704:WP:Handling trivia#Stand-alone trivia 2603:. It is nowhere near a direct quote. 1562:they do state his is a vulture fund. 556:"Singer’s Elliott bought Delphi debt" 7: 1372:The following discussion is closed. 677:The following discussion is closed. 3526:" - So let's RfC it. Move forward. 3410:Sure, I think an RFC is a good idea 2003:falls under the specific guideline 1801:The BLP policy says the following: 2807:." That's directly contravened by 1995:falls under the guideline list of 1278:FYI I have opened a discussion at 341:Knowledge:Verifiability, not truth 24: 1280:WP:BLPN#Paul Singer (businessman) 2423:The discussion above is closed. 867:"Remove POV content from a BLP"? 858:The discussion above is closed. 29: 3113:which is not NBC news, but the 1065:throughout the article because 715:, it does not belong on a BLP. 345:Knowledge:Neutral point of view 2702:In my opinion, it falls under 653: 399:Elliott Management Corporation 299:Knowledge:Conflict of interest 180:14:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 18:Talk:Paul Singer (businessman) 1: 3782:Singer help with Singer-: --> 3205:tag next to the information. 2643:22:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC) 2628:13:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC) 2613:16:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC) 2594:13:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC) 2575:02:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC) 2556:15:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC) 2538:16:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC) 2519:15:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC) 2500:13:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC) 2464:17:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC) 2447:00:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC) 813:05:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC) 791:17:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC) 761:05:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC) 725:05:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC) 696:05:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC) 264:Edits from an official source 203:05:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC) 98:17:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 3741:perhaps a stronger test case 3479:All gyms are for working out 2973:weight for a small factoid. 2486:13:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC) 2237:Argentine debt restructuring 742:13:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC) 670:14:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC) 644:10:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 616:09:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 599:04:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 526:06:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC) 505:23:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC) 480:08:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC) 460:07:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC) 411:22:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC) 388:21:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC) 259:17:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC) 225:00:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC) 211:: I've just discovered that 3632:Notification of Pending RfC 3115:Center for Public Integrity 3049:Center for Public Integrity 1365:01:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 853:04:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC) 828:04:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 536:To start off, the original 148:11:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC) 3817: 3793:22:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 3771:22:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 3757:17:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 3724:15:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 3701:14:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC) 3686:11:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC) 