Talk:Art Pope

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States / North Carolina (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Verifiability: Sources must support the material clearly and directly.[edit]

The statement “In the 2010 electoral season, Art Pope, his family, and Variety Wholesalers contributed millions of dollars to conservative candidates and groups that support conservative causes in North Carolina'', 'and earlier variations, are not clearly and directly supported by the cited New Yorker article. Rather than support the claim, the New Yorker reported that a third party institute did an analysis: “The institute also found that three-quarters of the spending by independent groups in North Carolina’s 2010 state races came from accounts linked to Pope. The total amount that Pope, his family, and groups backed by him spent on the twenty-two races was $2.2 million—not that much, by national standards, but enough to exert crucial influence within the confines of one state.” New Yorker: "State for Sale: Art Pope, Citizens United, and North Carolina Politics" by Jane Mayer

Note the New Yorker reports that the institute refers to and includes “accounts linked to Pope” and “groups backed by him” in order to reach the $2.2 Million figure. At no point does the New Yorker report directly that ”In the 2010 electoral season, Art Pope, his family, and Variety Wholesalers contributed millions of dollar . . . .” by themselves. Sources must support the material clearly and directly. WP:Verifiability

Given that the cited source does not support the statement, the statement should be considered NOR, which includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources. WP:NOR

Also, given the number of variations of this statement that have been edited and deleted, it is a contentious statement in a BLP and should be deleted.Triplicatio (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This still seems like an accurate summary based on the article to me, but perhaps a direct quote, such as the one you included above, would be acceptable to all parties. A13ean (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The article's immediately preceding sentence, "Through personal campaign donations, John William Pope Foundation donations to think tanks and corporate donations to independent expenditure efforts, Art Pope helped reduce the North Carolina Democratic Party’s spending advantage during the 2010 elections for the North Carolina General Assembly in 2010.", citing the News & Observer, http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/10/27/762445/art-pope-a-one-man-republican.html, already covers the direct spending by Pope, his company and the Pope Foundation during 2010. The proposed quote would in part be repetitious and in part would give undue weight to an original source, “the institute,” that is less reliable than the News & Observer. WP:RSUW The above New Yorker article is already cited three (out of 13) times, and listed as an external link, giving its (less than neutral) point of view plenty of coverage already. For these reasons, it would not be appropriate to add quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.111.153 (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Quoting the N&O is also fine, for example "Pope's influence is omnipresent this election season, with groups tied to Pope spending $2.1 million so far to influence the legislative races, according to state and federal campaign records filed in recent days." Art Pope's contributions to political causes are one of the primary reasons he is notable, and should be mentioned here. A13ean (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
And just to clarify, it's insufficient just to say that he contributes to think tanks and organizations, and not mention that they play a major role in races on the state level. A13ean (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
That particular N&O quote shows that A13ean’s point of view is already covered. But, it also suffers from the same flaw, in that the "$2.1 Million” includes “groups tied to Pope,” not just spent directly by Pope. The N&O article later states that the $2.1 Million figure includes spending of $1.7 Million by “Real Jobs NC,” of which only $200,000 was donated by Pope’s Variety Stores. So reading the full N&O article in context, demonstrates that A13ean’s original entry that “Art Pope, his family, and Variety Wholesalers contributed millions of dollars . . . .” is not clearly and directly supported by the cite to the New Yorker or his proposed out of context quote of the N&O.
The quote that I added was a very close paraphrase of a line in the New Yorker article: "The total amount that Pope, his family, and groups backed by him spent on the twenty-two races was $2.2 million—not that much, by national standards, but enough to exert crucial influence within the confines of one state." It's one thing to argue that it should not be included in the article due to the fact that the relationship between Pope and "groups tied to Pope" is not clearly defined, but it is clearly supported by the cited source.A13ean (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Overall, the New Yorker and N&O article are already both cited; and, the previous sentence states in details all three types of contributions, campaign donations, foundation grants, and “Independent expenditure” cross linked to it’s Wiki entry. It is not appropriate in a WP:BLP to quote and advance just one contentious point of view, not directly supported by the source material, when the reader can go to the original cited sources to read about all the point of views and facts in the original articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.111.153 (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
There are several mentions on the article of Pope's contributions to various organizations and causes:
  • Pope "through his family foundations has invested millions in a network of foundations and think tanks, and advocacy groups, both in North Carolina and nationally, that are designed to further conservative and free market ideas," according to the News and Observer.
  • Through personal campaign donations, John William Pope Foundation donations to think tanks and corporate donations to independent expenditure efforts, Art Pope helped reduce the North Carolina Democratic Party’s spending advantage during the 2010 elections for the North Carolina General Assembly in 2010.
  • The foundation supplies about 90 percent of the income of leading conservative nonprofits in North Carolina.
  • A network of conservative policy organizations partly funded by the Pope Foundation spent $35 million in the last decade.
However all of these neglect to mention that a significant amount of the contributions that Art Pope has personally made, as well as those made by his family, Variety Wholesalers and organizations that he co-founded and has contributed to, such as Real Jobs NC, have been used to run adds that support or attack candidates in state elections. This is not some sort of secret, and is the primary focus of most of the references cited in this article. I'm sure from the quote at the end of the New Yorker article that Pope is proud of the role he has played in state races:

When asked about 2012, he said, “Yes, I’m going to support my side. I really do believe in the marketplace of ideas. I really do believe that my philosophies and theories that I support, classical liberalism, will prevail over arguments for socialism and the growth of government.” He added that if his opponents disagreed they could fund their own side: “I welcome the competition.”

It would be amiss not to mention the role he has played in supporting state candidates in this article. A13ean (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Since A13ean (talk) wanted more information on Art Pope’s donations, and “174” was concerned about including amounts for other groups “tied” or “linked” to Art Pope, but not directly by him, I added detail numbers in the overall context of 2010 spending, relying on the News & Observer, the major daily newspaper for North Carolina. Triplicatio (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

How does this person qualify as a philanthropist?[edit]

Original entry deleted for obvious violations: 1) Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. 2) Do not express personal opinions about living subjects on article talkpages, such personal posts can be deleted and users posting such personal opinions can have their editing privileges removed. WP:TPG WP:BLP

On the merits of the question, from a NPOV, whether one is a philanthropist does not depend on whether one likes or dislikes the charitable recipients, such as whether it is a conservative or progressive public policy or educational institute.

