Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:27, 8 March 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It 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. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization 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. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recent changes

I recently made a few changes to the article, including removing "secretive" from a description of the group in the first sentence. If this group has been described as secretive, then put that in the article--say "DonorsTrust has been described as 'secretive' by so-and-so." But putting it in the first sentence, without saying who said the group is secretive, is not neutral. Also, I added a "failed verification" tag to the last sentence about the Koch Brothers. Why was that removed? It does fail verification. Please discuss things on the talk page before reverting edits without explanation. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

re "secretive" - The thing is that multiple RSs refer to group as "secretive". How many RSs need to call a group a secretive before we can say in an encyclopedic voice that it is secretive? Furthermore, if DonorsTrust isn't a secretive PAC, what is?

re "I added a "failed verification" tag to the last sentence about the Koch Brothers" - Fine. I'm not contesting the Kock Brothers material.

re "Please discuss things on the talk page before reverting edits without explanation" - Take a look at WP:BRD. You start by being bold. I revert. Now we discuss! Thanks, NickCT (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I think that in an encyclopedic article, a good place to start (with the first sentence, at the least) is to write what is legally accurate. DonorsTrust is, whatever else it may be, a 501c3 organization. "Secretive" is a weasel word...what does it mean? Secret from who? What are they secretly doing? I'm assuming that is addressed in the RSs you mention. That should be easily verfiable in the article itself. I.e. "DonorsTrust, called a 'secretive' organization by Reliable Sources X, Y, and Z, due to X, Y, and Z behaviors..." I believe that would improve the article (which seems woefully short at this point for an organization at this apparent level). I can look into expanding this article, and I hope you will too. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

re " "Secretive" is a weasel word" - Ok. I'll concede the "secretive" thing. Though frankly, I think if you've got several mainstream source which back the language, it's probably OK to use.

re "write what is legally accurate. DonorsTrust is, whatever else it may be, a 501c3 organization." - I'm a tad confused here. I think the standard is to write what is verifiable, not what is "legally accurate". Is it your position that describing DonorsTrust as a PAC is inaccurate? Additionally, 501c3 is an incredibly vague descriptor. Lots of things are 501c3s. Not lots of things are PACs. Calling a PAC a 501c3 seems like a thinly veiled attempt to obfuscate things.

re "expanding this article" Yeah. This article probably could be expanded. Want to collaborate? NickCT (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool, let's collaborate. Yes, we should write what is verifiable--and 501c3 is a legal term so it seemed more encyclopedic to me (as in there is a standard understanding of what it means). I don't believe DonorsTrust is a PAC (which I believe is an IRS term). "Political advocacy group" doesn't seem entirely accurate--from what I've read, DonorsTrust is a funding group. They fund political advocacy groups (they are not one themselves). So perhaps...."DonorsTrust, a 501c3 that provides funding to a variety of conservative political advocacy groups..." Does that make sense? I want to get at the distinction that DonorsTrust seems to be providing the money, but not actually engaging in the advocacy themselves. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That compromise language (or something along those lines) strikes me as reasonable. It would be nice if we could keep mention of the GW issue upfront though, because most references I can see refer DonorsTrust in relation to GW issues. Strikes me a due to give the topic prominent mention. I can work on rewording later, or you can give it a go.

Actually, after review, I think your PAC point is correct. I don't think DonorsTrust is a PAC, which, as you mentioned, is some kind of distinct legal entity. My sentiment though is that "Political advocacy group" is a rather vague and general term that could probably be fairly be applied to DonorsTrust. Strikes me that if a line exists between "funding a political advocacy group" and "being a political advocacy group" it is probably very very thin. NickCT (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Donor Trust is a Donor Advised Fund

This is a donor advised fund one of an increasing number of such. They are often run or created by investment houses for the convenience of clients, though not in this case apparently. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The way Donor Advised Funds works is that they act as a sort of a bank for charitable giving. Donors create accounts at the Donor Advised Fund. They deposit a certain amount of money or stock. The donor can make specific requests for charitable disbursement of those funds. Ordinarily, the fund then makes the contribution from the "account". This essentially means that wealthy individuals or companies can avoid the expense and bureaucracy involved in setting up their own foundation and use the DAV as if it was a personal foundation. The only caveat is that the DAV board has to approve the contribution.Capitalismojo (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikify

I have attempted to wikify the article. It still seems short. Perhaps more can be added. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo - There seems to be some confusing language in some of your edits. For instance, I'm not sure what "that provides funding to a variety of conservative causes, political advocacy groups and groups" means. Also, "It was established as the sole donor-advised plan "dedicated to promoting a free society" and serving donors who share that purpose." seems pretty meaningless.

In addition, you seem to have scrubbed mention of climate change denial, which is what this organization is primarily noted for.

I was going to try and go through and clarify, but that looks like a lot of work, so I think I'm just going to opt for a revert at this point.

if you want some help forming wording, let's hash it out on the talk page. NickCT (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That is plain English and not meaningless. Donor advised fund is a specific term in the charity and financial world. A quick look at the wikipedia article on donor advised funds should explain the concept. In simple words this (Donor Trust) is a bank. It could be described as a charity that operates like a bank. People put money in it and can draw that money out as grants to charities. As long as the grant recipient is "dedicated to promoting a free society" the DonorsTrust board will allow the release of the funds. DonorsTrust doesn't initiate anything, the donors pick.Capitalismojo (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, I didn't remove anything about climate change or denial funding. I merely wikified the article. That is to say I put it in the form of Lead, Body, References as every other article uses. I specifically asked that additional material be added. I agree that virtually the only press this organization has received is about climate change. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Lastly I added refs. You have deleted them. I will revert changes to the wikified version unless you have a substantive criticism. If after having done so you want to add additional material to the lead or arrticle body, have at it. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD - You were Bold. I reverted. Now lets discuss before making anymore changes! I thought some of the edits you made were good, and I apologize for doing a blanket revert. It just seemed like it would take a while to separate the good from the bad. I'm going to go through your edits one by one and try to reinstate the good ones. NickCT (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. So I'm going through your edits, I want to address them 1 by 1.

