Talk:Arabella Advisors

Untitled
The legal name for Arabella appears mirky. I have seen Arabella Associates and Arabella group, Arabella Association. The legal name needs to be characterized. This mischaracterization is showing up in many companies lately — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.17.170 (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

COI edit requests
Hi! I'm here on behalf of Arabella with a few requests. I took a look at the sources used in this article, and it seems some of them don't meet the standard of WP:RS. I'm proposing that these sources, and information cited to them that isn't found in other sources, be removed from this article as WP:UNDUE.
 * The Washington Free Beacon – Based on two RS noticeboard discussions (1, 2), it seems that the general community consensus is that this is only an RS when cited as opinion. Specifically, I propose deleting the first paragraph under "Structure and funding":


 * Deleting this sentence cited to the Center for Responsive Politics in the second paragraph under "The Sixteen Thirty Fund," which I believe is WP:UNDUE and at minimum needs a caveat about the source of the quote:


 * Similarly, I believe the "Defend American Democracy" section, which is sourced entirely to, is WP:UNDUE and should be considered for deletion.
 * Adding highlighted text to "Coronavirus pandemic" section:

Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly. Thanks for your help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the COI disclosure. I don't feel comfortable acting on these requests, though. The fact that this page was created less than a month ago and Arabella has already retained a paid editor is not, to me, a good sign. As we can see from the article, Arabella has a massive amount of money and exerts tremendous influence across a wide range of channels. Its Wikipedia page should not be one of those channels. Marquardtika (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that Wikipedia should not be biased by paid influence, but I don't think that inherently renders my requests irrelevant. I've been doing this work for a long time and I try to make only requests that are in line with Wikipedia policy. I've added above. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll address these one by one. For your first point- "The Washington Free Beacon – Based on two RS noticeboard discussions (1, 2), it seems that the general community consensus is that this is only an RS when cited as opinion. Specifically, I propose deleting the first paragraph under "Structure and funding":" The RS page does not list the Washington Free Beacon as unreliable so I won't delete it for that reason alone. I found another RS discussing Arabella groups, fiscal sponsorship, etc and added it. I also softened the language a little bit.Tchouppy (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Point 2-"...at minimum needs a caveat about the source of the quote" Change made.Tchouppy (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Point 3- "Similarly, I believe the "Defend American Democracy" section, which is sourced entirely to [2], is WP:UNDUE and should be considered for deletion." I have added additional citations, therefore no longer WP:UNDUE.Tchouppy (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Point 4- language added as requested.Tchouppy (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not seeing how there is any way that suggestions from a paid editor working directly with this company can meaningfully advance our core five pillars. As we can see from the reliable sources in this article, Arabella spends hundreds of millions of dollars on various public relations efforts. They are real professionals. What chance does the layman have at crafting a truly impartial encyclopedic article if volunteer editors here are asked to do the bidding of a paid editor on behalf of a gigantic and powerful company? It is truly David vs. Goliath. I would want to know how much they are paying you and what you have promised them. I know that disclosed paid editing is technically allowed here (though barely tolerated). Absent more details regarding the terms of your engagement with Arabella, I would argue that this is certainly a case where allowing disclosed paid editing is not in the interest of the encyclopedia. Marquardtika (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I am also very concerned about the COI. The subsequent edits by Tchouppy and Marquardtika address sufficiently the issues raised by the COI. XavierItzm (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * First up – thank you,, for answering my requests.


 * A broader discussion regarding COI on Wikipedia and the validity of the COI edit request process may be better suited to another forum. Two quick notes: 1) I publicly committed to being an ethical COI representative on Wikipedia six years ago. Since then, I have striven to honor that commitment in six years of engagement with the community, six years of active learning about Wikipedia, and six years of working with clients with all kinds of political affiliations. (You can see a full list of past and present clients on my profile.) I have never been anything less than fully transparent in all of the work I do on Wikipedia, and I have strongly encouraged every client and prospective client to engage with Wikipedia in an ethical and transparent way. 2) In my discussions with Arabella, they have expressed a firm commitment to being transparent on Wikipedia and abiding by its rules. Only three editors have made changes to this article, all of whom have participated in this discussion. Unless one of you is also affiliated with Arabella and hasn't mentioned it, Arabella's only involvement in this article has been my posts on this talk page.


 * I can assure you that all of my agreements with clients include ample caveats that my first priority is following Wikipedia's rules and policies. I never guarantee specific outcomes to articles; I only promise that I'll post a request that I believe aligns with Wikipedia best practices, and engage with the community on any feedback or revisions to the request. My proposal to Arabella followed the standard structure I use with all my clients. Feel free to reach out if you have further questions or concerns. I value my reputation in this community and want to ensure I'm as transparent as possible. Thank you. Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't help but wonder (for the sake of transparency also) what your hourly rate is. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Me too. I also want to know who taught Mary to count. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Tchouppy, why do you keep edit warring over this material sourced to Free Beacon? Not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Clean up
I cleaned up some of the language to make the tone of this article more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.195.247.116 (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You removed sourced content. We can discuss the tone, but the content you removed is all reliably sourced. Marquardtika (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"Trumpian" jargon
I am not at all familiar with US politics, but jargon used in this article reads like the jargon used by supporters of Donald Trump. I will put a "tone banner" on top of the article.Rastakwere (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sixteen Thirty Fund should have its own page
The Sixteen Thirty Fund is notable enough and in the news enough to have its own page. Denisrodman88 (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'll get one started. This recent NYT piece is a good starting point. Marquardtika (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)