Talk:Donors Trust/Archive 2

Characterizations as "dark money ATM" of "conservative movement" and "climate denial" in multiple reliable sources
Proposed content addition to the history section, drawn largely from sources already in the article:

"Mother Jones called Donors Trust 'a dark-money ATM funding the conservative movement,' referring to dark money, that is, funds given to nonprofit organizations that can receive unlimited donations and are not required to disclose their donors, and referring metaphorically to automatic teller machines (ATMs), and was quoted by The Guardian, Salon, the National Review, the Business Insider, The American Spectator, the Huffington Post, Democracy Now!, and Moyers and Company. Moyers and Company and Democracy Now! called Donors Trust 'the ATM for climate denial.'"Note: some references are already cited in the article; The Guardian, Salon, The American Spectator, Huffington Post, and Moyers and Company are proposed additional references. Hugh (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose: Mother Jones is an opponent of this organization. Mother Jones believes that "dark money," which is in fact perfectly legal under current U.S. laws, shouldn't be legal. That's their prerogative. Calling DT a "dark money ATM" is clearly an epithet. It's not neutral to repeat it, and it's certainly WP:UNDUE to scour the internet for every instance in which MJ's use of the term was discussed, positively or negatively, in other publications. Per WP:IMPARTIAL, we shouldn't be directly quoting from opponents in disputes. It doesn't really get much more at loggerheads than MJ's editorial slant versus DT's use of current IRS regulations. Finally, this text is poorly written and to the casual reader could make it appear as if DT is literally an automated teller machine. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. How is Mother Jones (magazine) an opponent Donors Trust? Mother Jones (magazine) is a magazine and Donors Trust is a nonprofit grantmaker, are they competitors? What is your source for what Mother Jones (magazine) believes? Have they editorialized on this issue? Mother Jones (magazine) is not the only source for this content. The proposed content is reflected in multiple reliable sources WP:USEBYOTHERS. (The listed references are not every instance, there are others.) Are all the sources "opponents" of Donors Trust? Currently our article makes no mention of dark money, which is non-neutral with respect to reliable sources. The ATM analogy appears in multiple RS because it is a useful metaphor in succinctly explaining Donors Trust, not because the sources are opponents. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * MJ is "progressive" (their term). DT says donations will never be made to a "liberal" (their term) organization.  Although we cannot put those facts together in an article, it would be foolish on our part not to note that they are idiological enemies.
 * I do not subscribe to MJ, but I would be surprised if they did not publish an editorial against "dark money"; probably within days of the Citizens United decision, and possibly before the decision.
 * Even so, if is possible that MJ's use of the term might be notable. More evidence would need to be provided, though.  If a conservative organization took note of MJ's position, even if they were to note the position is absurd, there might be a justification for inclusion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Take a look at this article . It's quite clear that Mother Jones, and particularly journalist Andy Kroll, are staunchly opposed to what they call "dark money." According to Mother Jones, DT deals in "dark money." They are therefore opponents, and it's a violation of WP:IMPARTIAL to quote directly from opponents in a dispute. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. We agree Mother Jones (magazine) has a progressive orientation. As you know from WP:BIAS, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Further, we agree Mother Jones (magazine) has reported on funds given to non-profit organizations that can receive unlimited donations and are not required to disclose their donors, but using the term "dark money" is not a declaration of opposition to the subject of this article. Mother Jones (magazine) has ink in barrels and Donors Trust has millions of millionaire's dollars, how are they "opponents" of each other? You were among the editors who objected strenuously to characterizing Donors Trust as conservative, do you now want to reconsider? It is violation of WP:YESPOV to exclude what multiple reliable sources have to say about the subject of an article. Are The Guardian, Salon (magazine), The American Spectator, The Huffington Post, the National Review, and the Business Insider also "opponents" of Donors Trust? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because of the clear fact that MJ is an ideological opponent of DT, and an opponent of "dark money", any connection MJ opines between them is not only opinion, but an expected opinion, and not worthy of note except in an article about MJ. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The proposed content is included in multiple reliable sources, including The Guardian, Salon (magazine), The American Spectator, The Huffington Post, the National Review, and the Business Insider, several of which are already in use as sources of this article, are they all "ideological opponents" of Donors Trust and therefore ineligible for use as reliable sources in this article? Is it your position that any source that uses the term "dark money" is ineligible for use in any article that concerns non-profit organizations that can receive unlimited donations and are not required to disclose their donors? As you know from WP:BIAS, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective;" is it your position that only ideologically aligned sources may be used in an article? Hugh (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * All of the sources you list say things like "Andy Kroll of MJ called DT a 'dark money ATM.'" They are just repeating the original quote, not opting to themselves call DT a "dark money ATM." My point is that Andy Kroll and MJ are opponents of DT. The fact that Kroll's claims were repeated in other outlets doesn't change that fact. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Andy Kroll and MJ are opponents of DT" Thank you for your comment. I understand you wish to invoke WP:IMPARTIAL here, but may I respectfully ask again, how are Andy Kroll and Mother Jones (magazine) opponents of Donors Trust? Are Mother Jones (magazine) and Donors Trust out to destroy each other? Are all the sources involved in a "heated dispute" with Donors Trust, a dispute so intense that we are prohibited from using them as reliable sources for what they have to say about Donors Trust? Is every disagreement regarding any issue in public policy a "heated dispute" with respect to WP:IMPARTIAL? Is it your position that only sources that agree with the subject of an article may be used in an article? Hugh (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "claims were repeated in other outlets doesn't change that" Yes, it does; please see WP:USEBYOTHERS. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason why criticism leveled about this organization, which is referenced to high quality sources cannot be included in the article. Remember NPOV? NPOV states that significant viewpoints have to be present, and these are such. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it is notable that a publication that actively opposes "dark money" doesn't like an organization that actively spends "dark money." It's a given. Yes, they are opponents. Do we put in the article of every Democratic politician that Republicans oppose them? Do we put in the article of every Red Sox player that Yankees oppose them? They are inherently at odds, and it's not particularly surprising or interesting. Including in this article that a journalist/publication that doesn't believe in "dark money" chose to use a dark-money related epithet against an organization that is simply using current IRS regulations to its advantage is not neutral. It makes it seem as if there is something wrong or unsavory about what DT is doing, when in fact they appear to be complying with "dark money" laws. I'm sorry that Andy Kroll and MJ don't like that, but it's not fair to our readers to imply that DT is doing anything wrong here. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I believe this may not be an appropriate application of WP:IMPARTIAL. Mother Jones (magazine) has investigated Donors Trust, and Donors Trust wishes to keep its funders secret and Mother Jones (magazine) has reported on Donors Trust's funders, but that does not make Mother Jones (magazine) an "opponent" of Donors Trust, certainly not an "opponent" in the sense of "engaged in a heated dispute" as required for application of WP:IMPARTIAL to spiking a direct quote. It seems to me if we were to apply WP:IMPARTIAL here, we would be excluding all results of investigative journalism from our encyclopedia. What do you think? Hugh (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The proposed content does not state or imply that anyone is doing anything wrong. Hugh (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Political parties oppose each other over elected offices, and baseball teams content for wins, what is the finite resource that makes Mother Jones (magazine) an "opponent" of Donors Trust? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Money. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What? Seriously? Do you think there is overlap between Mother Jones (magazine) subscribers and Donors Trust contributors? Hugh (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are editors under the impression that people can only be opponents for material "finite resorces"? If so, I would have to disabuse them of that notion. People can be and are bitter opponents and even blood enemies over ideas and ideologies. Something I think we would acknowledge and recognize that upon reflection of history and current politics. Material resources are only one area over which people become opponents, perhaps even the minor area. The progressive vs. conservative ideological battles exemplified by Mother Jones and Donors Trust are deep. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe you may be confusing an investigative journalism/investigated organization relationship for an "ideological battle." Obviously the intent of WP:IMPARTIAL is not to override WP:BIAS "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Are The Guardian, Salon (magazine), The American Spectator, The Huffington Post, the National Review, and the Business Insider also involved in an "ideological battle" so "deep" as to qualify as "engaged in a heated dispute" and prohibit their use as sources as per WP:IMPARTIAL? I understand you do not like the proposed content. The proposed content is supported by multiple reliable sources WP:USEBYOTHERS, it is not in Wikipedia voice, it is attributed in-text, and it complies with WP:YESPOV, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:VER. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have said nothing in this discussion about the proposed content. I merely pointed out the obvious flaw in the discussion immediately above.Capitalismojo (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As to the question re the multitude of sources you ask about, yes I have seen all of those sources kept out of various articles for bias reasons at one time or another. Sometimes their use is valid, sometimes it isn'tCapitalismojo (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:YESPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts." "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." "Prefer nonjudgmental language." "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." HughD, could you please describe how this recent addition adheres to the aforementioned tenants of our neutrality pillar? Are there any sources you can find out there that might provide an opposing viewpoint to the information you've added? For example, the National Review article you include in your edit is sub-titled "The Left’s unprincipled campaign against philanthropic privacy." It appears to be highly critical of the Mother Jones piece, and others attacking Donors Trust. It seems a bit odd to include that piece as mere corroboration of the Mother Jones piece without actually including any of the content in it, such as "Readers of outlets like The Guardian and Mother Jones might be left with the impression that the practice of so-called 'dark money' is unique to the Right." Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Per your request, at risk of repeating myself, again: The contended content is not stated as a fact, it is not in Wikipedia voice, it is clearly attributed in-text WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It is not Wikipedia language, it is the language of our reliable sources. The contended content reflects a highly significant point of view as represented in multiple reliable sources; the content is so widespread such that WP:USEBYOTHERS and the proportionality provisions of WP:YESPOV require inclusion; looking the other way on these many reliable sources is non-neutral. Mother Jones (magazine) is reporting on Donors Trust, Mother Jones (magazine) is not "attacking" Donors Trust. There is no basis in policy or guideline for your claim that investigative journalism is attacking; if it were, our project could include no results from investigative journalism. Again, Mother Jones (magazine) is not the only source for the contended content. This article is not flagged as non-neutral because it is suffering from overly critical content, you may suggest content to balance the contended content. I look forward to collaborating with you to draw more significant content from these and other sources. I support adding the subtitle to the reference, thank you for the suggestion. The contended content wikilinks to dark money and from your edit history, I know you to be a great proponent of the "a wikilink is enough" school of providing context to our readers; have you revised your thinking on this aspect of your editing? I would be interest in seeing how you might introduce into this article general content describing the ideological distribution of dark money without going off topic. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hugh, I don't think you've met the challenges listed above regarding the neutrality of this content. You keep re-adding it, but I don't see that you're gaining WP:CONSENSUS. I also don't think you've sufficiently addressed my concern regarding WP:IMPARTIAL. The new Mother Jones quote that says DT has "funded an assault" certainly sounds like an opponent's view, and it doesn't appear to be properly contextualized as such. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "my concern regarding WP:IMPARTIAL" Might you also be baiting me into repeating myself? You are misapplying WP:IMPARTIAL, see above. Hugh (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The contended content was refined based on talk page discussion and edit summary comments. "Try to move the discussion towards making a new, and different Bold edit as quickly as possible. One should seek to have an iterative cycle..." as per WP:BRD A policy or guideline basis for exclusion of these multiple reliable sources has yet to be presented. An alternaitve summarization of these multiple reliable sources has yet to be presented. Hugh (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "The new Mother Jones quote" This source and a version of this content was added in 2015 February, it is not new, it is long-standing by DT standards. I will be restoring the status quo while I look forward to your refinement suggestions at talk. Hugh (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand you really, really do not like Mother Jones (magazine). I also know from your edit history that you have major personal commitment to articles on conservative think tanks. As you know, in an era of diminishing resources for journalism in general and investigative journalism in particular, Mother Jones (magazine) has maintained a nationally recognized staff on the beat of the funding of conservative politics. Given your commitment to this area of our project and your commitment to our neutrality pillar, I don't understand your antipathy to Mother Jones (magazine). Hugh (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What? No, I'm not trying to "bait" you into anything. I'm trying to discuss the content at hand and arrive at a policy-based consensus with fellow editors. I assume, per WP:AGF, that you're trying to do the same. And I have no idea why you think I have "antipathy" toward Mother Jones. That is inaccurate. Mother Jones is sometimes a WP:RS and sometimes not, it depends on the context, just like most things. I'm simply trying to ensure this article's content adheres to our neutrality pillar. If you would stop making off-topic personal remarks to be about your perceptions of me, I'd appreciate it. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with WP:DRNC? From my point of view you seem to be interested in deleting the content at hand, not discussing. How would you summarize the sources? Hugh (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for your loss. Hugh (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ? Safehaven86 (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Rephrasing, sigh. If a Democrat and Republican candidate, contending for the same elected office, participated in a debate, and one candidate got frustrated and slung a racial slur at his opponent, we might report that it happened, but of course we would not quote the slur, and it is important that we don't and that's why we have a policy WP:IMPARTIAL that says we don't. This is not that! Mother Jones (magazine) and Donors Trust do not meet the requirements of WP:IMPARTIAL, by a long, long shot. Investigative journalism agencies are not opponents of their subjects. Mother Jones (magazine) and Donors Trust are in different industries. Mother Jones (magazine) has nothing Donors Trust wants, and Donors Trust has nothing Mother Jones (magazine) wants. No one on the editorial board of Mother Jones (magazine) is plotting the dissolution of Donors Trust, and the board of directors of Donors Trust is not meeting on how to deal with the existential threat from Mother Jones (magazine). I do not have exact figures, but may I suggest no potential client of Donors Trust was ever dissuaded from opening an account by the contents of a Mother Jones (magazine) article, and no Mother Jones (magazine) subscriber has ever cancelled for going too easy on Donors Trust. WP:IMPARTIAL is not applicable to any of these multiple reliable sources. And I think you know better. May I respectfully say, application of WP:IMPARTIAL to this content is a stretch so thin as to doubt good faith. If it were not for good faith I might begin to think your opposition to this content is pointed. Do you propose that our project respond to this content from multiple reliable sources by ignoring them all? What is your alternative? Are we discussing or are you deleting? Hugh (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The term "Dark money ATM" is questionable given WP:LABEL. It is preferable to state that the organization is considered to be a source for funds for _____ campaigns etc (ie the reasons why MJ wanted to use this pejorative label). As this is supposed to be an encyclopedic voice adding the term or even stating that others have used it should be avoided. Even if a number of sources have mentioned that MJ coined the term, it is not a wide spread term in the way asking for a "Kleenex" is all but synonymous with asking for a tissue. Springee (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Another stretch beyond ken. I understand that if you are a booster of Donors Trust, anything critical is the equivalent of calling them terrorists, but again, this is not that. And I think you know better. In any case, may I respectfully ask, how did you miss "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" in WP:LABEL??? Hugh (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your counter argument does not adequately address my point. How does it lend encyclopedic value to mention a label used by one source and quoted in passing by a few.  This is not the same as calling facial tissue "Kleenex".  If you think the inclusion of the label is not WP:UNDUE please show it by showing wide spread use.  So far you have not.  Please avoid suggesting or attacking the motives of other editors on article talk pages. Springee (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We improve our encyclopedia whenever we fairly and neutrally summarize more reliable sources and more significant points of view. Hugh (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "mention in passing" All of the multiple reliable sources include the contended content in the opening paragraph or paragraphs of their coverage of Donors Trust. Multiple reliable sources do so not because they are engaged in a heated dispute but because it is an expressive and succinct characterization. Hugh (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I almost forgot, where are my manners? welcome to Donors Trust! I look forward to more of your insights and collaboration here. May I respectfully ask, what brings you by today for the first time to an article created 2011 September? Hugh (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Other people are allowed to edit articles. No one owns any articles. Speaking of forgetting your manners, above, when you wrote "Sorry for your loss" to, it looks to me like you were referring to his recent edit noting the apparent passing of a Donors Trust staff member . Was your comment a misguided attempt at humor, an accusation of COI, or something else entirely? You mention WP:AGF above so I know you're aware of it, and given that, I find your comment particularly odd. SafeHaven, you might consider this bullying or a personal attack. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't speculate as to what Hugh meant by his cryptic comments (he didn't take the time to clarify them when I expressed confusion ), but I can make a reasonable guess it had to do with contributors and not content, so I left a reminder to that effect. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)