Talk:PIGS (economics)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"What Wikipedia is not"

"Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide." Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary

An acronym is not a term; only that could qualify for an encyclopedia. If really used as a term, is must be combined with a specific thesis, which remains in that case rather unclear, so that it cannot be verified or critized. The conclusion is: that acronym does not qualify for an encyclopedia. --Meffo (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Logically speaking, the acronym has an extension, that is the list of enumerated countries (if not perhaps a definite circumscription), but its intension is hopeplessly vague (if not cleared by an autoritative encyclopedical source!), but quite pejorative. To figure as an encyclopedical concept, the concept must have at minimum a range of a clear, identifiable meaning. So, the crux of the problem is a question of logic and not a problem which lends itself to be solved by consent. --Meffo (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not likely to be deleted. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PIIGS.  --Joshua Scott (formerly LiberalFascist) 01:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As I say, it is not a question amenable to be decided by public vote. If there is any concept behind the acronym, is a question of logic and sources which qualify for an encyclopedia. Besides, that logical question was not the subject of the decison-making you have remembered.

My question to be decided on is here:

Should we allow for PIGS an exception to wiki rules, that wikipedia is about concepts, and which have a reliable encyclopedial source? --Meffo (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

I suggest delete the article and or a {{afd}}--Nudecline (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Weak redirect- Move it the more inclusive PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain).--Its snowing in East Asia (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

Redirect to PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain), PIIGGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Great Britain and Spain), or RUPIIGS (Romania, United Kingdom, Portugal,Italy,Ireland,Greece and Spain). They all come up on variouse fiscal web pages.--Its snowing in East Asia (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

PIGS term created in 2009 by english press? No.

Here is the well researched and referenced intro to the actual term:

PIGS, or PIIGS is an acronym used by international bond analysts, academics, and by the international economic press[1] to refer to the mediterranean economies of the current European Union, (specifically in regards issues related to the soverign debt market) of southern Europe: Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain, with Ireland sometimes found more recently[2] as the additional "I" or in lieu of Italy. Because of its vernacular connotation, some news and economic organisations have denounced or banned its usage.

That's it. 99.144.243.71 (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: PIIGS AND OTHER PORCINE STORIES…I’m not sure this has anything to do with religion or dietary laws or with “Nordic” City snobs patronizing Southern Europeans… It’s just a ‘porte-manteau’ easy-to-remember financial term used by traders and economists on both sides of the Atlantic. Re: the “Proposed Corrective Policies” paragraph I’ve started in the article on PIIGS, that DinDraithoum dude keeps on erasing all additions to the article (including mine). He’s adamant this is some kind of “linguistics” orientated article about the acronym’s semantic roots or something, and doesn’t want to understand the real/underlying topic is the current debt crisis in southern EU countries…..I’m at loss for words: the man simply doesn’t want to understand!! Moorehaus —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

See 1) Wikipedia:OFFTOPIC. 2) Wikipedia:No original research. 3) Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I will be posting about this on the OR noticeboard sometime this evening. DinDraithou (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Despite being challenged, you have failed to explain why and how you believe these policies are being breached. Instead of running off to noticeboards, why don't you actually try to resolve the problem in the normal way? -Rrius (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's used on this English language web page [3]. --Wipsenade (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Racist?

Well done; you hold Wikipedia clean of vandalism. --212.54.219.232 (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed, and consensus is against your view. This article is about the term "PIIGS", which only exists in economics. Another editor suggested that "PIGS" (note the difference), also had an older sense, and I offered to help construct an article based on that. In any event, the controversial nature of the term is noted in the lead, and it is unnecessary for Wikipedia to take the rather strong position that the term is racist (especially when there is no racial difference between those using the term and those referred to). -Rrius (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the "consensus" will never change hah? This is how propaganda is instigated in wikipedia gentlemen. --Leladax (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Some random deucebag journalist used this term and some others repeated it, and then some random "wikipedians" who live somewhere in America decided that it's OK for the people of 5 entire foreign (to them) nations to be referred to as "pigs". Oh, yeah that makes perfect sense because it's "consensus". Oh, and it's also "sourced". I wish I could meet the idiot who introduced voting in wikipedia as a means of establishing "consensus" and explain to him what those terms actually mean in the real world, outside quotes. Until then you can keep this article, it is a fine example of wikipedia's side as an amateur product of pop-culture and source of misinformation. Miskin (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• have many nordicism in the east england(the west england is mediterranean celtiberic); because the majority of the englishs are alpines and not nordics hallstatts..this article is nordicist and anti-mediterranean; it´s racist.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.192.174 (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a very interesting article, surprisingly coming from Jamaica, that has been a email hit across europe in the last months, i think it should be mentioned in this article Apology To The So-Called 'PIIGS' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.206.51.69 (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

How many "i" (and "g")?

In at least parts of Europe, "PIIIGS" is not uncommon, since to us it was the Iceland crash that was the opening shot so to say (in Germany I see "PIIIGS" occasionally, but I have not yet seen "PIIGGS"). Google suggests that "GG" is by far more common than "III", but the latter has been lingering for a while, while the former is only becoming popular in the world at large since late 2009/early 2010 (possibly due to the run-up for the UK general elections).

Arguably, if we mention "PIIGGS" we also need to mention "PIIIG(G)S", since only the original "PIIGS" (w/o Iceland) are part of the Euro zone, and including any or both of Iceland and the UK - in whatever combination - extends the meaning of the term from "Euro zone problem states" to "West European countries exposed to critical amounts of rotten credit". ("West European" being here the political - i.e. "former Western Bloc" - rather than the geographic term).

Briefly, "PIIGS" (without Iceland) expresses a monetary problem, adding any letter beyond shifts the term's meaning to express a more general economic problem. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If a references for PIIIG(G)S can be found then I for one have no problem with it being included.

The "Western Europe" that includes Iceland and the UK is more than just a "former Western Bloc". With the UK it is (still) the European Union and with Iceland it is (still) the EU single market, and so effectively still the EU (see European Economic Area) from an economic perspective. Indeed Iceland is in some repsects "closer" to the traditional PIGS than Ireland or the UK, for example it is a fully participating member of Schengen whereas the UK and Ireland are not.

With regard to your last paragraph, the UK has the same difficulties as the other economies associated with the term - or at least in so much as these economies are all that different from other European economies and so far as these economies have all that much in common with each other apart from being in difficulty (for numerous and diverse reasons). It is very difficult to get an actual meaning to the term beyond it simply a collection of states in trouble with names that with P, I, G or S. --RA (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Occasionally you find PIGSI and GIPSI. --Alex1011 (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Occasionally you also find 'LIPS' (Latvia, Iceland, Portugal and Spain). --Wipsenade (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

RUPIIGS

It has been mentioned on the BBC in January. Romania, UK, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain= 'RUPIIGS', but any use of PIIGS or related turms has ended since about May all to geather, despite the crisis contiuing.--86.24.27.91 (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The defanition of the PIGS, PIIGS, RUPIGS, etc nations and there ecanomic fate in late November 2010.--Wipsenade (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

