Talk:Donors Trust/Archive 1

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)

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, "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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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.[13][10][14]" 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 Wikipedia 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) 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)

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * , 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 Wikipedia policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "In many cases, this Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, 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 no, it really was Ball 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 Wikipedia 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)
 * Not sure about your subscriptions, but back to this WP article, a reliable noteworthy sources identifies certain noteworthy persons and foundations as having accounts. We know from the very websites of the subject of this article that Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund have minimum initial deposit requirements. Hugh (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all donors and recipients from all sources are included here. But if a donor or recipient was identified in a noteworthy reliable source, and if that donor or recipient is sufficiently notable that it has its own WP article, it belongs here. Hugh (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have issues with the bias of a source, please help us focus here on noteworthiness and please start a new section for bias. Hugh (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's WP:synthesis to declare when a source says "X has an account at Don n ors Trust", to imply that the account reflects a contribution or what Donors Trust would call an account.
 * What? If a source says "X has an account with Y" how is it synthetic for WP to say ""X has an account with Y?" Hugh (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A noteworthy ultra-left source declaring that Donors Trust gave money to X, or that X gave money to Donors Trust, where X is known to be conservative or libertarian, falls under "so what"? If they think it's notable, it doesn't mean that we should think it's notable.  If X were known not to be conservative or libertarian, that might be notable.
 * And obvious left-wing or right-wing bias in a reliable source means we need not believe their concept of notability of something which any rational person would consider "expected"; if the source had separate notablity from its publisher, there might be more of a case. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, sources need not be neutral. But I guess you know that. May I ask, what is the ultra-left source of which you speak? Are we doing noteworthiness or bias? In any case, the content under discussion here is merely the facts about who donated and who received, not views or opinions. Really, there's no big need for us to waste our energy debating noteworthiness, it is a simple matter, the content is in a noteworthy reliable source. Back to my earlier question, would you prefer to not mention of donors or recipients, which is how I found it a few weeks ago? I suppose some kind of article on this subject could be cobbled together from its own website, the Philanthropy Roundtable, and other sympathetic sources, but such an article would include no information for our readers on donors or recipients. Is it your position that only sources sympathetic to a subject may be used in a WP article? Hugh (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia article should only contain material that a reasonable unbiased person would find interesting and relevant, and that is an editorial judgement on the part of us editors. I see no evidence presented that a source which (or person who) is not anti-Koch would find many of the connections at all interesting.  Those which mention a large dollar amount (although I'm not sure $650,000 is large, and relevance to the Bradley Foundation is not established) or a large proportion of total funding should be interesting to anyone interested in the organization, regardless of political bias, but the raw statement X has an account at Donors Trust or X is a recipient of Donors Trust should not be of interest, unless one would be surprised by the connection.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Editing
Having given this another go through I decided to unprotect. There really needs to be a bit more discussion and Dispute resolution would not hurt. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Synthesis
is adding descriptions of organizations, individuals, and donations not supported in the sources given. Nowhere does it say that the donation to Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity  was for a specific media campaign, except in the title. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And the lede (the 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph). Thank you for your comment. Hugh (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing it. There's nothing explicit in the article making this connection. All the article says is that the money was given during the same time period as the campaign. It doesn't say the money was earmarked for the campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * plain English quote from ref added to ref Hugh (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be a lot more helpful if you put the quote in the discussion instead of using my question as an excuse to edit war. Btw I have started an WP:ORN discussion on this subject since we're scattered over 3 different articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

RSN
See WP:RSN. Pinged major contributors to this article for the past 3 weeks or so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was mistaken in that it would be reliable if properly attributed to The Center for Public Integrity . There is still no indication of importance or relevance.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Perhaps I was mistaken" Well, thanks for that. Hugh (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The RS/N discussion ended with multiple editors agreeing with DrFleischman that CPI was the the creator of the article and should be the referenced source (not NBC, merely posting CPI's report a second time). Capitalismojo (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of Pending RfC
- All those concerned with the recent lede debate. We will be launching an RfC in the near future. Please review that RfC and comment on whether you feel it's clear/concise and neutral. In particular, please comment on whether you feel we've captured all the main arguments. Unless there is an objection, there will be a 24hr review period starting from now before launching. Thanks in advance. NickCT (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't pinged; Repinging, with any luck.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - Sorry. My fault. I've noticed if you put a typo in the ping, then go back and try to fix it, it doesn't work. Annoying, since sometimes the syntax is tough. NickCT (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Doubly sorry, because I posted this section on the wrong talk page. I'm going to repost on the correct page. NickCT (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"Climate donations"
The Climate donations article all trace back to one sociologist researcher Robert Brulle. It is transparently inaccurate, and has been criticised for that inaccuracy. This material can not be asserted as a fact. It is the opinion theory of Brulle.