Edit 1 - I really think the climate change denial thing should be in the first line.

Edit 2 - I've restored the "History" subsection. I have a couple issues with the other edits. I think your reading the GuideStar source incorrectly when you say "Donors Trust made over $29 million in grants in 2011". That number appears to be their total revenue, which is different from what they are making in grants. That said, we really should find a source for the current 313 million number.

Edit 3 - Should we be calling "DonorsTrust" or "Donors Trust". I'm really not sure. I think the official business name is "DonorTrust", but they appear to refer to themselves as "Donors Trust". I don't really have a strong opinion here.

Edit 4 - Restored addition of "Think Tank".

If you'd like to discuss further additions. Let me know. Though I really prefer if we didn't use DonorsTrust's "About Page" as a source. NickCT (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I believe this article should be merged with Donors Capital Fund. The two entities appear substantially related, and I see no reason to have two articles. The available sourcing on the two groups does not meaningfully distinguish between the two names (Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund), leading me to believe we'd be better off placing all related content in one article. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree they should be merged. The more notable name of the org is Donors Trust. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

May I please review the merge discussion? Where is it? This article makes no mention of Donors Capital Fund. The so-called "merge" apparently amounts to the deletion of the Donors Capital Fund article. Was that the intent? Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund are not two names for the same thing. They are separate funds with separate boards and separate websites. Hugh (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Two different organizations. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I merged the articles, per WP:MERGEINIT, which says "If you propose a merger, and nobody objects within 30 days, then it is unlikely that any editor will object to you boldly performing the merger." Nobody objected and one person agreed with the merger proposal, so I merged. Also per WP:MERGEINIT, "if a page gets merged, and someone later objects, then a new discussion can be held. Mergers can be easily reversed if a consensus against the merger is formed shortly after the merger was performed." So we can have a new discussion now with more participants. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your bold edit. When we introduce a redirect, are we not obligated to adjust the lede of the target to offer our readers some clue? When we do a merge, are we supposed to add move-to/from tags on the talk pages? Hugh (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point--I just added to the lead & infobox to say DonorsTrust is affiliated with Donors Capital Fund. I'm not sure what you mean by move-to/from tags. I think the issue we have with these two articles is that any money from each group is being given anonymously, so it's hard for the press, not to mention Misplaced Pages editors, to determine a distinction. They share an address, so it seems the different names are a technicality probably designed for financial reasons. I'm finding it hard to know what content to put on each respective page. Perhaps one page with "DonorsTrust family of organizations...." Safehaven86 (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"I merged the articles" Not very well. After your "merge," no mention of Donors Capital Fund here on Donors Trust. If you want to delete an article, there is a process for that WP:DEL.

Oppose merge. Two separate funds with separate boards and separate websites. Hugh (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

They do seem separate in some senses, but my issue is that when mentioned in the press, I'm almost exclusively finding "DonorsTrust." Is that the umbrella group? I'm having a hard time finding enough WP:RS to establish independent notability of Donors Capital Fund. Many of the sources on that page actually just refer to "DonorsTrust" and not "Donors Capital Fund." If DCF is a project of DonorsTrust, an umbrella group, perhaps we need a sub-section on this page. But I need to see more notability-establishing sources specifically referencing DCT before I'd be convinced of its independent notability for an article. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Donors Capital Fund fails WP:ORG. The only coverage I can find is trivial and incidental, and "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." A paragraph about the Fund on this page is sufficient. I support the merger. Champaign Supernova (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Extensive content and reliable sources specific to Donors Capital Fund has been added to Donors Capital Fund . Fast independent notability. Hugh (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

State Policy Network

I was wrong; the question isn't whether the (tenuous) connection between State Policy Network and DonorsTrust is significant; it's a question of WP:Undue weight. Is State Policy Network really among the most significant recipients of DonorsTrust? Do we have a source which is not so opposed to both that their claim of significance is of questionable reliability? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As you know, sources need not be neutral, but I'm curious, what source do you feel is some kind of opponent of whom? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

All the sources given (except, perhaps, one which reports some official affiliation, or sources which report only on what other sources say) are far-left organizations, and have explicitly stated that SPN, DonorsTrust, and the "Kochtopus" are enemies of the people. (Note that most use of "Kochtopus" would be WP:BLP violations, but some mention might actually be appropriate here.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"...explicitly stated that SPN, DonorsTrust...are enemies of the people. ..." I was not aware of that! I would like to learn more about the explicit statements by the Center for Public Integrity, NBC News, Politico, and the International Business Times that the State Policy Network and DonorsTrust are "enemies of the people." Can you please provide references to those statements? By the way, what people are you referring to that they are the enemies of? Please share. Hugh (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your comment here and your similar comment in an edit summary, "name a source which _isn't_ an avowed enemy of what DonorsTrust _claims_ to stand for," even if all sources were critical of a subject, isn't what we do on WP is summarize best we can what we find? Hugh (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"Is State Policy Network really among the most significant recipients of DonorsTrust?" The Center for Public Integrity described the State Policy Network "a major recipient of Donors Trust money..." The proposed content does not claim that the State Policy Network is the most significant recipient of DonorsTrust. Further, NBC News, Politico, and the International Business Times agree that the DonorsTrust grants to State Policy Network are significant. This is not undue weight. Hugh (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC) The article already includes the DonorsTrust grants to the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and to climate change denial groups, how did these pass your "among the most most significant" criteria? Hugh (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I only started really watching this article after you started spamming ALEC. I may have looked at it a long time ago, but I don't really remember; there are over 16000 articles on my watchlist (see User:Arthur Rubin/IP list for potential reasons why articles I don't really "watch" are on my watchlist.) But, we really should list only those organizations which are considered (by reliable sources) most significant to avoid undisprovable claims of cherry-picking. Listing those organizations which can be reliably linked to DonorsTrust cannot be distinguished from cherry-picking, unless we list all organizations which can be so reliably linked; but that clearly violates WP:undue weight, and would bloat the article beyond recognition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"spamming ALEC" What does this mean? Hugh (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Other stuff where? Hugh (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

