Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 6

Denialist/denialism
Someone recently removed this word from the list, noting that the archives indicate no consensus to have added it. I concur. Some threads above this one (possibly archived by now) indicate a lack of consensus on this. My own view is that this word has a clear definition, is not inherently POV, and is used in reliable sources, including academic ones. Ergo, if RS tell us that a particular subject is denialist, we can repeat this. We should probably attribute it, especially in the case of a WP:BLP. This is true of any term that, in the context in which it is being used, could be taken as pushing a POV. It's a general principle. The term itself is not an automatically suspect "word to watch". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It wasn't "someone", it was jps again. I reverted and we can continue the discussion on the appropriate section of this talk page, see [in this thread above. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Everyone is someone. My very point in being inspecific was the address the content not editors. Note discretionary sanctions warning at top of all MOS talk pages (though, in fairness, the one on this page was missing for some reason).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with JPS and SMcCandish, which makes for an emerging consensus to remove the term.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with jps, SMcCandlish, and Ubikwit. In addition, the notion that the presence or absence of a "word to watch" in this guideline would prevent us from including a well-sourced description of a person or their work in a Wikipedia article is troubling. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish has accurately described the situation—reliable sources use the term "denialist" for good reason, and articles should reflect sources. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Follow-up comment: I'm no extreme "separationist" when it comes to MOS and content (see thread at MOS:SAL about something in it allegedly wandering into content policy territory), but, well, we shouldn't wander into content policy territory. There's a thread above where we were talking productively about an approach to rewriting this page to focus on words to watch in particular contexts, why particular sorts of things can be problematic, and illustrating this with examples, instead of our present approach in listing words, which people keep taking as some kind of banned word list.  We need to return to that idea. It really is a content policy conflict when those policies tell us to base our work on reliable secondary sources, and this guideline interferes with our ability to do that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus for this removal and it appears to be an awkward "Gaming the System" approach to winning a multi-month argument on another page. This is, as previously discussed, an improper reason for making such a change. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But there was no consensus to add it to begin with. We're having a consensus discussion right now, and it does not appear to favor treating the word "denialist" as automatically suspect.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is undeniable that I am tired of seeing the insipid WP:LABEL, WP:WTW, etc. being used as an excuse to excise the word "denialist" from Wikipedia as if it was some sort of magic spell of evil. I am further appalled that the word was added without any discussion and there is no explanation in the text for why it is a "word to watch".
 * It may very well be that there are instances, maybe even many instances, where the word should not be used. I think that the discussion should rise or fall on the merits of the arguments for why. However, Wikipedia culture problematically assumes that when something is on a Wikipedia-space page it holds a level of magical argumentation. That's a nice shorthand, but it leaves much to be desired and it is abundantly clear to me that there has never been a consensus to include the word here. Removing the word from this page will not automatically "win" any argument and I, personally, don't really care all that much about whether the word is found anywhere in Wikipdia. But I don't like the way this page is being used to derail discussions. Removing the word is a nice way to get people actually talking. jps (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * People are talking incessently about this at multiple articles and have been for months. The idea that this is "derailing" converstaion of any sort is...inaccurate. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that it has been roundly discussed means that the current formulation is working precisely as it is intended at this page, that is to say these words are controversial and when used in a BLP must be carefully considered. Which is exactly what is happening. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what is happening. Editors have been tendentiously ignoring consensus regarding the use of the term by making recourse to the "banned word" modus operandi described above. That is not "discussion". With regard to "climate change", the discussion reached consensus that the term was not controversial and its use policy-compliant. Only tendentious recourse to "WTW" has prevented the edit warring and talk page disruption from ending.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My attempt to move this to the already-existing discussion thread hasn't worked. Okay, but there has been discussion, and as far as I can tell there are seven editors whose stated opinions are being ignored by starting this new thread. (1) User:PBS initially added the word "denialist" five years ago here; (2) User:Arzel said to jps "in order to back up your use of a contentious label you decide to just change the MOS to fit your needs" here; (3) User:Flyer22 may be neutral but reverted Ubikwit's premature change here; (4) User:NebY said words including "denialist" "in general use all are frequently intended as or read as inherently critical, derogatory or condemnatory" (5) User:A Quest For Knowledge referring to jps's earlier attempt said "No need to dignify this proposal" here; (6) User:Capitalismojo objected in the earlier discussion and is objecting in this one; (7) I objected in the earlier discussion and am objecting in this one. Of course some editors may have changed their minds and of course I may have missed statements made later -- if so they can correct me -- but the point is: Ubikwit's claims about "emerging consensus" are incorrect according to what I have seen to date, just as Ubikwit's claim about consensus elsewhere (if the reference is to Anthony Watts (blogger) talk) is incorrect. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish you write there is "clear definition, is not inherently POV, and is used in reliable sources, including academic ones. Ergo, if RS tell us that a particular subject is denialist," See denialism. If for example I state that "Cromwell committed genocide in Ireland" is anyone who disagrees with that statement a denialist? There is also a serious BLP issue here. See Genocide denial (and the Lipstadt and Penguin Books case with David Irving who is a denialist according to English court judgement). Therefore there is a need to use inline attribution to a source. -- PBS (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 'I state that...' isn't the proper analysis, though. WP doesn't care what your personal opinion is.  Do a preponderance of the reliable secondary sources, not closely tied to the subject (i.e., not just Irish sources) state that Cromwell was genocidal?  WP probably should not use the is of identity (how do we not have an article on that?) in any such case, to begin with; not in WP's voice.  It's not really WP's job to declare that Cromwell, or Hitler, or whoever, "were" genocidal; it's our job to report, e.g., that views differ, and that X source(s) conclude(s) they were, while (if it wouldn't be WP:UNDUE weight to mention them in the same breath, as it might be in Hitler's case) that others feel differently.  WP:FRINGE has a role to play here.  The idea that Hitler and the Nazis were not genocidal is clearly a fringe view. That fringe itself is notable, the neo-Nazism movement and the Holocaust denial camp, and we should treat them as a subject in their own right, but without skewing perception of the generally accepted view by treating the fringe view as non-fringe.  With regard to Cromwell, the case is less clear, as is the case against Truman and the United States for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Serious historical scholars who don't have a patriotic bone to pick either way, converge more and more over time on the view that the A-bombs the US dropped on Japan should be viewed as a genocidal war crime, but this view is not yet the widely accepted one. Same goes for Cromwell's policies in Ireland.  The very concept of "genocide" wasn't even formulated until 1944, so we have cultural relativism to deal with, too.  Trying to eliminate "the enemy" entirely was standard operating procedure throughout much of world history, and is still the modus operandi is many places today. I don't mean to lecture about this; I'm just indicating that it's a complex set of topics, and "don't use 'genocide' or 'denial is not the solution.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep saying that this guideline states "don't use 'genocide' or 'denial, it say attribute them. The UN charter on genocide has in its preamble "at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity", so while Cromwell can not have been guilty of a crime, he could have participated in a genocide. The point is that is is a matter of political and historical opinion, and like all opinions the correct way to deal with them is to assert who holds them rather than making the claim in the passive narrative voice of the article. FYI actually the legal position over the last 15 years has moved away from the atomic bombings possibly being a genocide because of the international tribunals focus on what constitutes a significant size for "in part" and more importantly the "mens rea", If the American administration had intended to biologically destroy the Japanese nation as a group under genocide act the then the bombing would not have stopped on unconditional surrender. This is why guilty verdicts for crimes against humanity were far more common at the ICTY trials than findings of genocide, because there was no need to show "mens rea" of wishing to destroy the Bosniacs as group (needed for genocide), just that the perpetrators were involved in crimes against humanity (whatever their motivation). -- PBS (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lesson (actually, no sarcasm implied). I was speaking imprecisely, not of the UN's definition but as historians and others have adopted it; I used Truman as a reference because I'd that very night coincidentally been watching Oliver Stone's Secret History of America, which specifically said what I repeated there, and did use the word genocide. I know little about the terms of art of international law, and make no pretense otherwise. (Cf. your comment below about popular use as a moral vs. legal category.) I was also being unclear with "don't use".  To restate, I think we must always source "genocid[e|al]". Whether to attribute it depends on the circumstances, as I outlined. There is no need at all to attribute this with regard to Hitler. For Cromwell, yes we do, and maybe even directly quote it, because it's not the mainstream view of Cromwell (though it may be the mainstream-in-context view of him among certain sectors of public thought). If we think that every "word to watch" is something that must necessarily be attributed, that's the source of all the conflict about what words to include. I repeat again that we need to rewrite this from a " problematic uses of words" direction, because it's not about particular words, really. It's about how everyday words can be used to push a PoV, and about a certain class of words that as a group are almost always POV ("pervert", "evil", etc.) when applied toward real people or organizations (as opposed to fictional characters; it's okay to say that Sauron and Emperor Palpatine are portrayals of evil, and we're not potentially besmirching anyone by saying so). PS: I certainly wasn't meaning to imply Cromwell could not have participated in a genocide or attempt at genocide or however UN terms of art work, exactly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@User:Akhilleus and user: Johnuniq the guidance says "Value-laden labels ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." There is nothing there that says do not use the term Denialist/denialism it simply says use in-text attribution. With the exception of those genocides found to be such by international tribunals, there is a lot of debate which other alleged genocides were genocides, and as the section denialism points out the label causes the author to take sides. In a Wikipedia article we ought to be writing in a style that is neutral: see WP:ASF and WP:MORALIZE. -- PBS (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, on some topics (i.e., in some contexts) the term presents more valid reasons to be concerned than on others.
 * On the Anthony Watts BLP mentioned above, the term "climate change denialism" has been used with attribution, but editors have been revert warring that out making reference to WTW.
 * Meanwhile, there is an entirely other dimension to the question there, as it involves a conflation of scientific skepticism with environmental skepticism. Climate change denial is generally based on pseudoscience, whereas legitimate scientific skepticism is not, and therefore WP:PSCI applies. Accordingly, in the "climate change" topic area, there may even be cases where the use of "denialism" in Wikipedia's voice, that is to say, unattributed, may be warranted. A number of scientists and social scientists have addressed the conflation of climate skepticism with scientific skepticism, decrying it as deceptive, etc. Scientists and scientific publications represent the mainstream view in this case (where there is a scientific consensus), while pseudoscience has to be presented as FRINGE, not a "minority view".
 * Ideally, the guideline should be rewritten in a manner such as to accommodate the full gamut of contexts in which terms are used, some contexts legitimately a cause for concern, others not so much, if at all.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem we run into here is summed up in a posting I made at 23:39, 26 April 2015 and Donald Bloxham comment "this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation". One can add denialist to that list. People are willing to call someone a denialist, but tend not to want to use the term to describe themselves (see the comments of why in the section denialism). It is assumed in the popular mind that denialism is linked to the "Freudian sense of deny" and that the person making the accusation believes the person accused of being mad or bad or both. -- PBS (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the blanket assertion regarding "in the popular mind". I don't think that many people think in terms of Freud in regard to climate science, at any rate.
 * Meanwhile, I wouldn't argue against the fact that denial carries a negative connotation in "climate change denial", but that is what it is intended to do and why it is used as a term for criticizing people that deny the scientific consensus on climate change. That is to say, in the context of "climate change denial" it indicates an irrational refusal to accept the scientific consensus. There is nothing Freudian about the "iraationality", though. For example, it is often pointed out that many deniers are funded by industries seeking to avoid regulation of CO2 emissions, and such remuneration represents a rational motivation. Using moralistic terms like "bad" is somewhat pedantic here. If a high-profile blogger that is not a scientific skeptic about climate change but receives funding through the Heartland Institute, for example, and denies the scientific consensus, it can be assumed that they have some (ulterior) motive for doing so, and are not doing so on the basis of a Freudian psychosis of some sort. The ulterior motive may be rational to them in terms of making a living (funding from industry sponsors), but it is not rational with respect to the scientific consensus, and that is where WP:PSCI is relevant on Wikipedia. Whether it is moral or not for them to make a living that way is not a question directly related to the term "denial".-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing moralistic about any of that. It is simply the concrete set of real-world circumstances that have led to climate scientists characterizing those that deny the scientific consensus on climate change "climate change deniers".-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Can be assumed"? That sort of original research in order to slap a derogatory label upon the subject of a BLP with whom one disagrees is precisely why this is in fact a good and solid piece of the words to watch list. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you find any place where the inclusion of this word was agreed upon in the archives? jps (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is certainly no more WP:OR than the case of assuming that "the popular mind" associates the term with Freudian psychosis.
 * FYI, here is a sentence from the lead of the Wikipedia article, denialism"Several motivations and causes for denialism have been proposed, including religious beliefs and self-interest, or as a psychological defense mechanism against disturbing ideas."-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:47, 14:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support removal of the words denialism/denialist from this topic. Yobol (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? -- PBS (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In my view it is not a term that is inherently loaded language, as there is a clear definition of what it is and not inherently biasing. Note that I am not involved in whatever content dispute that spawned this particular exchange that many editors seem to be involved in, I am only commenting as this popped up on my watchlist. Yobol (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

