Talk:The Center Square

Unsigned comment

Watchdog.org has become one of the most important journalism organizations in the country. Even before the economy turned sour, newspapers began suffering financial hardship, forcing many to shut their doors and those remaining open have drastically cut staff to stay afloat. Reporters covering state capitals and local government are rarely seen and investigative journalism has become almost non-existent. Watchdog.org and their state-based news groups have filled this void.

In November 2009, they uncovered federal stimulus funds being allocated to non-existing congressional districts. Every newspaper and news program in America reported the Watchdog.org findings. Their work has been recognized by everyone from the New York Times, Associated Press and Fox News. Google News now recognizes their work and recently they have been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.

So what? This is an article about the organization, not their stories. Unless you can add sources that directly applaud Watchdog for something, leave it out.Desoto10 (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

Recent edits were made on this page to the tune of "An article says that Donor's Trust is primarily funded by the Koch brothers. The Franklin Center is funded by Donor's Trust. Therefore, the Franklin Center is primarily funded by Charles and David Koch." This is WP:SYNTH--combining separate statements to advance a particular claim. Where is the proof that the Franklin Center is primarily funded by Charles and/or David Koch, besides the conjecture that Kochs fund Donors Trust, and Donors Trust funds Franklin, therefore Koch=Franklin? Safehaven86 (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources

• Kosterlitz, Julie (December 12, 2009). "Conservative Watchdogs Awake". National Journal. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help)
• Mitchell, Amy; Jurkowitz, Mark; Holcomb, Jesse; Enda, Jodi; Anderson, Monica (June 10, 2013). "Nonprofit Journalism: A Growing but Fragile Part of the U.S. News System". Pew Research Center's Journalism Project.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal: merge Illinois Watchdog into Watchdog.org

I propose that Illinois Watchdog be merged into Watchdog.org. It doesn't appear to me that Illinois Watchdog has free-standing notability. It seems to be a service or product of Watchdog.org, and I believe it would be more appropriate to have a section titled "Illinois Watchdog" on the Watchdog.org page, than for Illinois Watchdog to continue to have its own page. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I would maybe go a step further and merge this article into the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity article. Granted, I just started looking, but I'm having trouble finding meaningful, substantive discussion of Watchdog.org in reliable sources. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be merged into the article for that group, which is now named Franklin News Foundation. Llll5032 (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Undiscussed blanket reverts

I was raised to hesitate before reverting a colleague, to not revert unless necessary, and to try and fix before reverting. You three have revert a dozen some edits, several hours of a fellow editor's contributions, including additions of significant, neutral content, multiple reliable source references, and formatting. You are very clearly reverting an editor, not edits. You are asserting ownership, not improving our encyclopedia. Hugh (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Apparently according to some the subject of this article is completely free of controversy. Hugh (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Focus on content please, not on individuals. The edits were not improvements, as multiple editors seem to agree. No effort was made to discuss. Ultimately, I think that this article should probably be merged as the other editors above were discussing earlier this year. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You blanket reverted some 14 edits, some hours of a colleague's work, including multiple new sources, without discussion; is that how you like to be treated? Then you come back and blank the page with a redirect, with no merge, with no discussion? You are not editing in good faith, you are asserting ownership WP:OWN. We are all of us expereinced editors, you know better, you know this is American politics, you know this is not your best behavior, you are embarrassing yourself, I deserve better from you. Please revert your page blanking redirect. Hugh (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your vandalism of this page. I understand you are trying to provoke me or bait to edit war. I would very much appreciate an apology for your roll-back and page blanking so we can move on. Hugh (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Typically if three different editors don't find a bold edit to be salvageable, that's good feedback that you need to take a step back and reconsider the content. In this particular case, it's not surprising you've been reverted: I encourage you to check out the RSN to find out whether the community generally thinks Media Matters is a reliable source. Moreover, the content you added made our article non-neutral with respect to its balance and weight. The tone of your edits was also non-neutral (WP:SAY is useful--"the Franklin Center's claim...") With this many issues in one edit, it's not surprising you've been reverted. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You routinely make dozens of edits to articles on your beat of conservative orgs, and no one comes behind you and blanket reverts them without discussion; is that how you like to be treated? We are all experienced editors, show some respect. If you have an issue with a particular source, did you consider talk or a tag? You blanket reverted three new sources and content brought to his article by a colleague, so don't try to make out like you are protecting our project from MMFA. That is not good faith editing, that is asserting ownership WP:OWN. You cannot be bothered to collaborate, it's easier for you to revert "too many problems w/ these edits to salvage." I was raised to try not to delete sources. You have an ownership problem. You have no justification for your blanket reversion of my contributions. I would like an apology from you for your blanket reversion of my contributions today. Hugh (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC) If you are too busy to collaborate you are too busy to revert. Hugh (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please help us all focus on the content of this article here on this article talk page WP:FOC. Thank you. Safehaven86 (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand you do not want to collaborate with me. I understand you wish I would go away or were banned. I understand that after a year now of full-time effort you are deeply committed to the purity of our articles on American conservative nonprofits. But you have no justification for your blanket revert of several hours of a colleague's work, just ownership and harassment. You abused your roll-back privilege. MMfA? You deleted three new sources, without discussion. WP:SAY is one of the simplest things to fix, give me a break. Simply admit you were frustrated or angry or tired and apologize and we can perhaps collaborate. Hugh (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, I also found your edits out of line. You keep trying to get others to "focus on content," but you're just using this talk page to complain about editor behavior. Go ahead, start a discussion on the specific changes you'd like to make to the article, and maybe then we'd get somewhere. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a page to discuss improving an article. Continuing to discuss individual editors as oposed to edits is disruptive. Saying "you" did this or that and not identifying who the "you" refers to is absurd. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Absurd is an experienced editor pretending to not understand indenting WP:THREAD. Hugh (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge and redirect

In June editors proposed the merging of this page with Franklin, I suggest we do so now. Discussion? Capitalismojo (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the redirect. This is a stub article. I reverted the changes before I saw this update in the talk section. Sorry, I didn't realize my account had logged out at the time. Springee (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. No quick merge. Obviously the subject of this article has sufficient reliable sources and notability. Your recently demonstrated willingness to proceed with a an undiscussed page blanking and redirect, absent any merge or preservation of content and sources, leads me to question the sincerity of your merge proposal. Hugh (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGF Focus on content. Four editors have expressed that it should be merged, a discussion dating back to June. One has an opposing thought, and engages in personal discussion as opposed to edits or policy discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

What 4? We are not voting. The subject is notable. Hugh (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand the websites in this network try very, very hard to appear to be legitimate, unbiased media, and you believe very strongly our project should respect that, and you much prefer that Wikipedia either not mention them at all or present no significant viewpoints which might interfere with incorporating content from this network in our project. Unfortunately, your position is not supported by policy, because multiple reliable sources reflect a more nuanced view of the subject of this article than the current article. Fighting your reliability battles in article space is not fair to our readers. Hugh (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I will assume, pardon me if I am wrong, that you are speaking to me. You have no idea what I believe or prefer about this or any other subject. I find the effort to ascribe supposed and imagined interior motivation and goals to other editors appalling. My efforts revolve around policy and edits to improve articles, other's apparently revolve around other more personal goals. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Before we proceed to a good faith discussion of the merits of merging, I would like to check and see if we are talking about the same thing. May I ask you to please explain your recent replacement of this page with a redirect, with no attempt to merge content or preserve reliable sources, effectively a page blanking 21:34, 23 October 2015? We are all of us experienced editors, I am surprised to have to question your understanding of how merges go. If you page blanked because you were angry or tired or just being deliberately antagonistic to try and provoke an overreaction, I can accept that, that's fine, just say so. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't engage in navel gazing or extended reflection on the possible motivations of other editors. Nor do I seek to provoke or edit war. If anyone was in any sense "provoked" by my edit, I apologize. I try to focus on the article. This organization is a project of a non-profit. Almost every such project article I have seen ultimately ends up at the parent organization's article. Not always, but mostly. There is little written directly about the subject, it seems entirely reasonable to me (and apparently almost every editor here) to redirect and merge. Concern that the modest material here wasn't immediately copied over before the quick revert brings to mind two essays WP:DEADLINE and WP:DIY. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am still unclear on your reasons for your page blanking. I understand that at the point you page blanked, you knew a colleague had made a dozen some edits, including adding new sources, hours before your page blanking. Did you think your page blanking might be controversial? Why did you not discuss it at talk? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