Lets examine some of the problems. Brulle: "Here I argue that an efficacious approach to defining this movement is to view it as a cultural contestation between a social movement advocating restrictions on carbon emissions and a counter-movement opposed to such action." So he is defining the "Climate Countermovement" as those who oppose restrictions on carbon emissions, reasonable? Maybe. But then he throws large conservative think tanks which have actually supported carbon taxes and carbon restrictions into his list as members of the "Climate Counter Movement". Capitalismojo (talk)


 * According to an article in Forbes: "Brulle’s paper merely tabulates the total money raised by the 91 conservative think tanks for their total operations regarding all issues they address and does not break down how much of each think tank’s resources are devoted to issues such as economic policy, health care policy, foreign policy, climate policy, etc. Goldenberg tells the lie that all money raised by all conservative and libertarian think tanks is devoted to global warming skepticism. Tell that to the supporters of Obamacare." Capitalismojo (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Further: "To the contrary, two of the three top-funded groups (AEI and the Hoover Institution) support a carbon tax. Other groups identified in Brulle’s paper have similarly expressed support for a carbon tax and global warming activism. At least 25 percent of the funding that Brulle claims goes to skeptical think tanks actually goes to think tanks supporting global warming restrictions." Capitalismojo (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "all trace back to one sociologist" Other reliable sources in this section include The Guardian, the New York Times, Business Insider, and Mother Jones. Hugh (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "he throws large conservative think tanks" Yes, Brulle is a sociologist, and one of his papers examined the network of organizations. The paper includes a detailed section describing the criteria used to define the study group. Hugh (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources are all talking about Brulle's work. It is apparently quite badly done. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources are not all talking about Brulle's work. Hugh (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Brulle is relied upon in each and every ref currently included for ""climate change" donations. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That some secondary sources writing on the funding of climate groups refer to Brulle, might that simply be evidence of the fact that his work is prominent in peer-reviewed analysis in that area? Hugh (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The first ref (the Guardian) relies on Brulle and advocacy org Greenpeace. They lump all donations to conservative think tanks as "anti-climate" donations even when those thinktanks were actually supporting cap and trade, or when the thinktanks were spending virtually nothing on environmental issues broadly speaking (much less the environmental sub-cat of "climate change"). Capitalismojo (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OMG, Greenpeace??? Hugh (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Advocacy orgs are prone to bloviation and hyperbole. Here is the press release that the Guardian turned into its article. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You do understand the point? The refs talk about for example $17+ million going to AEI. The criticism is that AEI was for a carbon-tax or cap and trade. They weren't doing anything in the global warming space. To use these sources uncritically is improper at best and at worst is deceitful. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I read his criteria. It's a joke. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You might consider a letter to the editors of Climatic Change, a peer-reviewed journal. Hugh (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, although some might mistake it for unhelpful snark. We are putting inaccurate or contentious information into this article, without any disclaimers of the very public criticism of those reports. That seems unhelpful to the general reader. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm afraid may be correct as to Wikipedia policy.  If all (say, climate change) experts take a specific POV, we are required to assume it correct, even if we know it to be wrong, and even if there are notable, reliable, but non-expert, sources which say it is wrong.  It bothers me, too.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, my thought is that if we have reliable source information (and there is) that suggests that the climate funding story is invalid that should be in the article as well. Something like: "Bill Smith writing in The Guardian stated "X" about funding levels. Dr. Jones stated "Y" about funding and organizations. Mr Johnson writing in Forbes criticised those reports saying "X" and "Y" were incorrect for the following reasons."  I believe that approach is fully compliant with all relevant policy, am I wrong?  Capitalismojo (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My intention was to explain that the information currently in the article is not uncontested and (given that some editors seem disposed towards disruptive editing where climate change is involved) discuss the issues before adding any material. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Agency
I think the "agency" characterization is excellent. I'll correct the references to that article in other Wikipedia articles when I get home. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! Debate solved. Now we're working together. NickCT (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't. The article was written and edited by CPI, plain and simple. Readers should be directed to the CPI source. The fact that it was republished by NBC is of little or no value. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with DrFleischman. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This debate is splitting. Can I suggest we keep it to the policy page discussion? NickCT (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The answer is simple – see WP:NEWSBLOG. – S. Rich (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh. You're right, it is simple. You mean WP:NEWSORG? Hugh (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Lede
Regarding this edit from User:Champaign Supernova;

Tad surprised by the comment that body of the article doesn't support the terms "Wealthy donors," "advocacy groups" and "climate change denial". Shall examine that one-by-one?