3666:22:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3614:20:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3593:20:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3579:20:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3550:20:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3536:20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3511:19:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3497:19:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3463:19:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3442:19:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3394:19:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3379:18:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3354:18:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3334:18:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3309:18:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3294:18:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3259:17:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3229:17:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3215:17:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3197:17:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3151:16:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3132:15:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3068:00:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 3035:22:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 3017:22:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 3003:22:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 2983:22:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 2967:political action committee 2938:22:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 2917:21:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 2839:21:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 2825:20:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 2799:20:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 2782:17:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 2742:16:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 2687:16:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 2418:20:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC) 2403:10:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC) 1790:18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC) 1769:02:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC) 1752:04:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC) 1331:19:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC) 872:Would the person who made 107:06:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC) 3453:let the RFC settle this. 2618:I quoted the NYT exactly. 2364:16:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC) 2349:20:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC) 2330:05:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC) 2315:05:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC) 2288:10:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC) 2268:08:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC) 2250:01:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC) 2208:02:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC) 2186:20:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC) 2137:17:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC) 2082:00:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC) 2059:10:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC) 2025:10:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC) 1979:06:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC) 1964:06:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC) 1946:05:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC) 1902:17:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC) 1735:07:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC) 1714:07:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC) 1696:00:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) 1678:05:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC) 1654:19:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC) 1642:17:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC) 1625:12:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC) 1602:05:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC) 1573:16:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC) 1550:19:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC) 1532:00:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC) 1518:16:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC) 1502:inclusion. Singer runs a 1495:07:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC) 1478:07:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC) 1461:06:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC) 1443:05:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC) 1418:17:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC) 1395:17:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC) 1338:Paul Singer (businessman) 898:18:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC) 420:in that section includes: 357:03:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC) 332:02:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC) 316:00:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC) 290:23:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC) 125:12:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3043:in one source, which is 2425:Please do not modify it. 1742:inclusion of the term!