user:Ubikwit you write "" then it is not a neural point of view and it ought to be used with intext attrition (Per the policy page WP:WikiVoice) which is what this guideline says. -- PBS (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that we have the same understanding of NPOV and WP:BIASED.
 * Secondly, the term has been used with attribution on the Watts BLP, so that is not an issue in this case, but it hasn't stopped edit warring to remove it with recourse to WTW.
 * Meanwhile, my reading of NPOV only is that the Wikipedia articles are required reflect the views in reliably published statements according to prevalence (WEIGHT). In other words, if "denialist" were the most prevalent view, i.e., the mainstream view, I don't know whether there is a policy that would require it to be attributed in that case.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 10:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The section in the NOR policy page can be accessed by the link I have already provided "WP:WikiVoice". You have stated "I wouldn't argue against the fact that denial carries a negative connotation" and the policy is clear on this issue -- that such opinions need intext attribution (if you do not think it is obvious then I will go through the policy section point by point with you if you like). It is not clear to me when you state "the term has been used with attribution" what you mean. Do you mean with intext attribution of footnote attribution? -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is look at the lead of the article, where you'd find the following statement ...[Watts' blog]...is described by climatologist Michael E. Mann as having "overtaken Climate Audit as the leading climate change denial blog". Watts has rejected claims that either he or WUWT are climate change deniers -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 13:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable to me; in both cases we're quoting or paraphrasing primary sources and attributing their statements, not making claims in WP's voice. I'd have to read the entire context (maybe more than once) to be certain that inclusion of this primary-source back-and-forth is actually encyclopedically relevant, but it's pretty routine for us to allow two sides of a controversial topic speak for themselves, with attribution, especially if we do not have a preponderance of reliable secondary sources indicating whether one of these views is not widely accepted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, there is an additional factor in play in that the topic relates to science, and the denialists are denying the scientific consensus on the science, often with recourse to pseudoscience, which brings WP:PSCI into the picture.
 * Presumably, that changes the status of the "controversy", because there is none regarding the scientific consensus. I'm getting a little out of my element here, so I'll leave this to the science people that deal with pseudoscience on a regular basis. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 00:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in "violent agreement" with you on that point. Though a minor problem from the WP perspective may be the scientific "controversy" isn't really one, the socio-political controversy is very real, and very big. I don't know if it's getting better anywhere else, but millions and millions of right-wing Americans believe global warming and climate change generally is a left-wing hoax.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's take a step back. Several editors have claimed there is consensus to remove "denialist". A few others have claimed there is no consensus. Whichever of these positions is accurate, there is clearly not consensus to keep the word, and there appears to not be prior consensus to have added it, either. I don't see anyone even arguing this point. We can continue discussing the addition of "denialist", but the status-quo should not be to maintain a contentious addition to our guidelines, as though it reflects the community consensus. I'm going to remove the label for now, but there's nothing stopping us from establishing consensus for its addition and reintroducing it in the future. &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 14:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's take two steps back. For five years this article contained the word denialist, and I'm unaware of controversy until Arzel in late March mentioned WP:LABEL and shortly thereafter jps tried to remove "denialist". Several of the names on this talk page (jps and Ubikwit and Akhilleus and Mann jess and Capitalismojo and Peter Gulutzan) are the same as on the talk page of Anthony Watts (blogger) and Watts Up With That, where Mann's "denial" claim is being used without attribution in the lead. What I want to find out is how the editors who want "denial" in those articles are defining "consensus". If five placid years are not enough, why do those same editors, in the articles that these arguments are really about, make changes and declare "consensus" after only a few days despite stated opposition? And why are (according to Mann jess) several editors still claiming there is consensus to remove "denialist" in this article, when that has been shown to be false? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You are edit warring in WP-space to include content which is disputed, and your best argument is that there is "no consensus" about whether it should be included. That is insanely disruptive.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just because no one noticed when someone slipped a word into a manual of style subpage doesn't mean that this somehow indicates that there is a consensus to keep that word in. That's like saying if some petty vandalism goes unnoticed for five years, we shouldn't revert it because of WP:SILENCE. Deal with the fact that this is the only discussion that we have had so far as to whether to include the word and realize that there is clearly not a consensus to include it. jps (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There's a big difference between something being stable in the main MOS page for years, and something going unnoticed for years in a dis-used subpage, about which there's substantive discussion whether it even really qualifies as a guideline. Even aside from that consideration, consensus can change anyway. There doesn't appear to be consensus to keep that word in there, probably because experience has shown us that it isn't actually being abused, but being used correctly, with reliable secondary sources. Deniers that modern climate change is happening are in fact demonstrably deniers. I don't see any articles claiming that people who disagree with this or that particular partial explanation of modern climate change are being mislabeled "deniers". But really, I think this takes us right back to the idea raised several times earlier that this page should be rewritten in a sandbox to focus on how to identify problematic use of language, and moved away from being a "list of words I don't like". Doing that successfully would eliminate most arguments of this sort about the guideline, as well as concerns that it's a wanna-be content policy trying to masquerade as a style guideline.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the word "denialist" should not be listed, as it is applied in our most reliable sources in an accurate fashion to describe those who are not merely skeptical of interpretations of data but have taken an actively negative position against the data. A skeptic is weighing the pros and cons of all the data while a denialist is actively ignoring unwanted data. There are certainly people like this, and the descriptive word "denialist" should not be disallowed in those cases. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Binksternet, no one is saying that it is disallowed, but that it ought to be attributed in the text to a source. This is because the word carries intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. Use of the term implies a moral judgement; and if one party can successfully attach the label denialist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its viewpoint. Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization denialist becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. (the wording starting "This is because..." down to here is closely paraphrased substituting denialist for terrorist from Bruce Hoffman (1998). "Inside Terrorism". Columbia University Press. p. 32.)
 * Binksternet if a person disagrees with the position put forward by Carlos Rozanski's analysis that the dirty war was a genocide are they a genocide denialist? The ICJ disagreed with the proposition put forward by the Bosnian Government that the genocide in Bosnia was wide spread and not limited to the Srebrenica massacre, is the ICJ a denialist organisation? Organs of the Ukraine government state that the Holodomor was a genocide the Russian state disagrees, does that make the Russian state a genocide denialist state? Genocide denial is a political minefield (particularly with the possibility of state compensation). It is a criminal offence in much of Europe to deny certain events were a genocide. So given the political and legal issues surrounding accusations of genocide denial the term ought always to be intext attribution. -- PBS (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, PBS, there are people who are claiming that inclusion of the word "denialist" in WP:LABEL means that the word is disallowed even if it is an in-text attribution. The wording of the current page is currently vague enough and the construction awkward enough that it causes problems. I am definitely in favor of SMcCandlish's argument that the entire thing should be rewritten without reference to particular words. Until such time, I think it is important to remove words that don't have proper explanation on the page. jps (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "there are people" diffs please. -- PBS (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll give you one: . You can go find the others. jps (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That talk-page comment by User:Capitalismojo is in a thread which Capitalismojo starts by saying "... If it [i.e. the Mann quote saying the blog is a denial blog] is to be included, I suggest that it should be in the section on Watt's blog." -- i.e. it's about moving not disallowing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Disallowed from the lede, apparently. jps (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (jps) AFAICT that diff does not provide an example of a user stating that this guidance does not allow denial with intext attribution. Is that the best example that you have? If not please provide a more explicit diff. -- PBS (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That dispute is centered around the addition of a link to climate change denial with intext attribution . If you look into the dispute, several editors indicated their opposition to the content based on WTW.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * At the David Irving biography, long-standing consensus is to label him a holocaust denier in the first sentence. There is no in-text attribution at that point. The label is explained in the second paragraph and in the article body. This is an example of not needing in-text attribution at every instance of the word "denialist" or its relatives. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is obviously no shortage of reliable sources that label Irving that - to the point that requiring intext attribution would be futile and could become tendentious by suggesting that the label has only limited support when it is in fact ear universal.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But the same lead does use intext attribution "The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist" and it does it in the best possible way in that it selects the most authoritative source (for an English speaking readership) without listing others that could be used (from in the body of the same article) "After Irving denied the Holocaust in two 1989 speeches given in Austria, the Austrian government issued an arrest warrant for him and barred him from entering the country. In early 1992 a German court found him guilty of Holocaust denial ..." etc. So using intext attribution in this case is neither "futile and" is not "tendentious by suggesting that the label has only limited support". -- PBS (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know that the inclusion of the text referred to by Maunus is predicated on the text you are referencing. However, it seems to me that you are proposing that they are somehow connected. No one is saying we should stop using in text attribution, only that there are a variety of situations where we might use different constructions and it seems that this style guide as currently written gets in the way of meaningful discussion on how to do that. jps (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Several things are clear to me in this discussion. The first is that this deletion was initiated in order to win a battle at another article(s). Until that battle this word had rested quite comfortably and reasonably here. The second is that this word is indeed a "value-laden" "contentious" term that should be watched  rather than used willy-nilly in articles. Recall that this is not a list of value-laden contentious words that are "banned", just words to be watched. Thoughtfulness is not to be avoided. Care, particularly in BLPs should be taken. Words should be carefully considered. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Which deletion? I know I've deleted it at least once, not related to any "battle" of any kind. It's just an inappropriate addition. Whoever (if wasn't me) deleted it most recently isn't a real issue. Lots of us are saying "it doesn't belong here". Cf. Fallacy fallacy. The supposition that because some premise (i.e. that it should be removed) was (allegedy) faulty or false (i.e. the stated motivation for the deletion) means the conclusion (i.e. to remove it) is false, it unsound reasoning.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to add this word and no others was not well-considered. The consensus on the page is clear, the word shouldn't be there. If you'd like to get a broader consensus per WP:LOCAL, feel free to start a WP:RfC. jps (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * One is advised to address the argument, not merely assert votes to forestall discussion. It is agreed by even some who would delete the term that it is, in fact, value-laden and controversial. Policy therefore suggests including it in the words to watch. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Capitalismojo when I asked User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (jps)" for diffs for the statement jps had made "" the only diff given was which was a comment made by you. Did you mean even without in-text attribution? (a simple yes no will do because if no, the I will ask jps to provide another example, because I can not find one and if jps can then I will point out to that person how they are mistaken). -- PBS (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I have some concern with the quote from Dr. Mann being in the lede. I had added it with the in-text attribution to the body . As I currently understand policy/guidelines a quote is allowed (in-text attribution). Capitalismojo (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that I claim that the word "denialist" is disallowed per WP:LABEL is a clear and flat misstatement, proven so by my edits. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You cited this very page in your explanation for why a direct inline attribution should be removed from the lede. Do you deny this fact? jps (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that suggests including anything in the words to watch.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That word is trying to be removed for the purposes of labeling a Anthony Watts a "denier" without going against the manual. Regardless of the specifics, this entire process violates the spirit of why this is even a stated guideline.  WP:GAMING WP guidelines to present a specific point of view is certainly not inline with a collaborative WP effort.  Arzel (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Five of six uninvolved editors support removing the word (and 9 in total), and has been pointed out, this guideline doesn't apply to that dispute because of in-text attribution... Still, that hasn't stopped the 3 users edit warring against consensus from citing this page in the dispute anyway. Yes, gaming might be happening, but not from the people you're accusing. Please stop edit warring: even if there were no consensus (though there clearly is), that would mean the content should be removed, because guidelines are intended to represent community consensus, and "no consensus" means it does not.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not equal vote. JPS, and others, are gaming the system in order to label Watts as a denier.  In the process JPS called me a climate change denier, which is a personal attack.  Arzel (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I neither need nor want to "game" any system to "label Watts as a denier". What I noticed was that a faction of editors who include yourself, Capitalismojo, and Peter Gulutzan have been slavishly referring to the inclusion of this particular word in this particular MOS subpage as carte blanche to revert sourced statements and even quotations with in-line attribution from two different articles. I am actually in SMcCandlish's camp that the entire guideline ought to be overhauled, but it seems clear to me at least that there is consensus that the addition of the forms of the word "denial" was never agreed upon and further more people disagree with its inclusion that want it. That's the facts as I see them. I haven't seen any legitimate dispute of these fundamental points. To be clear, I would like to move on and completely overhaul the page, but we need to dispense with this kind of distracted argumentation over the inclusion of a single word. We'll never get to a better state for this guideline if we can't implement simple consensus-based changes. That's the sum total of my concern with this guideline right now. I'm inclined to say, "let's move on and rework the entire thing." We can start at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Draft, for example. jps (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * jps I have never slavishly referred to the inclusion of denialism in this particular MOS subpage as carte blanche to revert sourced statements and quotations with in-line attribution from two different articles. Stop with the false personal accusations and name-calling directed at me and other editors. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you pretending that you aren't part of the WP:TAGTEAM that is supportive of climate change denial positions? jps (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To anyone reading the above and wondering why we do nothing about jps's insults and lies: I don't know about the other targeted editors; for my own case I've watched how such things are tolerated on WP:AE so I have little current faith in it. Hopefully some remedy will eventually arise, meantime I try ignoring. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In fairness, asking for diffs for things like this is an unfair debate technique and comes across as an assumption of bad faith. No one saves up a shit-list of people abusing style, or arguing for changes or interpretations that lead to the abuse of style. If someone says they find a certain pattern to be recurrent, why not just accept that they do based on their editing experience, which is not yours?  MOS consensus decisions are not based on how frequent a problem is, but how much it matters when it happens.  It's a common sense thing. We have no rules about normal comma use in prose, because although omission of the comma after a clause like "In June 2015, ..." is the most common error on Wikipedia, it doesn't matter much.  How frequent something is mostly speaks to why the proponent of the change is bothering to propose the change.  This isn't a user behavior tribunal; we don't need diffs. The reasoning for a change will stand on its own merits. If it's implausible that the issue is recurrent, that should be pretty self-evident. Hauling someone in here to answer for themselves seems a bit heavy-handed. I can't think of any reason to doubt that when terms appear in this guideline as words-to-watch that some editors argue  they're forbidden. Every guideline is misinterpreted by some people as if it's a policy. We all already know that. That shouldn't affect in any way what to include here. No editor on WP needs another editor to track them down, after a personal 'gimme the evidence' kangaroo court, to "point out to that person how they are mistaken". Even if we agree they're mistaken. It's just not what we're here for. (I don't meant to go on a great length about this, but this sort of ARBCOM-and-ANI approach to style matters has been on the rise lately, and it's an unhelpful trend. (No, I won't provide a bunch of diffs illustrating, either.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no free pass for editors who make statements about other editors and fail to back them up. Mann jess says 9 editors have supported removing "denialist" (no names no diffs), and there is in-text attribution (not always, see ). Mann jess says that only 3 oppose removal (miscount, see my count above where unlike Mann jess I gave names), and says that those pro-keepers are edit warring (if this accusation is serious it should go to an appropriate forum which would judge Mann jess too), and says that all "three" pro-keepers are citing WP:WTW in the Anthony Watts dispute (see the previous request for diffs that hasn't been answered). Mann jess says that there is a consensus in this current discussion (not true), and if there were no such consensus that would mean the word must be removed (wrong, WP:NOCONSENSUS says "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal" i.e. prior to jps's first attempt to remove on March 22). Mann jess and jps have avoided earlier questions about their assertions, all we're seeing is more evidence-free or easily-disproved assertions along with jps's repeated accusation that opposing editors are themselves "climate change deniers". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to provide diffs of every user who !voted. Anyone can count for themselves. The rest of your post misrepresents what I've said, what others have said, or what our policies say, and at this stage it isn't worth responding to. Please take greater care when representing others.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is up to you to provide the information. If you are going to claim consensus, then you need to prove it.  Gaming WP guidelines in order to present the alarmist POV on a specific BLP is not how collaboration work.  Arzel (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When you find yourself disagreeing with a consensus (or lack thereof), it is up to you to drop the stick, Arzel. I suggest you do that. jps (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I find your remarks highly condescending considering you have been badgering the issue for months in order to label your current least favorite person a climate change denier. You claim consensus, yet cannot show what it is, so you would rather just try to shut people up.  Your attempt to force me from the discussion earlier shows just what kind of person you are.  You claim to want to work collaboratively, yet your action clearly show that to not be the case.  Arzel (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's up to the closer to figure out who is leaning what way. Participants inside the debate listing who is or isn't on their side usually is a waste of time. I've listed this at WP:ANRFC.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq you wrote "reliable sources use the term 'denialist' for good reason, and articles should reflect sources" what does "for good reason" mean? What is the good reason that some reliable sources accuse the Soviet Union of genocide denial in the Ukraine? Secondly no one is disputing that articles should reflect sources, but policy (and this guideline suggests that opinions should be formulated as facts) Ie "so and so stated that this and that are denying that a genocide took place[1]" rather than "this and that are genocide deniers[1]". BTW A good reason for one state to accuse another of genocide is political, but I do not think that is a good reasons for using the statement without inline attribution. See for example the third paragraph in the lead of genocide denial:

-- PBS (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC) User:Yobol you wore "In my view it is not a term that is inherently loaded language, as there is a clear definition of what it is and not inherently biasing." what is the clear definition of "genocide denial"? -- PBS (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the impression that I am defending the use of the words "denial" or "denialism" in all cases. All words can be misused, and I have no intention to defend all uses of the word.  Yobol (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish "I can't think of any reason to doubt that when terms appear in this guideline as words-to-watch that some editors argue as if they're forbidden. Every guideline is misinterpreted by some people as if it's a policy. We all already know that." If the guideline is being misinterpreted then there is no reason to change it. Instead if one comes across such instances then point out what the misinterpretation is. If there are no examples to hand then I suggest we wait until there are some, before making changes because it can equally be argued that the reason there are no examples to hand is because the guidance is working well and there are few disputes. -- PBS (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't agree that over-zealous interpretation of this guideline is a reason to not change it. Rather, it's a reasons to do so, to ensure that fewer things are listed here that don't fall into the category of usually-to-always problematic. Strife reduction is one of the main goals of all of MOS to begin with, and really of all WP:POLICY. Application of WP:IAR is, as well all know, becoming increasingly disfavored over time, as WP enters Organizational life cycle (increased structure, which can lead to bureaucracy and institutionalism).  Resistance against a red tape crisis is important.  "The rule may already be working well" is an argument against demands for "proof" that a rule is or isn't working well. It's not a good argument against ongoing consensus-forming against or for inclusion of something. A consensus for or against is by itself sufficient for or against inclusion.  There are at least two reasons for this: 1) We could basically never develop or change guidelines/policies without "evidence" for every tiny point, which defies common sense. We can even just collectively use common sense to create a rule in an absolute void of evidence if we want to.  E.g., we could decide to add "shyster" as an example of a pejorative label that is found in RS which should not be used on WP, even if we can't find it used in an article, after days of utterly wasted time looking for a case when it was used here. I don't think that would be the best example to add, but there's no reason it can't happen. 2) It's an assume-good-faith problem to imply that everyone who says they've encountered a problem that a rule (or it's alteration) would address are stupid or lying.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (jps) you have made a assertion "It is undeniable that I am tired of seeing the insipid WP:LABEL, WP:WTW, etc. being used as an excuse to excise the word "denialist" from Wikipedia as if it was some sort of magic spell of evil." you may well be tired of it, but you have also stated "Actually, PBS, there are people who are claiming that inclusion of the word "denialist" in WP:LABEL means that the word is disallowed even if it is an in-text attribution." who has done this? -- PBS (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We already discussed this. Capitalismojo. jps (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not true. As made clear by my diff above. Please strike. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What, this one? Or this one? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , But again, this isn't really relevant to the discussion.   &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not one of those four examples are directly relevant as none of the edits remove an a sentence in-text attribution justifying it/explaining it with reference to this guideline. Do you have an example of someone misunderstanding this guideline and justifying the removal of a sentence in-text attribution either in the edit history of an article or on a talk page? -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you serious with this? The evidence has been presented to you, and you're simply dismissing it. I don't know whether to chalk this up to a WP:COMPETENCE or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem. Anyway, it's pretty clear that you're trying to make some point or another, so out with it. jps (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (jps), you make chalk it up to anything you like, but making such comments public can be seen as a personal attack. You made a statement I asked you to provide a diff for this statement. You provided this diff. The author of the the diff you provided says that what (s)he wrote does not support your statement (I agree and if you think it still does then please quote the phrase in the diff that you think supports your statement). Your statement says "there are people" which is usually taken in my dialect of English to mean a lot more than one, and so I have asked you for a diff to validate your statement. The "point" is that if your statement is true then we may have to visit the wording to correct it so that that does not happen in future, or if only one or two editors have made that mistake, then we can conclude the the wording is by and large OK, but perhaps those editors would benefit from a comment placed on their talk pages, and perhaps invited to join this conversation. -- PBS (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say it should be taken out. My reading of the section is that the list of words is meant to provide clear examples rather than an exhaustive list of every word that could possibly be considered contentious (such an exhaustive list wouldn't be possible); and this discussion has clearly shown that the word isn't a good example because not everyone agrees that it's always contentious -- good examples are ones that will make the policy clear to everyone by discussing words everyone knows are contentious. People could still sometimes cite the policy to argue that it should be used with caution (because, again, the list is not exhaustive, and people can disagree over whether a label is contentious, especially based on context), but that's clearly something that should be decided on a case-by-case basis and not established from above with an overarching policy. --Aquillion (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. It appears "denial" is a good word to avoid in some contexts, but potentially appropriate in others, and this nuance is creating a hangup for some editors. We have 14 other examples, so the addition of one more should be unnecessary, especially when it appears to be confusing the issue rather than clarifying it.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) Why do you write "in some contexts" and not "in most contexts"? Is that "some" anything more than a rhetoric or do you have a metric for measuring it? (2) How it it confusing the issue? This guideline states "Value-laden labels may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." what is confusing about that? (3) You have not come up with one example where an editor argues that calling someone a denialist using in-text attribution should be removed justifying the removal using this guideline. It seems that you want the freedom to call someone a denailist without attribution. Do you realise that in may European countries genocide denial is a criminal offence, and in England there was a libel trial over the issue? So to call someone a genocide denialist has serious legal repercussions. To the best of my knowledge on other word in the list carries that level of controversy.    -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Re PBS's above "genocide deniers" example: all words are abused sometimes so it's quite likely that "denialist" would be misused in some examples. What I was earlier alluding to is that some people are known for having contrarian views, and often they will disagree with the majority opinion on lots of topics with the result that they will sometimes be right, thus encouraging them further. Just above Jess links to three denialist topics where adherents continue well past the boundaries set by reason and evidence. In general, articles should accurately reflect reliable sources if they describe someone as a denialist in one of the well known topics that attract denialists. To do otherwise would be to mislead readers. As with all words, a discussion may decide that for various reasons "denialist" should not be applied in a particular case, but there should not be a default "do not use" rule. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, yes one should use "denialist" if that's what the prevalence of reliable sources say or if there's an important attributed statement worth noting; as far as I can tell WP:WTW never said otherwise. But who !voted to remove "denialist" from the list? Mann jess claims that 9 editors did, but refuses to back that up. So I'm asking if they'd care to identify themselves. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Count me as a vote to remove the word from the list. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@User:Johnuniq you write "In general, articles should accurately reflect reliable sources if they describe someone as a denialist in one of the well known topics that attract denialists. To do otherwise would be to mislead readers." Yes I agree and the way to do that is with in text attrition. For example Irving is a denialist. How do I know that? Because an English judge reached that conclusion! In text attribution does not have to carry any uncertainty on this issue eg the there are different way it can be asserted: Clearly the former is the stronger statement, and this guideline has nothing to say which is better, just that such opinions should be done using intext attribution. Another problem which this sidesteps is "accurately reflect reliable sources". See the example I gave above in the section "Words labelled as labels" for more details on following example and others. I included two bombings with photographs that look remarkably similar: the King David Hotel bombing and 1983 United States embassy bombing. Given that there is a systemic bias in the sources used for creating articles on Wikipedia, is it acceptable to insist on in-text attribution for the former but not for the latter? If so one is agreeing to the overt perpetuation of that systemic bias. -- PBS (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) An English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist.
 * 2) In the legal opinion of Judge Charles Gray Irving is a Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist.

"Reportedly"
"Reportedly" should be added to the list of Expressions of doubt. In most cases on Wikipedia it is used to express rumor or speculation, which per guidelines should be avoided. In this manner the usage is similar to "purported" or "alleged". It is a passive way of not taking responsibility for a possibly unfactual statement by passing attribution to unnamed reports. The term is also slightly redundant as everything on Wikipedia should be verified by a reliable source and thus "reported".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Most new words suggested for this page are rejected, even if only because there are thousands of examples and we need to keep the number small. I'd agree that "reportedly" is a word that should almost always be removed or replaced when written in Wikipedia's voice, but why is it more important than all the other words that could be included in the same section?
 * As a separate note, I've been wondering about making a longer list of W2W as an essay, so that we have somewhere to put these words when they come up. Sunrise (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I was the one who reverted TriiipleThreat, asking, "W[hat] is wrong with 'reportedly,' if given proper context? Discuss on the guideline talk page?" I understand TriiipleThreat's point, but I've seen "reportedly" used decently as well; for example, in a contentious area where simply stating the matter as though it is fact is deceptive. The Expressions of doubt section that TriiipleThreat added "reportedly" to even states that "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." I don't see this as a WP:SPECULATION (WP:CRYSTALBALL) ball matter (that is a policy, not a guideline, by the way).


 * If others want to support TriiipleThreat adding "reportedly" to the guideline, and there is WP:Consensus for it, then I won't object to it. But as noted in the section above, this guideline is not for adding any word that someone does not like; nor does it mean that these words are automatically banned. Too often, this guideline is used to ban words across Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If I can briefly digress into my thoughts on the abstract issue: many of the words that are already in the guideline can also be used appropriately, so I would say a better question to consider is whether a proposed example is likely to add to the understanding of the readers. (In this case, my conclusion is to agree that it probably isn't too helpful, though I wouldn't strongly object if it were included.) I also agree on the point that this shouldn't be used to ban individual words - though FWIW, I do think that for many of the examples the best practice is indeed to never use them, even if only because they can be more trouble than it's worth to use properly. Sunrise (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well said. Flyer22 (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

"Cost the taxpayers" vs ?, is there a more neutral phrase?
I originally posted this question on the neutrality board even though it is only loosely associated with an article. In a discussion of some of the companies that have received government bailouts (TARP money), an article said the bailout "cost the taxpayers $___". This is instead of saying "cost the government" or "the US Treasury had a net loss of $___" etc. I feel that when people talk about something costing "the taxpayers" they are trying to make the cost personal. That in tern suggests, to me anyway, the use of a value-laden label when a more neutral label is available (WP:LABEL). When reporting government program financial results/performance is it reasonable to use more neutral terms for spending? I mean technically we cost talk about any government spending as "costing the taxpayers" but I think that adds a note of "this is wasting your money!" to the sentence. Should "taxpayers" be generally avoided in favor of other terms when discussing government spending? Springee (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Cost the taxpayer" is journalistic cliche. It is sloppiness. Furthermore, it is dangerously demagogic when it gets applied to large scale cases like this, because it postulates "The Taxpayer" as "all tax paying entities of the United States of America" as a single anthropomorphized entity. The cliche dates from the era when, indeed, federal revenues were largely from taxes, and it cropped up in local papers in the pens of muckraking journalists who were exposing municipal waste. However, TARP, the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts, etc., did not "cost the taxpayer." They cost the U.S. Treasury. Neil Barofsky's Bailout discusses how the programs were managed: revenues from the prior year were not diverted, because a great deal of this thing was put off the balance sheet. (Since the loans were going to be paid back, the repayment was counted as revenue against the loaned amount.) Therefore, in the specific case, the language is inaccurate, and in general, it's cliche. In addition, it's an outdated cliche that should never be ported to federal level discussions. Finally, as you say, it is emotionally loaded, if not politically charged -- especially in the era of the "Taxed Enough Already" Party. As for the better term, it depends on the context. The better term is the more accurate and precise one. (For TARP and auto-makers, it would be "Treasury.") Hithladaeus (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur with Hithladeaeus that it's POV-pushing. But I think this is so obvious that it probably doesn't belong here. Not every case of skewed spin has to to covered here, or this page would take all day to read.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Abortion stances
On a good portion of politician's pages, stances on abortion are being described as "pro-life" and "pro-choice". These are both politicized terms, invented to advertise each stance to the reader. These terms should, therefore, be added to the "Words that introduce bias" section.

Thoughts?


 * The alternatives will be wordy and start fights. In the case of "pro-life," there's no question that it's a political term. However, if one says "Supports legal availability of abortion," you'll get a quarrel, because all of the "pro-life" politicians who want to ban every abortion after 20 weeks, mandate parental consent, mandate consent from the father (including rapists and incestuous fathers), and who want to close all abortion providers will say that they're "in favor of legal abortion for some cases" (when the woman has had an ultrasound, gotten consent from her pastor, boyfriend, parents, and then waited 72 hours, gone to a Christian counseling service, watched videos of "partial birth abortions," and her life is in danger emergently and she is the victim of "legitimate rape"). Saying "supports Roe v. Wade" or "opposes Roe v. Wade" might be accurate, but I don't know that it would be informative (and there are now "pro-life" legislators who claim that they have no opinion at all on Roe). Letting the two sides have their political descriptors is bad, but trying to fix them may be worse. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Supports Roe v. Wade" is an Americanism, and not necessarily accurate anyway; you can be pro-[whatever] and agree or disagree with only some aspects of that court decision. That might even describe the majority on both sides, if you could get them to answer questions about their exact positions, devoid of politics.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" were being used outside of the narrow confines of bipolar American politics. However, you're right, and that's another reason why trying to find a fix to the problem of allowing the sides their biased phrasing may be extremely knotty. Hithladaeus (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I rarely comment on these often politicized discussions of so-called "words to watch," but I am going to adamantly state my opinion here: no self-appointed committee of four or five editors should presume to bowdlerize the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" from Wikipedia. These terms are in widespread mainstream use in the United States, and they are short-hand for two aligned clusters of pro-abortion and anti-abortion laws and policies widely understood by most Americans.  It's one thing to say that our biographical articles for politicians and other relevant persons should discuss their positions with greater detail and nuance, but it's quite another to attempt to impose a particular political viewpoint by banning the use of certain words.  This makes no more sense than banning the use of the words "liberal," "moderate," "conservative," and "libertarian" because there may be differences of opinion among readers regarding the definitions of these words.  If you're going to attempt to ban certain widely used and commonly understood words, you better be prepared for a major Request for Comment on point with community-wide notice.  No such wide-ranging guidelines should be adopted by small groups in relative isolation; this only brings unnecessary conflict and disrepute to MOS, which should never be politicized in any way.  MOS is an English-language style guide, not a political agenda.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe at present the consensus is that there isn't a way to avoid "pro-choice" and "pro-life." "Pro-life" is undeniably a bit of propaganda, though. This isn't a matter of opinion, either: the creation of the phrase by political consultants has been documented. It's as natural a phrase as "clean coal." Nevertheless, everyone seems to agree: there's no alternative but to report the terms as they are currently self-applied and understood by the politicians themselves, even at the cost of clarity. So, umm, you might calm down? No one's got the power or even desire to make a site-wide change, much less a conspiracy of three or four editors. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I am quite calm and your condescension is misplaced. The phrase "pro-life" is no more politically slanted than "pro-choice," and arguing to the contrary signals your own political bias and/or naivete.  I recognize political propaganda for what it is, regardless of its source on the ideological spectrum, however well intended its source believes it to be.  Editors who spend their time fighting over the meaning of commonly used political words usually have an agenda, and such agendas are the source of much grief, aggravation and wasted time on-wiki.  Your comments here and above clearly demonstrate your liberal-progressive political orientation, but I would say exactly the same thing to you if you were a right-wing Tea Party conservative: consider your own bias before you attempt to impose your viewpoint on the words we use.  If you think I'm one of the latter, you would be mistaken; I play it down the middle, and I don't play political games on-wiki with content.  A neutral point of view per WP:NPOV is one of the core policies of the encyclopedia, one I strongly support.  As for a "conspiracy of three or four editors," it would not be the first time that a LOCALCONSENSUS was achieved in contravention of NPOV, V and RS, after which great drama ensued before the situation was rectified.  If you want to correct the absence of detail in our political bios, I commend you, but trying to gain control of the "narrative" by banishing certain commonly used words -- or trying to redefine them to suit your own purpose -- is inconsistent with NPOV.  Don't do it.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The terms are American and not very well defined and certainly not widely used elsewhere. For example does pro-life mean one is in favour of life terms with no parole for certain types of crime? If not then does it mean one is against the death penalty? If not then does it mean one is against assisted suicides? Is prop-choice the opposite of this in all cases?

It seems to me that the terms "in favour of legalised abortion" and "against legalised abortion" are simpler to understand in an encyclopaedia which will be read by many people with different dialects of English. -- PBS (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * PBS, I would have no objection to including "generally in favor of legalized abortion" and "generally against legalized abortion," in addition to the commonly used American terms of art, for everyone's benefit. Why I objected above was the suggestion that the those commonly used -- and commonly understood among 320 million Americans -- terms should be purged entirely from Wikipedia.  This MOS page of "words to watch" has become a battleground for editors engaged in political or ideological content disputes elsewhere, who come here for a leg-up to reinforce their respective positions by black-listing (or de-listing) certain words.  That needs to stop.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are certainly both used in Ireland, at least. "Supports/opposes Roe v. Wade" of course is/could not. I don't know about the Wikipedia articles in question, though; this is just an FYI. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 16:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Words labelled as labels
Amongst earlier Proposed changes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels I proposed: and expressed agreement that this would be a beneficial change.
 * Changing the text from saying "Value-laden labels ... are best avoided" to saying "Value-laden labels ... may be best avoided"

The text currently presents: However this IMO prescriptive/formulaic wording has facilitated to dogmatic discussions on more related to the application of rules than the appropriateness of content. See: Talk:List of terrorist incidents in London for an example. My contention is that the current wording of the guideline may be taken to judge a title such as List of terrorist incidents in London as not being the best and this is before the appropriateness of the title has even been considered.
 * Value-laden labels—... —may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In some cases, in-text attribution might be a better option. ...

I also see the "are best avoided" wording to be in general contradiction with the opening text of WP:W2W which begins: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, ...". How can we say that "There are no forbidden words" but then assert that some "are best avoided"?

I twice attempted to make the change to a "may be best avoided" wording with the changes being reverted by.