 * Wealthy Donors - The Donors section mentions Richard DeVos, Paul Singer, Koch brothers and Philip Anschutz. Are these guys not wealthy?
 * Advocacy Groups - The Recepients section mentions Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Heritage Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, and the National Rifle Association. Not advocacy groups?
 * Climate Change Denial - The section on Climate Change Related Funding, specifically states Donors Trust "distributed nearly $120 million to more than 100 groups skeptical of climate change". How is Climate Change Denial not supported in the body?

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The group is a donor advised fund which appears to take money from anyone who cares to give it. Sure, some of the donors are undoubtedly wealthy. But to say that only wealthy donors give here is not neutral. Besides, it looks like the partner group Donors Capital Fund is for those donors with higher balances. As for advocacy groups, that's a bit of a loaded term. As a 501(c)(3), this group cannot legally give to what many would consider a political advocacy group. Notice they often seem to give to the foundation arms of nonprofits, rater than the 501(c)(4) arms, which are usually more in line with advocacy. And if you check this talk page, you'll see the notability of the donations you mention is very much up for debate, so "advocacy" hardly warrants a mention in the lead. As for "climate change denial," the sources here talk about "climate change skepticism." Quite different terms. Champaign Supernova (talk)
 * re "advocacy groups, that's a bit of a loaded term" - Regardless of whether it's a loaded term, there are such things as advocacy groups, right? Places like the NRA are pretty obviously advocacy groups. You want sources to support that assertion?
 * re "only wealthy donors give here is not neutral" - How is it not neutral? Only wealthy donors are mentioned in the body of the article. And besides, the place has 200 donors contributing 40 million dollars. I think it's a safe bet that most of them are pretty wealthy. Do you have any evidence to suggest that any of the donors are not wealthy?
 * re ""climate change denial," the sources here talk about "climate change skepticism."" - Ok. Well we can change that wording. NickCT (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with CS that their version of the lead is much more neutral than Nick's. Describing DT's donors in the very first sentence the way Nick prefers (conservative political advocacy groups, think tanks and groups that support climate change denial) is a pretty blatant violation of WP:UNDUE in my view. I have no trouble with the term "advocacy group" and I don't think it's loaded, but highlighting DT's more controversial and newsworthy donors and excluding the who-knows-how-many less newsworthy donors is just plain misleading. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - I'm confused. If you think "advocacy group" is OK, what exactly are you calling UNDUE? And which "who-knows-how-many less newsworthy donors" am I excluding? NickCT (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're excluding all of the donors that aren't specifically described in the reliable sources. To my knowledge, no source has suggested that DT's donors are exclusively or even primarily conservative advocacy groups, think tanks, and climate change deniers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - I'm sorry, do you mean donors or donees? NickCT (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, donees (recipients). Saying "conservative advocacy groups and think tanks" isn't non-neutral to me, but it's unnecessary verbiage as it conveys no information over "conservative organizations," "conservative groups," or "conservative causes." (Leads should be concise per WP:LEAD.) But putting "climate change deniers" in a one-sentence description is totally undue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - Ok. So I think we're getting somewhere.
 * Champaign Supernova thought "climate change skepticism" might work. Do you feel the same? Is it that you think it's UNDUE, or just that it's a POV term? I'd be fine with either term, but I don't think it's UNDUE. Many of the RS's available for DT talk about them in relation to their funding climate change groups.
 * So, how about DonorsTrust is a 501(c)(3) organization that provides funding to a variety of conservative groups and groups that support climate change skepticism.? NickCT (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No I don't, not at all. Undue, not a POV term. Calling special attention to certain recipients just because they're climate change deniers and have therefore been in the news more is inappropriate. Your suggested language basically implies that DT is a climate change group, which is just plain wrong. They support a variety of conservative causes, which is just what the sources and the current version say. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - re "just because they're climate change deniers and have therefore been in the news more" - From WP:UNDUE - "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" - You realize that if something is in the news more, UNDUE actually suggests we should give it special attention. NickCT (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That only applies when there is a dispute among the sources, which there isn't here. Really, this is pretty simple to me. The proposed language misrepresents the sources by suggesting that DT is a climate change denial group, whatever section of WP:NPV you wish to discuss. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - "only applies when there is a dispute among the sources" - Really? You've taught me something. Where in the policy does it say that exactly? NickCT (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No need for the snark. My apologies, I was thinking of WP:BALANCE. But you will not find a source that describes DT the way you propose. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You know you love the snark.
 * Again, can you explain where in WP:BALANCE it says we only need to represent sources "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" if there is a debate among the sources?