As we are all well aware, it was a redirect not a "blanking". The redirect had been discussed in June with no disagreement and is the consensus today . Capitalismojo (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"discussed in June" Discussed? Who are you kidding? It was not "discussed." It was one comment from one editor, with no replies, from five months ago. That is not a discussion. You are trying to hide your intention of antagonizing page blanking as "see talk." Get real. Please, just say, you were angry, you were hasty, you were striking out, it's easy, I can accept that from you. Hugh (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two editors discussing. Stop projecting imagined thoughts into the heads of others. I am not angry, I was not hasty. No one agrees with your edits/edit warring. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please help, I am struggling to understand your page blanking of 21:34, 23 October 2015. I was surprised to see you site WP:DEADLINE and WP:DIY by way of explanation, I thought you might refer to WP:MERGE in your reply since I know you to be an experienced editor. Do I understand that you skipped ahead to do part of step 5 first, and intended to double back and deal with steps 1 through 4 and the rest of step 5 at some future date? Your page blanking was not hasty, it was well-considered? Is this your first merge? If there is a discussion demonstrating consensus for your page blanking, please link to it, I don't see it. I understand you and your fellow travellers are anxious for a ban, and so you are under severe pressure not indicate any kind of self-reflection that might suggest your editing behavior was anything less than exemplary here, but still it would mean a lot to me if you were to offer some small reconciliatory sentiment beyond "sorry you feel that way." Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"modest material here" Your complaining about the lack of content in the current implementation of this article is difficult to take seriously considering that yesterday you rolled back several dozen additions including new sources and significant points of view. I find it easier to believe you would much prefer no article at all to one that fairly represents all significant points of view. Hugh (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:FOC, and stop edit warring. As a point of fact, I "rolled back" nothing. I was the third editor to revert your BOLD edits. Capitalismojo (talk)

Perhaps an important point, I don't care either way. If the other editors here think that there is enough material to keep here, I'm fine with that. If, as seems the case now, most of the editors think we should redirect, great. Perhaps after a time Watchdog gets a lot more independent attention and desrves it's own article again; No Problem. Whatever makes sense. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your generous allowance that the obviously independently notable subject of this article may be deemed worthy of its own article at some future time to be determined by you. This article is about "a network of American news websites" as per its lede sentence. Our article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is about the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. I'm sure you and your fellow travellers will be just as generous with supporting adding content regarding the websites in the "Watchdog" network to be added to Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity as you were, say, to including content related to the members of the State Policy Network to our State Policy Network article. No doubt "off-topic" will come in handy in making sure our project does not include any content which might be useful to our readers and editors in identifying the websites in the "Watchdog" network, let alone learning what reliable sources have to say about them. Why don't you be honest and nominate this page for deletion? Hugh (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly a stub article and should be redirected to the parent organization. One editor is responsible for 4 direct reverts in 24 hours. Springee (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: In June, I proposed merging Illinois Watchdog into Watchdog.org. I didn't propose merging Watchdog.org with the Franklin Center for Public Integrity. I suppose the latter two articles could be merged, as one is a project of the other. But I'm apathetic about a merger. I don't really see a harm or a benefit. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• This article is seriously hardly a paragraph long. Why is it a stand alone vs merged with the parent organization? Springee (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Out of date info

This edit strikes me as a bit odd. The article in question was published in 2012. I don't doubt that the article was accurate at the time. However, based on looking at the Watchdog website today (and based on looking at our Wikipedia article here, which includes the group's stated mission) it's clear that the group does have a stated mission that includes promoting conservatism. It says right here that the group has a mission to "promote individual liberty and free markets." AKA conservatism. Why would we include outdated information that's clearly inaccurate? Our article is currently contradicting itself by including the group's stated mission to promote conservative ideas, then by saying that the group does not state that it wishes to promote conservative ideas. That makes no sense. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

In looking at Columbia Journalism Review's coverage of this website, I found this article [1], which says that the Koch brothers have funded Watchdog.org. So, the main issue here is that HughD is violating his topic ban on Koch-related articles. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that link to the Koch brothers is significant enough to count as a ban violation. I do think the recent edits violated the 3RR rules [[2]]

This information, currently in the article (although it has been removed, with explanation, by two different editors) makes no sense, as it is factually contradicted by other information in the article: "In 2012, the Columbia Journalism Review said that the Watchdog website made no mention of Watchdog’s conservative perspective." Our article clearly states that the website does mention its conservative perspective right there in its mission statement, which is included in this article. It is very odd to keep re-inserting information that is directly contradicted by other information already on the page. The CJR information is clearly out of date. I'm sure this will be confusing to readers. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"conservative" or "conservatism" are not mentioned in the mission statement. Nothing in our article or reliable sources contradicts the fact that in 2012 the Columbia Journalism Review said that the Watchdog website made no mention of Watchdog’s conservative perspective. The content is appropriately date-stamped. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, the content you're adding is reflecting a serious selection bias. You're drawing heavily from this CJR piece, but you're choosing to only cherrypick negative pieces of information. The CJR article is a nuanced look at the pros and cons of the Watchdog.org approach, but the parts you've chosen to take from it make it look like a hit piece. For instance, there's a sentence in the article that reads "Eschewing the usual online mix of punditry and aggregation, the sites produce an impressive amount of investigative state and local political reporting..." But you've ignored any positives from the article and added things like "The Columbia Journalism Review said that the characterization of the Watchdog websites as nonpartisan 'seems only nominally true'" and "In 2012, the Columbia Journalism Review said that the Watchdog website made no mention of Watchdog’s conservative perspective." How are you choosing what information to include from the CJR piece? Is your approach informed by our weight or balancing aspects policies? Because right now it appears as if you're randomly selecting negative-skewed information from this article, and your editing pattern here seems to show an agenda focused on 1) attempting to discredit the organization 2) ignoring the fact that you're playing with fire concerning your topic ban. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Your charges of lack of balance are unfounded. Your charge of "hit piece" is disruptive. Balance is with respect to reliable sources, not with respect to your personal opinion of the subject of this article. "non-partisan" is very well balanced; the self-published claim of the subject of this article is stated, balanced with highly significant alternative views from multiple, neutral, highly reliable 3rd-party sources. The highly significant view of the highly significant 3rd party source the Columbia Journalism Review is balanced with a long, in-text self-published direct quote from the mission statement of the subject of this article. Thank you for your many, many contributions to articles on nonprofit conservative organizations in our project. Thank you for your comments and for not rolling back. Hugh (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my point: our article is currently imbalanced with respect to one particular source, the CJR piece. It itself is a largely balanced piece, but the portions you've taken from it and put into our article are all negative. So I'm questioning your rationale for the particular portions of that piece you've chosen to add to the article. Why have you chosen to only take negative information from the article, and not to add any of the positive information that is in the article? Safehaven86 (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Additional content from CJR added as per suggestion, excellent suggestion, thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I count 70 edits from one editor in the last 4 days. I would suggest that proposing edits here vs changing the article would seriously improve article stability and avoid a continued edit war. Springee (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"a mission to "promote individual liberty and free markets." AKA conservatism." No, that's just as much a liberal agenda, and thus those words do not clearly identify them as "conservative". If they are conservative, and they clearly are, they should not hide it behind nice sounding soundbytes, but should declare it openly. Are they ashamed of something? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure doesn't seem like it. See this article which says "The sites report from an obviously conservative standpoint, about which the editors do not apologize." Safehaven86 (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 October 2015: please move ref

Please move a reference one sentence later. The Reid Wilson, Washington Post ref is used once in the article but is one sentence too soon. It supports the "4 times more likely" sentence. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggested edits to page

Given that the page is currently locked down due to slow and not so slow motion edit warring, I think the various editors involved on this page would be well-served to discuss and agree upon new edits here. I'll start with my suggestions.

1) "In August 2012, the vice president of journalism of the Franklin Center said 'We try to set the agenda. That’s what a good newspaper does and what a good website does' and 'We have a point of view. Big deal.'" What value is this quote from a representative of the organization adding? The article clearly establishes that Watchdog.org is a conservative website. I'm not sure that repeating the website's agenda in different ways is adding any value to the article. We have their mission statement in the article, why do we need a quote from a staffer as well?

2) "The Watchdog websites' reporting reflects the Franklin Center's focus on government waste and public employee unions." If included, this should be attributed to the Columbia Journalism Review. It would also make more sense directly after the group's stated mission statement, as it is a continuation/description of that mission from a third-party source.

3) "In 2013, the vice president of journalism of the Franklin Center said that the reporting of the Franklin Center's news outlets was not influenced by the Franklin Center's ties to other conservative organizations." Why is the group itself an acceptable source on whether the group is influenced by others? Of course the group says it's not influenced by others. What kind of group would say about itself "yeah, we are unduly influenced by other groups." See WP:SPS. If you want to make this kind of claim about a group, their own thoughts on the matter aren't an acceptable source.

4) "Watchdog.org accepts contributions from nonprofessional journalists." The source material for this is here: "Most of the sites are staffed by a single reporter, though they use contributions from non-professional journalists and have a citizen journalism platform called Watchdog Wire." The other source for that information is a story by the Franklin Center's former president. I don't see anything in that WP:SPS piece that says anything about "accepting contributions from nonprofessional journalists." Our current sentence is not accurately reflecting the source material. When you look at the source material, you see that it is explaining the staffing model for these websites (mostly staffed by one reporter, though they also use contributions from non-professional journalists and have a citizen journalism platform). The point of the source is not to say "aha! These people accept contributions from nonprofessional journalists!" It's to say that most of the sites have one full-time staffer, although they also accept contributions from others and host a citizen journalism website. Why the focus on the nonprofessional journalist contributions and no mention of the citizen journalism site, which has just as much coverage in the cited source? That's selection bias leading to neutrality issues.