GregKaye 09:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I explained why I reverted you, stating, "I disagree with changing 'are' to 'may be' because those are words that should generally be avoided in Wikipedia articles, unless widely supported by WP:Reliable sources and used in a way that adheres to WP:Due weight. We need no softening of language in that regard." My opinion on the matter won't be changing. And as pointed out in the discussion where I explained, you've been trying to get this text changed for some time, and started a WP:RfC on the matter. That WP:RfC gained no traction. You can obviously start another one, and advertise it by alerting the WP:Village pump to it. Flyer22 (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, as also noted in that discussion where I explained why I reverted you, I did my part to make that section better. Flyer22 (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 I really appreciate the part you played in the development of the text and consider this to go far beyond merely having tweaked the text as you had humbly described it. Thank-you.
 * I also completely agree with you that there are "words that should generally be avoided in Wikipedia articles". What I am saying is that a prescriptive approach in Wikipedia that, to my mind, dogmatically states "are best avoided".  This comes in the context where we have WP:PG on issues such as WP:OR, WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and, as you have also pointed out, WP:Due weight.  Very clearly we are not going present contents that are not well presented.  Obviously the problems within the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents in London came prior to your excellent tweaking.
 * In line with your comment I would also think that it may be reasonable to present:
 * Value-laden labels... —may express contentious opinion should generally be avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In some cases, in-text attribution might be a better option. ...
 * Still thinking of the mentioned example of List of terrorist incidents in London, say there is an attack in London that editors think fits into this content but, for whatever reason news reports chose to use a different wording than terrorism and terror, this should not necessarily mean that this story should be automatically barred from inclusion or, carrying this conjecture a little further, just because one theoretical story which had not been described in terrorist parlance had been referenced in the article, there should be no need, on this basis, to change the article title. However, most potential problems would seem to have been resolved by your edit and I am pleased to have drawn attention to the issue.  Say, for whatever reason news reports chose to use a different wording than terrorism and terror, this should not necessarily mean that this story should be automatically barred from inclusion or, carrying this conjecture a little further, just because one theoretical story which had not been described in terrorist parlance had been referenced in the article, there should be no need, on this basis, to change the article title.  However, most potential problems would seem to have been resolved by your edit.  For my part I am pleased to have drawn attention to the issue.  GregKaye 12:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I still disagree. Flyer22 (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, as noted here, PBS reverted me -- reverted to the stable mess of a text. Flyer22 (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit by Flyer22 on 22 March. Let me give you an example of how to handle this see the lead to the Al-Qaeda "It has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union, the United States, Russia, India and various other countries (see below)."

Prior to a long debate on the talk page it used to say in the passive narrative voice "...is a global broad-based militant Islamist terrorist organization founded by Osama bin Laden" it now says "is a global militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden" what was the advantage of including the word terrorist in the passive narrative voice of the article? -- PBS (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed that sort of specific attribution is how to do it properly. There would be no problem including that "designated ... by" sentence in the lead; omitting it to try to hide the fact that the organization is generally considered terrorist, internationally, would be the problem. In essence, I think the "what was the advantage of including..." question is moot, generally speaking: The inclusion of the wasn't the problem; rather, poor writing was the problem, and the word has been included in a different, more encyclopedic way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * PBS, that does not answer what I stated. What you reverted to is a poor change because that is telling editors that they have to use WP:Intext-attribution for those words in such cases. They do not. And it is silly to state that they have to, especially given the fact that WP:Intext-attribution can mislead. To give a matter WP:Intext-attribution in a case where WP:Reliable sources widely label a subject a certain way, with that WP:Intext-attribution making it seem like it is simply a matter according to one source or a few sources, is a misuse of WP:Intext-attribution. Since you want that "stable text" to remain, I will start a WP:RfC on this matter in a day or so. Flyer22 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * During a war phrases often get used for diplomatic and propaganda reasons. For example the during the Falklands War British were very careful not to call it a war for diplomatic reasons to do with the UN Charter, as soon as it was all over bar the shouting, then British government politicians called it a war. Likewise during the troubles in Northern Ireland British sources always referred to the IRA as terrorists. Voices of "terrorists" like Martin McGuinness was banned from being broadcast in the UK. He is now a member of the Northern Ireland government. Is he still a terrorist?  Was he ever a terrors? During the troubles American politicians and many American news sources shied away from calling the IRA and its members terrorist why? Politics obviously (did not want to loose the Fenian vote). What is more interesting was American court procedure before 9/11 see the Quinn v. Robinson case and political offence exception.  It is interesting how quiet the American authorities have become on the political offence exception since Americans civilians have become the target of terrorism and the IRA have ended their military campaign.


 * Systemic bias, if people are attacking the West and in particular the Anglosphere many English language sources will call them terrorists because as Bruce Hoffman pointed out "On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore." It is only when opinion is divided in the English speaking world over a "terrorist" organisation such as the IRA that one tends to get a split in the sources. However that is no reason for Wikipedia to us the label terrorist in the passive narrative voice.
 * The problems one runs into with your proposed changes is can Martin McGuinness be called a terrorist in the passive narrative voice of the article? If not Martin McGuinness then which BLP is it acceptable? It a person is found guilty of terrorist offensives better to state it that way. Eg see the way it is handled in the Martin McGuinness article. As the Telegraph points out in this article "Martin McGuinness: from convicted terrorist to political establishment" who shakes hands with the Queen.
 * In the article on King David Hotel there is mention of people who do not think it was a terrorist attack. So are you really suggesting that it is OK to label the 1983 bombing in Beirut a terrorist bombing (because it is commonly referred to that way) but not the King David Hotel bombing because some people in Israel have argued the other way. If however you say it was a terrorist attack then is it ok to lable Irgun a terrorist organisation in the passive narrative voice of Wikiepdia? What about the biography on Menachem Begin? it is much simpler in all these case to write articles where the accusations of terrorist and terrorism are attributed to the sources making the claims.
 * Flyer22, you stated above "WP:Intext-attribution is clear that it can mislead. I have certainly seen it applied wrongly.". Where? (If was I bet it is easy to fix and use intext attribution) or you will run into the sort of bias problems I describe above.
 * --PBS (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Take for example Boston Massacre, which is the example used at WP:POVNAME. Should we attribute and/or avoid using the word "massacre"? I'm not sure that's possible while still being consistent with NPOV. The key point here for me is that as far as I'm aware, it's standard practice that we can use contentious labels where RS widely apply them, and that it is a broader consensus than just this page. Sunrise (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Despite what some people claim, there is no conensus that the MOS a style guide covers article titles let alone the wording of article titles. This is a MOS page and WP:POVNAME is part of the Article Naming policy. However if you look at the content of the Boston Massacre article it does not use massacre throughout the text or describe the British soldiers a murdering mercenaries, instead it uses neutral words such as "the incident" descriptive words such as "killing" (not murder). -- PBS (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. My point was that it is already established (as part of policy, not part of the MOS) that contentious labels can be used when the RS are sufficiently strong. That doesn't mean I think indiscriminate use is neutral, but I also don't think a neutral Boston Massacre article could be made without ever using the word "massacre," or only using it with attribution, given that (I assume) it's the name which is overwhelmingly used in the sources. Sunrise (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This "MOS doesn't cover titles" nonsense really needs to stop. It simply isn't true.  WP:AT policy and its naming convention guidelines explicitly defer to the Manual of Style again and again. There's no "conflict" between AT and MOS; anyone who thinks there is simply does not understand WP:POLICY properly, or how policies and guidlines work together.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't even see why PBS is asking me "where?", when WP:Intext-attribution lists examples of how WP:Intext-attribution can mislead. It does that because WP:Intext-attribution has misled on Wikipedia countless times before. I don't see the need to go into my memory and pull out examples. But like I stated in my "15:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)" post above, I'll get back to this later. I don't want to spend my Saturday or Sunday debating. On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me to this talk page since it's on my WP:Watchlist. And since I know that PBS and some others are watching, I won't WP:Ping them to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's an important point. Per WP:BIASED, etc., RS are expected to make "value-laden statements", Wikipedia editors are prohibited from doing so by WP:OR, etc.
 * This list is being used to exercise and artificial constraint on core policies.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning more and more toward this view myself.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: "I disagree with changing 'are' to 'may be' because those are words that should generally be avoided in Wikipedia articles ...." (toward top of this subsection) – This is just another symptom of the fact that we're lumping together two clearly distinguishable kinds of terms; those that are verifiable with and need to be attributed to reliable sources ("cult", "terrorist", "criminal", "controversial"), and those which are inherently nothing but judgmental opinions or aspersion-casting labels ("pervert", "bigot", "extremist"). If we're going to list specific terms, we need to split them into two separate lists, and one of those should be prefaced with "are best avoided", the other to something more qualified. It probably isn't "may be best avoided", after all, but something else, like "should only be used if supported by the preponderance of reliable sources", or something like that. We were converging on "may be best avoided" because the munged list included terms that should always be avoid outside a direct quotation, and terms that are not problematic at all when we write carefully, and properly source what we're writing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC) PS: I've interspersed various responses above; if you care to see them, just diff my recent edits; they're all back-to-back.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish the division not that simple. As is mentioned in the Bombing of Dresden article the historian Donald Bloxham considers "The bombing of Dresden on 13–14 February 1945 [to be] a war crime". He further argues there was a strong prima facie case for trying Winston Churchill among others and a theoretical case Churchill could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation". The problem we have here is that while a word may have a specific meaning in certain contexts "in the popular mind" some of these words have a "moral rather than a legal categorisation". As an example see the furore in America when Reuters did not describe those who destroyed the World Trade Center towers as terrorists.. In the case of criminals it depends on the political circumstances surrounding the use of the term. In simple cases under a citizen's domestic jurisdiction the use of the term criminal is usually none controversial, but as soon as politics gets involved and particularly if there is disagreement between jurisdictions, then the term criminal becomes controversial and probably ought not to be used in the passive narrative voice of the article. For reasons like this is is often cleaner to write "John Smith was convicted of the murder of ..." rather than "The murderer John Smith ..." or "John Smith murdered ..." -- PBS (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can concur will all of that, I think. And I know the division isn't that simple, but we have to start somewhere. Maybe a restart is a better idea. Your summary analysis there could be rewritten into instructional/example material for this page, actually. Aside from confusion of terms that  have judgmental connotations with those which  have them (a real distinction, even if there's a grey area), what has mired this discussion, and full acceptance of this as a real guideline, is the very idea of coming up with some list of "words to watch", rather than a principle and methodology, if you will, for critical editorial thinking that identifies such terms on the fly and in context.  The title of this page is misleading for another reason, since terms or labels are not always single words, but are often phrases. E.g., "terrorist cell" is problematic for more reasons that some people attaching emotive weight to "terrorist".  "Cell" is dehumanizing, as well as diminutive, and the phrase has become a conceptual unit, frequently depicted fictionally in a "here comes Jack Bauer to kick their asses" way; it's a pat trope, and what it conjures in many readers minds may not relate closely to the reality of the subject. I just a few days ago saw an RM debate on this very phrase, being used to describe people who were not even acting as a "cell".  Anyway, I think this erstwhile guideline needs to be rethought as a guideline on  "words to watch", not a list of words some editors have issues with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In Britain there is a charity called The Donkey Sanctuary working all over the world to stop people maltreating asses. -- PBS (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it seem the basic thrust of the guideline should be methodological, given the terminological "gray areas", for example.
 * Perhaps the word "preponderance" should be avoided as a potential source of wikilawyering, as with the case of "climate change denialist/denialism/denier". In cases such as that, in-line attribution should sufficiently cover the use of the "gray-area" term in context, and not transgress NPOV with respect to DUE/WEIGHT.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Trying to avoid "climate change denial", however, is itself a WP:UNDUE problem, though. One side of that debate has science backing it up, and the other has largely just a bunch of indignant fist-shaking. They are not comparable.  The only reason we're not lumping climate change deniers in with other denialist kooks like Holocaust deniers, is because American Republicanism has been sympathetic to climate change denialism for short-term economic reasons, increasing the popularity of that nonsense, and a significant number of editors are Republican Americans. This is really no different at all from WP being bent by largely the same editors to favor literal interpretation of the Bible as the truth. We don't permit that kind of extreme POV mongering from them on that topic, so why would we permit it on this one?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This issue continues to be under discission, now at AN/I.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Placeholder; I will continue this matter later. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Problem with the "by whom?" template
I just added it to the phrase "also known as", which in that case is a passive verb being used inappropriately because it's not clear by whom, but it links here to a picture of a weasel. In this case the problem is not the wording "also known as" (which is almost always acceptable in article leads) but the alternate name itself. It seems to me like linking to the "weasel words" guideline is a bit much; does "also known as" qualify as a weasel word just because it's a passive where some people would prefer to know the subject? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 16:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hijiri88, I don't see why the Template:By whom belongs in that case. Per the WP:Alternative title policy, it is common to place the alternative title in the lead or lower in the article. Furthermore, unless it's only a small group of people (who are either WP:Notable or a part of a WP:Notable club or organization) using the alternative title, asking "by whom?" makes it seem like only one person or a few people use that alternative title. Flyer22 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, in that case, it seems you are only talking about the spelling, rather than "Chao Heng." Chao Heng redirects to a different article, by the way: Emperor Zhenzong of Song. Flyer22 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Chao Heng" is a modern Mandarin pronunciation of a Chinese pen name Nakamaro used, but as far as I can tell the only people who would ever call him that are modern Chinese reading said pen name -- and modern Chinese who "know" him apparently know him by the Chinese reading of "Abe no Nakamaro" anyway. Looking at the page history it would seem the information was taken from Japan Encyclopedia, a source whose reliability is questionable, but on the off chance someone actually does know him by that name I tagged it rather than removing it outright. (I own a copy of the dubious source in question but it's in transit at the moment. If I check it later and it does come from there I'll probably remove it.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Excessive superlatives
We need to address this, at least with a cross-reference to WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL. I'm running into a cases (e.g. ongoing at The Fall (TV series)) where people will editwar to include multiple cases of "extremely" and the like. This is not encyclopedic writing. These kinds of gushingly emotive words as an entire class ("terribly", "excessively", "unbelievably", "shockingly", etc.) are words to watch, and a clear WP:NPOV problem. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I notice this in topics related to sports, "shockingly" being the main culprit. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 00:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue that I, and other editors, are taking with your edits to The Fall is that you are describing a character as "a very capable detective who's very comfortable". In this instance, "she's an extremely capable detective who's very comfortable" not only reads better but avoids double use of the superlative "very". --Unframboise (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Moot point at that article (where the ultimate fix was, perhaps obviously in retrospect, "she's a capable detective who's comfortable with ..."). The entire section has radically changed (and nice work on that, seriously). The point I'm raising here is that "extremely" should never have been used in the first place, and we have a problem with this exaggeratory kind of prose at a large number of articles, mostly entertainment-related (including, as Goldenrod noted, sports; I encounter this a lot myself, e.g. "gobsmacking", etc., in snooker articles). There's a general tendency to ape the style of breathless, emotive prose found in pop-culture and sports journalism ("stunning", "masterful", "tour-de-force"; "dominated", "demolished", "thrilling"). It would obviate the need for us to add many individual words of this sort to this list, if we just had a summary section about this entire class of wording, and used to point to WP:PEACOCK for more detail (and people can, obviously, reasonably expect to find coverage of such material here, even if we do it just in summary). Then W2W could focus more on less obviously problematic unencyclopedic word use.  It also comes up in the negative way at war, crime, and other "conflict" articles ("devastating", "vicious", "brutality", etc.), and I guess we have to cover that here, since there's no corresponding "WP:HONEYBADGER" page that covers the exact opposite of WP:PEACOCK.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Visionaries are just people who get praised.
So it should be removed from the puffery examples. An esteemed visionary isn't OK, same as a remarkable chef isn't, but plain "chef" is fine, and so is "visionary". That's my opinion, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The word is almost never used on WP to literally mean "someone who [allegedly] experiences paranormal visions", and it would be hard to use it that way without triggering WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE concerns, unless it was qualified ("a self-described visionary and psychic", "worshiped as a visionary and prophet by adherents to her new religious movement", etc.) WP would never just call someone a visionary, in WP's own voice. So, it's a word to watch either way, with the principal use of it being excessively PEACOCKy praise: "a visionary CEO", "his visionary plan", "their visionary approach to development", etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"Dead" vs. "deceased": Synonyms vs. Euphemisms
The issue of whether or not the term "deceased" falls afoul of WP:EUPHEMISM has come up here. My question is, to avoid disputes in the future, would it be a good idea to list unacceptable euphemisms and acceptable synonyms? Aside from "dead" vs. "deceased", I can see issues coming from such pairings as "prostitute" vs. "sex worker" and "corruption" vs. "graft". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Crisco 1492 (Chris Woodrich), this was discussed before at this talk page; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 4. "Deceased" is fine to use in place of "dead," and, depending on the context, sounds better than using "dead." Flyer22 (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. But the question still stands: if we have had discussions on such terms, wouldn't it be best to have a list of acceptable and unacceptable ones? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We have the guideline note that certain words should be avoided, especially depending on the context. But we've been clear that none of these words are banned and that a list would not be helpful since people already use the guideline's listed words to enforce a strict interpretation of what words can and cannot be used. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 5, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 5, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 6, and this discussion above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So not even an FAQ regarding commonly discussed words? I doubt most people would think to search the archives. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * An approach like MOS:REGISTER and/or MOS:FAQ might work.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust denial
I added the “contentious label” template to a number of Holocaust denial -related categories. This template was removed; a removal which I am not contesting and currently do not intend to revert. I am by no means a Holocaust denier. I agree, the Holocaust is a fact in the same sense as any number of other historical events. However I enjoy editing Wikipedia, and I thought the “contentious label” template would look cool, and the term “denialist” is listed as a contentious label.