The article can be improved by adding specific examples of Art Pope’s support for charities. For example, see “The Raleigh-based John William Pope Foundation has awarded nearly $1.3 million in local grants, including $858,000 mainly to arts, youth, humanitarian and educational groups, plus $440,000 for high education in the Raleigh area.” Philanthropy Journal, December 14, 2010. http://www.philanthropyjournal.org/nc/ncfoundations/pope-foundation-awards-13-million Triplicatio (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Triplicatio[edit]

I am a beginner here, for which I am not ashamed. Thus I may make mistakes. Helpful pointers where more can be learned would be kind. Thanks for the ones you gave. I'll use them. I feel my judgement and life experience can be of use to Wikipedia.

I have no opinion on the man, that is why I came here seeking information.

I am a former resident of Raleigh, and was chairman of a group who arranged the first inter-racial play competition at NCSU in 1958. Shaw University, where Pope's father got his medical degree, was one of the 3 afro-american universities who participated. Left Raleigh in 1959 and currently live in Sweden, and recently began using the N&O to follow local events. Pope's name was mentioned in a disparaging manner by an apparently anti-desegregationist commenter to an editorial about the school board election runoff.

I reacted primarily to the fact that contributions to political opinion making organizations was all that could be seen.

No info on charitable organizations, not connected with self-interest. was what I looked for IN VAIN. You acknowledge that by suggesting improvement in terms of info on his support for local charities, etc. Thank you for that.

You are correct in my mind that my comments on his career were not relevant, only a judgement call, which were out of order. I was in fact jumping to meet in advance any justications offered in those terms.

I would agree also that it is difficult to draw the line between one think tank and another in terms of humanitarian merit. So all must be allowed to seek shelter under the "philanthropic" sign.

I went on to find more about the family and his distinguished father. See Google, particularly on the National Park Service site. I do have political convictions, but I assure you they were not active; was only quibbling over the honorary title "philanthropist", when no facts are offered.

Your peremptory removal of my post feels painful in its expression of disdain of such an obvious "sin", and perhaps even scornful in its expressed opinion. This could be interpreted as though entries not suiting your standards are not worth standing to be seen and judged by others. How do you think other beginners feel when they see the consequences of honest mistakes?

Do you have some special status which grants you this right of censor? Or is this power available to all editors to stifle discussion as they see fit on an arbitrary basis. Are there no possibility of appeal to a higher instance?

I made in fact no edit to the text, only wished to see material in support of the term "philanthropic". I haven't read anything yet which explains how the writing and editing process works here. Your links will help. Thanks again.

You seem to have no trouble to rapidly produce information as to Pope's charitable deeds. One can wonder why they were not included in the first place.

I'm just looking for information on how to help here. Being threatened with withdrawal of edit rights seems to me to be a bit overwraught response, especially without knowing more about the person in question, and their intentions and level of Wiki knowledge.

Kindest regards, Idealist707 (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Idealist707 for your very thoughtful and appropriate second entry. I did not intend to be harsh with the deletion of Idealist707’s first entry, but the standards are high for BLP which is why I stated the specific grounds, both as a justification for the deletion, and to educate.
In regard to being informed, I simply Googled “Art Pope” and “philanthropy,” and that was one of the news articles that popped up, along with an N&O article on a multimillion dollar gift to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I did not start this article, but I will try and take time to add more on the other types philanthropy than public policy. It takes more time to prepare an entry with all the proper formatting for citations and footnotes, than simply adding a url reference on the talk page.
What really needs to be done is to start a new article on the John William Pope Foundation, with more details on the philanthropy. There is already and external link, http://www.jwpf.org for the John William Pope Foundation at the end of this article, where one can look for more information.
Welcome, Idealist707, to Wikipedia. Triplicatio (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

Wrong Popes[edit]

Note that Idealist707 is not right about who Art Pope is. Art Pope has nothing to do with the Pope family of Raleigh that he's talking about regarding the doctor who went to Shaw University. See (deleted) That's the African American Pope family. Art Pope is white. Very white indeed. Awbeal (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ignorance is no excuse[edit]

After spending some hours looking through the pages you linked, and the others which branch from there, I see that ignorance is no excuse. Thus the next feature in Iphone will be an app for advice when having to do with Wikipedia, or other instances such as IRS, at USD 5 a throw.

Don't want to get shot for being off topic, but would like to raise the question: how can one write an opinion on the merits of listed achievements? Citing references can deteriorate to a fight using them as support for your opinions. And references, particularly those profit-driven, politically driven, MSM, etc are always questionable. As someone above noted when trying to achieve a balance in number of citations. And how does our little consensus outweigh the thoughts and input of the 99.99999percent? As usual, am looking for quick answers as time goes too fast.

If you can't or won't solve the riddle, that's OK. It's your time I am asking for.

BTW. thanks for the nice reply. It balmed my sores. Idealist707 (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see NPOV for “Neutral Point of View.” “NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia.” Wikipedia, even on its talk pages, is not a place for expressing personal opinions. Wikipedia is not an open ended blog. Triplicatio (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am adding these comments here, because these same points in regard to A13ean’s earlier revisions have already been discussed above[edit]

First, A13ean statement, “A network of conservative policy organizations partly funded by the Pope Foundation spent $35 million to support conservative candidates and causes in the last decade.“ is not supported by the cited source, the New Yorker article. New Yorker: "State for Sale: Art Pope, Citizens United, and North Carolina Politics" by [[Jane Mayer] The only reference to “$35 Million” in the article stated, “thirty-five million has gone to half a dozen ostensibly nonpartisan policy groups,” with no reference in the source article’s paragraph about foundation funds going to “to support conservative candidates.“

Second, A13ean inserted the statement, “The foundation supplies about 90 percent of the income of leading conservative non profits in North Carolina,“ into the middle of the paragraph summarizing the Pope Foundation’s 25 year history of grants, from the Philanthropy Journal article. http://www.philanthropyjournal.org/north-carolina/nc-top-news/poverty-free-markets-focus-pope-foundation The entire paragraph, before A13ean’s insert, was supported by the cite to the Philanthropy Journal. A13ean’s insert does not fit, it does not give the time period or context of what organizations. Also, while the source article, http://www.southernstudies.org/2010/10/blessed-to-have-a-pope.html, gives a variety of high percentages of funding to some five organizations, it never makes the “90 percent” statement contained in A13ean’s insert.