PIGS only applies to Eurozone countries

The term PIGS is an economic term for the troubled economies of the Eurozone which endanger the stability of other Eurozone economies, as all Eurozone economies are tied to each other via the Euro. The term doesn't apply to economies which are not a part of the Eurozone because these economies are not tied to others via a single currency. The term PIGS applies to Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. The variant term PIIGS is also sometimes used, the extra I standing for Italy. PIIGGS is never used, nor is any other variant. If non-Eurozone countries are included in this article, which they never are in the media, then technically even the debt ridden United States economy, the stagnant Japanese economy, the rapidly shrinking Russian economy, the bankrupt Icelandic economy and others could or should be included in this article. Economies of member states of the European Union are not tied to other member states' economies in the same way as Eurozone economies are tied to each other. Many non-Eurozone economies of Eastern European member states of the European Union are currently debt ridden and performing badly, such as Romania, Hungary, and Latvia, though none of these appear on this article. Please stick to the term as used by economists and the media. 88.106.64.134 (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a point there. --JokerXtreme (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

See the article for references. Each of the variants (PIGS, PIIGS, PIIGGS, and PIGGS) is referenced to reliable secondary sources. Verifiability, not truth. --RA (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Adds: the substantive problem with the article is that use of the term as described here is a recentism and a media novelty. Thus, there is little certainty among reliable sources as to what it actually means beyond how the press choose to use it this week. It should not have survived the deletion nomination and should be merged with 2010 the sovereign debt crisis article IMHO. --RA (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In the UK the term PIGSs does not have any meaning to the UK. It is a euro zone term for EU nations that use the Euro. Recon.Army (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It is true that Dubai, Japan and the USA have resently had or are having an ecanomic problem similar to the PIGS nations, but the term was coined by verioues EU members consernig variouse other EU members and so must only aply to EU member states and/or the other non EU states of Europe. Basicly, say, bot Greece and the Ukraine, but not Japan, for an exsampel.--Wipsenade (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Origin of acronym

Since the origin of the phrase PIGS dates back to at least 2000, it is not possible that it contains a "hidden agenda" to draw attention away from the post-2008 state of the US and UK economies. In fact, the Economist article which is cited in support of the idea that some people have interpreted it in this way does not even mention the word PIGS or PIIGS. It is an ironic opinion piece reviewing the general hostile reception to the Spanish transport minister's theories that Spain was the victim of a coordinated conspiracy by the financial markets and the international press. The citation for the Portuguese minister's condemnation of the phrase as racist is a dead link and the Spanish blog cited seems to be a fulmination against the foreign press (particularly the Financial Times ironically) in which the acronym PIIGS is, rather controversially, just translated as "cerdos", Spanish for pigs.

It should at least be mentioned in the current Wikipedia article that the origin of the phrase was in the neutral acronym BAFFLING PIGS, which was simply used as a memonic for remembering all the original participants in the Euro (See the travel section of the Independent Dec 2001: http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/europe/all-change-for-the-euro-663758.html). Its counterpart was DUKS - Denmark, UK and Sweden - EU members which did not participate.

I cannot recall any complaint that either term was racist or insulting until more widely used in the financial crisis.

Whatever its origins, it is clear the acronym - as a clumsily adapted bit of shorthand for the Euro countries arguably facing the most difficulties on the financial markets - is well past its sell-by date. Spain should almost certainly not be in the same category of risk as Ireland and including the UK makes little financial or geographical sense - unless it is simply meant as a derogatory term for any country with a deficit/debt problem, in which case why not include the US, Turkey or anyone else who takes one's fancy. While this may be a matter of opinion, without any citation to the contrary, that is the more likely explanation for it no longer being used in the Financial Times. It has simply become meaningless. As an international newspaper, the FT would also be aware that the phrase - once translated into the local language for the four-legged bacon version - would be seen as particularly unflattering, whatever its own sense of the acronym.

The misuse of citations in support of a shaky thesis and the general tone of the current entry should be amended. The inclusion of the UK in the grouping - although some citations can be found, as for everything - has no historical or intellectually rigourous basis and makes it look like a peevish act of retribution for a supposed anti-mediterranean bias in the original acronym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.143.5 (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues tag

I have tagged the article as having Multiple issues. I'd like to point out some of them:

Cleanup: As someone indicated before, the BRIC article might be a good example to follow. More specifically, in the current version of PIGS, the "Acronym variation" subsection is unclear and poorly sourced; "The causes of their decline" is unsourced, too simple and probably biased; "The economic fall-out among 'member states'" is not clearly linked to the rest of the article; and the "See also" and "Topical diagrams" sections look like they should be better integrated into the article.

Refimprove: References are lacking (in quantity and quality) in most of the article, and especially in subsections 'Acronym variations' and 'The causes of their decline'.

Citation style: Many references include only the URL; no source name, no author, no date... --gonzy (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody uses it in 'pigs'

When I hear people in Germany on youtube calling Greece "pigs" while Greeks never use the term, I can only think "Hitler, Hitler, Hitler". --Athinker (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Article Name Change

Forgive me if I'm presenting this wrong as I'm not an experienced user.

Anyways, the name of the article on a whole should be changed to PIIGS. The acronym refers to the countries use of the EURO currency, and the subsequent weakness displayed of that currency relative to the dollar and yen. There were concerns that the currency as a whole might collaspe. Portugal Italy Greece and Spain were included; this was later amended due to deterioration in Ireland's financial condition. This creates the final PIIGS.

For this reason, the addition of countries such as the U.K., Romania, and Iceland are off point and misused by the media. Also, in reading this discussion, I must point out that the acronym is commonly used in American economic publications and journals such as the WSJ, the Economist, etc. It is not a U.K. creation that was to demean the countries. It is an economic acronym.

There is an excellent comment above that this article should mimic the BRIC article about Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Would an editor please attend to this because in light of Ireland's recent bailout, the inaccuracies and lack of information is disheartening for those who would turn to this site for information about the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.146.247 (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

 == There's no PIIGGS ==

The citations for the extra G are pathetic. I've never seen any reference to PIIGGS (except by bloggers from P, I, G, and S with wishful thinking). PIGS is a real term used in the markets. Don't use this article to assuage national self-esteem. Unless better sources are inserted in a week, I'm going to delete UK from this article. DeCausa (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

- This is correct. I've tried to remove references, but cannot change the map/file names for the map and bar chart.94.142.32.114 (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

- Sources Below - No Removal Justified

Rodolfou (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"I" in PIGS

Shouldn't the "I" in PIGS stand for Ireland? Italy should be the second "I" in PIIGS. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8510603.stm and also http://bx.businessweek.com/irelands-economy/europes-pigs-country-by-country/15556830359292323753-3751dfb9e72be6533f8227d23e647349/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.27.244.146 (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that's true. The Economist, in two stories that are both critical of Italy [4] [5], says that the I now stands for Ireland. The only dated source in the article from this or last year is a BBC story, which also says it's Ireland. A cursory search of Gnews reveals the same [6]. I think it's fair to change the article to say that it originally stood for Italy, but now stands for Ireland.--Chaser (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The picture should be updated too. --93.33.244.38 (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It is Hard to Find Sources for The Core of The Matter

The main controversy behind the acronym is that it is purposefully discriminatory (e.g., “brown-people discrimination”) as alternatives such as GIPS (but not the possibly derogatory GIPSI or GIPSIs) would still configure a readable acronym without inflaming a North-South divide/conflict (as the original I was for Italy, not Ireland) between Euro-nations and promoting a narrative of “help” from Northern states to Southern states (instead of alternative narratives, e.g. of bank bailouts in disguise).