 * re "you will not find a source that describes DT the way you propose" - I don't know what you mean by this. You want sources that describe DT as supporting conservative groups? You want sources that describe DT as support climate skeptic groups? I can certainly provide you with a bunch. NickCT (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want sources saying DT supports climate change deniers. I want sources that include climate change denial in a short, one-paragraph description of what DT is and what it does. Even better, I want sources that include it in a one-sentence description. (I have to be honest, I can't believe we're even having this discussion. My patience is wearing thin on this particular issue. I suggest DR.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - That's easy. Have you done a basic Google search? All those articles are about climate change deniers/skeptics and how DT supports them. Here's a source that explicitly states DT funnels money to climate skeptics. NickCT (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the ping..... NickCT (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I'm not sure you read my last comment. Take the CBC. No description of DT. Take the NY Times: "an organization based in Alexandria, Va., that accepts money from donors who wish to remain anonymous, then funnels it to various conservative causes." Conservative causes. No mention of climate change denial. Etc. etc. Show me something different. And not from an environmental-oriented source, which is of course going to focus on DT's environmental activities. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * re "No mention of climate change denial." - Hmmmmm.... You did read the headline of that NYT article? Which "conservative causes" do you think they are referring to? NickCT (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to collaborate on the lede. May I suggest we proceed body, lede graph, then lede sentence? How do we feel about coverage of RS in the body? I think we are approaching a reasonable summary of RS in the body, dare I say it? almost GA-ish, if we can develop consensus on the tags. Hugh (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - I'm going to try another rewrite in the near future. I think there are only one or two words that most people are really objecting to my last rewrite. I'm going to try to strike those to see if I can come up with a more agreeable version. NickCT (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The new lede doesn't even say what Donors Trust is--a donor advised fund. Given the many disputes this page has engendered, I'd suggest gaining consensus for any lede changes on the talk page first. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We agree donor advised fund belongs in the lede, and in the lede sentence, in a prized position, right after "conservative." The single most notable thing about DT is that it is a donor advised fund. The 2nd most notable thing about DT is that it is conservative. Additionally, by WP:LINKSTYLE, we need a brief definition of donor advised fund, in the lede, so we don't bury our lede behind a wikilink. Hugh (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also we need to get the refs out of the lede. The lede should not introduce new material. The lede should summarize the body. Conduct your cite bombing campaigns in the body and return to the lede. Hugh (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede sentence is supposed to summarize notability. The VA address is far from the most notable thing about the subject of this article. What do you think are the most notable aspects of the subject of this article? Hugh (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Collaborating on a lede with a collaborator who section blanks is futile. Hugh (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hugh, while you're knocking other people for what you perceive to be their inability to collaborate, you're hardly a model yourself. This edit summary is totally inappropriate . You're saying that User:Capitalismojo "is an editor who is determined that no one read the article." Wow. And other editors are supposed to want to "collaborate" with you after this is the way you treat them? Knock it off, seriously. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Over describing
The insertion of unnecessary "brief descriptions" of organizations all over this page is making for a choppy and overly verbose article. Readers who care to understand more about an organization described can click on the Wikilink/s The "brief descriptions" are unhelpful. Brevity is the soul of wit especially at an encyclopedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, no article about a foundation looks anything like this and for good reason. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do me favor, go to WP:LINKSTYLE, delete "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so," and "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence," and "Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all," see what happens, then come back here and we'll talk. If your personal MOS is what articles about foundations look like, you need to get out more. Hugh (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please take your issue with "over describing" or "unnecessary brief descriptions" or "overly verbose" to WP:MOSLINK. Hugh (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What % of our readers of this page would you expect to have ever heard of the Olin Foundation? A wikilink is NOT enough. Guideline is clear. We are very very clearly asked to write articles that communicate without linking. Argue against the guideline elsewhere if you please. I've written hundreds of words about this above, round & round, please see. Hugh (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here you are deleting mention of the Olin Foundation entirely:, "brief in-text definition on 1st mention" and all, and a "no consensus" delete WP:ROWN at that. Failing that, you come back, and now you want to say, ok, we'll let the Olin Foundation in, as long as you agree that no one who ever reads this article has the faintest idea what the Olin Foundation is? Hugh (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have read linkstyle. That doesn't trump good editing practice. It is not a good excuse for, what I see as, poor writing. John Olin's history is not "highly technical", and he was dead before Donor's Trust came into existence. Not really a good addition here. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "poor writing" You know what might help with building rapport in our collaoration is if I could take a look at some of your work you are most proud of that is primarily your own work. Hugh (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Conservative funding