Overall,before A13ean’s inserts, the previous version, which rely on and summarizes the recent Philanthropy Journal article, covers all the points, and the source is reliable and “supports the material clearly and directly.” Alethaie (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Blocked as a sock. a13ean (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I chose "'to support conservative candidates and causes'" which puts it much more neutrally than the article, which goes on to say

Pope claims that these organizations are independent of his control, but, on average, the Pope family foundation supplies them with more than eighty-five per cent of their funds. Though these groups are officially defined as philanthropic, almost all parts of the Pope enterprise push the same aggressively pro-business, anti-government message.

As for the promotion of candidates and causes there's tons of the examples in the text, one of which is

McCrory, meanwhile, has been getting a boost from the technically nonpartisan Americans for Prosperity North Carolina. It has been raising McCrory’s profile by using his voice in statewide “robo-calls,” on issues such as opposition to Obama’s health-care plan. “Pat McCrory isn’t a candidate,” Woodhouse, the group’s director, said. “Once he becomes one, he wouldn’t have much to do with us. We don’t endorse or oppose candidates or express advocacy. We talk about issues.” Yet the nonprofit’s Web site features a head shot of Governor Perdue under the headline “VETO BEV PERDUE” and text that reads, “It’s time we take back our government from ARROGANT Bev Perdue!”

It could similarly be said that these groups attack liberal or Democratic candidates, but I figured it would be more neutral to say that they support conservative ones.
As you can see I did not insert the 90% statement, although I did restore it later after it was removed. If you look at the table near the end of the cited reference and check the total budgets, it does work out to something around 90% in the years for which data is available. It would, perhaps, be clearer to say "'In 2008, the foundation provided more than 80% of the total for each of five leading conservative non-profits in North Carolina'" which is plainly supported by the reference. Similarly, the New Yorker article says "'the Pope family foundation supplies them with more than eighty-five per cent of their funds'".
I think the Philanthropy Journal article is an excellent source for information related to Art Pope's philanthropic endeavors, but it would be amiss to not also include information about his political ones. Feel free to suggest alternate wordings or different arrangements, but let's not wash all the politics out of this article. A13ean (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


::The contentious issue is not foundation spending to support “conservative causes,” but the assertion that the “Pope Foundation spent $35 million to support conservative candidates . . . .“ It is a violation of the Internal Revenue Code for a charitable foundation to support candidates (conservative or liberal), and such a charge should not be made in a Wiki BLP unless it is supported, clearly and directly, by a verifiable source. The applicable Wiki guidelines, excerpted in part, are as follows:

WP:Verifiability Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.
WP:No Original Research which includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources.
Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.
Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research;
In regard to the “90% funding” statement, A13ean acknowledges that the cited source does not state this, but it is a calculation based on the tables from the source. Respectfully, this would constitute Original Research, that goes “beyond what is expressed in the source.”
In regard to the foundation funding “candidates,“ again, this goes “beyond what is expressed in the source.” The New Yorker reports on Pope’s various activities through the foundation, independent expenditures and political contributions. The New Yorkers never “directly and explicitly” states that the Pope Foundation itself spent millions to support candidates. Indeed, the paragraph quoted by A13ean for support, refers to “Americans for Prosperity” which is a 501(c)(4), that would not receive funding from a foundation. More to the point, the New Yorker goes on to report in the quoted paragraph that the Americans for Prosperity's director stated that Americans for Prosperity does not endorse candidates and that McCroy was not a candidate at the time of his activity with Americans for Prosperity. This clearly does not support the statement, the position advance by A13ean, that the “Pope Foundation spent $35 million to support conservative candidates . . . .“ Alethaie (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Blocked as a sock. a13ean (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Since taking a simple weighted average is apparently too complicated, I will go with my suggestion above, which is plainly shown in the table: "'In 2008, the foundation provided more than 80% of the total for each of five leading conservative non-profits in North Carolina'" which is plainly supported by the reference.'" A13ean (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Art Pope RfC[edit]

I would appreciate additional eyes on this article. Should contributions by the Art Pope Foundation to political non-profits be mentioned on this page? Should it say that these non-profits "support conservative causes and candidates"? What's supported by the references, and how can this all be worded neutrally? Thanks A13ean (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that, provided Pope is, or was, a trustee of the foundation at the time then they certainly should be mentioned. Trusts are a political modus operandi. If there are RS saying that the supported foundations are conservative, then that can be attributed (the same sources that discuss the donations - to mix and match might be SYNTH). We should be careful not to use the editorial voice to state that - whether an organisation is conservative is somewhat a matter of opinion, and we don't know that there aren't balancing donations made elsewhere on the political spectrum. Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
I think Rich Farmbrough got it right, that the challenged statement, “A network of conservative policy organizations partly funded by the Pope Foundation spent $35 million to support conservative candidates and causes in the last decade“ is a classic case of synthesis, taking two separate points to “to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” Wikipedia:Synth As Alethaie pointed out above, The New Yorker article does state that “thirty-five million has gone to half a dozen ostensibly nonpartisan policy groups,” but does not state that this was spent to support candidates. Separately, the the Wiki article already states “Through personal campaign donations, John William Pope Foundation donations to think tanks and corporate donations to independent expenditure efforts, Art Pope supported Republican candidates in the 2010 elections for the North Carolina General Assembly in 2010.“ But, these two separate points should not be added together, synthesized, to make the new claim that the Pope Foundation, or a network partly funded by the Pope Foundation, “spent $35 million to support conservative candidates.“ Triplicatio (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) User:Alethaie was blocked as a sock of User:Triplicatio. a13ean (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rich, Art Pope is still the Chairman and President of the John William Pope Foundation, as noted in the article. There are plenty of RS saying that the foundations are conservative and that the Pope foundation has donated to them. For example, one reference already used in the article states that