I apologize for my potentially inappropriate edit.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a dispute template, indicating a problem that needs to be fixed. We don't add templates because they "look cool". :-) I'm sure you'll get the hang of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What's contentious about the term holocaust denial? Guy (Help!) 14:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If it was not contentious then there would have been no need for Irving v Penguin Books Ltd. See Genocide denial, there is a BLP issue when someone is accused of denial. -- PBS (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. The question is not what's contentious about denying the holocaust, I think the abhorrent nature of that activity is self-evident, the question is, since when has identifying holocaust deniers as what they are, been contentious? The deniers don't like being called on it, but the term itself is entirely reasonable - and the judgement in Irving v. Penguin makes this abundantly clear. As an aside, Irving would not be able to sue today thanks to the Defamation Act 2013. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the “look cool” part. I thought it would be a contentious label because “denialist” was listed on this “Words to watch” article as such. Thank you for mentioning “dispute template”; I didn't know of that concept.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that, when we tag articles, "contentious" does not mean contentious in real life, it means contentious within wikipedia editors. Usually one thing implies the other, but not always. We have stable articles about real-life contentious things, and edit wars over articles on trivial things. Cambalachero (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The word cisgender at the Caitlyn Jenner article
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Using "Vulture fund" as a page name
Distressed securities fund was recently moved to Vulture fund per WP:COMMONAME. Does the new name violate WP:W2W?

Responses

 * Yes - To abide by WP:NPOVNAME - "Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious” Distressed securities fund is far more encyclopedic alternative. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 22:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No - There is no encyclopaedic alternative, there are no references which use that term and the term "vulture fund" is universally accepted to the point where any other term would not be WP:RECOGNIZABLE since it would be looking for increasingly obscure terminology to satisfy the whims of a few. There is not also a huge deal of evidence that it is considered derogatory by a large mass of people, just those concerned with reversing the reputation the financial industry has gained in the last 15 years. Call them what they are: Vulture funds - and if the view that is it considered derogatory by some is noteworthy, then we should make efforts to incorporate that (minority) view, while taking special care that Vulture fund is a Non-neutral but common name. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - The first W2W item under WP:LABEL is value-laden labels. In reading the RM and some of the extensive commentary in the discussions above on the article's talk page, I saw little disagreement (none, actually, but I didn't read all of the discussions above the RM) that "vulture fund" was a pejorative term. (If I missed something by not reading all of the discussions above the RM, please note that my !vote is predicated on there being a significant opinion that it is a pejorative term.) Several people who supported the move in he recent RM and in discussions above did so citing that it was a "non-neutral but common" term. But there is a difference between non-neutral and pejorative. As a pejorative term, I see "vulture fund" as a value-laden label, and therefore inappropriate in the name of the article. However, I do not endorse any specific alternative name, but that is not the question under consideration. I also agree (weakly) that "vulture fund" represents jargon. As someone who in not a finance professional and have no experience investing in such funds, I would not know by the name what a vulture fund is. But if I worked at it, I might be able to figure out, based on the name alone, what a "distressed securities fund" is. Again, I do not advocate any particular alternative name, only that it would be helpful if the name gave enough information for the reader to know what the article was about. Dcs002 (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dcs002, Comatmembro is arguing for this exception in policy based on "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". There simply are not any alternatives to this term and the editor in question has yet to provide evidence of any alternatives in credible sources despite being asked to do so repeatedly, while the world's most prominent newspapers seem to have no trouble in using the term "Vulture funds" freely with none making attempts like the ones seen here to substitute it. I suggest you examine that discussion more carefully as it is split fairly down the middle with a number of editors pointing out that the sources indicating that the term is pejorative are thin at best and that the arguments put forward are based on the personal sentiments of editors on what the word "vulture" means to them rather than any actual sources. In the proposed move page I made the point that the original move from Vulture fund to Distressed securities fund was based on conjecture rather than evidence and that still stands. Furthermore, I believe the views of user Meatsgains on that discussion and on the move discussion should be taken with a sack of salt as he has a long history of misrepresenting views and discussions while claiming consensus when it is nowhere to be seen. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * SegataSanshiro1, it already looks like the consensus is headed toward no, so this might be moot, but I wanted to clarify that the question we are considering is not whether any alternative title would be better. The question is very narrowly asking whether the current name of this article violates WP:W2W, and to the extent that the name is pejorative, it does violate WP:LABEL because it is value-laden. This is a separate question from what it should be replaced with. However, I trust the closer will consider my !vote in light of my reason for it, as they always should (which is why I gave my reason). If my reason is not valid (i.e., if "vulture funds" is really not pejorative), then my !vote should not be tallied in the affirmative. We have really good closers here, and I trust they will give my !vote whatever weight it deserves. From the discussion below, the question of whether it is pejorative seems open. Would an average investor ask their financial adviser, "Should I put some money into a vulture fund?" Would a financial adviser tell a client "I think you should invest in a vulture fund?" Would an investment banker have brochures for clients about these funds that call them vulture funds? If the answer to these questions is no, then the term is value-laden. What are they called when the fund managers (if that's the correct term) are trying to attract investors to buy these distressed debts? Dcs002 (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:LABEL is very clear: "Value-laden labels ... are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", which is emphatically the case here, even if you accept the claim that the word is intrinsically value laden, which I do not. Nobody here is trying to use the word "vulture fund" in an attempt to insult the fund managers: we're using the word simply and precisely because that is what almost everybody calls them.  So to answer the narrow question, this use clearly does not breach WP:W2W at all.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody in this discussion may be using the word as an insult but that does not mean other sources and individuals aren’t. There are countless articles using the term in a negative way. Meatsgains (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are also far more sources that don't use the term as an insult though, and simply use them - as Jonathan A Jones says - because that's what everybody calls them. Again though, the fact that you deem those other sources and individuals to be using the term in an insulting way is your opinions based on your own worldview and connotations to the term. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources explicitly state that it is. It is not a matter of my personal opinion. Meatsgains (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No -- it's thoroughly undesirable to head down a path where editors must avoid "pejorative" words even if they are widely used in reliable sources to describe an entity. Doing this would be fundamentally incompatible with NPOV.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Abiding by NPOV would not allow having a word considered a pejorative as a page name. Meatsgains (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Pejorative in your opinion. There have still been no credible sources brought up in this discussion which say the term is such, let alone anywhere near the amount of credible sources available which use the term Vulture fund freely (which includes the United Nations and numerous governments). SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I posted these links below but will add them here for your convenience. Stanford Journal of International Law and the book International Interplay note the term is a pejorative. Meatsgains (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No - There's nothing new here which isn't discussed at WP:NPOVTITLE and the term Vulture fund meets all the criteria there: "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title". The term "vulture fund" is not an example of "Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later" or of "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious", and so should be used.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "referred to mainly by a single common name "- What about distressed debt fund?  these sources use the term "distressed debt fund" with no mention of "vulture fund". Meatsgains (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No The lack of the ability to provide sufficient sources to show that it is widely believe the term is derogatory or pejorative demonstrates that it isn't. Certainly, if individuals here find it pejorative, there must be a few individuals who think similarly.  You can find individual people who think anything, some of them even get an op-ed or a blog post published.  However, the preponderance of evidence shows that this term is widespread, and is not felt to be derogatory.  Because of that, I find no support for the assertion that it is.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Stanford Journal of International Law and the book International Interplay note the term is a pejorative. Not sure how credible this is but The Law Dictionary defines it as derogatory. Meatsgains (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No - MOS is a guideline, WP:COMMONNAME is a policy. Policies supersede guidelines. The only argument that could even potentially be made consists of the title being perceived as non-neutral (in breach of WP:NPOV) which is easily countered by WP:V due to the sources referring to the funds in question as "vulture funds" including notable and highly reliable sources from the UN and the BBC. The second is WP:IAR but this would not improve the article, instead it would be introducing a new WP:OR or fringe-esque name. My two cents on the actual name of "vulture fund" is that it describes a type of fund that goes around picking up "dead" debts to 'clean-up' the economy arena, nothing pejorative just personal POV's on misunderstood creatures based on popular biases just like sharks; the name is descriptive of the actions, not the popular bias. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The RfC here is asking a very specific question: "Does the new name (Vulture fund) violate WP:W2W?" I am reading a lot of references to guidelines and policy about naming conventions, but not much in relation to WP:W2W. It would help me to hear arguments relative to that specific question. Even the OP argued from WP:NPOVNAME. I guess I'm saying this discussion seems to be off track. Dcs002 (talk) 05:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * CommentWe have the W2W guideline vs the Article title policy. It's clear that the W2W guideline is meant to effect article content not article titles. It's clear that WP:AT lays the rules down for article titles. WP:NPOVNAME is a part of this policy. W2W is not relevant to this discussion. An actually relevant question would be is "Vulture fund" a colloquialism and if "Distressed securities fund" is a more obvious and encyclopedic alternative.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - "Vulture fund" is a pejorative, as noted in RS. The term is also misleading and derogatory, thus violating NPOVNAME. There are RS which use more accurate, encyclopedic, and descriptive terms for these types of funds such as "distressed securities funds" or "distressed debt funds". Meatsgains (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - see discussion below. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  21:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No / Wrong forum (although this is the forum suggested by the RM closer, so whatever). The proper forum would be, IMHO, WP:NPOVNAME.  Suppose that OP is correct and "vulture" is pejorative.  This fact is wholly irrelevant if it's still the common name.  Additionally, there are many terms where some people think a certain term is pejorative, and even worse, some topics that are factionalized such that "any term that isn't my faction's preferred one is wrong."  Wikipedia tiebreaks the same way it always has: it uses the most common name.  Supporters of this keep claiming there are tons of sources that use "distressed securities fund" but they seem incredibly minor and never seem to show up, while sources for "vulture" overflow.  SnowFire (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Never seem to show up? Have you even read the discussion section? There are hundreds or even thousands of references specifically dealing with distressed securities funds from major journals. WP:NPOVNAME states the title usually "follows the sources and uses [the non-neutral] name as its article title", which I have no problem with; what I do have a problem with is the quality of the sources being used to support the "vulture fund" title, when most of the sources acknowledge it is a sensationalist name, and go as far as to provide it within quotation marks. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  17:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Youreuphemism of choice doesn't actually seem to have caught, your claims to the contrary, to go by Google Books searches. One of the top hits for "distressed securities fund", I note with some amusement, is from a book entitled "The Art of Vulture Investing: Adventures in Distressed Securities Management": since "vulture" is used in the book's TITLE, it seems that the author a) wasn't bothered by the term; and b) chose a term that potential readers would recognize. Both points seem to undercut your argument. --Calton | Talk 14:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No By WP:NPOVNAME principles "prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun", the name 'vulture fund' should be used. Also, there is no other term that is recognizable and in common enough use to serve as a replacement. LK (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The alternative name to use would be either "distressed debt fund" or "distressed securities fund". Though less recognizable, both options far more encyclopedic and descriptive. Meatsgains (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No. It's too late to gin up a euphemism, as even the most cursory of Google searchs in News and Books shows that "vulture fund" and "vulture investting" are well-established terms. --Calton | Talk 14:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, and I'm very surprised Junk bonds have been euphemised as "High-yield debt". EEng (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing junk bonds out. Vulture fund's page should be treated in the same exact way. We should use a neutral encyclopedic term (distressed securities fund) as the page name and have the pejorative (vulture fund) as a redirect. Meatsgains (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, junk bonds should be Junk bonds. EEng (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that you think that, but I was thanking you for bringing up "junk bond". I didn't think of comparing junk bond's page to vulture fund's. IMO, this is a perfect example for why vulture fund should be changed. Though "junk bond" is used far more often, "high-yield debt" is a more neutral term to use as a page name. Meatsgains (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOVNAME, and BTW the fact that the analogy to junk bonds didn't occur to you suggests you may not have your finger on the pulse of common parlance in the industry. EEng (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither the industry nor common parlance are the points of the matter here, and you mentioning that example is exactly why this should be discussed further. I can't fathom how something with "junk" (or any other value judgement or metaphor for that matter) at the start of it could ever be considered seriously, especially in an encyclopaedia. We're predisposing readers to certain outlooks from article titles - something which should ring anyone's neutrality bell. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  03:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think common parlance isn't the question, better see WP:COMMONNAME. We call things what everyone else calls them, not by euphemisms. If you can't imagine an article title beginning with junk, see Junk science. Also see, demonstrating that vulture fund has been in use for some 30 years, while distressed security fund apparently was invented sometime after 2008. The google-search counts given elsewhere in this discussion are conclusive as well. EEng (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why should we allow junk bond to redirect to high-yield debt and not vulture fund to distressed securities fund? Let's maintain consistency here. Meatsgains (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Vulture fund is cited in reliable sources but is a pejorative. Before the page move, there was a redirect from Vulture fund to Distressed securities fund, which was adequate. As an appropriate example, Obamacare, which is a pejorative, redirects to Patient protection and affordable care act (not Obamacare) even though it is much more commonly used name. On the Patient protection and affordable care act article, there is a paragraph explaining the term, which the Vulture fund article should mirror. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't a particularly relevant example. The term "Obamacare" is contentious because it is used predominantly by one group of people to discredit and slander another while the act itself actually has an official name. What is under discussion here is more akin to Loan shark, where the term is not particularly neutral but is widely accepted and referenced and has no (noteworthy) alternative. Unlike Patient protection and affordable care act, the term "distressed securities fund" simply doesn't exist, and if it does somewhere then it certainly isn't particularly noteworthy. WP is here to provide objective and well referenced information, not to jump through a series of convoluted hoops to avoid hurting the feelings of a few hedge fund managers who don't like what people call their industry. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "The term "Obamacare" is contentious because it is used predominantly by one group of people to discredit and slander another while the act itself actually has an official name." Could't the same argument be made here for distressed security funds? It seems like one group of people with a particular point of view about these funds are attempting to "discredit and slander" their work by pinning them as "vultures." Maybe we have the official name wrong, maybe there is a better name than distressed securities fund, but I highly doubt that that name is a pejorative that draws its meaning from the actions of flesh eating birds. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 15:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I closed the RM at: Vulture fund RM by moving the article back to Vulture fund based on the discussion and COMMONNAME. I suggested an RFC for wider community comment because one or two editors who think a term or word is pejorative should not override our WP:COMMONNAME policy unless there is wider consensus to do so. I look forward to a lively discussion. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Question to help me make up my mind Could someone supporting the name "Distressed securities fund" provide multiple, scholarly sources for the use of that term so we can know whether or not it is widespread among scholarly sources? Or perhaps a style guide which deprecates the use of the term "vulture fund"?  How am I to know a) whether or not the term is supposed to be pejorative and b) even if it is, that there exists a reasonable less-pejorative term?  Some help for people who aren't familiar with the particulars, in the form of reliable sources that explain this, would be most useful.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 01:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I could answer that question for you now as I asked that same question numerous times in the move (back) discussion, but since you are referring to those supporting the use of the term then I shall allow the tumbleweeds to speak for themselves. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, my previous weak support for "Distressed securities fund" was simply because this was a far better name than the alternative "Distressed equities fund" which was being suggested at the time, since the main modern vulture funds invest in distressed debt, not distressed equities, and their historical forerunners invested in distressed real-estate, not distressed equities. I have never had any problem with the much simpler "vulture fund" which is (1) the common name among both amateurs and professionals, (2) not intrinsically derogatory, although sometimes used in a derogatory fashion by campaigners (the name is used approvingly by some economists noting the useful role of vultures in tdying up ecosystems), and (3) accurately describes both historic (distressed real-estate) and modern (distressed sovereign debt) funds. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer your questions here from the "tumbleweeds" vulture fund is used more throughout sources but that doesn’t mean it is encyclopedic. A more neutral and descriptive term, not more common, should be used. The “less-pejorative” term would be distressed securities fund or maybe even distressed debt fund. Here are a few Sources noting the word is a pejorative:
 * http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/09/governments-turn-to-the-un-to-avoid-paying-their-debts/ “It is very unfortunate that a document like a UN resolution uses the word “vulture” not once, but twice. This is a word with a clear pejorative connotation that is not appropriate for a UN document.”
 * Um... really? How does this meet WP:RS in any way? The article (or blog post) was written by "Guest post" (ie. someone anonymous) from the Mises Institute (a right-wing economic think tank) interviewing a non-notable economist who reckons the UN is wrong to use the term. If anything it confirms the validity of the Vulture fund terminology if the United Nations uses it... SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right under "Guest Post" it says the name of the author and the original source of the article. Nothing on the website for Mises leads me to believe they are a right-wing economic think tank, the article doesn't seem to be bias one way or the other, but then again I'm not too familiar with Austrian polictis. Here it is: https://mises.org/library/governments-turn-un-avoid-paying-their-debts Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 23:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29142017 "The legal action by investors known as "hold-outs" or, pejoratively, as "vultures", has hindered Argentina's efforts to return to financial normality."
 * A hold-out and a vulture fund are different things. In the Argentina case not all hold-outs are vulture funds. Aside from it being a passing mention to it being "pejorative" (and not backed up by anything or anyone), the BBC reporter is clearly mixing up terminology since the two terms are by no means synonymous. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/argentinas-cronies-are-fair-game "Although the creditors are often referred to as “vultures,” the pejorative is highly misleading." Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an opinion piece from a person who is not noteworthy whatsoever. The fact that she refers to all of Argentina as a bunch of "cronies" clearly shows that this person has a dog in this fight. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Patricia Adams is the director of Probe International - an independent think tank. I found her article to really go both ways after rereading it a few times. But thank you for discrediting my source here so that everyone who only briefly went over this discussion passed this over because YOU deemed it an opinion piece from a non-noteworthy person. I am going to take a shot in the dark here and say you didn't take the time to read it, rather you saw her name - didn't know it - and saw the word "cronies" and immediately assumed it was a slam piece. Understandable, but i'd appreciate a bit more due diligence on your end if you would't mind? Here's her bio, by the way http://journal.probeinternational.org/about/staff/ Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 05:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Calm down a bit please and stop trying to discredit me. This is actually the second time I have read this source and I dismissed it the first time when Meatsgains tried to use it to justify whitewashing the terminology from another page. I even looked at her bio which you're now linking. I still maintain the same opinion. However, is the leap of faith you are asking everyone to take is for us to believe that the United Nations, numerous governments, NGOs, world leaders and influential figures aren't as notable as this Patricia Adams opinion piece blog? SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