WOW! That is some watchlist. Hugh (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that you believe that including the DonorsTrust grants to State Policy Network is cherry-picking or are you afraid that someone else might? Hugh (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"...we really should list only those organizations which are considered (by reliable sources) most significant..." What is the source that Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and to climate change denial groups are the most significant, other than that they are covered in reliable sources, as is State Policy Network? The broad, diverse coverage of the DonorsTrust grants to State Policy Network in unbiased, neutral, verifiable, reliable sources is exactly the evidence we need that it is not undue weight. The Center for Public Integrity, NBC News, Politico, and the International Business Times agree that the DonorsTrust grants to State Policy Network are significant. Hugh (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If we're talking about neutrality, as the OP suggests, then the coverage we give to the connection between DT and SPN should be proportional to the coverage given by reliable independent secondary sources, per WP:BALASPS specifically. This coverage must be compared to the coverage about other DT recipients or affiliates. As no sources have been provided in this discussion (I'm seeing a pattern in this regard), I can't weigh in except to remind folks of the relevant guideline. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources are here, 11 Center for Public Integrity, 12 NBC News, 13 Politico, and 14 the International Business Times. Hugh (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Oy, I wish you would put the links in the discussion itself, but good enough. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I support retention of this content in a trimmed fashion. The "major recipient" language is redundant, undue, and possibly synth, the proportion of SPN's revenue is relevant to SPN more than to DT, we have citation overkill as well. In my view the paragraph should be cut down to:

From 2008 to 2013, DonorsTrust gave $10 million to he State Policy Network, a national network of conservative and libertarian think tanks focused on state-level policy. DonorsTrust also also issued grants to SPN's state-level affiliates during the same period.

The sources should be trimmed to the minimum necessary to support this content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Donations to DT

Koch donations

The Koch donations (now removed) are sourced to two articles in the Independent, written days apart, from the same reporter. The articles serve to show that in 3 years out of a ≈10 year time span the Kochs gave $4.5 million to Donor's Trust. How significant or noteworthy is this? In 2012 DT had $58mm in revenue. So the Kochs are giving perhaps 2–3% of the total revenue in any given year. Including this particular bit of information, out of context, is UNDUE. – S. Rich (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Weight is proportional to coverage in reliable sources. The Independent is a reliable source. The Independent thought this was noteworthy. The % is irrelevant. We don't ahve to find all the donors before we mention one. Hugh (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Hugh. The Koch numbers should be but into context if context if available in the reliable sources, but not including them at all is suppression of reliably sourced, noteworthy content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no proportionality involved because WP is WP:NOTNEWS. E.g., we have one source presented and that source is obviously POV laden. (See: "secretive funding organisation", "effort to cast doubt on climate change", "because, technically, they do not control", etc.) Moreover, just because the Independent thought it was noteworthy as an opinion piece does not mean it is noteworthy in an encyclopedic context. We must keep this small tidbit of information out of the article so that WP does not serve as a vehicle to present anti-Koch views. – S. Rich (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: This is not a question of whether or not there is an "implication that Koch is the only donor" (from an edit summary). WP does not say "Look everybody, the Kochs were one of the many donors to DT, providing 3% the total revenues to DT in certain years." – S. Rich (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

There were three sources before you deleted them. More to come. Sources need not be NPOV. Hugh (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Look, Koch is coming in. Get used to it. Koch not being mentioned in this article is a severe embarrassment to WP. If you have even a cursory familiarity with reliable sources on the subject of this article, you know that. It is impossible for an article on this subject to fairly represent reliable sources and not mention Koch. You can help shape how it goes but if you want to you have to please lay off the delete key. Hugh (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the Koch dispute. But I'm disturbed by the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality displayed by Hugh. Please keep it civil and non-adversarial. Your attitude is not helping. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. Decisions about content are made by consensus. Adversarial remarks, mischaracterizing the statements of other editors, and the like will not help win others to your point of view. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Hugh needs a serious adjustment in his editing approach. At the same time I'm fully on his side in this particular content dispute. This connection between Koch and DT is of enduring significance and has been described in multiple RSs. I see no way that this content would not make it in on some sort of WP:NOTNEWS grounds. NOTNEWS is for sensational trivia and subjects of momentary significance, along the lines of WP:RECENTISM. This is not that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue that I have not yet formed a firm opinion on yet. We do include the positions of reliable sources according to their prominence, but I'm not sure how much "prominence" to assign to predictable criticism of a conservative group by liberal ones. It's really kind of rote and expected.