5) "The Illinois affiliate was denied state capitol press credentials due to the lack of transparency regarding its funding." The first source fails verification. It makes no mention of an Illinois Watchdog affiliate. It is an article about the Franklin Center which states "The lack of transparency caused its Illinois site to be denied a spot in the state capitol press bureau." However, it doesn't mention Watchdog. This article says it was a Franklin Center website called Illinois Statehouse News that was denied credentials. It says nothing of Illinois Watchdog, which according to our article, is the Watchdog.org affiliate in Illinois. It looks like we're dealing with two different websites here. Our second source confirms this. It doesn't mention Watchdog, and does mention Illinois Statehouse News. Ditto the third source. None of these sources adequately verify the information in our article, and it in fact seems our article is currently factually inaccurate. No sources say anything about Illinois Statehouse News being a Watchdog website, and in fact according to our article, Watchdog does have an Illinois website, Illinois Watchdog, and it doesn't appear that the latter has ever been denied press credentials.

6) "In 2012, the Columbia Journalism Review said that the Watchdog website made no mention of Watchdog’s conservative perspective." This has already been covered above, but this is an odd thing to include. As we state in our article, the Watchdog mission clearly states a focus on conservatism: "promote individual liberty and free markets." The CJR info is out of date and not notable since based on our more recent sourcing, it's clearly obsolete. See item #1 above--obviously this group isn't a shrinking violet about their views.

7) "The Watchdog.org website says the Watchdog organization is 'committed to creating non-partisan journalism.'" Truncated from that description is "...in a distinctive voice deeply skeptical of the entire political process." Later saying "The Columbia Journalism Review said that the characterization of the Watchdog websites as nonpartisan 'seems only nominally true'" sounds like an editor trying to make a point, and like possible WP:SYNTHESIS. Again, the CJR article is long and thorough, there has to be a good reason for pulling out particular sentences from it to focus on.

8) Way too much emphasis on the Pew Research study. This is an article about Watchdog.org. Why are we hearing about the specifics of an entire, broad-raging study, or about the American Independent News Network? We're beating a dead horse here with describing the group as conservative, and including things like this "Watchdog articles were about four times more likely to support a conservative theme as liberal." Of course they are! This is not interesting or surprising. OMG, a website that says it is conservative actually is conservative and posts conservative stories. There seems to be an effort by editors here to focus in on this, as if documenting all of this conservatism is leading to some sort of "gotcha." But sorry, the cat's out of the bag...I mean, how dare this website do what its mission statement says it will do! There's no need to document in detail that it, in fact, does just that. It's not notable. If a group says it is conservative and posts liberal stories, now that would be interesting and notable and unexpected--but the fact that the group is what it says it is seems like a non-story.

9) The phantom districts section contains a lot of Watchdog-published stories, which raises questions about whether the information is notable enough for inclusion. There also needn't be WP:SCAREQUOTES here: "apparently 'phantom' districts."

All of that, and I still haven't addressed all of the issues with the recent spate of edits to this page. To avoid edit warring, I'd highly advise that editors engage here to find agreement before making changes to the article itself. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment

"spate" Classy. Thank you for your patience with this incursion into your curatorial arena. Hugh (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

1. The quote you mention is not redundant to the mission statement. It is related to the mission statement but it does not say the same thing as the mission statement. It says much more than the mission statement. But this is obvious, so I have no idea why you would try to argue they say the same thing. Hugh (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

2. Good suggestions, thanks. Hugh (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

3. As an experienced editor, you well understand that self-published statements may be used if they are about the subject itself, and this is conformant in in-text attribution, so I have no idea why you would bring this up. Delete the mission statements from all your articles and come back here and try this again. I will definitely be bookmarking your comments on self-published sources here. Hugh (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

From all of "my" articles? I don't have articles. No one does. Wikipedia:Ownership of content is a helpful policy in this regard. I'm flattered that you enjoy going through my edit history, but your comments are derailing this conversation, which should be about the content of the Watchdog.org article. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

4. The article by the president of Franklin is a solicitation to citizen journalists, and is a supplemental reference in support of the other reference for that content, which is a reliable, independent, third-party, secondary source. But as an experienced editor you understand there are two refs, so I have no idea why you would bring it up. Hugh (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC) The distinction between professional journalists and citizen journalists is significant. I am sure you will support informing our readers that this news organization uses both. Hugh (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Two references for an item of content, one a reliable, independent, third-party, secondary source, the other a primary source, is a common pattern in Wikipedia citation; are you seeing it for the first time here? Hugh (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

5. Illinois Statehouse News is Illinois Watchdog. Hugh (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that the URL for Illinois Statehouse News currently redirects to Illinois Watchdog, but that doesn't mean they've always been one and the same. It's possible that one entity acquired the other or bought the URL. The point is, we're guessing on this and forced to lapse into WP:OR since our sources don't explain what happened. Looking at this, the URL of Illinois Statehouse News is or was here, and it's currently a spammy looking link. Bottom line is, we have no sources that verify the content currently in the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Franklin news bureaus web publish and offer content for syndication to newspapers. Illinois Watchdog is the website for the Illinois Statehouse News. Illinois Watchdog and Illinois Statehouse News are not separate organizations. In fact, they are not organizations at all, they are local Franklin brands for Franklin products. The employees are Franklin employees. You are splitting hairs to exclude neutral, verifiable content, well-referenced to multiple reliable sources, content you consider unflattering to a conservative organization. Hugh (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of things. I'm not the one who has been repeatedly blocked and banned for my editing behavior. If, as you say, these websites are Franklin Center websites with Franklin Center employees, why are we discussing adding it to the Watchdog.org page? What does this have to do with Watchdog.org? It's totally unclear why sources that don't even mention Watchdog.org would be included on this page. That is an example of WP:COATRACK. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

6. I'm sorry you think it odd. Please reference policy and guideline in your objections. The content is reliably sourced to multiple well-formatted references, neutral, and verifiable. Of course our project is not restricted to documenting only the current state of things. Sigh. Hugh (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

7. Juxtaposition is not synthesis WP:NOTSYNTH. Obviously the CJR is responding to the claim on the Watchdog website. Of course we can mention both what the Watchdog site says and what CJR says AND we can mention them right next to each other. Hugh (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

8. Pew is a dream source. Pew is the kind of source we wish every article had. What a boon to our project that Pew conducted not one but two recent studies of nonprofit journalism. Of course the Pew studies are noteworthy and used by others WP:USEBYOTHERS as documented by multiple well-formatted references. What a blessing that a highly respected, neutral, competent research organization should write reports including analysis of the transparency, topics, partisanship, and ideology of the very subject we are writing about. I know you think mission statements are the last word in articles about conservative organizations, but I'm sorry they are not WP:MISSION. Of course saying "News source x is conservative" is not saying the same thing as "News source x is 4x more likely to take a conservative as liberal position." How wonderful that a reliable, neutral, third party assessed this for us, and attempted to quantify an estimate of the situation! Hugh (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

9. Of course the "phantom" districts story is noteworthy, it is the single most noteworthy story by any of the Watchdog sites, ever. The 'phantom' districts paragraph is, after, all, a paragraph about a story the subjects of this article broke, so, yes, it is sourced in part to those stories. All the content in the phantom districts paragraph has reliable, independent, third-party, secondary sourcing, plus supplemental sourcing to relevant primary documents: the Watchdog stories. Which you of course noticed and which you as an experienced editor understand, so I have no idea why you felt compelled to misrepresent the sourcing. "Scare quotes" are in the source, not mine. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggest starting with a rollback

Given all the recent edits, 70 by HughD alone before the article was locked, I would suggest rolling back to the last stable version of the article then adding content back in once consensus has been reached instead of starting with the article as locked. Springee (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You blanked this page 24 October 2015‎ while not logged in. Please help, I am trying to reconcile in my mind your above expressed concern for the stability of this article with your recent blatant attempt at anonymous vandalism and edit war baiting. Of course you suggest a rollback, but to be fair to readers of this talk page, you might explain that your project is rolling back all my contributions. Your project is not our encyclopedia, as clearly evidenced by your last 70 edits. You were recently reported for harassing me 14 September 2015. Anyone considering the above a serious effort to improve our encyclopedia, kindly take a very brief moment to compare the commenting user's preferred version to the current version, in terms of amount of relevant content, number of reliable source references, and coverage of significant points of view. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. I think this is a spur article and should be merged with the parent article. However it doesn't appear that all agree. There does seem to be a consensus around the idea that we should slow down the changes. To that end rolling back to the last stable version of the article then proposing edits here makes a lot more sense than trying to force others to keep up with an editor who made 70 changes to the article in just 4 days including several reverts without proper talk page discussions. If you have a disagreement with me that isn't related to this article please discuss it on my talk page. Springee (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I see the page has been unprotected. Does anyone have suggestions on how to move forward here? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I would again suggest a rollback. The added material all exists in the edit history so it can be added again if the group consensus supports its inclusion. This seams like the easiest way of reseting the rapid fire edits and slowing things down a bit. Springee (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 October 2015: move a sentence and ref in second paragraph

In the second paragraph, please move up the 4th sentence "The Watchdog websites' reporting reflects ...public employee unions." (and its ref), to after the first sentence. Please prefix with in-text attribution, "According to the Columbia Journalism Review, the Watchdog websites' reporting..." Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This is jumping the gun a bit. There is no deadline. We've just started discussions on this content, and given the back and forth on this page, it would be wise to give more time to other editors to weigh in. This page has been locked down for less than a day. Not enough time has passed to allow consensus to emerge on any new proposed edits. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please wait a while to make sure that there is a consensus for this edit, and then reactivate the edit request template if appropriate. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 October 2015: copy edit

Extra "the." In the 1st sentence of the last paragraph, please change "The Watchdog site in the New Mexico..." to "The Watchdog site in New Mexico..." Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Independent assessments of partisanship

In 2011, the Pew Research Center found that 15% of Watchdog articles were exposes, that is, targeted a politician, program, or government agency, and that 11% targeted a Democratic politician, Democratic program, or Democratic-controlled government agency while 2% targeted Republicans. The Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) said that the characterization of the Watchdog websites as nonpartisan "seems only nominally true."