-- 1374:Please do not modify it. 1336:RfC: should the article 1292:22:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC) 1272:03:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC) 1252:19:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC) 1235:13:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC) 1216:09:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC) 1098:20:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC) 1079:20:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC) 1044:13:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC) 938:07:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC) 860:Please do not modify it. 679:Please do not modify it. 2011:is found in an article 3524:We are gong backwards. 2655:Donor's Trust material 620:I've added cites from 444: 428: 251:The Sound and the Fury 195:Harry "Snapper" Organs 2963:campaign finance laws 2726:were invited here by 2043:What Knowledge is not 1997:What Knowledge is not 1385:in reliable sources? 1061:isn't referred to as 189:Dear HedgeFundFriend 154:Cleaning up this page 42:of past discussions. 709:keeping the section. 213:User:Hedgefundfriend 3643:Champaign Supernova 3470:Champaign Supernova 3455:Champaign Supernova 3401:Champaign Supernova 3386:Champaign Supernova 3361:Champaign Supernova 3346:Champaign Supernova 3316:Champaign Supernova 3301:Champaign Supernova 3266:Champaign Supernova 3251:Champaign Supernova 3207:Champaign Supernova 3143:Champaign Supernova 3091:Champaign Supernova 3060:Champaign Supernova 2975:Champaign Supernova 2869:Champaign Supernova 2817:Champaign Supernova 2665:Champaign Supernova 2118:-it was an example. 1867:Buenos Aires Herald 1796:Threaded discussion 1723:Conditional Support 1057:. For example, the 797:Threaded discussion 3047:NBC news, but the 2432:Self-published tag 1927:The Law Dictionary 1872:Lebanon Daily News 1630:Absolutely Support 1375: 680: 3688: 3243:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 3203:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 2677:, which this is. 2389:Time for closure? 2200:Two kinds of pork 1727:Two kinds of pork 1600: 1587:may be in play. — 1373: 923:Also, nowhere in 678: 393:Romney and Delphi 293: 276:comment added by 231:Links to consider 138:comment added by 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3808: 3734: 3671: 3650: 3603: 3560: 3521: 3473: 3428: 3404: 3364: 3319: 3269: 3247:WP:NOTEVERYTHING 3094: 3078: 2896: 2877:WP:NOTEVERYTHING 2872: 2849: 2809:WP:NOTEVERYTHING 2752: 2672: 2525:WP:VERIFIABILITY 2395:Jonathan A Jones 2341:Jonathan A Jones 2322:Nomoskedasticity 2310: 2260:Nomoskedasticity 2245: 2178:Jonathan A Jones 2147:WP:INAPPROPRIATE 2108:WP:INAPPROPRIATE 2051:Jonathan A Jones 2039:WP:INAPPROPRIATE 2005:WP:INAPPROPRIATE 1991:Adding the term 1971:Jonathan A Jones 1920:Oxford Reference 1782:Nomoskedasticity 1780:to include it. 1761:Wallace McDonald 1706:Nomoskedasticity 1674: 1672: 1622: 1617: 1591: 1570: 1542:Jonathan A Jones 1524:NinjaRobotPirate 1513: 1453:Jonathan A Jones 1329: 1327: 851: 849: 786: 641: 636: 613: 608: 523: 518: 477: 472: 457: 452: 324:SingerFoundation 292: 278:SingerFoundation 270: 150: 95:Bestonadventures 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3816: 3815: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3728: 3636: 3634: 3597: 3554: 3515: 3467: 3422: 3398: 3358: 3313: 3263: 3183:is included at 3163:is noteworthy. 3159:is noteworthy. 