The other problem I am having with this is why we would mention this connection for DT in particular as opposed to other organizations. If the fact that there are multiple RS's stating a connection between Koch and DT, do we also need to include a paragraph about connections to Koch in articles about the following organizations (Koch donations in parentheses):

• Arizona State University ($2.9M)
• The American Natural History Museum ($25M)
• The United Negro College Fund ($20M)
• George Mason University ($38M)
• Florida State University ($1.6M)
• The Brookings Institute ($2.9M)
• American Ballet Theater ($1M)

This may sound facetious, but its a serious question. DT does not appear to be among the top 10 recipients of the Koch bros largess, and I don't think we have anything about the Koch brothers in the ASU, ANHM, GMU, FSU, BI, or ABT articles and only a passing mention in the UNCF article. Formerly 98 (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about this a little further, I think what I find troubling is not the mention of the donation, but any carryover of the above sources' insinuation that there is something sinister about these donations. They may certainly see it as a threat to their own values that the Koch brothers have so much money to throw around, but we cannot adopt their viewpoint that funding that furthers conservative causes is a negative for society. The mention of the funding should be made in the same tone that would be used to describe a donation to any other entity by any philanthropy. Its probably ok to say that liberal groups find this troubling, but we should not adopt their POV and imply that something insidious is going on in Misplaced Pages's voice. Formerly 98 (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no "criticism" in saying that so-and-so donated $X to so-and-so. And there's no implication of anything sinister or wrong in any way. It's simply factual content. The only folks who should be concerned in the way you describe are (a) those who are trying to hide the facts and (b) those who think there's something wrong with what SPN or the Kochs are doing. Evidently you're in one of these categories, or both- but either way it These types of concerns should have zero bearing on our editorial decisions. Put another way, we present the facts in a neutral fashion, and let readers make their own judgments about those facts; but the fact that some of those reader may come to non-neutral judgments is really irrelevant for our purposes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well DF, I just try to do my best to improve the encyclopedia. From my POV, it would be very helpful if you

• Strike your comment suggesting that I am "trying to hide the facts" , which is a violation of WP:GF
• Strike your comment that my remarks are evidence that I "believe there is something wrong with what SPN is doing" which is irrelevant to the discussion of what belongs in the article
• Address the issues I raised

As I have mentioned previously, we are all here to work together to reach a consensus. Questioning my motives and providing condescending commentary on what motivates my remarks on the article do not support this goal. Up to now we have worked together very productively, and it would be good to continue in that spirit.

If this material is included in this article, how do you suggest that we handle the dozen or so other organizations that have received more money than SPN from the Koch Brothers. I'm open to discussing this, but my first pass impression is that MJ has taken the position that the Koch Brothers are an evil force because they spend money promoting conservative causes, which I consider a WP:FRINGE position. If I have missed some other reasons why MJ thinks these donations are notable, lets discuss them and come to some conclusion as to whether similar material about Koch donations should be added to articles about the other organizations I mentioned. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I accused you of bad faith, and if I did I certainly didn't mean to. We all come here with our own biases and there's nothing bad-faith about that. But in hindsight that comment was unnecessarily provocative, so I'm sorry and I've stricken a portion of it. What I meant is that when we conduct a neutrality analysis, we shouldn't be concerned with the conclusions that readers of certain POVs draw from our article, only that the material is presented in a balanced and non-misleading manner. By way of example, if a reader thinks that Koch is the evil empire, we shouldn't scrub all references to Koch from the article on the basis that it associates the subject with evil. That is of course an exaggeration of your argument, but that's the general concept I'm alluding to. There is nothing sinister about being associated with the Kochs, so there's nothing non-neutral about pointing out any association (provided it is sufficiently sourced, of course). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As for what to do about those other donations, I don't know, but it doesn't seem relevant to this discussion, which is about SPN, not about Koch. I personally don't care about the articles about ASU, etc. I suppose if those donations receive significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources then they should be included in those articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I get my back up a little too easily sometimes. Gone and forgotten. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest what I think is a compromise edit. I think Koch donations need to be in this article because there are numerous reliable sources noting Koch donations to DT. I see no basis for excluding these facts. I also see the need for contextualizing the Koch donations and addressing issues of proportionality. Therefore I propose:

"Since its founding in 1999, Donors Trust and its affiliated organization, Donors Capital Fund, have distributed nearly $400 million to various nonprofit organizations. Between 2005 and 2011, the Knowledge and Progress Fund, a foundation run by Charles Koch, gave nearly $8 million to Donors Trust." Sourced to CPI Thoughts? Safehaven86 (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

As a philosophical point, I still think that the fact that no one is talking about adding this material to the articles about those other organizations is something to think about, but the above language is acceptable to me. I'm just a little worried that there is something pointy going on when we add this information specifically to one article and not the others. But we can't argue these points endlessly, and I think this language above works ok. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If you believe those donations are sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in those those articles, then by all means add them. No objection from me. No doubt, WP has an absurd amount of inconsistency, due in part to the interests of its editor base. I personally am much more interested in law and politics than in universities. Perhaps you could post something at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Universities. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I guess my point is that if we tried to add to these other articles that a tiny fraction of their operating budget came from the Koch bros, it would immediately get a WTF response from other editors and get the addition kicked for undue weight. Despite your protests, I suspect the underlying reason for adding this information to this particular article is because we're "outing" them as part of the vast and insidious conservative conspiracy to support conservative political causes. But compromise is part of the game here, and having said my peace, the language is fine. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Like. It's a little weird how we're mixing donations going out with donations coming in, but it gets the job done. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

RS is sufficient that eventually this article will have sections on donors and recipients. Hugh (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Mother Jones quote