• Holcomb, Jesse; Rosenstiel, Tom; Mitchell, Amy; Caldwell, Kevin; Sartor, Tricia; Vogt, Nancy (July 18, 2011). "Assessing a New Landscape in Journalism". Project for Excellence in Journalism. Pew Research Center. p. 3. Retrieved October 23, 2015. Among Watchdog.org sites, most stories studied (85%) did not target any individual or organization for wrong-doing. But 15% were exposes. And most of those targeted a Democrat, a Democratic program, a Democratic-led state or the federal government (11% of all stories studied). A smaller amount, 2% of all stories studied, targeted Republicans.
• Peters, Justin (September 13, 2012). "'Serious, point-of-view journalism'? A look at the most ambitious conservative news organization you've never heard of". Columbia Journalism Review. Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Retrieved October 23, 2015. The sites report from an obviously conservative standpoint, about which the editors do not apologize. (Though the Franklin Center's website claims that its sites are nonpartisan, this seems only nominally true.)

The Pew Research Center is exactly the kind of highly respected, neutral, third-party source our project wishes would weigh in on all media outlets covered by our project. That Pew has an ongoing project to survey and analyze the nonprofit news sector is a huge boon to the neutrality of our project in this area. The disputed content is a Pew result highly relevant to the subject of this article. Of course our project's pillar of neutrality requires that our project's article on this subject should include for our readers a neutral, unbiased, relevant, verifiable, well-referenced, quantified assessment of the partisanship of the subject of this article. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The Columbia Journalism Review also says that Watchdog.org is Koch-funded. It describes Watchdog.org as "the Kochs’ leading media investment to date." So, either CJR is not reliable and we shouldn't add content from its articles, or CJR is reliable and we should add content from its articles, including Koch material, meaning you'd be violating your topic ban. I guess you have to decide what you want more: permission to keep editing this article, or Koch material in the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully request please help us all focus on the disputed content and references above in this thread. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Columbia Journalism Review article

Should we include anything from this article in the Watchdog.org article? For example, "But there is a key clue to the Koch brothers’ vision of the media— the Kochs’ leading media investment to date, an ambitious right-leaning investigative outlet called the Franklin Center and its watchdog.org network, which defines itself as neither partisan nor political." It seems like it's pretty notable if the Franklin Center/Watchdog.org is the Koch's leading media investment. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me, but this NBC News source is probably more informative, neutral and RS.[3] I looked at CJR earlier today, they seem to cite the SPLC and Media Matters as authoritative, so the editorial slant CJR may be a touch biased. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 02:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

User:009o9, "Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone,..." — Wikipedia:NPOV#Bias in sources. CJR is generally an excellent source. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the CJR article is just regurgitating(?) this NY times article,[4], seems like both sources are better candidates for WP:NEWSORG. PS I'm not connected to this topic in any manner. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 02:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW the "Outside analysis" does not impart any information, just that the organization was studied a couple of times. There is some commentary in this article. [5] The section as it is now, sends the reader on a wild goose chase, through six references from the same source. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 03:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The "Outside Analysis" section needs serious re-working. Right now, it imparts no meaningful information. Originally, it was overly verbose and causing problems with WP:UNDUE weight. I'm sure we can find the study's main point and reflect that clearly here. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

This seems pretty straight forward...

The Project for Excellence in Journalism of the Pew Research Center surveyed and analyzed nonprofit news organizations active on the state or national level in 2011 and again in 2013. The studies found that the most consistently ideological of the news outlets were those that were organized in networks, specifically the conservative Watchog network and the liberal American Independent News Network.

Cheers! -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 03:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Great suggestion--I'm going to implement it. Thanks! Safehaven86 (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see the point of the latest edits,[6] trying to tell the reader how partisan the Watchdog is, is not our job, that's already established in passage above and why we have references. I note that there is none of this going on in the American Independent News Network article, which PEW compares directly to Watchdog, both articles have stated the editorial ideology. Moreover, the Watchdog is a government watchdog site, it is unremarkable that the PEW would find that the reporting targets politicians, programs and government agencies. The fact that they target conservative politicians at all (2%), might also be re-written to indicate that they are not completely in the tank. Secondly, as written in the Wikipedia section, the PJR quote is an out of context opinion (in parenthesis) and should not be cherry picked(WP:CHERRY), if anything it should reproduced in context and attributed as opinion.

  In 2012, Justin Peters of the Columbia Journalism Review wrote: "The [Watchdot.com] sites report from an obviously conservative standpoint, about which the editors do not apologize. (Though the Franklin Center’s website claims that its sites are nonpartisan, this seems only nominally true.)"

  -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 06:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The latest version goes too far into the weeds, giving specific, cherry-picked findings from a long study. On the other hand, the version that you proposed (and I subsequently implemented) above gives an appropriate overview of the main thrust of the study. Your version is a good summary. It's confusing why this edit summary reads "adding content per talk" when the only editors currently engaged on talk agree that a different version is preferable. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"trying to tell the reader how partisan the Watchdog is, is not our job" When the subject of an article makes a claim of nonpartisanship, and multiple excellent reliable sources challenge that claim, we are required to include fair summarizations of those sources in our article. When an excellent, impartial, unbiased, highly-respected, independent, third-party source like the Pew Research Center goes on to attempt to further characterize and quantify the degree of that partisanship, of course we are required by our neutrality pillar to include it. Saying "subject is partisan" and "subject is x times more likely to target a Democrat as a Republican" are obviously not saying the same thing. Hugh (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm a third voice adding support to the version offered by User:009o9. There is no consensus for this version [7], which keeps getting edit-warred in. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Background

The third paragraph in the Background section is not really representative. The original story, [8] disclosed that Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board was contacted and they blamed data-entry errors for the errant districts. The real story is that the stimulus created only 30,000 jobs at a cost of $225,000 each. Scarantino played up the nonexistent districts angle (in his local section), but did link back to the original Bill McMorris article.[9] If the AP would have just read the entire thread, they could have saved themselves a lot of work. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 04:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of this proposed content?

In 2009, the Watchdog site in New Mexico analyzed data published by the administration of President Barack Obama regarding the expenditures authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Journalist Bill McMorris found that the stimulus had created only 30,000 jobs at a cost of $225,000 each. Watchdog.org reported that millions of dollars of federal stimulus funds were allocated to projects in congressional districts that did not exist; for example, to the twenty-second congressional district in New Mexico, although New Mexico has just three congressional districts. McMorris reported that the government said the "phantom congressional districts" were a result of data entry errors.

It's a good start, but doesn't include the follow-on story, which is what makes this notable enough for a Wikipedia mention. Also, McMorris posted his original story in the national version, Scarantino posted his somewhat incomplete (controversial) story(s) in the New Mexico version. It appears that the Watchdog learned a lesson about the pitfalls of citizen journalism and other outlets should have learned something about reactionary publishing. There are a few articles I haven't read in context yet, I'll have a look later today and suggest a followup passage to add to your proposed content. (Aside: I'm thinking that I should offer to fix the zipcode and district info in the stimulus database, I'll do it for half the price of a stimulus job, $112,500 and have a really good month.) -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 16:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional: Wow, what a mess! Apparently Scarantino is original author.[10] There is a slant in the Background section, third paragraph, but it is coming from whoever wrote it not the MSM. Even the Washington Monthly (user submitted? article (number 7), which is cited four times in the paragraph) is more balanced than para 3. However, it does say that ABC News claimed it as their own exclusive and I did not notice a source credit to Watchdog in the ABC article. The ABC (audio) tells us that the Stimulus website cost eight million dollars (imho entering an incorrect Congressional district or zipcode should not have been an option for a website of that $ sophistication). The AP article agrees with the Watchdog, more than condemning the reporting, and states:

• "The facts: Scarantino's original report was correct, and his analysis was the latest discovery of problems in the massive database of stimulus spending."
• "Scarantino said Wednesday that his initial blog post was just trying to show problems in the data."[11]

I'm thinking the paragraph should start with the ABC News and AP reporting agreeing with Scarantino's original reporting that the entire stimulus was an expensive mess and end with the Government trying to blame the applicants for the program's lack of oversight. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 05:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting finds. If you want to take a stab at a proposed rewrite of this section, I'm happy to take a look. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I got kind of busy this week, but would like to share a draft of my interpretation of what conspired for review -- maybe this weekend. The Stimulus story is actually what makes Watchdog.org notable, nice article if we can get that third paragraph neutral. Brilliant "Funding" section addition, I see now why you wanted it. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 02:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• More of an overview of what actually happened, the conservatives were joyfully writing about the stimulus oversight being far from what was promised, the liberals were heading off an emerging headache that was going by the name of "Phantom Congressional (Stimulus) Districts". I put this in a Collapse template because they will contain a References section. My referencing is a bit different, my references are contained within the References section with the refs= switch, I find it hard read or compose with all of that noise inline. (The switch doesn't interfere with inline -- unless the older references/ style is used.) I just went ahead an did this because it was fresh in my mind, fully expecting that this first draft won't go through as is. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 08:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional Note A CBS version of the AP story has an additional paragraph at close, Did "Phantom" Districts Get Stimulus Cash?.

There are problems with the stimulus data being reported, problems that call into question how accurate the job count is. But the "phantom congressional districts" are being used as a phantom issue to suggest that stimulus money has been misspent.

-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 09:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Older submission

In 2009, Watchdog New Mexico analyzed data published by Recovery.gov regarding the stimulus expenditures authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. On November 15, Jim Scarantino reported that the cost per each stimulus job had reached nearly $314,000 in New Mexico. On November 16, Scarantino reported that millions of dollars of federal stimulus funds were allocated to projects in congressional districts that did not exist; for example, to the twenty-second congressional district in New Mexico, although New Mexico has just three congressional districts. On November 17, Scarantino did a follow-up story, referencing Watchdog National reporter Bill McMorris' reporting, who examined the data and found that funds were distributed to 440 non-existent Congressional districts. McMorris also found that nationally, just under 30,000 jobs had been "created or saved," at a cost of just under $225,000 each. Both November 17, articles noted that Ed Pound, Director of Communications for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency board had gone on record with Michael Noyes of the Monatana Watchdog on November 16, and Pound stated that the stimulus recipients made these data entry errors and confirmed the $84 million dollar budget for the Recovery.org website. Jason Stverak of the Online Journalism Review, later praised Scarantino's investigative journalism in an article titled, "The pros and pros of 'citizen journalism'". Stverak also noted that, "...many of these non-profit online news organization offer a “steal our stuff” policy that provides newspapers with free news. This is an obvious cost advantage over the traditional news wires that charge for content." Writing for the Washington Monthly, Laura McGann, infers that ABC News scooped the story in their November 16, "Exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist", without attribution to the Watchdog. Apparently, not realizing that ABC News and the Watchdog, posted identical quotes from Director Ed Pound, she goes on to make a fact-checking case against the Watchdog, using the reporting of Associated Press writer, Matt Apuzzo who wrote: "The facts: Scarantino's original report was correct, and his analysis was the latest discovery of problems in the massive database of stimulus spending." Appuzo discounted the growing "phantom congressional district" story by tracking down one errant zip-code and one faulty Congressional district. Apuzzo's closing paragraph reads, "Scarantino said Wednesday that his initial blog post was just trying to show problems in the data." Better ending? In a virtually identical CBS News article, attributed to the AP but not specifically Apuzzo, the report closes with, "There are problems with the stimulus data being reported, problems that call into question how accurate the job count is. But the 'phantom congressional districts' are being used as a phantom issue to suggest that stimulus money has been misspent."

• It looks like the above is probably a new section, as written, rather than just a paragraph correction (probably needs more line breaks and grouped under a new section heading). -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 00:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for tackling this. I think what you've proposed is definitely an improvement. I agree this phantom district stuff should be its own significant sub-section, as it does seem to make up the bulk of Watchdog's independent notability. My only immediate comment is that I would strike the content sourced to Jason Stverak, as it appears he was the president of Watchdog's parent company at the time of the phantom districts story. Thanks for your work on this! Safehaven86 (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Good on removing the Jason Stverak passage, I only introduced him because of the "steal our story" comment as a transition (and it was already cited). I didn't realize he isn't independent of the subject and it is wordy anyway. I think the pieces are all there, but it still has a flow problem, usually helps if I revisit after a couple of days.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 05:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• A second cut at it below, at this point, I don't know how to condense it because the chron seems pretty critical.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk

Thanks for revising this. I think your second version gives a thorough and comprehensive overview of the situation, and I support adding it to the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done pinging Champaign Supernova for consensus, Watchdog.org#Reporting on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The May 2010 Laura McGann piece is pretty inconsequential, and probably could be dropped, but the original version mentions her reporting, so I clarified and left it in. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 02:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Taking a look now. The current version is certainly an improvement, but perhaps it's a bit long, with too much emphasis on the McGann piece. Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Champaign Supernova I agree, if we were not forced to edit defensively, a lot of the content that was (mis)used in the prior version as an attack against Scarantino can be condensed or removed. The previous writing was... Watchdog gets the blame for sensationalizing, while CBS News, FOX and many others also reported on the phantom district story. I'm a little reluctant to condense under the current conditions, because I am undoing spin. Let's give it a week or two and see if there is a way to condense. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 22:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

McGann, Laura (May 2010). "Partisan Hacks; Conservatives have discovered the virtues of investigative journalism. But can their reporting survive their politics?". Washington Monthly. Retrieved October 23, 2015.

What is your basis in policy or guideline for excluding this source from our article? What source in this article would you say is most critical of the subject of this article? Is the subject of this article without controversy or without significant points of view? Hugh (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

V.2 Submitted for review and POV check: Background Section, Paragraph 3

==Phantom Congressional (stimulus) Districts== In 2009, Watchdog New Mexico analyzed data published in the $84 million website, Recovery.gov, regarding the stimulus expenditures authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. A series of articles were published on the stimulus topic, initially examining the number of jobs created and the cost per-job, but the conversation turned to the revelation that $6.4 billion in grants had been awarded in 440 non-existent Congressional Districts: November 15 Jim Scarantino updates his earlier reporting, finding that stimulus spending has reached nearly $314,000 per job created in New Mexico. November 16 Scarantino reports that millions of dollars of federal stimulus funds are allocated to projects in congressional districts that did not exist; for example, to the twenty-second congressional district in New Mexico, although New Mexico has just three congressional districts. Ed Pound, Director of Communications for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency board goes on record with Michael Noyes of Wathchdog Montana. Pound states that the stimulus recipients made these data entry errors and confirmed the $84 million budget for the Recovery.org website. ABC News goes with a story targeting other states and territories, "Exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist", also quoting Ed Pound. November 17 Scarantino does a follow-up story, referencing Watchdog National reporter Bill McMorris' findings that $6.4 billion was distributed to 440 non-existent Congressional districts. McMorris also found that nationally, just under 30,000 jobs had been created, at a cost of just under $225,000 each. Both November 17, Watchdog articles note that Ed Pound had been contacted for clarification on the Congressional District data errors on the day prior. November 18 The Associated Press, via CBS News, confirms that Scarantino's discovery and original reporting is correct. Scarantino states, "I'm not going to say it went into a black hole," but adds that non-existent Congressional districts are a "huge red flag," when asked if people are using the data discrepancy to suggest loss or misuse, "They should do some of their own research," he replied. November 19 A similar, but abbreviated version of the Associated Press article, posted by the Deseret News. This article also names Scarantion and makes the same correctness statement about his reporting, but does not contain the majority of Scarantino's quotes carried in the ABC News story posted the prior day. The author, Matt Apuzzo, fact-checks the "phantom congressional district" story by tracking down the addresses for two grant recipients, one with an errant zip-code and one from a faulty numbered Congressional District. December 9 Rueters', James Pethokoukis independently validates that costs per stimulus job "saved or created", at $246,436 is very similar to Watchdog's findings of nearly $225,000 per job created. Pethokoukis calculates the average salary paid per stimulus job is $59,867 when annualized. May 2010 Writing for the Washington Monthly, Laura McGann, infers in “Partisan Hacks”, that ABC News scooped the "phantom congressional districts" story as and exclusive without attribution to the Watchdog, although similar, the ABC News story covered different localities. She also writes, "...the Associated Press’s Matt Apuzzo took the step that the Watchdog reporters had not: he checked to see what was happening to the money," with no mention that ABC News and three Watchdog articles posted quotes about the data entry errors from Director Ed Pound. Naming Scarantino in her article, McGann goes on to make a fact-checking case, squarely against the Watchdog. Based upon Apuzzo's spot-checking of 2 of the 440 "phantom districts", McGann concludes: “The problem was simply that a handful of the local government agencies and nonprofits that had received stimulus funds had mistyped the zip codes when they entered information about their projects into the federal database.”