But Pope has taken on a broader role since 1989, using his personal fortune to bankroll a network of think tanks seeking to move North Carolina toward his vision of a more limited government. He has been the major funder of the John Locke Foundation, the J.W. Pope Civitas Institute, the John William Pope Center for Higher Education and the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law. Pope's family foundation has provided more than $17 million to finance the network over the years, according to recent study by the liberal-leaning Institute for Southern Studies."

(Note that this was later corrected to read 28.7 million, the 17 million was only for the John Locke Foundation). A13ean (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Triplicatio and Alethaie, Since it's apparently too complicated to look at more than one paragraph at once in the New Yorker article, so why don't we go with something that's almost a direct quote from one of the many RS's. Here's a few of my suggestions in bold. The original quotes from the reference follow:
  • Groups tied to Art Pope spent 2.1 million toward defeating Democratic candidates in the 2010 general elections.
"Groups tied to the Raleigh businessman had put $2.1 million toward unseating Democratic incumbents."[1]
  • Art Pope has, through his family foundation, has spent millions of dollars to support conservative causes and Republican politics.
"Pope, who heads a regional retail chain, has become a political lightening rod because he - through his family foundation - has poured tens of millions of dollars into a network of conservative organizations both in North Carolina and nationally. He also was the major financial backer of the Republican takeover of the legislature last year."
"... the John William Pope Foundation, the family foundation headed by Art Pope , who has overseen the expenditure of millions of dollars to finance conservative causes and Republican politics."[2]
  • Groups associated with Art Pope have financed political mailings, as well as radio and television advertisements, attacking Democratic candidates in the 2010 election.
"State Republicans had an above-average fund-raising year, boosted by massive expenditures by Raleigh businessman Art Pope to support groups aligned with the GOP. Freed from limits on corporate contributions by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, those outside groups flooded districts with campaign mail attacking Democrats and bought large blocks of time on radio and television."[3] "Besides sending streams of campaign literature as well as beaming TV advertising into targeted Democratic districts across the state, Pope-connected organizations conducted a bus tour across the state to build support for conservative candidates. And it was a Pope-connected group that held "tea party summits" in May in Hickory and Wilmington to help organize conservatives."[4]
  • The Pope family foundation has spent more than 28.7 million dollars supporting five leading conservative think tanks.
"CORRECTION: The News & Observer incorrectly reported Wednesday that the family foundation of businessman Art Pope has provided more than $17 million to finance a network of conservative think tanks through the years, according to the Institute for Southern Studies. That figure only applies to the John Locke Foundation. The Pope family foundation has spent more than $28.7 million on the think tanks, according to the institute."[4]
Surely there has not been any synthesis in developing these? Thanks A13ean (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Business North Carolina - North Carolina's business magazine". Businessnc.com. 2011-11-26. Retrieved 2011-11-30. 
  2. ^ NCCU law idea pulled. News & Observer, The (Raleigh, NC) - Saturday, October 1, 2011 Author: Rob Christensen ; Staff Writer
  3. ^ Republicans take control in historic election - Basnight's 18-year reign as Senate leader ends; Cornelius Rep. Tillis may seek House speaker role. Charlotte Observer, The (NC) - Wednesday, November 3, 2010 Author: Lynn Bonner and Michael Biesecker
  4. ^ a b Christensen, Rob. "Art Pope: a one-man Republican equalizer - Elections". NewsObserver.com. Retrieved 2011-11-30. 


I appreciate A13ean’s detailed response, but the proposed revisions still crosse over into Wikipedia:Synth. It is not contentious, and multiple sources do support that Art Pope is head of the Pope Foundation and the Pope Foundation supports conservative public policy. It is also not contentious and is well sourced that Art Pope supports Republican candidates and politics. But, to add those two points together, to make the new and different claim that the Pope Foundation funds and supports “conservative candidates” and “Republican politics” is an example of synthesis that makes a new point, that is contentious, and not supported by the cited sources.
To make his point, A13ean quotes the source sentence "... the John William Pope Foundation, the family foundation headed by Art Pope , who has overseen the expenditure of millions of dollars to finance conservative causes and Republican politics." That sentence does NOT say that the “family foundation, has spent millions of dollars to support conservative causes and Republican politics.” The original source identifies Art Pope who heads the foundation, as someone “who has overseen the expenditure of millions of dollars to finance conservative causes and Republican politics." Because Art Pope heads the foundation, and because Art Pope has overseen expenditures for Republican politics, does not mean the foundation spent money on Republican politics. Respectfully, that is, as I wrote earlier, a classic example of Synthesis to advance a contentious point beyond what the original source stated, even when the the separate points are made in a single sentence in the original source.
In addition to blurring the distinction between spending by Art Pope, Art Pope’s company, and the Pope Foundation, A13ean also wants to add in spending by “groups tied to Art Pope,” “groups associated with Art Pope,” “Pope-connected organizations,” and “a Pope-connected group.” I thought this issue had already been resolved by consensus. Rather than repeat all that, see the above earlier discussion under “Verifiability: Sources must support the material clearly and directly.”
Also, A13ean, when you are quoting or citing on the discussion page a source, will you please include the live url link for that source at that point on the discussion page as well. Thank you.Triplicatio (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Neither the N&O nor the Observer allow free access to their archives online, but are surely available at your local library. I understand that you object to my original summary of the New Yorker article, but do you have any objections to any of the suggestions above, all of which are nearly identical to the source? A13ean (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


A13ean is a pushing a an exaggerated claim about Art Pope’s spending by using the vague terms such “groups which are tied or linked” to Pope. This exaggerated claim is based on attacks on Pope from the web site of the ideologically (and politically) partisan Institute for Southern Studies. The Institute for Southern Studies has been running attacks on its web site against Art Pope for over a year. To use the Institute for Southern Studies as a reliable source about Art Pope, would be like using as a reliable source Candidate Red’s web site attacking his opponent Candidate Blue. And while the New Yorker article reported on the Institute’s claims about Pope (“According to an analysis by the Institute for Southern Studies . . . .”), the New Yorker did not report those claims as independently verified facts.