Moving to a related topic, we now see "Donors Trust has been described as "the dark money ATM of the right," after being so described in Mother Jones, the progressive news magazine." This has 4 problems: 1. Most importantly it violates WP:IMPARTIAL, especially when it quotes the non-impartial sources. (Instead of repeating a story's headline, which is written to grab attention rather than inform, the essential information from the story is that Donor's Trust serves to funds conservative causes.) 2. It violates MOS:QUOTE by wikilinking the terms. (And the dark money article has problems of its own.) 3. The sentence diverges from how DT has been funding donees to what other media organizations are saying about Mother Jone's comment. 4. It has syntax problems. If it were to be re-written for syntax alone it might say "Mother Jones was the first progressive news magazine to describe it as ...." Only that re-write is problematic because it gives UNDUE to the fact that progressives don't like DT. – S. Rich (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this content should be in the article: "Donors Trust has been described as "the dark money ATM of the right," after being so described in Mother Jones, the progressive news magazine." Let's take something from the MJ article and summarize it, but including this quote violates WP:IMPARTIAL. It's not appropriate to include a quote like this from a source/author that's clearly antagonistic toward the article's subject. We shouldn't include it to balance out quotes from the subject's website, either. That sounds like fighting fire with fire. If there are inappropriate quotes from the subject's own website, remove them. But it looks like the current quotes are simply brief statements from the horse's mouth on what the organization does. Those are normal and appropriate in an article like this. But the MJ quote is different as it's drawn from a hit piece. Summarize the criticism without quoting directly. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That 7 word brief description is the most common short description of the subject of this article in reliable sources. It is impossible for an article to fairly represent reliable sources and not include that quote. The quote is so ubiquitous in reliable sources that it is noteworthy in and of itself as a quote, independent of its meaning, so summarizing it or paraphrasing it is non-neutral. We need to include it, say who started it, and indicate some of its representative occurrences in refs. Hugh (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion of this language as well, as it is purely perjorative. There is no objectively definable behavior that can be used to define whether a group is a "dark money ATM" and there is no non-pejorative equivalent. It may be reliably sourced, but it does not add value to the article. It only contributes to inappropriately telling our readers how they should view this organization. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The idea that this "7 word brief description is the most common short description of the subject of this article in reliable sources" is rather laughable. Moreover, it's unprovable. I'm quite sure the most common short (even 7 words exactly!) description of this group is more along the lines of "Donors Trust is a donor advised fund." Safehaven86 (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The Mother Jones description came up a few years ago and we see the term used over a 2 week period. (Occupy.com was happy to use the term.} But the term is hardly ubiquitous. For example, a few days ago the LA Times ran a story without the terminology. The essential, encyclopedic information we might get from Mother Jones is that progressives do not like the conservative focus of DT. We must not serve as the platform or vehicle for MJ's POV, much less inject this clever (or even snide) term into the article. – S. Rich (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think

• Mother Jones, a progressive magazine, has dubbed Donors Trust "the dark money ATM of the right".

is an adequate description, and the other references support the notability of the phrase. Once of the other two sources specifically only refers to Mother Jones, and the other says "dubbed", rather than "is". As presently written, the statement is almost surely inaccurate, and certainly undue weight.

This only applies if the "Mother Jones" missive is an "article", as opposed to "commentary". If it is commentary, we can only say "Mother Jones's Andy Kroll dubbed ...." (with the redlink standing as an indication that we don't think his opinions are important, but it is important that Mother Jones does.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I also oppose the inclusion of this quote. I think it is enitrely undue. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Focusing on Arthur Rubin's post, I'll ask if the Mother Jones article headline is part of "a heated dispute"? If so, then we must "summarize and present the arguments". (If it is not part of a heated dispute, then what sort of encyclopedic value does it have?) Clearly it is part of a dispute because the progressive MJ is offering commentary about DT as "right". But we already know DT is focused on conservative causes, so we do not need MJ to repeat this information. Surely there is something more to the MJ commentary than the cute title. That commentary needs to be added (summarized) to our article. – S. Rich (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The language is obviously noteworthy as it's been picked up by a variety of news outlets across the political spectrum. This is the very type of sensationalistic language that belongs in the article, but carefully put in context to keep it neutral. I'd propose something like, "Andy Kroll of Mother Jones criticized SPN for ... and described it as the 'dark money ATM of the right.'" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Obviously not noteworthy as the term was used but for a few weeks. E.g., in general or in particular, I do not think it lasted. Moreover, sensationalistic language does not overcome the IMPARTIAL policy – which requires a non-sensational presentation. – S. Rich (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You have a strange conception of WP:NPV for this to be so obvious to you. I come to the complete opposite conclusion. The fact that a sensational commentary is carrying by outlets for "a few weeks" is a sign that it's not noteworthy? Really? Let's just blank most of the current events articles in all of Misplaced Pages then? And I'm not aware of any "IMPARTIAL" "policy" that prevents us from quoting notable commentary with appropriate context. Obviously we try to summarize commentary, but sometimes that's not possble. I believe this is one of those cases. Regardless, if you think we should summarize rather than quote, then summarize, don't delete, for goodness sake. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you seem to misunderstand the "undue weight" principle. A number (at least 2, anyway) of sources quote Mother Jones on this issue. That it was only carried for a few weeks, only by a few sources, and not carried by a number of (even liberal) sources, even within those few weeks, does suggest a lack of notability. That Mother Jones puts pejorative labels on it is not at all notable, but I think a reasonable case may have been offered that it is notable that Mother Jones used those words. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've lost you. Notability (and associated noteworthiness, by extension) is generally gauged by how many independent reliable secondary sources cover the material, not by how many such sources don't cover the material. And I don't know what you mean by the emphasized "may have been" language your last sentence - that it's too late to make a case for the noteworthiness of this material? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If sources one would expect to cover the material (because of ideology and subject matter) do not, it leans against inclusion. In this case, though, there are multiple independent sources which state that Mother Jones states that that Donors Trust is "the dark money ATM of the right", I have seen no sources which mention it other than in the context of Mother Jones, and few that say that they agree. In other words the quote is notable as a quote, but the phrase, and, as far as I can tell, the meaning, is not otherwise notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we're you and I are in agreement then. The fact that Mother Jones called DT "the dark money ATM of the right" is itself notable due to its extensive coverage by a variety of other media outlets. The key to presenting this content neutrally is to attribute it specifically to Mother Jones ("Mother Jones called DT 'the Dark Money ATM of the right'") instead of using the passive voice, which could be read to imply some sort of ubiquity or partial endorsement. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we are in agreement. 'Extensive coverage' by other media outlets? While DT may have received coverage from the reporting and opinion media, the phrase itself was just a catchy one that fell off the radar screen. Suppose George Soros got such coverage for a few weeks. And 3 or 4 of the media outlets said "He's the Daddy Warbucks of the left." Would this catchy phrase be noteworthy? Indeed not, and because IMPARTIAL says don't use such quotes we would keep it out of his article. – S. Rich (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if the quote were to be included, point 2 (on MOS:QUOTE#Linking) is a serious problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, yes re the hypothetical Soros quote. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again I'll respectfully disagree with DrFleischman on the application of the notability and reliable sourcing rules. Just because someone said something doesn't mean that adding it to the article verbatim adds value. I'd suggest applying WP:IMPARTIAL here, which states:

"A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view."

Our goal here is to give readers a summary of the topic matter that is neutral and dispassionate. One way to do that is to include all the hotly political language that we can find in reliable sources on both sides of the issue. The other way to do it is to summarize substantive commentary from both positive and negative viewpoints, avoiding directly quoting provocative pejoratives or WP:PEACOCK language used by the two sides. My read of WP:IMPARTIAL is that the latter is preferred. Certainly that is the approach that I would expect to see in an encyclopedia article. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

While I'm sympathetic to these concerns I think there comes a point when the debate about the news becomes the news itself. There is nothing non-neutral about quoting the commentary when it cannot be adequately summarized. Also keep in mind that this was not some sort of opinion article by a talking head. Andy Kroll is actually Mother Jones' designated "dark money reporter," so his view is significant even aside from the independent press coverage he received. All that said, I think this is a good, interesting, and important debate worthy of RFC or NPOVN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps neutrality concerns could be addressed by adding to the article that the activities of Donors Trust (and "dark money") in general are legally compliant? It's a rather sinister term to leave hanging in the article (I'll note that our article about it specifically defines dark money as political contributions), so perhaps if we leave the quote we should note that despite the dark n' spooky term it is legal? And not just to political campaigns? One thing that makes me a laugh a bit about this article, and critiques of donor advised funds in general, is that a donor can give directly and anonymously to a 501c3 nonprofit as well, so donor advised funds don't have some sort of monopoly on anonymizing donors. But anyway, I've seen a lot of good arguments here for and against inclusion, so I agree with DrF that this would be good to bring to RFC or NPOVN. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I don't see it working. We can't say DT is legally compliant without reliable sourcing. And "darkness" and legality are really quite different things. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I'm mostly just repeating myself here and should shut up, but one way to look at this is that there is or should be an implicit antipode to WP:PEACOCK; perhaps we could call it WP:DIRTBAG.  :>) Neither the comments in Reagan's 1976 Republican nomination speech calling him the great hope for restoring the American Dream nor left wing comments comparing him to Hitler really tell us much about the man. But I'll stop now. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss this. I believe the section of WP:WTW you're looking for is WP:LABEL. However, WP:WTW expressly doesn't apply to quotations. MOS:QUOTE is just about faithfully reproducing the quote. So we fall back on WP:NPV and specifically WP:IMPARTIAL, which I believe is where this debate lies. As for your Reagan analogy, I don't have sufficient subject matter knowledge to respond meaningfully. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, calling DT a "dark money ATM" isn't the the equivalent of criticizing it for its political views. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Scope of donations

According to this article , "Ball estimates that 70 to 75 percent of gifts go to public-policy organizations. The balance goes to more conventional charities such as hospitals, religious institutions, art museums, schools, and homeless shelters. The single largest gift went to the Foundation for Jewish Camp, Ball said." I think the last sentence of the lead should read "Donors Trust gives a majority of its gifts to conservative and libertarian public policy causes, with the remainder going to charities focused on arts, education, and social services" or just "with the remainder going to other types of charities." Safehaven86 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Um - no? Ball is DT's president and CEO, and you're proposing using his self-serving claims without any attribution whatsoever? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I think attribution is a good idea. What I'm getting at is that Donors Trust seems to give not only to policy groups, so I think our article should reflect the breadth of its donations. It is a donor advised fund, so it gives to whatever organizations its donors tell it to give to, and it seems that includes non-policy groups, so I think our article should reflect that. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Whew, thanks for the clarification, that makes me feel a lot better. I am all for this type of important clarifying info as long as it's reliably sourced. In my view statements attributed to the subject of the article should be included in the lead extremely rarely, and only for non-controversial matters. Perhaps this could be done here with extremely cautious language, but I doubt it. A reliable source could change the entire equation, though. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, so far I've only found a source that would fall under WP:SPS because it's a quote from this group's CEO. I'll see if I can dig up anything more WP:RS. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Some general comments on criticism of DT in reliable, but biased sources

This is copied over in part from a discussion on my home page:

There has been a lot of discussion here about the need to include viewpoints from reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. I believe this is true once we decide to include discussion of an issue in the article, but I also believe very firmly that not everything that can be reliably sourced adds value to articles.

For example, the Washington Times has published a series of articles suggesting that Obama is a closet Muslim. The Washington Times is a reliable source, but would we really want to cover that in the Obama article with its implications that it would somehow be a scandal if it were true? In writing these articles, the Times asserts that this is a notable issue, but the deafening silence from the vast majority of reliable sources on this "issue" speaks volumes that they don't regard this issue as even worthy of discussion.

As near as I can see, most of the "criticism" of DT and SPN in RS has consisted of attacks focused on what I called the "vast and insidious campaign by conservative groups to support conservative causes". I think stuff like that deserves mention, but only very briefly because it is predictable and frankly a bit vacuous. I certainly wouldn't quote from it or include any catchy pejoratives coined by the authors. As in the case of the Washington Times and Obama's "closet religion", I think the silence of less political media outlets on these criticisms suggests that the criticisms themselves are a little bit "fringy".

