Talk:PIGS (economics)

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Europe Stub‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Stub‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Portugal Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Portugal To-do: edit history watch purge Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo. Improve key articles to Good article Portugal Lisbon Improve Os Lusíadas Coat of arms of Portugal More... Review Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box). Requests See Requested articles Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia Wikify Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list Italy Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Greece Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Spain Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Ireland Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The neutrality of this article is contested. The article should not include pejorative innuendo about the reasons why journalists use the term. It should not include words like "aryan" or "racist" to qualify a group of people that coined/use the expression (an acronym!!!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibasameen (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pejorative innuendo? Are you joking? The term is an insult and an ethnic slur, what part of PIGS don't you understand? Its use and your defense of it is at best, insulting, at worst openly racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.128.230.42 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BUDGET SURPLUSmjncmjcvnbhjdsf jhdkjhuisda asasgdkjshd hjgsdjkbhd ygsaa ygskjhjsd hsjan cb,juhgcjsn yugkjsdhjk

Spain has had a Budget Surplus during the last years and right now the Public Debt is just 37% of GDP while Britain has a Public Debt of 47% of GDP, Germany and the US a Public Debt of 67% of GDP...so Spain´s fiscal discipline has been demonstrated when others failed.

And about current account, Italy´s current account deficit is much smaller than the US or the UK.

Anyway, being part of the Eurozone, there is not a "national" current account deficit as can be applied to Britain because the whole Eurozone has a current account surplus.

Add that Spain and Greece have been two of the nations with higher income and GDP growth of all Europe, more than the UK and much more than Germany. Spain´s average GDP during the last ten years reached 3,7%, more than the US´s 3,6% and average growth of Spain´s income per head has been higher than the American...

This article is offensive and does not provide any useful information, except the acronym and somebody's stupid joke. What if someone wrote something like Jews were called by Nazis PIGS? Would that be a constructive information? Please DELETE this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.67.153 (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive or not, it's a term that is being used and people will want to know what it is supposed to mean. I personally hadn't heard the term before a few days ago when I saw some coverage of the current problems in Greece. I'd also point out that this is arguably not as offensive as the n-word which has an article in Wikipedia.Wjousts (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search [1] suggests the term is used by journalists in notable publications. It is irrelevant whether the term is used to imply negative things about the countries included, even if you prove 100% that they are untrue (which would be original research). Adding context/criticism of the term and how it is used from a notable source would be beneficial of course. --86.142.97.137 (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will anyone write an article about the economy of the SWINES too? SWINES = Scottish, Welsh, Irish (North), English Scum

hell yeah i find a pattern somewhere i erased a dumbass link ... please do not ban my ip. and yeah pigs come on... let us have invent another acronym like the fuks france united kingdom swizterland or finland uganda cape verte kenya sweden. and find a linkage in between.. havah agilah Salaam Aleikum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.119.76 (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If either of those terms were notable, rather than something you just made up, they would warrant an article.Wjousts (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

417 hits in news.google.com on 5 February 2010. Don't know entry evolution rules, but PIIGS is most common usage now; does entry get shifted over to new PIIGS wiki entry instead of being "Redirected from PIIGS"? Does another entry get created? Reference to "used mostly in 2008" should be struck since word is in common usage now once again. See large quantity of news regarding Greek debt, government wage cuts, strikes, money printing, hidden/secret debt (whether true or not), etc. Contrary to the contention in the article, Ireland's economy is weaker than Italy's and while both could be included in PIIGS, most knowledgeable with international economies would never replace Ireland with Italy. Whether it is offensive or not, it is now in common usage by the financial media and thus should NOT be struck from wikipedia. However, the entry needs to be refined, added to, etc.Rockshop (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)rockshop, 5 February 2010[reply]

it's so obvious; they hate the euro, they hate the european union, now they regressed to this low level of pathetic attacks; calling whole countries PIGS? really? pathetic. get some sources to support it cause it's so obvious.

To see what kind of hatred some nationalists English hold for Greece check this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-de7q3fbn0 (part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4MAifsp-8E (part 2)

they openly,and agressively, libel greece without any representation.

--212.54.217.107 (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious to you. I suspect it could be true. But a so bold a statement needs a citation. -- Cjensen (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or is the offensive word too self-offensive to the English? --94.70.65.212 (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jjok (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone transform those Google links to more meaningful list of references? --Jjok (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of article changes have been made to document the wide use of the term dating back decades. The term does not spring from 2008 or late 2009 as was in the entry. Let's be professional as to the changes here.99.144.243.71 (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about refs in lead, do they need to be removed or moved? I added them to support the text as it appeared, rightly it seems, that there was some misunderstandings about the term. Advise please?99.144.243.71 (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

PIGS, or PIIGS is an acronym used by international bond analysts,^[1][2][3] academics,^[4][5][6] and by the international economic press[2] 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[3] as the additional "I" or in lieu of Italy.^[7][8] 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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I feel that some editors are making this article do more then it should. This is a term article to explain what the term means, how it came about, and why some people don't like it. It shouldn't have sections that argue how states can be removed from the term or a blow-by-blow account of what's currently happening to these individual country. Thoughts? --Patrick (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, and have removed that section repeatedly, only to see it restored and rather wildly defended. It is what I plan to report on the OR/SYNTH noticeboard (mentioned above) when I can get around to it. I'm happy to see someone agrees with me now so it's good I waited. DinDraithou (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's good you waited. You should always attempt to resolve the issue on the talk page before looking for third parties. Your "edit war, then noticeboard policy" is wrongheaded. -Rrius (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that some editors are making this article do less than it should. This is an article about a term, what it means, and the situation surrounding it. It should have sections about the economic situation involved, which would pretty obviously include the policies economists and other eurozone countries say should be taken. -Rrius (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of this can be done on the individual countries economic pages. Very few, and certainly no EU/ECB officials are suggesting a policy that applies to all of these countries so what's the point of collecting all these comments on this page? A country can leave PIIGS insomuch as a country can leave BRIC. The term will die out in a few years time. --Patrick (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This could not be properly handled at the country pages. Ideally, this should discuss the situations in those countries and how the failure of one could bring down the other, and the fall of these states could bring down the eurozone or even the world economy. What's more, a country cannot "leave" this grouping. It has to improve its economy. The fact that the term may fall out of use doesn't support your argument. If it will only ever be about a bloc of poor economies in this particular economic environment, then it makes all the more sense to discuss that economic environment and how they fit into it. -Rrius (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you've just said Rrius confirms for me that this goes beyond original synthesis and into all sorts of things for you and maybe one or two others. Please read WP:Soapbox. You appear to be soapboxing. DinDraithou (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must have no idea what any of those policies mean. This new soapbox allegation of yours is truly bizarre. Exactly what substantive position am I supposed to be advancing? Instead of throwing around policy names as though you know what they mean, why don't you advance a real argument? -Rrius (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Rrius: some Irish-American Wikipedians seem to have taken offence at the allegedly “xenophobic” nature of the acronym, and therefore want to shorten the article and restrict its scope, or slice it into “individual” country-specific paragraph…..etc. or even worth, make it some kind of linguistics or semiotic orientated article where they delve on the acronym’s supposedly intolerant semantic roots, or the City of London traders being inherently anti-Catholic, … etc. …. I think that’s projecting too much onto a simple acronym used across Europe by traders and academics alike- many of whom are actually of Celtic ancestry! Rrius is right: it makes a lot of sense to discuss how this CATEGORY fits into the current EU economic circumstances- how it contributed to create it, and how in turn it’s influenced by it- hence the “Corrective Policies” paragraph without which that article would be meaningless Moorehaus (talk)

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

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)[reply]

I've added the UK and Romania. The UK is sourced by the BBC, so even it's press have accused it of being a PIIG. --86.29.139.55 (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]