Unlike A13ean, I am happy to use live url links to support my points. The respected North Carolina political journalist and columnist Mark Binker, at the Greensboro News & Record, wrote about the New Yorker article reporting on the Institute for Southern Studies claim in its story :

“Art Pope was not the biggest donor to Real Jobs NC. (Hat tip to the AP's Gary Robertson on this one.) Not mentioned in the New Yorker story was that the Republican State Leadership Committee, a group that can accept corporate money, was the biggest donor to Real Jobs (link), not Pope. This is a significant omission if you're claiming to paint a complete picture of the 2010 campaign. “Thoughts on The New Yorker's Pope piece." http://www.news-record.com/blog/53964/entry/128685


The Associated Press article by Gary Robertson that Binker referred to stated in part:

“But the independent groups Real Jobs NC and Civitas Action spent more than $1.7 million on their own, according to reports filed with the State Board of Elections.
Real Jobs NC received $1.25 million alone from the Republican State Leadership Committee, campaign reports show. The RSLC, which receives donations from corporations and individuals, targeted North Carolina's legislative elections in hopes of influencing the upcoming redistricting of congressional and legislative districts for the GOP.
Variety Stores Inc., a company owned by the family of conservative activist Art Pope of Raleigh, gave $390,000 combined to the two groups.” http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/01/13/1918141_two-outside-groups-aid-nc-republican.html#ixzz1fL5bT6jN

Rob Christensen, another respected journalist and author on a book on “Tarheel Politics,” also published that the New Yorker’s reporting of the $2.1 Million claim to support the opinion that Art Pope “bought” North Carolina:

“The New Yorker - overstate his influence . . . . The article lacked context . . . Pope's role is repeatedly blown up like one of those helium-filled balloons in the Macy's Day parade in New York.” “N.C. isn't in Pope's pocket.” http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/10/09/v-print/1551327/nc-isnt-in-popes-pocket.html

Making attacks on living people based on original work by an unreliable source which is a biased attack web sites which is advancing its own agenda, does not meet Wiki guidelines. So no, none of A13ean’s proposed inserts should be included. 174.109.111.153 (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.111.153 (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anon, The report from the Institute for Southern Studies has been widely reported on by reliable secondary sources. Similarly, reports from the John Locke Foundation often form the basis for news articles. The sources cited are news articles in The News and Observer and The Charlotte Observer, not the original report. Incidentally, if you can find any places where these articles are freely available online, please post the link. Do you contest any of the suggestions in this section to be either somehow not factual, not supported by the referenced article, or that the sources are not reliable? If not, I'm not sure what the issue is.
You have posted two opinion pieces in which the authors state that they believe Art Pope's role in NC politics is overblown. That's fine, but a commentator saying that in an opinion piece doesn't somehow invalidate the facts of news articles. The Sun News article is a perfectly fine source for this Variety Wholesalers' contributions in this election cycle, although it doesn't say anything about Art Pope's personal donations or those of the Pope Foundation.
Nothing I have posted is an attack, but are simple statements of fact based on reliable secondary sources. There's nothing wrong with Art Pope spending money to support causes he believes in, and he has said on several occasions that he is proud to do so. A13ean (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
For at least the third time, I think the issue between “174” and A13ean has already been addressed. It is appropriate in a BLP on Art Pope, to include the spending he controls, he directs, through personal political contributions, foundation grants to conservative policy groups, and company donations to independent expenditures. That is what my entry in the current article spells out, using the $425,000 in company expenditures using the N&O as the reliable source. “A one-man Republican equalizer | url=http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/10/27/762445/art-pope-a-one-man-republican.html “174” cited a slightly lower figure of $390,000 in company expenditure using the Associated Press as the reliable source. http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/01/13/1918141_two-outside-groups-aid-nc-republican.html#ixzz1fL5bT6jN
Given high standards for BLP, I do not believe it is appropriate, or relevant, to include in the article the contentious claims attributing “$2.1 Million” in spending to Pope based on the loose standard of “tied” “backed” or “associated” to Pope. This is particularly true given the details in the AP story that the Republican State Leadership Committee, a national "527", gave three times more to the “groups” than Pope’s company, and at $1.2 Million the Republican State Leadership Committee provided over fifty percent of the $2.1 Million figure. One more time, see in general WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources and undue weight and in particular, WP:NPOV: “Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. “ I do think that the Raleigh News & Observer, Greensboro News & Record and Associated Press are more authoritative, reputable and reliable as sources.
So yes, in direct response to A13ean, my objections do still stand for the above reasons, as well as for WP:Synth. And for future reference, the current News & Observer and Charlotte Observer articles are directly available through live URLs. Only the older articles are archived, and even those articles can usually be linked through another live site. Triplicatio (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
If you can find a live url please post it; I used a library.
It is not against BLP standards to identify significant contributions to political groups, see for example George Soros#Political donations and activism or Political activities of the Koch family#Political activity. If you're worried that it would be inappropriate to closely paraphrase or even quote a major news article without giving fuller context, why don't you put together a longer paragraph with references that details the relationship between Pope and these groups, as well as their activities in the election cycles. A13ean (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
A13ean is making my point for me by using the Wiki articles on George Soros and Koch. The Soros article lists contributions by Soros himself, and does not include and attribute to Soros spending by third party groups “tied, linked or backed” by Soros. Example: “Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, $2.5 million to MoveOn.org, and $20 million[53] to America Coming Together.” The Soros Wiki article does not then attribute to Soros all the spending by those three groups. Same for the Koch Wiki article, it refers to direct spending by Koch industries, but did not include third party spending: “Koch Industries and its subsidiaries spent more . . ..” Triplicatio (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
There's a reason it doesn't say anything similar in those articles. Soros did not found MoveOn.org, like Pope founded Real Jobs NC. It's the Competitive Enterprise Institute, not the Koch Family Competitive Enterprise Institute, but the full name of the Civitas Institute is the John W. Pope Civitas Institute (and until recently, it was almost exclusively supported by the Pope family foundation). There's a reason several reliable sources say things like "groups tied to Art Pope" -- it's because they are groups tied to Art Pope! I'm sorry that you're unhappy with this, but it's what they say, including the N&O, which you call "authoritative, reputable and reliable" above:

Pope's influence is omnipresent this election season, with groups tied to Pope spending $2.1 million so far to influence the legislative races, according to state and federal campaign records filed in recent days.[1]

If you want to put this in a less-general way than the actual source, feel free to describe the relationship between Pope and these groups in more detail. A13ean (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, Pope's involvement in politics should be discussed in the article. II | (t - c) 18:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

First A13ean claims the Wiki Soros article is an example of when spending by “groups tied” to a person is included in a Wiki article about that person, to justify his inclusion of all the spending by groups “tied to Pope.” Then when it is shown that the Soros Wiki does no such thing, A13ean flip flops and claims “There's a reason it doesn't say anything similar in those articles. Soros did not found MoveOn.org, like Pope founded Real Jobs NC.” But A13ean offers no reliable source to support the statement that “Pope founded Real Jobs NC.” All the articles that A13ean has cited use terms such Pope is “tied” to or “backed” groups like Real Jobs NC because Pope’s company was a donor (but not the largest donor), just as Soros was a major donor to the groups listed in the Wiki Soros article. But, the Wiki Soros article does not go on an attributed to Soros all the spending by Move On or America Coming Together.

The dispute is not over whether the Wiki article on Pope should include his involvement in politics, including the company independent expenditure, The article clearly does that with plenty citations and external references. The dispute is should a Wiki BLP attribute to a person not only donations by his company, but total spending by by the groups the company donated to. For all the reasons stated multiple times previously, and by A13ean’s own standard of the Soros Wiki setting a precedent, or the standard is the person being a “founder,” the answer is still no.

Presuming A13ean is acting in good faith, and without trying myself to be “harsh,” may I suggest A13ean look at the Wiki guidelines for Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing in general, which includes the specific point “They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that ‘it is verifiable, so it should be in.’” And the point “They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times.” Triplicatio (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above, I mentioned those articles because "It is not against BLP standards to identify significant contributions to political groups". Reliable sources state that Real Jobs NC was founded by Pope. The actions of groups which are almost entirely funded by Art Pope, or founded by him, or bear his name, or are otherwise very closely associated with him are clearly worth mentioning here. A13ean (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you A13ean for adding the urls to the article you are talking about. The http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/10/27/762445/art-pope-a-one-man-republican.html , is already cited several times in the Wiki article on Pope, including as the cite in regard to the spending by Pope’s company:
“it was reported that Art Pope’s company donated approximately $425,000 as independent expenditures that favored Republicans.”
For the reason previously stated, it would not be proper to inflate the $425,000 number to $2.1 Million as A13ean argues. If one wants to go into more detail, then one could further add, and putting it in perspective:
“Of the $425,000 donated by Pope’s company, $200,000 was donated to Real Jobs NC. However, the largest donor to Real Jobs NC was the Republican State Leadership Committee, which donated six times a much, $1.25 Million. Cite the above Associated Press article. http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/01/13/1918141_two-outside-groups-aid-nc-republican.html#ixzz1fL5bT6jN
However, I still think, for all the reasons stated numerous times previously, even the above entry is not appropriate and necessary. Again, a Wiki BLP is supposed to be an encyclopedia summary, it is not appropriate to add the details of spending by third parties. Again, citing A13ean’s own example of the Wiki on Soros. If one wants to start a new Wiki article on Real Jobs NC, and detail its history and total spending, then go at it. The Soros Wiki does link to other Wiki articles on the organizations he started and to which he made major donations. Triplicatio (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The actions of an organization that he founded are clearly worth mention, but just to make sure there is no confusion I have listed the Republican State Leadership Committee as the primary supporter. A13ean (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
you asked "Should contributions by the Art Pope Foundation to political non-profits be mentioned on this page? Should it say that these non-profits "support conservative causes and candidates"?" yes and yes (if proper references are provided calling those non-profits 'conservative'.) Soosim (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The page already states what Soosim indicated, but using the more precise, and Wiki linked terms 527 and 501(c)(4) organizations, than the more vague “political non=profits.” Under the section “527 Political and 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations”' it states, “Art Pope supported Republican candidates.” Under the "Philanthropy" header, it states the Pope Foundation gave half its grants to “support public policy, conservative organizations and think tanks in North Carolina.” Alethaie (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Blocked as a sock. a13ean (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
With the specific mention of Real Jobs NC and Civitas, I think the article is greatly improved. I still have some minor concerns about the lead and think a few things could be expanded, but it's not urgent. Also nice catch on the western-studies bit -- I'm not sure why the Observer had it backwards. A13ean (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Donations in 2010[edit]

A user has removed the following sentence from the article

Additionally, during the same year, the John William Pope Foundation donated $1.35 million to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the sister group of the conservative political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity.[2][3][4]

with an edit summary of "WP:Verifiability. WP:NOR. The additional sources still do not describe AFP as being “political.” Also, this section is about the 2010 NC elections, which the cited sources do not refer to."

The first source says

"The John William Pope Foundation, headed by North Carolina multimillionaire Art Pope, gave the Americans for Prosperity Foundation $1.35 million in 2010."[1]

which establishes that the money was given and in the year referred to by "during the same year". The second ref starts with the phrase "A conservative group" to refer to AfP. The third ref refers to the two as "sister groups".