- Regarding this edit; Are you familiar with WP's WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI rules? Generally, using an entity's own website for information about that entity is a bad practice. We usually try to us reliable sources. NickCT (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the most relevant guideline is probably WP:SELFPUBLISHED, which allows self published sources for statements about self providing the are not excessively promotional. Formerly 98 talk 13:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. User:Capitalismojo balanced it a little.
 * I've still got a little beef about the fact that we're not calling out climate change skepticism in the lead. That topic is in almost half the sources which refer :to Donor's trust. Mentioning it in the lead just seems WP:DUE.
 * Also, while I understand that calling this place a "donor advised fund" may be technically correct, the term seems very jargony to me. I preferred describing it as a "501c charity", though this might not be entirely clear either.
 * Do we think there might be some slightly more clearer language we can come up with here? NickCT (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - re "which allows self published sources for statements about self providing the are not excessively promotional" - Really? Where exactly does it say that? Which line are you reading exactly? NickCT (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here: WP:ABOUTSELF Sorry I think the prior link was wrong.
 * "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
 * The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
 * It does not involve claims about third parties.
 * It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source.
 * There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
 * The article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * In general I don't like these people either. But I feel pretty strongly that its not our job to evaluate each company and organization to decide if it is "good" or "bad" and then communicate that judgment to the reader. Emphasizing the organizations most controversial activities in the lede is just the opposite of the Rand Paul article, in which supporters try to move everything controversial into the 8th paragraph and load the lede with motherhood and apple pie issues.  We should try to keep this neutral and not try to influence the reader's impression of the organization by selectively emphasizing unpopular positions. Formerly 98 talk  14:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * - It might be OK to use their site to support the idea that they disburse "funds to a wide range of non-profit organizations.". What is not OK is to infer from that what 3rd party RS's say about them (i.e. that they exist primarily to fund conservation political action groups) is wrong, based on something you read on their website.
 * You're right about what our job is not. What our job is, is to reflect what we find in RS's. If RS's emphasize unpopular positions, so do we. NickCT (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do any of these reliable sources state explicitly that they financially support "groups that support climate change skepticism.' to a greater extent than the other types of non-profit organizations listed on their website? Because climate change groups were called out in the lede of your edit. If so, I'll concede the point. Formerly 98 talk  15:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A reminder, we are editing in climate change broadly construed. The lede summarizes the whole article WP:LEDE, so obviously conservative and climate change belong in the lede somewhere. The subject does not get to write its own lede. Please resist the temptation to cite bomb the lede. Please draw from the body for the lede WP:CREATELEAD. I'm planning GA for this article and I ask for your support; before nominating I need to move most or all of the refs in the lede to the body. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - The preponderance of reliable sources covering this entity, cover it in relation to conservative groups and "groups that support climate change skepticism.". Very few sources cover it relation to any other groups. If you'd like some search engine results I can demonstrate that for you.
 * WP:DUE tells us we should "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published" (bolding for emphasis). If a large proportion of reliable sources covers this group in relation to conservative groups and "groups that support climate change skepticism.", it stands to reason we could call this out in the lead. NickCT (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you've got me there. On an editorial note, it seems to me that there is something really wrong with this article on a clearly conservative group being based on the opinions and content emphasis of groups and publications that are well known for their liberal viewpoints.  The conservative groups don't respond with commentary that is favorable, not because they don't support their own, but because the criticism of the left isn't regarded as enough of a threat to be worth responding to.  Thus we end up with an article that basically says "Conservative group engages in an insidious plot to spread conservative ideology".