None of these offer an alternative to the term and they are pretty weak sources. Just doing a simple CTRL+F in the Vulture funds article can provide a tonne of far more credible sources which use the term "vulture fund" in a matter-of-fact way. This, by the way, includes laws in the UK and US as well as the United Nations and much much more. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, my initial attempt at provided reliable sources came up short. So, I did some additional research. Here is a nice source that does offer up alternative name for the term:
 * http://www.californialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/08-Muse-Fisher.pdf "Thus, throughout this Comment, the terms “vulture” or “vulture fund” will refer to sovereign distressed-debt funds, while corporate distressed-debt funds will retain the less pejorative term, “distressed-debt funds.” Cf. Wheeler & Attaran, supra, at 254 n.3 (“In the context of sovereign debt, ‘vulture fund’ is a pejorative name for investors who purchase discounted debt on the secondary market.)
 * Perhaps "Distressed-debt fund" is a better alternative? Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 23:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Take a closer look at the source - it uses Vulture funds throughout the article. The only reason the author is using this other terminology is to differentiate two different kinds of investor:
 * "In sum, sovereign vulture funds are distinguishable from corporate distressed-debt funds. Specifically, the best interests of sovereign vultures are not aligned with the best interests of the sovereign itself, whereas the interests of a corporate distressed-debt fund are generally aligned with the interests of the bankrupt company. Additionally, the benefits vulture funds provide debtor nations are likely overstated, whether in their ability to unilaterally root out corruption or to reduce the cost of capital. In fact, the presence of vultures creates a holdout problem and undermines the effectiveness of needed restructuring efforts. In short, sovereign vulture funds create problems that outweigh their spurious benefits."
 * It sounds to me like this source is referring to a vulture fund as one type of distressed debt fund, using it in a more specific way than our article does. (I know, it's one source, but I'm trying to learn.) Is it broad enough for use in our article? Our lead says "Debtors include companies, countries, or individuals." Is there evidence that any other sources use it in this specific way? Dcs002 (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Cal Law review article specifically denotes sovereign distressed-debt funds as "vulture funds" and maintains the name "distressed-debt funds" for corporate distressed debit funds. Both sovereign and corporate distressed debt funds would fall under the category of "distressed securities fund" - a name that encompasses all types of distressed-debt funds, including sovereign, corporate, and all other types of distressed-debt funds. Additionally, I think the "control F" argument really ties back into my Obamacare argument, and the reason why Obamacare redirects to the ACA page. A quick google search generates 23 million search results for Obamacare. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act only has 2 million—and "Obamacare" isn't even considered a pejorative by most people! Just because you can find vulture fund more commonly throughout the internet doesnt mean its the correct term to define ALL TYPES of distressed-debt funds in a non-pejorative manner. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 15:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Concluding that they should be called "distressed debt funds" from that is absurd, and exactly how the page got changed from Vulture Funds to this obscure name in the first place - pure conjecture, no sources. The fact is, the source makes reference to vulture funds overwhelmingly, never considers the term "pejorative" and then makes far less reference to another term which hasn't come up in any other sources - most likely to coin a term to gain notoriety, which isn't uncommon in academia. It's taking some serious mental gymnastics to get to the point where you want to be, when there are easily thousands of of reliable sources which use Vulture funds. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you and I are getting off topic here - I'd like to redirect the discussion back to the actual question the RfC is asking here: is 'vulture fund' a pejorative that violates WP:W2W. I thought one of the comments made by User:Dcs002 warrants some additional dialogue:
 * Would an average investor ask their financial adviser, "Should I put some money into a vulture fund?" Would a financial adviser tell a client "I think you should invest in a vulture fund?" Would an investment banker have brochures for clients about these funds that call them vulture funds? If the answer to these questions is no, then the term is value-laden. What are they called when the fund managers (if that's the correct term) are trying to attract investors to buy these distressed debts?
 * To me, it seems pretty clear that the answer to these questions is "no" and therefore the term is indeed "value-laden." Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 19:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a horse in this race. I'm trying to represent the reader who wants to learn about this stuff. It would really help me to understand the question of whether this is value-laden if someone could answer those questions I've asked. How do investors refer to these funds? How do scholars refer to them? What would a brochure look like if it were intended to attract investors? Is it possible that "vulture fund" is so widely used in the media because it's the term most financial analysts and writers use, but not what the typical investors use? If calling a fund a "vulture fund" would put the average investor off, it seems value-laden. Vultures lurk around or fly in circles waiting for something or someone to die so they can profit from it. If I am a potential investor, how are you going to sell me on something with that name? Dcs002 (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from here. I think another user described it pretty well in the RM: "Support. Wikipedia should follow the sources, and a simple CTRL-F on "vulture" highlights 75% of the references and most of the external links. It's certainly how I've always heard it referred to, and I've worked in finance. Yes, these funds won't actually write "vulture" on their website, but as pointed out there's plenty of other places on Wikipedia where we use the common name rather than the inoffensive technical name. SnowFire (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)"
 * From what I can see, most of these simply refer to themselves as hedge funds, and vulture investing is just one thing they do - though some offshore branches based in tax havens do exclusively operate as vulture funds. To distinguish them from regular hedge funds, the media, academia and public office has designated the name vulture fund - which I believe is a term that originates from property speculation (buying foreclosed properties). Still, I still don't think this is the type of discussion we should be having. The fact of the matter is that we shouldn't concern ourselves with what vulture funds call themselves - we're not here to do their PR - we should call them whatever the vast majority of reliable sources call them, which is vulture funds and my speculation or yours isn't of great relevance.
 * One point we have yet to touch upon in these discussions is the issue of systemic bias. Here we are talking about what a few white males in New York want their companies to be called, trying to look at it from their perspective. Why have we not looked at the perspective of millions who have been affected by vulture funds? I'm not suggesting we do this (because again, it's not evidence-based), but it's worth thinking about. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a similar comment from the initial conversation regarding the first move of the page to "distressed securities fund" that specifically relates to the term vulture fund being a pejorative that I found relevant the first time around we had this discussion - the comment is from Legis:
 * Be careful not to confuse two different issues: (1) is the name perjorative, and (2) are such funds a bad thing. It is easy to confuse the two because if you dislike vulture funds you likely use the term perjoratively. But even if you accept that such funds have a useful function in a modern economy with liquidity in its credit markets (as I do), the term still has a fairly negative tint to it. Used as an adjective or a metaphor, "vulture" is just not a positive word. Nobody says "he soared like a vulture" or "she was cunning as a vulture". But for better or worse the label has stuck (never heard such funds referred to by any other short hand label), and to be honest, it is reasonably descriptive - trying to get value out of something that otherwise would be discarded financial carrion.
 * While the label might have "stuck" does that make "vulture fund" encyclopedic? I think not. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 21:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to stop responding to this now as it seems to be largely going in circles. The fact of the matter is that there aren't credible sources which justify the term being "pejorative" nor is there a widespread acceptance of any other term. You can continue to give all the conjecture and flawed logic you want with this, they're still just personal opinions and as Jayron32 pointed out - you might find the occasional blog post or individual who might agree with this opinion, but you can say that with just about anything. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I added some sources noting the term is a pejorative above, its not just an opinion. "Vulture fund" is misleading. We can collaborate and compromise on establishing a more accurate and descriptive word. Meatsgains (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Would it be acceptable to ping all other users involved in the previous discussion on this issue to get more input? Thanks Meatsgains (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This RFC was already advertised on the talk page of the article in question and several other project pages. You might run the risk of Canvassing if additional pinging is not done carefully. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be Canvassing. Though I'm sure you'll have no trouble in bringing in a tonne of liberal POV pushers like yourself in and bolster the numbers, Comatmebro already posted it on the relevant talk page. Going further than that would essentially be drawing up battle lines and isn't terribly productive... SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Liberal POV pushers"? Come on now. There is no need for that. I asked to ping other users here first to avoid canvassing. Reason I bring it up is because the RM was closed prematurely. It was opened on October 5 and closed on October 14. It was only open for 9 days, with the last contributor adding his commentary just the day before. Meatsgains (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Mike Cline not only was the RM shut down one day after the last post, but a meager 5 votes lead to the final decision on the RM. While obviously in good faith, I do agree it was shut down prematurely. Mike, how would you recommend "pinging carefully" because I think notifying the included parties from the last round of debates seems warranted at this point. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 16:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: Closing the RM. Please review WP:RMCI. Once an RM hits backlog, it can be closed if there is a clear outcome. If you think the RM was closed improperly, then WP:Move review is the proper venue to express your concern.  Re: "pinging carefully".  WP: Canvassing is a one-way street, once you go down that road you can't go back.  Anytime an editor passionate about a particular position in a contentious discussion begins pinging other editors to participate, the risk of canvassing accusations is high.  Thus, be careful.  Since the RFC was advertised in several relevant projects and on the article talk page, that should be sufficient to garner outside participation. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Guys, I wouldn't start getting into RMs which were closed improperly or discussions that ended prematurely without discussion. I can think of one very clear example where a discussion wasn't even had and was attempted on a completely separate page in order not to garner to much attention and then another RfC where "consensus" was "established" with just the opinions of you two and one person opposed. So lets drop it shall we? SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I did a Google search for "how to invest in a vulture fund" to try to find an answer to my own question about how these funds are marketed. Looks like they're not really marketed at all. But I found one article in Bloomberg (one of few articles and web pages that didn't have something bad to say about them) that linked to a few academic articles and one in Bloomberg Business. Here's the page with those links: http://www.bloombergview.com/quicktake/vulture-investing This article itself uses "vulture" many times in a neutral way. But the articles it links to do not use it as a generally accepted or neutral term, and in one case, it refers only to sovereign debt funds.

When looking at the linked articles, I looked at the usage within each article, not the references or footnotes.


 * Congressional Research Service
 * CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Argentina’s Defaulted Sovereign Debt: Dealing with the “Holdouts”
 * "Vulture funds" used once, in quotation marks, described as "hedge funds specializing in distressed debt."


 * Social Science Research Network
 * Julian Schumacher, Christoph Trebesch, and Henrik Enderlein
 * Sovereign Defaults in Court
 * Used "vulture" and "vulture funds", always in quotation marks, calls them "specialized distressed debt funds, or, as they would later be called, 'vulture funds'".


 * LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS
 * THE EVOLUTION OF MODERN SOVEREIGN DEBT LITIGATION: VULTURES, ALTER EGOS, AND OTHER LEGAL FAUNA
 * Several uses of vulture funds, no quotes, but use is limited to sovereign debt funds, and the title seems a bit loaded - "Legal Fauna"


 * Bloomberg Business
 * Paul Singer Will Make Argentina Pay
 * By Max Abelson and Katia Porzecanski
 * Two uses of vulture, only when quoting, very pejorative.


 * Harvard Business Law Review
 * Laura Alfaro
 * SOVEREIGN DEBT RESTRUCTURING:EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF THE ARGENTINA RULING
 * 1 use "vulture", 1 use "vulture investors", both in quotation marks

I selected the original article because it looked pretty neutral, though I know almost nothing about finance, so I can't be sure. I looked at all articles linked by the first article in Bloomberg. One link was dead, leaving 5 articles. Three out of the four articles that I would describe as scholarly seem to reject "vulture" and "vulture fund" as proper terms for hedge funds specializing in distressed debt, or specialized distressed debt funds. The fourth article uses the term as if it were the accepted term, though it only applies the term to sovreign debt funds, and the use of "vultures" in the title might be loaded - hard for me to tell. The remaining non-scholarly article uses "vulture" as a clear pejorative, but only to quote or paraphrase how others have used it. I'm sorry folks, but the more I see, the more convinced I am that "vulture fund" is value-laden, and therefore not in line with WP:W2W. Dcs002 (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Distressed debt funds, distressed securities funds, and distressed debt hedge funds are pretty common on Google. Looking at a few, it seems they refer only to corporate debt. Are they different from vulture funds? From what I've been learning, it seems that "vulture funds" is used mostly for sovereign debt funds, and "distressed debt funds" means business debt. Sorry I'm talking so much here. I'm trying to bring the perspective of someone who is just learning this stuff. Dcs002 (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's because you did a search for "how to invest in a vulture fund" - again, from the POV of someone in the financial industry. Why not just search for Vulture fund and see the countless sources which have absolutely no problem in using the term and (much like the ones you have shown) present no other alternative. With all due respect and assuming good faith, why are you so fixated on the idea of approaching this from the point of view of the financial industry? The issue and topic of Vulture funds goes far beyond that, it's an issue of international development, the rule of law, national sovereignty, politics, odious debt and much much more. You're giving undue weight to an issue which goes far beyond some simple investments. Please read my reply to you above. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He did the search to go back to his original point "Would an investment banker have brochures for clients about these funds that call them vulture funds? If the answer to these questions is no, then the term is value-laden." These funds do not refer to themselves as vulture funds. Its a term that has been publicized by those that disagree with them and somehow it stuck. Meatsgains (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * SegataSanshiro1 I think you are discrediting Dcs002|'s attempt to view this argument from an outsider's point of view, which is clearly what we need at this point. He is in no way shape or form coming at this from the POV of someone in the financial industry. He is coming at this from "the perspective of someone who is just learning this stuff." Which, I would imagine, is how the majority of people looking up this topic would do. I'm tired of hearing your "my search shows more results than your search argument" as i stated before, "Obamacare" has 23 million search results. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act only has 2 million—and "Obamacare" isn't even considered a pejorative by most people - yet wikipedia recognizes that the term is a pejorative and therefore redirects Obamacare to the ACA page. Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 05:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC) 05:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not discrediting anything. I was merely pointing out that the scope of Vulture funds goes far beyond the financial industry, and obviously doing a search from the POV of the financial industry is going to turn up a different set of results. Again, you're continuing to misrepresent what I am saying. I'm not arguing that a search engine pulls up more results on one term than another - I'm arguing that a search engine will bring up far more credible sources which use the common name without deeming it remotely derogatory. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * SegataSanshiro1, I just googled "vulture fund," and what I found (after links to WP and dictionaries) was all negative, and mostly in parentheses. Even so, the articles that I looked at tend to describe them as a kind of hedge fund. Few articles use the term "vulture fund" without putting it in parentheses. That tells me it's not a term in standard usage, but one that needs defining. My intention was to look at this as someone who doesn't know about these funds, but maybe someone told me about them and now I want to invest. What do I ask my financial adviser? I am not taking the POV of the financial industry. I didn't know what that was tbh. But characterizing my position that "vulture funds" is non-neutral as the industry position tells me right there it's a loaded term. If the industry doesn't use the term, it seems problematic that we should use it. What's wrong with calling it a hedge fund of some sort, like the writers of so many magazine articles do? Dcs002 (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dcs002, I just did a google search and most results come up without quotation marks, and the ones that do have quotation marks offer no alternative term.
 * Again, I'm not too sure about this fixation on being an investor of some kind... How is that representative of your "everyman" wanting to find out about Vulture funds? If you want your everyman, try looking at the pageview statistics and see that overwhelmingly people arrive there by typing Vulture fund or Vulture Fund into the search bar because they've never heard of it being called anything else.
 * I appreciate the idea of trying to come at this from your everyday reader, but then why are you trying now to support the usage of obscure financial terminology? SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * SegataSanshiro1, Thank you for correcting me - yes, I meant quotation marks, not parentheses. The pageview statistics, I suspect, are weighted by people who have a negative opinion of these funds, and they have learned about them from others who call them vulture funds. Aside from the Joe Six Pack investor looking for information, who else is going to be looking for information on these funds? I don't see "hedge fund" or "distressed debt fund" as obscure financial terminology. They are the terms that came up in my searches. I am not trying to be difficult, and I am certainly no apologist for the banking industry, but you can see from the RfC above that I have a problem with loaded, or value-laden, terminology in WP. From what I have seen, "vulture funds" appears to be a term used by critics of such funds. Academic sources put the term in quotation marks and then give a definition or a synonym. From what I have seen on the net, the majority of pages describing these funds are critical of them, so it would make sense that the majority of articles would use a term with negative connotations. Even those that are not critical have to acknowledge the term, in quotations, for its existence, but not for its correctness as a name for this kind of fund.Dcs002 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * '"The pageview statistics, I suspect, are weighted by people who have a negative opinion of these funds, and they have learned about them from others who call them vulture funds. Aside from the Joe Six Pack investor looking for information, who else is going to be looking for information on these funds? I don't see "hedge fund" or "distressed debt fund" as obscure financial terminology."' - I think this is where your logic here is most flawed (with all due respect). The "average Joe six pack investor" is a very US-centric thing which can't really be applied universally and smacks of systemic bias - and that's not even taking into account that none of these funds (as far as I'm aware) are publicly traded, so an "average" investor wouldn't really exist in this scenario unless they had a few million under the matress. And this is sort of where you fail to make the connection that all these people accessing through Vulture funds aren't there to do a bit of "investment research" - they're there because the issue they are interested in is sovereign debt and how these funds repeatedly make the news - be it in the context of Greece, Argentina, Congo, Ireland or whatever and increasingly so as sovereign debt increases in nations like the UK and US which have been running budgetary deficits for longer than anyone cares to remember. This is also why it has become an international issue in the United Nations and numerous countries pass laws to curb or outlaw these funds (I believe Belgium was the latest). As such, this is why I keep on saying that it is far more than just some financial article about a type of hedge fund. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * SegataSanshiro1, One more clarification of a clarification, if I might try your patience just a bit more. Ok, Joe Six Pack can't get in on these funds, but maybe his incredibly rich uncle can. How would he ask about them? In what language would his financial adviser phrase the reply? It seems to me the people who actually use these funds as investments should be considered in naming them. What language is used in the actual transactions?


 * Here is a way that would easily settle the issue for me: "...the United Nations and numerous countries pass laws to curb or outlaw these funds (I believe Belgium was the latest)." What language is used in these new laws prohibiting these funds? If the UN and the legislative bodies of other countries call them vulture funds (without quotation marks), I would find that pretty compelling evidence. Laws tend to be written in precise, linguistically neutral language, both of which are desirable in WP. Ok, we still need to consider the common name, but if there is not a suitable common name (i.e., if we decide that "vulture funds" is too value-laden), we have a plan B in WP - non-judgemental descriptive titles, or WP:NDESC.


 * Maybe there is a compromise that can be reached by referring to Blood diamond. The second sentence in the lead says, "The term is used to highlight the negative consequences of the diamond trade in certain areas, or to label an individual diamond as having come from such an area." I know "Obamacare" and "loan shark" didn't seem to work for people who are opposed in this discussion, but I think blood diamond is very clearly pejorative, and I don't think there can be a question about the ubiquity of its use. It seems like a similar case, though more extreme in the negativity of its consequences (investing in blood diamonds vs. investing in "vulture funds"). Perhaps keeping the article name as it is but qualifying early in the lead that the name refers to something vulture-like - something acknowledging that there is a negative connotation would be acceptable? I know the consensus is not going to be with the way I voted, but I would still like WP to have high quality, NPOV articles and names to the extent possible. Dcs002 (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm not going to address Joe sixpack's rich uncle... I think we're just getting into ever more unlikely and geographically specific scenarios and it has turned into a bit of a tangent. As I've said a lot, for 99.99% of people, Vulture funds are something which bankrupt countries and use unusual tactics bordering on extortion to get what they believe are owed... I don't know what financial advisers who advise the nephews of incredibly wealthy Americans would call Vulture funds. In the move (back) discussion, someone pointed out that they would be called Vulture funds, but this is still all first hand information and I still don't think this really concerns us. This is an encyclopedia, not a financial advice website.
 * As for official national and trans-national sources making references to Vulture fund in such a manner without alternative, doing a quick scan I found: UN General Assembly resolution, African Development Bank, World Bank, United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Government of Belgium (Loi relative à la lutte contre les activités des fonds vauteurs), the Organisation of American States. That's only governmental and trans-national organisations - we haven't even touched upon NGOs. But there's a lot of countries involved in the UN and OAS alone, I'm sure if we had a broader range of nationalities and linguistic expertises we could dig up far more.
 * I've already addressed your suggestion previously I believe and I agree with the premise of it. Clearly a minority view (in this case that of the financial industry) should be represented according to Wikipedia's guidelines. If Vulture funds do not like that name, then we should cover it if there are sufficient sources. I think the Blood diamond example is quite fitting - though the incorporation of different POVs is something editors can work on in the relevant talk page. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going to place this comment above but figured I'd just post in chronological order to avoid confusion as requested by Drcrazy102. To clarify: Distressed securities funds are companies that buy distressed securities. Securities is a generalized term for a financial instrument. Some Distressed security firms focus mostly on corporate debt (companies), some sovereign debt (countries), and others distressed assets (such as airplanes, printing presses, etc.)
 * Here is a case calling it a "so-called vulture fund", in quotation marks, which is not encyclopedic: . Not exactly sure how to search case laws in different countries as Google only allows me to search in the US but listed are other case laws using "distressed securities fund" or "distressed debt fund":, , , , and – none of which say "vulture fund". Meatsgains (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * SegataSanshiro1, there is one document of the ones you linked that refers to vulture funds without first qualifying the term, or needing to define it. The rest do. If it is a standard term, it does not need to be defined whenever it is used, or put into quotes. (The first link to the UN Gen. Assembly document did not work for me.) The standard comon name for something does not need to be defined when it is used. I grant that the overwhelming number of people writing about these funds on the Internet call them Vulture funds, but they either do so in a way that needs to be defined or they use it as a pejorative, like you clearly did when you said "As I've said a lot, for 99.99% of people, Vulture funds are something which bankrupt countries and use unusual tactics bordering on extortion to get what they believe are owed..." Please don't get me wrong. What these funds are doing sickens me. The more I'm learning, the more despicable I think they are, but this is not a forum for our personal attitudes. I think we can acknowledge that it is a pejorative (or otherwise value-laden) term right away in the lead, 1st or 2nd sentence, and leave it there. Very few RS are using this as a proper name for these funds (without quotes, definitions, or as non-pejorative), and it is clearly non-neutral. I say we handle it like Blood diamond. Dcs002 (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dcs002, now that I've had a second look at it, the General Assembly document isn't the one where the ~139 countries voted in favour of curbing their activities. I can't seem to track that one down, much like the UK legislation - most likely due to the fact that parliamentary and legal documents tend to be in .pdf format which is harder to come by using search engines. I understand your point about needing to qualify the term, but then could that not be more because it is a relatively recent phenomena (at least in the western English-speaking media) and needs to be defined? Particularly in these sorts of documents, one needs to be absolutely clear about what the subject matter is that there is, particularly with something like this which goes beyond national boundaries. Whatever the case, I'm all for your suggestion in treating it in the same way as Blood Diamond. In the RM (and here) I did acknowledge that the term is a non neutral but common name, so if there is clear evidence that the term is disputed by some then we should acknowledge that appropriately. However, changing the name to something else would be quite ludicrous. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * SegataSanshiro1, "I understand your point about needing to qualify the term, but then could that not be more because it is a relatively recent phenomena (at least in the western English-speaking media) and needs to be defined?" This would argue that the English term "vulture fund" has not been in use long enough to become established as the common name. The term distressed debt fund doesn't seem to have the quotes around it when mentioned in RS, and the term is in widespread use, though not as widespread as vulture fund. But people who invest in blood diamonds usually call them diamonds. Dcs002 (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The term "vulture fund" has no doubt evolved over the years and because of this, I agree with you Dcs002, saying it is a common name is disputable, especially when there is a more accurate, neutral, and descriptive term we can use which is supported in multiple RS. A vulture fund is just a hedge fund and they describe themselves as hedge funds. As an alternative option, "vulture fund" could be a subcategory within the hedge fund page as it does not deserve its own page. All "vulture funds" are hedge funds, its just one of the strategies employed by these hedge funds. We can all agree the term is a pejorative, and again as Dcs002 stated, very few RS use vulture fund as a proper name "without quotations, definitions, or as non-pejorative" and so having it as a page name would be unencyclopedic. Meatsgains (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment - per my !vote above, I tend to agree with Dcs002 here, in that the term being in itself a metaphor should be indication enough it is a value-laden term. There's no denying it. The term might be convenient, figurative, even entertaining, however it is not encyclopaedic. I see the Obamacare example presented above as a rather convenient one, contrary to what SegataSanshiro1 states. I thoroughly object to the notion that it is a term "used predominantly by one group of people to discredit and slander another"; in fact, it counts with widespread use in the international media of all inclinations. Yet we do not name the article Obamacare. We should ask ourselves why are we being so hypocritical. As for reliable sources, I've found about 7000 sources using either Distressed securities fund, Distressed securities investing or Distressed debt fund in academic literature. See, and. As such, this strategy should be merged to hedge fund as a subsection under the Strategies section - you'll notice that the hedge fund page has a list of 5 different strategies, some of which redirect to their associated page. We should introduce something along the lines of "distressed securities investing" as a subsection in this list as another type of strategy. Or we could move the article back to a more suitable title. The Vulture fund page title is inadequate in my opinion, but if we are to move the current page, it needs to be called "Distressed securities investing", or Distressed securities fund, or Distressed debt fund. It is not our place as an encyclopaedia to describe these strategies or funds as vulture funds (especially considering the media's current sensationalist tendencies). We need to look at this from a neutral POV, which in this case is any of the three options I've stipulated above. If consensus for this isn't possible, then I second calls for a more widespread discussion, which I am sure would result in a much needed compromise here. Regards, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  21:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that those "7000 results" (actually 3000) are for "distressed debt" and not "distressed debt fund" which only pulls up 65 . Searching for "vulture fund" pulls up over 500 results . The idea that such a term has more widespread use that Vulture Fund is preposterous, and the numbers clearly show this. Again, the idea of moving the page or merging essentially turns it into a finance topic, ignoring the geopolitical consequences of sovereign debt litigation. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dcs002, you might want to have a scan through those since there are plenty of sources which use the term Vulture Fund without quotes. So far the onus hasn't been on me to demonstrate its widespread use through sources, but I can begin to do so if necessary. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At no point did I say that distressed debt fund's use was more widespread than vulture fund. The term "distressed securities fund" is a bit forced. The proper place for this entire article would be as a subsection under Distressed securities, which already exists, and a link under Hedge fund, Miscellaneous strategies. We do not need an entire page dedicated to a particular pejorative term. It's worth reading through the Distressed securities page. You will see a tremendous amount of overlap, which will allow for a smooth merge. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  14:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In regards to the "blood diamond" argument, I think it's a little much to compare the perfectly legal practice in which hundreds of investment companies partake in to the murderous, illegal activity of diamond traders in Africa. This RfC is specifically asking whether or not vulture fund is a pejorative and deserves to be used as a title. Whether or not "distressed securities fund" or "hedge fund" or any other title, no matter how many page views or google searches they result in, is an argument for another RfC. What about creating a new RfC with a few alternative options to the term vulture fund (i.e. distressed debt, hedge fund, distressed securities fund, etc)? An argument can clearly and concisely be made for each proposed title and everyone can vote on it. Thoughts? Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 15:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FoCuS, there's already been such a discussion (conveniently left unclosed), right below the one where a discussion was had to move Vulture fund to "distressed securities fund" without consensus and without notifying editors on the former. So I'll let you read the arguments there as to why it's a terrible idea. After this discussion is over, perhaps re-trying that merge will be the next one Wikipedia's gang of free market ideologues try with this page. User talk:Comatmebro, that isn't a particularly relevant discussion since compared to the term Vulture fund, those terms have barely any widespread use. Let's end this discussion first, and then you can give that one a go. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The OP from this RFC states, "Distressed securities fund was recently moved to Vulture fund per WP:COMMONAME. Does the new name violate WP:W2W?" How is what I am proposing not relevant to the discussion? The RfC is asking whether or not vulture fund is a pejorative and whether it violates WP:W2W (or even WP:title as mentioned in earlier discussion). If my opinion on the matter is that the term is a pejorative and violates these policy, and that it shouldn't be used as a page title, how is offering up alternative solutions irrelevant? What I find irrelevant is your tired argument that vulture fund is the most google-able term for what the page is describing. I don't care how many google searches come up with vulture fund, I care whether or not the term currently being used as the title for this page is appropriate for WP. That's why I posted the RfC in the first place... Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 18:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The results aren't simple search engine results, they're google scholar results - essentially giving an indication into how widespread the term Vulture fund is within academic sources which don't put it in inverted commas and thus don't consider it "pejorative" as you claim. It's not particularly relevant because to have such a discussion would be under the assumption that there is significant evidence (outside the financial community) that the term is considered derogatory, and I have just stated, there are hundreds of academic references which have no qualm about using the term. Meanwhile, your many suggestions are not in widespread use in RS. You have had your attempts to try and demonstrate the usage of these terms in RS and their presence is still vastly insignificant to the actual name - you can't just pick names out of hats every time you don't like a term. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I provided Scholar results with the false hope that you would reconsider your position given the new evidence you'd evidently avoided to regard. You've thus not only discarded reliable sources such as those presented in the media (such as BBC and NYT), which clearly know the term is value-laden, but also academic positions (,, , - plus the original paper they cited); heck, even the dictionary acknowledges it. "Vulture fund" is an inherently pejorative term for a fund strategy, hence the existence of the article, at least under that name is ipso facto non-neutral. Furthermore, the amount of overlap between this article and Distressed securities is obvious, given the fact a "vulture fund" exclusively deals in the latter. Having two articles about the same thing seems ludicrous, when placed under the same roof they might actually improve the content overall, both in terms of the readers' convenience, as well as pondering encyclopaedic value. FoCuS  contribs ;  talk to me!  23:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No... What you did was provide Scholar results for one thing whilst claiming they are something else. As I said, doing a less misleading search brings up hundreds of results for the term Vulture funds (without quotation marks and without suggesting it's value laden) while doing a search for the odd terms other users here are trying to promote brings up essentially nothing. What that showed is that Vulture fund is a term in widespread use. What is clearly going on here is that a few very pro-market editors have engaged in very misleading and often sneaky tactics to get their way - essentially changing the Vulture funds article to be called "distressed securities fund" so then it could be merged into "distressed securities" unopposed since editors would notice the similar names. Luckily it was opposed overwhelmingly (dispute the ridiculous name change without consensus), so I ask that you please leave the merge idea to a separate discussion - there's enough whitewashing going on here already. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, since COMMONNAME and Googling has come up again ...

So, as we can obviously see here, we have an obviously larger amount of "hits"/results for Vulture Fund than the Distressed Debt and Distressed Securities Fund results combined. We have a ratio of about 305:91 in favour of Vulture Fund on Google Search, a ratio of about 205:36 for Google Books. Obvious COMMONNAME. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. At least now we can put that particular matter to one side. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Again with the Google searches...please familiarise yourself with WP:SET. We're not to discuss search engine results, but rather the quality of the sources, particularly what the sources tell us and why, and how that affects the apparent neutrality of this article's title. Now, I've provided significant results supporting the thesis "vulture fund" is non-neutral, and thus it is something we should act upon. Your "counterargument" has been that Google search results for "vulture fund" are more abundant, ergo it should remain as the article's title. I propose change, you want to maintain the satus quo. Let's either expand the discussion window/venue, or propose some kind of compromise, for if you can't see how changing the title would improve the encyclopaedia, then perhaps you should ponder what your motives are (considering WP:NPOV) and why you edit on Wikipedia at all. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  15:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Per your own argument of WP:SET being against "discuss[ion] [of] search engine results", WP:SET actually says (and I quote):

"Google Books has a pattern of coverage that is in closer accord with traditional encyclopedia content than the Web, taken as a whole, is; if it has systemic bias, it is a very different systemic bias from Google Web searches. Multiple hits on an exact phrase in Google Book search provide convincing evidence for the real use of the phrase or concept. You can compare usage of terms, such as [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=tidal+wave%2Ctsunami&year_start=2004&year_end=2012&corpus=0&smoothing=3 'Tidal wave' vs. 'Tsunami']. Google Book search can locate print-published testimony to the importance of a person, event, or concept. It can also be used to replace an unsourced 'common knowledge' fact with a print-sourced version of the same fact. " "Google Scholar provides evidence of how many times a publication, document, or author has been cited or quoted by others. Best for scientific or academic topics. Can include Masters and Doctorate thesis papers, patents, and legal documents. Google Scholar search."
 * This is why I included the Google Books and Google Scholars search results: to show that it is a common trend across the Google search results. I am not using the searches to say anything about the article content, merely the title of the article which can be decided upon by using WP:COMMONNAME (policy) which is supported by WP:NPOVNAME (policy)
 * If you want to discuss the names used within the article, that is a separate (though related) matter from the RfC question of the TITLE being questioned. I would also ask that you remain civil and avoid personal attacks such as questioning my neutrality on a subject that I have never edited and I had not previously known about. A reasonable compromise is using redirects from the technical names to the COMMON name and having a clarified lead statement that outlines/discusses the technical names used for "vulture funds", but sometimes editors make it impossible to find compromise because they are unwilling to actually reach a compromise solution. I will leave this discussion to be closed by an uninvolved editor/Admin. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're referring to with "names used within the article", but I guess we could discuss that later if necessary. I remain civil during all my Wikipedia encounters, as I always have; if people project their personal insecurities into my writing that's not within my possibilities to address. Also, I believe it was SegataSanshiro1 that questioned your neutrality (something about 90% I believe), not me. Going back to the issue at hand: I am willing to discuss that compromise, as I do believe it would move the discussion in the right direction, even though the redirect should be placed vice versa, such as with Obamacare. Unwillingness to compromise is human, yet it's not part of my philosophy. I look forward to the closing editor's conclusions. Regards, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  17:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Names used within the article" means what it says, whatever name of the fund is to be used in the article is a separate but related matter, but is decided on by different policies. "Name of article" is the concern of this RfC.
 * Now, about your claim of innocence with civility. "... then perhaps you should ponder what your motives are (considering WP:NPOV) and why you edit on Wikipedia at all ..." is self-evidently false. Yeah, written politely and all, but not a very nice message contained within though is it? If I said that to you, would you take offence? If you would take offence from the statement if directed at you, then it is uncivil to write it to another editor outside of certain situations.
 * Also, your claim about you not questioning my neutrality - well, I kind of disproved that just above. If you believe that ever contested my neutrality, then please provide a diff link ( Diff ) to such a comment and I will re-evaluate.
 * As I said earlier, I will leave this discussion to be closed
 * Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Offence is personal, so except by divine intervention I'm unable to ascertain when someone might be offended. Of course it wasn't my intention, and that's what matters - but to answer your question, no, I wouldn't have been myself. Where did I question your neutrality? In fact I never addressed you specifically until this Google search subtopic emerged above. SegataSanshiro1, on the other hand, stated "editors who spend 90% of their time editing hedge fund articles" - which I assume was directed at someone who's not me, given the bulk of my edits are performed elsewhere. I don't know why this has turned into a Venezuelan novella where everyone takes things personally, but I urge you not to involve me. I'm more than stocked up on real life problems to care about online soap operas. I hope the closer carefully considers sources and their weight, however it looks as if not many editors wish to get involved. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  23:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, no. You're misrepresenting what I have said, what Drcrazy102 said and what other have said on this page. Yes, Vulture fund may well be non-neutral, but WP:NPOVNAME clearly explains that the WP:COMMONNAME should still be used in this case. There is no compromise to be had, we should just adhere to Wikipedia's policies and represent these sources you speak of that consider the term derogatory but keep the COMMONNAME. As for the search engine results, we can either get the world's biggest abacus and sit here until the end of time seeing who has more sources and which are more reliable, or use that as a rough guideline (I'd personally prefer the latter since this discussion is becoming increasingly circular and rather draining). Please don't question my motives for editing, there's no need to fill this discussion with more bile than there already is. I would much rather be editing other things and this has already taken up far more time than I thought it ever would. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You've certainly not been using references that are "more reliable" (which we evidently need to be, given quantity of sources is a non-issue), but rather kept repeating the search result fallacy. You are not only an Argentinian, but a self-declared marxist, so that finally explains this discussion's entirety (it didn't seem necessary to initially check your user page). For the sake of continuing this conversation, at least declare your obvious COI. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I would recommend that both of you cease the back and forth that is adding nothing to the discussion and is creeping slowly into uncivil behavior territory. Let your positions stand on their merits and leave it up to an uninvolved closer to resolve this discussion.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed... I think when discriminatory allusions to one's nationality come into play then it's best just to leave it. What is the process for closing this discussion? SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no discrimination whatsoever, I was just stating your COI which you apparently forgot to disclose. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for the record and without responding directly to this personal attack, being from a country does not constitute a conflict of interest (at least certainly less so than editors who spend 90% of their time editing hedge fund articles) and my nationality (which I am extremely proud of) has been publicly displayed on my user page for all to see. If anything my presence in these discussions should be encouraged to provide a greater balance of opinion and curb systemic bias. If where I come from apparently nullifies what I have said on this page, then I will strike all my contributions here and cease editing since I want no part in something which actively seeks to belittle and marginalise specific people. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Systemic bias in this instance appears to be for you, not against you. Again, never did I attack you, nor does country constitute conflict of interest per se, except in such an obvious case as this given "vulture funds" have had a particularly pernicious effect over Argentinian society, and you've taken the expected side of an argument that directly involves your country's economy. I've also learnt that you have been involved in several similar disputes during the recent past - the last of which transpired a mere 3 days ago, and were even blocked because of one of them. I know this has nothing to do with this RfC, however I do feel the need to highlight your bias is extremely evident. Stop behaving like a pariah, and as Mike Cline recommended, desist with your persistence in having the last word. I'm also assuming your 90% jibe wasn't directed at me, because it makes no sense, and is particularly funny when compared to your own edit history. I'm very sorry if the nature of this discussion offends your anti-capitalist sensibilities, but we must look forward to improving the encyclopaedia and not resort to lowness. As it stands we have precedent in Obamacare's redirect and must therefore address this incongruence. I much look forward to outsider input. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  23:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If I can interrupt you're little smear campaign for a second, I'm going to ask you to just stop. It's very aggressive, way over the line, extremely inaccurate and largely irrelevant. If you have a problem with me or where I'm from then simply keep it to yourself. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Merging the current page with hedge fund as another type of strategy would be an acceptable solution to avoid using such a derogatory term as a page name. Meatsgains (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. On another note, I just saw what posted here, wherein the question is posed about whether "Vulture fund" is a NAME or a DESCRIPTION. Interesting thought, given the term being a metaphor means it describes the fund's behaviour or strategy, so to speak, and is in this context not a noun. FoCuS  contribs ;  talk to me!  01:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Vulture fund" is no doubt a description comparing a hedge fund's strategy to a scavenging bird of prey. It is not a name. Meatsgains (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since my name has been invoked... here is my take on all this... I would certainly agree that the term "Vulture fund" started off being a DESCRIPTION... but sometimes descriptive terms can become a NAME through repeated use (example... the Boston massacre and the Tea Pot Dome scandal started as descriptions, but evolved into being names through repeated use).
 * I think a similar evolution may have occurred with the term "Vulture fund" ... the term is certainly used enough that such an evolution seems likely... however, I have not examined the sources deeply enough to state that definitively. At this point, we need to do more than simply count how many sources use the term (and compare that usage to some other term)... we also need to examine HOW those sources that use the term - actually use it. We need to discuss some specific examples of the term in use.  So... can those who say it is indeed a NAME give some examples of sources actually using the term as a name... and can those who say it is merely a DESCRIPTION give so examples of sources using it as a description. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sensible points, Blueboar, and I'll try to provide as concise a sample as possible for the latter. In news media: Bloomberg transcribing the Argentinian President's own words metaphorically calling investors "vultures"; same situation in NYT; NZHerald stating "so-called 'vulture fund'". In academia: Law & Contemp. Probs. treating "vultures" as a metaphor throughout; same in Hofstra L. Rev. and The World Economy. Books and other print media: Art of Vulture Investing by George Schultze treating "vulture" as a strategy yet again; Distressed Debt Analysis by Stephen G. Moyer - vividly explaining the "vulture" metaphor in page 219, and using examples throughout. Regards and thank you for participating in this discussion. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  23:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We've been through this plenty of times (the quotation marks in some sources and similarities with Blood Diamond). I thought you were awaiting close now and not trying to "get the last word". Instead of selectively posting sources to back up our points why not allow people to see for themselves how often and in what way the term is used using those helpful links posted by Drcrazy? SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Focus was just doing what was requested from Blueboar. As Comeatmebro noted, I don't think its fair to compare a company's legal investing strategy to that of a warlord's illegal activity. Meatsgains (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well clearly it's far better for Blueboar to have a quick look at those sources from Google Scholar et. al. and make up his/her own mind as to whether the analysis that it evolved from a descriptive term (which I happen to agree with) is correct, rather than leaving it up to the factions. If Blueboar does not have the time, then some other neutral party should weigh up the sources and do this because if each "side" is going to bring up a handful of sources which apparantly prove their point, we'll be here all year. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we should have other users weigh in on this discussion. I just googled "vulture fund" and on the first page of results, 6 out of the 9 recently published news articles either provide quotations around the term or say "so-called vulture-fund". I'm just not seeing how we can use it as a name or how it is even encyclopedic for that matter. Meatsgains (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you agree then why are you doing what you just said you'd continue not to do? I never said have other users weigh in on this discussion, there's no reason for you to start WP:CANVASSING. What I said was that someone neutral should examine the [google books] and [|google scholar] results to see how the term is used in academia. In either case, we've strayed completely off what this discussion was about and raised every point imaginable. It really is about time we get a neutral closer here and end this discussion. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I just wanted to caution everyone against relying too heavily on Google hits and Google Scholar hits. Yes, they provide important information, but the number of hits is not an indicator of how the linked pages or publications actually use the term, or even the nature of the pages (e.g., anti-investor blog, a transcript of someone's speech to the UN, a letter to the editor of some journal, passing mention in a discussion forum, or an academic research article assessing the positive and negative impact of these funds to the world economy). IMO, usage on such different pages should have different weight. Search engines are an important source of information, but they don't give the full story. Here's the relevant recommendation from WP:COMMONNAME:


 * When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works from Books, LLC when searching Google Books ). Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice on the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Search engine test.


 * Note also that it specifies Google Books and News Archive, not a general Google search, and nor Google Scholar. This also comes after several other recommendations, such as looking at the names used in other encyclopedias. Has anyone looked at that yet? Dcs002 (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Can editors please stick to placing commentary in the "Discussion" section, and simply link to the relevant user's response? As it is, we have editors commenting in both sections and it is making this a highly confusing discussion to follow. Can we please follow standard protocol and post in chronological order and not in between everyone else? I'm assuming that these comments are being posted in response to statements made earlier that have now diverged from each other, but in the interest of making this accessible to the wider community to actually follow and read, can I re-state the question and ask for concise and logical answers please? We are answering the question "Does the name [Vulture fund] violate WP:W2W?" The question should also be answered with regard to WP:TITLE since the current debate is about the ARTICLE TITLE as well as the language used within the article. Could we have one round of the current proponents and opponents give their arguments concisely and then discuss from there, without adding commentary to the Results section? Can we do this please? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As concisely as I can, 'vulture fund' needs to be treated the same way the pejorative Obamacare is treated on WP. A redirect to the proper, encyclopedic name for the term as the page defines it is needed. What name the pejorative redirects to is a question for another RFC. Comatmebro Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 02:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FoCuS, please read this statement about keeping comments within the comments area. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this RfC's organisation (like many others) is a bit of an eyesore. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)