I think if some material could be found discussing the issue of these organizations promoting legislation while operating as 501(c)(3) charities, that would represent to me a more substantive criticism (e.g., a "real" issue) that would add value to the article.

The WP:CRITICISM essay has a nice section on this with regard to religion.:

"For example, consider religion. Every major religion probably has criticism of every other major religion, so an article on one religion could easily be almost entirely a restatement of everyone else's critiques of that religion. That would squeeze out most of the main information about the one religion that is the subject of the article, which would make it less useful to readers of this encyclopedia."

I think the same could be applied to politics.

But I have much to learn here still, and recognize that my views are well, just that... Formerly 98 (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Much to think on there, thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"most of the "criticism" of DT and SPN in RS has consisted of attacks" seems somewhat circular to me. Hugh (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Reworded to address your valid point. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Level of detail

I appreciate the effort to add more information about where DT's money is coming from and where it's going, but are we reaching a point where the article is becoming un-encyclopedic and running afoul of our WP:NOTEVERYTHING policy? I'm not sure if we've hit that point, but if we're not and this level of detail continues then I think we'll definitely hit that point. We should try to organize and tie this data together sot that it doesn't read like an indiscriminate collection of information. I also wonder if we should set an arbitrary minimum dollar amount.

On a separate and less important note, I don't think it's necessary to identify all of the recipients as conservative. It's already in both the lede and the first sentence of the section. If readers aren't sure they can click through. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The donors and contributors are as far as I can tell stabilizing somewhat. It is now a reasonable summary of reliable sources. We are well short of "everything" and wea are doing well in terms of wikilinking. An arbitrary minimum is not for us, it is for our reliable sources WP:NOR. An arbitrary minimum would present problems for noteworthy donors/recipients for which a specific dollar amount is not immediately available in reliable sources. Hugh (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The short descriptions of the recipients were taken from the lede of its wp article where available. If the wp article said conservative, it says conservative here. This is the most neutral approach. Presumably our ledes are our strongest consensus. The characterization of the subject of this article and its activities as conservative is obvious to you and me, but not universal. As you well know, some editors object to the characterization of the subject of this article and its activities as conservative, for example note the insertion of libertarian in the lede, while others prefer to characterization of the subject of this article and its activities as charitable. Let's let the facts speak for themselves. An organization which contributes to conservative causes may be thought by our readers to be conservative. Removing conservative from the in-text brief definitions would be non-neutral. I would support removing conservative from a short description here if it could first be removed from the target wp article lede and passed muster with the regular editors there. Hugh (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with just about everything you wrote, but if the amount of data is going to stabilize then I'm ok with letting this go for now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is entirely inappropriate level of detail. It is not helpful and is cluttering up the article. I agree with Dr. Fleiscman on this point. I don't agree with letting the bad edits just sit there, however. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about what you consider bad edits? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a clear WP:NOTEVERYTHING violation. Hugh, wiki-linking is helpful because it means we don't have to describe everything here. We can let readers who want a higher level of detail click through. And it seems problematic that you're taking the descriptions from the ledes of other articles as if those ledes are set in stone. They are always changing, as things are wont to do here on Misplaced Pages. What if the ledes or the articles change--are you going to check that regularly and come back to this article and update it accordingly? It's much more sustainable to leave details about other organizations out and just let a reader click through to other, up-to-date, articles. Champaign Supernova (talk)

It's not everything. I believe I may be a tad ahead of most with respect to familiarity with the breadth of rs at this point. This is a fair summary. Hugh (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTYLE Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links. Writing hypertext is not an excuse for incompleteness. We are clearly and explicitly asked to write articles that can be read and understood by a wide variety of readers without clicking. The brief descriptions included here are well within policy, guidelines, and good article criteria. Hugh (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I know wp and the lede of wp articles are always changing. Hugh (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with borrowing language from the first sentence of linked articles from a neutrality standpoint unless there's an obvious problem (which there isn't). What I do have a problem with is the wholly unnecessary and redundant conservative this, conservative that. It's really a matter of style and readability to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree the word conservative is overused here and tedious. I will try to reformulate, aggregate, "Other conservative donors include..." Thanks. Hugh (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Better, but now it implies there have been non-conservative donors, and I don't know if that's true. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's getting there, thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

We're far past the relevant level of detail. I've removed those for which there is absolutely no indication of significance of the connection to either Donors Trust or to the donor or recipient. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The level of detail is commensurate with noteworthy reliable sources. The treatment of donors and recipients is a reasonable summary of noteworthy reliable sources. Each of the donors and recipients was deemed noteworthy by a noteworthy reliable source. The level of detail is relevant. The subject of this article is in many ways defined by where the funds come from and where the funds go. The authors and readers of our noteworthy reliable sources recognize this: most of the noteworthy reliable sources which mention or cover the subject of this article mention donors and recipients at length. We are required to fairly summarize reliable sources. The donors and recipients content anticipates obvious questions from our readers. We can debate the characterization of the subject of this article or we can do what we are supposed to do, which is let the facts speak for themselves. Additionally, the donors and recipients further the linking of the encyclopedia. Hugh (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. In many cases, this Misplaced Pages article actually has more detail about a funding target than the sources you're taking information from. The articles you're linking to as sources often contain a chart or list of organizations that have received money from Donors Trust. You're then taking those many organizations, putting them here, and adding detail from other Misplaced Pages articles. I think a funding recipient is only notable if a reliable source goes into more detail that just including an organization in a list or chart. This organization has given money to hundreds--or maybe more--groups. We need to clearly establish which groups are notable to include here. The fact that a group is mentioned in passing does not establish notability. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