I personally think the fact that their political nature is being challenged laughable, but since each of these [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] sources, found in the first page of a google news search, refers to them as a political group or political advocacy group, I'm sure we can find at least one to include. a13ean (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Regretfully, A13ean, is reviving contentious issues in a Biography of a Living Person, which had been resolved over a year ago.
See the previous, above, Talk sections where A13ean tried to justify the unverified (as in false) statements that the “Pope Foundation spent $35 million to support conservative candidates” and multiple variations of that statement.
Part of the consensus resolution was to clearly break out into separate sub-topics Pope’s activities related to “527 Political and 501(c)((4) social welfare organizations,” and “Philanthropy.”
Now, A13ean acknowledge that he had to use three different sources, each on a different specific point, to support his latest variation. First he cites one source that noted the Pope Foundation gave money to the Americans for Prosperity (“AFP”) Foundation in 2010. A13ean then cites a different source that AFP is a “sister” organization of the AFP Foundation, which indeed is not disputed. But then A13ean cites articles or columns that have nothing to do with the Pope Foundation, AFP Foundation, activities in North Carolina or 2010, that instead discuss independent expenditure activities in 2012, some (not all) of which report on claims that AFP is a “political” organization, which claim AFP disputes .
This, as previously noted above, is classic WP:Synth: “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.” And given A13ean’s repeated attempt to advance his personal view, I must make a point already stated above, and request that A13ean again look at the Wiki guidelines for Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing in general, which includes the specific point “They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that ‘it is verifiable, so it should be in.’” And the point “They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times.”
Given that this is a Wikipedia:BLP, where cotentious material should be removed immediately, A13ean’s latest insert is being removed, restoring the consensus version of the article. Triplicatio —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Please do not make personal attacks. This line is not WP:SYNTH because it does not reach a point not made in any of the sources -- what it does is add additional detail to the statement "Additionally, during the same year, the John William Pope Foundation donated $1.35 million to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation" which is trivially paraphrased from the source. Who is the John William Pope Foundation? The sister group of Americans for Prosperity. What kind of group are they? A conservative political advocacy group. You can tell it's not synth because it could be written as three separate sentences and still make sense. I'm also taking this to WP:RS/N to get more eyes on the matter. a13ean (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Respectfully A13ean, the personal note was started by your comment “I “personally“ think the fact that their political nature is being challenged laughable . . . .,” but I agree, there should be no personal attacks. And I welcome, comments on the reliability of the sources, WP:RS/N, though that is not the main point of contention.
The main point of contention, as already discussed many times above, is your advancing that argument that Art Pope uses the Pope Foundation to support “candidates” or “political” organizations, even though there is no single verifiable source that supports this claim, and it is a contentious claim since using charitable foundation funds for political purposes would violate the Internal Revenue Code.
It is already stated several times that the Pope Foundation funds conservative public policy organizations, and this is appropriately discussed under the section “Philanthropy.” A13ean wants to advance his point of contention by placing in the section labeled “527 Political and 501(c)((4) social welfare organizations,” statement “A” about the Pope Foundation making a grant to the AFP Foundation, and then combine that with a separate statement “B” that the AFP Foundation’s sister organization, AFP, is a “political” organization, “to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.” Again (and again) this is classic WP:SYNTH, as well as WP:NOR take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources.
I also challenge the relevance, or weight, WP:Undue, of A13ean’s sources. The relevant, major source concerning Art Pope and North Carolina in 2010, the Raleigh News and Observer, simply states Americans for Prosperity is a national conservative group, http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/10/27/762445/art-pope-a-one-man-republican.html#storylink=cpy”, and does not refer to AFP as “political.” To find a source that uses the term “political,” A13ean has to go to a 2012 column in the Gazette.net, a “Maryland Community News Online.” So again, in order to characterize the North Carolina Pope Foundation’s grant to the AFP Foundation in 2010 as “political,” A13ean uses a source about “a sister organization,” AFP (not the not the AFP Foundation) in 2012 in Maryland, which is not relevant at all to an article about Art Pope and the Pope Foundation's actions in North Carolina in 2010. Talk about WP:Synth! Indeed, A13ean's own header for this Talk section is "Donations in 2010" but he uses 2012 sources about AFP in 2012 to defend his position.
How many more times over how many years do we need to go over this A13ean? Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Triplicatio (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The line which had been removed says only that the pope foundation gave money to AfPF, not what it was used for. The page for Americans for Prosperity explicitly states that it exists as two separate entities -- AfP and AfPF. None of this is controversial. The exact quote from the source is "The John William Pope Foundation, headed by North Carolina multimillionaire Art Pope, gave the Americans for Prosperity Foundation $1.35 million in 2010.". I don't see how the fact that the article was published in 2012 is at all relevant here. At any rate, it appears your primary concerns are about the clauses which identify what AfPF is, so I have restored the first part pending the results of this discussion. a13ean (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
As previously noted several times, previous consensus was to put information on giving to 527s and 501(c)(4)s in that section, and put information on foundation giving, for 501(c)(3)s, under Philanthropy section. This is very straightforward, easy for a reader to follow, and avoids the contentious unverified claim that Pope Foundation funds are used for political candidates and organizations. Triplicatio (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Please show where there was a previous consensus to list 501(c)(3)'s in the Philanthropy section. I see no reason why donations to AfPF are any more philanthropic than donations to Civitas, and it appears that this is currently being drawn along an arbitrary line in the tax code. a13ean (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
See the last point by Alethaie, right before you started this Talk section, for the consensus that lasted since December, 2011, until A13ean started this last round. And putting donations to 527s and 501(c)(4)s under the section labeled “527 Political and 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations”', and grants by 501(c)(3) foundation under "Philanthropy", as Alethaie did, is the exact opposite of “arbitrary.” A13ean, are you even trying to be serious with that comment? If so, then why use and follow sections with headers at all! Read what the article says. But when one does follow organized sections, then the activity of "Civitas Action Inc, a 501(c)(4) " is properly under the section for 501(c)(4)s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplicatio (talkcontribs) 05:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC) User:Alethaie is blocked as a sock of User:Triplicatio. a13ean (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
A single statement by a user (who has made only 11 edits and only one this year) does not become consensus just because no one got around to challenging it at the time. However, this is easily solved by a RfC asking if donations to organizations to AfPF should be listed under philanthropy. a13ean (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Until single user A13ean got around to challenging it.Triplicatio (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC: How to describe donations to various groups?[edit]