3088: 3072: 3039:It's mentioned 2890: 2866: 2843: 2746: 2722:Oh, and if you 2658: 2651: 2474: 2472:Singer and Iran 2434: 2429: 2428: 2391: 2306: 2241: 1913:Huffington Post 1832:Huffington Post 1827:Financial Times 1798: 1670: 1668: 1620: 1615: 1564: 1509: 1402: 1378: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1342: 1325: 1322: 1314: 1222:WP:PUBLICFIGURE 1155:Huffington Post 1005:Huffington Post 999:Financial Times 886:WP:PUBLICFIGURE 869: 864: 863: 843: 836: 799: 782: 703: 683: 674: 673: 672: 656: 639: 634: 611: 606: 521: 516: 475: 470: 455: 450: 395: 367: 271: 266: 233: 187: 172:Hedgefundfriend 156: 133: 117:Lesbianadvocate 90: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3814: 3812: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3773: 3744: 3633: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3499: 3485: 3482: 3475: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3430: 3420: 3413: 3406: 3366: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3321: 3278: 3271: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3109: 3095: 3086: 3079: 3019: 3005: 2986: 2985: 2956:stated purpose 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2905:stated purpose 2897: 2888: 2881: 2873: 2864: 2857: 2850: 2758: 2720: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2700: 2650: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2616: 2615: 2578: 2577: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2507:New York Times 2473: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2433: 2430: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2390: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2253: 2252: 2211: 2210: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2145:As it says at 2140: 2139: 2120: 2119: 2103: 2102: 2090: 2089: 2072:should apply. 2070:WP:OTHERPARENT 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2047:WP:NOTCENSORED 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1967: 1931: 1930: 1923: 1916: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1879: 1874: 1869: 1864: 1859: 1854: 1849: 1844: 1839: 1834: 1829: 1824: 1819: 1817:New York Times 1797: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1771: 1754: 1737: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1699: 1698: 1680: 1656: 1644: 1627: 1604: 1575: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1497: 1480: 1463: 1445: 1420: 1401: 1398: 1379: 1370: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1341: 1334: 1313: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1240: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1023: 1018: 1013: 1008: 1002: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 941: 940: 921: 906:New York Times 878:New York Times 868: 865: 857: 856: 855: 832: 831: 830: 798: 795: 794: 793: 766: 765: 764: 763: 745: 744: 727: 710: 702: 699: 684: 675: 660: 659: 658: 657: 655: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 585: 584: 581: 578: 575: 572: 569: 566: 563: 560: 557: 554: 551: 547: 546: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 484: 483: 482: 466:this reference 446: 436: 433:This reference 430: 421: 418:This reference 401:made. Thanks! 394: 391: 376: 375: 366: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 319: 318: 265: 262: 232: 229: 228: 227: 186: 183: 155: 152: 130: 129: 128: 127: 89: 86: 83: 82: 77: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3813: 3794: 3790: 3786: 3777: 3774: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3745: 3742: 3740: 3732: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3721: 3717: 3713: 3709: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3689: 3687: 3683: 3679: 3675: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3654: 3648: 3644: 3640: 3631: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3601: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3558: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3519: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3498: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3483: 3480: 3476: 3471: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3451: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3431: 3426: 3421: 3418: 3414: 3411: 3407: 3402: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3367: 3362: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3322: 3317: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3276: 3272: 3267: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3239: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3139: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3120: 3116: 3110: 3107: 3103: 3102:in one source 3101: 3096: 3092: 3087: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2987: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2957: 2953: 2939: 2936: 2933: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2889: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2865: 2862: 2858: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2797: 2794: 2790: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2765: 2759: 2756: 2750: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2740: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2718: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2698: 2694: 2693: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2656: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2526: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2488: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2471: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2431: 2426: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2388: 2371: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2313: 2311: 2309: 2302: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2251: 2248: 2246: 2244: 2238: 2234: 2231: 2227: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2213: 2212: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2196: 2193: 2192: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2165: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2091: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2074:Joe Bodacious 2071: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1966: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1956:Joe Bodacious 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1929: 1928: 1924: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1915: 1914: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1894:Joe Bodacious 1890: 1883: 1880: 1878: 1875: 1873: 1870: 1868: 1865: 1863: 1860: 1858: 1857:New York Post 1855: 1853: 1850: 1848: 1845: 1843: 1840: 1838: 1835: 1833: 1830: 1828: 1825: 1823: 1820: 1818: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1808: 1807: 1805: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1772: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1755: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1738: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1721: 1720: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1684: 1681: 1679: 1676: 1675: 1664: 1660: 1657: 1655: 1652: 1648: 1645: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1628: 1626: 1623: 1618: 1612: 1608: 1605: 1603: 1598: 1595: 1590: 1586: 1583: 1579: 1576: 1574: 1571: 1569: 1568: 1560: 1557: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1538: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1516: 1514: 1512: 1505: 1501: 1498: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1481: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1464: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1449: 1446: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1421: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1410:Joe Bodacious 1407: 1404: 1403: 1399: 1397: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1387:Joe Bodacious 1384: 1377: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1339: 1335: 1333: 1332: 1328: 1326:FreeRangeFrog 1320: 1311: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1284:Joe Bodacious 1281: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1264:Joe Bodacious 1261: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1227:Joe Bodacious 1223: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1183: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1127: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1108: 1105: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1090:Joe Bodacious 1087: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1036:Joe Bodacious 1032: 1031: 1027: 1024: 1022: 1019: 1017: 1014: 1012: 1009: 1006: 1003: 1000: 997: 996: 993: 991: 990: 988: 987: 985: 984: 982: 975: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 964: 957: 953: 952: 951: 950: 949: 948: 946: 945: 939: 935: 931: 926: 922: 919: 915: 911: 907: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 895: 891: 890:Joe Bodacious 887: 883: 879: 875: 866: 861: 854: 850: 848: 847: 841: 840: 833: 829: 825: 821: 820:Factchecker25 816: 815: 814: 810: 806: 801: 800: 796: 792: 789: 787: 785: 779: 775: 771: 768: 767: 762: 758: 754: 749: 748: 747: 746: 743: 739: 735: 734:Factchecker25 731: 728: 726: 722: 718: 714: 711: 708: 705: 704: 700: 698: 697: 693: 689: 682: 671: 668: 664: 645: 642: 637: 631: 630:New York Post 627: 623: 619: 618: 617: 614: 609: 602: 601: 600: 596: 592: 587: 586: 582: 579: 576: 573: 570: 567: 564: 561: 558: 555: 552: 549: 548: 544: 539: 535: 527: 524: 519: 513: 508: 507: 506: 502: 498: 493: 492: 489: 488: 485: 481: 478: 473: 467: 463: 462: 461: 458: 453: 447: 445: 443: 437: 434: 431: 429: 427: 422: 419: 415: 414: 413: 412: 408: 404: 400: 392: 390: 389: 385: 381: 372: 371: 370: 364: 358: 354: 350: 346: 342: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 329: 325: 317: 313: 309: 304: 300: 296: 295: 294: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 263: 261: 260: 256: 252: 249: 247: 245: 243: 241: 239: 237: 230: 226: 222: 218: 214: 210: 207: 206: 205: 204: 200: 196: 190: 184: 182: 181: 177: 173: 169: 165: 160: 153: 151: 149: 145: 141: 140:212.84.102.34 137: 126: 122: 118: 114: 113: 112: 111: 110: 108: 105: 104:128.36.52.135 100: 99: 96: 87: 81: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3776:Donors Trust 3739:Donors Trust 3736: 3712:Donors Trust 3708:Donors Trust 3674:Donors Trust 3639:Arthur Rubin 3635: 3566: 3562: 3523: 3478: 3416: 3409: 3282:Donors Trust 3185:Donors Trust 3177:Donors Trust 3169:Donors Trust 3161:Donors Trust 3119:WP:CONSENSUS 3112: 3098: 3082: 3075:Arthur Rubin 3053:WP:CONSENSUS 3044: 2955: 2932:Arthur Rubin 2904: 2900: 2884: 2860: 2853: 2846:Arthur Rubin 2793:Arthur Rubin 2788: 2769: 2761: 2754: 2749:Arthur Rubin 2736:Arthur Rubin 2708:Donors Trust 2696: 2661:Arthur Rubin 2652: 2649:Donors Trust 2617: 2579: 2562: 2544: 2506: 2489: 2475: 2435: 2424: 2392: 2337:in principle 2336: 2307: 2300: 2242: 2233:Vulture Fund 2219:vulture fund 2214: 2194: 2115: 2111: 2066: 2065: 2012: 2008: 2001:vulture fund 2000: 1993:vulture fund 1992: 1953: 1934:Vulture fund 1932: 1926: 1919: 1912: 1906: 1892: 1891: 1822:The Guardian 1809: 1802: 1800: 1799: 1777: 1773: 1756: 1739: 1722: 1682: 1666: 1663:Vulture Fund 1658: 1646: 1629: 1610: 1606: 1584: 1578:Weak support 1577: 1566: 1565: 1558: 1510: 1503: 1499: 1482: 1470:QuiteUnusual 1465: 1447: 1427:Vulture fund 1426: 1422: 1405: 1383:Vulture fund 1380: 1371: 1315: 1259: 1180: 1154: 1151:this article 1126:vulture fund 1125: 1120: 1117:this article 1112: 1104:vulture fund 1103: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1051:vulture fund 1050: 1033: 992: 989: 986: 983: 972: 965: 954: 947: 943: 942: 909: 905: 881: 877: 871: 870: 859: 845: 844: 838: 837: 783: 773: 769: 729: 712: 706: 701:(old) Survey 685: 676: 629: 625: 621: 542: 537: 511: 440: 438: 425: 423: 396: 377: 368: 320: 272:— Preceding 267: 234: 208: 191: 188: 161: 157: 131: 101: 91: 60: 43: 37: 3181:Paul Singer 3173:Paul Singer 3165:Paul Singer 2605:Safehaven86 2530:Safehaven86 2456:Safehaven86 2439:Safehaven86 2356:Fraulein451 2230:Paul Singer 2112:For example 1882:Epoch Times 1877:Global Post 1688:Fraulein451 1567:Kosh Vorlon 1353:EMC article 1113:hedge funds 925:this source 349:Safehaven86 308:Safehaven86 134:—Preceding 36:This is an 2885:explicitly 2813:WP:NOTABLE 2805:verifiable 2732:WP:CANVASS 2675:verifiable 2635:Meatsgains 2567:Meatsgains 2523:This is a 2511:Meatsgains 2410:Meatsgains 2308:Comatmebro 2280:Dougweller 2243:Comatmebro 2129:Meatsgains 2095:slang term 2037:Note that 2017:Meatsgains 2009:derogatory 1938:Meatsgains 1847:Tagesschau 1634:Damotclese 1511:Comatmebro 1504:hedge fund 1435:Meatsgains 1312:Protection 1244:Meatsgains 1208:Meatsgains 1071:Meatsgains 1021:Tagesschau 930:Meatsgains 805:Meatsgains 784:Comatmebro 753:Meatsgains 717:Meatsgains 688:Meatsgains 591:Meatsgains 497:Meatsgains 403:Meatsgains 380:Meatsgains 374:Veterans." 3100:trivially 3041:trivially 2565:article. 2370:confirmed 2116:ethnicity 2110:states, " 1852:USA Today 1842:Bloomberg 1837:The Hindu 1067:Obamacare 1063:Obamacare 1049:The term 1026:USA Today 1016:Bloomberg 1011:The Hindu 874:this edit 185:Clean up? 80:Archive 5 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 3653:that RfC 3157:NBC News 3023:NBC News 2991:NBC News 2734:ING. — 2620:Jimjilin 2601:WP:SYNTH 2582:Jimjilin 2548:Jimjilin 2492:Jimjilin 2478:Jimjilin 2164:WP:LIBEL 2151:WP:ESSAY 1651:goethean 1597:contribs 1589:Elipongo 1582:WP:LIBEL 1487:Darx9url 1319:involved 1121:Newsweek 910:Guardian 908:and the 882:Guardian 880:and the 667:Armbrust 628:and the 365:Lee Fang 286:contribs 274:unsigned 217:Cgingold 136:unsigned 88:Untitled 3645:, and 3567:neutral 2667:, and 2301:Comment 2215:Comment 2195:Comment 2099:WP:TONE 1774:Support 1757:Support 1744:Fox1942 1740:Support 1659:Support 1647:Support 1607:Support 1559:Support 1483:Support 1466:Support 1448:Support 1406:Support 1357:S. Rich 1349:context 1153:by the 1055:WP:TONE 918:WP:NPOV 846:C M B J 707:Support 622:Fortune 159:funds. 