None of the donors or recipients included in this article were taken from a chart or list or by a WP editor digging into primary docs like IRS 990s. All of the donors or recipients included in this article are from the text of the body of noteworthy reliable secondary sources. The good news is, authors of our 2ndary sources have done the heavy lifting of identified the items that are noteworthy to readers, so we don't have to. "mentioned in passing" is mentioned; if it's in a noteworthy reliable source it's noteworthy. I would like to see policy and guideline that a noteworthy reliable source must have a hundred words before WP can have ten. Hugh (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

HughD, I'm responding only to the second half of this comment. Your argument that "authors of our 2ndary sources have done the heavy lifting" for us is directly contravened by WP:NOTEVERYTHING and specifically WP:NOTNEWS, which are both Misplaced Pages policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"In many cases, this Misplaced Pages article actually has more detail about a funding target than the sources you're taking information from" There is no OR here. Are you confusing the inclusion of a brief definition of a new term on 1st mention, drawn from the lede of a WP article, as original material? A sources' style is not WP style. Just because a source does not define a new term on 1st reference does not mean we do not have to. A source may have an audience with a particular background but we are asked to write articles that can be clearly understood without clicking through by a wide variety of English language readers. Hugh (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that everything listed in the Mother Jones "article" should (or even may) be in our article. And we may not add potentially controversial definitions of terms used by reliable sources, as their definition may not be ours. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be WP:SYNTH. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No defintions of terms are added from reliable sources. All definitions are completely reasonable, brief paraphrase of the lede of a WP article. There is no SYNTH here. None of the content are controversial. Not everything from reliable sources is in our article. But if a noteworthy reliable source notes a donor or recipient, it is because the author of that reliable source thought that donor or recipient was worth noting, and if that donor or recipient is sufficiently notable to have its own WP article, it belongs here. Hugh (talk)

Here's the problem, Hugh: the sources you're taking from are mentioning the funding targets incidentally. As in the Mother Jones source: "And other recipients of Donors Trust money include the Heritage Foundation, Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, the NRA's Freedom Action Foundation, the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Federalist Society, and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation..." The "and other" signifies these organizations are not the main thrust of the article. No other detail is given about the organizations, when they received funding, or how much funding they received. This is trivial coverage. When you add this to the article and then add original detail, even if it's from other Misplaced Pages articles, you are artificially inflating the notability of the claims made by a journalist just by the number of words you're adding. You have added things like: "Donors Trust recipients include the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C.; Americans for Tax Reform, a taxpayer advocacy group; the National Rifle Association Freedom Action Foundation; the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C.; and the Federalist Society, the organization of conservatives and libertarians seeking reform of the current American legal system in accordance with a textualist or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution." You are writing more than the original journalist wrote. We're supposed to summarize reliable sources, not expand upon them. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Unimportant connection

I don't see how a casual mention in passing, even in a reliable source, that an organization is a donor to or donee of Donors Trust, can be of significance to either the organization's article or to this article. Furthermore, one of the sources used is not what it says it is; the NBC source is really from a member of The Center for Public Integrity. I'll tag the ones with no evidence of significance, either in the text, or being specifically mentioned in the source, in a few minutes. Assertions that these are significance are made above by HughD, with little nor no support from other editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"casual mention in passing" A mention in passing is a mention. Inclusion of a fact in a noteworthy reliable source is exactly what noteworthiness looks like.The proposed content that you are arguing against is the mere fact that X grants to Y. That is all. If a noteworthy reliable source states that X grants to Y WP can say that X grants to Y. According to you how many words do I need to find in and around X grants to Y before it is serious? and what is your basis in policy and guideline for this number of words requirement? Hugh (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

When I first started working on this article, you were watching it and it had no donors or sponsors. Would that be your preference? Hugh (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Only those organizations where a significant (either to Donors Trust, or to the donor/donee) contribution is reported by a reliable source, or where a relationship other than donor/donee is established (e.g., Belle Ball whatever her name is of Donors Trust and the Heritage Foundation), should be listed here. There is a possible exception if the list of all donors or recipients were published in a reliable secondary source, then we could extract those which have Misplaced Pages articles, but with no other criteria used for selection. I do apologize for removing organizations for which a significant relationship has been established. Inclusion of an entity (including a person) in a list of "people with an account" (not necessarily actual donors), donors, or donees, taken only from a list in a biased (even if reliable) secondary source, is clearly inappropriate, unless the list is attributed in the text of the article. Importance could still be questioned, but it then wouldn't be clearly unimportant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, no worry. If you have issues with the bias of sources, please start a new section. Here please help us focus on what WP calls noteworthiness as compared to your concept of "significance." Again, all donors and recipients listed here are from the BODY of the text of reliable sources, NOT charts or graphs or attachments, which is exactly what establishes noteworthiness. Here in this article noteworthiness is established by reliable secondary sources. If you have some notion of additional constraints on content including for example some minimum number of words in reliable sources please cite policy or guideline. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought most readers would understand holding an account would to imply a deposit. I will clarify. Hugh (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"Significance" (not "noteworthiness") is a requirement for inclusion of material in articles. It is clearly undue weight to include all contributors to/from an organization mentioned in any reliable source, without finding any indication of significance, either in the real world, or in that source. Notice does not imply significance, if, for no other reason, some writers are paid by the word.

It's not generally true that having an account would imply a deposit. I have informational subscriptions (which they call "accounts") to a number of charities without ever having made a contribution. Considering the bias of all the sources (with the possible exception of Forbes, if that really is an article, and not a blog entry), it would be inappropriate to imply that what the source means by "an account" is the same as what Donors Trust means by an account. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class organization articles
• Low-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• Start-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles