Talk:PIGS (economics)/Archive 3

RFC: WP:DYNAMITE
I've boldly dynamited the article for reasons outlined above, specifically:


 * 1) The article suffered endemically from issues described at WP:NEOLOGISM: it relied on "editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term)".
 * 2) A great number (majority?) of cited statements were unsupported by the reference given. It appears that, over time, statements were changed to read something (completely) different but original citations were left in place. In some cases, it appears that existing citations were moved around inside the article to "support" newly added or rewritten statements, regardless of whether the citation supported the new/rewritten statement or not.
 * 3) There appears to have been citation fraud, with editors changing what cited sources say or (as I said above) citing references to "support" statements they did not support (in any way).

For these reasons I did not think the article was salvageable in its previous from and blew it up and started it again from scratch.

I expect that to be contentious (specifically from one editor), so I am inviting this RFC to comment on the dynamiting.

Diffs to the article: before dynamiting and after dynamiting.

-- RA (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I do not agree. This is an unjustified removal of content. The term is a neologism that has no scientific relevance, but we still need to adapt to a reality: the meaning of the word is not derived from a scientific consideration, but was born in the lexicon of journalism, and it is this meaning that we must consider. And that word is used, as we have seen in different sources, in different ways depending on the source, author and country.--Naumakos (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Naumakos, the problem is that the article was chock full of original analysis (e.g. use of references that use the word but are not about the word) and, even worse, fraudulent use of references (as I outlined above). Wikipedia article must be written using verifiable secondary sources. If secondary sources do not exist on a particular topic then we don't include it. See Verifiability.
 * I've reverted, but, please, build the article up again using verifiable, secondary sources. If you cannot do that then please wait for others to respond to this RFC. -- RA (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The "fraudulent" use of references you highlight and refer to was an obvious Vandal who was reverted on sight. Your other claim that Wikipedia is solely based on cribbed secondary sources is also wrong.12.144.158.19 (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. In fact for the same reasons as Naumakos stated above. The trouble can be avoided by creating some sort of timeline of the changing meaning. The Banner talk 12:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Naumakos' reasons were: "I do not agree." And "This is an unjustified removal of content." Without any further explanation.
 * We cannot write an article based on original analysis of newspapers and blogs. I have zero objection to anything being re-added to the article so long as it can be cited to secondary sources (i.e. those that are about the term, and don't just use, see WP:NEOLOGISM). -- RA (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a policy clarification, with no comment on the appropriateness of the content of this article... WP:OR does allow for limited use of primary sources... we just have to do so with caution. While we need secondary sources for analysis and conclusions, we can use primary sources for appropriate descriptive statements about what those primary sources say. So, if the New York Times says "PIGS refers to Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain", we can say "The New York Times says the term PIGS refers to Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain" and cite the NYTs saying it. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree. However, to give a practical example from the article before, fleeting examples of use in newspapers does not substantiate sentences like this:"'Members of the Spanish and other international economic press continue to use the term of art in its narrow and restricted economic sense as a grouping acronym like the related BRIC.'""...term of art..."? "...narrow and restricted sense..."? "...like the related BRIC"? Where does any of that appear in the fleeting use in the references given? It's all OR based on interpreation of use. -- RA  (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read the article, term of art, you'll see that the phrase was used appropriately here to refer to "terms that have meanings that are not necessarily the same as those in common use", i.e., the "narrow and restricted sense" that the term is a "grouping acronym" identical in every aspect to BRIC, BRICS, CIVETS, EAGLEs and others. Concepts which have now been expunged wholesale from the article.12.144.158.19 (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree about the fact that the previous content had some critical points (of which I am not the author) but what I do not agree is the definition of the term PIGS and, in particular, what country is indicated by the letter "i", Ireland or Italy. Some sources indicate Italy, other Ireland. I think the article should be impartial, so we can not arbitrarily favor one or the other country, but, rather, we should consider all the sources that have some authority in the economic sector. For example, several sources indicate Ireland:
 * The Economist: Italy has so far escaped the markets' wrath. Ireland, not Italy, is the I in the PIGS (with Portugal, Greece and Spain;
 * Forbes: The US as PIGS, what a tough, maybe slightly exaggerated accusation; the acronym stands for the European nations most behind the eight ball with respect to their financial condition– Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain originally– with Italy thrown in for good measure;
 * BBC: PIGS is a horrible acronym. But this is how the financial markets refer to the troubled and heavily-indebted countries of Europe - Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. (Some analysts use PIIGS to include Italy - Europe's longstanding biggest debtor.).
 * My proposal, therefore, was very simple: we can move the article to PIIGS, as on de.wikipedia, or, quite simply, we can indicate the promiscuous use of the term PIGS.--Naumakos (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support -- The article was in terrible shape. The previous content should be reintroduced piece by piece, if other editors desire. Given the small amount of content in the previous version and the extent of the issues that RA outlined, I'm surprised that anyone would object to this course of action. TippyGoomba (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per TippyGoomba. The example given by RA above ("term of art" etc) is pretty typical of how sources have been misused by editors here. DeCausa (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - e.g. removal of map and graph. DexDor (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with a very short article on PIGS and PIIGS but I think PIGGS doesn't really have enough hits to warrant mention, and UK bond rates are near post-crisis lows again, with insane near zero-growth debt reduction policies, so I doubt they'll come back unless it's through another recession. EllenCT (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. In fact, thinking about this further, the article as it currently is is probably about the correct length and amount of detail. I don't think there is much that could (within policy) or should be added to it. DeCausa (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * RE: Britian - more-or-less agree. But what's interesting about PIIGS, PIIGGS, PIIIGGS, etc. is that, for a time, there was a almost a sense of satisfaction in adding adding (yet) another country to the list of "pigs". I recall a secondary source to that effect. I'll try to dig it up.


 * I agree that the article is at it's limit also. There's shag all secondary sources on the term. -- RA (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Seems like the blow up was a good idea based on the points. Plus the first oppose points (No good reason on why it's no good not given) are listed in at least one guideline / essay as responses that hold no merit. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 21:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - I was invited here randomly by RFCbot. Apparently a lack of suitable secondary sources collided with a misunderstanding of OR policy. Knock it down and start over at a size and scale commensurate with the available secondary sources. Consider renaming to something more generic that would encompass the range of usage (e.g. "Initialisms of the European debt crisis of the early 21st century") and use redirects from the acronyms. These neologisms probably will mean little in the coming decades. Joja  lozzo  22:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The article took its form over years of contentious debate with literally dozens of editors input and a large number of diversions to all manner of Wikipedia boards for oversight and input. User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid has seen his opinion on the article rejected many times and is now simply gaming the system. The article was a clear encyclopedic entry on a term that dated to the ERM and has been used neutrally in academic writing and only later became caught up in the politics of the economic worldwide collapse. The recentism that RA seeks to restrict the term and article to does not properly record the long and complex history of the term. RA has a long term political agenda here, one that has been rejected by numerous others for years. Now he seeks to upend the table and power through his personal agenda, years in the making. 12.144.158.19 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What are the specific issues that are in dispute in the article?
Here's the entire article, divided and itemized into it's eight constituent sentences and the 9th area, a sample of related economic grouping acronyms:
 * PIGS (also PIIGS ) is an acronym used by international bond analysts, academics, and the economic press that refers to the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain – often in regard to matters relating to sovereign debt markets.
 * Some news and economic organisations have limited or banned its use due to criticism regarding perceived offensive connotations.
 * The acronym has long been used by bank analysts and bond and currency traders dating back at least to the period of the ERM and is used by some analysts, academics and commentators as a concise way to refer to the Eurozone countries of southern Europe noted for similar economic environments.
 * The term was denounced as a pejorative by the Portuguese Finance Minister in 2008, and by some members of the Portuguese and Spanish speaking press.
 * Members of the Spanish and other international economic press continue to use the term of art in its narrow and restricted economic sense as a grouping acronym like the related BRIC.
 * Others however, notably the Financial Times and Barclays Capital have restricted or banned the term, with the FT notably reducing but not eliminating its use.
 * With the onset of the Financial crisis of 2007–2010 several variations appeared. When rendered as "PIIGS"  some commentators added the additional "i" for comparative purposes to include Ireland from the 2008–2010 Irish financial crisis, with alternatively the "I" which originally referred to Italy occasionally becoming an interchangeable reference to Ireland by some during this period.
 * Additional permutations gained prominence during the 2009 United Kingdom bank rescue package period and into the 2010 European sovereign debt crisis as some commentators used numerous variations such as PIIGGS which includes Great Britain for assorted political, economic, or social reportage and editorial commentary.
 * See also
 * BRIC
 * BRICS
 * EAGLEs
 * CIVETS
 * Credit crunch
 * 2010 European sovereign debt crisis
 * 2010 European sovereign debt crisis

Error in picture illustrating the article
The accompanying picture PIGS-PIIGS-PIIGGS.png, which uses a coloured map to illustrate the history of the acronym, has a major error. It shows Ireland as the original country for the 'I' of PIGS and Italy as the country for the second 'I' in the later acronym PIIGS. In fact, this is the opposite of what actually occurred - Italy was included BEFORE Ireland - as correctly stated in the text of the article. This error renders the picture useless for its intended purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.107.99 (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I share similar concerns with the image. I'd also be happy to see it removed. It doesn't illustrate anything more than can be stated simply through words and brings in POV issues since there is no definitive group of "PIGS". -- RA (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed. Revert and discuss, if needed. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Pejorative use
Isn't using pejorative term for some of the countries economies a "little" racist?

Also: The article describe that this term was from the 90s, gicing the feeling that it was heavly used in the 90s, but if you look under the reference section, only one of the link is actually from 97, and this is from the French 'Le Monde', whilst all the other seems to be from 2007/2008 onward.. At least the article could describe that the term was spread and heavily used from 2007/2008 onward, however ther is nothing like that mentioned in the whole of article..

22:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.230.146.71 (talk)

A suggested complete re-write (WP:UNDUE)
The PIIGS Countries should only mention Portugal, the Republic of Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain, Cyprus and Malta, all in the Eurozone (with or without Andorra, San Marino and Gibraltar (with the last not being in the Eurozone)). Any reference to Britain, Great Britain or the United Kingdom should be removed as being WP:UNDUE (undue weight). It was obviously added by non-British partisan editors from within the EU, especially from Greece (see the Elgin Marbles controversy) but to a lesser extent also from Ireland (in the traditional sense), obviously with a nationalist, anti-British axe to grind. The term, although considered offensive to some, is not really in much dispute both in terms of its existence and its usage, and references to the banning of the term should be omitted. This is nothing less than trolling hiding under the cloak of legitimacy in the rules of Wikipedia, and previous editors who had attempted to remove this article should really be considered as acting in bad faith. -- 212.50.167.15 (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The very fact that a Greek editor has attempted to present my edits as if they were vandalism in order to use it as a (false) pretext to summarily revert all of my edits on this topic, attempting to continuing to completely ignore the concept of due and undue weight of sources and theories (WP:UNDUE), somewhat goes to prove my point. -- 212.50.167.15 (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on PIGS (economics). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://blogs.afp.com/?post/2008/09/15/Pigs-in-muck-and-lipstick

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)