39:archive 3749:NickCT 3735:- re " 3693:NickCT 3678:NickCT 3658:NickCT 3606:NickCT 3571:NickCT 3528:NickCT 3522:- re " 3489:NickCT 3434:NickCT 3371:NickCT 3326:NickCT 3286:NickCT 3241:What? 3155:Sigh. 3124:NickCT 3106:PF 990 2971:WP:DUE 2935:(talk) 2923:NickCT 2909:NickCT 2796:(talk) 2774:NickCT 2739:(talk) 2724:NickCT 2697:anyone 2679:NickCT 1862:Forbes 1683:Oppose 1585:policy 1500:Oppose 1431:WP:ICW 1423:Oppose 1400:Survey 1206:Best, 1086:WP:BLP 914:WP:BLP 778:WP:POV 770:Oppose 730:Oppose 713:Oppose 640:Murray 626:Forbes 612:Murray 543:Nation 538:Nation 522:Murray 512:Nation 476:Murray 456:Murray 168:WP:COI 164:WP:BLP 109:David 3731:HughD 3647:HughD 3600:HughD 3563:clear 3557:HughD 3518:HughD 3425:HughD 3055:here 2927:HughD 2893:HughD 2728:HughD 2712:Obama 2669:HughD 2657:from 1673:lwart 1621:lozzo 1260:other 435:says: 16:< 3789:talk 3785:Hugh 3783:DT? 3767:talk 3763:Hugh 3753:talk 3720:talk 3716:Hugh 3697:talk 3682:talk 3662:talk 3610:talk 3589:talk 3585:Hugh 3575:talk 3565:and 3546:talk 3542:Hugh 3532:talk 3507:talk 3503:Hugh 3493:talk 3477:re " 3459:talk 3438:talk 3415:re " 3408:re " 3390:talk 3375:talk 3350:talk 3330:talk 3305:talk 3290:talk 3275:Hugh 3255:talk 3245:and 3225:talk 3221:Hugh 3211:talk 3193:talk 3189:Hugh 3179:and 3171:and 3147:talk 3128:talk 3111:re " 3097:re " 3081:re " 3064:talk 3031:talk 3027:Hugh 3013:talk 3009:Hugh 2999:talk 2995:Hugh 2979:talk 2925:and 2921:You 2913:talk 2859:re " 2852:re " 2835:talk 2831:Hugh 2821:talk 2789:That 2778:talk 2683:talk 2639:talk 2624:talk 2609:talk 2590:talk 2586:talk 2571:talk 2552:talk 2534:talk 2515:talk 2505:The 2496:talk 2482:talk 2460:talk 2443:talk 2414:talk 2399:talk 2360:talk 2345:talk 2326:talk 2284:talk 2264:talk 2235:and 2204:talk 2182:talk 2133:talk 2078:talk 2055:talk 2021:talk 1975:talk 1960:talk 1942:talk 1898:talk 1786:talk 1765:talk 1748:talk 1731:talk 1710:talk 1692:talk 1638:talk 1616:Joja 1594:Talk 1546:talk 1528:talk 1491:talk 1474:talk 1457:talk 1439:talk 1414:talk 1391:talk 1361:talk 1288:talk 1268:talk 1248:talk 1231:talk 1212:talk 1094:talk 1075:talk 1040:talk 934:talk 916:and 894:talk 824:talk 809:talk 757:talk 738:talk 721:talk 692:talk 663:CMBJ 635:Ruby 607:Ruby 595:talk 517:Ruby 501:talk 471:Ruby 451:Ruby 407:talk 384:talk 353:talk 328:talk 312:talk 282:talk 255:talk 221:talk 209:NOTE 199:talk 176:talk 166:and 144:talk 121:talk 3779:--> 3737:Is 3045:not 2760:re 2753:re 2563:NYT 2125:ANI 1778:not 1609:If 774:not 3791:) 3769:) 3755:) 3722:) 3699:) 3684:) 3664:) 3641:, 3612:) 3591:) 3577:) 3548:) 3534:) 3509:) 3495:) 3461:) 3440:) 3392:) 3377:) 3352:) 3332:) 3307:) 3292:) 3257:) 3227:) 3213:) 3195:) 3149:) 3130:) 3066:) 3058:. 3033:) 3015:) 3001:) 2981:) 2915:) 2837:) 2823:) 2780:) 2685:) 2663:, 2641:) 2626:) 2611:) 2592:) 2573:) 2554:) 2536:) 2517:) 2498:) 2484:) 2462:) 2445:) 2416:) 2401:) 2362:) 2347:) 2328:) 2286:) 2266:) 2206:) 2184:) 2135:) 2080:) 2057:) 2023:) 1977:) 1962:) 1944:) 1900:) 1788:) 1767:) 1750:) 1733:) 1712:) 1694:) 1669:St 1640:) 1548:) 1530:) 1493:) 1476:) 1459:) 1441:) 1433:. 1416:) 1393:) 1363:) 1290:) 1282:. 1270:) 1250:) 1233:) 1214:) 1119:, 1096:) 1077:) 1042:) 936:) 896:) 888:. 839:— 826:) 811:) 759:) 740:) 723:) 694:) 624:, 597:) 503:) 409:) 386:) 355:) 330:) 314:) 288:) 284:• 257:) 223:) 201:) 178:) 146:) 123:) 76:→ 3787:( 3765:( 3751:( 3733:: 3729:@ 3718:( 3695:( 3680:( 3660:( 3649:: 3637:@ 3608:( 3602:: 3598:@ 3587:( 3573:( 3559:: 3555:@ 3544:( 3530:( 3520:: 3516:@ 3505:( 3491:( 3474:- 3472:: 3468:@ 3457:( 3436:( 3429:- 3427:: 3423:@ 3405:- 3403:: 3399:@ 3388:( 3373:( 3363:: 3359:@ 3348:( 3328:( 3318:: 3314:@ 3303:( 3288:( 3270:- 3268:: 3264:@ 3253:( 3223:( 3209:( 3191:( 3145:( 3126:( 3093:: 3089:@ 3077:: 3073:@ 3062:( 3029:( 3011:( 2997:( 2977:( 2911:( 2899:" 2895:: 2891:@ 2871:: 2867:@ 2848:: 2844:@ 2833:( 2819:( 2776:( 2766:" 2762:" 2751:: 2747:@ 2699:. 2681:( 2671:: 2659:@ 2637:( 2622:( 2607:( 2584:( 2569:( 2550:( 2532:( 2513:( 2494:( 2480:( 2458:( 2441:( 2412:( 2397:( 2358:( 2343:( 2324:( 2282:( 2262:( 2202:( 2180:( 2131:( 2076:( 2053:( 2019:( 1973:( 1958:( 1940:( 1896:( 1784:( 1763:( 1746:( 1729:( 1708:( 1690:( 1671:★ 1636:( 1599:) 1592:( 1544:( 1526:( 1489:( 1472:( 1455:( 1437:( 1412:( 1389:( 1359:( 1323:§ 1286:( 1266:( 1246:( 1229:( 1210:( 1128:. 1092:( 1073:( 1038:( 932:( 892:( 822:( 807:( 755:( 736:( 719:( 690:( 593:( 499:( 405:( 382:( 351:( 326:( 310:( 280:( 253:( 219:( 197:( 174:( 142:( 119:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index