Talk:Donors Trust

Recent changes

I recently made a few changes to the article, including removing "secretive" from a description of the group in the first sentence. If this group has been described as secretive, then put that in the article--say "DonorsTrust has been described as 'secretive' by so-and-so." But putting it in the first sentence, without saying who said the group is secretive, is not neutral. Also, I added a "failed verification" tag to the last sentence about the Koch Brothers. Why was that removed? It does fail verification. Please discuss things on the talk page before reverting edits without explanation. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

re "secretive" - The thing is that multiple RSs refer to group as "secretive". How many RSs need to call a group a secretive before we can say in an encyclopedic voice that it is secretive? Furthermore, if DonorsTrust isn't a secretive PAC, what is?

re "I added a "failed verification" tag to the last sentence about the Koch Brothers" - Fine. I'm not contesting the Kock Brothers material.

re "Please discuss things on the talk page before reverting edits without explanation" - Take a look at WP:BRD. You start by being bold. I revert. Now we discuss! Thanks, NickCT (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I think that in an encyclopedic article, a good place to start (with the first sentence, at the least) is to write what is legally accurate. DonorsTrust is, whatever else it may be, a 501c3 organization. "Secretive" is a weasel word...what does it mean? Secret from who? What are they secretly doing? I'm assuming that is addressed in the RSs you mention. That should be easily verfiable in the article itself. I.e. "DonorsTrust, called a 'secretive' organization by Reliable Sources X, Y, and Z, due to X, Y, and Z behaviors..." I believe that would improve the article (which seems woefully short at this point for an organization at this apparent level). I can look into expanding this article, and I hope you will too. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

re " "Secretive" is a weasel word" - Ok. I'll concede the "secretive" thing. Though frankly, I think if you've got several mainstream source which back the language, it's probably OK to use.

re "write what is legally accurate. DonorsTrust is, whatever else it may be, a 501c3 organization." - I'm a tad confused here. I think the standard is to write what is verifiable, not what is "legally accurate". Is it your position that describing DonorsTrust as a PAC is inaccurate? Additionally, 501c3 is an incredibly vague descriptor. Lots of things are 501c3s. Not lots of things are PACs. Calling a PAC a 501c3 seems like a thinly veiled attempt to obfuscate things.

re "expanding this article" Yeah. This article probably could be expanded. Want to collaborate? NickCT (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool, let's collaborate. Yes, we should write what is verifiable--and 501c3 is a legal term so it seemed more encyclopedic to me (as in there is a standard understanding of what it means). I don't believe DonorsTrust is a PAC (which I believe is an IRS term). "Political advocacy group" doesn't seem entirely accurate--from what I've read, DonorsTrust is a funding group. They fund political advocacy groups (they are not one themselves). So perhaps...."DonorsTrust, a 501c3 that provides funding to a variety of conservative political advocacy groups..." Does that make sense? I want to get at the distinction that DonorsTrust seems to be providing the money, but not actually engaging in the advocacy themselves. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That compromise language (or something along those lines) strikes me as reasonable. It would be nice if we could keep mention of the GW issue upfront though, because most references I can see refer DonorsTrust in relation to GW issues. Strikes me a due to give the topic prominent mention. I can work on rewording later, or you can give it a go.

Actually, after review, I think your PAC point is correct. I don't think DonorsTrust is a PAC, which, as you mentioned, is some kind of distinct legal entity. My sentiment though is that "Political advocacy group" is a rather vague and general term that could probably be fairly be applied to DonorsTrust. Strikes me that if a line exists between "funding a political advocacy group" and "being a political advocacy group" it is probably very very thin. NickCT (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Donor Trust is a Donor Advised Fund

This is a donor advised fund one of an increasing number of such. They are often run or created by investment houses for the convenience of clients, though not in this case apparently. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The way Donor Advised Funds works is that they act as a sort of a bank for charitable giving. Donors create accounts at the Donor Advised Fund. They deposit a certain amount of money or stock. The donor can make specific requests for charitable disbursement of those funds. Ordinarily, the fund then makes the contribution from the "account". This essentially means that wealthy individuals or companies can avoid the expense and bureaucracy involved in setting up their own foundation and use the DAV as if it was a personal foundation. The only caveat is that the DAV board has to approve the contribution.Capitalismojo (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikify

I have attempted to wikify the article. It still seems short. Perhaps more can be added. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo - There seems to be some confusing language in some of your edits. For instance, I'm not sure what "that provides funding to a variety of conservative causes, political advocacy groups and groups" means. Also, "It was established as the sole donor-advised plan "dedicated to promoting a free society" and serving donors who share that purpose." seems pretty meaningless.

In addition, you seem to have scrubbed mention of climate change denial, which is what this organization is primarily noted for.