This is a prose article, not a list article WP:PROSE. Please write prose or consider a list subarticle WP:SUMMARYSTYLE for your chronology. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists#Appropriate_use_of_lists, this is an a appropriate use of a list to display chronological order, which is critical in evaluating controversies. The MOS also supports inclusion, "Embedded lists are lists used within articles to present information that supplements the article's prose content." in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Embedded_lists. The previous prose,[12] did not adequately describe why the Stimulus story was controversial, nor that accusations were brought against Watchdog and ABC News by a fairly well established outlet (the Washington Monthly, [13] which was established in 1969). Two other editors have improved the content and further condensation is being considered. Per your suggestion, a separate list article would not survive an AfD discussion and the content would (rightly) be merged back into the main article.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 15:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Summarization of multiple highly relevant, highly reliable independent third party assessments of ideology and partisanship

Disputed content in the Outside analysis section:

The 2011 Pew study found that Watchdog articles were about four times more likely to support a conservative theme as liberal. The 2011 Pew study found that 15% of Watchdog articles were exposes, that is, targeted a politician, program, or government agency, and that 11% targeted a Democratic politician, Democratic program, or Democratic-controlled government agency while 2% targeted Republicans. In 2012, the Columbia Journalism Review said that the characterization of the Watchdog websites as nonpartisan "seems only nominally true."

1. Holcomb, Jesse; Rosenstiel, Tom; Mitchell, Amy; Caldwell, Kevin; Sartor, Tricia; Vogt, Nancy (July 18, 2011). "Assessing a New Landscape in Journalism". Project for Excellence in Journalism. Pew Research Center. p. 3. Retrieved October 23, 2015. At the Watchdog.org sites, 41% were crafted in such a way as to support a conservative theme, while 11% reflected pro-liberal themes-a ratio of nearly 4-to-1....Among Watchdog.org sites, most stories studied (85%) did not target any individual or organization for wrong-doing. But 15% were exposes. And most of those targeted a Democrat, a Democratic program, a Democratic-led state or the federal government (11% of all stories studied). A smaller amount, 2% of all stories studied, targeted Republicans.
2. Wilson, Reid (July 10, 2014). "The precipitous decline of state political coverage". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 23, 2015. Another Pew study found Franklin Center Web sites were four times more likely to present stories with a conservative theme than a liberal theme.
3. Peters, Justin (September 13, 2012). "'Serious, point-of-view journalism'? A look at the most ambitious conservative news organization you've never heard of". Columbia Journalism Review. Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Retrieved October 23, 2015. Though the Franklin Center's website claims that its sites are nonpartisan, this seems only nominally true.

• Delete The subject's editorial slant is adequately covered and the PEW studies are not about the Watchdog.org, merely a couple of mentions. The fact that 13% of the Watchdog's articles attack politicians is unremarkable, and the fact that a watchdog publication would write about programs and agencies is also unremarkable. The editor is welcome to create a stand-alone article for the PEW findings if it can meet notability. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 18:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"adequately covered" Saying "x is conservative" is a biased, incomplete, non-neutral summarization of multiple, high quality, independent, third-party reliable sources that clearly state "x is 4 times more likely to support a conservative ideology as liberal." Not sure why you would want to withhold this highly relevant, well-referenced content from our readers. Hugh (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The passage I wrote says that "x is among the most conservative" and examples of the most ideological sites are listed. Your summarized is paragraph is WP:CHERRY, even your title for this section is WP:WEASEL. Again, if you want to expand on the PEW media study topic, I'd suggest you take it to an article where you are not subject to a topic ban.Diff -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 20:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

May I ask, what policy or guideline do you believe excludes the above proposed content? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Your topic ban from Tea Party and Koch-related pages? Champaign Supernova (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Setting aside the topic ban, let's try WP:IMPARTIAL first. Following that, the content is a WP:POVPUSH, generally employed by astroturfers who are interested in clouding and de-ligitimizing a subject with unnecessary content, dubious paid studies, contextomy etc. You might also read Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks concerning the out of context quote. Additionally, even if we combine the (unclear) 15%, 11%, and 2% that still leaves 72% of Watchdog about some other topic(s). Plenty of MSM publications are 28% in the bag in some fashion, in fact, I can't think of one that isn't. The PEW statistics are meaningless, unremarkable and the overall findings are already adequately stated. Nobody's ideology is going to be changed by including them; WP:NOTSOAPBOX states: "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions." Again, you are welcome to attempt an article about the PEW findings, which would probably also deserve a "See also" mention here, but I'm fairly certain that is not what you are interested in. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 07:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your application of WP:IMPARTIAL here; what is the dispute, how does including this content engage Wikipedia in a dispute? WP:NPOV dispute is an essay, but I don't understand your application of WP:POVPUSH here; how is content sourced to both the Pew Research Center and the Washington Post a fringe idea? Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks is an essay, but I do not understand your application here. No basis in policy has been cited for excluding the above proposed content. Many Wikipedia articles characterize subjects as ideological (conservative/liberal) or partisan (Democratic/Republican), here we are fortunate that multiple high-quality, neutral, independent, third-party, extraordinarily reliable sources have further characterized and quantified just how ideological and partisan the subject of this particular article is; why would we hide it from our readers? I'm sorry you think the Pew results are meaningless. Please focus on content and refrain form speculating on the motives of your colleagues. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The content proposed above in this thread is not out of context. It is an addition to an existing paragraph on the Pew studies. Sorry if that was not clear. Hugh (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I consider the PEW matter settled by consensus 3 to 0 since you are blocked, but maybe this will help you with your WP:IMPARTIAL

• The original quote:"The sites report from an obviously conservative standpoint, about which the editors do not apologize. (Though the Franklin Center’s website claims that its sites are nonpartisan, this seems only nominally true.)"
• contextomy nonpartisian ... "seems only nominally true."

Like the author you are mixing apples and oranges, POV and non-partisian two different topics -- the paragraph, in context is about the Watchdog's POV. Further, you attribute the quote to the publisher, this is obviously the opinion of the writer (note the parenthesis), so you attribute to the author, not the publication. Even if we included the entire statement from the article, it does not belong lumped into the same paragraph as the study PEW study. WP:POVPUSH & Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks The Watchdog is non-partisan to the effect that they expose Republican and Democratic waste, fraud and corruption. Is there a conservative only test for their writers? Recycling your weasel words, here's a "...high-quality, neutral, independent, third-party, extraordinarily reliable..." piece of information you've left out from the same paragraph: “We have a point of view. Big deal.” As for WP:NPOV dispute, you are the one who placed and has not removed the POV template on the article.[14] Since there is now consensus, I'll be removing the template.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 22:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully you are reminded that this article is under discretionary sanctions, and best editor conduct is expected. Respectfully you are reminded that this is an article talk page, where we focus on content and sources and policy and guideline. Other venues are available to you for allegations of sanction violations. Please forgive me if you are already aware. Thank you. Thank you for the suggestion of dividing the issues of ideology and partisanship, that is good advice. Hugh (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Summarization of multiple third party assessments of ideology

Disputed content in the Outside analysis section in bold:

The Project for Excellence in Journalism of the Pew Research Center surveyed and analyzed nonprofit news organizations active on the state or national level in 2011 and again in 2013. The studies found that the most consistently ideological of the news outlets were those that were organized in networks, specifically the conservative Watchdog network and the liberal American Independent News Network. The 2011 study found that Watchdog articles were nearly four times more likely to support a conservative theme as liberal.

1. Holcomb, Jesse; Rosenstiel, Tom; Mitchell, Amy; Caldwell, Kevin; Sartor, Tricia; Vogt, Nancy (July 18, 2011). "Assessing a New Landscape in Journalism". Project for Excellence in Journalism. Pew Research Center. p. 3. Retrieved October 23, 2015. At the Watchdog.org sites, 41% were crafted in such a way as to support a conservative theme, while 11% reflected pro-liberal themes-a ratio of nearly 4-to-1.
2. Wilson, Reid (July 10, 2014). "The precipitous decline of state political coverage". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 23, 2015. Another Pew study found Franklin Center Web sites were four times more likely to present stories with a conservative theme than a liberal theme.

Hugh (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not WP:Balance, PEW is comparing the two far extremes, here is the relevant section [on page 3]:

Stories with clear partisan themes were most prevalent in the two families of sites.

At the Watchdog.org sites, 41% were crafted in such a way as to support a conservative theme, while 11% reflected pro-liberal themes-a ratio of nearly 4-to-1. (At the same time, 49% reflected a mix of views, or reflected ideas that had no particular ideological theme.)

The overall numbers at the American Independent News Network sites were similar, nearly 4-to-1 liberal to conservative: 37% of the stories carried a pro-liberal theme, either attacking conservative figures, praising liberal ones, or espousing a liberal idea on an issue; 11% heavily reflected conservative ideas; 53% were mixed or non-partisan.