Other Insulting/Derogatory Acronyms

STUPID - Spain, Turkey, UK, Portugal, Italy and Dubai

FUKD - France, UK and Deutschland

FUKDUS - France, UK, Deutschland and US

Possible Citations

And when you think about that unflattering acronym -- PIGS – you have to ask yourself, who invented it? Where did it come from? My understanding was that it came from an analyst at Goldman Sachs. If so, one is entitled to doubt that was entirely accidental. And I suggest that perhaps it might be useful going forward to change the referent of that acronym to its true meaning: Principal Instigator Goldman Sachs. Comments by James K. Galbraith at a Symposium of the Global Progressive Forum, Res Publica and the Parliamentary European Socialists, Lisbon, July 9, 2010. http://utip.gov.utexas.edu/Flyers/Galbraith%20Lisbon%20I.pdf

But some investors warn that such acronyms, droll as they are, can make the markets less safe. Gerard Fitzpatrick, senior portfolio manager at Russell Investments in London, says: “These acronyms can spread systemic risk. They create herd behaviour, with investors mindlessly running from anything tarred with the PIGS brush.” Jerome Booth agrees: “The problem with all these acronyms is they’re short-cuts. They save you the effort of thinking. Thinking is hard work.” From BRICs to PIGS: what’s in a name? Jules Evans December 6, 2010 http://www.globaldashboard.org/2010/12/06/from-brics-to-pigs-whats-in-a-name/

A particular worry is what could be called the PIGS—Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, Europe's negative version of the fast-growing BRICs. The fear is that these countries may be in a hole they cannot easily climb out of and that the ECB will be pressed into running a looser monetary policy to save them. The ECB at ten - A decade in the sun. The Economist. Jun 5th 2008 | from the print edition http://www.economist.com/node/11487440?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11487440 Rodolfou (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Accronym Does Not Reflect Government Debt Country Rankings

General government net debt (% of GDP) International Monetary Fund, April 2011 World Economic Outlook Net debt is calculated as gross debt minus financial assets corresponding to debt instruments. These financial assets are: monetary gold and SDRs, currency and deposits, debt securities, loans, insurance, pension, and standardized guarantee schemes, and other accounts receivable.

Greece (152%), Japan (128%), Italy (101%), Ireland (95%), Portugal (86%), Belgium (82%), France (78%), U.K. (75%), U.S.A. (72%), Hungary (71%), Iceland (70%), Israel (70%), Euro zone (67%), Germany (55%), Spain (53%)

Google Public Data Explorer

General government net lending/borrowing (% of GDP) International Monetary Fund, April 2011 World Economic Outlook Net lending (+)/ borrowing (–) is calculated as revenue minus total expenditure. This is a core GFS balance that measures the extent to which general government is either putting financial resources at the disposal of other sectors in the e...conomy and nonresidents (net lending), or utilizing the financial resources generated by other sectors and nonresidents (net borrowing). This balance may be viewed as an indicator of the financial impact of general government activity on the rest of the economy and nonresidents (GFSM 2001, paragraph 4.17). Note: Net lending (+)/borrowing (–) is also equal to net acquisition of financial assets minus net incurrence of liabilities.

Ireland (-10,8%), U.S.A.(-10,8%), Japan (-10%), U.K. (-8,6%), Greece (-7,4%), Croacia (-6,3%), Spain (-6,2%), New Zeland (-6%), Poland (-5,7%), Portugal (-5,6%), Euro Zone (-4-4%)

Google Public Data Explorer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolfou (talk • contribs) 02:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And it is not meant to. It was developed generations ago to group the economic related economies of southern Europe, it's a grouping acronym and nothing more. 76.239.18.21 (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Iceland

You forgot Iceland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.234.164 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What about Iceland? If it has relevance to this article it needs to be backed up by RS. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nazis called their "inferiors" pigs.

Coincidence? I think not. --195.74.250.209 (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that makes the connection between the epithet PIGS and Nazism, then it may be worth including. The article itself already acknowledges the term is seen as offensive by some.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

WHY ARE YOU DELETING MY INFO?

I had posted info on the articale that Spain has the lowest public debt according to the graph thats INCLUDED in the article. For some unknown, bizarre reason, you deleted it. I even provided the URL of the graph as excellent reference. Why are you doing this? Are you ok? 12.20.4.100 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.4.100 (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear where that graph came from. As that, it fails WP:RS. You should cite where it came from, not where you uploaded it to. Toddst1 (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

So, if I find another source that shows this or similar graph, can I use it?

12.20.4.100 (talk)

Yes, if you find a reliable source, it would be fine. We shouldn't keep well-sourced, on-topic material out.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if i can use the graph on the article in conjunction with references I found somewhere else. This will add more support to the citation. 12.20.4.100 (talk)

Fundamentally, you can't use the graph as it is as a source. It's a file on wikipedia. You need to find sources independent of wikipedia. If the graph is a replica of a graph in an independent reliable source, then cite the independent source, not the wikipedia file itself. This may sound awkward, but readers need to know where we got the information from. We can't say "we made it", as we're simply an anonymous bunch of volunteers with no credentials. (Researchers and students should never cite Wikipedia. Instead, they should look at the sources we provide and check those sources.)

Also, be careful of our rules on original research. Your statement "On the other hand, Spain has the smallest debt in the Eurozone. It is expected to resolve its debt issue far sooner than the rest of the indebted Euro nations, as the graph to the right indicates." looks like original research (ie it's your own idea or analysis). The graph doesn't show all the members of the Eurozone, so you can't say obviously from the graph that Spain has the smallest debt. Even highlighting the fact without sourcing to an expert who highlights it, is not ideal. And who expects a faster resolution? Which analysts? In other words, you need to provide a good source for this opinion. (And you'd have to attribute it, rather than state it as fact.) Again, this is because we do not as Wikipedians produce analysis or information, we report and assemble what people in the real world in reliable sources have said. That may sound dull, but it isn't. (Building a wiki-based encylopedia is strangely addictive). People wishing to get their own ideas out, however, need to find a real world publisher.

There really honestly isn't an agenda on the part of editors here except to keep the encyclopedia accurate and reliable. If you can find the sources people will be very willing to help add content.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand what youre saying. When I made the commnet that Spain has the lowest debt in the Eurozone, I should have restated it by saying that it possesses the smallest debt among the Eurozone indebted nations (or PIIGGS region).

And wiki editors do have an agenda. And, I am justified in saying so. The editors have long been known to defend erroneous historical frameworks in favor of their american culture/supemacy. This is wrong. I am not alone in voicing out this concarn; many people have complained about this also. 12.20.4.100 (talk)

There certainly are some editors who defend the erroneous in favour of America, just as there are some editors who defend the erroneous against America. We also have editors who battle over Chinese, Indian, Irish, Russian etc. etc. history. We have battles over 9/11, over climate change, over abortion, over God knows what. The challenge for those of us really wanting to rise above all that (whom I believe are the majority of active editors) is editing according to principles that allow us to present as fairly as we can all major viewpoints. The best weapon against people campaigning on Wikipedia is the insistence that we rely on proper expertise to inform us.