I was going to try and go through and clarify, but that looks like a lot of work, so I think I'm just going to opt for a revert at this point.

if you want some help forming wording, let's hash it out on the talk page. NickCT (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That is plain English and not meaningless. Donor advised fund is a specific term in the charity and financial world. A quick look at the wikipedia article on donor advised funds should explain the concept. In simple words this (Donor Trust) is a bank. It could be described as a charity that operates like a bank. People put money in it and can draw that money out as grants to charities. As long as the grant recipient is "dedicated to promoting a free society" the DonorsTrust board will allow the release of the funds. DonorsTrust doesn't initiate anything, the donors pick.Capitalismojo (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, I didn't remove anything about climate change or denial funding. I merely wikified the article. That is to say I put it in the form of Lead, Body, References as every other article uses. I specifically asked that additional material be added. I agree that virtually the only press this organization has received is about climate change. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Lastly I added refs. You have deleted them. I will revert changes to the wikified version unless you have a substantive criticism. If after having done so you want to add additional material to the lead or arrticle body, have at it. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD - You were Bold. I reverted. Now lets discuss before making anymore changes! I thought some of the edits you made were good, and I apologize for doing a blanket revert. It just seemed like it would take a while to separate the good from the bad. I'm going to go through your edits one by one and try to reinstate the good ones. NickCT (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. So I'm going through your edits, I want to address them 1 by 1.

Edit 1 - I really think the climate change denial thing should be in the first line.

Edit 2 - I've restored the "History" subsection. I have a couple issues with the other edits. I think your reading the GuideStar source incorrectly when you say "Donors Trust made over $29 million in grants in 2011". That number appears to be their total revenue, which is different from what they are making in grants. That said, we really should find a source for the current 313 million number.

Edit 3 - Should we be calling "DonorsTrust" or "Donors Trust". I'm really not sure. I think the official business name is "DonorTrust", but they appear to refer to themselves as "Donors Trust". I don't really have a strong opinion here.

Edit 4 - Restored addition of "Think Tank".

If you'd like to discuss further additions. Let me know. Though I really prefer if we didn't use DonorsTrust's "About Page" as a source. NickCT (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I believe this article should be merged with Donors Capital Fund. The two entities appear substantially related, and I see no reason to have two articles. The available sourcing on the two groups does not meaningfully distinguish between the two names (Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund), leading me to believe we'd be better off placing all related content in one article. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree they should be merged. The more notable name of the org is Donors Trust. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

May I please review the merge discussion? Where is it? This article makes no mention of Donors Capital Fund. The so-called "merge" apparently amounts to the deletion of the Donors Capital Fund article. Was that the intent? Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund are not two names for the same thing. They are separate funds with separate boards and separate websites. Hugh (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Two different organizations. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I merged the articles, per WP:MERGEINIT, which says "If you propose a merger, and nobody objects within 30 days, then it is unlikely that any editor will object to you boldly performing the merger." Nobody objected and one person agreed with the merger proposal, so I merged. Also per WP:MERGEINIT, "if a page gets merged, and someone later objects, then a new discussion can be held. Mergers can be easily reversed if a consensus against the merger is formed shortly after the merger was performed." So we can have a new discussion now with more participants. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your bold edit. When we introduce a redirect, are we not obligated to adjust the lede of the target to offer our readers some clue? When we do a merge, are we supposed to add move-to/from tags on the talk pages? Hugh (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point--I just added to the lead & infobox to say DonorsTrust is affiliated with Donors Capital Fund. I'm not sure what you mean by move-to/from tags. I think the issue we have with these two articles is that any money from each group is being given anonymously, so it's hard for the press, not to mention Wikipedia editors, to determine a distinction. They share an address, so it seems the different names are a technicality probably designed for financial reasons. I'm finding it hard to know what content to put on each respective page. Perhaps one page with "DonorsTrust family of organizations...." Safehaven86 (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Two separate funds with separate boards and separate websites. Hugh (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

They do seem separate in some senses, but my issue is that when mentioned in the press, I'm almost exclusively finding "DonorsTrust." Is that the umbrella group? I'm having a hard time finding enough WP:RS to establish independent notability of Donors Capital Fund. Many of the sources on that page actually just refer to "DonorsTrust" and not "Donors Capital Fund." If DCF is a project of DonorsTrust, an umbrella group, perhaps we need a sub-section on this page. But I need to see more notability-establishing sources specifically referencing DCT before I'd be convinced of its independent notability for an article. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Donors Capital Fund fails WP:ORG. The only coverage I can find is trivial and incidental, and "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." A paragraph about the Fund on this page is sufficient. I support the merger. Champaign Supernova (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

State Policy Network

I was wrong; the question isn't whether the (tenuous) connection between State Policy Network and DonorsTrust is significant; it's a question of WP:Undue weight. Is State Policy Network really among the most significant recipients of DonorsTrust? Do we have a source which is not so opposed to both that their claim of significance is of questionable reliability? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As you know, sources need not be neutral, but I'm curious, what source do you feel is some kind of opponent of whom? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)