It is unremarkable, common knowledge and already stated -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 23:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW: Why keep using these ridiculously long and subjective section-headings and edit-summaries? They reek of POV and infer that you are trying to hide something about your source. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 23:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Continued: I have to scroll beyond the end of the edit summary box, just to provide my summary. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 23:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not common knowledge that in 2011 Pew found that Watchdog articles were 4 times more likely to be conservative as liberal. Hugh (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that conservative websites write about conservative topics and against liberal initiatives. Nobody cares about this micro-minutia contained in some obscure study. Again, write an article about the PEW studies, let us know how many reads it gets. Bye! -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 05:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"micro-minutia...obscure study" The Washington Post citation is WP:USEBYOTHERS. The weight of the proposed content is clearly due. Hugh (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to propose the edit on Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity the WAPO article does not specifically mention Watchdog.org in context, so it leans toward WP:OR. Additionally, the author is not independent of the topic, Reid Wilson is a journalist lamenting fate of his profession in the cited article. Finally, though the virtually identical 4 to 1 ideological bias is also available to Wilson concerning the American Independent News Network, working for a left-leaning publication, he is allowed to overlook that fact. Under WP:BALANCE we are not. I'm sorry, but inspecting Talk:American Independent News Network, I don't see where you are attempting to introduce the 4 to 1 factoid. Why is it "highly relevant" here and not there?-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 21:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The proposed addition is a reasonable paraphrase across multiple reliable sources. It is not WP:OR. Hugh (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll ask again, Why is it "highly relevant" and "reasonable" in Watchdog.org and not in American Independent News Network?-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 06:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully remind this is the article talk page for Watchdog.org. Please discuss the content of other articles on the appropriate talk page. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC) While many Wikipedia articles characterize their subjects as ideological (conservative/liberal), here we are fortunate that multiple high-quality, neutral, independent, third-party, extraordinarily reliable sources have further quantified just how ideological the subject of this particular article is; why would we hide this from our readers? Saying "x is conservative" is a biased, incomplete, inaccurate, non-neutral summarization of multiple, high quality, independent, third-party reliable sources that clearly state "x articles support a conservative ideology 4x more often than liberal." Hugh (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC) WP:3O requested. Hugh (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate use of WP:3O. Third opinion requests are for disputes between a maximum of two editors. In this case, me, User:009o9, and User:Champaign Supernova have all disagreed with your proposed changes. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I just realized that the "highly reliable" source cited here has a problem with simple addition. On the Watchdog paragraph, 41% + 11% + 49% = 101%. In the American Independent News Networkparagraph, 37% + 11% + 53% = 101%. Not giving me a warm fuzzy feeling about the reliability of the PEJ for making specific proclamations. If they can't do simple addition, perhaps the entire section should be removed? -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 18:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Are we pretending we don't know how rounding works? You may consider challenging the reliability of the Pew Research Center at WP:RSN. Hugh (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

There are currently at least three threads on this talk page discussing this proposed content addition. In none of those cases did a consensus emerge to include the disputed content. Rather, three editors agreed on an alternate version, currently in the article. Opening up more threads on the same topic and asking for a WP:3O (in contravention of the third opinion guidelines, which state a dispute must only be between two editors) is not likely to change the consensus here. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting The initiating editor changed this section heading, from "Summarization of multiple highly reliable independent third party assessments of ideology:"Diff to the current "Summarization of multiple third party assessments of ideology",Diff just minutes before posting on WP:30 Diff. Refusing to answer my twice posed question as to why his paraphrasing of the content should be used here, and not the liberal article with the exact same circumstance is not WP:DGF. I've requested administrative closure for all three sections on this worn-out topic. [15] -- Paid Editor, but not on this subject -- User:009o9^Talk 19:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. However, Safehaven86 is correct. It appears that, while this controversy is primarily between 009o9 and HughD, two other editors have commented. As a result, I am removing the third opinion request. Any editor may request moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard or may file a neutrally worded Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Marquardtika. Yes, this article could use an update, but not about any connection to a group with a similar name. - - Prairieplant (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment: summarization of multiple third party assessments of degree of ideological orientation

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.

---

Should the following content, shown in bold, be added to the "outside analysis/independent evaluation" section/paragraph:

The Project for Excellence in Journalism of the Pew Research Center surveyed and analyzed nonprofit news organizations active on the state or national level in 2011 and again in 2013. The studies found that the most consistently ideological of the news outlets were those that were organized in networks, specifically the conservative Watchdog network and the liberal American Independent News Network. The 2011 Pew study found that Watchdog articles supported a conservative theme nearly four times more often than liberal.

1. Holcomb, Jesse; Rosenstiel, Tom; Mitchell, Amy; Caldwell, Kevin; Sartor, Tricia; Vogt, Nancy (July 18, 2011). "Assessing a New Landscape in Journalism". Project for Excellence in Journalism. Pew Research Center. p. 3. Retrieved October 23, 2015. At the Watchdog.org sites, 41% were crafted in such a way as to support a conservative theme, while 11% reflected pro-liberal themes-a ratio of nearly 4-to-1.
2. Wilson, Reid (July 10, 2014). "The precipitous decline of state political coverage". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 23, 2015. Another Pew study found Franklin Center Web sites were four times more likely to present stories with a conservative theme than a liberal theme.

Hugh (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The first of the two sources is already in use in the section; the second source, The Washington Post is added by this proposal.

Summary of previous expressed positions

Support Inclusion:

• Highly relevant; degree of political ideology is one of the most notable aspects of the subject of the article
• Sources are very highly reliable, neutral, independent third-party
• Multiple reliable sources; use by others WP:USEBYOTHERS; due weight

Oppose Inclusion:

• Proposed content is redundant with the lede which already states the subject of this article "...reports...from a conservative perspective."
• Proposed content is obvious, uninteresting or trivial
• Proposed content is a point-of-view push
• Proposed content is original research WP:OR

Hugh (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Warning WP:TBAN campaigning editor has altered this section, apparently the opposing view does not get as prominent of a voice.Diff. Content has been altered without signature, placed as if it was placed by me, below my oppose vote. Clear WP:TPO violation. -- Paid Editor, but not connected to topic, paid or otherwise -- User:009o9Talk 19:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Apparently, this could also fall under WP:SIGFORGE. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 19:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Please use this subsection to indicate support or opposition to the above question and a brief statement. Please use the "Threaded discussion" subsection below for threaded comments; please do not included threaded comments in this subsection. Please feel free to adjust your position here as discussion progresses. Please maintain civility; discussion participants are respectfully reminded this article is under discretionary sanctions. Formal administrator close is respectfully requested as this article is under active discretionary sanctions. Thank you.

• Support inclusion because...rationale citing policy or guideline...signed
• Oppose inclusion since...rationale citing policy or guideline...signed

• Support inclusion The ideological orientation of the subject of this article is one of, if not the, most notable aspects of the subject of this article, so a quantitative estimate of the magnitude of the ideological orientation is highly relevant. A quantitative characterization is not redundant to a qualitative characterization; the current article admits to a range of possible readings, from "leans conservative" to "exclusively conservative" WP:READERSFIRST. The sources, the Pew Research Center and the Washington Post are unimpeachably reliable. The Washington Post source is an instance of use by others WP:USEBYOTHERS and demonstrates due weight. Exclusion of the above proposed content violates our neutrality pillar. The article is well short of long article guidelines. Hugh (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion Relatively small addition quantifying the ideological orientation is service to the readers and should not bring any POV issues. ViperFace (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment I am still an oppose vote, due to the balance of the suggested commentary, but I would support something that is a more faithful paraphrase of the cited source. Page 3

"...The studies found that the most consistently ideological of the news outlets were those that were organized in networks, specifically the conservative Watchdog network and the liberal American Independent News Network, Both organization's coverage was roughly 50% politically themed, and of those articles, each organization displayed a 4 to 1 ratio of partisan ideological subject matter.The 2011 Pew study found that Watchdog articles supported a conservative theme nearly four times more often than liberal"

I believe that this version is more informative. Cheers! 009o9 (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this one is better. ViperFace (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

With that stated above, the passage in the WAPO is problematic, it does not mention that 50% of the coverage is apolitical, skewing the 4 to 1 verbiage by omission. Moreover, cherry picking from the WAPO paragraph will leave the reader to believe that conservative organizations are overrepresented, which is not the case. I suggest ignoring the article because it is largely off-topic (primarily about Statehouse reporting) and the article does not specifically mention Watchdog.org. Alternately, the entire paragraph could be block-quoted (to maintain balance) and attributed specifically to the author's interpretation and not the PEW study -- as a journalist, the WAPO author is not entirely independent of the topic. WAPO Source article 009o9 (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion The Watchdog's ideology bias is adequately and prominently stated in the current version, stating that the Watchdog is among the most ideological of those in the study.Diff The conservative perspective is also stated in the first sentence of the lede. The interested editors here have graciously included the PEW/PEJ WP:PRIMARY sourcing, even though the PEW is not completely independent and funds one of these types of websites, "[4] Included in the 172 is Stateline, a site funded largely by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which also funds the Pew Research Center."[16] Technically the WAPO third-party reporting does not directly mention the Watchdog, but I'm sure that a neutral paraphrase of that content would be welcome here.(However, the WAPO article is a journalist lamenting the fate of his vocation, independence also in question.[17]) We don't have a problem with the sourcing or content, we (the consensus) oppose the COI and POV editorializing by the campaigning editor, who in in my opinion is violating his WP:TBAN. -- Paid Editor, but no connection to this topic paid or otherwise -- User:009o9^Talk 19:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional by opposing editor:

• Nominator has not disclosed that he is currently on a topic block for this topic,Diff yet continues to edit in the article space.Diff Diff
• Proposed content has already failed consensus and (the current ver.) was condensed from a poorly written and overly verbose version.Diff Prior content resembles WP:Attack.
• This is the fourth talk page section initiated on this topic by proposing editor. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS & WP:WALLOFTEXT
• Content is WP:ORIGINALSYN, both websites discussed in source have a 4 to 1 ideology bias (WP:CHERRY & WP:BALANCE) editor has declined to discuss why this fact and source context should be omitted, fails WP:DGF.