By the by, I recently had quite a bizarre experience coaching what appeared to be a Japanese ultra-nationalist editor on what could be written about a minor ultra-nationalist hero. As an immigrant to Japan, I obviously have no desire to bolster the people who would have me and my mixed-race children thrown out of the country or worse. But I'm also a Wikipedian. By working civilly to policy and with principles the collaboration worked as best it could and we got a short balanced article out of it while staying on good terms.

I mention this because this is what you need to do. If there is a viewpoint you feel is underrepresented in an article, bring the sources, bring the evidence. It's really important that our own prejudices be put as far away from our editing as possible. There is a natural bias towards American views on the English wikipedia, but unlike quite a few Wikipedias, the English one is avowedly global. If you can find sources, particularly non-American ones, please bring them in.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I for one know I always edit in favour of both my American culture and my American suprimacy. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

PIIIGS, GIIPS

What about Iceland? It's occassionally been grouped with the PIIGS, with three I's. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

PIIIGS/GIIPS referenced now. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

RUPIIGS/RPIIGS

It was refered to in UK press for the UK and Romania in 2008.PA Dennison (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Romania, UK, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain= 'RUPIIGS', but any use uther than PIIGS or related turms has ended since about May 2009 [[7]].PA Dennison (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

PIGS (economics) → PIGS –Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Primary topic. Page views: 39,813, 101. Marcus Qwertyus 21:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's better that PIGS remains a disambiguation page. Someone looking for pigs (rather more likely) may type PIGS; differentiating between pages (rather than through disambig pages) on the basis of letter cases isn't helpful. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• WP:Precision: Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail. Many such differences involve capitalization, separation or non-separation of components, or pluralization: MAVEN and Maven; Red Meat and Red meat; Sea-Monkeys and SeaMonkey. Marcus Qwertyus 04:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• "May" is the key word here. I don't see the benefit to the encyclopaedia by exploiting that permission here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose "PIGS" should redirect to pig (disambiguation). 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Gets rid of unnecessary disambiguation. Doesn't affect the article on oinkers. What's not to like? Kauffner (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. "PIGS" is a very specific acronym. For someone looking to find pigs to type that they'd have to 1. be wikisavvy enough to type the URL into the address bar and either 2.a. not wikisavvy enough to know that capitalization matters or 2.b insufficiently computer illiterate to turn off the caps lock key. I don't think it's a demographic redirects are really intended to address. --Quintucket (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per disambiguation guidelines and what Wikipedia is not. This article is not a primary topic in an enduring sense. Interest in the article, which is currently high, is determined entirely by current events. In time, interest in the acronym will decline again to insignificance. Regardless of the passing interest of our readers, we are an encyclopedia, not a glossary of terms for current events. --RA (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. A retrograde proposal that would benefit no one, anywhere. To the extent that it can be supported legalistically from some policy or guideline, that policy or guideline is called into question. Too many RMs are failing to consider the basic needs of readers, who want to see at a glance what an article is about – or at least to have some clue concerning the broad domain of the topic. This needs a systematic review. Noetica^Tea? 01:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"similar economic environments"

It seems that many misunderstand this phrase: "similar economic environments" as being synonymous with the ongoing financial crisis.

This is a mistake. The similar economic environment is their grounding as southern European largely Mediterranean agricultural/tourism based economies with (pre-EU) export based soft-money and biased towards inflationary central banking policies. Before the Euro these countries native currency and sovereign debt was largely traded as a bloc and moved together as a group. Similar groupings occur with what are known as commodity currencies as in Australia/Canada/Brazil and elsewhere wherever natural rhythms exist.

The phrase "similar economic environments" should either be explained or replaced - it is not accurately reflecting the term for the purposes of this non-political encyclopedia.99.50.181.83 (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've split the two uses in the introduction in order to make that clearer. --RA (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested merger

16:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The definition is WRONG. I usually stands for Ireland!

That's how it is most commonly used, because the original four countries who got into trouble where Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. Italy only got into trouble later, when its bond rates were rising, too. Even one of the sources used here speaks of Ireland instead of Italy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8510603.stm Also, see this: http://www.acronymfinder.com/PIGS.html Seems there is some confusion about the acronym, and this should be noted in the article. Gray62 (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, since nobody objected, I was bold and added the alternative reading "Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain" which is increasingly used since 2008 (when Ireland got into problems first, with Italy following later). This usage can be found in countless media and economics reports, I added some refs for that. Gray62 (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten it for a number of reasons. One was that the change broke the meaning of second sentence. In the scale of things, also, use with Ireland is a recentism (however, a notable one). The third sentence did explains the change in context of use since 2008 and lists Ireland. However, I've moved this up to the second sentence and explained use of Ireland in place of or alongside Italy explicitly. The section on History also explicitly gives PIGS as "Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain" since the financial crisis. --RA (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This looks good to me now. Thanks for polishing this up! I only reinserted the Krugman ref (which became lost), which is notable, imho. Hmm, just a question: Is there an alternate editor for Wikipedia which makes it easier to edit articles with a lot of refs? I find that very difficult and time consuming with the build in one. Hard to find the wikipedia text between all the references, especially for a small time editor like me who isn't accustomed to this... Gray62 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Thanks also.

There is a project page on tools here, including citation tools and editing tools. I have tried some of them, which IIRC can hide citations while you edit, but eventually I returned to the standard editing tool. You may have more luck than I did. You could also try asking on the tools talk page. Folk there are likely to be more knowledgeable than me. --RA (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, FYI, acronymfinder.com is not a reliable source. --RA (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I respectfully disagree. Pls see their "about" page: http://www.acronymfinder.com/about.asp Awards, partnerships, widely used by other reliable sources, entries have to go through an editorial review process - this looks quite solid to me. And in the context of showing the real world usage of an acronym, quoting the site makes sense, imho. We wouldn't think twice about this if it was a PRINTED source, right? So, isn't this simply discrimination of online sources? Hmm. Or is there a consensus here that Acronym Finder shall not be seen as a reliable soource? No misunderstanding, imho that's not important enough to have a big argument about it, I'm just curious. Gray62 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

To my eyes, it would fail RS. While it may be edited, so is Wikipedia. The question is: who edits it? Are they reliable? And who publishes it? Is it a akin to a self-published source? These questions affect printed material also.

I see a question was asked about it on the reliable sources noticeboard, but with no response. --RA (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW this is not to dispute what Acronym Finder give, only to say that there are more reliable (better)sources that support the same statement. That's my 2c, anyway. --RA (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Bloomberg, The Economist and The Independent are not "original research": PIGS, in the economic sense, refers to Ireland. Gray62 also said PIGS refers to Ireland. The term PIGS, in the past, was used to designate the countries of the Mediterranean sea without any reference to their economies: the economic aspect was not the basis for designating a particular category of countries. --Naumakos (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

PIGS/PIIGS

Many newspapers, which are not scientific, often inappropriately used the term PIGS. We have to use these sources, but we must be careful, because very often, in this matter, some journalists are superficial.

Indeed, Ireland (and not Italy) is included in the term PIGS: to indicate Italy we use the term PIIGS. Though often, reporters who are not specialists tend to interchange the names.

Now let's recap. The ability of a country to finance its debt depends on two variables:

• The annual government deficit;
• Interest payments: how much a country must pay to finance its debt on the market.

Italy had the lowest budget deficit in Europe, after Germany (-5.3% in 2009, -4.5 in 2010, -3.9 in 2011). Ireland has had a greater deficit (-14.0 in 2009, -17.0 in 2010, -11.0 in 2011).

