Talk:Donors Capital Fund

Islam-related funding

This content does not belong in the article with the current level of sourcing:

"Donors Capital Trust was the largest of the seven largest funders of the eight leading nonprofit organizations and think tanks in the anti-Islam movement in the US between 2001 and 2009, according to an analysis by the Center for American Progress, a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization. A follow-up analysis in 2015 found that Donors Capital Trust was the largest of eight funders of the ten leading anti-Islam organizations in the US between 2001 and 2012."

Use of the term "anti-Islam" is contentious and non-neutral. The sources for this content are not adequate.

• The Center for American Progress is a progressive advocacy organization. A PDF of two of their studies does not show notability of the studies. Use of the term "Islamophobia" in the study's title does not point to a study which is academic in nature.
• The Nation piece is a rehashing of a CAP study. It simply states the findings of the CAP study.
• The Newsweek article is an oped written by the authors of the CAP study.

These four sources--two CAP studies, an oped by the CAP authors, and a Nation piece--are not sufficient for the claims being made here. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources need not be neutral. How are the Nation and Newsweek "not adequate"? The reports are the main sources, Nation and Newsweek document noteworthiness and due weight, but you know that, I'm sure. The claim that Donors Trust donated to anti-Islam groups is not in contention. For you to claim "contentious" you need to find a ref that says Donors Trust did not contribute to anti-Islam orgs. I think you mean to say you personally find the term "anti-Islam" shocking or offensive. "anti-Islam" has its own WP article. That's fine. I'm sorry if "anti-Islam" or "Islamophobia" offends you. Also, sources need not be neutral. Hugh (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

SafeHaven is right. This material is WP:UNDUE, to say the least. The sources are not adequate because the authors of 3/4 pieces work for a partisan advocacy group. Hugh, each source needn't be neutral, but our articles do need to be neutral. Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No one wants to jump on the Nation for POV? Hugh (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please be more explicit as to your point. What is it about the Nation citation/article/whatever that pertains to article improvement? (This question is for all commentators, not just HughD.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Bias

I'm a little concerned about how this page reads. The page has very little to do with what Donors Capital Funds does as an organization but mostly covers controversies and critiques from its opposing side. This seems undue and irrelevant. We wouldn't put conservative critiques foremost on pages of progressive organizations. This page needs to be seriously reworked. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The largest funder

DT & DCF are not just any old funder of the climate counter-movement, they are THE LARGEST funder, clearly stated in the well-formatted, reliable source, with in-text attribution for possible concerns of bias by some editors as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This is one of if not the most significant aspect of the notability of DT & DCF. To summarize the source as "a funder" seriously diminishes the notability of the subject and is a gross violation of NPOV. Hugh (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This is still undue weight. This doesn't reflect that the page currently reads like a leftist watchdog blog, blowing the lid on right wing corruption. The page currently is barely about the organization's activities. And the reliability of these sources is questionable. There are several issues both with this wording and the page as a whole. They need to be addressed to maintain neutrality. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no mention of corruption. The subject's activities are exactly a list of recipients and how much. That's what they do. The weight of the source is due. Most WP subjects do not have any peer-reviewed articles about it. This one does. Hugh (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think there was some confusion there. I am saying this article currently reads like a progressive watchdog release, which is biased. And this absolutely is WP:UNDUE. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not mean to come across as rude there if that's what it seemed like. What I'm saying is that we can't give this kind of coverage on far-right pages and not on pages relating to the idealogical opposite. Realistically, this kind of coverage can be added onto every political organization page with some bias. DaltonCastle (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Please be specific. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No one is arguing that DCF wasn't a major funder of counter-movements. Or that it wasn't the largest. But it still seems like too much undue weight here. The way this article reads makes it seem like the only achievement of the DCF was funding the climate counter-movement. Progressive groups certainly fund movements they as well are passionate about, even if the other side disapproves. I don't think it follows neutral guidelines to begin the section, and also most of the entire page, with effectively a critique. That much coverage, that prominently displayed on the article just seems undue. We should treat all organization pages the same regardless of ideological bias. DaltonCastle (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"We should treat all organization pages the same regardless of ideological bias." We agree. We should not use the deficiencies of another article to support deliberately diminishing the article currently under discussion. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"No one is arguing that DCF wasn't a major funder of counter-movements. Or that it wasn't the largest." Then why do you want to keep this from our readers? The weight is due. The content is supported by a peer-reviewed journal article. The content is a key aspect of the notability of this subject. Hugh (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the "leftist/progressive watchdog" angle. This article was thoroughly combed over by editors on both sides of the political spectrum in February, and if anything it seems pretty sterile to me. Dalton, where is this criticism you're referring to? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hugh, but when you are only making these changes on a particular ideology's pages, and only adding details about their links to each other and certain individuals, it reads like POV-pushing.

@DrFleischman, im sorry if that was confusing. I meant that when the article is focusing so much on funding, when similar pages do not have such focus, it appears more like a partisan press-release, such as from a progressive watchdog group. DaltonCastle (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following. What aspect appears like a partisan press release? There is a heavy emphasis on funding because DCF is a funding vehicle. --Dr. Fleischman (talk)

Ha! Since we are having this discussion across several pages it is possible that my arguments are blending a little too much. But I was referencing this: "Americans for Tax Reform is a grantee of the Donors Trust, a conservative donor advised fund." It was undue and irrelevant. The only reason to have kept it in was if one wanted to deliberately make the funding for the organization seem shady. Most donors of major organizations regardless of ideology or mission want their identities disclosed. That wording, which is not present on any progressive pages despite the existence of progressive advisory funds, implies it is a uniquely conservative action. DaltonCastle (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(I accidentally posted this answer on the other page, although I meant it for this one.. kinda proving my own point).

This is playing very fast and loose. You're providing shifting rationales for the deletion of reliably sourced content in a different article. This isn't the content the OP (HughD) was referring to. He was talking about these two edits: [1] [2]. Please restrict your comments here to that topic, and if you'd like to discuss changes to another article please do so on that article's talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Message me on my talk page with your general comments to me regarding your assessment of my overall editing interests, or stop by there with a reliable source for funding data of a specific organization which you believe has undue low weight of funding data and I may help you if you need help regardless of ideology. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)