-- Paid Editor, but no connection to this topic, paid or otherwise -- User:009o9^Talk 18:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be relevant to the RfC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My points titled, Additional by opposing editor:, have been relocated from the body of the RfC, to this location without notice, discussion nor the moving editor's signature. IMHO, the moving editor is not qualified to paraphrase my opposing positions. Then substantially altering my comments by moving them to a less prominent location, without providing his signature and a public statement regarding the move. Additionally, the editor may not propose an RfC without disclosing that he is already on TOPIC BLOCK concerning this and many other similar articles to unwary volunteer commentators. (See content block Diff above) See this Diff for underhanded content move and apparent attempt to obscure the fact that editor is topic blocked. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 23:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: In the words of this RFC's author, "failed, blatant, pathetic hail mary attempt to salvage a failing pointed, game-ridden, sad, pathetic, harassing" effort to introduce the Koch brothers to this article without mentioning them due to a topic ban. Existing content is a perfectly adequate summary of available sourcing; proposed content is WP:UNDUE. Plus, you can't really talk about the ideological orientation of the site without mentioning its biggest donors (hint: those darn Kochs!) Safehaven86 (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Support inclusion. Really, there's no good reason not to that I have seen so far. Eman235/talk 02:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose as written. Aside the proposer being possibly subject to a TBAN, making the RfC void, the sentence as written doesn't note that only 15% of the material constituted "exposes", and about half was "partisan", under Pew's definition. Adding the clarification would be too much detail. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Please restrict threaded discussion to this subsection. Please sign your comments. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Not relevant to the actual RFC. Please discuss the content here not the editors. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to validate this ill-formed RFC with a !vote. Obviously, if an editor is topic-banned from articles about the (ideological and partisan!) Koch brothers, and an article says it represents "the largest media investment" made by the Koch brothers, and said topic-banned editor attempts to make edits to the article regarding the article subject's level of ideology and partisanship, then, Bueller, we have a problem. This is truly beyond the pale. Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC) These incidents are being discussed at... Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Distruptive_editing_by_editor_already_under_WP:TBAN Diff Thanks for your comment. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 22:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC) @User:Champaign Supernova, Some administrators are claiming that the TBAN, was not specific enough to include Watchdog. However; HughD has a one year TBAN from Tea Party and extended topics and then experienced a one week block for directly editing Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity on October 29.Diff At that time, Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was clearly included in this article's Lede and he continued to edit after his block. Diff Since you have commented and are an interested here, perhaps you would consider reading the ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Distruptive_editing_by_editor_already_under_WP:TBAN. 009o9 (talk)

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.

Neutrality (December 2015)

Circular passive arguing about whether or not this is neutral is going nowhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the subject of this article devoid of criticism or controversy? Is this article neutral with respect to reliable sources? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC) This article says "In April 2013, the Columbia Journalism Review wrote that Watchdog.org represented the 'largest media investment to date' for Charles and David Koch." You're topic-banned from all articles relating to the Kochs, so it seems quite clear that you shouldn't be editing an article that has been labeled as the primary media investment of the frères Koch, no? Safehaven86 (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Respectfully remind this is a talk page, here we discuss article content and sources and policy and guidelines, please focus. Other venues are available to you for your allegations. Respectfully remind this page is under discretionary sanctions, and best behavior is expected, including avoiding personal attacks. Thank you. As an involved editor on this subject, are you aware of any criticisms or controversy regarding the subject of this article? Do you believe the article is neutral with respect to reliable sources? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Your question is only relevant if one's motive is specifically to add criticism or controversy to this article. Hopefully that's no one's motive here, including yours. This page, like all pages on Wikipedia, must be written from a neutral point of view, and criticism or controversy sections are discouraged per WP:CRITS. Wikipedia:Attack page is also of interest. Your edit history here shows a continual attempt to push a point of view that is critical of the article's subject. Perhaps the fact that none of your edits here have gained support from even one other editor will give you pause even if your topic ban does not. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Again respectfully remind this page is under discretionary sanctions, and best behavior is expected, including avoiding personal attacks. Please focus on article content, sources, policy and guidelines. Thank you. Policy requires inclusion of critical, controversial, and unflattering content as represented in reliable sources. You are very active in editing this subject, may I ask you again, are you aware of any controversies involving this subject, or any criticisms, or any alternative points of view? What would you say is the most critical or controversial or unflattering sentence or source in this article? In the arena of politics, if an article has no criticisms, and no controversies, and presents no alternative points of view, generally it is not done, because it is not neutral with respect to summarizing reliable sources. This article has been cleansed, misrepresent this subject, a severe disservice to our readers. Hugh (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Yes, "best behavior is expected." Great advice. Maybe now would be a good time to stop violating your topic ban? Safehaven86 (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Removing the editor's Template:POV tag, removal meets condition 2 on Template:POV. There is only two questions in this discussion, nothing constructive. The references section is a very well balanced of liberal and conservative sources 50/50 at first glance, the article even currently allows WP:Primary concerning website's right leaning ideology. Please use inline tags where POV is or other defects are suspected. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 02:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC) What would you say is the most critical or unflattering content in this article? Which source would you say is most critical? What controversies involving the subject of this article are described? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Why would you ask? We are an encyclopedia not a tabloid, nor a ratings website. IMHO government watchdog outfits are public service, no matter who funds them or their ideology. Exposing government waste, fraud and abuse is always a good thing. Sometimes they will get the story wrong, but it is well worth it when they break through the great MSM wall of silencio with a good story that can't be suppressed. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 06:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Respectfully remind this page is under discretionary sanctions, and best behavior is expected, including avoiding edit warring. As stated in the article hat, please do not revert the POV article hat until this issue is resolved. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Conservatism templates and categories

FYI: There are two conservative navigation templates. A horizontal navbox footer Template:Conservatism footer and a side bar, Template:Conservatism sidebar, there is also a category, "Category:Conservative American magazines"; however, I'm not sure that Watchdog.org could be considered a magazine. Franklin Center and Donor's Trust are listed in "Category:Conservatism in the United States", Watchdog.org currently is not. 009o9 (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking around, I also found another sidebar, Template:Conservatism US. I'm really not sure about the appropriateness of the sidebars (politics is not my thing) and if they should be in addition to the infobox etc. 009o9 (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC) There is also a footer version of the US template, probably the most appropriate.Template:Conservatism US footer 009o9 (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Called by the bot I got called by the bot to offer a third party feedback however looking at the Talk: page here I don't see anything that lays out any specifics to comment on. If there is an open RFC, an editor should lay down exactly what they are asking third party editors to comment on, otherwise there won't be much of a response. Damotclese (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Damotclese, the proposing editor is WP:TBAN. Diff The RfC is this section above, which was his fourth attempt to re-introduce WP:CHERRY verbiage. The consensus is that the topic (PEW study) is already adequately covered. There is really no objection to a faithful paraphrase, but unnecessarily expanding on the fact that conservative websites, write about conservative topics is largely unremarkable. You could probably do everyone a favor here by closing the disruptive RfC. 009o9 (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Dot org vs dot net

There is a group sending e-mails that encourage action based on data or reports they found that is called Watchdog.net. Is it simply a mailing address for Watchdog.org, or a wholly different entity? I found one blog post from 2008 saying that Watchdog.net gathered free public data and let people with the know-how use the data for their own activism or interests, suggesting that Watchdog.bet was new or relatively new that year. The blogger was interested in the data, and said no more than that. Is there a source to say if they are the same? I have not logged in to Watchdog.net, which seems the only way to see substantive information at that web site. Curious. - - Prairieplant (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Prairieplant: They appear to be different entities. Watchdog.net says it is "a project of Demand Progress, a progressive organization whose one million activists work to guard the interests of ordinary Americans — and fight back against corporations and wealthy interests that seek undue control over our government, economy and society." Interestingly, when I go to watchdog.org, it redirects to thecentersquare.com. It looks like watchdog.org has been rebranded, so this page title should probably be moved. On that site's about page, it says "the Center Square is a project of the 501(c)(3) Franklin News Foundation." Marquardtika (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act section

I rewrote the section about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act based on the third-party reliable sources (per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:INDY), removed some WP:SYNTH from sources that did not mention Watchdog.org or Franklin, and also removed the longstanding neutrality template. Llll5032 (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)