Interest payments. The difference between the yield of Italian government bonds and German 10 years (spread BOT / bunds) was at most 575. Ireland has reached 2200 points: it was forced to seek help of 85 billion euros in 2010, the European fund EFSF. Italy has never asked for help and will not do so. Even today, Ireland spends more than Italy, to finance its debt.

The confusion stems from the fact that Italy, in July 2011, appeared close to a major political crisis, but not to an economic crisis. The political crisis was due to the controversy between the President Berlusconi and Economics Minister Tremonti, who was considered the guardian of the public accounts.

See the IMF site.--Naumakos (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Two central tenets of Wikipedia are verifiablilty and no original research. Regardless of whether Italy has received a bailout or not, since the mid-1990's it has been included in the term. For example:

"So, when in 1995 Italy — along with the other southern countries of Portugal, Greece and Spain — finally made it to the borderless Europe, signs of elation were palpable … The euphoria, however, did not last long. European clerks in Brussels soon started referring to the Giovannios-come-lately with an unflattering acronym: Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain — the PIGS, no less, as Linday Waters reported." — Roberto M. Dainotto (2006), Europe (in Theory), Durham: Duke University Press, p. 2, ISBN 9780822339274

The term predates the crisis by over a decade and includes Italy. Additionally, use of the acronym as Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain continued into the current crisis (even after Ireland became associated with the term in the media). Example:

"In early 2010 public focus moved from the external indebtedness of Eastern Europe and risks to its banking system to the public indebtedness of the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain) and the possible risk of sovereign default, especially in Greece." - Anders Åslund (2010), The Last Shall be the First: The East European Financial Crisis, 2008-10, Washington, DC: Peterson Institute, p. 29, ISBN 9780881325218

--RA (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that two central tenets of Wikipedia are verifiablilty and no original research. But the sources, newspapers from around the world, they say contradictory things ... Every journalist writes according to his personal opinions: all opinions are legitimate, but we have to rely only on scientific sources. It is certainly not sufficient ABC NEWS Business Correspondent, because I could cite a RAI NEWS Correspondent, a journalist from the Sun 24 hours, which says the opposite ...

Now, I understand what you mean. But the term PIGS, as manifested in our context, has a precise meaning. It refers to the economic crisis of 2007-2012. We, therefore, we use various terms referring to only one source: the International Monetary Fund, setting out in an impartial manner, the macroeconomic data of all the countries. --Naumakos (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For example, many sources say that "the i in the Pigs stands for Ireland, not Italy":

• Bloomberg: The “i” in the Pigs acronym stands for Ireland and not Italy, where higher private savings and better management of public finances ([http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=asChEF8jj3fg here);
• The Independent: "The i in the Pigs acronym for indebted states stands for Ireland and not Italy" ([http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/i-in-pigs-is-for-ireland-not-italy-insist-unicredit-staff-2051073.html here).

--Naumakos (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm ... so you say we should avoid newspapers as sources ... and then you go on to cite two of them?

The second citation I gave above refers explicitly to the period of the 2007— economic crisis. Here's another dealing with that period:

"The real problem came when this analysis was extended to the rest of the heavily indebted periphery — commonly referred to in such accounts as the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain) group. Ireland was sometimes thrown in as a second 'I'. This was unfair and inaccurate, particularly as regards Spain and Ireland, which had been running a budget leading up to the crisis." —John Quiggin (2012), Zombie Economics: How Dead Ideas Still Walk among Us, Princeton University Press, p. 229, ISBN 9781400842087

Anyway, I suppose I have now sufficiently demonstrated to you that (a) the term pre-dates the current crisis; and (b) it includes Italy (both before and now). The question of wether Ireland replaced Italy or not during the crisis (as suggested by the two newspapers you cite above) was given in the second line of the article before you changed it: "Since 2008, the term has included Ireland, either in place of Italy or with an additional I." --RA (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that should be avoided newspapers and magazines (although Bloomberg seems to be a scientific magazine), but in any case, I demonstrated how the same sources are contradictory. Therefore, we must inspire us to a scientific criterion.

Because the terms PIGS / PIIGS terms are likely to be interpreted in so many different ways as possible, I believe that we must be impartial and just look at the numbers, the macroeconomic data, without any interpretation.

Before the crisis, the term PIGS had a different connotation. He had not an economic character, but a geographical character. Because this article is titled "PIGS (economics)" I think it only appropriate to be guided to the economy and, in particular, the current economic crisis.--Naumakos (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that even a magazine as The Economist says that "Ireland, not Italy, is the I in the Pigs", is a proof of how this term is interpreted differently among the various sources. (here). So...If I bring you ten sources, and you took me ten sources, we can not come to anything. We need to develop additional criteria...--Naumakos (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Roberto Dainotto is Professor of Italian and of Literature at Duke University (not of Economics...) says: "when in 1995 Italy — along with the other southern countries of Portugal, Greece and Spain — finally made it to the borderless Europe doesn't know economics [...]". Now, he is wrong: Italy was among the founders of Europe in 1951 (with Portugal, Spain and Greece have entered in the year 80). From this point of view, too, Italy has nothing in common with the other three countries.--Naumakos (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"Therefore, we must inspire us to a scientific criterion." No. That would be original research. We take a neutral point of view.

Differing view of whether, since 2008, the I stood for Ireland or Italy was already shown in the article: "Since 2008, the term has included Ireland, either in place of Italy or with an additional I." You removed that line and altered the article to read: "Since 2011, the term has included Italy, with an additional I." That is factually incorrect and explicitly contradicted by reliable sources. Italy has always been associated with the term.

Since you enjoy the Economist, here is what an an article from 2008 has to say:

"A particular worry is what could be called the PIGS—Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, Europe's negative version of the fast-growing BRICs."

As that reference shows, contrary to what you believe, use of the term has always been economic in character. Here's another example (also involving the Economist):

"As the Economist reported during the Maastricht negotiations, the limits were chosen by an alliance of German, Dutch, British, and other officials with the intention of "keeping the PIGS out." "PIGS" alluded to Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain, where were deemed to be prone to fiscal profligacy and infation." — Bradley W. Bateman; Toshiaki Hirai; Maria Cristina Marcuzzo (2010), The Return to Keynes, Harvard University Press, p. 62, ISBN 9780674035386

Finally, the "borderless Europe" that Dainotto refers to is Schengen, which took effect in 1995 (see here).

--RA (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned, there are sources that say different things. Some believe that PIGS including Ireland, I showed you authoritative sources that confirm this (Bloomberg, The Economist, The Independent), other sources indicate Italy, and you showed me these other sources.

Given these contradictions, I believe it is necessary to conform to "higher-level sources." I then showed the macroeconomic data of Ireland and of Italy, as they are indicated by the International Monetary Fund, based on the two benchmarks to evaluate the economic soundness of a country (deficit and rate of interest on debt)

Any use of the term PIGS before the current economic crisis is not important, because in this article the term is treated with reference to the crisis in 2007-2012.

If you consider the news, the use of the term PIGS, with reference to the current economic crisis, was born with specific reference to Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. Subsequently, some have used the term PIGS indicating, in promiscuous mode, Ireland and Italy, while others have preferred to keep the old tradition PIIGS.