I'm going to close this though there does not seem to be a clear consensus, esp. since two of the participants turn out to have been blocked for socking. Allow me to make a judgment call here, based in part on the comments by some participants here. What the tax code has to say is certainly relevant, but that should not be the basis of what the Wikipedia article says. If a gift to a philanthropic institution is reported in reliable sources where it's explained/mentioned/reported to have a political basis, such as with certain think tanks, then that's what we report. That an organization is philanthropic according to the tax code does not mean that a gift to that organization is made for philanthropic reasons: "philanthropic" per 501(c) does not mean "disinterested", and donating money to the Heritage Institute, for instance, is not likely to be considered philanthropic in the media. BTW, what Pope has to say on those gifts is not relevant in any classification of them. What reliable sources have to say should be our guide in a. phrasing how these things are reported and b. whether or not there should be headings like "Philanthropy" in the first place. I note that nothing in this RfC makes any reference to how reliable sources have qualified these gifts; I propose that that happen first if this is still a problem. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Art Pope and the John William Pope Foundation have made donations to a number of groups including

How should these organizations and donations be described in the article? Which if any should be described as political? Which if any should be described as philanthropic? a13ean (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


  • Obviously, donations to a 527 or a 501(c)(4) should be reported in the section titled “527 Political and 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations”'. A 527 is according to the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) a “political” organization. In general a IRC 510(c)(4) organization is a civic welfare organization, though within this broad category, many 501(c)(4)s are public policy advocacy groups . One can argue that after Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission a particular 501(c)(4) is also a political organization, though the purpose of Wikipedia is not to engage in arguments. See 501(c) organization in general and for the distinctions between a 501(c)(4) and a 501(c)(3).
Obviously, donations from and to an IRC 501(c)(3) organization are philanthropic (or charitable). It does appear well documented that the Pope Foundation is a charitable 501(c)(3) private foundation, and as such its donations or grants should appear under the section titled "Philanthropy." See Todd Cohen (November 21, 2011). "Poverty, free markets focus of Pope Foundation". Philanthropy Journal. .
The above categories and definitions are used in Wikipedia as a whole and should be followed within specific articles. In particular, the Wiki article on Americans for Prosperity states in part: " Americans for Prosperity consists of two separate entities: Americans for Prosperity, a 501(c)(4) organization established in 2004, and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization established in 1984." So yes, donations from the Pope Foundation to the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the 501(c)((3), should be under the section "Philanthropy," while donations to Americans for Prosperity, the 501(c)(4), should be under the section "527 Political and 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations."Alethaie (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)Blocked as a sock. a13ean (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Alethaie. The distinction between 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 is pretty cut and dry. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The issue I have is that 501(c)(3) organizations fall under two separate camps as discussed in the wiki article about them, and also at this IRS page. Using that definition the John Locke Foundation is pretty clearly a "private foundation" and while the case of AfPF is unclear, it's worth noting that they identify themselves only as a "section 501(c)(3) organization as determined by the Internal Revenue Service". Filing this under philanthropic is problematic since in addition to things which are clearly charitable or philanthropic, it also includes things, such as think tanks, which are not usually considered charitable or philanthropic but just happen to fall under the same section of tax code. a13ean (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, A13eans above comments go beyond even original research to outright speculation and being argumentative, advancing a personal point of view. Not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. For example what is the source that the John Locke Foundation is a "private foundation"? And what does it matter, as both private and public foundations are philanthropic. A13eans own cite, this IRS page, states about about both private and public foundations, "Organizations that meet the requirements of Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) are exempt from federal income tax as charitable organizations." And A13ean's argument that think tanks are not "considered" charitable, with no source, is a classic example of WP:Weasel Words. See in general Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.Triplicatio (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment We need to avoid WP:OR when looking at the difference between a 501(c)3 and a 501(c)4. They aren't the same and drawing connections on our own is a dangerous game. Additionally, using quotes from another Wikipedia page isn't sufficient to push a view -- we need a much more concrete source that explicitly backs your viewpoint. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
So how would you suggest labeling the donations in these various categories? Just by the tax code designation or what? a13ean (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that would be a bad approach but don't have a very strong feeling one way or the other. As is, the Real Jobs NC paragraph seems out of place and the content doesn't seem to mesh. By definition, shouldn't that be the only true "political" type of organization? I'm also having trouble following the debate because the argument drifts to and from a few different topics. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment If we have access to tax code designations, the designations should be mentioned. If Pope explains the motivation(s) behind the donations, that should help. If the donations are controversial, then those entering the debate can be cited for what they contend, from all sides of the issue. Wikipedia reports. It shouldn't pontificate about Pope. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Followup on describing donations to various groups[edit]

I forgot to follow up on this with all the nonsense with sock-puppetry in the previous discussion, but the John William Pope Foundation is actually classified as a "private foundation" as I stated above, as mentioned on his web page and various reports by others and his filing with the state ethics commission re his appointment as state budget director. Unlike the vast majority of 501(c)(3)s it's not charitable or philanthropic, in the eyes of the IRS at least. a13ean (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Donations vs. activism and other kinds of political involvement[edit]

I see a lot of discussion about how to talk about Pope's donations, but lumped into the section "Donations to conservative causes" was his advisory role in redistricting, organizations that he or his organizations founded/directly financed, and other kinds of activities that aren't "donations." I tentatively renamed the section "Funding and activism for conservative causes," but other ideas at how to word it are welcome. Funding seems more accurate than donations for this section, and activism or some other word is necessary to indicate the more direct involvement. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)