 * But guidelines are guidelines, and it appears that my concerns are neither here nor there. And I am only willing to put out a limited effort to defend the neutrality of an article about climate change deniers in any case. Best Formerly 98 talk  16:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - re "it seems to me that there is something ...... known for their liberal viewpoints" - Yes. I think I agree with you there. The problem is that sources most likely to report on conservative "dark money" entities are probably going to be liberal. That said, there are a handful of sources coming from more mainstream outlets, and even those mainstream sources seem to point at the "climate skepticism", "conservative funding" angle. Though of course they tend to use slightly more neutral language.......
 * Not to canvas or anything, but I'd love to get your opinion at this RfC. NickCT (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I won't join over there because of the canvassing issue, but in general I think the high level of emphasis on politics in our articles is "icky" and I try to campaign against it to the extent that I can. I don't see this sort of stuff in "real" encyclopedias, and it would be my preference that we avoided that here too.  Interesting NBER paper title here, wish I had access. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18167 Formerly 98 talk  17:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - re " I try to campaign against ..... this sort of stuff in "real" encyclopedias," - To a certain extent I agree. On the other hand though, political dark money organizations like this do exist, right? On both sides.....
 * Should we be so hesitant to call a spade a spade when we have a pretty good idea that that's what it is? If you're too cautious, it borders on censorship.
 * re "over there because of the canvassing issue," - Ah well..... I tried.
 * re "Interesting NBER paper title here" - Might be over my head. What's Linus' law? NickCT (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think even the concept of a "dark money ATM" is the value loaded language of a political group describing the activities of their opponents. It sounds like something that I would hear in a TV ad running the week before local elections.  How about "An organization that facilitates anonymous donations to controversial conservative causes" for neutral language?  As for calling a "spade a spade" (Do you know the origin of that term? Being from the south, I've always worried it had racial connotations, as s---e was a racist word for African Americans that was used there. But I don't know if that's true or if the phrase comes from elsewhere.), I think of it like this. The same oil exploration can be described as
 * A bold search for new energy resources under the most technically challenging conditions ever attempted
 * An environmentally reckless perpetuation of the greenhouse gas economy
 * Oil exploration in an environmentally sensitive area.
 * In my personal life I'd probably use the second terminology. In an encyclopedia I'd use the third.
 * Formerly 98 talk 18:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I think we mostly agree. "dark money ATM" is clearly not appropriate language.
 * re "spade a spade" - You may enjoy this. NickCT (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Article length checkpoint: ~ 15% max
As of April, 2015, according to our page size tool, this article is Prose size (text only): 7258 B (1088 words) "readable prose size." According to our DYK check tool, this article Prose size (text only): 7258 characters (1088 words) "readable prose size." According to our article length guideline, WP:SIZERULE 50KB is the rule of thumb for where an article's length is a concern. The article is at roughly 15% of our guideline. I am actively working on expanding and improving the article, in the course of which we should all expect that the article will get longer as well as more detailed. Collaborators are asked to kindly refrain from deleting content with edit summaries such as "excessive detail." We can revisit content deletions for "excessive detail" as we approach more closely to our article page limits. As always comments on the due weight of content are welcome. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Hugh (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Deletions based on "excessive detail" may be grounded in policies and guidelines other than WP:SIZERULE, e.g. WP:NPV and WP:NOT. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The size rule isn't about deletion anyway. It's a rule of thumb to decide whether to do a size split or combine articles that don't really meet the notability guidelines for a content split.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Paul Singer, Philip Anschutz, and Richard DeVos
This passing mention of these three BLP's should likely be removed. The BLP policy applies here simply as much as it would on the articles about these BLPs. For the information provided the source used is of a rather low quality.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to go ahead and remove it per -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Synth tag
What synth is left that justifies this tag?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed the Synth tag. Sems like there was plenty of time to respond.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Some more sources
As best as I know, DONORS (Trust/Capital Fund) was first analyzed/publicized in detail February 2012 in Fake Science, Fakexperts, Funny Finances, Free of Tax, specifically attached PDF pp.65-68.

That was later expanded in Fakery 2: More Funny Finances, Free Of Tax, whose attached PDF had more detail, pp.47-62, 68-76.

Of course, these are blogs, so not RS, but they cite many RS sources on interesting topics, including the interlocking directorates with Philanthropy Roundtable and the set of family foundations and think tanks involved. It is well worth understanding who else is involved besides Whitney Ball.

Anyway, if people want to add more detail to this page, read those pages of the 2nd PDF and for anything interesting, look at the underlying sources for ones that might be Wikipedia-usable. JohnMashey (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So view the unreliable source for possible reliable sources? Somehow in doing so avoid the original research by you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Large Bold edit
The proposed addition is poorly conceived and inadequately refenced. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)