The fundamental issue is that there are sources that say different things: for this reason, the only solution is to consider international and objective sources, such as the International Monetary Fund.--Naumakos (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've directed you earlier to WP:V and WP:NOR. We are not here to sort out "contradictions" through our own original research. In any case, the sources are quite consistent. Prior to the current crisis, PIGS referred exclusively to Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain. Since the crisis, Ireland (and for a moment Iceland and Great Britain) also become associated with the term. That can — and already was — shown neutrally in the article.

I've revert your changes because (a) you haven't provided any evidence to support it except your own original thought; and (b) reliable source (the three you cited above, the five I cited above, and those already cited in the article) all contradict the change you made. --RA (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Bloomberg, The Economist and The Independent are not "original research": PIGS, in the economic sense, refers to Ireland. Gray62 also said PIGS refers to Ireland. The term PIGS, in the past, was used to designate the countries of the Mediterranean sea without any reference to their economies: the economic aspect was not the basis for designating a particular category of countries. --Naumakos (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Bloomberg, the Economist, etc. contradict the changes you are making. Please, look at the cited sources. If you want to propose changes, do so on the talk page. --RA (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

With respect to this edit. First, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Second, you should note User:Gray62 remark: "This looks good to me now. Thanks for polishing this up!" You are not altering the version he/she was supportive of.

I'm going to seek a third opinion. --RA (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not know what to do more than bring the authoritative sources such as Bloomberg, The Economist and The Independent, confirming that PIGS is used to refer to Ireland and Italy. I do not know what to do more than seek a compromise with you, so write that "PIGS is sometimes used in promiscuous mode to designate both Ireland and Italy." I do not know what to do more than say that the term has an economic sense (which is what concerns us here), which is different from its geographical meaning, also attested in a few sources, which was used in the 90 years to indicate European countries of the Mediterranean sea. I would like not only the article was modified according to my directions, but, really, you were convinced of the correctness of this information. Since, for professional reasons, I work about Economic Affairs of the countries of southern Europe, I can assure you that what I said you is really the right thing! Believe me.--Naumakos (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've requested a third opinion. --RA (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

The dispute is over whether the term PIGS originally included "Ireland" or "Italy" and when Italy became associated with the term.

The statements below, added by Naumakos, I think, are contradicted by reliable sources (I've underlined the particular issues):

• "PIGS (also PIIGS) is an acronym used to refer to the economies of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. Since 2011, the term has included Italy, with an additional I."

• "Originally, the term referred to Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain, which were notable as similar economic environments."

• "Since the European sovereign debt crisis, in 2011, with the addition of Italy, the term is used to group European economies facing particular financial crisis."

The version here, I feel, is more accurate:

• "PIGS (also PIIGS) is an acronym used to refer to the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. Since 2008, the term has included Ireland, either in place of Italy or with an additional I."

• "Originally, the term referred to Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, which were notable as similar economic environments."

• "Since the European sovereign debt crisis, with the addition of Ireland, the term is used to group European economies facing particular financial crisis."

Additionally, I believe the map Naumakos has added reflects Wikipedia:Recentism (and even then inaccurately) rather than a neutral historical perspective on the term.

35 sources with quotations are refernce in the version I link above. The following are particularly relevant, I feel (note the dates, also):

• "Greece and Ireland show best returns". Investment Adviser. March 15, 2007. In general, the weakest EU economies, called PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain), are best avoided in the near term. In recent times Ireland has also been associated with the PIGS countries and the acronym has been modified to become PIIGS. However considering Ireland's public debt as a % of GDP, it is an unfortunate comparison.

• Niels Ruben Ravnaas (2010-05-10). "Banket gjennom giganthjelpen". Na24. Retrieved 2012-04-25. Disse europeiske landene har i finansverdenen gått under økenavnet PiGS-land (Portugal, Italia, Hellas (Greece) og Spania) siden 1997. Etter at finanskrisen inntraff, og det ble økt fokus på europeiske lands statsfinanser, har også Irland og Storbritannia blitt knyttet til PIGS, noe som gjør at man nå både har samlebetegnelsene PIIGS og PIIGGS. (Translation: "These European countries have in the financial world gone under the nickname PIGS countries (Portugal, Italy, Greece (Greece) and Spain) since 1997. After the financial crisis struck, and there was increased focus on European countries' public finances, also Ireland and the UK have been linked to the PIGS, which means that you now have both collective term PIIGS and PIIGGS.)")

• S. Gurumurthy (May 26 2010), Too small is ‘too big' to fail, The Hindu, retrieved 19 August 2012, "PIGS in Muck" — this was how, using the acronym 'PIGS' for Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, the Financial Times London had titled an edit on August 31, 2008. … Unlike in 2008, now it is no more just PIGS that drag the EU down. The PIGS club has now expanded, with Ireland first, and ironically, Great Britain next, as the newly qualified members of the PIGS, making it PIIGGS (adding another 'I', for Ireland and another 'G', for Great Britain). {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Matei, Daniela (2010). "The Role of the Euro During and After Economical Crisis" (PDF). Economics and Applied Informatics (1): 87–92. PIGS, PIIGS and PIIGGS are acronyms that originally referred to the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain (PIGS). Since the financial crisis of 2007–2010, Ireland (PIIGS) and, more recently, the United Kingdom (Great Britain, PIIGGS) have become associated with the term. The term became popular again during the financial crisis of 2007–2010 when the economies of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain were seen as especially vulnerable due to high or rising government debt levels and a high government deficits relative to annual GDP.

--RA (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I'm from WP:3O. Naumakos, above you wished to use macroeconomic data to support the thesis that the "I" refers initially to Ireland. This cannot be done, unless there's a source that uses those macroeconomic numbers to support the idea themselves. Anything else is synthesis, a kind of original research. You say that newspapers insert their own biases, yet it's possible that the creators of the term had their own biases, too, and wished to include Italy despite Ireland being worse-off. That's why in this particular instance we can't synthesize these sources: We might introduce a meaning distinct from what was intended in the first place, even if the intended meaning was inaccurate in the grand scheme of things.

A brief skim over Google suggests that Italy is the most commonly accepted initial, and nearly all the sources that say "Ireland" are doing so as a clarification, e.g., "you've all been wrong this whole time!" It's not our job to correct public knowledge; all we can do is say others are attempting to correct it. In the meantime, we have to use what is considered common knowledge.

Futhermore, there are sources that say "Ireland has recently been introduced", which suggests that Italy had been common knowledge. The contrasting sources say that the "I" stood for Ireland, but are there any sources that say Italy had been "introduced"? If there aren't, then one of the I's in PIIGS would have no meaning, unless Ireland were introduced twice ;-) Logically, it's looking strong that that initial "I" stood for Italy.

As for the PIIGGS map, I guess that depends on the prevalence of the term. I myself have no objection to include Great Britain if PIIGGS is accepted nomenclature and not merely hypothetical or in-the-future. Otherwise, I'd wait just a while to see its use rises or falls. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The particularly contentious issue is this: some sources include Ireland, other sources include Italy. Thus, the sources which, in the past, included Italy, today also included Ireland, and vice versa.

However, some sources, which are specialized in economic matters, not only did not include Italy among the PIGS, but also explicitly specify that Ireland is to be included, not Italy. These sources date back to 2010. They say: "The “i” in the Pigs acronym stands for Ireland and not Italy" (here, Bloomberg); "The i in the Pigs acronym for indebted states stands for Ireland and not Italy" (here, The Independent).

In addiction, we can consider a source as "The Ireland Institute" (october 2010): "[...] This collapse cut government revenue in many countries, while government spending on public services and unemployment benefits grew. The result has been soaring public sector deficits, especially in the countries where the biggest bubbles were. In Europe, these were the PIGS countries: Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain."(here).

An other authoritative source is that of two famous Italian professors, Luigi Marattin of the University of Bologna and Simone Salotti of the University of Florence. In their essay, The Euro-Dividend: Public Debt and Interest rates in the Monetary Union, they wrote: "Such an unprecedented deterioration of public finance conditions is raising considerable concerns regarding the possible negative effect on interest rates. Particularly, there is a widespread concern in the European Monetary Union (EMU), where the conduct of the common monetary policy could be damaged by a generalized increase in yields on the capital market driven by the deterioration of national fiscal conditions. In early 2010, concerns about fiscal solvency of some EMU countries (the so-called “PIGS”: Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain), with the widening of within-EMU government bonds’ interest rates spread and talks of possible bail outs, is jeopardizing Eurozone’s financial stability." (page 2).

In any case, it is evident that the term PIGS is used in promiscuous mode to indicate both Ireland and Italy. As rightly said by User:Xavexgoem, the term PIGS was born in journalistic language and, therefore, has no real scientific basis, so it would be unnecessary to investigate the real macroeconomic data ...

What could be, however, a remedy to resolve this contradiction, considering that some sources indicate Ireland and other Italy? Only to solve this antinomy I made reference to the macroeconomic data of the International Monetary Fund.

Things, then, are complicated because, in the past, the term PIGS existed but did not have the meaning which it has assumed in everyday life. PIGS acronym was to indicate the countries of the Mediterranean, toghether with a history and a common culture (the Roman Empire, the Romance languages​​, etc.).

I think we should make a synthesis of sources. My proposal is this: "PIGS is an acronym used to refer to the economies of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. Nevertheless, in the language of mass media, the term is sometimes used in a promiscuous way, to indicate both Ireland and Italy. Alternatively, the term PIIGS is used."--Naumakos (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I like your compromise, but it gives more weight to one interpretation. How about:

"PIGS is an acronym that refers to the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain.^[cite] [<--This reflects the most common use] Some economists use the "I" to refer to Ireland,^[cite] and the acronym PIIGS is also used to refer to both Italy and Ireland.^[cite]"

Would that be acceptable to both? --Xavexgoem (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe much in the rightness of the statement because, in addition to demonstrate the numerical superiority of those who include Italy, we should also demonstrate their superior quality, on which I doubt... for example, many newspapers are confused about debt and deficit and, consequently, damage sometimes wrong numbers ... the characteristic aspect that prevents Italy to be included in full in PIGS is the structural nature of the economy, which differs from other countries not only from a macroeconomic point of view, but also microeconomic (company structure, the service sector, etc..). In addition, Italy is one of the G8... In seeking a compromise between sources opposing each other, I think it is better to look for sources which are "higher-level", which are capable of expressing a greater weight than other sources. We can say: ""PIGS is an acronym used to refer to the economies of Portugal, Ireland (or, sometimes, Italy), Greece and Spain." What I do not agree with, more than anything, is the conceptual aspect of not distinguishing different characters of macro/micro economics.--Naumakos (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Bloomberg and "The Independent" (actually the Irish Independent) references are actually the same source. Both are quoting the same report by UniCredit, an Italy bank, and are syndicated articles. However, the issue of whether, since the current crisis, Ireland has become associated with the term, either alongside or instead of Italy, is not in question. It is not a consistent feature, however — and some sources are now suggesting the association is withering away (just like the association of Great Britain and Iceland with the term was fleeting). On the other hand, Italy has been associated with the acronym since its inception in the 1990s.

Xavexgoem, for that reason, I'm fine with your suggestion. (A tweak I might make is to add a rough date for the change in use e.g. "Since the financial crisis, some economists use the 'I' to refer to Ireland…")

Naumakos, I don't know where to begin. Multiple sources already in the article show the origins of the term in the mid-1990s. The association of Italy with the term is constant. Only in recent years have variants that used Ireland instead of Italy, or alongside it, appeared. Multiple (very reliable) sources cited already in the article attest to this.

As Xavexgoem points out, whether those sources are "right" or "wrong" to include Italy among the PIGS is not something we should worry about. Discussion of how some sources say Ireland is more proper that Italy (the UniCredit reference for example) would be a good thing to add to the body of the article. And how other sources say including Ireland is "unfair" (I'm quoting one there) should obviously also be discussed in the same place. --RA (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Naukamos, you've stated that PIGS did indeed initially refer to Mediterranean countries. So does the addition of "Since the financial crisis, some economists use the 'I' to refer to Ireland" suggestion above fit the context you're looking for? --Xavexgoem (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

PIGS was born in the 90's in journalistic language as an acronym to indicate the countries of southern Europe, similar to their history and their culture (civil law, as opposed to common law, etc.). An acronym, however, which was dispensed with any economic connotation. But, when the term PIGS was used again in 2008, it lost its geographical connotation and became an economic sense. As if there were two terms PIGS, one released the other.

Sources: things are very complex. For example, the major Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera, the headline (2010): "Italy? Do not confuse this with the Pigs" here). In France, Le Figaro includes Ireland (here). In conclusion, the sources are different...we need to develop a criterion that could solve the antinomies!--Naumakos (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Naumakos, the term has always referred to economics. (Also, FYI, nearly all European states use civil law.) Some further sources describing the origins and use of the term, including the origins of the recent association with Ireland:

• Carlo Bastasin (2012), Saving Europe: How National Politics Nearly Destroyed the Euro, Washington: Brookings Institution Press, p. 95, ISBN 9780815721970, The widely read financial blog of the Financial Times commented: "In the euro zone, there has always been a quartet of nations with a somewhat unstable rating position: the PIGS. That is, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. Rating agency S&P though, in a slew of rating renouncements this week, has affirmed Italy's A+. So we need a new vulnerable I on the cusp of downgrade. Step in, Ireland. With a AAA rating." In this psychological game of "group dynamics", there was an unconscious need to blame, isolate, and shame the weakest. The "PIGS" brand, born in the 1990s, was a suitable tool.

• Sarah Krouse (19 March 2012). "Investing in PIIGS: Portugal". Financial News. Retrieved 21 August 2012. The acronym "PIGS" was first coined in the 1990s to describe Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain – four peripheral European Union states with the weakest economies. In 2008, it became PIIGS when Ireland was added after its banking crisis.

• "PIGS slaughtered". Mining Journal. London: Aspermont UK. 21 May 2010. Retrieved 21 August 2012. With all this uncertainty, an unfortunate acronym is back in fashion (despite being widely considered to be derogatory). PIGS usually refers to the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, and dates back to the 1990s (when it referred generally to the southern economies of the European Union).
  The currently vulnerable economies of Portugal, Greece and Spain are again being grouped together due to high national budget deficits relative to GDP, and high, or rising, government debt levels. Greece has a government debt to GDP level of 120%, Portugal 90% and Spain 54%.
  Italy is not suffering to the same extent, and the country's economy returned to growth in the third quarter of 2009.
  Also, despite a rise in unemployment in March to almost 9%, Italian output has grown rapidly recently. For this reason, Italy is often replaced in the acronym, rather arbitrarily, by Ireland (which, in 2007, became the first eurozone country to enter recession).

--RA (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(I meant civil law in the strict sense: Germany and the German countries use the variant represented by the "Usus modernus pandectarum" - ABGB, BGB, ZGB - while Italy and other civil law countries derived it from the "Napoleonic Code").

Probably someone in the 90's made ​​reference to Italy due to the fact that Italy, in 1992, was hit by a crisis, which led the country to get out by EMS.

However, it seems that you brought a source that says: "For this reason, Italy is often replaced in the acronym, rather arbitrarily, by Ireland."

The use of the term PIGS with reference to the crisis of 2007 therefore includes Ireland.

On the other hand, we can not but consider that interest rates (10 years) of government bonds was at most 7.2% for Italy, while for Ireland it was 24.0%.

So I propose this compromise: "PIGS is an acronym that refers to the economies of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain, as a result of the economic crisis of 2007-2012. During the 90's, it was customary to include Italy rather than Ireland. Since 2007, as an alternative to the use of this acrontm, the term PIIGS has been used to refer both to Ireland than to Italy."--Naumakos (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Naumakos, you appear to have neglected to read the first sentence of the same source: "PIGS usually refers to the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain,..."

Again, we do not write either from the perspective of recent events or from original research.

I've added Xavexgoem suggestion to the article. I hope you will respect it. --RA (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have shown many important international sources which include Ireland and do not include Italy (The Economist, The Independent, Le Figaro, Corriere della Sera). I do not understand why you have to consider your sources as more authoritative than mine. Since there is no reason to be in a hurry, check if there are alternatives, because the definition that you would like to write is incorrect: not only from the economic point of view (deficit, interest rate) but also considering the sources I cited. I repeat again: PIGS, in the sense globally recognized, refers to the economic crisis of 2007 and, because of this crisis, it is Ireland to be included. We can also move the page to "PIIGS", so that there is no problem.--Naumakos (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of Ireland since the crisis is reflected in the second sentence: "Since the financial crisis of 2008, ..." This reflects the assessment of the third opinion and accords with the sources we both provided and those that were already in the article. --RA (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to have a cooperative attitude and I do not want to militarize the page, only to impose my point of view. Therefore, I did not edit anything of what you wrote (including the map), but "upgrade" the meaning of acronym definition: if you say that PIGS, after the crisis of 2008, refers to Ireland, then I think the current meaning of PIGS should be specified in the initial agreement, not the meaning it had in the 90s. Moreover, I can not do. Certain data are so objective that are not likely to be changed over to a certain extent. Each statement is accompanied by sources: The Economist, which is one of the most reliable sources in the world in the economic sector, Le Figaro, Corriere della Sera.--Naumakos (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The edit you made is contradicted by current reliable sources, cited above and in the article. Even by sources you cite immediately above. For example:

• The Economist of last April 2012: "Ask most people to name the rich-world countries with the worst public finances and they will single out Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain (aka the PIGS)."
• La Figaro of May 2010: "...la zone euro n'est pas seulement fragilisée par ses PIGS surendettés - Portugal, Italie, Grèce, Espagne -..."
• Even the Italian Corriere della Sera of May 2010: "...l'Italia fa certamente parte dei «pigs», il gruppo di Paesi che la stampa anglosassone identifica come i peggiori d'Europa. Pigs come «maiali» appunto, traducendo dal l'inglese. Pigs come Portogallo, Italia, Grecia, Spagna."

These sources contradict what you wrote, but are in accord with the version you keep changing. If you cannot approach sources neutrally, please stop. --RA (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you continue to cite sources where PIGS shows Italy is useless, because otherwise I'll bring you as many sources which indicate Ireland, and we do not end up more. I do not know how to say it. I told you that PIGS can be used in promiscuous mode to indicate both Ireland and Italy: then, or that promiscuity is indicated in the definition (Ireland / Italy), or we move the article to "PIIGS", or, because of a same kind of sources indicate both the one and the other country, we give more weight to the technical data (deficit and interest rate). The sources are very neutral and I have no interest in being partial.--Naumakos (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ireland/Italy

Obviously, the term PIGS is used to indicate in promiscuous mode Ireland and Italy. Therefore, it is quite arbitrary to say that "i" indicates the one or the other of the two countries. In addition, the key economic parameters Ireland delineate a more negative outlook than in Italy: interest rates, debt, banking, financial markets. This is confirmed not only by a lots of sources, but it is quite obvious if we consider the macroeconomic data (deficit: Ireland: -7,3 (2009), -17,0 (2010), -11,0 (2011), -8,3 (2012); Italy: -5,3 (2009), -4,8 (2010), -3,9 (2011), -2,7 (2012); source: IMF) and, above all, the fact that Ireland has received international financial aid, while Italy not only did not received them, but also contributed with a few billion euro to finance Ireland. We should indicate both countries, without going into disquisitions which could paralyze the necessary neutrality.--Naumakos (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is clear as to the origins of the term, its controversial reception in some quarters and the recent permutations that seek to riff off the acronym for "assorted political, economic, or social reportage and editorial commentary." The article is not however the place to make those same political arguments. It's a poor term that some find offensive - it is not however the encyclopedia's place to redefine the term in order to make a political argument.76.239.25.95 (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

We have verified several times that the term PIGS, in the media, indicates in some cases Ireland, in other cases Italy. It is absolutely biased and arbitrary indicating specifically the one or the other country, so: or we move the article (PIIGS) or we have to denote both countries. See Forbes: "The US as PIGS, what a tough, maybe slightly exaggerated accusation; the acronym stands for the European nations most behind the eight ball with respect to their financial condition– Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain originally– with Italy thrown in for good measure." - (1/06/2013). Or: "This paper sheds light on the export structure of the four European countries Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain, the so called PIGS countries" (Jens Oelgemöller, Institute for Spatial and Housing Economics, Center of Applied Economic Research, University of Muenster). We have recently reached an agreement...--Naumakos (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Naumarkos, the term predates the current crisis. In the longer established sense, the I only every stood for Italy. Since the current crisis (c. 2009), Ireland has been included, either as a substitute for Italy or alongside it. For a period, so too did other countries like the UK and Iceland. (If there was a C in pigs, no doubt Cyprus now would also.)

Most of this article suffers from the issues described in WP:NEOLOGISM i.e. it depends a great deal on editors analysis of "articles that use the term rather than are about the term". Consequently, it is a vying of editors opinions, based on their reading of newspapers and blogs, with few statements actually drawn from secondary sources. --RA (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Many of the references in the article as it currently stands do not support statements they are currently cited as supporting. It appears that over time, statements were changed but references were kept in place. As a consequence, the article looks very well referenced but is in fact now referenced at all.

IMO this bring the entire article in to disrepute and it cannot be trusted. --RA (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

To make things worse, there is also blatant source fraud. For example, "Italy" was changed to "Ireland" in a source here.

I'm going to invite comment to WP:BLOWITUP. I don't see how it can salvaged in its current state. --RA (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Adminstrator's Noticeboard

The removal of content based on an interpratation and invocation of WP:DYNAMITE at this article is the subject of discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard.12.144.158.19 (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)